Economically viable hydrogen power a fallacy?

[cloudbase]

I’ve checked a few pro-hydrogen websites and they appear to avoid the issue of needing an independent source of cheap and clean energy that can be implemented on a massive scale in order for hydrogen power to even get off the ground. This is a major omission which borders on deception IMHO.

In order to get any benefit from a fossil fuel and hydrogen energy distribution system, both the hydrogen production and the hydrogen usage would have to realize an efficiency greater than our current fossil fuel only system. If the oil burning hydrogen factory is only marginally more efficient than your typical engine in a car then the hydrogen engine would have to approach an efficiency of 100% just to break even with our current situation. This looks like a nonstarter to me.

In my original post I mentioned fission, I meant to say that fusion looked like the only potential energy source that might meet our needs in terms of cost, cleanliness and scale. I’ll conveniently ignoring the minor detail that we can’t get it to work quite yet, but there is one huge glaring indicator* that it is more than a pipedream so I’ll suppress my pessimism.

Fusion power without hydrogen technology = an inconvenience
Hydrogen technology without fusion (or something equivalent) = a dead end

Aren’t the people spending all the time and money on hydrogen research essentially putting the cart before the horse?

• the sun

[Exapno_Mapcase]

These are what I like to call “ham on rye” technologies. As in, “if only I had some ham I could have a ham on rye if only I had some rye.”

When there is a sufficient need, someone will figure out a way to come up with the ham and rye. In the early days of the auto, people were saying that because there were no roads autos couldn’t be produced in sufficient numbers to be viable and vice versa. There was a huge need for the car and they were built. But it also helped that in those days both cars and roads could be built locally and piecemeal. A national infrastructure was not necessary.

Electric power is a similar case. You needed huge power plants, an electric distribution system, and homes that were wired for electricity and had products capable of running on electricity to make the system come together. Again, this could be done locally and in small batches connected at a later time. Even so, it took someone of Edison’s clout to get the financial backing to get it started. And the government had to step in with projects like TVA and Rural Electrification to get electric power to the entire country.

It will be much harder to do a hydrogen infrastructure to fuel cars on a local and piecemeal basis. It can be done, but the loss of economies of scale will require it to be heavily subsidized at first. I don’t know whether this will be politically feasible as long as gas/electric hybrids are a full generation closer to reality.

As for which technology that is 30 years away from being perfected is closer to reality today - fusion, electric car batteries, hydrogen full cells, flying cars - let’s start a pool. Last one around the Board gets to collect.

[Belrix]

*Originally posted by Chronos *
**The good news is that fusion isn’t even dangerous, but the bad news is that there’s no telling how long it’ll take to get it. These are both for the same reason: It’s difficult to get a fusion reaction going, and keep it going. If you shut off a fission reactor, you’ve still got a bunch of radioactive material sitting around and getting hot, but if you shut down a fusion reactor, the reaction stops and you’ve got some perfectly stable deuterium sitting around and cooling rapidly. So you don’t need to worry about an out of control fusion reaction, but it’s also hard to produce an in-control reaction. **

Nope - sorry. The sun is fusion powered & produces quite dangerous radiation. Last I checked, the current fusion experiments are producing fusion chambers that become dangerously radioactive over time.

So, while the ingrediants aren’t themselves radioactive, the process is.

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by Tuckerfan *
Rusalka, I don’t know what the energy consumption of transportation systems vs. electric power consumption is…

…but I do, as usual.

In 1999, for the United States:

Total Energy Consumed, all sources: 95,682 TBtus

---

Total Residential Energy Consumed, all sources: 18,382 TBtus
Total Transportation Energy Consumed, all sources: 26,325 TBtus
Total Commercial Energy Consumed, all sources: 15,059 TBtus
Total Industrial Energy Consumed, all sources: 35,917 TBtus

---

Total Energy Input at Electric Utilities, minus hydro, renewables, and nuclear: 22,313 TBtus

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by eburacum45 *
(Btus? how quaint)

Quaint compared to what?

