Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Hydrogen Based Fuel In 3-5 Years- 90P A G A L L O N


Recommended Posts

This is not an area that I know anything about (which may well be obvious from my question).

Does electricity (in general as opposed to its use in cars) have a positive EROEI? Off the top of my head, I would have guessed that it was negative both in the production and transmission phases but that it caught on despite this weakness due to its incredible convenience.

The EROEI refers to the source energy medium. Electrcitity is not a source energy. It's what we make from a source energy. In terms of electricity production, the energy cancome from any number of sources that can be harnessed to turn a dynamo. For the most part, it's hydrocarbons. So, when you consume electicity, you are indirectly consuming hydrocarbons.

Edited by tallguy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1351341/Relief-pumps-Revolutionary-hydrogen-fuel-cost-just-90p-GALLON-run-existing-cars.html

British scientists 'invent artificial petrol' that could cost just 90p per GALLON (and there's no carbon)
A revolutionary synthetic fuel which costs just 90p per gallon
and will run in existing cars
could spell the end of sky-high prices at the pumps.

The Arabs and big oil will NOT like this. These mooshes might want to refrain from hillwalking holidays.

Funny thing, one of my in-laws who works for an advanced chemical engineering company told me that diesel was about to die because of some "new technology" about to be released that would revolutionise fuel. Seems that this may be it. Quick--dump your oil burners and go petrol! SELL SELL SELL!!!

But that said--the government will find a way of taxing water (H) used in the fuel so that we are no better orf at the pump.

The real question, unanswered by the article, is whether the production of this hydrogen is done WITHOUT using carbon fuels in the first place. If so then it's the miracle we need. It would deal with pollution (and even global warming carbon problems for believers) in one amazing hit. The only process I am aware of which had any chance of success is an aussie invention whih uses a special catalyst, which when usedwithdraws hydrogen from water without using any energy atall. That process is being developed to try and produce industrial quantities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are using a novel way to store the hydrogen, that works at room temperature and at normal air pressure + does not require any new infrastructure at the final delivery stage, or modifications to the vehicles:

http://www.cellaenergy.com/index.php?page=technology

It's also energy dense enough to compete with and potentially surpass petrol.

That site is bullsh*t It give no information of any kind that is factually or emphirically verifiable.

Snake oil

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1351341/Relief-pumps-Revolutionary-hydrogen-fuel-cost-just-90p-GALLON-run-existing-cars.html

British scientists 'invent artificial petrol' that could cost just 90p per GALLON (and there's no carbon)
A revolutionary synthetic fuel which costs just 90p per gallon
and will run in existing cars
could spell the end of sky-high prices at the pumps.

The Arabs and big oil will NOT like this. These mooshes might want to refrain from hillwalking holidays.

Funny thing, one of my in-laws who works for an advanced chemical engineering company told me that diesel was about to die because of some "new technology" about to be released that would revolutionise fuel. Seems that this may be it. Quick--dump your oil burners and go petrol! SELL SELL SELL!!!

But that said--the government will find a way of taxing water (H) used in the fuel so that we are no better orf at the pump.

Cheap fuel for the masses?

NEVER

Not in our lifetime

Honestly RB, you of all people should know better

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that hydrocarbons still have a long way to run as the major source for all power generation. As far as the much hyped hydrogen economy goes then I dont know that much about it whatsoever except that the majority of hydrogen that is being produced is derived from natural gas. .....

I've taken a look at the UGC pilot being carried out right now in Scotland by BCG Energy, and the syngas produced will be CO and H2. They intend to separate the two gasses and run the H2 through ceramic fuel cells to generate electricity. According to this LINK:

"Once the coal is gasified, it is maintained by continuous oxidant flow which converts it into syngas, a combustible hydrogen-rich synthetic gas. The syngas is piped to the surface and undergoes a number of cleaning processes before going through a water gas shift reaction to enrich the hydrogen content of the gas stream. The hydrogen is then extracted from the resultant gas by pressure swing absorption (PSA), separating the gas into two streams, one pure hydrogen and the other pure CO2. The hydrogen stream will feed the high efficiency AFC Energy fuel cells, generating electricity with water as a by-product. By requiring the output energy gases to be converted to obtain hydrogen, a by-product of this process is the free capture of CO2, usually the most expensive component of CCS. At least 99% of the carbon present in the syngas can be captured in this process and is then available for storage. "

The CO is to be burnt and sequestered according to the corporate website - I suppose it could be pumped into North Sea oil fields to increase the yield.

As for running cars on H2 - it's already being done - conventional vehicles like Ford Focus petrol and diesel engined cars converted to dual fuel by ITM Power LINK. They are being trialled at several paces in the UK - mostly fleets in the public sector. Why? Because unlike electric cars they can be refuelled in minutes several times a day, and are more or less bog standard motors without the hefty price premium of electric vehicles.

appFleetRefuel.jpg

Using hydrogen as a fuel on an industrial scale isn't new at all though - the Victorians did it with 'town gas' derived from coal; the UK only stopped doing it in the 1960s when North Sea gas came on stream in large quantities.

(edit for speeeling)

Edited by newbonic
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how an existing petrol engine will run on hydrogen gas seeing as they are programmed to maintain an optimum air/fuel ratio of 14.7:1.

And has been said, hydrogen is not energy, it's a storage medium. Also, ICE are only 30-40% efficient so it's very wasteful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how an existing petrol engine will run on hydrogen gas seeing as they are programmed to maintain an optimum air/fuel ratio of 14.7:1.

And has been said, hydrogen is not energy, it's a storage medium. Also, ICE are only 30-40% efficient so it's very wasteful.

Yes they do. ITM have had duel fuel cars running on hydrogen and petrol/diesel for several years now. Actual street legal cars running on British roads. Fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they do. ITM have had duel fuel cars running on hydrogen and petrol/diesel for several years now. Actual street legal cars running on British roads. Fact.

Yes I realise that, but those cars are modified, like an LPG conversion. The article say this technology will work in existing cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I realise that, but those cars are modified, like an LPG conversion. The article say this technology will work in existing cars.

ITM are running Focusses and Transits as duel fuel vehicles - they're existing cars aren't they. They can switch between either fuel, just as some cars with LPG tanks in the boot can switch between fuels. When the H2 runs out (circa 100 mile range at the moment) then they can switch to petrol or diesel. If the UGC technology takes off then I would imaging there would be a good supply of H2 for such cars. Or pure h2 fuel cell cars for that matter, as well as ICE engined vehicles.

Edited by newbonic
Link to post
Share on other sites

ITM are running Focusses and Transits as duel fuel vehicles - they're existing cars aren't they. They can switch between either fuel, just as some cars with LPG tanks in the boot can switch between fuels. When the H2 runs out (circa 100 mile range at the moment) then they can switch to petrol or diesel. If the UGC technology takes off then I would imaging there would be a good supply of H2 for such cars. Or pure h2 fuel cell cars for that matter, as well as ICE engined vehicles.

I think it's misleading to say "existing" vehicles, they are converted/modified vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cell running an electric motor powered vehicle is the way to go - flat torque/power curve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are using a novel way to store the hydrogen, that works at room temperature and at normal air pressure + does not require any new infrastructure at the final delivery stage, or modifications to the vehicles:

http://www.cellaenergy.com/index.php?page=technology

It's also energy dense enough to compete with and potentially surpass petrol.

Unless you mean storing hydrogen by having it as part of a chemical compound, you mean this -->

hindenburg06.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question, unanswered by the article, is whether the production of this hydrogen is done WITHOUT using carbon fuels in the first place. If so then it's the miracle we need. It would deal with pollution (and even global warming carbon problems for believers) in one amazing hit. The only process I am aware of which had any chance of success is an aussie invention whih uses a special catalyst, which when usedwithdraws hydrogen from water without using any energy atall. That process is being developed to try and produce industrial quantities.

That is simply not possible as it violates the laws of physics. If it was possible, you could extract the hydrogen from water, burn it, collect the water vapour it produces, run it back through the catalyst and create a perpetual motion device.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion one of the most likely major production of hydrogen sources in the future will be a combination of nuclear power, methane and steam reforming. We have a vast network of existing natural gas pipelines all over the world. If we were to build a nuclear power station adjacent to a pipeline then we could tap into some of the methane which could be used as a feedstock for a local steam reforming process. The produced hydrogen could be fed back into the existing methane pipeline thereby enriching it by decarbonisation thus vastly increasing its energy density

http://www.getenergy...nereforming.pdf

Hydrogen has an energy density of 10 kJ/l, methane has an energy density of 38 kJ/l. Hydrogen has a higher energy density per kg, but I'm not sure that is so important. The fact that hydrogen atoms are so small and so light means they escape easily, and it is much more difficult to stop them leaking out of the pipeline or storage container.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not going to have anything like the impact you would think, the government needs the tax revenue from petrol so the levy will just move to electricity

If there was wide adoption the problem would then surface that the uk grid cant even cope with current demand, there has been massive under investment in power generation and to put even a tiny extra demand on the system would cause widespread brownouts, doubling demand and the country would grind to a halt, so electricity prices would increase by much more than the tax there would be a demand premium too.

The only quick way to bring new electricity on stream is gas, just at the time the north sea is running out and there is no storage in the uk , the best hope Europe has is shale gas from Poland and the baltic states which will be first to come on stream, the uk shales/coal bed methane could possibly provide max 25% of current usage but will take much longer to come on stream and are much less prolific. Plus widespread use of gas will push its calorific price back to parity with oil thus negating any cost benefit in the first place. If a car is going to run on hydrogen produced with electricity produced from gas its better to use LNG in the car in the first place.

Nuclear is a non starter, without subsidy it is still not cost efficient given the massive capital costs and Nimby nature of the UK, nuclear is going to provide less power as plant is retired rather than more.

The uk electricity industry is up to its eyeballs in debt and cannot access large amounts of capital in the markets, given the government debt situation it will be a big problem even maintaining current capacity.

The US with an abundance of gas should be leading the way with LNG rather than electric cars,compact countries like japan and korea who have no oil or gas but can build Nuclear plants wherever they like with no transmission issues either and have big infrastructure companies to do it at competitive prices ( korea is the world leader here ) should be following a path to electric transport .

Link to post
Share on other sites

The EROEI refers to the source energy medium. Electrcitity is not a source energy. It's what we make from a source energy. In terms of electricity production, the energy cancome from any number of sources that can be harnessed to turn a dynamo. For the most part, it's hydrocarbons. So, when you consume electicity, you are indirectly consuming hydrocarbons.

Thanks for that.

So electricity generation is merely a transformation process with a lot of leakage in the generation and transmission processes so that, at present, you probably get less energy out than you put in.

This gap will probably reduce as we take on more renewables assuming that the technology produces more energy than it consumes over its total useful life including construction, transport, maintenence, eventual dismantling and destruction of the turbines, solar panels etc etc.

As an aside, are electric cars not really just a pollution exporting scheme when you consider the hydrocarbons used to generate the electricity, transport the cars from their place of manufacture to the consumer, mine, refine and transport the battery materials etc etc?

To call them zero emissions vehicles seems to be a bit misguided to me unless I am missing something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that hydrogen atoms are so small and so light means they escape easily, and it is much more difficult to stop them leaking out of the pipeline or storage container.

Unless you have found a way of densely packing hydrogen into tiny beads that can be poured or pumped like a liquid, as the company we are discussing claims to have done ;)

How would that change the "hydrogen economy" I wonder?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you have found a way of densely packing hydrogen into tiny beads that can be poured or pumped like a liquid, as the company we are discussing claims to have done ;)

How would that change the "hydrogen economy" I wonder?

And mass producing it?

I remember reading stuff about carbon nanotubes doing X, Y and Z once. It was all true but they could only make the things by the micro-gram and no-one seems to have solved that problem yet. This seems to be the general trend with nanotechnologies. As Tony the tiger would say, they're great.... shame no-one can mass produce them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And mass producing it?

Yes. From their website:

"The coaxial electrospinning process that Cella uses is simple and industrially scalable, it can be used to create micron scale micro-fibres or micro-beads nano-porous polymers filled with the chemical hydride. Cella believes that this technology can produce an inexpensive, compound material that can be handled safely in air, operates at low pressures and temperatures and has sufficiently high hydrogen concentration and rapid desorption kinetics to be useful for transport applications."

The boffin in charge is this gent:

http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/People/stephen_bennington5778.html

You can read more about the coaxial electrospinning process here, in his paper on the subject:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp107871v

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see the HPC Space Cadet unit in full flow

Unless a limitless and cheap source of energy is found Hydrogen ain't going to happen on an industrial scale.

I remember reading in the early 90s there was very promising research on geothermal energy but that the oil business had lobbied it out of existence. This was broad application geothermal, not for places like Iceland where the steam jets out of the ground. Never heard a thing since. Has to be the most sustainable and reliable form of energy you can get. Sure to be more to it, but you just need two holes down to hot rock, make some cracks between them, water in, steam out, as long as the centre of the earth remains hot of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading in the early 90s there was very promising research on geothermal energy but that the oil business had lobbied it out of existence. This was broad application geothermal, not for places like Iceland where the steam jets out of the ground. Never heard a thing since. Has to be the most sustainable and reliable form of energy you can get. Sure to be more to it, but you just need two holes down to hot rock, make some cracks between them, water in, steam out, as long as the centre of the earth remains hot of course.

Drilling holes to the sort of depths you are talking about is very very expensive hence the reason you only see geothermal applications in locations with hot rocks close to the surface.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. From their website:

"The coaxial electrospinning process that Cella uses is simple and industrially scalable.

Ah yes of course they've said so on their website. And their one paper on the topic in a scientific journal proves that because they can show a few scanning electron microscope images they must be able to make this stuff by the ton.

Here's their CEO pitching his last success to the Dragon's Den.

and here's what investors in his last enterprise thought The Fool.

And here's Cella Energy on Facebook: http://www.facebook....150856928301659

after it was founded in... 2011. So lots of time to have perfected their techniques I guess. Electrospinning indeed, Peter Mandelson would just call it spinning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.