backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by someguy743.. on Sep 5 at 5:43 PM

New breakthrough may one day make hydrogen fuel cells more viable for transportation

Fuel cells are being researched heavily for use as a method of powering vehicles. Hydrogen is an ideal fuel for transportation because burning it produces no harmful byproducts that are released into the atmosphere.

The big problem with hydrogen is that storing hydrogen-containing fuel materials is difficult to do because hydrogen has very low energy content for its volume compared to traditional vehicle fuels like gasoline. Researchers working together at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of Alabama have announced a new breakthrough in the storage of hydrogen. The research teams were working together under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Chemical Hydrogen Storage Center of Excellence.

To overcome the limitation of hydrogen storage, the researchers focused their efforts on a class of material known as chemical hydrides. Hydrogen is released from these compounds making chemical hydrides a type of chemical fuel tank thanks to their storage capacity. The chemical hydride the researchers focused on was ammonia borane because of its capability to store hydrogen at 20% by weight.

The big drawback to ammonia borane is that there have been no real energy efficient ways to reintroduce hydrogen back into the spent fuel once the hydrogen was released. The researchers worked together to develop a method of recycling the ammonia borane by reintroducing hydrogen to the chemical hydride.

The team discovered that a specific type of dehydrogenated fuel called polyborazylene could be recycled in fairly easy ways with a modest energy input. This discovery is described by the researchers as a significant step in our ability to use ammonia borane as a possible energy carrier for hydrogen.

“This research represents a breakthrough in the field of hydrogen storage and has significant practical applications,” said Dr. Gene Peterson, leader of the Chemistry Division at Los Alamos. “The chemistry is new and innovative, and the research team is to be commended on this excellent achievement.”

Other researchers at different laboratories are working on the same hydrogen storage problem and are focusing on different storage methods. A team of researchers found success using self-healing metal hydrides in July.



Comments     Threshold


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

Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By exploderator on 9/2/2009 5:26:41 PM , Rating: 5
First we must replace the cubic miles of fossil fuels burned every year to actually supply energy.

Where's that fusion?

Once we have done that, then we should worry about how to move it around. Worrying about hydrogen now seems to be like putting the cart before the horse, when significant alternative energy sources are either so insignificant or so far off in the future.




RE: Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By bunnyfubbles on 9/2/2009 5:31:40 PM , Rating: 4
carts existed before domesticated animals


RE: Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By JKflipflop98 on 9/2/2009 8:01:24 PM , Rating: 3
That phrase isn't chronological. It's a matter of physical placement.


By scrapsma54 on 9/2/2009 11:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
putting the cart before the horse and after the horse is completely irrelevant when we can put the horse in front and back of the vehicle.
Yeah sue me, but rear wheel drive and all wheel drive has been around, so drop the stupid analogy.


RE: Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By FalcomPSX on 9/2/2009 11:34:19 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, but put the cart in front of the horse(s) and you end up with an exotic sports car.


RE: Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By 2bits on 9/3/2009 1:49:20 AM , Rating: 5
Wouldn't that be a sports cart?


By ImEmmittSmith on 9/3/2009 9:31:57 AM , Rating: 2
That really made me chuckle! :o)

Thanks!


RE: Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By IH8U2 on 9/3/2009 2:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, it's a green vehicle. Warning don't step in exaust!


RE: Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By Steeeeeve on 9/2/2009 11:20:38 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, the domestication of animals dates back about 12,000 years. The wheel (which I'm going to assume as a fundemental element of the cart) only dates back about 5,000 years. :P

Yes, I win most pointless argument of the day! (And yes I do have too much spare time on my hands)


RE: Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By Iaiken on 9/3/2009 11:01:40 AM , Rating: 2
You win dailytech!

Except that horses have only been domesticated since 4000 BC, around which time (3800 BC), the wheel was invented in the same region as equine domestication.

Oh snap?


By someguy743 on 9/5/2009 5:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
Horse and cow crap causes global warming. It's un-green.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/15/opinion/ed...

