<A Visit To Malaysia The Oil Drum An Update on the Energy Return on Canadian Natural Gas >
<DrumBeat: August 3, 2008 DrumBeat DrumBeat: August 5, 2008>

222 comments on DrumBeat: August 4, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Datamunger on August 4, 2008 - 11:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

My impression was that all they have done is swapped one of the platinum electrodes for a cheaper material.

The reason we know that it's likely there is some real substance to this development is that it is featured in the journal, Science. This is one of the most prestigious scientific periodicals in the world.

They don't publish trivial improvements/advances in technology.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mkcmkc on August 4, 2008 - 11:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Science would probably want to see a significant scientific contribution, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the advance is of imminent importance to society at large or relevant to the kinds of issues TOD readers care about.

We'll see...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Datamunger on August 4, 2008 - 12:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Here's an example of what this TOD reader cares about ;-)

Recently announced.....

ITM Power Showcases Hydrogen Home Refuelling Station

2008-08-04 - A British company ITM Power has shown a hydrogen-powered Ford Focus and a hydrogen home refuelling station. The station, which is capable of producing gas from water and electricity, is said to overcome one of the fundamental stumbling blocks to a hydrogen economy, the lack of a suitable refuelling infrastructure.

ITM's patented electrolyser-based station uses a low-cost polymer, which dispenses with the need for expensive platinum and can be manufactured at one percent of the cost of traditional membrane materials. Scientists and chemists at the company's Sheffield research facility - Europe's largest electrolyser and fuel cell development centre - have spent eight years seeking a means of low cost hydrogen manufacture.

The Focus that is being used to demonstrate this is capable of running on petrol if the hydrogen supply is exhausted. It can travel 25 miles on a single recharge from the refuelling station. If the hydrogen is compressed this range can be extended to 100 miles.

Hmmmmm..... I wonder if there is any relevance? :-)

Some additional links:
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1877/78/
http://www.redherring.com/blogs/24457

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SamuM on August 4, 2008 - 1:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Relevant?

Sigh, not another stupid hydrogen demonstration.

Hydrogen through electrolysis -> hydrogen compressed storage -> electricity -> electric motor (+ICM for gasoline) -> conventional car.

What a stupid energy wasting idea, esp. when combined with a 'home hydrogen recharging station'.

Ulf Bossel has way too many times calculated hydrogen cycle as a total non-starter. There is a thermodynamic ceiling which cannot be bypassed and after which the hydrogen cycle is at best half as efficient as best of battery technology.

Chris Rhodes has some back of the envelope calculations for the electricity needed for such a hydrogen folly.

I don't understand why smart people keep on jammering about hydrogen powered vehicles for personal transport. It's brain dead considering there are so much better alternatives for short-distance road transport.

It would be believable if the advocates had some real numbers to show, why hydrogen makes sense, but they have none.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Datamunger on August 4, 2008 - 2:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's important to remember though that technologies ultimately compete on the basis of price. What if the materials that make up batteries become too expensive because of scarcity issues?

Also, "Thermodynamic ceiling" might not have overwhelming relevance outside of the lab. For instance, the world record for fuel efficiency is held by the hydrogen fueled Pac-Car II

Although utterly impractical, it gets 12,666 mpg

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/mostEfficient.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC-Car_II

How close is this vehicle to the thermodynamic ceiling?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SamuM on August 4, 2008 - 2:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Indeed, they compete on price.

And how much do you think energy costs in a world of increasing energy scarcity risk?

How much does it cost, when you waste twice the amount compared to batteries?

Costs creep up pretty fast and carry through the whole lifetime of the system.

As for your example (which is indeed silly), the same could be achieved with batteries, except the unit would have roughly twice the mpg.

So, again: what is the point in hydrogen powered vehicles, when better alternatives exist today?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Datamunger on August 4, 2008 - 2:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Here's another reason why I think hydrogen should continue to be pursued in addition to battery technology:

At the extreme limit, we know there are some applications for which batteries are not feasible. The space shuttle for instance whose main engines burn hydrogen and oxygen.

What about other heavy vehicles that need a lot of power? Transport trucks, earth moving machinery etc.

In addition, as mentioned above, good batteries are very expensive and don't last forever as they need to be replaced. Who knows how it will turn out in the long run?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SamuM on August 4, 2008 - 2:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, for some other than short-term personal commuting, hydrogen powered vehicles may make sense.

