Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Andy wrote:Agreed that when you have electricity initially, going the H2 route does not make sense from an efficiency perspective. I will argue however that if you can get direct to H2 without the electricity intermediary at any where near 10% or better efficiency and obviously no electrolyzer use, we have a different situation. In this case we have a portable (O.K not as portable as gasoline etc. but way more portable) fuel than electricity with inherent storage advantages.

Another thing you are overlooking is that with direct solar to H2, a lot of the H2 can be produced on site or nearby rendering long distance transportation unnecessary. In other words, just like PV, this technology is most powerful when envisioned in a distributed production scenario.

Andy wrote:Pstar, as good as batteries are, they are not as good as chemical fuels especially for long term storage. I do not envision H2 powering vehicles at all. As you nicely pointed out, way too inefficient!!!!

But, in the context of a power supply heavily slanted towards renewables, particularly the variable ones, H2 represents potential smoothing storage technology. It is there to cover the odd time when you need buffer energy for example during winter when solar + batteries are not enough. It, like the other chemical fuels affords us to obtain a power flux especially for heat that batteries cannot match in specific applications. It allows us to use every last drop of renewable energy available rather than having to throw out excess if that occurs. Batteries simply are not there where that is concerned.

It is portable (less so than gasoline or propane etc. but more so than batteries). The only way in my opinion to have a 100% renewable economy is to have at least some fraction (10 - 20%) of the energy available in the form of a storable fuel for emergency situations. Otherwise we are stuck with using fossil fuels to carry out that role. Batteries simply can't do it.

Not if ITM Power has anything to do with it. This British firm, based in Sheffield, thinks that hydrogen is still the fuel of the future. It differs from others who cleave to that view in that it also thinks that instead of being delivered by an expensive, new infrastructure of pipes and storage tanks, the gas will be brewed at home by car owners using water, electricity and ITM’s proprietary technology.

The brain behind this idea is Donald Highgate, a polymers expert, who made his name in the 1970s by developing soft contact lenses. The polymer he has come up with this time is used to make what are known as proton-exchange membranes. These, depending on how the device containing them is set up, can act as the guts of a fuel cell or as its opposite, turning water and electricity into hydrogen and oxygen.

That process is known as electrolysis, and normal commercial electrolysers are chunky units placed next to power stations to produce industrial quantities of hydrogen for the chemical industry. They rely on platinum, a metal that costs twice as much as gold, to catalyse the reaction.

Existing fuel cells intended for cars are not quite so greedy. They use some platinum, but also involve membranes made of a polymer called Nafion. However, these membranes cost $500 a square metre.

ITM’s new material costs a hundredth of that, and no platinum is involved. Moreover, its superior conductivity allows the use of a thicker, more robust membrane that will last longer than one made of Nafion. The firm has also patented a simple, one-step manufacturing process: the liquid polymer is poured into a bag before being cured, a bit like an injection-moulded waffle.

Making hydrogen at home, using one of these membranes, gets around the problem of a lack of hydrogen filling stations. In

jlw61 wrote:I hope it's true. However, there is one thing that will prevent the widespread use of it in the home.

Government.

Government must have it's taxes and thus people will not be allowed to own their own hydrogen manufacturing plants thus the costs will remain high and the taxes will continue to pour in.

If there is anything that makes me wish for a true crash (and I really do not want one, but sometimes I get the urge to wish for a political reset) it is the realization that if something does save us, it will simply mean a continuation down the political road that we are on.

Not if ITM Power has anything to do with it. This British firm, based in Sheffield, thinks that hydrogen is still the fuel of the future. I

coyote wrote:What I don't understand is why this would be any better than simply using a plug-in electric vehicle. For the average commuter, I mean; I suppose hydrogen might be more convenient for long-distance driving. But for the average Joe schlepping ten miles to work, what's the advantage of this setup over a wall socket?

coyote wrote:What I don't understand is why this would be any better than simply using a plug-in electric vehicle.

mos6507 wrote:

coyote wrote:What I don't understand is why this would be any better than simply using a plug-in electric vehicle.

The big advantage of is hydrogen tanks are cheaper than batteries. Batteries are more efficient, but they are expensive and need regular replacement. This really adds to the total cost per mile of driving. When you look purely at the cost, you could make a case that a hydrogen ICE is cheaper than a BEV, despite the efficiency losses of splitting watter into hydrogen.

gnm wrote:

Not if ITM Power has anything to do with it. This British firm, based in Sheffield, thinks that hydrogen is still the fuel of the future. I

HYDROGEN IS NOT A FUEL!

-G

Dezakin wrote:And its simply much more efficient if you get the hydrogen to react it with CO2 to make DME, gasoline, diesel or some other liquid hydrocarbon so you dont have to deal with a low volumetric energy density fuel.