We would need someone to invent a horse crap catcher contraption that can then be taken to be recycled somewhere. You can get natural gas out of that horse crap you know. :)


RE: Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By cubby1223 on 9/2/2009 8:08:04 PM , Rating: 4
You need both alternate energy sources, as well as ways to make alternate energy sources portable. Can't drive a solar powered car at night without any form of energy storage.


By JumpingJack on 9/3/2009 12:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
This is the more intelligent post I have seen in comment sections regarding this topic :) Hydrogen fuel is NOT alternate energy, it is simply the storage mechanism that can be moved around easily. Gasoline is not an energy source, it is the storage mechanism which is a result of harvesting the energy millions upon millions of years ago and over millions and millions of years, only to be suddenly released over the course of a few hundred years (along with the byproducts -- which so happen to also potentially cause harm).

Hydrogen as a fuel still needs to be generated via some form of energy input. The utility of hydrogen is that it is light, conforms, and can be moved. Where that energy input comes from is still the question, do we plant solar panel farms in the deserts to split water? Do we use algea/bacteria to photosynthetically gather the energy and convert that, through a series of complex steps, to hydrogen? What about nuclear?

Hydrogen, and it's storage, is simply one piece of the puzzle. What is comforting to know is that it is feasible but, currently, not economical to harvest immediate energy (solar, hydrodynamic, geothermal) and have a means of storing/converting it (fuel cells). When the fossil fuels run out, and they ultimately will, there are certainly technologies that can replace them.


RE: Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By menace on 9/2/2009 8:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry can never resist checking facts that seem questionable

US consumes ~150 billion gallons of gasoline per year
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gallons_of_gas_...

1 gallon has 0.13368 cubic feet

150*0.13368*10^9/(5280)^3 = 0.136 cubic miles

Now you did say "fossil fuels" so maybe you are counting the volume of natural gas (which equates to over 150 cubic miles per year) and other fuel gases but I don't think anyone is talking about using hydrogen to replace home heating in this article anyways.


RE: Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By exploderator on 9/2/2009 9:37:56 PM , Rating: 3
The current world energy consumption is equivalent to 3 C ubic M iles of O il each year. Just over 1 CM is actually oil, the other 1.5 CMO worth of energy is from coal and NG. That's 83% from fossil fuels combined. Free energy from the past. The remaining 17% is split between nuclear, hydro, and biomass, with solar + wind + geothermal making up way under 1%.

So we have 1 whole CM of oil, plus the equivalent of another 1.5 CMO in coal and gas, to replace. And we need to do that pretty much as quickly as we can.

To replace that fossil fuel energy over the next 100 years we have to do one of these, or some combination:

- build 5 new nukes every 4 weeks.
- build 1500 new wind turbines a week.
- install 312,500 1KW solar systems a day.

And that was assuming we didn`t increase our fossil fuel energy consumption, which we will.

That`s what it would take to replace our fossil fuel energy sources with the technology we currently have. It`s just impossible to meet those quotas. We don`t even have enough steel, uranium, or extra energy to build all that stuff. That is why we are totally fucked as things stand.

That's why I don't think hydrogen as an energy carrier is really very important just right now.

My guess is that we either solve fusion, or starve in the dark. And if we get fusion going really well, as in abundantly well, then batteries, compressed air, and other enregy transports are all likely to be at least as viable as hydrogen.


RE: Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By 2bits on 9/3/2009 2:19:30 AM , Rating: 2
Great numbers, very interesting, but hanging our hopes on fusion right now makes about as much sense as finding 1.21 jiggawatts (sic) for my Delorean.

Creating a hydrogen economy will help use the resources we do have more efficiently. We don't necessarily have to produce hydrogen from alternate sources for it to make sense. Even traditional coal and petrol power plants are far more efficient than the engines in our cars. Finding effective energy storage such as better batteries or hydrogen to leverage those power plants will gain us efficiency. Another huge benefit of good storage is the ability to use any kind of power. Where the energy comes from becomes irrelevant since wind, petrol, coal, nuclear, anything can be used to produce electricity and hydrogen. Right now your car is only fueled by one thing, gas or deisel. There is virtually no flexibility for the hundreds of millions of cars in the US.


