Good read: How Hydrogen Can Save America

[Phuz]

Wired

 

[Howard]

Ethanol is serve a bigger role. We can grow it RIGHT NOW!

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Howard
Ethanol is serve a bigger role. We can grow it RIGHT NOW!

Ethanol still produces CO2

 

[Phuz]

Technologies aside, the article points out the factors restricting this type of progress from happening. Of course the technology is possible..

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Howard
Ethanol is serve a bigger role. We can grow it RIGHT NOW!

Ethanol still produces CO2

The article is talking about oil dependence, does it not?

Also, since ethanol is converted from plants, it is completely sulfur-free and so we can use super-l33t catalytic converters to reduce the amount of harmful emissions.

EDIT: We have the capability to build engines that consume much less than status quo. If it weren't for cost, we could have throttle(plate)less Miller-cycle direct injection gasoline engines...

 

[silverpig]

It does talk about independence, but it still doesn't change the fact that ethanol produces CO2 when burned. Sure, it's better than gas, why do a half assed change when you have something better?

 

[Howard]

Actually, the CO2 produced isn't actually "produced" per se. The plants absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere and you just re-release it when you burn the ethanol.

Not like fossil fuels, where you extract it out of the ground where it's been hiding for millions of years...

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Phuz
Technologies aside, the article points out the factors restricting this type of progress from happening. Of course the technology is possible..

The article offers no insight whatsoever on the issue other than to say we need to dump more money into it.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Phuz
Technologies aside, the article points out the factors restricting this type of progress from happening. Of course the technology is possible..

The article offers no insight whatsoever on the issue other than to say we need to dump more money into it.

I have to agree with that. It says that all of the possible problems and there are many can be solved simply by more funding.Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't.

The main hurdle is where to get the energy to produce the hydrogen. Windmills and solar just won't do it.

 

[Howard]

One acre of sugarcane can yield up to 2200 gallons of ethanol per year

GM crops that make their own nitrogen fertilizer like legumes can make the process considerably cheaper.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: silverpig
It does talk about independence, but it still doesn't change the fact that ethanol produces CO2 when burned. Sure, it's better than gas, why do a half assed change when you have something better?

I agree, I think using Hydrogen is the "best" way that mankind can currently store energy on any kind of a large scale. It takes an enormous amount of work to change an energy infrastructure, we may as well do it the best we can.

I posted a link to this article on our forum if any of you want to discuss this with some "hydrogen guys" (just be warned that we dont get replies quite as quick as ATOT).

-Spy

EDIT: Link Fixed

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Howard
One acre of sugarcane can yield up to 2200 gallons of ethanol per year

GM crops that make their own nitrogen fertilizer like legumes can make the process considerably cheaper.

You do realize that the BioMass from that sugarcane could also be used to create Hydrogen right? It doesnt neccisarily have to go to ethanol.

-Spy

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: Howard
One acre of sugarcane can yield up to 2200 gallons of ethanol per year

GM crops that make their own nitrogen fertilizer like legumes can make the process considerably cheaper.

You do realize that the BioMass from that sugarcane could also be used to create Hydrogen right? It doesnt neccisarily have to go to ethanol.

-Spy

Can it? Link please!

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: Howard
One acre of sugarcane can yield up to 2200 gallons of ethanol per year

GM crops that make their own nitrogen fertilizer like legumes can make the process considerably cheaper.

You do realize that the BioMass from that sugarcane could also be used to create Hydrogen right? It doesnt neccisarily have to go to ethanol.

-Spy

Can it? Link please!

I dont have an article with all the information about it, however on our website we do have an article about using BioMass to produce methane (PDF), if you apply a current to the BioMass while it breaks down it will produce Hydrogen Gas as opposed to Methane. A special type of bacteria can also be used (as opposed to applying a current) which will again produce hydrogen gas (it just requires a more sterile enviroment so your tank doesnt get contaminated).

-Spy

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
I posted a link to this article on our forum if any of you want to discuss this with some "hydrogen guys" (just be warned that we dont get replies quite as quick as ATOT).

-Spy

EDIT: Link Fixed

I didnt even realize that I had just posted another link to the same article, post fixed now...

-Spy

 

[Phuz]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Phuz
Technologies aside, the article points out the factors restricting this type of progress from happening. Of course the technology is possible..

The article offers no insight whatsoever on the issue other than to say we need to dump more money into it.

I have to agree with that. It says that all of the possible problems and there are many can be solved simply by more funding.Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't.

The main hurdle is where to get the energy to produce the hydrogen. Windmills and solar just won't do it.

No. The main hurdle is gaining the necessary attention to the fact that we're just going to keep using oil until its gone. Also, being able to actually say your countries source of power is purely domestic would be nice, wouldn't it? I don't see how it can be more beneficial to be dependent on foreign resources.
Hence the analogy of putting the man on the moon. When it was decided that it was a serious priority to (beat the competition) put a man on the moon, America made it happen. The funding was there. It helped that most everyone was for putting a man on the moon, however, most everyone isn't for converting to another source of energy. Oil companies are fairly influential.

How much money? How about the amount spent to put a man on the moon: $100 billion in today's dollars. With that investment, the nation could shift the balance of power from foreign oil producers to US energy consumers within a decade. By 2013, a third of all new cars sold could be hydrogen-powered, 15 percent of the nation's gas stations could pump hydrogen, and the US could get more than half its energy from domestic sources, putting independence within reach. All that's missing is a national commitment to make it happen.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Phuz
Technologies aside, the article points out the factors restricting this type of progress from happening. Of course the technology is possible..

The article offers no insight whatsoever on the issue other than to say we need to dump more money into it.

