[karina]

Researchers found out that iron-sulfate structure might be able to replace platinum as catalyst for fuel cells. This is published in Nature ( http://www.nature.com/nature/links/050210/050210-5.html ). There seems to be a long way to go. But still this could be an important step for hydrogen energy.

[eric_b]

Researchers found out that iron-sulfate structure might be able to replace platinum as catalyst for fuel cells. This is published in Nature ( http://www.nature.com/nature/links/050210/050210-5.html ). There seems to be a long way to go. But still this could be an important step for hydrogen energy.

Hydrogen fuel cells are not the issue, IMO. They will eventually
be developed.

The issue is hydrogen is not a primary energy source -- it
just has the potential of being a great way of storing energy.

Burning fossil fuels to create hydrogen puts you back at
square one. Unless we a) switch over to nuclear or b)
cover the state of NM with solar panels to c) make the
electricity to generate hydrogen, it solves nothing.

One item (which appeared recently here on PO) is
the development of a titanium solar powered device
which uses sunlight to break water down to get hydrogen.
A step in the right direction.

-Eric B

[Dezakin]

This entire thread is silly. Whats the best way to store hydrogen?

Heres a hint: the molecule looks like this:

HHHHHHHHHH
HCCCCCCCCCH
HHHHHHHHHH

And its ordinary diesel fuel.

When the oil is gone we'll make it from nuclear energy, limestone and water. Or CO2 from the atmosphere if we're still worried about it.

[savethehumans]

Here's something from our wonderful media--good for a laugh and a cry at the same time!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipe for hydrogen fuel not far away
Experts: Metal powder may be key ingredient in future energy source
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
Inside Bay Area

The world's first major steps out of the age of carbon and into a new era of hydrogen energy could be five, 10 years away or more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So which IS it, guys? Seems to me that the Great Breakthrough is ALWAYS just 5-10 years away....

[Optimist]

Here is something I posted on one of the other threads:

Hydrogen will always be several times more expensive than gasoline, for the simple reason that there is no efficient way of making hydrogen. Never will be. It is the thermodynamics of hydrogen that determines that, so no amount of research is going to change that.

Think of it in these terms: Climbing the Everest will always require more energy/exercise than climbing to Base Camp. Advances climbing technology may make it easier to reach Everest than it was ten years ago, but it is still more work than reaching Base Camp. Hydrogen is the undisputed Everest of fuels.

Now sit back and watch the Hydrogen Economy become the latest victim of Everest.

[FoxV]

I haven't read all the posts on this topic so has anybody mentioned also the efficiency of fuel cells.

The fuel cell operates at about 60% efficiency (newer designs can reach 70%)
the remaining 40% is lost as heat. Also add to that electric motors are about 90% efficient. This gives a fuel cell car 63% efficiency at best.

This is much better than the 20% to 30% you get from a combustion engine (even if you use hydrogen for combustion btw), but if we're in an energy deprived society than 63% efficiency won't be good enough, and this doesn't include the efficiency of the hydrogen production.

I think the only solution is home electric generation (wind/solar/hydro) with electric cars (80% efficient). Unfortunately this requires improvements to battery technology and solar cells which; guess what; are about 5 to 10 years away

[0mar]

This entire thread is silly. Whats the best way to store hydrogen?

Heres a hint: the molecule looks like this:

HHHHHHHHHH
HCCCCCCCCCH
HHHHHHHHHH

And its ordinary diesel fuel.

When the oil is gone we'll make it from nuclear energy, limestone and water. Or CO2 from the atmosphere if we're still worried about it.

what the hell are you talking about. Nuclear power isn't the answer because

1. Expensive. Reactors cost about 7-8 billion dollars a piece.
2. Time-consuming. It takes 7-10 years to build a single reactor.

We are going to be balls to the wall with electricity supply. By 2010, we will be facing a massive natural gas crisis because of declining production complicated with rising demand. Alberta is in decline too, so we won't even be able to import our way out of this. We won't have excess energy to synthesize hydrocarbons from scratch. And because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it'll be more efficent to simply use that energy used in synthesis to be used as is, instead of being used to fuel a chemical synthesis.

[Starvid]

I believe your facts are somewhat faulty. A reactor cost 2-3 billion dollars, not 7-8. This means that the cost of nuclear electricity is on par with coal-fired production.

Nor does it take 7-10 years to build a reactor, more like 4-5 years when we look at the recent japanese constructions. It will be very interesting seeing how long it takes to build the ordered 1.6 GW EPR:s in Finland and France.

These two facts doesn't necesarilly mean hydrogen is a good future energy carrier. I'd rather see electric trains and trams, and nuclear-powered ships, since those technologies are mature, tried and tested with over 50 years of experience.

[0mar]

I believe your facts are somewhat faulty. A reactor cost 2-3 billion dollars, not 7-8. This means that the cost of nuclear electricity is on par with coal-fired production.

Nor does it take 7-10 years to build a reactor, more like 4-5 years when we look at the recent japanese constructions. It will be very interesting seeing how long it takes to build the ordered 1.6 GW EPR:s in Finland and France.

These two facts doesn't necesarilly mean hydrogen is a good future energy carrier. I'd rather see electric trains and trams, and nuclear-powered ships, since those technologies are mature, tried and tested with over 50 years of experience.

Your numbers are probably right because I'm basing my facts on the last reactors that were built in the US. Undoubtedly, there are better technologies now.

[cube]

.....Your numbers are probably right because I'm basing my facts on the last reactors that were built in the US. Undoubtedly, there are better technologies now.

Maybe the reason why it took so long and costed so much was because the lawyers took all the money and they spent more time in the courtroom then actually building the damn thing. Sure wouldn't surprise me. One reason why it costs so much to build a freeway these days is because of all the "legalities". However the only thing that would have more "legalities" would be a nuke plant.

I think nuke power has been unfairly given a bad reputation.

[0mar]

.....Your numbers are probably right because I'm basing my facts on the last reactors that were built in the US. Undoubtedly, there are better technologies now.

Maybe the reason why it took so long and costed so much was because the lawyers took all the money and they spent more time in the courtroom then actually building the damn thing. Sure wouldn't surprise me. One reason why it costs so much to build a freeway these days is because of all the "legalities". However the only thing that would have more "legalities" would be a nuke plant.

I think nuke power has been unfairly given a bad reputation.

Of this, I completely agree. Nuclear power would have been an asset, not a liability.

[ForeignObserver]

At the risk of posting a link that might have been posted previously, the following presents the challenges of hydrogen :-

Heading toward hydrogen


Pipedreams!

[t]

The future is now? www.starrotor.com

[Devil]

The future is now? www.starrotor.com

Answer at http://peakoil.com/post89226.html#89226

[ArimoDave]

What concerns me about building nukes in the U.S. is that when the general public comes to realize that it is about our only recourse, they will then be built in a hurry, and without all the safety inspections (lowest bidder). Also, it will likely be too late to get them on-line to stave-off our energy crisis. Transporing and storing hydrogen is significant problem, and I don't think that this is a viable. Better, I think, is to get power (a lot of power) to local "filling stations" where one can quickly charge their car battery. I don't believe that the U.S. economy can survive without personal transportation. I often have to drive 30 plus miles to get to work.

[Devil]

What concerns me about building nukes in the U.S. is that when the general public comes to realize that it is about our only recourse, they will then be built in a hurry, and without all the safety inspections (lowest bidder). Also, it will likely be too late to get them on-line to stave-off our energy crisis. Transporing and storing hydrogen is significant problem, and I don't think that this is a viable. Better, I think, is to get power (a lot of power) to local "filling stations" where one can quickly charge their car battery. I don't believe that the U.S. economy can survive without personal transportation. I often have to drive 30 plus miles to get to work.

One question: where is the electricity coming from to charge the batteries of 500 million cars?

[ArimoDave]

What concerns me about building nukes in the U.S. is that when the general public comes to realize that it is about our only recourse, they will then be built in a hurry, and without all the safety inspections (lowest bidder). Also, it will likely be too late to get them on-line to stave-off our energy crisis. Transporing and storing hydrogen is significant problem, and I don't think that this is a viable. Better, I think, is to get power (a lot of power) to local "filling stations" where one can quickly charge their car battery. I don't believe that the U.S. economy can survive without personal transportation. I often have to drive 30 plus miles to get to work.

One question: where is the electricity coming from to charge the batteries of 500 million cars?

Hopefully, a lot of Nukes with most being breeders; eventually, too, fusion reactors. Fusion may be a long way off however. Also, I would like to see as much PV and wind as practical. Howeve, don't destroy too much wildlife habitat in the process.

[Devil]

What concerns me about building nukes in the U.S. is that when the general public comes to realize that it is about our only recourse, they will then be built in a hurry, and without all the safety inspections (lowest bidder). Also, it will likely be too late to get them on-line to stave-off our energy crisis

One question: where is the electricity coming from to charge the batteries of 500 million cars?

Hopefully, a lot of Nukes with most being breeders;

Aren't you contradicting yourself????

[baldwincng]

When I joined British Gas in 1983, the R&D prediction for 1990 was for 5 plants built on the coast of the UK that converted millions of tones of imported coal into natural gas, injecting that gas into the existing gas transmission system. In 1990, the electricity industry was predicting that UK’s electricity in 2000 would come from coal and nuclear. Well, in 2005 natural gas now provides around 45% of the UK's electricity and a number of new gas fired power plants are being built to provide the electricity lost as the UK closes down the majority of its nuclear industry in the next 10 years. The coal to gas guys have long retired.

Instead, a worldwide revolution in LNG (liquefied natural gas) is taking place with 3 massive new LNG importation terminals being constructed today in the UK - these alone will be able to import around 50% of the UK's total gas requirement! Why? Because the world is awash with natural gas and will be for many decades to come after we have arrived at Peak Oil day. There are no stranded gas reserves anymore as most countries that produce oil now alkso make LNG for quota free exports to the West. Which leads onto hydrogen.

Hydrogen is a very poor means of storing fuel because its so hard to make. To make hydrogen requires a huge incremental amount of energy which can only come from natural gas (often imported as LNG) as long as we have a de-facto moratorium in the US and UK on nuclear power (renewables are great and help a bit but will never be in surplus which is what they’d have to be for hydrogen to make sense). It is utterly pointless building new gas fired power stations to make electricity, then wasting lots of energy in transmitting that electricity to local hydrogen electrolysis plants. It is equally pointless transporting natural gas and then using huge amounts of energy to convert it to hydrogen!

Why not just burn natural gas in the cars instead? Natural gas grids exist and have lots of spare capacity (because they were often built for towns gas which had a much lower energy content). Cars and trucks and buses happily run on CNG – it only costs a few hundred pounds to convert a car. The UK has invested around $200 billion in grids for natural gas, electricity and telecoms. These are the 3 utilities required to make CNG….for around $2 billion, the cost of a few thousand CNG filling stations, we could all be driving around on natural gas, which is far cleaner than diesel or petrol. Puts off Peak Oil day for a while and helps air quality, reducing global warming too.

In the end, it is a question of ‘economics, stupid’. Iran has an almost limitless supply of natural gas. It also has major air quality problems due to petrol pollution in its cities and a growing population that wants to drive cars. Rather than build new refineries, spending billions to turn precious, exportable oil into petrol, they have decided that by 2020 most of their cars trucks and buses will run on CNG. No downsides, no need to make all that electricity to manufacture hydrogen. Any western countries that have gone down the do-lally hydrogen path will be unable to compete with Iran or India or China or eastern Europe, anyone that takes advantage of the worldwide surplus of natural gas…

Why has the German Government fixed the fuel duty on CNG at the EU minimum until 2020 – because it cannot afford the environmental and financial cost of having to make hydrogen and because it cannot afford the strategic risk of relying on Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia for its oil supplies in 2020. German gas companies are building 1000 CNG filling stations and all the major car manufacturers now make cars that run on CNG. A transformation is taking place today, but it’s not hydrogen.

[Devil]

You still ignore the FACT that NG is the worst GHG of the ordinary fuel sources and is already the most rapidly increasing GHG in the atmosphere. If we were to follow your tenets, it will overtake CO2 in 50 years, by which time we'll probably be frying, anyway.