Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies -NYT

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 - Researchers at a government nuclear laboratory and a ceramics company in Salt Lake City say they have found a way to produce pure hydrogen with far less energy than other methods, raising the possibility of using nuclear power to indirectly wean the transportation system from its dependence on oil.

The development would move the country closer to the Energy Department's goal of a "hydrogen economy," in which hydrogen would be created through a variety of means, and would be consumed by devices called fuel cells, to make electricity to run cars and for other purposes. Experts cite three big roadblocks to a hydrogen economy: manufacturing hydrogen cleanly and at low cost, finding a way to ship it and store it on the vehicles that use it, and reducing the astronomical price of fuel cells.

"This is a breakthrough in the first part," said J. Stephen Herring, a consulting engineer at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, which plans to announce the development on Monday with Cerametec Inc. of Salt Lake City.

The developers also said the hydrogen could be used by oil companies to stretch oil supplies even without solving the fuel cell and transportation problems.

http://nytimes.com/2004/11/28/politics/28hydrogen.html

We're still toast. All thanks to money and greed.

We are spending around ~300 billion per year to use the military to safeguard our energy supplies. There is no reason why some of that money can't be used to subsidize other forms of energy.

clean and to cheap to meter.

Sounds like about the worst case scenario in terms of designing a reactor that's fail-safe.

They also infer that the world has an unlimited supply of uranium - Not so. Though they could stretch the supply out if they weren't so afraid of plutonium getting into the wrong hands.

Having watched docs on both Chernobyl and 3 mile island tonight, I say, no, let's try gasahol again.

I can believe the NYTimes gives that a headline, but continues to ingore these development. This technology will kill ethanol. It's much more efficient.

http://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/headlines/2004/Aug26.html
http://www.engr.wisc.edu/alumni/perspective/29.1/Article14_hydrogen.html

The Corn lobby it too powerful.

they'll get whatever they want. Too bad health care doesn't grow in corn fields.

Right now, corn sort of fermented to make ethanol. The process requires water to be boiled off in order to make fuel. That requires huge amounts of energy to be put into the system.
This new process, derives energy from the corn at relatively low temperature. No boiling needed. The energy as a sugar. When you need the hydrogen, you run it past a catalyst to get hydrogen. Even more exciting, is this researchers subsequent discovery, that carbon monoxide holds about as much energy as hydrogen. He has figured out a way to capture that too. These papers have been peer reviewed and featured in Science and Nature. It's the real deal.

And how do you grow corn w/o oil.

If moron really wanted to do something amazing, I know I know, I'm asking way to much, he should institute a Manhattan type project to convert the nation to hydrogen or some other fuel, virtually over night.
If moron showed that kind of insight and foresight and the ability to stop placating to his ultra rightwing religious corporation bushbots, maybe then and only then would I possibly consider the concept of his latest edict of giving back to society by volunteering, blah blah blah. I may, perhaps, think about donating my time, but until that moment, the repukes have to do their part, they must stop being cancers on society and upon the environment and start conserving.
So until that major miracle happens, mr. * can go fuck himself, much like he's fucking the rest of this nation.

1. Get a bunch of single Hydrogen atoms.

2. Get another bunch of Carbon atoms.

3. Hook 4 Hydrogens onto each Carbon. You will then have Methane.

4. Compress the Methane until it turns into liquid.

5. Fill tanks with the liquified Methane.

And there you have it -- Liquified Natural Gas.

Burn it 'til we fry like Venus, baby!

--p!
Simple. Easy. Wrong.

... and solid H2 about 1/9 as dense as gasoline. So assuming available energy/mass for H2 is about that of gasoline, your car needs a fuel tank 9-10X larger than at present to store comparable energy as H2. If efficiency of H2 fuel cell engine is twice that of the present motor, that's still a fuel tank 5X larger for the same vehicle range. Since almost nobody will want to roll down the highway in a Hindenberg-on-wheels, I'd guess a liquid H2 tank wouldn't ever be popular anyway: but I'm having real trouble imagining H2 more densely packed in some storage material, except in 2D arrays along surfaces -- maybe it's a failure of my imagination, but I'd bet the feasible storage ends up being considerably less dense than liquid H2, measured as mass of fuel per overall storage volume. Then we're back to huge tanks.

