backtop


Print 51 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Mar 18 at 9:09 PM


Christian Kisielowski, Anne Ruminski, Rizia Bardhan and Jeff Urban  (Source: Roy Kaltschmidt, Berkeley Lab Public Affairs )
The material is made of nanoparticles of magnesium metal, which is scattered over a polymethyl methacrylate pattern

Researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have created a new way of storing hydrogen, making it more accessible and energy efficient. 

Hydrogen has been considered a viable alternative to fossil fuels for some time now. Hydrogen is lightweight and offers a higher energy density than gasoline. In addition, gasoline produces harmful greenhouse gases and pollutants while hydrogen's combustion by-product is water. The problem with using hydrogen on a larger scale is storage. It must be stored densely and safely, and must be easily accessible.

While many attempts in the past have failed -- such as packing large quantities of the gas into solids, which resulted in the solids only absorbing a small amount of hydrogen and requiring energy efficiency boosts through heating and cooling -- scientists have now created a new composite material for storing hydrogen without compromising density, safety or accessibility.  

The material is made of nanoparticles of magnesium metal, which is scattered over a polymethyl methacrylate pattern. This design is capable of both absorbing and releasing hydrogen without oxidizing the metal after cycling, and at "modest" temperatures.  

They were able to do this through the use of the TEAM 0.5 microscope at the National Center for Electron Microscopy (NCEM). The TEAM 0.5 is the world's most powerful electron microscope that possesses high-resolution imaging capabilities. 

With the TEAM 0.5, researchers watched the magnesium nanocrystals spread throughout the polymer, and were able to observe any defects in the crystalline pattern, which offered a peek at how hydrogen acted within this new storage material.  

"This work showcases our ability to design composite nanoscale materials that overcome fundamental thermodynamic and kinetic barriers to realize a materials combination that has been very elusive historically," said Urban. "Moreover, we are able to productively leverage the unique properties of both the polymer and nanoparticle in this new composite material, which may have broad applicability to related problems in other areas of energy research."

The team also utilized Berkeley Lab's Energy and Environmental Technologies Division (EETD) in order to test the uptake and release of hydrogen within the material. Through the use of the TEAM 0.5 microscope and EETD, the team was able to create a material that may successfully store hydrogen, allowing it to be used on a larger scale for batteries and fuel cells.

"Discovering new materials that could help us find a more sustainable energy solution is at the core of the Department of Energy's mission," said Kisielowski. "We confirmed the presence of hydrogen in this material through time-dependent spectroscopic investigations with the TEAM 0.5 microscope. This investigation suggests that even direct imaging of hydrogen columns in such materials can be attempted using the TEAM microscope." 

This study was published in Nature Materials.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Where do you get this @*@$?
By FITCamaro on 3/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 3:49:40 PM , Rating: 1
Let me add that I'm not against hydrogen as a fuel. The problem is you need so much more of it vs. gasoline and the only good way to produce it is nuclear power plants which we don't have nearly enough of. Then you have the problem of storage.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By gamerk2 on 3/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By SublimeSimplicity on 3/14/2011 4:14:13 PM , Rating: 1
I guess you just crack those water molecules in half like a peanut shell and out comes this miracle H2... or do you just pump it out of the ground?

Truth is, you have to manufacture H2 some way. The only two ways are electrolysis and from fossil fuels. I assume you don't mean the fossil fuel path, which really wouldn't help anything.

Electrolysis requires electricity to separate water into H2 and O2. It's far from a perfectly efficient process. Today it's around 65% efficient. Meaning 1000Mj of electricity means 650Mj of H2 fuel. That doesn't even consider the inefficiency of getting the electricity in the first place (see nuclear power).

Storage is far from the only hurdle.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By bugnguts on 3/14/2011 10:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen production through nuclear power is actually looking to be a better and better proposition. At some 3000C(ish) water does spontaneously split into H2 and O, this most likely where the H2 is coming from in the Japanese Nuclear power plant explosions.