On that we agree.

But hydrogen Ford Focus using a personal refuelling station? That's just way stupid (and my point all along).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PaulS on August 4, 2008 - 4:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"How close is this vehicle to the thermodynamic ceiling?"

Infinitely far away. The theoretical "ceiling" for a round trip is clearly zero (0) joules. This is old news: IIRC a fast vacuum subway operating with no air resistance figured in an early Arthur C. Clarke short story.

But this car-ette is operating in air, so theoretically it should usually yield energy, and in practice at least not consume it. This is also old news: thousands of years ago, the "sailboat" was invented. It can even go upwind, by "tacking".

So we see - as long as we stipulate that practicality is not a factor - that this example actually demonstrates failure. For some bizarre reason, the team did not include a sail of any kind. That's disappointing, because one might expect that the garishly colored symbolic seashell on the side should have triggered appropriately nautical thoughts...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ThatsItImout on August 4, 2008 - 4:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

SamuM says,
"There is a thermodynamic ceiling which cannot be bypassed and after which the hydrogen cycle is at best half as efficient as best of battery technology."

That may be true, and I have read Ulf Bossel's work and been persuaded that hydrogen is for the time being not competitive with plug hybrid, BUT, "half as efficient as best of battery technology" is still better than gasoline upon which a whole world industry has been built, and for a transportable (albeit not easily) fuel that is clean and can be produced locally and by renewables (the ONLY way it would make sense to produce it)hydrogen should not be completely dismissed.

Hydrogen for personal transportation almost certainly does not make sense now, but it is far better than a "stupid energy wasting idea" and research should not be dismissed or halted IF one accepts the validity of personal transport at all (we are leaving aside other applications for which hydrogen may be about the only option, as mentioned up string). At the end of the day, a battery can only be asked to do so much.

RC

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
izzy on August 4, 2008 - 9:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

There is a thermodynamic ceiling which cannot be bypassed and after which the hydrogen cycle is at best half as efficient as best of battery technology.

I agree with everything Ulf Bossel says.

But there is no thermodynamic ceiling.
This is not the carnot cycle.
You can always find a better catalyst and improve your processes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WinstonK on August 4, 2008 - 1:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It is a big deal. The summary is crappy, but here's what's going on in English.

To break down water into hydrogen and oxygen at a reasonable rate you usually need to apply a voltage considerably in excess of the voltage that you would expect based on the strength of the bonds (there's no mystery to this, it's common for processes to be very slow when there's not a lot of excess energy around). In the past, people have tried to get around this by using very basic solutions and platinum electrodes. This helps but you still end up wasting a lot of energy (and generating a lot of heat) making the reaction proceed at a reasonable rate. What Nocera has done is come up with a clever catalyst that lets the reaction proceed quickly with a tiny (60 mV) overvoltage (that is the voltage over the 1.23V that you need according to thermodynamics to break up water). It also eliminates the need for the water to be at a very high pH which makes the process more convenient as well.

My really rough, back of the envelope calculations (and I'm not really an expert in electrochemistry) say that his process should be about 95% efficient. This is a big improvement over existing technology and really could make hydrogen energy storage a winner. This is especially true if he or someone else can come up with a similarly efficient fuel cell, which is a very related problem to electrolyzing water.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SamuM on August 4, 2008 - 2:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Very good summary, thanks.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
nh3 on August 4, 2008 - 2:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

it might be a big deal. but certainly not in efficiency: StatoilHydro's 4000 amp atmospheric electrolysers are rated at 4.1 kWh/Nm3 H2 which means a close to 90% efficiency. please do show us your back of envelope calculation for the 95% number.

a point worthy repeating: the whole problem of hydrogen energy storage is in the storage of hydrogen.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ThatsItImout on August 4, 2008 - 3:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

nh3 says,
"a point worthy repeating: the whole problem of hydrogen energy storage is in the storage of hydrogen."

Very true, but that is a tautological argument that does not only apply to hydrogen. The whole problem with energy in general is energy storage. Crack that nut and you’ve opened up a whole new world of energy options!

RC

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
flavian on August 4, 2008 - 5:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It has been done before without any expensive materials, just with plain Stailess Steel at voltages between 1.5V and 2.0V :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kze_tI3Z5I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJLgv20LEF8

Around same 95% efficiency. So, it's old news.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

222 comments on DrumBeat: August 4, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version