We'd do better developing good public transportation.

Combine hydrogen and Co or Co2 and you get methanol. Or make it from coal or sewage.

Its liquid, has around 1/3 the energy density of gasoline but burns better so gas tanks are double size for the same range.

Works in gas and diesel engines with slight changes (does not like rubber or aluminum) also same tanker trucks and gas-station pumps. Different lubricants. Engines using methanol-compatible seals and lubricants can still work with petroleum-based fuels.

There are fuel cells that take it directly and converters to extract the hydrogen for cells that need straight hydrogen.

You spend energy to make it from hydrogen, but a lot of that is a wash considering the energy spent compressing hydrogen to 10,000 PSI and transporting huge tanks of compressed hydrogen around or the energy pumping it through pipelines.

Biggest problem is that its quite poisonous.

back to the same problem, really. H2 has water as a waste product, and that's it.

What would the increase in water vapour mean to global warming?

... associated with hydrogen-powered cars, the actual production of hydrogen is very simple, and could be done far more cheaply by using current from solar banks to electrolyze water. The installed costs for production facilities would be much, much lower, the operating costs would be lower, and the clean-up costs would be much lower.

That said, the government will never support it, because such decentralizes fuel production, instead of centralizing it with a few energy conglomerates.

There's a reason why there's so much money in the current energy bill for nuclear, and this is it. *sigh*

However it was built in 1912....Now why cant we bring that tech back.

simple answer. there's tons of patents for really awesome things just lying there to rot because of the goal to kill competition throughout our US history.

Ultimately, what would be cheapest is a geneticaly engineered bacteria or algae that electrolyzes water using sunlight for energy.

Now, what we need is a bacteria that flies around the ozone layer eating amonia and chlorine to repair the ozone layer. (There are bacteria in the high atmosphere, but I don't know if there are any in the ozone layer).

it runs out of amonia and chlorine!

not an energy source. It has to be manufactured and requires more energy input for its manufacture than it produces so it is a carrier and not a primary energy source. The concept is known as the "energy profit ratio" and oil has the biggest EPR of any currently known energy source. Add to that the fact that hydrogen cannot be used to manufacture petrochemical by-products, such as fertilisers (most of the world's agriculture is petrochemical-based - it takes one gallon of oil to produce one pound of beef) and it seems even less plausible as a replacement for oil.

Sure, hydrogen might seem to provide a temporary respite from oil depletion problems but there is absolutely no way it will ever replace oil as a primary energy source. Go to Google and type "peak oil" into the exact phrase field in the advanced search page. You will quickly see why we are up shit creek sans paddle.

When there is no more oil, then SOMETHING will replace it. Maybe hydrogen when we come up with a cheap way to crack it from water.

But it will never replace oil as a fundamental basis for the economy. It can't - it's a plain and simple thermodynamic impossibility.

right up until somebody does it.

nuclear waste into inert/harmless material, we could be set.

There are not enough primary energy sources left to convert the world to nuke energy. This is an argument that is null and void. In order to construct the power stations it would take decades and too much oil (EPR again). Besides, nuke energy can't fuel transport systems nor can it support our agricultural systems which are 90%+ petrochemical dependent. That's only two areas where petrochemicals are essential to maintaining our current energy consumption patterns; there are many others.

I know this sounds like I'm one of the "sky is falling" nutters but it's too bloody late. We are up shit creek as regards continuing our current, energy-profligate way of life. This is becoming widely accepted by those who know much more than the rote learning stuff I spout. It's too bloody late unless we are prepared to radically alter our lifestyles. (hope that doesn't mean I can't have a computer...aaaargh)

But finding a way to have "clean" nuclear is A solution. One of many that will be required. If we can have "clean" nuclear for electrical and hydrogen production, then that will greatly reduce our need for petrochemically produced power. We will still need to convert our petrochemical transport to electrical/hydrogen/hybrid based transport. Personal and rail transport can be done by electricity (theoretically) to some extent, as well as through hydrogen/biofuel/hybrids.

Our two biggest problems are: 1) lifestyles, 2) population. If we had fewer people in this world, we could dedicate more land for biofuel production. If we reduced our power hungry lifestyles, we extend the lifespan of our supplies. If we do both, we're even better.