backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 61 comment(s) - last by TheGreek.. on Aug 29 at 9:40 PM

UTC Power PureCell Model 200  (Source: UTC Power)
Fujitsu looks to fuel cells for green power

Fuel cell technology should be familiar to regular DailyTech readers. Automotive manufacturers have rallied behind the technology to bring clean and efficient vehicles to the public and mobile manufacturers look to fuel cells to power mobile devices for extended periods of time.

Fujitsu is taking a slightly different approach with its latest fuel cell endeavor. The company hails itself as the first to install a hydrogen fuel cell for power in Silicon Valley. The fuel cell was installed in Fujitsu's Sunnyvale campus and provides power for the on-site data center.
The fuel cell used by Fujitsu is a UTC Power PureCell Model 200 (200 kilowatts of assured power) which is California Air Resources Board (CARB 07) compliant. The unit produces 35 percent less CO2 per mW-hour, saves 800,000 gallons of water per year and 4,000 pounds less NOx per year than traditional power plants.

"Our real-world use of the hydrogen fuel cell is a clear demonstration of the ability of corporations to make a significant and financially responsible investment in reducing harmful impacts on the environment, with the ultimate goal of reversing global warming," said Tetsuo Urano, head of American operations for Fujitsu America."

According to Fujitsu, the hydrogen fuel cell provides 50 percent of the power necessary to cool the data center and computer labs.

"Fujitsu is a model for how large organizations can work through the process of understanding their energy requirements, researching the best solution to meet their fiscal requirements and their environmental impact goals, and then making a solid, long-term investment in a clean, efficient, cost-effective energy system," said UTC Power President Jan van Dokkum.

Fujitsu claims that the fuel cell will pay for itself within 3.5 years and will have an estimated lifespan of 15 years.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Interesting
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/20/2007 9:54:58 AM , Rating: 4
Very interesting application. Very interesting indeed. I will keep an eye on this, it could lead to further interesting applications.




RE: Interesting
By omnicronx on 8/20/2007 10:03:17 AM , Rating: 2
Just think if every business got one or two of these in north america, think of how much power could be saved. If it makes its worth back in four years from now just imagine the efficiency that could be achieved in 5-10 years! exciting!
Hybrid vehicles can only do so much, its time to implement designs like this where it counts!


RE: Interesting
By A5un on 8/20/2007 10:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
Better yet, why not make these into power plants? I mean this little thing here is basically a power generator. So what's stopping them from building a huge one to generate enough electricity for an entire city, at much less the harmful by-products?

Or, we could have one at every home? I don't know the cost of this thing, but if it pays itself back in less than 4 yrs, I think it's a worthwhile investment.


RE: Interesting
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2007 10:58:55 AM , Rating: 2
Thats what I'm wondering. What does one of these cost?


RE: Interesting
By omnicronx on 8/20/2007 11:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
Is hydrogen still highly flammable/explosive in this form? if so an entire powerplant full of these things could make a hefty explosion. Would be a nice 4th of july show though ;)
I wonder too how much one of these costs, but if it takes 3-4 years to make the money for it back, it can not be that cheap.


RE: Interesting
By TomZ on 8/20/2007 11:25:13 AM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen in this form is extremely flammable.

http://www-safety.deas.harvard.edu/services/hydrog...

But so is natural gas, gasoline, and other fuels that are used safely on a widespread basis with proper handling/controls.


RE: Interesting
By geddarkstorm on 8/20/2007 1:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen is very volatile, but far safer than natural gas, oil, or gasoline (it doesn't burn nearly as well, and isn't nearly as explosive). If you treat it with the same precautions, there's nothing to worry about.


RE: Interesting
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 9:35:52 PM , Rating: 1
So the ex-captain of the Valdez can handle it?


RE: Interesting
By othercents on 8/20/2007 11:24:46 AM , Rating: 2
Actually everyone should re-read the article. Fujitsu isn't the first to have a fuel cell generator, but the first in Silicon Valley. I saw three of these next to my hotel in San Diego when I was there 2 weeks ago. It was the Sheraton Marina Hotel.

I'm almost certain that there are plenty of other locations that are using this.

Other


RE: Interesting
By TomZ on 8/20/2007 11:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, and I would add to that, why does Fujitsu get all the credit for this? After all, UTC Power is responsible for developing this technology, and all Fujitsu was to purchase it.


RE: Interesting
By roastmules on 8/20/2007 11:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
The Sheraton in Parsippany, NJ (nify place, looks like a castle) has one like this as well. They had a placard indicating that it ran on natural gas to get the hydrogen from.

So, in reality, even though part of it is a fuel cell, it runs on natural gas. Natural gas is fairly cheap, safe, easy to transport, and available in most places. Where else can you get Hydrogen cheaply?


RE: Interesting
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2007 11:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
> "why not make these into power plants? ...what's stopping them from building a huge one to generate enough electricity for an entire city..."

Hydrogen isn't a source of energy...its an energy carrier only. The source of the energy is in the process that generates the hydrogen (normally steam reformulation of natural gas).


RE: Interesting
By Dfere on 8/20/2007 12:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. My company is one of the biggest hydrogen and oxygen suppliers in the world.