The idea is run high temp reactors I think the test plants ran ~1200C. At this temperature less power is needed to split water. By utilizing this excess thermal power the efficiency of the power plant increase. I might be wrong but in the test plants counting both electric and hydrogen generation the plant was reaching low 60% efficiency and the scientists suggested even higher was possible.

This method of H2 production is cleaner, generates a purer H2, than fossil fuels, and impurities contaminate fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel cells using platinum need some 99.99999% purity to prevent rapid catalyst degradation.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By JonB on 3/15/2011 11:16:33 AM , Rating: 2
The hydrogen from the Japanese plants is from the Zirconium alloy tubing used to hold the ceramic uranium fuel pellets. When hot and exposed to steam, Zirconium will produce hydrogen. The fuel rods are hot enough that, when the water level drops too low in a reactor vessel, they can generate hydrogen. That causes pressure to go up, so they vent the various gases to allow water back in so that the water level goes back up over the fuel. If the vented gases (now hydrogen rich and hot) get mixed with oxygen, it will explode violently.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By BioHazardous on 3/14/2011 4:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
Fud yourself. Sublime beat me to the explanation. In addition though, who is focusing on using water to store energy? This was all about storing hydrogen unless I missed something.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By Keeir on 3/14/2011 5:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
water to store energy


Yeah, thats hard to understand. What he means is that there is alot of focus on efficient on site/on demand hydrogen production, preferrably from water, to eliminate the transportation issue.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By bah12 on 3/14/2011 4:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
^^ Double fud.

Electrically powering the Apollo mission != "getting us to the moon". Sure a hydrogen fuel cell was used to provide electricity, but the "getting us there" part was done by good ole rocket fuel (and inertia). I'm not sure what the power requirements where for the Apollo missions, but I'd be shocked if the amperage required for 70mph sustained highway and reasonable acceleration by a 2000lb car was not vastly more than the Apollo capsule.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By Keeir on 3/14/2011 5:09:35 PM , Rating: 3
Well not quite.

Hydrogen combustion was also used. What Hydrogen nuts tend to ignore is that the Space Program was an entirely different engineering problem. Massive costs were expected for each KG launched, leading to a essentially no cost constrains for fuel. Even in this situation, Hydrogen combustion was not always the prefered choice.

The FCX Clarity (LA04) gets 60 miles per 1 kg of Hydrogen Gas. Thats roughly 1.5 miles per 1 kWh of Hydrogen. The Toyota Prius (Post 2008 Combined Cycle) gets 50 per 1 gallon of E10 87 Octane. Thats also roughly 1.5 miles per 1 kWh of Gasoline.

Its true that the FCX Clarity goes 60 miles per 1 kg of fuel and the Prius only goes 16 miles per 1 kg of fuel. But in comparison to the 1,500 kg mass of a car, an extra 25 kg of fuel wieght is "acceptable".


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By mmatis on 3/14/2011 8:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen didn't even get us off the ground to go to the moon. The F1 engine used "kerosene" (RP-1). The J-2 DID use hydrogen, and that was the restartable engine used on the upper stage for orbital insertion and translunar injection. But the J-2 DID NOT have the capability to lift the Saturn V off the ground.

And as others have noted, it takes MORE energy to break down H2O into H2 and O2 than you get back in return. What are you trying to do? Sell us a new version of ethanol?


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By Samus on 3/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By YashBudini on 3/16/2011 7:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the only good way to produce it is nuclear power plants


There's that wind farm that millionaire had that was too remote to hook into the grid. It would make a good source of hydrogen. Wind farms make power on their own terms, not according to demand, so converting that power into something storable seems reasonable.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By bupkus on 3/14/2011 4:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
Your figures are in measures of volume. In fact, your liter of hydrogen is clearly labeled as "compressed hydrogen". Isn't that the point of this article, that we are not considering hydrogen that is simply compressed but stored in a new material that may increase the energy density?


