Aight, im doing some research for my uni paper on sustainable renewable energy sources for the future.

Ive done a bit of looking around, and theres one concept that seems to elude me.
It appears that hydrogen fuel cells are very efficient, very economical(if created properly), very non polutant and overall very viable. BUT, to create these fuel cells, which power cars, laptops, homes etc..., the hydrogen must be seperated from a source...this has to be done in a power plant which uses electricity generated from another source (such as fossil fuels, renewable sources such as hydropower, nuclear power etc).

I dont get it? My knowledge prior to this research was that hydrogen was able to power everything...that no other entity was required to create the hydrogen, it was just seperated by a reaction??

now that ive written this down onto hardcopy, it makes a bit more sense that hydrogen cant just exist.. but my gripe is that, if hydrogen is to exist, how insane must our methods of hydrogen splitting be? wed have to become completely renewable-source based... and does this mean that all hydrogen based electrical products must be based around a battery of some source?

Someone will correct me I'm sure, but the idea I think goes something like:

There's s***loads of water around, in oceans etc. Its vaguely efficient (or can be pretty effiicent) to store energy gained by clean means (solar, wind, water etc) by seperating water into Hydrogen and Ozone or something.

You then burn the hydrogen in cars and stuff.

Storing energy in batteries consumes resources, because batteries are made out of stuff we will use up, and eventually end up as rubbish. Hydrogen fuel is just a way of shifting water to a higher energy state that is convenient to turn back into energy.

Or something.

last edited by Hogfather at 15:45:17 23/Aug/05

Hogfather is correct.

And there is further boatloads of info accessed via Google.

Also try checking out www.howstuffworks.com

Another great site there.

seperating water into Hydrogen and Ozone or something.

Brilliant.

one day we will run out of water :(

You can't think that far ahead. Talking centuries here.

2 H2 + O2 => 2 H2O

Don't think the problem will be running out of water. The problem is to find an easy way to split the water in the first place.

its easy to split water you just use sound and i not joking either

Aight, im doing some research for my uni paper on sustainable renewable energy sources for the future.

Both sustainable and renewable eh? Just in case.

Ive done a bit of looking around, and theres one concept that seems to elude me.
It appears that hydrogen fuel cells are very efficient

The highest theoretical efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell is around 83%. In the lab we can get into the 60's. Non-mobile fuel cells suitable for transport applications might nudge over 30%. Might because non of the manufacturers seem willing to list their efficieny specs.

, very economical(if created properly), very non polutant and overall very viable.

They are none of these things yet.

BUT, to create these fuel cells, which (don't yet - ed) power cars, laptops, homes etc..., the hydrogen must be seperated from a source...

Yes, there is this minor issue. Of course there is the other issue of where you put your hydrogen once you've got it, but we'll leave that alone for now.

this has to be done in a power plant which uses electricity generated from another source (such as fossil fuels, renewable sources such as hydropower, nuclear power etc).

Electrolysis of water in the lab can be very efficient. In practical installations the efficiency never reaches the theoretical 116% (the reaction is ~ 1/6 endothermic). Moreover, the price of electrolysers are very very high.

I dont get it? My knowledge prior to this research was that hydrogen was able to power everything...that no other entity was required to create the hydrogen, it was just seperated by a reaction??

Sure, if had lots of hydrogen laying around we probably could work around all its other limitations and power everything off it. But we don't. We have an awful lot of Hydrogen Ash. You (hopefully) shower in it every day.

now that ive written this down onto hardcopy, it makes a bit more sense that hydrogen cant just exist..

In its elemental form it exists all over the place, just not anywhere we've found on Earth.

but my gripe is that, if hydrogen is to exist, how insane must our methods of hydrogen splitting be? wed have to become completely renewable-source based... and does this mean that all hydrogen based electrical products must be based around a battery of some source?

