Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

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


Recommended Posts

Retro fit some old tankers with windmills. Park them out in the ocean and have them break down sea water for hydrogen. If the wind doesn't blow for a week, no problem, they just take longer to fill. Could even fit them with a machine to make these beads. All powered by the hydrogen produced, as are the tankers engines. When the tanker is full just drive it into port, empty and repeat. Fuel for nothing, just the up front capital costs.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

You are quite correct. An electric vehicle is indeed a pollution exportation device. There are some advantages, of course, in that since the hydrocarbons are all burned in the one place at a power station, it is much easier to control emissions and burn the hydrocarbons with maximum efficiency at this one site as oppoased to trying to control them in each and every vehicle. Nevertheless, what you say is basically right. Also, electric vehicles don't get round the central problem of where the energy actually comes from in the first place.

Electricity can be produced from renewables, of course. The trouble with them, though, is that the speed of flow is far too slow in terms of being a replacement for hydrocarbons. Or, at least, they are no good as a replacement for a 21st century industrial cvilization of 7 billion.

The fact is, there are just too damned many of us and, in the absence of an energy source that is as energy dense and as portable as hydrocarbons (in particular, light sweet crude oil), we're basically screwed. The "war on terror", the "credit crunch", the riots erupting all around the world; they are all symptoms of this growing resource crisis.

It's only going to get worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not convinced that we will run out of hydrocarbon energy sources in the near term. I don't think anyone can predict this scenario with any degree of accuracy although we should plan to exploit higher performing hydrocarbon resources. I think we will see a massive uptake in synthetic hydrocarbons, which will for all intents and purposes be a major component of the methane age and during this stage we should start getting serious about nuclear.

The hydrogen based economy may not be as outlandish as we think it is. This could well be a quantum leap that we haven't yet factored in.

US NAVY has plans to make synthetic hydrocarbons from sea water and CO2 ... as their aircraft carriers nuclear reactors are not very busy 90% of the time ....

this can be attractive for French .. they produce 70% of electricity from nukes so they should have a plenty of spare capacity during nights ...

IMO we should follow the French model plus explore how to produce and store hydrogen or hydrocarbons + plus invest in Thorium and finish fusion ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Retro fit some old tankers with windmills. Park them out in the ocean and have them break down sea water for hydrogen. If the wind doesn't blow for a week, no problem, they just take longer to fill. Could even fit them with a machine to make these beads. All powered by the hydrogen produced, as are the tankers engines. When the tanker is full just drive it into port, empty and repeat. Fuel for nothing, just the up front capital costs.

hmm ... so instead of one nuclear power plant (2GWs) we would need about 2000 tankers with 2000 windmills

have you ever heard about maintenance ????

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are products which are nearly ready to hit the market which should revolutionise electricity generation and transmission. Ceramic Fuels from Australia have units out on test with most of the worlds large gas suppliers including Eon here in the UK.

The unit works within a decentralised network where gas generates electricity many times more efficiently than gas fired power stations. The unused electricity is given a feed in tariff. The byproduct of heat production is used to supply all of an average homes hot water and also towards heating.

It is a triple whammy game changer.

1. Less capital spend on an ailing infrastructure.

2. massive increases in efficiency of generation and transmission.

3. Effective use of byproducts

Remember you heard it here first

These fuel cells are not as amazing as you make out , they produce electricity + heat , the electricity is produced at moderate efficiency, the heat is the byproduct which is where the remaining energy comes from , so you heat your house , basically rather than the power station using a cooling tower you use the radiator , great in the winter , in the summer basically you have a load of excess heat you are producing and some then not so cheap electricity , clearly in a car its not going to work unless you are driving to the north pole, again LNG power in the car is the best option .

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite correct. An electric vehicle is indeed a pollution exportation device. There are some advantages, of course, in that since the hydrocarbons are all burned in the one place at a power station, it is much easier to control emissions and burn the hydrocarbons with maximum efficiency at this one site as oppoased to trying to control them in each and every vehicle. Nevertheless, what you say is basically right. Also, electric vehicles don't get round the central problem of where the energy actually comes from in the first place.

Electricity can be produced from renewables, of course. The trouble with them, though, is that the speed of flow is far too slow in terms of being a replacement for hydrocarbons. Or, at least, they are no good as a replacement for a 21st century industrial cvilization of 7 billion.

The fact is, there are just too damned many of us and, in the absence of an energy source that is as energy dense and as portable as hydrocarbons (in particular, light sweet crude oil), we're basically screwed. The "war on terror", the "credit crunch", the riots erupting all around the world; they are all symptoms of this growing resource crisis.

It's only going to get worse.

Thank you very much.

As an interested novice who is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, I appreciate your help in understanding the problems.

If you are up for it, can you help me with renewables a bit more. My understanding of power generation is that there are baseload plants and peaker plants (as their name suggests, to deal with demand spikes). Baseload plants are cheap and efficient while peaker plants are expensive and inefficient as they need to be started and stopped often.

Renewables may not be reliable enough (dams get low, the wind stops blowing, it gets cloudy, slack water between tides, rivers dry up etc) to materially reduce our reliance on traditional baseload plants without materially increasing our contingent generation with more inefficient peaker plants. Do you have a view on the subsitution effect of renewables on baseload plants and the extra costs of peaker plants to deal with the uncertainty of renewable supply?

Finally, I do agree that resource limitations are going to be a problem for us. Energy is the one talked about often but I also wonder about water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Electospinning has been around since 1902...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrospinning

Co-axial electrospinning is already in use on large scales for the production of hydrophobic fibres and other "smart fabrics". They are merely using existing proven technology in a novel fashion.

The company was started to productise their developments, and are talking about 5 years before this starts to be available so the fact the company was started in 2011 has nothing to do with anything, all the research has been done in the academic realm.

I look forward to your critique of professor Bennington's 169 published papers :lol:

http://epubs.cclrc.ac.uk/search?mpp=20&so=yd&all=Y&q=sm%20bennington

Do tell, how many papers do you have published about nanotechnology? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Electospinning has been around since 1902...

Thanks for the links. Have you actually looked at them yourself?

From your wikipedia link:

The majority of early patents for electrospinning were for textile applications, however little woven fabric was actually produced, perhaps due to difficulties in handling the barely visible fibres.
Application is limited by difficulties in making sufficient quantities of fibre to make substantial large scale articles in a reasonable time scale. For this reason medical applications requiring relatively small amounts of fibre are a popular area of application for electrospun fibre reinforced materials.

I can see that you are impressed by the number of publications this guy has but even a quick glance at the list shows that most of them have nothing to do with electrospinning.

No I haven't published any papers on nanotechnology but nor do I doubt this guys credibility as a scientist. But then I'm sure he didn't write the press release. You don't have to publish papers in a field to understand that start-ups always oversell themselves. The management of the company will be as important as the science in terms of whether this goes anywhere but then I notice you haven't commented on the CEO's last venture, I'll bet that technology was only 5 years away from revolutionising the world too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

That is the only thing I would agree with you about. However, the hypothesis is utter codswallop I reckon. The miracle cure for cancer has been 3-5 years away for the last twenty :)

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.

The method that you use is to generate the hydrogen in locations that have a large potential excess of solar that cannot be used locally.

You have then generated the hydrogen for free (apart from the cost of building the site).

Of course, these places are far away from where the energy is needed so you have to transport it to where you want to use it. So the equation that you need to solve is: "can you transport the hydrogen to where it is needed, for less energy that it provides"? I don't actually know the answer to that.

tim

Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostHyperduck Quack Quack, on 28 January 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:

Hydrogen takes more energy to produce than you get back from it.

But if we generate it from "free" solar power that fact is irrelevent.

tim

+1

Yes. Anyone disagree??

EROEI doesn't apply here??

Funny how a truth can be buried under so much confusion.

??

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Yes. Anyone disagree??

EROEI doesn't apply here??

Funny how a truth can be buried under so much confusion.

??

Solar power isn't free. Apart from the fact that it costs money, there is an opportunity cost from not using the electricity directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mail article does not explain what these nanospheres are made of, but it is reasonable to presume they are supposed to be buckminster-fullerenes. Which are made of Carbon, typically about 70 C atoms. I wonder how many H2 molecules could be held inside each one. Not that many.

So when this fuel is burnt, the Hydrogen makes H2O, and the Carbon makes... CO and CO2

Zero-carbon claims sound like BS to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more referring to the recharging of electrically powered vehicles in the future. Most of the UK is piped for gas down to a local level so it will be a product that most of us could use on a day to day basis. Unfortunately 2/3rds of the year there is a requirement for heating in the UK so the by-product is extremely useful, the excess heat can also be used for heating hot water which we all use 365 days a year.

With regards to efficiency levels it operates at around 60/65% electrical efficiency which is massively more efficient than coal powered electricity generation (around 25%) before any transmission losses. If we had one of these running at home it is possible that the excess electricity that the owner is generating could be used to charge an electric vehicle. The electricity being produced is massively cheaper than that already being generated and transmitted using current methods. Obviously it isn't that straight forward but to dismiss it in such an off hand manner is perhaps a little short sighted.

We still come back to the problem that you are generating electricity from natural gas, which the uk is fast running out of and has the added problem of no storage for imported LNG or other gas, the new shale gas or coal gas etc will not make up for the vast north sea deposits which are now spent, from a global perspective the best use for the gas we have is transportation and nitrogen fertilizer, electricity production is quick and cheap to ramp up but in some way is a sqandering of a natural resource.

As far as solar goes, it will not solve our problems either, in many respects plants are the most efficient low capital solar power units, palm oil is natures most efficient way of converting sunlight into a usable hydrocarbon by a long way, even this gets the environmentalists going crazy as a few orangutangs may be effected and if you consider that the world produces 150 million tonnes a year of all forms of farmed/vegitable oils and consumes 8,000 million tonnes of normal oil you can see that using all soybean oil,sunflower, rape , olive, palm etc as biodiesel would just provide 2% of the worlds pumped oil , so plastering the world with solar cells / plants to try make up for the millions of years of sunlight in our hydrocarbons is not going to work !

Ultimately what will happen is hydrocarbons will become properly expensive, and countries that do not produce a lot of added value will not be able to afford them, the days of a person in the uk on benefits being able to even think about running a car or even a low/average paid worker will be over for good ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

They said nuclear power generated electricity would be cheap in the 50s, still waiting.

'too cheap to meter' is something of an invented quote, I believe..

But had we the courage to have kept the nuclear program rolling, instead of having it derailed by a toxic combination of environmentalists, free marketeers and the coal lobby, we would have relatively low and stable prices in electricity, combined with the potential of the vast amount of off-peak electricity required to make any synthetic fuel/EV approach workable.

As far as this invention goes.. the amount of hydrogen you can absorb on this stuff will determine it's usefulness, but I suspect that their quoted range is at the extreme end of plausibility; chances are you'll be lucky to get 100 miles out of a tank.

I've always considered methanol a superior alternative fuel, it's relatively easy to make using hydrogen and any carbon containing material - including CO2 for a fully closed cycle - and it is pretty similar to petrol apart from the 135 octane rating (IIRC). Electric cars are excellent for your average suburban family as a second car (the one that never ventures more than 10 miles from home).

Ultimately, when it comes to energy, this kind of 'breakthrough' is not particularly relevant. It's what is happening at the base of the energy supply that matters; or to make a soundbite:

'Given sufficient primary energy, EVERY environmental and resource based problem facing our society can be fixed, using current technology'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes definitely food for thought.

Its strange that the US have used nuclear to power their navy for so ling but just dont seem to be able to get their act together on nuclear waste storage, which from what I can see is the only remaining stumbling bock with US Nuclear Energy Policy.

I am sure that the US is meticulously carrying out R& D on Thorium right now given that they have very large proven reserves of this mineral in their own country.

Their act is quite good. Averaging some 100gw of nuclear electricity much higher than any other country.

Best yet they achieve 92% capacity vs the French at sub 80%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are products which are nearly ready to hit the market which should revolutionise electricity generation and transmission. Ceramic Fuels from Australia have units out on test with most of the worlds large gas suppliers including Eon here in the UK.

The unit works within a decentralised network where gas generates electricity many times more efficiently than gas fired power stations. The unused electricity is given a feed in tariff. The byproduct of heat production is used to supply all of an average homes hot water and also towards heating.

It is a triple whammy game changer.

1. Less capital spend on an ailing infrastructure.

2. massive increases in efficiency of generation and transmission.

3. Effective use of byproducts

Remember you heard it here first

1. Electrical efficiency is below that if new ccgt

2. It is about 10x more capital intensive than the new ccgt

3. Not much of an increase in efficiency for 10x the cost

4. The company has already lost over 100m

5. No big orders

6. Not gona work commercially. Everything us centralized. Tie not gona have a million blue hens when 1 station can du the same job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much.

As an interested novice who is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, I appreciate your help in understanding the problems.

If you are up for it, can you help me with renewables a bit more. My understanding of power generation is that there are baseload plants and peaker plants (as their name suggests, to deal with demand spikes). Baseload plants are cheap and efficient while peaker plants are expensive and inefficient as they need to be started and stopped often.

Renewables may not be reliable enough (dams get low, the wind stops blowing, it gets cloudy, slack water between tides, rivers dry up etc) to materially reduce our reliance on traditional baseload plants without materially increasing our contingent generation with more inefficient peaker plants. Do you have a view on the subsitution effect of renewables on baseload plants and the extra costs of peaker plants to deal with the uncertainty of renewable supply?

Finally, I do agree that resource limitations are going to be a problem for us. Energy is the one talked about often but I also wonder about water.

Since most the new stations built in the.UK and will be build are gas stations its best to look at them.

A has station can operate at base load or vary its output or operate at constant output but ay below 100%.

The.new.ones are very good.but still have a hit at anything below 100%.

So for example at 100% output it operates at 60% but at 50% output it operates at 50%

Now you may have already spotted a problem. More wind farms equals more times the gas station must pull back below 100% and work less efficiently.

So as a basic example take a 100mw gas station. It's operating at 60% efficiency. The wind farms kick in requirinf it to pull back to 80mw and operate at 50%. If you do the math the has station is producing 20mw less electric and using just 6mwt less gas. So 20mw if wind power just displaced 6mwt of gas. That is terrible as wind power displaces the very mist efficient electricity. In this realistic example it displaced electric which would have effectively been produced at 500% efficiency.

It's the reason why Germany has invested so much in wind and solar yet they use no less now and they actually use mire than us per person.

This is why intermittent sources are terrible. They displace the very best electricity not the worst! ( stable sources like nuclear displace theft worst. Better yet hydro displaces the very worst as it can very to the point where your fossil fuel plants operate mire of the time at peak efficiency

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more referring to the recharging of electrically powered vehicles in the future. Most of the UK is piped for gas down to a local level so it will be a product that most of us could use on a day to day basis. Unfortunately 2/3rds of the year there is a requirement for heating in the UK so the by-product is extremely useful, the excess heat can also be used for heating hot water which we all use 365 days a year.

With regards to efficiency levels it operates at around 60/65% electrical efficiency which is massively more efficient than coal powered electricity generation (around 25%) before any transmission losses. If we had one of these running at home it is possible that the excess electricity that the owner is generating could be used to charge an electric vehicle. The electricity being produced is massively cheaper than that already being generated and transmitted using current methods. Obviously it isn't that straight forward but to dismiss it in such an off hand manner is perhaps a little short sighted.

All bullet propaganda from that company I'm afraid. They have to ******** as their jobs depend on it.

Ccgt has suprased 60% so why are you comparing it to a non realistic 25% coal plant (btw new ones built today are mote than 42% efficient but you have to compare it to a ccgt as they both use gas)

So no electrical efficiency gain.

As for cost. A ccgt costs 500 quid per kw or less. Blue hens cost about 10x that!

Plus it take less than 100 workers to man and rub a 2GW gas ccgt. How many people will it take to man and service a million dispersed blue gens? And what will it cost?

Unfortunately they fail on benifit vs cost against ccgt

Oh acnd one more thing. Theory transmission loss will be higher than a normal plant as a blue gen will be exporting via the low voltage system

Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn'/couldn't use hydrogen in cars even if it was free. Say you found a massive pocket of hydrogen that could be extracted dir practically free your first thought would be how would i combine this with coal to make.methane or higher to use in cars.

Cars simply will use less as fleet efficency improves. I'm guessing we are currently at something around 170g/km

If new cars were limited to average 120g/km which is feasible it would be a 3% reduction per year and in 10 years it would be a 30% reduction. Much more feasible than turning 30% of thhe fleet to hydrogen or electric or hybrid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They said nuclear power generated electricity would be cheap in the 50s, still waiting.

you are mistaken. the nuclear is indeed the cheapest electricity and also the safest one ....

http://www.coal2nuclear.com/Electricity%20Production%20Costs%201995%20-%202009%20-%20450.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Tagesgang_engl.png/400px-Tagesgang_engl.png

http://www.kontentkonsult.com/pebble_bed_reactors.htm

In terms of direct deaths per terawatt produced since 1972, Coal killed 342, Hydro 883 and natural gas 85, but only 8 fatalities were recorded per terawatt of nuclear power.(1) In fact, this statistic vastly underestimates the relative hazards of fossil fuels as the indirect deaths from pollution caused by Coal powered stations worldwide is estimated at over 5 million per year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out ITM LN. Interesting company bringing products to market in the near future.

Use alternative energy source to create the electricity and hydrogen to store it.

Personally I think electric cars will only ever be an interim gimmick. Hydrogen or derivative products are the future.

+1

I don't know what the future car fuel will be, but I'm 100% certain it won't be conventional electric or hybrid. The latest motoring fad, marketed to the same idiots buying 3D Televisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The method that you use is to generate the hydrogen in locations that have a large potential excess of solar that cannot be used locally.

You have then generated the hydrogen for free (apart from the cost of building the site).

Of course, these places are far away from where the energy is needed so you have to transport it to where you want to use it. So the equation that you need to solve is: "can you transport the hydrogen to where it is needed, for less energy that it provides"? I don't actually know the answer to that.

tim

Yes, but the great idea about this nano-tech way of containing Hydrogen is that the existing oil/petroleum infrastructure can be used to distribute it. *If* it works, and that is a big if, this is a huge point in its favour.

Couple this with the fact that the countries with the petroleum infrastructure also have ideal conditions for large scale solar. USA, Saudi Arabia... and its a potent story.

So the equation becomes the relative cost of building the solar infrastructure/ funky nano-hydrogen generating plant versus the cost of future oil exploration and extraction. Given how much it costs to develop new oil fields this seems very compelling to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, there's always the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction or LENR. 10Kw out for 400w input, I'm sure the claims are genuine this time... :unsure:

I have been reading about this over the weekend. It's all rather interesting. LENR could be key to low cost, low risk nuclear power generation.

The proof will be in the pudding, as they say - we won't have to wait long to find out, as their commercial delivery dates are within 1 year. If it works, it could be the start of a revolution in power generation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are mistaken. the nuclear is indeed the cheapest electricity and also the safest one ....

Nuclear isn’t very cheap. Coal and gas is certainly cheaper else why does the world have some 400GW nuclear (mostly state experiments and statements of power) but about 5x as much coal/gas fired stations?

However nuclear could be cheaper if the world embraced it.

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.