By exploderator on 9/3/2009 7:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
^ Here's the rub: fossil fuels are fairly high density stored energy. Solar is wonderful free stuff, but at very low real density in terms of the real square miles you have to catch, to really even make a dent in our real energy source requirements. Low practical density also nicely sums up wind and tide options in practical terms.

But oil, which is the key fossil source we have in terms of broad flexibility, is almost certainly going to peak in production. Reasonably no later than 2030. And start declining fairly quickly thereafter.

That poses a real serious bind, because no matter how we would re-package energy, there is no real feasible replacement for oil yet, 1/3 of our total energy income. Those numbers above give you a fair idea of the real magnitude of the issue. Divide them by two if you want to keep up using so much coal and NG, and only worry about replacing the oil: the task is still infeasible. There is just no practical way to replace the source of energy that is oil. Yet.

Unless there is actually some magic way to burn rock that we have been impossibly blind to see, our critical dilemma is coming up with a new high density energy source.

Nuclear fission is probably infeasible as the solution. It is high density, but it's dependent on building too many breeder reactors to be viable. We probably just can't afford to do it. I won't even mention the potential safety issues beyond the fact that it is safety itself that makes nuclear reactors so vastly expensive. If only it weren't so radioactive and toxic, it would be a cheap miracle answer to the problem.

So that seems to leave fusion as the best high density potential candidate, the best being hydrogen-boron fusion. The potential for small containment systems is coming along reasonably, and this technology seems like a desperately worthy pursuit. Compared to the well known cost scales of fission and solar, I think it's imperative to either make fusion a reality, or eliminate the possibility quickly and get on with finding another direction.


RE: Hydrogen? Where's the fusion?
By MrBlastman on 9/4/2009 12:54:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
We don`t even have enough steel, uranium , or extra energy to build all that stuff.


Wrong. We have "thousands of years" worth of Uranium with proper reprocessing and recycling:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF_Exploration_...

Nuclear Fission _is_ the short term answer, period. We aren't close to creating viable Fusion yet, so why stifle what is readily available now--fission which will provide us more than enough power to get us towards Fusion? I'd say in a few thousand years if mankind hasn't killed itself off (very probable it could if we do not get off this planet), we will be all over our solar system or even our Galaxy harnessing the resources that are available.

Do not print such a bleak picture without first understanding the facts.

Hydrogen fuel cells? Isn't that just a fancy name for petroluem--after all, petroleum is just carbon chains bound with hydrogen atoms. It is an all natural phenomenon that we are chemically trying to reproduce. Yes, it might be a clean source of portable energy in the future, but, to address your previous contingent, we have plenty of uranium right now to produce Fission for many years.

Fusion is going to take some time to develop, there's no way around it--that is, _if_ we ever manage to efficiently accomplish it. There are many other ways we could generate enormous amounts of power in the future such as antimatter or perhaps in a few thousand years, a Dyson-Sphere or Dyson-swarm which would allow us harvest our own star (or another one) using less exotic means as self-contained and replicating fusion. All these are just as theoretical but don't catty-corner yourself into one possible outcome (like I have done with Nuclear Fission ;) ).


Who cares?
By Aloonatic on 9/3/2009 3:50:26 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/02/bp-...

Everyone can stand down, we've got a few more years worth or petrol yet.




RE: Who cares?
By woolly1 on 9/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Who cares?
By woolly1 on 9/3/2009 8:58:38 PM , Rating: 1
America consumes about 20 billion barrels of oil a day
, so its hardly going to have much impact.


RE: Who cares?
By gsellis on 9/4/2009 8:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
Your numbers are seriously wrong.


