Hydrogen Fuel

Just make it on site....

http://www.protononsite.com/

Would be interested in a non-electrolyte Hydrogen making cell

The only time there will be a major shift in fuel types will be when the easier to extract fuels become more difficult to extract, and as consumers we're never going to know exactly when or what that point is, because that point shifts with price. And price shifts according to supply, demand, and a willingness to pay.

The entities that know what the "true" supply is (those in the energy business) are never, ever going to release that information to anybody because that knowledge would destroy their pricing model.

We are lead to believe that crude oil is in short supply as a justification for the current prices. When you are bored I challenge you to report to this forum what the total amount of oil that has been pumped out of the earth is, regardless of its source or how it was consumed, since "...Petroleum became a major industry following the oil discovery at Oil Creek Pennsylvania in 1859..." (155 years total).

When (and if) you get that number, compare that volume of oil to the volume of a body of water anywhere on the face of the earth; ocean, sea, lake, etc., I guarantee that you will be absolutely shocked at the answer. Please use the CIA World Factbook for any geographical data that you use.

The comparison shows how small we humans and our actions are compared to what the planet works on and deals with in it's own natural quantities and time frames.

I'm just trying to get a reservoir volume that everyone can relate to. For example the volume of Lake Erie is approximately 1.3ˆ24 gallons, is that more or less than the total number of gallons of oil pumped out of the earth? You can use barrels, cubic feet, cubic miles, etc. if you need to convert; just don't get hung up on precision because none of the figures that you will derive will be precise enough, just orders of magnitude is good enough.

Present rough estimate would suggest we have used between 500 billion and 1 trillion barrels so far but then present known and likely recoverable future reserves are estimated to be about 10 times that.

Toss in abiotic theory and we could be sitting on 10 - 50 times that much more yet to be officially discovered and tapped into.

Present known estimates say we have used about 10% of what's likely recoverable but if the abiotic theories prove true we may have only used a fraction of one percent.

Now for volume comparison ot the earth water volumes so far we have used roughly half a cubic mile of crude oil with the likelihood of having around 5 cubic miles left. However in abiotic theory we may have 50 to 250 cubic miles of it left.

Water wise there is around 326 million cubic miles (+- ~ 10,000 - 30,000) on Earth.

Might want to recheck your numbers- I calculate a trillion barrels of crude as equalling 38 cubic miles in volume.

Either way, since this equals about a third of Lake Erie- or just over 1% of Lake Superior!!- I fully agree that it's a drop in the global bucket.

JNB, TCM,

Perfect! I came to the same conclusion, that all the oil ever consumed across the world would not even fill the Great Lake with the smallest volume, and yet we allow ourselves to be deluded into believing that we're running out. I'm also a supporter of biotic oil based upon research of old abandoned commercial wells that were pumped nearly dry more than 40 years ago and now have refilled to 40-70% of their original capacity and have greater proven reserves than when they were first assayed. Granted the measurement techniques have improved, but that doesn't explain how the production rates rebounded.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring

There are many more articles on this subject.

Alan

let me get this straight. You are suggesting that because the Earth contains x amount of water, it is likely that it contains x, or some fraction of x, petroleum deposits? Furthermore, you discount or deny the adverse effects of removal and combustion of said oil on the environment, or at least are maintaining that that impact is not worthy of inclusion in your hypothesis that we are being duped into believing that we need to create another source of fuel energy. In that vein, do you believe the combustion of petroleum releases the same toxins as the vaporization of water? I am just trying to understand the logic.

No equivalence is being made between water and petroleum, I was simply looking for a handy visualization of the gross volume of oil pumped/consumed relative to something that a person can relate to. If asked, many people would choose a much larger body of water as their guesstimate, not the smallest of the Great Lakes.

I am well aware of the vast quantities of pollutants that are produced by the removal, refining, and combustion of said oil, not to mention all the other sources including human endeavors, but the reality is that our atmosphere/ecosystem is many orders of magnitude greater than the sum of all the pollutants ever produced. What is amazing is that we are not already buried in it, except for the localized effects such as Beijing's pollution, burning of the rainforests, and volcanic eruptions.

And please don't forget that hydrogen is not freely available, producing it takes energy, and before you wax poetic about how solar and wind are "free", non-polluting sources of energy for the process, try doing an end-to-end analysis of all the energy that goes into mining, shipping, refining, construction and operation of everything that is required to make said equipment and keep it running (and don't forget the pollution that is also produced).