[something_clever]

ok i guess this is kind of a hijack, but kinda not…

a guy i know is 1/3rd partner in a company that has designed a new battery… now this is a reputable guy who has a very successful business, not some kid i met on the internet, so im believing everything he’s told me.

anyway… he is the only distributor for north america, and i think his scope is a bit small.

from what hes told me this battery seems it would be perfect for electric cars, except for 1 thing, the price.

this battery has been compared to all of the other ‘high output’ batteries out there and it blew them away according to him. he said that this battery will run a nascar winston cup car 15,000 miles without an alternator. it runs 100% duty cycle until its dead because its a capacitive discharge design and its ~17lb’s lighter than the average battery… and its indestructable. ( that is a summary of what he told me)

now obviously the only thing on a nascar that requires energy is the ignition, the cooling fans, and maybe a few other things like the radio, so in even a normal car, your range would not be 15,000 miles. probably way less… but even in that case… wouldnt something like this be a PERFECT match up for a fuel cell car needing to store some of the electricity its making, or a straight up 100% electric car, it would increase the range substantially, no? hybrids should benefit too…

like i said, his love is racing so his scope is limited… hes shown nascar this battery and 1 team tested it as far as i know, i watched the race and the car did pretty good. their main application is gaining a few extra hp by not running an alternator (which was 6.838hp), and he was going to get $1,000,000 per hp gained… he has like 14 other teams interested. but if this thing takes off i told him it would revolutionize SOMETHING… it has to, wouldnt you guys think? a battery that lasts 10 times longer than anything else, runs 100% until dead, and is lighter smaller and indestructable… when sold retail it should go for about $300, but youd think the big three would get some kind of volume discount if they adopted these for their electric / hybrids…

sorry for the detour from the main topic, i just thought this might be mentioning to you guys…

[yoyodyne]

*Originally posted by Tuckerfan *
**I seriously doubt that the folks who claim solar wouldn’t be enough to supply power needs have a grasp on things. Here’s a federally funded solar plant which if it were expanded to roughly 100 square miles would provide enough power for the US. **

I think you’re off by a couple of decimal points on that one.

[eburacum45]

*Originally posted by Anthracite *
**(Btu’s?) Quaint compared to what? **

I tend to use joules, ergs or kilowatt hours. In Britain, strangely enough, we haven’t been taught in British thermal units in schools for more than thirty years.

[eburacum45]

I posted this before- but I don’t know how to link to it , so here it is again…

How good would solar power be at replacing present oil use?
Number crunching time

1.02 x 10^11 MWh/year,= present energy use of the earth = we will call that P

1.512 x 10^15 MWh/year = total sunlight incident on the earth

15000 times as much energy in the form of sunlight hits the earth as is used in the oil economy.
i.e. 15000xP
Collect all this energy and you would have 15000 times as much energy as we now use world wide.
But- 40% is reflected off by the clouds –
leaving 6000xP
Unless you want to cover the oceans in solar panels
The earth is 70% water-
Leaving 1800xP
Assume10% efficiency
Leaving 180xP
If you covered the continents in solar panels you would get 180 times as much energy as you need.

But to give the current population a North American standard of living you need to quadruple the amount of energy collected so
180/4 = 45 x P

You would need to cover one part in 45 of the total land surface of the earth in solar panels to give every body an North American standard of living.

Of course, this doesnt take into account wave power, geothermal power, ocean thermal power (perhaps the biggest of the lot), wind power…
and fusion and fission power.

But it is considerably more than 100 square km…

[Tuckerfan]

*Originally posted by yoyodyne *
**I think you’re off by a couple of decimal points on that one. **

Well, let’s see according to the site

Question:
How much land is required for concentrating solar power plants?
Answer:
Land requirements for plants vary with generating capacity and technology. A 250-kilowatt plant composed of ten 25-kilowatt dish/engine systems requires less than an acre of land. A parabolic trough system uses about 5 acres for each megawatt of installed capacity.

I’ve been trying to crunch the numbers, but I’m not really sure if I’m converting 'em correctly or not, so I can’t say definitively if that’s accurate or not. The claim was made by the director of the program in the linked site in an NPR interview. And eburacum45 it’s a hundred squate miles not kilometers.

[yoyodyne]

According to this the net US power generation in 2000 was 3.8E9 MWH

3.8E9 MWH / 8760 H/yr = 434,000 MW capacity needed

They claim 5 acres/MW. I assume that’s only when the sun is out. Assume sun for 12 hours/day, so you’d need double that capacity or 10 acres/MW.

Thus 4,340,000 acres, at 640 acres/square mile, or roughly 6800 square miles.

[eburacum45]

Of course, we will need a lot more than that, to replace all fossil fuel use in transport, and in petrochemical synthesis (or should we abandon polymers?)
And the rest of the world will need a similar standard of living in order to maximise the global market place…
every erg we can grab, in fact.
Solar power and fusion at least do not contribute to global warming, at least not until you drasticallyalter the energy throughput of our little world.

[Doc_Nickel]

Just two bits I wanted to throw into the the pile.

First, electricity is fine and dandy, but there’s a few things that simply can’t be done with electric motors, the main one being jet aircraft. Heck, even prop aircraft are difficult to implement with electrics.

Second, in the calculations of collectible solar energy, if a large enough percentage of the solar energy is collected directly- and we’re apparently talking about covering a major percentage of the landmass with collectors of some sort- then wouldn’t that impact other solar-driven sources, such as wind and hydroelectric?

As far as the NASCAR battery is concerned, sure, exotic battery technology exists and is steadily improving. But put it this way: A standard car battery runs about $50 to $75, with even the expensive Optima and Orbital types only being about $125 to $150.

As I recall, the battery pack for the GM Impact had a replacement cost of $5,000 and… was it a two-year lifespan? Anyway, using the new technology could double to triple the cost of just the battery pack.

Naturally, that will probably come down with production and volume, it’s just a point I’m tossing out for discussion.

Other things to think about with new battery technology: How long does it take to recharge? What’s needed to properly charge it? Do they have a “memory”? How long do they last?

As far as the NASCAR application above, the ignition system draws relatively little, it’s a steady draw at a low rate over a long time. Certain batteries are better at this sort of application than others. Like Ni-Mh batteries, which put out less voltage but can sustain a higher draw over an alkaline equivalent.

An electric motor, driving the car itself directly, obviously pulls a far larger current, and the very nature of both the motor and driving a car means a highly variable draw on the battery. There’s always tradeoffs.

[ZenBeam]

The good news is that fusion isn’t even dangerous

Apparently there are health risks from fusion.

THE HEALTH PHYSICS CHALLENGES OF FUSION POWER (a Word document) mentions several (some are not fusion-specific hazards). (there is a google cached html version of this, but linking to it didn’t work. googling for the title will probably turn it up.)

See also Health Risk from Tritium at Fusion Power Plants: I haven’t looked over the whole site, but the statement on the linked page that “tritium in the water form is about 25,000 times more hazardous than in the gas form” is a bit scary, all by itself.

[DreadCthulhu]

** Doc Nickel ** made a good point about there being some things you can’t do with electric motors, like jet aircraft, but with cheap electricity source it wouldn’t be that difficult to make jet fuel from any hydrocarbon source, like coal, or breaking up CO2 and getting the hydrogen from water.

[Tuckerfan]

*Originally posted by yoyodyne *
**According to this the net US power generation in 2000 was 3.8E9 MWH

3.8E9 MWH / 8760 H/yr = 434,000 MW capacity needed

They claim 5 acres/MW. I assume that’s only when the sun is out. Assume sun for 12 hours/day, so you’d need double that capacity or 10 acres/MW.

Thus 4,340,000 acres, at 640 acres/square mile, or roughly 6800 square miles. **

The plant has the capability of storing any unused energy for use in periods when the sun isn’t shining.

Concentrating solar power technologies can employ cost-effective thermal storage, which sets aside the accumulated heat energy for later conversion to electric power.