RE: Who cares?
By Masospaghetti on 9/4/2009 9:37:54 AM , Rating: 2
Saudi Arabia produces 10.2 million barrels a day...

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


the problem
By Randomblame on 9/2/2009 7:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
hydrogen has very low energy content for its volume compared to traditional vehicle fuels like gasoline.


So why do we care? I want a fuel source that packs a punch for cheap. I don't care if it burns dirty, smells like fart, and makes the very air around me green. I want fuel that costs a nickle a gallon. As far as breathing goes I'm pretty sure they have already invented a viable means of storing oxygen in tanks.

These articles are ridiculous - they always start like this: "We have come up with a major breakthrough in (insert technology here) It will maybe, someday, in the future make this new thing possible... maybe.

I'm always suckered into clicking on them due to the wonderfully tricky headline. Give me a call in 20 years when we finally give up on this technology or water starts spewing from my tail pipe.




RE: the problem
By Steeeeeve on 9/2/2009 11:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well I think you'll find that the target reader audience would care about this.

This is news about technology in development, which, to those in the fields of science and technology (eg scientists and engineers) is interesting. It may even pique one's interest enough to investigate further and look up peer-reviewed articles and papers on the work.

It is clear from many of the comments that the actual readership of DailyTech is somewhat... broader but that doesn't mean that they should only release articles that relate to the lowest common denominator.

As for the 'wonderfully tricky headlines', they need to be attention catching to pull in readers because getting people to read articles is what pays the bills. So probably better to have slightly sensationalist headlines (pretty standard in all journalism) than a title like "Moderate Inroads to Hydrogen Storage in Early Stages of Development".

Perhaps you should find another news site to read. I hear Rednecks Weekly is quite popular.

That said, I'm not defending all of the DT articles. Some of them are quite bad.


If you want free energy, look at solar power
By ipay on 9/3/2009 7:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
Why do we never hear anything about research in solar power? Our planet captures only a small portion of the Sun's output and uses a small portion of that; a solar receiving array in a fixed orbit (perhaps at one of the Lagrange points) would capture that energy 24/7, for no cost apart from the initial investment of building and getting the array into space.

Yes, the issue of transmitting that energy down to Earth is still unsolved - but we don't even need to go that far. Why not use the free solar power to generate hydrogen, which can then be returned to Earth? Ship water up to the solar array, ship the processed hydrogen back down to Earth, bingo. Free energy for all eternity.

And the organisation that constructs and launches that solar array will be wealthier than Croesus for all eternity.




By psychmike on 9/5/2009 12:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
Those are some pretty big 'asides' my friend. I don't think the answer is as simple as you suggest.

The cost to build and transport a large scale solar array to a Lagrange point would be astronomical (pun intended) and the rate of return on investment would be relatively low. Solar panels also degrade over time increasing maintenance or replacement costs.

Sending water into space and sending hydrogen back would increase the cost dramatically and require the solar installation to be even bigger (processing and storing water, hydrogen, and oxygen). Current cost estimates to lift a pound of cargo into LEO are around $3,000-$7,000. Microwave or some other form of EM transmission seems like the most practical way of transmitting solar power to earth.


By magreen on 9/2/2009 10:29:59 PM , Rating: 3
Sounds like Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. Is Borat helping with Los Alamos' marketing campaign?




University of Alabama
By justsomeone on 9/2/2009 4:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Researchers working together at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of Alabama have announced a new breakthrough in the storage of hydrogen.


As a UA engineering alum I was proud to see this one. Hope it makes it to the real world.




Enough is enough
By theflux on 9/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Enough is enough
By manofhorn on 9/2/2009 5:32:55 PM , Rating: 5
so would you rather research be stopped?


RE: Enough is enough
By TomZ on 9/2/2009 5:45:28 PM , Rating: 5
I think the OP's point - and one I agree with - is really about the articles, not the research. These types of articles come across as "this is going to change life for us all," when in the reality, only 1 in 1000 of these research projects actuall result in something that significant.


RE: Enough is enough
By headbox on 9/2/2009 8:44:31 PM , Rating: 5
That's because the articles are just rephrased press releases, not actual journalism.


RE: Enough is enough
By neogrin on 9/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Enough is enough
By walk2k on 9/2/2009 6:02:58 PM , Rating: 5
You should probably stop reading technology blogs then.


RE: Enough is enough
By Targon on 9/2/2009 7:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
I have come up with a wonderful concept that will make nuclear fusion possible, and it would also be very easy and simple to introduce. It will only take me another 60 years to get it to the point where it can be implemented outside of a lab though.

That is the sort of thing that people are getting tired of hearing about. Once things get beyond the "initial concept" phase, and it goes into pre-production in a company, THEN it is more worthy of news. Basically, every "potentially useful" breakthrough has lost any meaning because there are too many of them that never make it into a practical application.

So, research and new discoveries are all well and good, but until a company actually has working prototypes, they will NOT be worth getting excited about.


RE: Enough is enough
By lelias2k on 9/2/2009 7:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
I hear you guys, but you have to remember that there's more to technology than just research per se.

Lots of money is needed, and this usually comes from grants, VC, etc. And to continue getting more money so the research can go on, results have to be published. And I'm pretty sure anytime that happens there has to be an optimistic tone to it, or else who would want to continue trying?

Eventually we have some breakthroughs—even if it's one in a million, and that's how the world turns.


RE: Enough is enough
By menace on 9/2/2009 8:33:58 PM , Rating: 3
If they were true reporters, they would go back two years later to revisit these miracle promises and report on how the ideas have panned out against economic realities. That would be far more interesting to read.

I used to get so excited about the "anything to oil" thing several years back. The way it was described sounded like the perfect answer to foreign oil dependency.

They set up a pilot plant to convert turkey offal from a Tyson plant to a refinable oil product. Their plans were crushed because they found out there were actually competitors to buy this "useless" product. Namely, the USG lifted the ban that was put in place after the mad cow scare and allowed poultry offal to be processed as animal feed products. Originally it was hyped to be able to produce like $30 a barrel price. But feed companies drove the raw material price up to where the break even point was like $70-80. The project was going to tank until congress finally tweaked the laws to subsidize them. I haven't checked in a long while but last I recall they gave up on any new US operations but were trying some other projects in Europe.

By the way I still wonder - if they say can convert "anything (organic) to oil" can it also be used to efficiently extract oils from shales? But I guess the price driver is cost of removing and grinding up the shale and transporting it.


RE: Enough is enough
By GTVic on 9/2/2009 7:26:59 PM , Rating: 3
I'm tired of hearing about people who are tired of hearing about "whatever".


RE: Enough is enough
By MrPoletski on 9/4/2009 6:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
Whatever you're tired about tires whatever tiring people get tired about whatever tiring news stories about tired scientitst getting tired about their.... zzzzzzzzz


RE: Enough is enough
By theflux on 9/3/2009 1:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
No, what about my post would make you even think that?


RE: Enough is enough
By JediJeb on 9/2/2009 5:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
Same thoughts here, though I know the research is important.

I just wish everyone would get over the fear that hydrogen is some atom bomb waiting to go off and realize that it can be safely handled and stored in compressed gas or liquid form. They do it every day and how many accidents do you hear about.

Of course there will always be the total idiot who would be smoking while trying to fuel up his hydrogen powered car but it would be just as dangerous to do so while filling up with gasoline.

Of all the new tech out there I would like to see cars like the Honda Clarity get more attention. It is the one I would look into buying if they supported it with filling stations in my area. If they can get hydrogen at a price per mile equal to that of gasoline then it would be great. Charge a little more at first using full service stations until the tech has matured enough to allow the average person to fill up self service then it should be good to go.


RE: Enough is enough
By bhieb on 9/2/2009 5:54:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They do it every day and how many accidents do you hear about.


Mac's don't get viruses either, right? Same concept we don't hear about accidents because the volume is so low. Put one in every car on the road (ie run windows), and your odds of "hearing" about it go up dramatically.

Plus the guy driving the hazmat truck has FAR more training and respect for what he is hauling than, say my wife.

No it is not a bomb, but strapping a tank under every car on the road without any consideration for the hazard would be negligent (dare I say criminal) to say the least.

To your last point about the Clarity, the source for the hydrogen is just not there yet. Until we can produce it "greener" there is no real need.

As of now we have a very effective Hydrogen storage system.

H H H H H H H
| | | | | | |
H-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-H Heptane
| | | | | | |
H H H H H H H

H H H H H H H H
| | | | | | | |
H-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-H Octane
| | | | | | | |
H H H H H H H H

H H H H H H H H H
| | | | | | | | |
H-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-H Nonane
| | | | | | | | |
H H H H H H H H H

H H H H H H H H H H
| | | | | | | | | |
H-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-H Decane
| | | | | | | | | |
H H H H H H H H H H

It is called GASOLINE. Add Oxygen and all those little H's give us lots of go go juice. Remember hydrogen is just a storage medium not a fuel per se.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/gasoline1.htm


RE: Enough is enough
By walk2k on 9/2/2009 6:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
The main source for hydrogen is... water.

Oil will run out some day. Hydrogen on the other hand is the most abundant element in the universe.

Not to mention zero emissions and carbon-neutral.


RE: Enough is enough
By dflynchimp on 9/2/2009 6:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen is the most abundant element, but by itself is not useful as a fuel. It's about what chemical state it is put in. Thus all that research regarding storing it in a useable state.

You're right about using water to generate zero-emission hydrogen-based fuel.

However, you're missing the point of the post you responded to. What they were saying is that the current state of gasoline is ideal as a fuel given its density of hydrogen bonds that can be reacted relatively easily to release energy. This form of release via burning has been around since man first discovered fire. It's obviously not perfect, and that's what all this research is trying to improve upon, a form of hydrogen storage that doesn't involve it being bonded to carbons.


RE: Enough is enough
By walk2k on 9/2/2009 6:59:14 PM , Rating: 1
What? It is useful as a fuel, such as in hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/


RE: Enough is enough
By SublimeSimplicity on 9/3/2009 7:44:30 AM , Rating: 2
You don't understand. This isn't nuclear fission where the hydrogen is consumed in the process. You can think of it more like a battery. H2 molecules aren't just floating through the air, because as soon as they found an oxygen molecule they'd form water and give off a bunch of energy.

So the idea is you add a bunch of energy to water to split it into hydrogen molecules (H2) and oxygen molecules (O2). Then you store the H2 where it can't come in contact with 02.

Then to make the car go, you present it with O2 and direct the energy it gives off into making the car move.

There's no real magic here, you're not going to be able to drive on tap water. There's also not hydrogen molecules sitting around in nature to be used, they need to be made. Which means you need another form of energy to create it (solar, wind, fossil fuel, nuclear, etc). Plus the conversion to and from H2 and water is not 100% efficient, in fact at the moment no where near 100%.

Bottom line hydrogen power is more like battery power. Fossil fuel is found, hydrogen fuel is made.


RE: Enough is enough
By ironargonaut on 9/2/2009 9:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
"Not to mention zero emissions and carbon-neutral."
That is a false statement.

"The main source for hydrogen is... water."
This is true and the reason that the other statement is false.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. So, a water molecule takes n energy to separate. Therefore, the max energy that can be gotten from combining O and H2 to make H2O is n. 2H + O ->H20 + heat.
Everyone glosses over how do we get the H in the first place. To separate the water requires energy. ie electricity. Where is this electricity going to come from? There are limited sources, green energy which can't even produce enough to power our houses no less our cars, oil, nuclear or coal. We are back to square one. We can burn the oil in our cars or we can burn it to generate electricity, then use an inefficent process to change H2O into 2H + O, then use an inefficient way to store it as this articles proposes. Even with this tech we would use MORE oil to power a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle then we would to power a gas car.

Hydrogen may be the most abundant element in the universe, but is also highly reactive which means it is rarely not already combined with other elements which takes energy to release these bonds. Until we have an excess of "clean" power hydrogen cars do not have any benefit.


RE: Enough is enough
By JediJeb on 9/3/2009 5:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
Problem there is gasoline is actually made up mostly of Benzene, Toluene, Xylenes and other aromatic compounds. Though they are still a very effecient way to store energy it is those that produce more of the less wanted waste gasses like CO . I would need to look up the calorific values of the aromatics versus aliphatics to see if there is a difference in energy when burning them.


RE: Enough is enough
By Amiga500 on 9/2/2009 6:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just wish everyone would get over the fear that hydrogen is some atom bomb waiting to go off and realize that it can be safely handled and stored in compressed gas or liquid form.


With regards aircraft hydrogen is as safe as petroleum, if not safer [NASA have studied it before in reasonable depth].

But of course, many get all Hindenburg and become non-rational as soon as hydrogen is mentioned.


RE: Enough is enough
By Amiga500 on 9/2/2009 6:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
By petroleum I mean JetA or similar (whoops)


RE: Enough is enough
By JediJeb on 9/3/2009 6:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, and one professor I had gave a great example for use in cars. If you rupture a gasoline tank in a wreck you end up with a pool of gasoline under the car that if ignited would roast you like a bar-b-que, but rupture a hydrogen tank and the gas will rise above the car and if ignited burns away quickly above the car, maybe burning somewhat but not the long roast like the gasoline would do.

We work with hydrogen every day in the lab and never really worry about it. The explosive concentration range is actually very small, too little hydrogen in the air and it won't explode, too much hydrogen in the air and it still won't explode. Most compressed hydrogen tanks are also made of very thick steel to contain the pressure so it would be much more difficult to rupture it. The only real weak point is the outlet and I imagine with a little engineering that could be made safe also, with some type of breakaway fitting that contained an automatic cutoff inside the tank.

As for visions of the Hindenburg causing fears, that too has been mostly proven false. The hydrogen wasn't what caused it to burn up so fast, it was the paint on the fabric which is pretty close to what is used as rocket fuel being a mixture of aluminum powder and orgainc binders. They even did that on Mythbusters where they didn't get much more than a pop from a scale model filled with hydrogen but once they painted it the thing went up in an inferno.


RE: Enough is enough
By STILTO on 9/3/2009 11:31:24 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever tried lighting gassoline with a lit cigarette? I've personally never been able to.


RE: Enough is enough
By JKflipflop98 on 9/2/2009 8:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
So stop reading them. Problem solved.


RE: Enough is enough
By Steeeeeve on 9/2/2009 11:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Posts like those by theflux are about as much sense as someone reading a news blog on weddings and complaining about all the articles on wedding dresses.

Personally, I find it amusing that people will invest the time to read an article in which they have no interest and then spend further time to post about how they weren't interested in the article. Sounds like too much spare time to me.


RE: Enough is enough
By ZeBa on 9/3/2009 12:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well... I like these feel good stories but that is all they are. They create an overly optimistic picture of energy technology to the layman. I think people get the impression that getting off fossil fuels isn't that difficult if only we all believe and spend a few years and a few dollars. I think the truth is that it took 100 years of research and investment to get to where we are today and it will likely take another 100 years of research and investment to switch to other energy sources.


RE: Enough is enough
By jiminmpls on 9/4/2009 9:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
<Well... I like these feel good stories but that is all they are. They create an overly optimistic picture of energy technology to the layman.>

And the article about BP's Tiber discovery is a perfect example of that. It is as yet unknown whether ANY of the oil will be technically - let alone economically - recoverable.

And BTW, I thought the US banned offshore drilling! Was that all a lie?


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki