$2/kg hydrogen coming soon.

  • Thread starter Thread starter JyChevyVolt
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 56
  • Views Views 20K
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
They're doing the same in Germany. But let's be clear: This is not delivering hydrogen fuel. This is just diluting natural gas by adding a small fraction of hydrogen by volume. It's not like they can separate the H2 back out at the other end of the pipeline! But keep in mind that H2 is a very low-energy fuel by volume; that's why it has to be very highly compressed in FCEVs. So using H2 to dilute natural gas isn't replacing volumes of gas with equal energy content; it's lowering the energy content by volume. Essentially, it's diluting the value of the fuel.

But the key question here is: what volume of H2? What percentage of the natural gas in the pipeline is going to be replace with H2?

From the ITM Power website: "Injection of Hydrogen into the German Gas Distribution Grid"

Hmm, that article says it's limited to 2% by volume. If the percentage is that low, then it's not going to have much impact on anything at all, including greenhouse gas emissions... so why bother?

On the other hand, according to this (U.S.) NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) study:

"Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues"

The study says "If implemented with relatively low concentrations, less than 5% –15% hydrogen by volume..."

If I was in the UK, then I'd certainly object to lowering the heating value of a cubic meter of gas by diluting it with between 5% to nearly 15% hydrogen! They pay for natural gas by volume in Britain, don't they? Pretty sure they do.
-
Click to expand...
There's is a article on separating hydrogen and Nat. Said was a simple process. Will try to look for that article. In Australia.
 
JyChevyVolt said:
There's is a article on separating hydrogen and Nat. Said was a simple process. Will try to look for that article. In Australia.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you have that whole permeability of materials to hydrogen thing going for you. Separating out the hydrogen is not a problem at all.

The rest of this scheme is just barmy, though.
 
WalksOnDirt said:
Yeah, you have that whole permeability of materials to hydrogen thing going for you. Separating out the hydrogen is not a problem at all.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm certainly willing to be educated on this subject, and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. It just had not occurred to me that there could be any method of separating out the H2 at the other end without adding yet another energy-wasting step to the supply chain, which of course is the main problem with trying to use H2 as a fuel (or an energy carrier) in the first place.

WalksOnDirt said:
The rest of this scheme is just barmy, though.
Click to expand...

Well I know why -I- think it's impractical -- just as any attempt to use H2 for a fuel on a widespread basis is wildly impractical and horrendously wasteful of energy* -- but would you care to state briefly why you think it's barmy?

*Except in the booster stage of large rockets, where it's a very practical fuel due to high energy/weight ratio
 
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
Okay, I'm certainly willing to be educated on this subject, and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. It just had not occurred to me that there could be any method of separating out the H2 at the other end without adding yet another energy-wasting step to the supply chain, which of course is the main problem with trying to use H2 as a fuel (or an energy carrier) in the first place.



Well I know why -I- think it's impractical -- just as any attempt to use H2 for a fuel on a widespread basis is wildly impractical and horrendously wasteful of energy* -- but would you care to state briefly why you think it's barmy?

*Except in the booster stage of large rockets, where it's a very practical fuel due to high energy/weight ratio
Click to expand...

Separating hydrogen from Nat.
https://m.phys.org/news/2016-04-hydrogen-natural-gas-network-greener.html

Here's a interesting quote from another article:
"But extraction from the grid is not strictly necessary either. Hydrogen can be used to bulk out natural gas and can be burned along with it at a power station. Hydrogen is carbon free, therefore emissions at that plant will be lower and, because it burns at a higher temperature, the gas turbine runs hotter and is therefore more efficient."

Apparently, the Germans have been injecting hydrogen 10% to improve efficiency.
https://networks.online/gphsn/comment/1000042/hydrogen-piggyback-natural-gas-infrastructure
 
Don't believe China's environmental BEV push, it's smoke and mirrors. The Chinese realized that they couldn't compete with the German, Japan, and Korea in ICE engine development. The push was on for BEV development, under environmental cover.

It's working. Behind the scene, ICE engine development has almost completely stopped.