The vast vast majority of all commercial Hydrogen available today is made via steam reformation of Coal. Electrolysis of water to produce Hydrogen for the purposes of fuelling power plants is absurd. You give up at least half of your energy for no (non-political) reason at all when you do this.

People fell in love with the made for the TV generation demo of car exhuast being nice refreshing water, able to be drunk!

Hogfather:

Someone will correct me I'm sure, but the idea I think goes something like:

There's s***loads of water around, in oceans etc.

Correct.

Its vaguely efficient (or can be pretty effiicent) to store energy gained by clean means (solar, wind, water etc) by seperating water into Hydrogen and Ozone or something.

Incorrect.

You then burn the hydrogen in cars and stuff.

So the theory goes.

Storing energy in batteries consumes resources, because batteries are made out of stuff we will use up, and eventually end up as rubbish. Hydrogen fuel is just a way of shifting water to a higher energy state that is convenient to turn back into energy.

Everything (batteries,fuel cells,electrolysers) are made out of stuff we use. The problem at the moment is that we are using up stuff that we convert into energy. Not stuff that we convert into batteries.

last edited by plok at 17:46:58 23/Aug/05

last edited by plok at 17:47:42 23/Aug/05

plok for the win.

To add a point or two.
Generally it takes more energy to seperate Hydrogen from water then you get by burning hydrogen into water.
You can use catalysts to break the H2,0 into H+ and OH- then seperate the H+. This is generally a pretty slow process. Also that H+ really, really wants to bond with anything that will let it. It is kind of a chemical slut. Hydrogen will even bond with itself to make H2 which is kind of good as you need 2 of the buggers to make water. So after seperating it you have to put it into or on something that dosnt react with it, and you have to do it in a way so that you can pull it out when needed and burn it, releasing energy that can be used to power a car. The energy released dosnt equal or exceed the energy to get it in the first place so is kinda useless with current technology.
There might be future ways to seperate it such as using pulses of electromagnetic radiation of a specific frequency, allthough the energy use of laser would have to get much more efficiant.
Correct the wrong stuff plz plok.

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 18:26:12 23/Aug/05

the law of conservation of energy and mass > current hydrogen fuel cell technology.

alcohol is the best solution

1 for you, 1 for me, 1 for you, 1 for me...

Enough alcohol and you wont even be able to drive anywhere.

We have no viable renewable resource and oil is fast reaching peak.. we're stuffed .

Vash likes doomsday theories i see. :)

We have no viable renewable resource and oil is fast reaching peak.. we're stuffed .

depends on what you mean by viable.. as in more expencive to use than oil... well the way oil prices are going that won't be a problem forever.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 22:17:05 23/Aug/05

thres many things the government could do to reduce such high demand for fuel in western countries. one thing to do would be to revise the car registration system so that low cylinder / low cc engines would be much cheaper to register than higher capacity engines etc. its just that atm we all live in a fantasy world where atm we think the supply of oil is endless

Vash likes doomsday theories i see. :)

If you have a counter-theory i'd like to hear it :) Have a read on how dependant we are oil, its a big eye opener. If all of a sudden it was taken away from us, what would happen?

The sky would fall.
However oil wont just suddenly stop, it would gradually lower in supply. So the sky would slowly fall giving people time to hide.

The vast vast majority of all commercial Hydrogen available today is made via steam reformation of Coal.

Iceland have a cool setup:

With almost unlimited geothermal energy sizzling beneath its surface, Iceland has an official goal of making the country oil-free by shifting cars, buses, trucks and ships over to hydrogen by about 2050.

While googling for that I also found this bbc article; looks like they're trialling hydrogen buses in London now as well. I can't see any mention of WHERE they're getting their hydrogen from. Probably from killing babies and rendering their body to water and then burning puppies to create the energy to get the hydrogen out, and transporting it in big containers made from endangered animal bone - EH PLOK!?!

Also, looks like we'll be getting some too! Though again, no mention of where the hydrogen comes from.

I've got no probs w/ hydrogen buses/cars assuming we can find a renewable way to get the hydrogen, like using solar power or something, though it seems .. unlikely that we'd get the sort of quantities we'd need that way.

With almost unlimited geothermal energy sizzling beneath its surface, Iceland has an official goal of making the country oil-free by shifting cars, buses, trucks and ships over to hydrogen by about 2050.

I saw a segment on Tomorrow's World the other week about Australia is experimenting with Geothermal electric power supply in South Australia. Basically, they'd drill deep into the earth (about 2-3kms?) where there is a natural "hot rock", then bascially, they'd just pumped a high pressure water into this pipe, water turn into steam, harvest the steam and it then turns the turbine, viola' you have electricity. They're aiming to producing 3Mwatts (or some figure which I don't recalled by 2006) - they're trialling this with some small outback town or something at the moment.

Very cool idea, and pretty low energy requirement to generate the electricity and very clean. It's not renewable (nothing really is). Apparently Australia has plenty of this hot rock so.

Anyone seen The Saint?

^^^ Yeah but the actual science in that is still in its early stages.

I saw a segment on Tomorrow's World the other week about Australia is experimenting with Geothermal electric power supply in South Australia. Basically, they'd drill deep into the earth (about 2-3kms?) where there is a natural "hot rock", then bascially, they'd just pumped a high pressure water into this pipe, water turn into steam, harvest the steam and it then turns the turbine, viola' you have electricity. They're aiming to producing 3Mwatts (or some figure which I don't recalled by 2006) - they're trialling this with some small outback town or something at the moment.

Very cool idea, and pretty low energy requirement to generate the electricity and very clean. It's not renewable (nothing really is). Apparently Australia has plenty of this hot rock so.

Are you talking about Geodynamics? If so, its not simply heated rock - the deposits in question are actually naturally occurring radioactive (obviously) uranium deposits. Cool water goes down, superheated water comes up. I've been tracking the progress of Geodynamics for a while. Their project is actually going quite well, but I think the biggest problem is overcoming the irrational fear people have of anything involve uranium or other radioactive materials. f***ing greenies.

But other than giving off radiation, plain uranium ore in the ground can do no harm right?

I don't see the problem of using this Geodynamics stuff on a much bigger scale.

Are you talking about Geodynamics? If so, its not simply heated rock - the deposits in question are actually naturally occurring radioactive (obviously) uranium deposits. Cool water goes down, superheated water comes up. I've been tracking the progress of Geodynamics for a while. Their project is actually going quite well, but I think the biggest problem is overcoming the irrational fear people have of anything involve uranium or other radioactive materials. f***ing greenies.

Yeah it's Geodynamics, however, this particular one is using just hot rocks - or hot granite to be precise.

http://www.beyondtomorrow.com.au/stories/ep9/HotRocks.html

http://hotrock.anu.edu.au/

I remember watching that story on B.T , very good work they are doing there. And it's homegrown research too. even better than importing stuff.

like using solar power or something ,though it seems .. unlikely that we'd get the sort of quantities we'd need that way.

with current solar technology, at a really rough estimate for america's current energy consumption you have to cover the whole state of *insert a fairly large state* (arizona?) with solar panels.. leaving aside the loss of energy in transportation... so yeah pretty inefficient and very costly...

however, with the introduction of nano technologies there maybe (fingers crossed) a change in the costly and efficiency problems previously plagued by solar... It would be pretty cool walking around with a "paint on" shirt that charged your mobile phone laptop (the true meaning of wireless!!!)

as for nuclear fusion... practicalities are the main obstacle in that arena excluding the costly nature of power plants. the joint initative currently being designed and to be implemented in (anyone's guess) 2007 with a 7-8 year build phase, and a 15 year test phase, wont reveal any potential results to the earliest 2030 (if your lucky) with then prolly less then a coin flip chance of netting any feasable results (at least for consumer applications)

Plok... maybe you could do up a chart with the sources of energy and the % efficient and cost per % ??? comon buddy!!! ;)