The laws of thermodynamics dictate that everything we do to extract energy is irreversible and therefore lossy, so as entropy increases so does the temperature of everything the energy touches, unless/until the activity ceases. The Earth will naturally achieve stasis, with us or without us.

This is not poetic, it's a response to a deliberate attempt to distract from the issue. The amount of energy consumed to construct the equipment involved in transporting, removing and refining minerals from the ground to your home is also a cost factor which you are assuming for some reason, is distinct from the production of solar, wind or hydro equipment equipment production. In one instance, (traditional mineral exploitation) costs are outside the analysis window of financial evaluation. In another words, this red herring that you and many others point to is an argument based on false pretense, that costs incurred to procure and manufacture equipment used for the production of renewable energy are not in the same categorty as mineral extraction, refinement, combustion and distribution equipment costs. How do you come to that conclusion?

PFR,

"...How do you come to that conclusion?...", I don't, you did, and I'm not sure how you can read my mind. I've done the "end-to-end" analysis on almost every aspect of energy exploration, production, consumption, and everything in between. It is disingenuous to attribute those costs to one side of the argument and not the other, unfortunately it is a practice found on both sides of the energy debate.

Few people are aware of the energy it takes to produce energy; the data is hard to find, often hidden from public view by those that claim it as "company proprietary", or simply not accounted for directly.

When you're bored, ponder the steps needed to put a solar panel on a roof, step by excruciating step. You can either start with the finished product and work your way back to mining the raw materials for the cells and all the equipment required to manufacture, ship, and install them; or start at the mines and work forward, either way the numbers should shock you.

Every aspect of human endeavor uses energy, and every use of energy involves losses. It's the investment in losses that needs to be paid back before there is a net positive gain (if any) from any form of energy production over its useful lifetime.

Alan

I didn't say solar energy was free, I thought you were suggesting that the amount of energy expended to create a solar panel was somehow out of proportion with the energy expense of removing mineral energy deposits, refining them, investing in construction and maintainance of combustion facilities, conveying or distributing the energy, and then removing from the environment whatever by-products that prove to be pollutants, and to repair any environmental damage caused by the removal of said minerals. Of course, some of those activities pertain to the solar panel manufacture as well.

I don't have to wait until I'm bored to contemplate the issue, I've done it many times. The fact that you say I would be shocked after making the observation makes me again think that you believe that the solar PV argument is faulty. I'm simply asking, how do you come to that conclusion?

Again, I didn't. I'm one of those pragmatic engineers that has highly tuned bullsh*t filters, and I find it irksome when someone (not aimed at any particular person) with a commercial bias tends to inflate their argument while deflating the other side. I just want to see parity in intellectual discussions.

Solar has its place as does wind, and I believe that the earth will be a better place for technologies that do not directly rely on conventional fuel for producing said energy. However, all the "stuff" that goes into making energy available needs to be accounted for by all forms of generation whether it be fuel cells, photocells, fossil, nuclear, wind, hydro, or any other method.

agreed, so why would I be shocked at the amount of embodied energy in solar panel production?

You seem to be implying that the Earth does not release any energy that it accumulates.

To be honest at any single point half the Earth is facing always from the sun and looking huge amounts of thermal energy into space by radiative cooling. Thermal energy levels that are vastly beyond what all of our human sources produce for the whole planet combined.

In fact it's such a high rate of energy loss it can be directly felt at ground level by our own skin on a clear night.