We rip it out of the air using electricity (sort of). It is humorous to me to see people think it is a free source of energy. Our biggest cost of operations is ... electricity. And a lot of "clean coal technology" uses hydrogen we "make" as well which costs .....electricity.

I can only wonder when this will be factored into "climate change" calculations........

I didn't know of the water savings- that is truly impressive. Shame, I live on Lake Erie and was hoping for a future economic advantage in residing here.....


RE: Interesting
By geddarkstorm on 8/20/2007 1:54:55 PM , Rating: 1
You have to mine to get natural gas and oil, and you have to put in a ton of energy/materials to refine oil into a usable form. If Hydrogen is only an energy carrier, so is oil and natural gas, coal and anything else. There is nothing we use that gives us more energy/resources than we put in. It's just easier to keep track of all the numbers when you are dealing primarily with straight electricity (put electricity in to split water, get it back when you reform it), rather than having to keep track of all the materials and human energy used to do physical mining verse what we get back from what we mine (and we can continue to waste more energy in mining than we get back because the earth is so abundant in resources that we can ignore it). Seriously, "mining" hydrogen from water or natural gas is no different than how we have to refine ores to separate our the materials we want from all the contaminants. With hydrogen, the contaminants are oxygen or carbon (depending on the source). Biofuel has to be harvested from plants and converted into a usable fuel. There is no difference between any of these sources, none of these are "energy sources" verses "energy carriers", they all have to be converted from another raw source.

Now that new iron doped titanium oxide nanotubes are coming out with much higher photoelectric efficiencies for splitting water and in the visible light range, the need for harvesting hydrogen from natural gas will be all but gone. And heck, we can get hydrogen as simple biproducts of other necessary processes or simple biological processes. From that PureCell site:
Free fuel

That’s what anaerobic digester gas (ADG) is for the PureCell™ Model 200 solution. ADG is a byproduct of the wastewater treatment process and contains methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases. UTC Power fuel cells currently generate 2.8 megawatts of premium quality power using this fuel. That equates to over 6 million kilowatt-hours of proven application experience. The PureCell™ Model 200 power solution is the first ADG fuel cell tested by the EPA through its stringent Environmental Technology Verification program. For information on the performance characteristics of the PureCell™ solution with the ADG option, please visit www.epa.gov/etv.

Hydrogen is a fuel, if we can get it from solar or biological driven sources it is an energy source like any other fuel we use. Unless one wants to call all of those energy carriers. But either way, there is no difference between hydrogen and them than in how we use them to get energy out. If you want to be super stringent, all physical materials are only energy carriers, as only reactions of said materials are energy sources.

Sorry, it just bugs me that people try to make a distinction which doesn't exist as if to discredit the use of hydrogen overall. Even fusion depends on hydrogen, so it seems we're going to be stuck with it unless we find out how to generate energy from fundamental physical properties like the fabric of space or "quantum foam" or whatever other crazy theoretical there is.


RE: Interesting
By TomZ on 8/20/2007 2:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is nothing we use that gives us more energy/resources than we put in.

I'm not sure what you mean by that - it almost sounds like you are saying that it takes more energy to acquire/refine/deliver something like gasoline than it actually delivers. But clearly that is not the case - so what do you mean exactly?


RE: Interesting
By geddarkstorm on 8/20/2007 3:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it is absolutely the case--resources and human energy add up and must be factored in. The second law of thermal dynamics, Entropy, stipulates that this is the case, and investigating all the resources required shows as well. Mining resources doesn't take as much obvious energy as electrolysis of hydrogen from water, electricity isn't required in as great amounts, but other resources, metals, chemicals, man hours and food, etc are.

When you build a house, you create a net disorder in the environment even though you've constructed this incredibly ordered building. This is the same for acquiring energy from fuels. Gas and natural gas give us a lot of power back, but the overall cumulative energy and resource loss in getting and refining these fuels is greater than the energy they contain (which we can't even use to 100% efficiency, also due to Entropy). Everyone just ignores the resource and human energy cost to get these fuels since it is very hard to keep track of (whereas strict kilowatt hours is easy), and because the earth has abundant resources left to spend in the acquiring of these fuels. But we still lose more than we get back.

Either way, my point was that you have to refine hydrogen to use it; but you also have to do that for every single other fuel we use, so saying hydrogen is somehow inferior as an energy source or energy carrier (whatever hydrogen is, the others are as well) to these other fuels because hydrogen has to be refined seems incorrect and counter productive to myself.

The interesting way of looking at it, at least when we use natural gas or oil to produce hydrogen, is really you are using natural gas or oil in a new way, instead of combusting it. In this case, hydrogen isn't really the fuel, it's still natural gas or oil; which I think is what Masher is trying to say, and where that whole "it's an energy carrier not an energy source like oil" idea comes from (which is believe is a totally incorrect way to look at it). Yet, turning natural gas or oil into hydrogen and then using that hydrogen is a more efficient energy process pound per pound of natural gas/oil than strict combustion and energy production through steam turbines. Moreover, gaining hydrogen from other sources, such as biological fermentation and solar energy to split water is a different issue. Still, either way, we may refine hydrogen from oil, but we still refine usable oil from crude oil, so hydrogen isn't an energy carrier while oil is an energy source. They are fuels, one in the same.