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By mindless1 on 3/16/2011 12:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
No that is not the point, or rather, the "point" is wrong if it seems that would be the point. All they are doing is releasing info that a metal has been used to store at higher density than previously, NOT that they have increased density beyond bulk compressed state.

These news articles are getting a bit... how do I put it? Terribly misconstrued and misleading.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By Keeir on 3/14/2011 4:39:35 PM , Rating: 3
You can measure energy density by Volume or by Mass, though the correct term for by Mass is Specific Energy.

It is typically in the field of fuels to use Energy Density to mean either volume or mass... which is confusing and wrong, but fairly common.

Clearly, what was meant in this case is that Hydrogen contains more energy per Kg (which it does). I think the author should correct the article, although likely source materials make the mistake as well.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 4:55:51 PM , Rating: 1
What I'm referring to is its suitability as an automotive fuel. You're not going to go as far on an equivalent amount of hydrogen as you will gasoline. You need to burn a lot more hydrogen to get the same amount of power as gasoline. Her statement implies it is the better fuel for autos.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By Keeir on 3/14/2011 5:22:18 PM , Rating: 3
What is your measuring device?

If you mean by Kilogram, then Hydrogen will take you further per Kilogram than Gasoline.

If you mean by Gallon, then Gasoline will take you further per Gallon than Hydrogen.

If you mean by kWh, then they are roughly equal right now, but I fully expect that Hydrogen will one day surpass gasoline. (Measured from the Fuel Tank)

If you mean by dollar? Well that gets fairly hard as there are differing sources of Hydrogen. Currently the best estimates by the DOE place 1 KG of Hydrogen at around 4-8 dollars if sold similar to gasoline. This means that Hydrogen and Gasoline would be roughly equalivent today in terms of distance per dollar.

I fully expect Hydrogen based cars in the relatively near future to go further per dollar (of fuel) than gasoline. However, the difference will not be significant unless the US invests in enough Nuclear Power to ensure we continue to have 5 cent per kWh availible to make the Hydrogen (part of the assumed "4" dollar per kg price)


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 5:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about in a per gallon sense.

As far as per kilogram, is that factoring in the storage system or just the raw weight of 1 kilogram of compressed hydrogen?

I agree though its future is tied to nuclear power. Again, I'm not against it. Hydrogen can be burned in any engine designed for gas with some modifications. Kits are available for C4 Corvettes to seamlessly switch from gasoline to hydrogen. If we can solve the storage and production complexities, it might be viable. But like electric cars, it still would suffer from the massive deployment costs. Unless you're thinking the cheap electricity is for drawing hydrogen right from the air, not the production of hydrogen from the nuclear reaction itself.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By JediJeb on 3/14/2011 6:51:34 PM , Rating: 3
With hydrogen it is still difficult to define it by the gallon. Liquid hydrogen per gallon would probably be far in excess of the energy of one gallon of liquid gasoline. But if considering compressed hydrogen, then you must also figure in the pressure to know how much hydrogen is stored in a tank. At standard temperature and pressure one gram H2 would take up about 12.25 liters, double the pressure and it takes up half the volume as stated in Boyle's Law

quote:
Boyle’s law states that, at a constant temperature, the volume of a given mass of gas varies inversely with pressure. For two states of pressure (P1, P2) and two corresponding volumes (V1, V2), this is stated mathematically: If P2 = 2·P1, it follows that V2 = 1/2 V1.


Depending on the compression ratio of the hydrogen it could theoretically be compressed to the point that it has more energy per gallon than gasoline. At 2500psi one gram of hydrogen takes up about 0.069L of volume. (2500psi=~177atmospheres pressure, therefore volume would be 12.25L/177). Of course as you use up the hydrogen you reduce the pressure and the amount per liter becomes less. At 2500 psi 1Kg hydrogen will take up about 18.2 gallons while 1kg gasoline takes up about 0.36 gallons. Here storage efficiency goes to gasoline. Since 1Kg hydrogen contains 146Mj energy and 1Kg gasoline contains 46.4Mj energy you need 3.08 Kg gasoline to equal 1Kg hydrogen so still you come out ahead on gasoline by a storage factor of roughly 18:1. Of course if you can increase the efficiency of converting hydrogen to power versus gasoline you can reduce that factor somewhat, say a fuel cell that is 75% efficient versus an ICE that is 45% efficient.