"Radiative cooling is commonly experienced on cloudless nights, when heat is radiated into space from the surface of the Earth, or from the skin of a human observer. The effect is well-known among amateur astronomers, and can personally be felt on the skin of an observer on a cloudless night. To feel the effect, one compares the difference between looking straight up into a cloudless night sky for several seconds, to that of placing a sheet of paper between one's face and the sky. Since outer space radiates at about a temperature of 3 kelvins (-270 degrees Celsius or -450 degrees Fahrenheit), and the sheet of paper radiates at about 300 kelvins (room temperature), the sheet of paper radiates more heat to one's face than does the darkened cosmos. The effect is blunted somewhat by Earth's surrounding atmosphere which also traps heat. Note that it is not correct to say that the sheet "blocks the cold" of the night sky; instead, the sheet is literally warming your face, just like a camp fire warms your face; the only difference is that a campfire is several hundred degrees warmer than a sheet of paper, just like a sheet of paper is several hundred degrees warmer than the deep night sky.Radiative cooling is commonly experienced on cloudless nights, when heat is radiated into space from the surface of the Earth, or from the skin of a human observer. The effect is well-known among amateur astronomers, and can personally be felt on the skin of an observer on a cloudless night. To feel the effect, one compares the difference between looking straight up into a cloudless night sky for several seconds, to that of placing a sheet of paper between one's face and the sky. Since outer space radiates at about a temperature of 3 kelvins (-270 degrees Celsius or -450 degrees Fahrenheit), and the sheet of paper radiates at about 300 kelvins (room temperature), the sheet of paper radiates more heat to one's face than does the darkened cosmos. The effect is blunted somewhat by Earth's surrounding atmosphere which also traps heat. Note that it is not correct to say that the sheet "blocks the cold" of the night sky; instead, the sheet is literally warming your face, just like a camp fire warms your face; the only difference is that a campfire is several hundred degrees warmer than a sheet of paper, just like a sheet of paper is several hundred degrees warmer than the deep night sky."

From, Wikipedia - Radiative cooling

Math never was my strong point.

So being I made the mistake in the first calculation of which all my following numbers for estimated volumes need to be multiplied by as much as well implying we have far more oil than even what I said.

Er, from the sun?

Forget Hydrogen. Any thermal process, by dint of Carnot Cycle theory is essentially inefficient. It represents a large loss in energy. Hydrogen is a pain to store.

Admittedly, large thermal stations, by using heat energy at both high and low temperatures is becoming much more efficient.

Try fuel cells run off liquid fuel. I know there are still problems, but liquid is easier to store than gas, and fuel cells are generally more efficient than thermal processes, particularly IC engines.

Gentlemen:

I believe that hydrogen can be produced in great large abundance by first making magnesium (as per the research done at Tokyo Institute of Technology). You can look that up, but basically it utilizes a solar pumped crystal laser (Cr:Nd:YAG) at around 8% solar efficiency (not sure what happens to the other 92% but it sounds like an opportunity for a heat engine of some type), the laser heats magnesium oxide to an un-worldly high temperature where magnesium and oxygen separate into plasma state, apparently the plasma state is separated, and the magnesium condensed to solid crystals.

Magnesium then reacts spontaneously in "hot" water to form steam, hydrogen. In fact, the hydrogen could be combusted thereby forming even more higher temperature (and pressure) steam to run an engine designed for this. The energy carrier would be water and magnesium onboard the vehicle.

Other concept is the "new" constant volume turbine (RamGen) that may revolutionize how we consume fuel, generate power for stationary, marine, aviation, and road fleets. This engine could run off hydrogen-air premix, or any other fuel-air premix, simply because of the nature of combustion in a shock wave. Look it up.

I'm well aware several methods are available to generate hydrogen, that's never been in question. what I was really pointing out was cost, storage, infrastructure and handling/distribution. cracking a water molecule is high school experiment stuff, quite doable. scaling up the process to make the final product a commercial reality is what I question.

What happens to the magnesium during/after it reacts with the water? Is the magnesium a consumable?

Just trying to get an idea of supplies. Like oil or coal, magnesium will come out of the ground at some cost. How much is there? Water should be relatively easy to supply if we can use sea water.

Magnesium is high residual concentration in sea water, right after sodium. Modern water treatment equipment can effectively "mine" sea water for the salt content, and separate out the various constiuents. There are also inland deposits of various magnesium salts, primarily magnesium sulfate (epsom salt). It is not terribly difficult to convert this to magnesia then to dry magnesium oxide.

I believe the Japanese plan calls for retention of the Magnesium oxide formed during reaction with water, with minimal pre-processing before recyling back to magnesium.......The in situ generation of hydrogen still requires the user to carry around a significant quantity of water as hydrogen carrier. Electrons might indeed be much more "lightweight" as energy carrier in the future, so simple DC cars will win out eventually. These might even be solar cars, if the newer thermal upconversion OV takes off.

I was wondering if desalinization of sea water might also provide the magnesium. Possibly the on-going demand for fresh water coupled with a rising demand for fresh water as a hydrogen energy source may drive improvements in the desalinization technology, with mineral recovery as a side business.

People are already doing this in Mexico on an industrial scale, and providing a resort community with all the fresh water they need. They may wind up also providing ultrapure water (as a spin-off of their process) to a new wafer fab that might move into the area. This is good business sense, and they are not consuming electric supply to get the job done. Global Seawater Technologies, look them up. They are nice folks. The reason for Mexico? Easier to get things to happen there than in the U.S.A., sadly. Our government is in the way of nearly anything rhyming with progress.

So West Texas is 10-20 years away from losing its cotton farming base because T Boone is diverting water away from the already depleted Ogallala to sell to the thirsty metropolises, although Texas has mucho access to the Gulf of Mexico? LA has been diverting water from the Colorado and the Sierra Nevadas for 100+ years and is looking to pump more water from the arid lands north of it even though it sits on the Pacific Ocean? Now you tell me there is proven desalinization technology already in use that could meet the needs of cities? And it also provides jobs, minerals, and energy, all of which could be taxed? What kind of government do we have overseeing the "green" initiatives?

In one word, no two: nontechnical idiots.

The very nature of hydrogen makes it difficult to transport without some onerous regulations. As a commodity gas it is readily available in cylinders made for the purpose. What is lacking is a piping network for moving large quantities from supply areas to demand centers, so the cost of adding yet another fuel infrastructure layer has to be spread out over the ultimate consumers.

It's also a "chicken and egg" situation, no one wants to buy a vehicle they can't fuel, and nobody wants to build an infrastructure for a product that has no demand. On paper everything scales, so it's not an engineering problem, it's an economic problem. Ultimately if the economics aren't there, the product won't be there either.

As a side note, hydrogen is nasty stuff to handle, it is a very small molecule and can find its way through microcracks and piping threads, every installation I've seen has the threaded fittings welded over to prevent leaks. It has a LEL (Lower Explosive Level) of only 4%, is highly combustible, and burns with a hot, nearly invisible flame which readily removes flesh if you happen to walk into it. Creating custom cylinders for placement in a car requires many approvals, and results in a very heavy tank, though lighter weight higher strength composites are making some inroads.

It's a placarded commodity requiring special labeling, and many tunnels restrict vehicles containing compressed gases. I know that gasoline is hazardous too, but the process to put hydrogen in the same category is political and will take years.

The reason we use the fuels we do is that they are easy to handle and readily available, until that changes alternative fuels will have an uphill struggle.

Mercedes Benz was building busses back in the '70's that were hydrogen fueled. The hydrogen was stored in a crystal matrix under low pressure at density approaching liquid. Mild heating (by exhaust) evolves gas to fuel the engine. This technology is proven. The iron/titanium matrix is not cost prohibitive and the tanks are roughly 18 ga. stainless steel. I met a man in Arizona who powered his corvette using this method 15 years ago. It works.

Yes, this technology was proven way back when, and some research was expended toward improving the storage capacity, but never in the range of a fuel tank full of gasoline, sorry.

Would that be an 8 gallon, 20 gallon, or dual 20's like on my Ford? I guess the point you're making is that an equal volume of liquid hydrogen to an equal volume of gasoline, the gasoline produces more energy. As diesel produces more than gasoline. My point was that 'hydrogen stored in iron/titanium matrix aproaches that of liquid...AT LOW PRESSURE' and this technology works, is as safe as gasoline (maybe safer) and has ben developed to a point of useful, cost effective product...I believe oil doesn't want to see it.

Hope it all works out. I have had my eye on this dating as far back as graduate school in the early 1980's. I certainly hope for safety it works out better than the comments I read a few minutes ago about electric-assisted steering in a Saturn.

In the report I read Toyota is planning on adding a refueling station at every dealer in the US to start a nationwide infrastructure effort. And they are advertising ~300 miles per fill up.

I could handle a bi-weekly trip to my local Toyota dealer for fuel if it works out this way.

Hooker

I fail to see how hydrogen can be a cost effective fuel with current technology. People want to see the final result and not the cost of processing and producing the hydrogen. I havent run the numbers, but hydrogen in its gaseous state would have to be at a very high pressure. Liquid H would cost thru the nose and probably not be cost effective.