In the end, you need hydrogen to do fusion, which is the gold standard everyone wants, so we better learn how to use it, store it, and transport it effectively if we ever want to get away from fossil fuels. In the meantime, fuel cells are awesome and very promising.


RE: Interesting
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2007 4:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "Gas and natural gas give us a lot of power back, but the overall cumulative energy and resource loss in getting and refining these fuels is greater than the energy they contain"

The early use of petroleum began with "oil springs" where there was no drilling or pumping required-- just stoop down and collect the oil in a pot. Do you seriously suggest that the amount of energy required to do that was more than that obtained by burning the oil thus gathered?

Even today, the best Saudi wells only require a few cents per barrel of lifting costs. Refining requires some energy inherent in the petroleum...but thats not required to use the energy in that oil, its simply a matter of placing it in a more convenient form.

Honestly, I'm shocked that someone can so seriously propound so obviously illogical a statement. Yes, the entropy of a closed system must increase. But the earth is not a closed system. The earth-sun system comes closer to being such...and the energy of the sun is what ultimately provides the energy in our fossil fuels.


RE: Interesting
By geddarkstorm on 8/20/2007 4:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
That is a good point, I didn't think about that fully. It's true though that we still don't get as much energy back from it than what went into its production--it's just we didn't have to put in that original energy to produce it. Perhaps there in lies the distinction.

But the entropy of the entire universe has to rise for any spontaneous reaction, not simply a closed system. In fact, you can increase the order of a closed system, but you must sacrifices more order of the outside universe system to do so. That's what Entropy means.


RE: Interesting
By mindless1 on 8/20/2007 7:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have to care whether we're getting as much back as the "total" amount that went into the production. We only have to care about whether that energy could've been put to a better use or would've otherwise been wasted. Obviously I'm ignoring the finite supply and impact on the environment, which tend to both be more important factors.


RE: Interesting
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2007 3:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "If Hydrogen is only an energy carrier, so is oil and natural gas, coal and anything else"

No. While it does take energy to mine coal and pump oil, its a tiny fraction of what one gets from the combustion of the fuel itself.

> "There is nothing we use that gives us more energy/resources than we put in"

If that were true, then we'd have no energy-- no electricity, no heat, no moving cars and trucks. Where do you think that energy comes from ultimately? If every "source" requires more input than output, what's the true source? This isn't a bank that allows deficit financing.

> "mining" hydrogen from water or natural gas is no different than how we have to refine ores

Bad analogy. We don't use ores as a source of energy, we use them as a source of raw materials. A better analogy would be that extracting hydrogen from water is similar to extracting petroleum from tar sands. But the difference here is that the extraction process for hydrogen is an endothermic process that requires more energy input than the eventual oxidation of the hydrogen releases. That's not true for petroleum extraction...and that explains why we consider hydrogen an energy carrier, not a source.

Ultimately, of course, oil, coal, and natural gas only "carry" the energy of solar power that shined on the earth millions of years ago. But since that energy was collected free for us by Mother Nature long ago, we consider those to be harvestable sources, not simply carriers.

> "it just bugs me that people try to make a distinction which doesn't exist as if to discredit the use of hydrogen"

Anyone who knows me realizes I'm one of the hydrogen economies largest supporters. But its important to have a firm understanding of what the technology actually entails, to understand its strengths and weaknesses.


RE: Interesting
By geddarkstorm on 8/20/2007 4:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
That is very true, that we need to understand its strengths and weaknesses, and that must be done if effective utilization is to ever occur. You make a lot of interesting and great points, but I don't think mine are coming across right.

You are mostly thinking in strict electrical input output. But I'm talking in a total macroscopic way. According to Entropy, the energy--which is order--of the entire universe is perpetually running down. The high point in theory was the big bang (a single point in space) and resulting condensation of stars and galaxies from all that, and now it's all breaking down into disorder (diffusion of all materials throughout space into uniformity from which no energy can be derived under standard sources and reasoning).

So then, when you factor in all the disorder required to get and refine oil to gasoline, we have used up more energy and order than the combustion of gasoline can ever give us back. Therefore, in the wider view of things, there is no difference between gasoline and hydrogen. On the micro view, I totally see your reasoning, but in the end it's all the same is what I'm saying, so there really isn't a distinction.

Still, the ease of getting hydrogen into a usable form is of paramount importance--but there are a lot of ways to do so apparently, beyond electrolysis and the use of gasoline and such. There's a lot of solutions coming through the pipeline due to nanotechnology now too. And, that quote from the website should show that there can indeed, and are, hydrogen fuel cell power plants that don't need gas or natural gas to operate as they are derived from methane byproducts during water sanitation--a process that must occur hydrogen plant there or not. I'm sure there are other such novel independent process couplings we can do in our economy too that no one is really thinking of yet. The biggest concern I've seen about hydrogen economies is storage and transport--now that seems a serious doozy.


RE: Interesting
By Ringold on 8/20/2007 5:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
A little Googling and scads of environmentalist websites cite an average 15:1 energy rate of investment return on oil. Taking account of probable bias the real number may be 15 -- or 150.

