Hydrogen Thread:8-6-05 MIT Chemist attempts splitting water

[dmcowen674]

I started a thread specifically for Hydrogen since the P&N experts say that there is no such thing as renewable Hdrogen resources despite the fact that the planet is made up of 75% water which contains a Hdrogen atom for every two Oxygen atoms.

4-25-2005 Pennsylvania State University create microbial cells that treat water and give off hydrogen

The new process is not limited to using only carbohydrate-based biomass.

Theoretically, it yields hydrogen from any biodegradable, dissolved, organic matter and cleans wastewater.

In the procedure, when the bacteria eat the biomass, they transfer electrons to an anode. The bacteria also release protons - hydrogen atoms stripped of their electrons - which go into solution.

Anode's electrons migrate via a wire to the cathode, the other electrode in the fuel cell, where they are electrochemically assisted to combine with protons to produce hydrogen gas.

The new process demonstrates, for the first time, the real potential in capturing hydrogen from renewable sources.

 

[Forsythe]

Wicked! It's about time. Now to develop the technology.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I started a thread specifically for Hydrogen since the P&N experts say that there is no such thing as renewable Hdrogen resources despite the fact that the planet is made up of 75% water which contains a Hdrogen atom for every two Oxygen atoms.

4-25-2005 Pennsylvania State University create microbial cells that treat water and give off hydrogen

The new process is not limited to using only carbohydrate-based biomass.

Theoretically, it yields hydrogen from any biodegradable, dissolved, organic matter and cleans wastewater.

In the procedure, when the bacteria eat the biomass, they transfer electrons to an anode. The bacteria also release protons - hydrogen atoms stripped of their electrons - which go into solution.

Anode's electrons migrate via a wire to the cathode, the other electrode in the fuel cell, where they are electrochemically assisted to combine with protons to produce hydrogen gas.

The new process demonstrates, for the first time, the real potential in capturing hydrogen from renewable sources.

I wonder how difficult it is to distill the Hydrogen Gas into liquid hydrogen for fuel-cell vehicles and devices? I'm totally stoked on Hydrogen; can't wait til we can get off the oil teat and tell the Middle East to go fvck itself.

Jason

 

[K1052]

Interesting.

I wonder how quickly they produce it.

For hydrogen to become a true substitute, we're going to need a crapload of it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: K1052
Interesting.

I wonder how quickly they produce it.

For hydrogen to become a true substitute, we're going to need a crapload of it.

Sounds like every Water Treatment plant can be retrofitted with this Technology.

The by-product of treating the water is the hydrogen.

It will require a substantial power feed in and out. Each plant would put out 4 more times power than it requires for the process. Sounds like a great ROI and deal to me.

Of course with a return like that Water and Electricty rates should go down.

Also the cost for Hydrogen should be pretty cheap too except for the Annuitized build up cost, Maintenance and Distribution of Hydrogen at fueling stations.

Of course with all of this meaning no more dependance on Sand Oil that none of this will ever happen.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: K1052
Interesting.

I wonder how quickly they produce it.

For hydrogen to become a true substitute, we're going to need a crapload of it.

Sounds like every Water Treatment plant can be retrofitted with this Technology.

The by-product of treating the water is the hydrogen.

It will require a substantial power feed in and out. Each plant would put out 4 more times power than it requires for the process. Sounds like a great ROI and deal to me.

Of course with a return like that Water and Electricty rates should go down.

Also the cost for Hydrogen should be pretty cheap too except for the Annuitized build up cost, Maintenance and Distribution of Hydrogen at fueling stations.

Of course with all of this meaning no more dependance on Sand Oil that none of this will ever happen.

I am just wondering how much feedstock will be required per unit of hydrogen and how quickly it produced.

The efficiency will determine how much infrastructure will have to be built to produce the required amount of hydrogen. If it is too low, this solution could prove impractical.

I?d certainly like to hear more about this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Before getting too stoked..

Regarding the OPs sense of hydrogen's as it stand currently. It is NOT a renewable source of energy.

Analogy time.
One idea put forward to improve overall fuel economy a couple decades ago was to install large flywheels under cars which in large part would eliminate the waste associated with stopping and starting. Instead of stopping the car by converting mechanical enerty to heat via brake pads, the energy would be used to make the flywheel spin very fast. As the energy is transferred from the kinetic energy of forward motion to overcoming the inertia of the flywheel, the vehicle slowed. Now it didn't happen because of engineering concerns, and because fuel efficiency improved without resorting to such relatively esoteric additions.

So what would this do in practice? Well once the flywheel was spun up, it was now a source of power. It could also be correctly called "renewable" because it could be used many many times. Upon starting, the flywheel's power would be used to accelerate the car to it's prior speed without any additional fuel being used. Nothing is 100%, but the efficiency was remarkably good. Far higher than pumping more gas into the engine.

Let's look closely at this system. Fuel allows the engine to produce power. The power creates forward motion. Braking transfers that power to another "resevoir" and slows the car. Accelerating merely sends that power back into moving things ahead.

Well why don't we just use the flywheel? It's a renewable source of power after all? Of course you immediately see that the flywheel does not CREATE mecanical power, it is just a storage device. Unless you have the fuel to begin with, it never spins up.

So it is with hydrogen. It is not (at least till now) a source of power, it is a storage medium created by the expendature of other energy sources. That's the main problem with it. Hydrogen is not too difficult to contain, it's just how do you get it? By burning fuel elsewhere.

Not it appears superficially that this is an answer. Well maybe.
If as advertised, there is a system that produces more energy than it consumes. That is the key to hydrogen being adopted. My concern is what is the total cost both economically and energy wise of making it?

Cost is obvious. If ultimately someone has to spend a hundred dollars to obtain the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline's worth of power, it won't fly.

Energy cost is something not always easily seen. There is energy needed to make the system. If it takes 1000 units total to produce 900 units of energy then it wears out, it is surely not worth it.

I'll wait and see.

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm not sure why this is just getting press today. I know I read about this study at least a year ago. I wouldn't get your hopes up just yet, as similar technology is already used. The amount of hydrogen produced isn't anything to write home about - maybe enough to power part of the treatment plant, and the rates of production in anaerobic processes is extremely slow. The startup costs for this are insane, making it unlikely to become widespread in an industry where capital improvement budgets are very strict. Similar processes have been implemented for methane and other hydrocarbons (typically called cogeneration) where the gas is captured and used to defray peak power production by burning the gas in specially designed engines. If the amount produced is more than can be channeled to the processes, then the remainder is kicked back to the electric grid for a small chip off the electric bill. Of course, this requires an engine that runs at constant RPMs but variable power, hardly a trivial task, and they break down extremely often.

Not to be a nay-sayer, but just want to warn everyone before getting their hopes up about a hydrogen economy. I wouldn't expect it any time in the foreseeable future.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I wonder how difficult it is to distill the Hydrogen Gas into liquid hydrogen for fuel-cell vehicles and devices? I'm totally stoked on Hydrogen; can't wait til we can get off the oil teat and tell the Middle East to go fvck itself.

You can't really 'distill' a gas into a liquid. To transform hydrogen gas into liquid hydrogen, you just need to add lots and lots of pressure.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: K1052
Interesting.

I wonder how quickly they produce it.

For hydrogen to become a true substitute, we're going to need a crapload of it.

Sounds like every Water Treatment plant can be retrofitted with this Technology.

The by-product of treating the water is the hydrogen.

It will require a substantial power feed in and out. Each plant would put out 4 more times power than it requires for the process. Sounds like a great ROI and deal to me.

Of course with a return like that Water and Electricty rates should go down.

Also the cost for Hydrogen should be pretty cheap too except for the Annuitized build up cost, Maintenance and Distribution of Hydrogen at fueling stations.

Of course with all of this meaning no more dependance on Sand Oil that none of this will ever happen.

The current enormous demand for Hybrids, and the ongoing work by companies like Toyota to bring Hydrogen vehicles to the masses would seem to contradict that idea. We've got 13 hydrogen fueling stations in California last time I read (been about 2 months), and people are increasingly irritated with high fuel prices.

We'll get there, I am confident of that. How rapidly is anyone's guess.

Jason

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The current enormous demand for Hybrids, and the ongoing work by companies like Toyota to bring Hydrogen vehicles to the masses would seem to contradict that idea. We've got 13 hydrogen fueling stations in California last time I read (been about 2 months), and people are increasingly irritated with high fuel prices.

We'll get there, I am confident of that. How rapidly is anyone's guess.

Jason

I wouldn't get your science from Dave. Hydrogen production on the scale you're talking about requires drawing power from the electrical grid, which means burning coal/oil. So, instead of just burning the oil in your car, you're heaping another layer of inefficiency on top of the whole mess, as electrolysis will only return about 90% of the power you put into it. In this manner, you're actually going to consume MORE oil than you would if it had been distilled as gasoline and used conventionally. We can produce as much hydrogen as we want in this manner, but this is why we don't currently.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: K1052
Interesting.

I wonder how quickly they produce it.

For hydrogen to become a true substitute, we're going to need a crapload of it.

Sounds like every Water Treatment plant can be retrofitted with this Technology.

The by-product of treating the water is the hydrogen.

It will require a substantial power feed in and out. Each plant would put out 4 more times power than it requires for the process. Sounds like a great ROI and deal to me.

Of course with a return like that Water and Electricty rates should go down.

Also the cost for Hydrogen should be pretty cheap too except for the Annuitized build up cost, Maintenance and Distribution of Hydrogen at fueling stations.

Of course with all of this meaning no more dependance on Sand Oil that none of this will ever happen.

Aren't there some fundamental laws of thermodynamics that make that bolded sentence impossible? I mean, I may be a "Red Stater," but I swear I done read that in one of them thar scientifical doohickies..

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm not sure why this is just getting press today. I know I read about this study at least a year ago. I wouldn't get your hopes up just yet, as similar technology is already used. The amount of hydrogen produced isn't anything to write home about - maybe enough to power part of the treatment plant, and the rates of production in anaerobic processes is extremely slow. The startup costs for this are insane, making it unlikely to become widespread in an industry where capital improvement budgets are very strict. Similar processes have been implemented for methane and other hydrocarbons (typically called cogeneration) where the gas is captured and used to defray peak power production by burning the gas in specially designed engines. If the amount produced is more than can be channeled to the processes, then the remainder is kicked back to the electric grid for a small chip off the electric bill. Of course, this requires an engine that runs at constant RPMs but variable power, hardly a trivial task, and they break down extremely often.

Not to be a nay-sayer, but just want to warn everyone before getting their hopes up about a hydrogen economy. I wouldn't expect it any time in the foreseeable future.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I wonder how difficult it is to distill the Hydrogen Gas into liquid hydrogen for fuel-cell vehicles and devices? I'm totally stoked on Hydrogen; can't wait til we can get off the oil teat and tell the Middle East to go fvck itself.

You can't really 'distill' a gas into a liquid. To transform hydrogen gas into liquid hydrogen, you just need to add lots and lots of pressure.

Although I don't know, I believe the difference here would be to optimize for the production of hydrogen, not as a coincidental byproduct. If you read my post, I have many questions about the viability of this technology, but I am unencumbered by data.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Although I don't know, I believe the difference here would be to optimize for the production of hydrogen, not as a coincidental byproduct. If you read my post, I have many questions about the viability of this technology, but I am unencumbered by data.

Right - it is to maximize selective production of hydrogen by decreasing the activation energy barrier required. I have no doubt that it works, but I have sincere doubts about the scale of implementation and the quantity of hydrogen produced. In fact, i guarantee that this is not the limitless source of hydrogen that people are looking for to power transportation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Although I don't know, I believe the difference here would be to optimize for the production of hydrogen, not as a coincidental byproduct. If you read my post, I have many questions about the viability of this technology, but I am unencumbered by data.

Right - it is to maximize selective production of hydrogen by decreasing the activation energy barrier required. I have no doubt that it works, but I have sincere doubts about the scale of implementation and the quantity of hydrogen produced. In fact, i guarantee that this is not the limitless source of hydrogen that people are looking for to power transportation.

What we need is access to any published papers to make a better judgement. I want to look closely at materials and methods.

 

[0marTheZealot]

The problem isn't technical viabilities to oil, it is economic and scalability. As it stands, no combination can adqueately sustain the global demand for oil. At best, we can do 50% with renewables in 30 years with trillions of dollars of investment drawing upon hundreds of different technologies.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The current enormous demand for Hybrids, and the ongoing work by companies like Toyota to bring Hydrogen vehicles to the masses would seem to contradict that idea. We've got 13 hydrogen fueling stations in California last time I read (been about 2 months), and people are increasingly irritated with high fuel prices.

We'll get there, I am confident of that. How rapidly is anyone's guess.

Jason

I wouldn't get your science from Dave. Hydrogen production on the scale you're talking about requires drawing power from the electrical grid, which means burning coal/oil. So, instead of just burning the oil in your car, you're heaping another layer of inefficiency on top of the whole mess, as electrolysis will only return about 90% of the power you put into it. In this manner, you're actually going to consume MORE oil than you would if it had been distilled as gasoline and used conventionally. We can produce as much hydrogen as we want in this manner, but this is why we don't currently.

Neither would *I* get my science from Dave, LOL However, I'd read a *lot* about Hydrogen because I am interested in the topic. The article quoted, though, is pretty clear that they're using a bacterial process, which may mean less draw on the electrical grid (and consequently less burning of coal/oil), which would be a nice possibility. I guess we will have to see what happens!

Jason

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
What we need is access to any published papers to make a better judgement. I want to look closely at materials and methods.

I'm sure I have this paper lying around somewhere, as I cited it in my masters thesis. I'll have to dig through a load of crap to find it though. :roll:

I can tell you off the top of my head that of converted BOD (biochemical oxygen demand - the biologically decomposable elements of waste), about half is converted to gas. Thus, if you assume an input BOD of about 300 g/L to one of these processes and assume 90% conversion (very ballpark), you could get about 270/2=135 g gas /L of wastewater treated. There is some typical composition of the gas released, something like C2H7O5N3, so even if you get 100% of the hydrogen isolated (which would never happen), you end up with about 21.9g hydrogen per liter of water treated. For a treatment plant treating 50 MGD (million gallons per day), this computes to about 6 MW. Of course, in reality the amount you'd get out is probably less than 10% of this due to all the assumptions, maybe enough to power the plant (depending on the type of plant) but certainly no more. The cogeneration engines in Dayton kicked back typically about 10% of the plant's peak-hours draw, and they were powered primarily by methane. Hydrogen has a slightly higher energy density, so you could expect more. Anyway, enough hand-waving - the back of my enevelope is full.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: K1052
Interesting.

I wonder how quickly they produce it.

For hydrogen to become a true substitute, we're going to need a crapload of it.

Sounds like every Water Treatment plant can be retrofitted with this Technology.

The by-product of treating the water is the hydrogen.

It will require a substantial power feed in and out. Each plant would put out 4 more times power than it requires for the process. Sounds like a great ROI and deal to me.

Of course with a return like that Water and Electricty rates should go down.

Also the cost for Hydrogen should be pretty cheap too except for the Annuitized build up cost, Maintenance and Distribution of Hydrogen at fueling stations.

Of course with all of this meaning no more dependance on Sand Oil that none of this will ever happen.

Aren't there some fundamental laws of thermodynamics that make that bolded sentence impossible? I mean, I may be a "Red Stater," but I swear I done read that in one of them thar scientifical doohickies..

I have a solution to this. A way to get the required power to run the process. It would reduce the ROI by a factor of one which still leads to a return of 3 times out for what is put in.

I just will not reveal the answer without any chance of getting any just compensation or credit this time.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: K1052
Interesting.

I wonder how quickly they produce it.

For hydrogen to become a true substitute, we're going to need a crapload of it.

Sounds like every Water Treatment plant can be retrofitted with this Technology.

The by-product of treating the water is the hydrogen.

It will require a substantial power feed in and out. Each plant would put out 4 more times power than it requires for the process. Sounds like a great ROI and deal to me.

Of course with a return like that Water and Electricty rates should go down.

Also the cost for Hydrogen should be pretty cheap too except for the Annuitized build up cost, Maintenance and Distribution of Hydrogen at fueling stations.

Of course with all of this meaning no more dependance on Sand Oil that none of this will ever happen.

Aren't there some fundamental laws of thermodynamics that make that bolded sentence impossible? I mean, I may be a "Red Stater," but I swear I done read that in one of them thar scientifical doohickies..

I have a solution to this. A way to get the required power to run the process. It would reduce the ROI by a factor of one which still leads to a return of 3 times out for what is put in.

I just will not reveal the answer without any chance of getting any just compensation or credit this time.

Good idea! Keep that idea to yourself, but jot it down on a napkin. In 15 years, when someone manages to actually implement a solution, sue them into oblivion with your "prior art" - it's the American Way!

 

[sandorski]

In related news, a small town (Anmore) near here(Coquitlam, BC) has just announced(couple weeks ago) to be building a small "power plant....to produce hydrogen using water, wind, an solar power". The Hydrogen produced will be dispensed at a nearby filling station. Though the project has been announced it is still up in the air as Provincial/Federal government funding is required to get it off the ground. The project is largely an Info center for the Public to see Alternate Energy sources up close, but it is also a prototype of a system that can be used elsewhere.

Here's a link for more info

(All quotes from The Tri-City News , April 9 ed)

 

[dmcowen674]

This is awesome News here.

Us humans have duplicated the Power of the Sun.

Of course they say at this point it did not produce more power than it took to do the experiment. I find that hard to believe and Politics may already be rearing it's ugly head.

Now whether Politics will let us use the Technology for the Good of Mankind or we destroy ourselves and the Planet with it is another story:

4-27-2005 UCLA Researchers Produce Nuclear Fusion

In the latest attempt to create nuclear fusion under laboratory conditions, scientists reported they achieved it in a tabletop experiment that uses a strong electric field generated by a small crystal.

For decades, scientists have sought to produce controllable nuclear fusion, the same power that lights the sun and stars. Fusion power has been touted as the ultimate solution to the world's energy needs and a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels like coal and oil

In the UCLA experiment, scientists placed a tiny crystal that can generate a strong electric field into a vacuum chamber filled with deuterium gas, a form of hydrogen capable of fusion. Then the researchers activated the crystal by heating it.

The resulting reaction gave off an isotope of helium along with subatomic particles known as neutrons, a characteristic of fusion.

The experiment did not, however, produce more energy than the amount put in ? an achievement that would be a huge breakthrough.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This is awesome News here.

Us humans have duplicated the Power of the Sun.

Of course they say at this point it did not produce more power than it took to do the experiment. I find that hard to believe and Politics may already be rearing it's ugly head.

Now whether Politics will let us use the Technology for the Good of Mankind or we destroy ourselves and the Planet with it is another story:

4-27-2005 UCLA Researchers Produce Nuclear Fusion

In the latest attempt to create nuclear fusion under laboratory conditions, scientists reported they achieved it in a tabletop experiment that uses a strong electric field generated by a small crystal.

For decades, scientists have sought to produce controllable nuclear fusion, the same power that lights the sun and stars. Fusion power has been touted as the ultimate solution to the world's energy needs and a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels like coal and oil

In the UCLA experiment, scientists placed a tiny crystal that can generate a strong electric field into a vacuum chamber filled with deuterium gas, a form of hydrogen capable of fusion. Then the researchers activated the crystal by heating it.

The resulting reaction gave off an isotope of helium along with subatomic particles known as neutrons, a characteristic of fusion.

The experiment did not, however, produce more energy than the amount put in ? an achievement that would be a huge breakthrough.

Whoa, Deuterium, that's like, *straight* out of Star Trek

Jason

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This is awesome News here.

Us humans have duplicated the Power of the Sun.

Of course they say at this point it did not produce more power than it took to do the experiment. I find that hard to believe and Politics may already be rearing it's ugly head.

Yes, obviously you're more qualified than the scientist who actually produced a fusion reaction to judge the amount of net power generation occurred. Why don't we give YOU the Nobel prize? You're the biggest whiner when it comes to ignoring science, then when science is put in front of you, YOU are the one who disputes its findings.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This is awesome News here.

Us humans have duplicated the Power of the Sun.

Of course they say at this point it did not produce more power than it took to do the experiment. I find that hard to believe and Politics may already be rearing it's ugly head.

Yes, obviously you're more qualified than the scientist who actually produced a fusion reaction to judge the amount of net power generation occurred. Why don't we give YOU the Nobel prize? You're the biggest whiner when it comes to ignoring science, then when science is put in front of you, YOU are the one who disputes its findings.

Until UCLA invites me to see the results I call shens on the lousy power output.

There would be no use for it at all if that was truly the case and we would be dead because there would be no Sun.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Until UCLA invites me to see the results I call shens on the lousy power output.

There would be no use for it at all if that was truly the case and we would be dead because there would be no Sun.

*shakes his head*

I'm hardly a physicist, but it's pretty clear to me why such a small system doesn't have sufficient power output to produce a net gain in energy. It likely has to do with the large activation energy inherent to a fusion reaction, which requires temperatures of >50,000,000°F to become spontaneous. If you try to create a temperature this high on a bench scale, UCLA would be a crater. This is why fusion bombs require fission bombs to work (link). The fission reaction kicks the temperature up to the point where the fusion can sustain itself and produce a net output of energy. I'm sure cquark or someone who has actually studied nuclear reactions can explaint his a lot better, but the governing principles are thermodynamically based, so I can speak with some authority.