Sounds like a lot of BS there, but it just shows how complicated it can get when comparing storage efficiency of two completely different fuels. I hope I got the numbers halfway right, was pulling everything together there last minute at work.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By Keeir on 3/14/2011 7:07:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm talking about in a per gallon sense.


That's rather arbitary.

quote:
As far as per kilogram, is that factoring in the storage system or just the raw weight of 1 kilogram of compressed hydrogen?


The same can be said of gasoline.

Your asking a very complicated question.

If we set 300 miles as the target range, is a gas based system or a fuel cell system more space efficient?

How about at 200 miles? or 400 miles?

These questions are outside the scope of a simple response and will vary depending on configurations.

quote:
Hydrogen can be burned in any engine designed for gas with some modifications.


Hydrogen combustion is a very BAD idea for automobiles. Otto cycle Hydrogen Combustion is just as inefficient as Otto Cycle Gasoline Combustion. Through in the inefficienies in storing the gas/liquid and the issues with getting the hydrogen in the first place... and its hard to make a cost and energy effective car using Hydrogen combustion. It can appear attrative since NG is relatively inexpensive per kWh... but if your source is NG, its better (cost and enviroment wise) to do NG combustion than Hydrogen Combustion.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By mindless1 on 3/16/2011 12:49:20 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a complicated question or answer. Gasoline wins the contest, the carrier (what this article might/should/is/maybe about) required must be factored in, as well as the safety in use and handling of very highly compressed hydrogen.

What hydrogen has going for it is nothing except clean burning, because we do not have the infrastructure, cannot attempt to equate "what if it was sold like gas" because that is ignoring the existing customer base for gas, the economy of scale vs the prior investments in the pipelines, refineries, station equipment, automobile tech refinements, etc.

Some of these expenses lend to cheaper migration to hydrogen, but not cheaper than sticking with gas or an alternative you can charge up directly from an AC outlet once battery tech improves sufficiently which it will with or w/o automotive incentives to do so.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By Keeir on 3/16/2011 4:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh. Reading comprehension is pretty difficult.

Does a Hydrogen Fuel Cell car require the extensive cooling system that a typical for sale gasoline engine today does? Is a Fuel Cell larger than a Gasoline engine? Transmission or electric motor?

At least we can look at the FCX Clarity.

The FCX Clarity is based on the same Wheelbase length as a Honda Accord.

The FCX Clarity exterior dimensions give a rough exterior volume of 462.8 cubic feet. EPA Internal Volume of 113.9 cubic feet. 24.6% of External Volume is turned into usable internal space.

The Accord exterior dimensions give a rough exterior volume of 476.4 cubic feet. EPA Internal Volume of 120.7 cubic feet. 25.3% of External Volume is turned into usable space.

I guess the Accord is roughly 2% more efficient than the Clarity.

So the answer today is gasoline. Maybe the answer tomorrow is the Hydrogen Fuel Cell car? (Even though the Fuel takes up more space) That is something I can not guess about.

quote:
canot attempt to equate "what if it was sold like gas" because that is ignoring the existing customer base for gas, the economy of scale vs the prior investments in the pipelines, refineries, station equipment, automobile tech refinements, etc.


Yep, your right. The DOE has studied many ways to create hydrogen and believe that an "consumer" price would be between 4-8 dollars per Kg. Today, you can buy hydrogen in bulk at wholesale rates of around 2.50 dollar per kg.

BTW, I don't think Hydrogen is the answer. I think ER-EV is the answer. But even though I think ER-EV is the answer, doesn't mean I have to ignore Hydrogen. Or drag it down... it does it one it's own.