I have to agree with that. It says that all of the possible problems and there are many can be solved simply by more funding.Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't.

The main hurdle is where to get the energy to produce the hydrogen. Windmills and solar just won't do it.

No. The main hurdle is gaining the necessary attention to the fact that we're just going to keep using oil until its gone. Also, being able to actually say your countries source of power is purely domestic would be nice, wouldn't it? I don't see how it can be more beneficial to be dependent on foreign resources.
Hence the analogy of putting the man on the moon. When it was decided that it was a serious priority to (beat the competition) put a man on the moon, America made it happen. The funding was there. It helped that most everyone was for putting a man on the moon, however, most everyone isn't for converting to another source of energy. Oil companies are fairly influential.

How much money? How about the amount spent to put a man on the moon: $100 billion in today's dollars. With that investment, the nation could shift the balance of power from foreign oil producers to US energy consumers within a decade. By 2013, a third of all new cars sold could be hydrogen-powered, 15 percent of the nation's gas stations could pump hydrogen, and the US could get more than half its energy from domestic sources, putting independence within reach. All that's missing is a national commitment to make it happen.

That's nice and all but where will the energy come from to produce the hydrogen?

This is a different situation then putting a man on the moon. That was simply a engineering exercise, an awesome one to be sure but still just engineering. The question of where the energy to proude the hydrogen is coming from is a fundenmtal question that cannot be solved simply by engineering.

 

[Phuz]

Most of the hydrogen now produced by the process of steam reforming, which isn't very efficient. They have found very good ways to produce hydrogen, namely, electrolysis. Renewable energy sources can produce electricity for electrolysis.

This is no different than producing any other kind of technology... it just needs to be a priority.

Humboldt State University's Schatz Energy Research Center designed and built a stand-alone solar hydrogen system. The system uses a 9.2 kilowatt (KW) photovoltaic (PV) array to provide power to compressors that aerate fish tanks. The power not used to run the compressors runs a 7.2 kilowatt bipolar alkaline electrolyzer. The electrolyzer can produce 53 standard cubic feet of hydrogen per hour (25 liters per minute). The unit has been operating without supervision since 1993. When there is not enough power from the PV array, the hydrogen provides fuel for a 1.5 kilowatt proton exchange membrane fuel cell to provide power for the compressors.

 

[spyordie007]

That's nice and all but where will the energy come from to produce the hydrogen?
This is a different situation then putting a man on the moon. That was simply a engineering exercise, an awesome one to be sure but still just engineering. The question of where the energy to proude the hydrogen is coming from is a fundenmtal question that cannot be solved simply by engineering.

That's a very good question with a very simple answer.

We do a similar push in the development and use of renewable energy resources here in america. Whether it be using biomass to produce hydrogen, using geothermal, or using power from the sun. It's obvious we cant have one without the other.

BTW if you think using solar power is old news and doesnt work do a couple of searches for "solar gensets" on google, they beat current solar panel technologies hands down (they just cant be used in small applications because of the moving parts).

-Spy

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Phuz
Most of the hydrogen now produced by the process of steam reforming, which isn't very efficient. They have found very good ways to produce hydrogen, namely, electrolysis. Renewable energy sources can produce electricity for electrolysis.

This is no different than producing any other kind of technology... it just needs to be a priority.

Humboldt State University's Schatz Energy Research Center designed and built a stand-alone solar hydrogen system. The system uses a 9.2 kilowatt (KW) photovoltaic (PV) array to provide power to compressors that aerate fish tanks. The power not used to run the compressors runs a 7.2 kilowatt bipolar alkaline electrolyzer. The electrolyzer can produce 53 standard cubic feet of hydrogen per hour (25 liters per minute). The unit has been operating without supervision since 1993. When there is not enough power from the PV array, the hydrogen provides fuel for a 1.5 kilowatt proton exchange membrane fuel cell to provide power for the compressors.

A freakishly cool closed loop system!

 

[everman]

That's nice and all but where will the energy come from to produce the hydrogen?

That's a major problem. I'm not familiar with how much energy would be required to produce the H needed, but I would bet that fusion power could do it (but not any time soon, fusion reactors consume more energy than they produce currently). I don't know how people could be convinced that nuclear fission reactors are safe although I would be in favor of that also.

 

[Phuz]

That's a major problem.

Not really... read above.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: everman

That's nice and all but where will the energy come from to produce the hydrogen?

That's a major problem. I'm not familiar with how much energy would be required to produce the H needed, but I would bet that fusion power could do it (but not any time soon, fusion reactors consume more energy than they produce currently). I don't know how people could be convinced that nuclear fission reactors are safe although I would be in favor of that also.

All electric producing plants (all systems for that matter) consume more energy than they produce. Nothing is 100% efficient.

Fortunetly with Hydrogen you have a storage system that will store the energy indefinetly and you can have it available for "on demand" uses such as cars.

-Spy

 

[Piano Man]

I believe hydrogen is a great way to power cars and other things that require quite a bit of power. But for over all energy, nothing beats Wind Energy. I used to live in Northwest Iowa where they have a huge wind farm, and the whole thing payed for itself in 5 years. Now electricy costs 2.5 cent per kilowatt hour. States such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska are the "Saudi Arabias of wind". There is a project going on right now with my college to build a huge wind farm in Iowa and sell the energy to California. If it gets approved (couple billion), it will really help the people down there, plus it will pay for itself in 5-7 years. Wind is the future.

 

[Piano Man]

As far as costs goes, the only thing that is cheaper right now is coal, but barely so. Plus factor in the deregulation price gouging and it isn't. But of course deregulation could effect wind energy as well.