In the future, wars will be fought for water and energy not gasoline. Hydrogen fuel cell will be strategically important.
 
Last edited:
Behind the scenes, automakers love BEV because it has created a disposable industry.

BEV has eliminated thousands of moving parts and introduced millions of complex electronic parts, locking out 3rd party repair.

Once batteries get cheaper, it will be more cost effective to replace than to repair.
 
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
Well I know why -I- think it's impractical -- just as any attempt to use H2 for a fuel on a widespread basis is wildly impractical and horrendously wasteful of energy* -- but would you care to state briefly why you think it's barmy?
Click to expand...
Moving ships without petroleum is one of the more difficult tasks we need to accomplish to stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I was pretty sure that solar wouldn't work, but since you asked I checked the numbers:

The Knock Nevis was a large tanker that has its specifications available. It was 458 m by 69 m wide, which gives a total surface area of 31,602 square meters. At 20% efficiency that would be 6,320 kW (available ~33% of the day). The actual engines she had were rated at 50,000 horsepower or 37,285 kW. Even in daylight and with good solar cells, that's just not enough. I strongly suspect that using hydrogen would make it substantially worse.

I'm also highly skeptical that making carbon fiber and nanotubes would work either economically or environmentally, but it's too much work to attack it for now. It's easier just to let them try and fail.

And, just to mention it, I used the Briticism "barmy" because I saw that Excoriator had posted in the news section. Excoriator was, of course, Tec's original nickname at the EEStory.com. It may just be a coincidence, but it at least reminded me of him.
 
WalksOnDirt said:
Moving ships without petroleum is one of the more difficult tasks we need to accomplish to stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I was pretty sure that solar wouldn't work, but since you asked I checked the numbers:

The Knock Nevis was a large tanker that has its specifications available. It was 458 m by 69 m wide, which gives a total surface area of 31,602 square meters. At 20% efficiency that would be 6,320 kW (available ~33% of the day). The actual engines she had were rated at 50,000 horsepower or 37,285 kW. Even in daylight and with good solar cells, that's just not enough.
Click to expand...

Oh, so was that the idea proposed in:

https://www.sciencealert.com/new-nanomaterial-can-pull-hydrogen-out-of-seawater-using-sunshine-alone

I didn't even bother to look at the article. Even the bit about "getting hydrogen from seawater" smacks of one of those "FREE ENERGY!!" delusions and/or scams that you can see all too often on "fringe science" websites. Obviously the problem isn't getting the water needed to produce hydrogen; it's getting the energy to split the hydrogen atoms away from the oxygen atoms!

The idea that that ships should be powered using solar power collected onboard during the trip is complete tosh, bollocks, codswallop, a load of cobblers, rubbish, and total pants. It's even worse than claiming a car should be powered by solar cells on its roof, because the car typically sits still for hours a day, whereas the ship is generally expected to keep sailing 24 hours a day!

WalksOnDirt said:
I strongly suspect that using hydrogen would make it substantially worse.
Click to expand...

Sure, it would be easy to show that the ship could do better -- travel farther and faster -- using any collected solar energy to power an electric drive, rather than the highly inefficient process of generating hydrogen and then using that in a fuel cell. Remember, the fuel cell itself is only about 50% efficient, so that alone is sufficient to conclude that you'd be better off using direct electric drive.

WalksOnDirt said:
And, just to mention it, I used the Briticism "barmy" because I saw that Excoriator had posted in the news section. Excoriator was, of course, Tec's original nickname at the EEStory.com. It may just be a coincidence, but it at least reminded me of him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I noticed "Excoriator" too, and also wondered if it's the same guy. Anyway, that guy on TheEEStory forum was a gormless bloke who was off his trolley, quite daft, and rather potty, not to mention a complete twit. Hopefully this Excoriator isn't him! But if it is, we can ask what he thinks of his beloved "clean diesel" now! :p o_O :D ;) :cool:

Okay, I may be an anglophile, but I think that's enough Brit slang for one day. :)
 
Last edited:
WalksOnDirt said:
Moving ships without petroleum is one of the more difficult tasks we need to accomplish to stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I was pretty sure that solar wouldn't work, but since you asked I checked the numbers:

The Knock Nevis was a large tanker that has its specifications available. It was 458 m by 69 m wide, which gives a total surface area of 31,602 square meters. At 20% efficiency that would be 6,320 kW (available ~33% of the day). The actual engines she had were rated at 50,000 horsepower or 37,285 kW. Even in daylight and with good solar cells, that's just not enough. I strongly suspect that using hydrogen would make it substantially worse.

I'm also highly skeptical that making carbon fiber and nanotubes would work either economically or environmentally, but it's too much work to attack it for now. It's easier just to let them try and fail.

And, just to mention it, I used the Briticism "barmy" because I saw that Excoriator had posted in the news section. Excoriator was, of course, Tec's original nickname at the EEStory.com. It may just be a coincidence, but it at least reminded me of him.
Click to expand...

The US Navy doesn't think it's barmy.
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news...ter-Carbon-Capture-Process-Receives-US-Patent

https://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/02/new-machine-makes-sustainable-hydrogen-from-seawater/
 
Why Hyundai is developing fuel cell vehicles.

The reason Hyundai and Kia Motors strengthen FCEV is because they judged that it is better than EV for self-driving and connected cars with high power consumption. Actual level 4 or higher autonomous vehicles are currently limited to long-distance operation only by electric vehicle battery technology. As a result, Toyota, BMW, and others are working on the development of FCEV and all solid-state batteries.

"Aurora CEO Chris Sonson has been experiencing a lot of difficulties while trying to use autonomous driving with EV on Google," said Yang Woong-cheol, Vice President of Hyundai Motor's R & D department. "Since FCEV has a longer travel distance than EV, "It was evaluated as suitable for.

원문보기:
http://m.etnews.com/20180109000226#_enliple#csidx5cb81c9723764fdb9bbd6cc74f9a9a5
onebyone.gif


Au version
http://www.caradvice.com.au/613545/autonomous-driving-better-suited-to-hydrogen-fuel-cell-evs-hyundai

The verge has been thinking about fuel cell and Geo fenced autonomous vehicles
https://www.theverge.com/platform/a...-honda-clarity-self-driving-ny-auto-show-2017

GM had been thinking about this too
https://www.trucks.com/2017/10/06/general-motors-electric-autonomous-truck-platform-surus/amp/

Amazon and Walmart had been thinking about this too.
https://www.hygen.com/hydrogen-will-benefit-autonomous-cars/
 
Last edited:
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
It's bad because it's just one more cynical attempt by Big Oil to promote the "hydrogen economy" hoax, the idea that hydrogen fuel could someday become a practical fuel. One of Big Oil's strategies in promoting the hoax is to keep up hope for some breakthru tech which will magically reduce the price of H2 to something reasonable.
Click to expand...

Thats not really something for you or me to decide, the market decides if they can do this economically. If they can competitively make CF and CN from natural gas, and it's the best use of their capital to do so then they're going to do it. The story isn't about the hydrogen as it is the CF and CN. They don't care about the hydrogen, it's just a byproduct, not a driver. I can't see how anyone would find this as a hoax about hydrogen cars, but when you all you have a hammer everything looks like a nail I guess.

O&G has a lot of capital in gas extraction and land leases. At this point to them extracting the next volume of gas is trivial, they're dealing with huge fixed costs and tiny marginal. So the fixed are borne and sunk, so the marginal is the driver here. And if the marginal costs are such that they can economically produce CF and CN and that's their best course of action with the gas, then they're going to do that anyways. There also happens to be hydrogen leftover, so we may as well use it in cars.

Still not seeing how it's a bad thing.
 
WalksOnDirt said:
With nuclear fueled ships, which the Navy has, it can make sense to synthesize fuel for your auxiliary craft. No one should suggest it works as an alternative to the reactor for moving the main ship.
Click to expand...

There are certain niche applications where using fuel cells makes sense; where cost isn't a factor and where space is at a premium. This applies to spacecraft and unmanned underwater drones.

So I can see why the Navy would want to be able to generate hydrogen to power underwater drones when at sea. That does not mean it's practical to power passenger cars that way!
 
Feed The Trees said:
I can't see how anyone would find this as a hoax about hydrogen cars...
Click to expand...

The "hydrogen economy" hoax, promoted by Big Oil, isn't about the technology of FCEVs. The problem with "fool cell" cars isn't the FCEV itself; it's the fuel used to power it. The hoax that Big Oil is promoting is that highly compressed hydrogen can be used as a practical fuel for mass transportation.

As I've pointed out before, hydrogen is fine as a fuel for large booster rockets, where its high energy-to-weight ratio is favorable. And if the U.S. Navy is using enough of it to need to generate it at sea, that's interesting. But it's still a narrow niche application. It's not, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, an indication that somebody has figured out how to turn H2 into a practical fuel. It's nothing but wishful thinking to suggest that could ever happen.

And we shouldn't need to keep pointing this out. Arguing that somehow hydrogen can be made into a practical fuel is like arguing that perpetual motion machines really will work if we keep trying hard enough. The universe just doesn't work that way, and there's no "clever way" to fool Mother Nature or the Laws of Thermodynamics.
 
Roy_H said:
I am strongly anti-FCV, but I have to admit that this is the best news I have read about low cost production of H2 because it does not emit CO2 as a by-product. Says this will bring it competitive with gas and diesel, still 2 to 3 times cost of electricity. My main beef remains, that is the taxpayer footing the bill for H2 infrastructure. If it was paid for by the oil companies (no more subsidy than for BEVs) I would applaud this news.
Click to expand...
How is it 2 to 3 times the price of electricity? Check the fast charging rates on evgo or plugshare. $0.59 a KWh plus $2.59 service fee, and the long charge time. Don't be fooled by Tesla's subsidized rates. Elon Musk is a big proponent of EV transportation, isn't he? If that's what is a sustainable price, let's see Tesla open up their charging network to all EV drivers. They won't, simply because they are highly subsiding it to promote sales of their own cars. We aren't even talking about electricity from renewable mix, just simple fossil fuel based electricity.

Just placed my order of the Clarity fuel cell. Now I have to wait 10 months to get one. Honda Clarity - the longest range electric car on the planet, with "premium" ALCANTARA in the interiors.
 
Feed The Trees said:
Thats not really something for you or me to decide, the market decides if they can do this economically.
Click to expand...

That's like arguing that the market will decide whether nor not perpetual machines will work.

No, it's not at all up to the market, and it's not an opinion. It's a fact which is easily shown by anyone doing a thermodynamic analysis. Hydrogen cannot be made into a practical fuel for mass transportation for exactly the same reason perpetual motion machines don't work: Because the Laws of Thermodynamics prohibit it.

But even if that were not the case, I still doubt that compressed hydrogen gas could ever compete economically with gasoline as a fuel, even if it was 100% synthetic gasoline. Hydrogen is just too hard to handle to ever be practical. Gasoline is liquid at room temperature, can easily be stored long-term in cheap mild steel tanks, and can easily be pumped in and out with simple, cheap pumps.

None of this is true for hydrogen. Pumping highly pressurized H2 requires special, expensive high-pressure pumps, and tanks and pipes with special, expensive seals. Furthermore, since H2 embrittles metals, those tanks and pipes have to be replaced every few years. The monumentally high cost of H2 fueling stations is a direct result of the pernicious nature of the H2 molecule, which is another property that's not going to be changed by some future clever innovation. Chemical properties of elements are as immutable as the Laws of Physics.
 
Last edited:
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
So I can see why the Navy would want to be able to generate hydrogen to power underwater drones when at sea. That does not mean it's practical to power passenger cars that way!
Click to expand...
I sure don't see it. The only advantage I see is that it is quieter, and with batteries able to give you half the range the use case is minimal. Of course, fuel cells need oxygen to run just like normal diesel engines, so there is no advantage there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top