As an unrelated comment, I'd like to see 15:1, or even 5:1, with biofuels.


RE: Interesting
By Hawkido on 8/20/2007 6:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
In answer to your question, It is not cheaper. They are comparing using a Fuel cell to buying the electricity from the Utilities in California. A true comarison would be to compare Fuel cells to generating the same with a diesel (or other) generator. I worked for a company the ran a steam generator for power during the day, and off the utilities at night. It saved them $10k a month...

Anyone bother looking into the amount of energy needed to refine the hydrogen used by these things?

All of the Hydrogen refining in the USA is subsidized at the moment to foster it's adoption. Once the subsidies are lifted, and taxes are applied, It'll be same cost or worse (You know they are gonna tax it. Common... they slap $0.40 a gallon on in tax for gas, where are they [congress] gonna recoup that money once gas becomes passe?)

"But the enviroment!!!"

What is the enviromental impact of refining all that hydrogen?

What about removing all that hydrogen from the enviroment and sequestering it in fuel tanks, instead of letting it float about?

The explosive nature of hydrogen means small leaks can become dangerous...

If they aren't using pure hydrogen, then it doesn't burn clean does it...

If they aren't removing the hydrogen from the atmosphere, then where are they extracting the hydrogen from? Fossil fuels? What about the waste from that?

If they extract the hydrogen from water (VERY EXPENSIVE, where's the savings?) what is the enviromental impact to the ocean (or other body of water)?

Hydrogen as you find it in our enviroment is at its lowest state of energy (else it would have already reacted and lowered its state, except where a plant (through photosynthisis) has elevated it to a hydrocardon (Gasp! Trees are Hydrocarbons!!! Burn them, oh wait... Just cut them down!!! NO, wait again! Fools! The sun emits radiation! Gasp! Radiation! Better get my tinfoil suit out!). So you are going to have to expend enough energy to raise it to its highest energy state H2 in order to make it "Burn clean" Where did all that free "clean" energy come from to raise Hydrogen's energy level? Why didn't you just use it instead? Why isn't the media or congress mentioning the horrible cost of refining Hydrogen? It's political. There are motives here you sheep aren't seeing nor are you asking about it! Ask the questions, you'll get skipped over or get a bogus answer.

The Law of Conservation of Energy - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, you can only change the form it takes.

How much is the cost of that transformation? That's like saying dropping bowling balls is an excellent source of energy, and never mentioning that you have to spend more energy to lift the damn things then you get by dropping them.

All I see is a bunch of people rushing from a fuel source that we have most of the problems worked out, straight into an unknown one that we have no idea what the long term effects of both using it and refining it.

If you remove the hydrogen from a compound what do the nitrogen and oxygen and carbon that used to be combined with it turn into?? CO, CO2, NOx? Aren't these the things we are trying to get away from? You cannot create free energy, you can only give energy away freely, but the creation still costs you. Who in America or anywhere else will operate in perpetuity at a loss?

Capitol hill is full of Idiots trying to buy your vote... They could give 2 craps about the enviroment. That's the next generation's problem... Just like the National debt. Show me a real solution. One that makes sense: lower cost more abundant, cheaply accesable. You won't have to pass a law or subsidize it, people and companies will switch on their own, because (unlike what crapitol hill thinks) we DO know what is best for us.


RE: Interesting
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2007 6:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "If they extract the hydrogen from water...what is the enviromental impact to the ocean..."

Zero, of course. An insignificant fraction of that water becomes hydrogen and oxygen. Once that hydrogen is burned, it reunites with the oxygen and becomes water again.

> "All of the Hydrogen refining in the USA is subsidized at the moment "

Nearly all hydrogen production is from steam-reformulation, and is not subsidized. There are some minor grants given to research programs for alternate means of production, but these are not commercial sources of hydrogen.

> "So you are going to have to expend enough energy to raise it to its highest energy state H2 in order to make it "Burn clean"

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but you don't need to "change energy states" to cleanly burn molecular hydrogen.

> "All I see is a bunch of people rushing from a fuel source that we have most of the problems worked out, straight into an unknown one..."

Hydrogen is not a fuel source. Its an energy carrier. Assuming we have a means of supplying cheap, clean power to generate hydrogen, its a good choice. If we don't have that, then hydrogen is worse

Right now, the only practical solution for largescale production of hydrogen that is both cheap and clean is a nuclear power. Longterm, generating hydrogen from fossil fuels is obviously a nonstarter, and using any energy source such as wind or solar makes the costs far, far too high.


RE: Interesting
By Hawkido on 8/20/2007 7:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "If they extract the hydrogen from water...what is the enviromental impact to the ocean..."

quote:
Zero, of course. An insignificant fraction of that water becomes hydrogen and oxygen. Once that hydrogen is burned, it reunites with the oxygen and becomes water again.


<Yoda voice>Done studies on this have you?</Yoda voice>
I doubt you have done studies on the scale of worldwide human consumption of hydrogen from the ocean... Oeanwide, Yeah I can see no problem, what about localized pollution (the only pollution that really counts in my mind.) Whose beach are you gonna mess with? Not mine! Plus most of the world is land locked if you haven't noticed... What is the affect of a Oxigen enriched lake?

quote:
> "All of the Hydrogen refining in the USA is subsidized at the moment "


My bad, I meant to say all Hydrogen refining in the name of Green Clean fuel replacement is subsidized. The tank you buy at the welding supply store is pure capitolism, plus a heafty tax, with a sales tax on top of that...

quote:
> "So you are going to have to expend enough energy to raise it to its highest energy state H2 in order to make it "Burn clean"

quote:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but you don't need to "change energy states" to cleanly burn molecular hydrogen.


What I mean by this is... Either you are taking Hydrogen from a already high energy state (Fossil fuels, natural gas, methane) which will leave you with the same dreaded carbon footprint that Al Gore wants to tax you for, or you are taking the hydrogen from it's lowest energy state (Water) and forcibly removing it from this strongly coupled compound with an incredible amount of energy, that you end up having to burn fossil fuels to generate the required amount, and you STILL have the carbon footprint! And less energy to boot!

The only advantage would be for pre-processing the fuel so the vehicle won't have to deal with any pollutants, only the factory. Which would be better suited to handling it. Someone has already mentioned this. Fine, it that is your goal, but don't go selling it as cheap, abundant energy, because it isn't abundantly available without using fossil fuels, or blowing through loads more energy than you are compiling.

quote:
> "All I see is a bunch of people rushing from a fuel source that we have most of the problems worked out, straight into an unknown one..."


quote:
Hydrogen is not a fuel source. Its an energy carrier. Assuming we have a means of supplying cheap, clean power to generate hydrogen, its a good choice. If we don't have that, then hydrogen is worse


Hydrogen, is what is burnt by almost every flame in the world!!! It is the Quintessential Fuel! All the crap left over ISN'T FUEL! Masher! Come-on Man! Why did you say that! I had high regards for your knowledge but that is BUNK man! WHY DO WE BURN HYDROCARBONS? Is it for the CARBON?!?!?! NO it is for the Hydrogen stored in the carmob molecule! So if anything Carbon is the energy carrier (as if there is such a thing, as all matter is energy trapped in 3D)

Imma re-quote your last part:
quote:
Assuming we have a means of supplying cheap, clean power to generate hydrogen, its a good choice. If we don't have that, then hydrogen is worse


While you are making an ass of yourself by assuming you might as well assume that pigs can fly. Because you assumptions are bunk. Please get back to us and tell us you account has been hacked.

And Yes I agree Nuclear Fission is our only real hope, till Nuclear Fusion becomes a reality we can use.


RE: Interesting
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2007 9:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "I doubt you have done studies on the scale of worldwide human consumption of hydrogen from the ocean"

I haven't done a study of the wordwide effects of hand-waving either, but I know that no matter how many billions of people decide to do it, its not going to cause pollution, the earth to stop rotating, or the stars to fall from the sky.

When you're dealing with complex hydrocarbons, there are many possible chemical paths; some desireable, some simply cause pollution But when disassociating water molecules, there are no "alternate paths". The end result is hydrogen and oxygen. The same goes when burning hydrogen. There is no "partial combustion" possible, no possible way to form dangerous oxides, or particulates, or anything else. You get pure water back, plain and simple.

> "WHY DO WE BURN HYDROCARBONS? Is it for the CARBON?!?!?! NO it is for the Hydrogen stored in the carmob molecule! "

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that "carmob" molecule bit :) Still, you're missing the point about hydrogen, especially if you believe anyone is trying to sell it as a "cheap energy source". Hydrogen fuel is an energy carrier, not a source. If that hydrogen originally came from a hydrocarbon (e.g. natural gas) then that's the original energy source. If it came from direct water disassociation, then the whatever provided the energy for that process is the source.

Hydrogen molecules in the form of water carry no useable energy. Hydrogen in the form of a hydrocarbon does....and in that case, the energy is free. So hydrocarbons are both sources and carriers. But hydrogen in the form of a tank of compressed gas also carries energy....energy that came from some alternative source. In this case, the rules are different.

When we speak of the hydrogen economy, we're not talking about individual molecules locked away in water or hydrocarbons. We're talking about the gas itself used as fuel. But not as a source of energy...simply as a means to "carry" that energy from where it was produced to where it can be utilized.


RE: Interesting
By Ringold on 8/20/2007 7:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You know they are gonna tax it.


If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.

Comparing taxed power from the utility to the raw cost of a subsidized generator is indeed pretty shady.. but typical.


RE: Interesting
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 9:40:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If it stops moving, subsidize it.

Yeah, once the lobbyists finish what they start.

Of course oil companies are exceptions. They move very well and are subsidized anyways.

How did you miss that?


RE: Interesting
By roadhog74 on 8/21/2007 1:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
there is no point making a big one.
the loss of power over transmission lines, plus the
need to maintain those lines would outweigh any
potential scale benefit.

why a large expensive generator miles away when you can have
a small cheap generator in the basement?

the reason we have large power plants currently is it is
difficult to find suitable locations for hydro and do you
want a fission reactor in the back yard that you have to
look after?


RE: Interesting
By TomZ on 8/20/2007 11:19:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Just think if every business got one or two of these in north america, think of how much power could be saved.

How does a fuel cell "save" power? It is just a different power conversion method, compared to conventional generators.


RE: Interesting
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/20/2007 11:32:59 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly, it isn't "saving power" so much as "saving the grid". It's no different than having a big ass petroleum tank on the back of your building that someone has to come by and top off.

Now on to a different topic, Hydrogen is relatively easy to acquire in outer space (Large concentrations on certain asteroids, planets, etc...) so this would pave the way for a new interplanetary fuel that is economical to use. Combined with Ion thrust engines, this could be very good indeed.


RE: Interesting
By Kougar on 8/20/2007 2:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
So in that case, how viable an option is it to have a small area dedicated to a bunch of these to help supplement those data centers that are already at their maximum power draw off their local grids?

Going by their website the New York Power Authority has been running three of these from a wastewater treatment plant to help power NYC already.


RE: Interesting
By Oregonian2 on 8/20/2007 5:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
Places with lots of hydrogen laying around that I remember (Jupiter, etc) tend as I recall to be places with mega-gravity which is what keeps the stuff from blowing away into space, as such. Would take pretty good engines to make that an efficient source I should think. Have there been asteroids with a lot of hydrogen on them (and still do if getting anywhere near us so the UPS charges from way out there where hydrogen is cold enough to be liquid can get reasonable) ? Seems like it may take less energy to disassociate hydrogen from sea water (and "imported" hydrogen would drive down the earth's air oxygen as more of it binds into water when that hydrogen is "used").


RE: Interesting
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2007 6:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "Would take pretty good engines to make that an efficient source"

The gravity's not that much of an issue, as on a hyperbolic trajectory, the only energy you're going to lose is from atmospheric drag, no matter how strong the gravitational field. The larger problem is the distance (the dV required to move from here to Jupiter and back), along with building a "mining scoop" spaceship strong enough to withstand the extreme radiation and stresses in Jupiter's atmosphere. Even the optimists among us aren't assuming we'll be mining Jupiter for hydrogen anytime this century.

> "imported" hydrogen would drive down the earth's air oxygen as more of it binds into water "

At our current rate of energy usage, even if it were all filled by hydrogen imported from off-planet, this wouldn't become a concern for many millions of years.


RE: Interesting
By Oregonian2 on 8/21/2007 3:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At our current rate of energy usage, even if it were all filled by hydrogen imported from off-planet, this wouldn't become a concern for many millions of years.


Are you sure? Global warming folk seem to think just melting some of the ice we already have into liquid will be a major disaster. Importing all that hydrogen and creating all that "new" water (as well as lowering oxygen) would only add to the problem it seems. Seems like it's a problem now with NONE added. Or so many say.


RE: Interesting
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2007 6:43:12 PM , Rating: 3
Let's do the math. The US burns 385M gallons of gas per day. That's about 14 trillion gallons/century. At roughly 6 lbs/gallon, that works out to 38 trillion kg. of gasoline.

Hydrogen is three times as energetic per unit mass as gasoline, meaning replacing that would require 13.7 trillion kg. of hydrogen. Burned, it would combine with oxygen to form 64 trillion kg of water. The density of water is 1 metric ton per cubic meter, which means 64 billion cubic meters, or simply 64 cubic kilometers (don't you love the metric system?)

Now that sounds like a lot, but its a just a cube of water 2.4 miles on a side. Compared to the total amount of water on earth, its 0.0000046%. That's sufficient to raise sea levels by 0.15 millimeters. Per century. Over 10,000 centuries (one million years), that would be a rise of 1.5 meters, or enough to actually be a concern...if you had property right on the beach anyway. As low as that is, its a few times higher than I would have thought, had I not calculated it out.

Of course, over the next million years, sea levels are going to naturally go up and down by 200 meters or more, so this tiny variance wouldn't even be noticed.


RE: Interesting
By Ringold on 8/20/2007 7:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
Just give Michael Okuda a call.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Bussard_ramscoop

We've got hyposprays. We've laid the basic fundamental theory down that suggests teleporters aren't wildly impossible (the Heisenberg Compensator will work just fine, thank you). Their 'impulse engines' are just giant fusion furnances, technology not beyond our own at all (just expensive and much bigger). Laser weapons are planned as upgrades to new aircraft carriers. Quantum entanglement owns subspace radios -- or would, if they could relay information.

Glowy red things that collect hydrogen from deep space? A matter of time..


Passing the Buck
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/20/2007 10:34:56 AM , Rating: 2
The basic problem with this attempt is that Fujitsu's "savings" basically come down to that they are transferring their carbon/pollutants problem onto the shoulders of whoever is producing the hydrogen.

Hydrogen today is produced primarily via electrolysis. While this would be very "green" if wind power or solar power was used, most electrolysis uses fossil fuel power, as the majority of U.S. power is produced via fossil fuels. A very exciting possibility is biological synthesis, a subject of much research, but this remains in the distant future.

For cars with hydrogen powered engines the technology make sense from a purely environmental standpoint, and if fully realized would likely make sense from a financial standpoint as well. Also hydrogen cells provide a decent alternative for backup generators, though the market for this is not as big as the automotive one.

The reason these applications make sense is because of carbon sequesterization/better cleaning. When the fuel is initially produced, the fossil fuel is burned in a large scale power-plant setting, where they can remove more of the pollutants and waste carbons via scrubbing/etc. The large scale cuts down on pollutants when compared to a car motor or diesel back-up generator turbine, without the same cleaning/filtering.

For an application like Fujitsu's the benefits are much more marginal in all likelihood, since their operation is likely rather large and could be implementing the same cleaning technologies directly on the fossil fuels instead.

Though their efforts may be relatively pointless and I am sure they are mostly doing this for good PR, hopefully this will get attention for the more worthwhile applications of this tech.

I worked at a terrific fuel cell company for a year, and I know the technology has great possibility. However, it has become a largely misused and misunderstood term over recent years. Most people assume fuel cells could power "anything" and make it more environmentally friendly! In a way this is true...anything that they will likely touch. But for large scale commercial operations, traditional power plants with better clean technologies may be more practical, as they have to burn the fuels at a power plant to make the hydrogen anyways. Until greener energy or new chemical production methods come along, at least...

Just thought I'd add my two sense.




RE: Passing the Buck
By A5un on 8/20/2007 10:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A very exciting possibility is biological synthesis, a subject of much research, but this remains in the distant future.


Personally, I know this biological synthesis of hydrogen is being researched. I've seen the research lab with my own naked eyes, and it's being performed by one of the most brilliant professors I've met. The future may not be so distant.


RE: Passing the Buck
By peldor on 8/20/2007 11:58:39 AM , Rating: 3
This fuel cell uses natural gas as a hydrogen 'source' (steam reformation). So no, they're not getting the 'savings' off of someone else's energy expenditure.


RE: Passing the Buck
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/20/2007 1:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting, that is a bit better! I took a second look at the fuel cell company's page and they look pretty solid.

I wonder, though, whether their savings are when considering a switch from a gas/diesel based system. Natural gas is usually "cleaner", so it would be interesting to see the difference between a natural gas combustion generator and a natural gas powered fuel cell system.


RE: Passing the Buck
By Hawkido on 8/20/2007 6:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
Cleaner, only really applies to you if you buy into the whole Global Warming thing. I don't. However, if your company is spewing mountains of Black soot out then you need to clean up or I won't buy your product.

"The measured weight of CO2 from fuel compainies is BLAH BLAH BLAH equivelant to a mountain"

Last time I checked CO2 was a good thing for the envirment. The only people who say it isn't are the Global Hoaxing crowd. Plus how many billions of people do the fuel compaies provide power for? Seperate that out per capita... now compare the per capita CO2 crappo of a "Green" company... Who buys stock in these "Green" companies? Who preaches "GO GREEN!" so loudly? It's the same damn people... *Cough*Al Gore*Cough* They are just about making a buck just like the oil companies, only the oil companies don't lie about it as much.

If you want a solution, make it a cheaper solution, and keep it a cheaper solution. Let the bean counters make the switch. They love saving money.

Passing a law never accomplished anything (Prohibition created the mofia tho... they gave us all this great crime movie material, that's a plus!)


RE: Passing the Buck
By Keeir on 8/20/2007 6:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
Not going to comment on many things you said

but if you read the article, they claim the technology alsoreduces water pollution and NOx pollution.


RE: Passing the Buck
By Hawkido on 8/20/2007 7:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
The consummer's end of the process reduces water and BLAH BLAH BLAH... I am talking about the from end, ya'know where the MILK comes from not the jug on the shelf you twit!

Where does all this high energy state hydrogen come from???

Hint: It's not lying on the ground...


So....
By dreddly on 8/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: So....
By omnicronx on 8/20/2007 11:34:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Marketing and hype needs to be separated from dirt-to-dust environmental costs (like mercury filled 'efficient' light bulbs).

You fail to mention that during the creation of incandescent lightbulbs mercury is burned in the fossil fuels used to produce them in the first place, which happens to be a larger amount. Atleast CFL's save energy ;)


RE: So....
By TomZ on 8/20/2007 11:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
So you're claiming that the trace amount of mercury burned to make an incandescent lamp exceeds the amount of mercury in a CFL? I find that hard to believe - do you have links or analysis to back your assertion?


RE: So....
By omnicronx on 8/20/2007 12:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
its googlable... but i should have specified, its not the mercury used when creating the incodecent bulbs, but the mercury burned when creating the electricity for powering the bulbs, which require a lot more power than CFL's.
this information is googlable, and is on wiki, but heres a few quotes:

quote:
So with the potential for contamination and the currently limited ways to recycle CFLs, should we still use them? Absolutely. As stated above, even if a CFL is thrown in the trash and the mercury it contains leaks out, it still puts less mercury in the environment than a regular, incandescent bulb, according to the EPA.

Though they don’t contain mercury, incandescent bulbs are still lit by electricity, which is often generated by coal-burning plants. Coal actually contains mercury, so when it is burned, mercury is released into the air—about 40 percent of mercury emissions come from coal-burning power plants, according to the EPA.

The EPA has estimated that the mercury in a CFL added to the mercury emitted from the electricity used to power it is still less than the mercury emitted from powering an incandescent bulb. So they’re still the better choice, the EPA's Bergstein says.

“Yes, you’re buying mercury, but it’s a net savings,” Dunlop said in a telephone interview.

Because CFLs are much longer-lived than incandescent bulbs, lasting about 4 to 5 years, there is hope that more options will be available by the time the current generation of bulbs burn out, but for now, the EPA is concentrating on informing the public of the potential danger posed by the bulbs and the current recycling options.


RE: So....
By omnicronx on 8/20/2007 12:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
forgot to mention, when you take into account 40% of U.S power consumption is from incandescent light bulbs, it kind of adds up after a while, especially with the reliance on coal powered plants. But if those plants were to be phased out completely at some point, CFL's could end up being worse for the environment.


RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2007 3:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "when you take into account 40% of U.S power consumption is from incandescent light bulbs, it kind of adds up "

Whoa, whoa..that statistic isn't even close to correct. ALL residential electricity consumption only accounts for 36% of the US total. Lighting accounts for some 9% of the residential total, or about 3% of the overall total.

Data here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us.ht...
http://www.clean-energy.us/facts/electricity.htm


RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2007 4:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "The EPA has estimated that the mercury in a CFL added to the mercury emitted from the electricity used to power it is still less than the mercury emitted from powering an incandescent bulb."

Assuming the bulb is powered 100% by a coal-fired power plant. In the US, the ratio is closer to 50%...and the EPA is requiring coal plants to cut their mercury emissions by 70% over the next 10 years.


RE: So....
By Hoser McMoose on 8/21/2007 9:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
Cutting mercury emissions just means gathering the mercury and recycling it or disposing of it safely. The same could be accomplished by operating a recycling program for CFL bulbs, as is already being done in many municipalities. New CFL designs also reduce the mercury use by 75% vs. what the EPA used for their numbers (1mg of mercury, down from 4mg).

Also electricity generated from hydroelectric dams also brings mercury into the system. Flooded land leaches mercury out of the ground and into the water system where it has a nasty tendency to bio-accumulate. This has actually become a concern in Canada around some of the large reservoirs (Canada gets about 60% of it's electricity from hydroelectric, so it's a bigger concern here vs. the US that gets about 7% of it's electricity from hydroelectric).


cool
By Moishe on 8/20/2007 10:02:00 AM , Rating: 2
This thing is essentially a big UPS which is cool, But where do they get the hydrogen? Their website seems to indicate that this is a "Anaerobic Digester Gas (ADG) Powered Fuel Cell System" which receives power from waste water treatment.




RE: cool
By Tiamat on 8/20/2007 10:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen is a product of typical steam reformation processes. Not sure that is exactly what they are doing, but similar processes can take advantage of simple chemical reactions to produce hydrogen.


RE: cool
By roastmules on 8/20/2007 12:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is that the waste produces methane. There's a lot of hydrogen in methane. Some hydrogen fuel cells use methanol, ethanol, gas, diesel, kerosene, natural gas, propane, etc, etc.
Just about any of the hydrocarbon compounds have a lot of H to run a fuel cell on. Pure H is more effecient, but -ane is easier to find.

List of hydrocarbons.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question105.htm


RE: cool
By Hoser McMoose on 8/21/2007 8:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
For all intents and purposes that Anaerobic Digester Gas is the same thing as Natural Gas, it's just coming from a different source.

There are a number of waste treatment sites around the world already using the methane gas for power generating applications. A city about an hour away from me operates a 1.6MW combined heat and power (CHP) generator from the methane out of their waste water treatment center. The end result is very similar to what this company is advertising, though using a more traditional turbine design vs. steam reformation and fuel cells.

One thing that's somewhat unclear to me is just how this fuel cell CHP setup compares to a gas turbine CHP setup. The website for this company claims better than 90% efficiency, but gas turbine CHP systems can also manage better than 90% efficiency. Also it's unclear how well this setup would work for combined heat, cooling and power (CHCP) designs, which would actually be more useful for Fujitsu's uses at least.


am i missing something... how is this news?
By RamarC on 8/20/2007 11:50:27 AM , Rating: 2
fuel cell powered generators have been around since the mid 90s with many installed at hospitals.

1995: http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/pafc/pendleton.p...
2000: http://www.nypa.gov/services/profiles/ncbronxfuelc...
2005: http://www.ctclimatechange.com/documents/FuelCells...




RE: am i missing something... how is this news?
By Spivonious on 8/20/2007 12:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The company hails itself as the first to install a hydrogen fuel cell for power in Silicon Valley .


By TomZ on 8/20/2007 1:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
Which again raises the question, why is this newsworthy? Seems to me that Fujitsu is just tooting its own horn for free PR.


By cubeless on 8/20/2007 10:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
...if the economics are as compelling as the report states...




By killerroach on 8/20/2007 11:08:18 AM , Rating: 2
The economics were probably that good through tax credits alone (see Google's solar farm), which probably wouldn't have been in place for them to get a second. They'll wait for an improved ROI on them to enhance their fuel cell power, probably, either once they've recovered their investment on the first one or whenever the tax credit expires, whichever comes first...


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki