Jump to content



Photo

Hydrogen fuel cell car is here


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 nimblebear

nimblebear

    Welcome to the Dark Side !

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 6,062 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 07:49 AM

Now alls we need is a hydrogen fuel station infrastructure. :huh: And somehow they need to get the cost of one of these puppies below $100k. $600/month lease doesn't begin to cover that. And don't forget you now have a h-bomb sitting behind your seat that is under 10,000 psi pressure. At least if u go, you won't need an urn or a casket. You'll just be vaporized, which definitely helps global warming. ;) Pretty car tho...

Attached Thumbnails

  • honda_fcx_clarity_03.jpg

OTIS.

#2 Mike McCarthy

Mike McCarthy

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 402 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 08:21 AM

Now alls we need is a hydrogen fuel station infrastructure. :huh:

And somehow they need to get the cost of one of these puppies below $100k.

$600/month lease doesn't begin to cover that. And don't forget you now have a h-bomb sitting behind your seat that is under 10,000 psi pressure. At least if u go, you won't need an urn or a casket. You'll just be vaporized, which definitely helps global warming. ;)

Pretty car tho...



Alls we need is more sources of energy, and hydrogen not an energy source.

Hydrogen is just another storage medium. It's a battery.

We are still going to need to produce energy (from coal, from nukes, from wind and solar) and then dump it into the grid so we can then make the hydrogen to tote around to power our vehicles.

My bet is electric transportation grabs a lot more market share than hydrogen.

#3 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 09:10 AM

Alls we need is more sources of energy, and hydrogen not an energy source.

Hydrogen is just another storage medium. It's a battery.

We are still going to need to produce energy (from coal, from nukes, from wind and solar) and then dump it into the grid so we can then make the hydrogen to tote around to power our vehicles.

My bet is electric transportation grabs a lot more market share than hydrogen.


Exactly. Multi-pass nuclear will emerge kicking and screaming but it will emerge.

#4 pdx5

pdx5

    I want return OF my money more than return ON my money

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 9,521 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:23 AM

Are you aware that to produce Hydrogen gas requires electric power to break down water into Hydrogen & Oxygen? Where does electric power come from? Oil, coal, nuclear. The only advantage of using hydrogen is you don't have to import it from Chavez, Ahmedinejad or other hostile countries. But like Mike said, electric cars are much safer than carrying around highly explosive compressed hydrogen through city traffic.
"Money cannot consistently be made trading every day or every week during the year." ~ Jesse Livermore Trading Rule

#5 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 4,550 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:35 AM

High temperature—750-1000°C—is required, though at 1000°C the conversion efficiency is three times that at 750°C. The chemical plant needs to be isolated from the nearby reactor, for safety reasons, possibly using an intermediate helium or molten fluoride loop.

Three potentially-suitable reactor concepts have been identified, though only the first is sufficiently well-developed to move forward:

High-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR), either the pebble bed or hexagonal fuel block type. Modules of up to 285 MWe will operate at 950°C but can be hotter.
Advanced high-temperature reactor (AHTR), a modular reactor using a coated-particle graphite-matrix fuel and with molten fluoride salt as primary coolant. This is similar to the HTGR but operates at low pressure
Lead-cooled fast reactor, though these operate at lower temperatures than the HTGRs—the best developed is the Russian BREST reactor which runs at only 540°C. A US project is the STAR-H2 which will deliver 780°C for hydrogen production and lower temperatures for desalination.

The economics of thermochemical hydrogen production seem sound. General Atomics projects US$1.53/kg based on a 2400 MWt HTGR operating at 850°C, with 42% ovrall efficiency, and $1.42/kg at 950°C and 52% efficiency (both 10.5% discount rate). At 2003 prices, steam reforming of natural gas yields hydrogen at US$1.40/kg, and sequestration of the CO2 would push this to $1.60/kg. Such a plant could produce 800 tonnes of hydrogen per day—"enough for 1.5 million fuel cell cars" (at 1 t/day for 1800 cars).

In the meantime, hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis of water, using electricity from any source. Non-fossil sources, including intermittent ones such as wind energy and solar energy, are important possibilities (thereby solving a problem of not being able to store the electricity from those sources). However, the greater efficiency of electrolysis at high temperatures favors a nuclear source for both heat and electricity.


http://www.eoearth.o...m_nuclear_power
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change, 
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
 

#6 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 4,550 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 11:09 AM

Nuclear energy and hydrogen production

Nuclear power already produces electricity as a major energy carrier. It is well-placed to produce hydrogen if this becomes a major energy carrier also.

The evolution of nuclear energy's role in hydrogen production over perhaps three decades is seen to be:

electrolysis of water, using off-peak capacity;
use of nuclear heat to assist steam reforming of natural gas;
high-temperature electrolysis of steam, using heat and electricity from nuclear reactors; then
high-temperature thermochemical production using nuclear heat.
Efficiency of the whole process (from primary heat to hydrogen) then moves from about 25% with today's reactors driving electrolysis (33% for reactor x 75% for cell) to 36% with more efficient reactors doing so, to 45% for high-temperature electrolysis of steam, to about 50% or more with direct thermochemical production. From hydrogen to electric drive is only 30-40% efficient at this stage, giving 15-20% overall primary heat to wheels, compared with 25-30% for PHEV.


High-temperature electrolysis (at 800°C or more) has been demonstrated, and shows considerable promise. US research is taking place at the Idaho National Laboratory in conjunction with Ceramatec.
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change, 
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
 

#7 Mike McCarthy

Mike McCarthy

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 402 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 11:12 AM

The economics of thermochemical hydrogen production seem sound. General Atomics projects US$1.53/kg based on a 2400 MWt HTGR operating at 850°C, with 42% ovrall efficiency, and $1.42/kg at 950°C and 52% efficiency (both 10.5% discount rate). At 2003 prices, steam reforming of natural gas yields hydrogen at US$1.40/kg, and sequestration of the CO2 would push this to $1.60/kg. Such a plant could produce 800 tonnes of hydrogen per day—"enough for 1.5 million fuel cell cars" (at 1 t/day for 1800 cars).

http://www.eoearth.o...m_nuclear_power




"Such a plant could produce 800 tonnes of hydrogen per day—"enough for 1.5 million fuel cell cars" "

There is no debate that you can use energy to produce hydrogen, which can then move cars around. That's not the question.

Here's the question: how many electric cars or natural gas cars could be fueled with the same amount? More than 1.5 million, or less? If less (and I bet it's less), then hydrogen is a loser.



Two problems with the eoearth.org position

1) Why go through all that? Why not just put the energy in a battery instead? Why use the energy to make hydrogen? What's the advantage?


2) In the example above, the cite regards the use of natural gas to produce hydrogen to fill fuel cells. Why not just burn the natural gas itself? It's ALREADY portable. Using one portable fuel to produce another is insanity.

Edited by Mike McCarthy, 16 June 2008 - 11:12 AM.


#8 Mike McCarthy

Mike McCarthy

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 402 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 11:21 AM

Nuclear energy and hydrogen production

Nuclear power already produces electricity as a major energy carrier. It is well-placed to produce hydrogen if this becomes a major energy carrier also.

The evolution of nuclear energy's role in hydrogen production over perhaps three decades is seen to be:

electrolysis of water, using off-peak capacity;
use of nuclear heat to assist steam reforming of natural gas;
high-temperature electrolysis of steam, using heat and electricity from nuclear reactors; then
high-temperature thermochemical production using nuclear heat.
Efficiency of the whole process (from primary heat to hydrogen) then moves from about 25% with today's reactors driving electrolysis (33% for reactor x 75% for cell) to 36% with more efficient reactors doing so, to 45% for high-temperature electrolysis of steam, to about 50% or more with direct thermochemical production. From hydrogen to electric drive is only 30-40% efficient at this stage, giving 15-20% overall primary heat to wheels, compared with 25-30% for PHEV.


High-temperature electrolysis (at 800°C or more) has been demonstrated, and shows considerable promise. US research is taking place at the Idaho National Laboratory in conjunction with Ceramatec.



Again, why not use nuclear to supply the grid, and then use the grid to charge batteries?


There is no question that one can use energy -- from many sources, including nuclear -- to make hydrogen.

There is no question that one can use energy -- from many sources, including nuclear -- to charge batteries.


Which is more efficient? Hydrogen or batteries? That's the analysis we need to see. Explaining that energy can be turned into hydrogen is not an analysis or an argument, it's just a fact. What is the most efficient way to make that energy portable? Storage batteries or hydrogen? Which is it?

#9 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 12:35 PM

Infrastructure costs will eventually kill thoughts of using H2.

#10 outsider

outsider

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 562 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 03:54 PM

Hydrogen is a leaking pipe dream. Add to all the previously mentioned disadvantages, it leaks thru anything especially under high pressure. Nuclear would appear to be quite expensive when you consider the amount of fossil fuels required for whole nuclear plant process. To say nothing of the clean up costs, which are being swept under the rug for future generations to deal with. The next nuclear event will remind us and we will cut way back because of clean up and security cost. That's without even considering the terrorist aspect which could leave very large and high population density land areas uninhabitable for millions of years depending on half-life of radio-isotopes.... We only thought Katrina costs were high. The weight of batteries limits electrics to niche uses, but may be a good compromise. A zinc battery type infrastructure with a lighter metal might be preferred over a hydrogen one, since you don't have to carry the weight of oxidizer which is available from air ( making the battery lighter). All the other alternative energy sources should be considered from the time required to pay back the fossil fuels required to create them. Take out down time and other costs such as decomissioning, and alternative uses for the large land areas that some block out, etc. FWIW category. Out