When will we ever migrate over to hydrogen?

[UglyCasanova]

When will the world ever start to use hydrogen instead of fossil fuels? I imagine that hydrogen fueled cars can be ran very cheaply, and the only byproduct is simple H2O. I realize that converting everything would be one of the greatest undertakings ever, but eventually we will have to.

 

[Daovonnaex]

I'd just like to point out that, currently, more energy is expended in obtaining hydrogen than is yielded. As such, hydrogen must currently be considered an energy form and not an energy source. However, sololuminscent fusion may in the future be able to break atomic bonds. Sololuminscent fusion requires very little energy to achieve (enough to boil a pot of water--hence its nick-name "star in a jar"), though we cannot currently regulate its reaction or apply it to anything. As such, in the near future, fossil fuel burning internal combustion engines remain the best option for powering vehicles. The past thirty years have seen ENORMOUS reductions in all harmful emissions to the point where it is now a non-issue in the United States, save the freight trucking industry--where the powerful Teamsters Union prevents any effective regulation of emissions (freight trucks account for 2% of US automotive traffic yet account for 98% of US automotive pollution). Nothing has been done to control the production of CO2 (and nothing can be done if we're dealing with conventional oil-based fuels, though natural gas certainly reduces CO2 output by a large margin), though, arguably, nothing needs to be done. Human output of CO2 account for less than one-half percent of world-wide CO2 output. This insignificant output cannot account for the global warming trend of the past century (especially since the majority of average temperature increases occurred prior to 1945, and some climatologists believe the Earth has been cooling for the past eighteen years). The only reason for alternative energy sources for automotive power is high prices for oil, which is clearly not the case.

By the way, fossil fuel sources will likely last for another two hundred years (and that's assuming we don't discover major new reserves). It's also possible to synthesize fossil fuels, but this takes an enormous amount of energy. Oil can, however, be derived from coal and anthracite (a very, very abundant resource). Germany synthesized large quantities of gasoline from coal during World War 2, especially after losing the oil sources in Romania to the advancing Red Army. Synthetic gasoline production was crippled by allied (mostly American) bombing by late 1944, however. The Germans were working on gigantic underground synthetic oil factories by late 1944 (in addition to other underground factories--most notably Nordhausen, which was the largest underground facility ever constructed at the time), though.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Thanks. I did not realize it took more energy to obtain hydrogen than you get in return.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Well, I suppose it does take more energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen than is returned when they recombine just because there will be losses associated with any process. The same is also certainly true with processes used to convert any other form of energy into electricity and then back (into kinetic energy or heat).

Even if this weren't so, the most important point that Daovonnaex makes is that hydrogen (like electricy) is merely a form that energy can be morphed into, not a real source of energy. Therefore, hydrogen cars (and electric cars) may be a solution for cleaning up the air in urban centers because their exhausts are clean; but unless we find a new, cleaner source of energy, there will have to be some conventional (usually) fossil fuel plant polluting the air in some less populated area in order to produce the hydrogen (or electricity) for those "clean" cars.

I hope that Daovonnaex is right about sololuminscent fusion, but I somehow doubt that the universe will give us an easy answer to linkage between energy production and environmental damage.

 

[Shalmanese]

Originally posted by: Daovonnaex
However, sololuminscent fusion may in the future be able to break atomic bonds.

Currently, this ranks just a little bit higher that cold fusion on the quack-o-meter unless the've done further studies replicating these results

(freight trucks account for 2% of US automotive traffic yet account for 98% of US automotive pollution). Nothing has been done to control the production of CO2 (and nothing can be done if we're dealing with conventional oil-based fuels, though natural gas certainly reduces CO2 output by a large margin)

Do you have a cite for this or is this another one of those giant conspiracies that we are supposed to belive happens on a regular basis? I VERY HIGHLY doubt that 2% of traffic could produce 98% of emmisions. Why is it then that we get the highest amount of emmisions in urban centers where CARS go yet relatively little on the freeways.

though, arguably, nothing needs to be done. Human output of CO2 account for less than one-half percent of world-wide CO2 output.

Hmm... Its nice that you fail to mention that while we OUTPUT only 1/2 of a percent of the CO2, we also don't ABSORB any CO2. If 1billion tons of CO2 was being outputted and 990,000,000 tons absorbed, then a human output of 5 million tons would be a very signficiant amount.

By the way, fossil fuel sources will likely last for another two hundred years (and that's assuming we don't discover major new reserves).

The amount of "reserves" we have is purely dependant on the price we are willing to bear for oil. If it is at current prices, its something like 30 yrs, if its 4 times current prices, it will be something like 200 yrs

It's also possible to synthesize fossil fuels, but this takes an enormous amount of energy. Oil can, however, be derived from coal and anthracite (a very, very abundant resource). Germany synthesized large quantities of gasoline from coal during World War 2, especially after losing the oil sources in Romania to the advancing Red Army. Synthetic gasoline production was crippled by allied (mostly American) bombing by late 1944, however. The Germans were working on gigantic underground synthetic oil factories by late 1944 (in addition to other underground factories--most notably Nordhausen, which was the largest underground facility ever constructed at the time), though.

 

[KenGr]

The key technology for hydrogen use is storage. The extremely high pressure required for gas/liquid storage is very difficult to manage on a widely distributed basis. Even if you accept that the accident "explosion" problem is no worse than gasoline, can you imagine giving the public access to a high pressure fueling facility? Staffed by high school dropouts? ("Hey, watch me light this one, bud.") It's going to take some re-thinking on how this could be done.

The cost issue is not a prohibitive problem since hydrogen production costs relate closely to off peak electricity costs and won't be much higher than gasoline. However, electric cars have great advantages except for the range/refueling speed problem which seems to be a killer. If we can get a battery breakthrough, either in capacity or recharge speed, hydrogen won't have a reason.

 

[Calin]

2% of the traffic will do 98% of the pollution if those 2% of the traffic carry 80% of the total tonnage
Well, the figures are obvious false, but the freight traffic carry alot more load than everything else. Another thing, trucks are made to last longer than cars, so the park of trucks is (globally) older than the park of cars.

By the way, battery powered cars are not so good in cold climate, as much of the power will be user for heating - unlike conventional engines where heating comes free.
The main problem is (in fact) space used for storage - hydrogen storage takes huge place, and a equivalent of hydrogen for 70 liters of fuel will fill your trunk if not your entire car

EDIT: when the world will start to use alcohol instead of fossil fuels? Brasil already does that

Calin

 

[grant2]

Originally posted by: dparker
Thanks. I did not realize it took more energy to obtain hydrogen than you get in return.

That's the "dirty little secret" of those hippies who moan about a lack of pure electric/alternative fuel vehicles.

Where does hydrogen come from? Electrolysis.

Where does electricity come from? Coal & Gas power plants.

That's not to say they aren't BETTER.. they're just not perfect.

 

[Mark R]

when the world will start to use alcohol instead of fossil fuels

Not for a long time - To produce alcohol equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline, takes 2 gallons of gasoline (when you count the fossil fuels used during farming, manufacture of fertilizer, and fermentation and distillation energy costs).

 

[dkozloski]

The latest estimates I have seen seem to indicate there are supplies of hydrocarbon fuels to last thousands of years. The discovery of trillions of tons of methane hydrates trapped beneath the mud at the bottom of the ocean has set the whole world of petroleum on its ear. Also the global warming alarmists are trying to throw a blanket over the discovery that the Antarctic region is far colder than previously thought and they are going to have to revise all their estimates of warming downwards or ignore real science. This ought to be easy for them as they never let the facts get in the way of their arguments in the past.

 

[Mday]

we will migrate to hydrogen when we can find a better way to store it, and to generate it.

 

[Cogman]

humm, If I'm not mistaken, Some of the buses here use Hydrogen as their main fuel. Just my $0.02

 

[resinboy]

I am a mechanic of 25 years, and have been following the future use of hydrogen in cars for quite some time. It is a reality, and is coming.
the initial cars will still have a small gas engine, used to convert h2o into compressed hydrogen: basically they said they need to gradually change us over to a hydrogen based fuel economy.
Apparently biggest pain in the ass right now is the storage: currently the highest storage vessels approved for auto use is 5000 psi ( yeah, alot), but we currently have vessels being tested for approval by the ASE that handle 10,000 psi.
They have vehicles already running on hydrogen, basically a -zero- emissions vehicle.
I do know I'll be scared shi*less working on a vehicle with a tank with 10K psi in it- can you say Hindenburgh?

Resinboy

 

[Mavrick]

No doubt that hydrogen economy is coming. Toyota's CEO, in the annual report, even mentionned that he firmly believe the future lies in hydrogen and that Toyota will definitely be ready seize that market.
Although it is true that it takes a little more energy to separate water in H and O than the recombination of those generates, massive electrolysis facilities will DEFINITELY waste a lot less energy than conventional gasoline engines do.

For example, for a gallon of fuel used for electrolysis, you will power your hydrogen car a lot longer than with a gallon of fuel in your normal car. In fact, less than 30% of the total energy generated in a gasoline engine is recuperated to move the car. The rest is all dissipated in heat and sound. At the same time, around 90% of the total energy generated by fuel in a power plant is converted in electricity (since power plants convert heat in electricity, while cars convert shockwave in kinetic energy (motion), and heat is definitely, definitely the principal energy form released in every transformations)

Well, if only a way to safely contain a reasonalble amount of hydrogen could be found, hydrogen could be a quick answer to much of our energy problems. Until that day, I think hybrid cars are clearly the way to go as they are very fuel efficient and still benefits from the wide availability of gasoline (plus, they have an incredible range).

 

[Shalmanese]

Originally posted by: Mavrick
At the same time, around 90% of the total energy generated by fuel in a power plant is converted in electricity (since power plants convert heat in electricity, while cars convert shockwave in kinetic energy (motion), and heat is definitely, definitely the principal energy form released in every transformations).

Thats Bullshit. Steam turbines arent even clost to approaching that level of efficiency let alone all the other losses you have when you add it all up. I would say 40 - 50% would be a good figure.

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: Shalmanese

Originally posted by: Mavrick
At the same time, around 90% of the total energy generated by fuel in a power plant is converted in electricity (since power plants convert heat in electricity, while cars convert shockwave in kinetic energy (motion), and heat is definitely, definitely the principal energy form released in every transformations).

Thats Bullshit. Steam turbines arent even clost to approaching that level of efficiency let alone all the other losses you have when you add it all up. I would say 40 - 50% would be a good figure.

A turbine by itself is probably about 30% efficient. However, power plants have methods of recovering wasted energy, so the plant as a whole can be around 70% efficient, IIRC from my design courses.

Ryan

 

[KenGr]

Ryan, get yourself a new professor or a new school.

The most efficient electric generating plants at this time are gas fired combined plants (gas turbine exhaust is used to create steam which runs a steam turbine). The manufacturers claim they will get over 60% but that's been difficult to achieve in practice. High 50's is better bet. Coal fired plants get into the low to mid 40's. Nuclear (really a different basis) is mid 30's. In real life internal combustion engines are somewhere in the 20's.

Note that turbines themselves are a key factor in the efficiency but the real driver is the cycle efficiency. This is directly based on the heat supplied by combustion (or other source) versus the heat rejected or lost in the process. Check out any basic Thermodynamics textbook for the details.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: Mavrick
For example, for a gallon of fuel used for electrolysis, you will power your hydrogen car a lot longer than with a gallon of fuel in your normal car.

No way! Commercial electricity generation plants manage about 40% for a reasonable coal-fired power station. Electrolysis of hydrogen is about 65% efficient. Fuel cells are about 45% efficient, and a high quality electric motor is about 90% efficient.

Total efficiency = 10%

If you burn the hydrogen rather than use a fuel cell (the only realistic way of using it for many years to come), efficiency is even lower (about 5% in total).

In fact, less than 30% of the total energy generated in a gasoline engine is recuperated to move the car.

About 20% for a gasoline engined vehicle.

At the same time, around 90% of the total energy generated by fuel in a power plant is converted in electricity

See above. However, there are some 'combined heat and power' projects which do achieve close to 90% efficiency - as well as producing electricity, hot water (containing waste heat from the power station) is pumped to a nearby town, where the mains 'hot water' supply is used to heat domestic water and power central heating systems.

Until that day, I think hybrid cars are clearly the way to go as they are very fuel efficient and still benefits from the wide availability of gasoline (plus, they have an incredible range).

They have similar efficiency to diesel engined vehicles. But are hugely more expensive and complex (toyota take a $7000 loss on every prius they sell!) That extra cost, could be spent on catalytic convertors and particulate traps for the diesel engine, which would produce no more noxious emissions than the gasoline engine, yet be considerably simpler.

IMO, hybrid vehicles may be technology, but they aren't progress.

 

[dejitaru]

I thought most of the hydrogen was supposed to come from natural gas.

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: KenGr
Ryan, get yourself a new professor or a new school.

The most efficient electric generating plants at this time are gas fired combined plants (gas turbine exhaust is used to create steam which runs a steam turbine). The manufacturers claim they will get over 60% but that's been difficult to achieve in practice. High 50's is better bet. Coal fired plants get into the low to mid 40's. Nuclear (really a different basis) is mid 30's. In real life internal combustion engines are somewhere in the 20's.

Note that turbines themselves are a key factor in the efficiency but the real driver is the cycle efficiency. This is directly based on the heat supplied by combustion (or other source) versus the heat rejected or lost in the process. Check out any basic Thermodynamics textbook for the details.

Well, it has been 2 years since my last design course, and 4 years since my basic thermo, so I'm more than happy to admit that I'm wrong.

 

[DarkLance]

To my knowledge, I believe electric cars are the most inefficent means of travel. You have duel waste! All the fossil fuels being used to creat the energy and the waste of the motor. But they are fun to drive! Anyone drive the GM HV-1? Remember that thing? I took a test drive and it was incredible! It was like crusing in a cheap Porche! Plus the ecceleration is rediculus! Imagine having a perfectly flat torque band...ahhh the burnouts you could get with that!

How about we go back to another thread? The one about remote power sources! Imagine Microwaves being beemed right down to your car!

As for Hydrogen, GM is building a new engine that has a new converter, and it is supposed to be really good, better than anything anyone else has. The only problem I see? Conglomerates. I don't think Mobile Oil is ready to give up its buisness just yet...