Hydrogen only makes sense if we can produce it at 90% efficieny, transport/store it at 90% efficieny and turn it into electricity at 90% efficieny.


RE: Where do you get this @*@$?
By mindless1 on 3/18/2011 9:09:50 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I am wrong but the FCX Clarity has a driving range of only about 240 miles while the Accord is over 500. 0-60 acceleration is 11 sec while accord is about 8. What if the engine compartment, transmisson, gas tank were all downsized to near (if not below, if we could have fairly compared one of them with more performance and range than the other) the range and performance of the Clarity?

Seems like apples and oranges to me regardless of whether they happen to have same wheelbase.


combustion by-product?
By BioHazardous on 3/14/2011 3:28:44 PM , Rating: 1
Tiffany, you should go get some pure hydrogen, light it with a match, and tell me if you get water as a by-product.




RE: combustion by-product?
By Hieyeck on 3/14/2011 3:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
Fail troll.

If the goal is energy, all other resultants are a by-product.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+by-product

Last I checked, 60-70% of our surface is covered in water. I highly doubt we as a race are looking to manufacture MORE water.


RE: combustion by-product?
By rdhood on 3/15/2011 3:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fail troll

Double fail troll.

While not pertinent to this discussion, the by product of burning hydrogen would be FRESH water. We, as a race, ARE looking to manufacture more fresh water. There is a HUGE shortage all around the world.


RE: combustion by-product?
By mindless1 on 3/16/2011 12:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
Triple fail? Don't you think if you intake AIR, not pure oxygen, and have... wait for it, oil as a lubricant, that just "maybe" the exhaust isn't pure water?

Hmm.


RE: combustion by-product?
By rdhood on 3/16/2011 12:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Triple fail? Don't you think if you intake AIR, not pure oxygen, and have... wait for it, oil as a lubricant, that just "maybe" the exhaust isn't pure water?


No triple fail. I merely stated that burning hydrogen produces fresh water... a substance much in demand throughout the world. I did not say that it could actually be recovered as fresh water from an internal combustion engine. The previous poster implied that because the earth is covered in water (mostly salt water) that water was not in demand... which is patently FALSE.


RE: combustion by-product?
By mindless1 on 3/18/2011 8:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, but there is still a problem with the context of that, which is that transporting this water uses more energy than extracting (relatively pure) water from local waterways, and people living in a nonsustainable environment should not burden others for sustenance.

So basically the water isn't really useful as a byproduct for the majority of the world's uses for pure water. Water is in demand but that doesn't make any random source a useful one to obtain it.


RE: combustion by-product?
By gamerk2 on 3/14/2011 3:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, Hydro-Fuel cells got us to the moon. The exact process was to filter O2 and H2 into the fuel cells, to provide electricity and water [which was then used both for cooling and drinking purposes]. All that needs to be done is figure out the exact storage mechanism; the chemistry is proven.

So yeah, troll fail.


RE: combustion by-product?
By BioHazardous on 3/14/2011 4:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
I am fully aware that when using hydrogen to generate electricity through a fuel cell stack that the by-product of H2O. Tiffany uses the term combustion. Combustion is not the same as generating electricity by passing H2 and O2 through a proton exchange membrane.

quote:
Fail troll.

If the goal is energy, all other resultants are a by-product.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+by-product

Last I checked, 60-70% of our surface is covered in water. I highly doubt we as a race are looking to manufacture MORE water.


quote:

Funny, Hydro-Fuel cells got us to the moon. The exact process was to filter O2 and H2 into the fuel cells, to provide electricity and water [which was then used both for cooling and drinking purposes]. All that needs to be done is figure out the exact storage mechanism; the chemistry is proven.

So yeah, troll fail.


Fail reading comprehension.


RE: combustion by-product?
By thinkthis on 3/14/2011 4:40:28 PM , Rating: 5
Why must you comment on something you know nothing about?

Burning something is combining a fuel with oxygen. If you burn a hydrocarbon, you get water (hydrogen and oxygen) and carbon dioxide (carbon and oxygen). If you burn hydrogen gas (H2) then you get 2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H20. H20 is ...water...and you have a balanced equation, so there are no other products.

This is basic chemistry man.

Fail life.


RE: combustion by-product?
By mindless1 on 3/16/2011 12:56:44 AM , Rating: 2
I hate to break it to you but you fail basic chemistry then, as well as everyone who rated you up.

In an automobile you are not combining (from a tank of) pure oxygen, everything in the air is in that combustion chamber as well as the lubricant.

Did your /basic/ engineering teach you what that lubricant is? Imagine if it creates vapors too.

As for the "fail life" comment after being wrong, well at least it's ironic.


RE: combustion by-product?
By Keeir on 3/16/2011 5:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, I am confused...

are you suggesting that during Hydrogen Combustion you do NOT produce water?

Maybe you ought to carefully read the context of the comment.

quote:
basic chemistry


Nope, Basic Chemistry would indeed suggest you simply the combustion reaction. The Basic Chemistry reaction for Hydrogen in "Air" is

4 H2 + 2 02 + 7 N2 = 4 H20 + 7 N2

The advanced chemistry equation would have you consider the dissociation of the Nitrogen Gas into NOx and indeed include the affects of the Hydrocarbon lubricant. Usually this is specialized college level courses that would focus on the exact equation one would expect in an engine. I wouldn't really call this equation basic as it will vary considerably based on cycle and engine design.


RE: combustion by-product?
By mindless1 on 3/18/2011 8:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not at all, basic chemistry still requires that you can't randomly ignore everything in the air and act as though the atmosphere is 100% oxygen or that it isn't an engine.

Consider that if you have basic math, and someone asks you to add 1 + 3 + 200 + 400 =, that you can't just skip the 1 and 3 and state the answer is 600 because it's "basic", and the same is true of a basic chemistry equation where the combustion products are not just hydrogen and oxygen.

You can't "simplify" something by stating the opposite of fact.


RE: combustion by-product?
By surt on 3/14/2011 3:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
She sure would.


RE: combustion by-product?
By kattanna on 3/14/2011 4:25:51 PM , Rating: 1
LOL you and Fit below are cracking me up.. because your right


RE: combustion by-product?
By Keeir on 3/14/2011 4:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hrm?

If you contained the resulting explosion, and allowed the mixture to cool to Standard Temperature and allowed expansion to Standard Pressure, you would indeed have water. You would also have NOx.


RE: combustion by-product?
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 5:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. This is the missing key. Contained explosion. No in open air, water won't appear. But you would form water vapor.


RE: combustion by-product?
By JediJeb on 3/14/2011 6:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
You shouldn't get NOx if you have pure hydrogen and pure oxygen in a combustion. Also unless you have nitrated hydrocarbon or nitrate impurities in either the air or the hydrogen you wouldn't get NOx as a byproduct. N2 does not oxidize in normal combustion reactions otherwise car exhaust would contain very high percentages of it instead of small ppm amount( which come from nitrogen containing hydrocarbons in gasoline not N2 from the air)


RE: combustion by-product?
By Keeir on 3/14/2011 7:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
Bottling pure O2...

No, I am afraid that in real life Hydrogen combustion engines, NOx is being produced.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR...

Potentially your correct in that the main source of this NOx could be impurities in the air.

I would point out that N2 dissociation can occur at a range of temperatures and pressures. It is not until 1500K that it becomes significant. H2 adiabactic flame temp. is ~2500K if I recall correctly. I would expect some (though not significant) NOx from any combustion of H2 with typical "air".


RE: combustion by-product?
By Keeir on 3/14/2011 7:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh, I hit post too soon.

I would also read about EGR. A technique used to limit NOx in typical gasoline operation. Apparently, in the EPA eyes, typical gasoline operation produces significant NOx. From a chemist point of very, this might be an insignificant amount.

I would not expect Hydrogen + Air to have significantly lower NOx content (from an EPA standpoint) than Gasoline + Air.


RE: combustion by-product?
By FITCamaro on 3/15/2011 7:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
NOx emissions are why cars no longer have "lean cruise" modes. Lowering gas mileage in the process. Go EPA.


RE: combustion by-product?
By Keeir on 3/15/2011 1:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
Since the EPA limits pollution per MILE rather than per Gallon, at least overall pollution went down, although C02 went up.

NOx is a direct threat to human health.
NOx is also an indirect threat to human health. In that chemicals that are formed by the "decay" of NOx also affect human health.

Not sure if the EPA has the right thresholds... but at least in the case of NOx is a proven and direct threat.


I normally don't bust on articles...
By Smartless on 3/14/2011 4:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
But this one may need more info.
First off, true, gasoline can't be compressed any more than a liquid but you can't say that hydrogen offers better energy density if you don't state in what form and to what extent. So far storage such as Cryo-H, compression, hydrates, carbon nano-containers, all store it but so far no one has out right said they can safely match gasoline's efficient storage density (I know safely is the key and so is efficiency).

The article also talks more of the process rather than the performance of the material. There has been many papers done on using metals and such for hydrogen storage so what makes this any different?




RE: I normally don't bust on articles...
By JediJeb on 3/14/2011 4:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
I know the biggest concern many lists for H2 storage as a compressed gas is hydrogen embrittlement of the cylinder. Here at work we use hydrogen stored in cylinders at 2500psi all the time and I know some of those are over 3 years old, so if you make the storage cylinder easy to change out, and change them out ever few years then that would not be a problem if using compressed H2 as a fuel. Also if you can make storage tanks safe enough to launch on a space shuttle or the Apollo missions then someone should be able to design one that will work safely on a passenger car. It definitely wouldn't be any more dangerous than people driving around with the Propane cylinders for their grills stuck in the trunk of their car.

Does anyone have a comparison of how much energy it takes to compress natural gas and send it through pipelines versus what it takes to crack it into H2 or versus how much energy it takes to make H2 from water by electrolysis? I would be interested to see the actual comparison based on energy needed instead of just hearing the complaint that it takes energy to produce H2.

Not busting on the original post, just adding some questions to help better define the difference in overall costs and efficiency of gasoline versus hydrogen.


By texbrazos on 3/15/2011 11:04:54 AM , Rating: 2
There are quite a few crash test results that indicate hydrogen tank ruptures are actually safer than a gasoline tank rupture. Hydrogen tends to flow straight up like a torch while gasoline puddles and catches everything on fire.
I tried posting the links, but it keeps telling me the post is spam. If someone can tell me how to post a link, I will post them.


the problem is
By lenardo on 3/14/2011 3:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
Water in the form emitted from a hydrogen engine-

ie Water Vapor

is a GHG.

course no one ever thinks about water in that way...

its alway CO2...

if the ENTIRE PLANET'S manmade CO2 production was shut off for a decade (never happen) it wouldn't affect the temps at all..if the entire planets manmade co2 production was shut off for 100 years,,,it wouldn't affect the co2 levels in the atmosphere.,

97% of all CO2 produced annually is...natural.




RE: the problem is
By thinkthis on 3/14/2011 4:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
This argument has been played out and you are dead wrong.

H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means , H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

Simply put, water vapor is a self regulating green house gas, however that self regulation is thrown off by the addition of other green house gases that cause the planet to heat up, e.g., methane (from cows) and C02 (from fossil fuels). Call me back when the ice caps have melted.


Question
By YashBudini on 3/16/2011 7:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
Is hydrogen storage for vehicle use delaying hydrogen plants?

Why aren't baby steps being taken? Many power plants have diesel powered augmentation and often these plants are in densely populated areas. Why not have fuel cells take over those oil fired devices first? Tanks would be in secure locations and perhaps hydrogen demand would accelerate sooner?




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki