The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Hydrogen power: hype or hope? > Comments

Hydrogen power: hype or hope? : Comments

By Geoff Carmody, published 7/11/2018

The report accepts costs need to be reduced and that will require a massive effort. It says more R&D, and, importantly, getting the market activated to generate experience with production processes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
“For those interested …”.

With all the mumbo jumbo, bulldust and lies that have been told about 'alternative energy’, there is no reason for anyone to be interested.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 8:53:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The major problems with hydrogen is that because it only liquefies at temperatures near absolute zero (-273C) and extremely explosive, it is both difficult and dangerous to store and transport and as a result very expensive.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 9:22:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's as if the people on one of the Titanic lifeboats said join us and we'll go to Hawaii. Those dreamers include the IPCC, Prof Alan Finkel and the CSIRO, the latter claiming to have solved the hydrogen piping problem using ammonia. I'm puzzled why Toyota, Honda and Hyundai are making fuel cell vehicles perhaps they are chasing generous subsidies. Their pricey PEM fuel cells still use platinum and deteriorate quickly.

Rightly or wrongly thanks to cheap oil the world has gone for internal combustion engines (piston, turbine) using liquid fuel. We should use hydrogen to boost the energy content of such fuels such as the blue crude process. Small problem the fuel apparently costs $3 per litre to make so don't book that flight to London when oil based jet fuel has run out. Motorists can use battery vehicles for shorter trips and for longer trips plug-in PHEVs that sip synthetic fuel.

Back to IPCC, Finkel and CSIRO... if hydrogen is the best they can come up with perhaps we're condemned to face tough times.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 10:28:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given Hydrogen is an explosive, especially in gas form:

1. Would banks back a Hydrogen industry?

- This is also given Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas because it needs to be burnt (producing carcinogenic carbon monoxide, etc) to work.

2. Would insurance companies insure an explosive Hydrogen industry/factory?

3. The risk of explosive Hydrogen tanks or factories in cities would be a gift to Terrorists.
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 11:45:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff, you need to get with the latest research. Using catalysts nitrogen is converted to ammonia (NH3) which is liquefied at low pressure and is easily transported. To use, NH3 is decomposed leaving nitrogen and hydrogen which can be easily separated because of the different size of the molecules. The hydrogen isn't burnt, it is used in a fuel cell to produce electricity. The nitrogen can just go back from whence it came.
Plantagenet. You had better study Chemistry 101. Burning hydrogen produce water. 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 12:25:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scottish tweed was cleaned with urine ammonia. It's the fuel for tomorrow, BYO.
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 12:54:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If one wanted to make the world's cheapest hydrogen, then one would choose the catalytic cracking of the water molecule And provide flameless heat with MSR thorium as the, cheapest and walk away safe, method of providing flameless heat.

The addition of CO2 to the flow just prior to that catalyst prevents the mixture from becoming explosive. Gas that hot and superheated to the point of df decomposition is not without danger and should any significant volumes of H and O2 be allowed to mix while super hot?

One could create an explosion that'd flatten a city block. Other methods include biological production or just accepting methane easily made as biogas, which when scrubbed can be used in a ceramic fuel cell to produce electricity. This particular combination could produce as much as an 80% energy coefficient, all while producing mostly pristine water vapour as the exhaust product. And that is, four times better than coal!

Alternatively, we can, utilising walk away safe, MSR thorium, extract Copious CO2 from seawater and through a series of compressions create a liquid that can then be combined with Hydrogen sourced from the same source and combine them to create any number of fuel types, indefinitely.

Likewise, combining Hydrogen and nitrogen collected via fraction distillation. Able to produce a diesel alternative that for starters is a cleaner burning product. All these things are possible in various industrial processes.

However, the pragmatist would ask, if all we need is a transition fuel and a reduction in our CO2 production? Well, there isn't any internal combustion engine that cannot be retuned and perhaps blown, to run on pure methane, and no house or domicile that can't be powered with reticulated gas, that could be piped to individual ceramic fuel cells, for that purpose.

The huge energy losses (75%) that we'd save, would likely pay for a countrywide progressive rollout Of manufactured gas.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 7 November 2018 12:55:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And once again, Geoff writes an article about something he knows very little about.

When we're getting hydrogen from fossil fuels, it's simply uncompetitive to produce on a large scale. So all that stuff about emissions accounting is moot. To be fair, the HAF report also makes that mistake when it considers CCS. That report also fails to acknowledge the possibility of indirect thermochemical splitting of water (using solar power) even though that technology is likely to be cost competitive with electrolysis.

Geoff appears to not have read the HAF report very well, judging by his statement that "Moreover, the water must be 'high purity'". It's only one of two competing electrolysis technologies that requires the water to be high purity. And the report does state that it requires more energy than the other alternative.

He then displays intellectual dishonesty by equating global warming with religion, as well as the common atheists' mistake of equating religion with illogicality. He then makes his own highly illogical statement:
"Unless we switch to national emissions consumption accounting, based on history's lessons of failure so far, you'll also conclude Australia should do nothing to reduce its emissions production. It's futile without a global response".
...oblivious to the fact that Australia's actions have a significant effect in determining the size of a global response.

Finally he demonstrates his own ignorance of the current state of technology when he says "Many believe equally reliable renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels because politicians and others assert they are. Like hydrogen, they're not." For although they have a different cost structure, we genuinely have reached the point that they've become cheaper overall. The irony is it's the politicians who are leading the denial of this!
____________________________________________________________________________________

Taswegian,
Do you have a source/breakdown for the $3/l figure?
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 1:45:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
plantagenet
Is that a troll? As David has already noted, hydrogen only produces water when burned (and though water vapour is a greenhouse gas, it quickly condenses out). BTW although carbon monoxide is acutely toxic, it is not carcinogenic).

Although hydrogen is explosive, so are hydrocarbons - and presumably oil refineries are insured. And though hydrogen combusts more easily, it has the advantage of being lighter than air, so gets itself out of the way pretty quickly.

____________________________________________________________________________________

David, that's in the HAF report that Geoff based his article on!

____________________________________________________________________________________

Alan B.,

Thorium power is not the world's cheapest.
Even if it becomes as cheap as its proponents predict, it will not be the world's cheapest power. Indeed solar power can already be that cheap.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 1:49:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan
the figure I recalled was US$3 per litre. This article says the target price is €2/L whether that is wholesale or retail is not stated
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/first-synthetic-blue-crude-plant-to-start-operation-in-2020-2017-10-27
In future it is said that fuel excise will be replaced by GPS based road charging.

We'll need liquid fuel for PHEVs, long haul trucks, tractors and planes for which batteries will be too heavy and fuel cells not practical. The hydrogen input at the Norwegian synfuel plant will come from electrolysis of steam.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 2:28:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It shouldn't be too difficult to pipe sea water into Indonesia's volcanos , drop on a lid with pressure valves and use steam turbine generators . TVolcanos have religious functions but the goats can be dropped in through pressure doors and the carbon scrubbed.
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 3:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Taswegian.

__________________________________________

nick, Indonesia already gets some of its power from geothermal sources, and they're investing in more.

They certainly won't be doing it the way you say, though.

And FWIW in most of Indonesia the volcanoes don't have any religious significance.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 5:16:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A long term attempt to develop a viable hydrogen fuel cell damn near sent Honda broke.

The only people claiming any future for a hydrogen fuel cell are ratbag greenies, & academics who get paid to fool around for years doing nothing really useful.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 6:22:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan
Curses on your rats , greens and leftie hydrogen.
"Most of Indonesia’s volcanoes have spiritual significance to some group of people. Nearly every one has a myth and supernatural being associated with it. Many are honored with festivals and offerings by local people. Being Muslim has not stopped the Javanese from practicing volcano worship. Sultans in Yogyakarta are officially known as "Susunan," the "Volcano" or 'Life-Giving Mountain." Every year the Sultan of Yogyakarta throws an offering of his hair and fingernail clippings in Merapi volcano.

Andrew Marshall of Associated Press wrote: “Volcanoes stand at the heart of a complicated set of mystical beliefs that grip millions of Indonesians and influence events in unexpected ways. Their peaks attract holy men and pilgrims. Their eruptions augur political change and social upheaval. You might say that in Indonesia, volcanoes are a cultural cauldron in which mysticism, modern life, Islam, and other religions mix—or don't. Indonesia, an assemblage of races, religions, and tongues, is riveted together by volcanoes. Reverence for them is virtually a national trait. [Source: Andrew Marshall, Associated Press, January 2008]"

Volcano steam-cooking is the future for tourism , Goat on the Lava is a delicacy eaten beneath bright lanterns with the mystical sound of sea water exploding in the magma vent below.
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 6:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So as the article states:

"The [Hydrogen for Australia's Future] HAF strategy would require huge amounts of Australian (liquid?) water for production. Moreover, the water must be 'high purity'. Isn't pure water very costly to electrolyse? That means lots of water is needed (maybe from desalinated seawater), purification, and more costs."

So this requirement for copious amounts of high purity water, make the dry continent of Australia just about the LAST PLACE to produce Hydrogen for export. Norway, Canada or Russia are way ahead in the pure water availability stakes - hence likely much cheaper exporters.

But wait the article seems to imply "For affordable, reliable, low-emissions energy, how about nuclear power in Australia? Australia could construct reactors to desalinate water and a second run through? cause electrolysis in water to produce Hydrogen to export to Japan.

But Wait. How bout restarting the idle reactors of Japan for Japan to get to the energy goodies right off?

Or do the Japanese know something about catastrophic downsides of reactors that were good models at the time of development...?

__________________________________________

BTW French nuclear electricity is a stand out success precisely Because France is building increasingly large http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#1650_MWe_class_(EPR_design) conventional PWR reactors.

Not the small modular reactors that OLO chatteratti continually cogitate over.
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 9:14:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a fuel, hydrogen has shortcomings. Efficiency and rate of fuel synthesis (e.g. ammonia) from hydrogen easily produced from renewables or nuclear is the subject of research that may, or may not, bear sufficient fruit. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ammonia-renewable-fuel-made-sun-air-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon

Solid state hydrogen storage too has possibilities and challenges. http://www.ergenics.com/hs.html
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 8 November 2018 12:14:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the UK it is not permitted to park hydrogen fueled vehicles in
underground car parks.
Not sure of the regulations here but I imagine the fire brigade would not be happy.

BTW I have been trying to find a defination of how renewable energy
is costed. Wind is said to be cheaper than coal.
That seems reasonable if you count its full rated output.
However I believe the effective out over a year is around 35% of
rated output. Then the cost would have to be multiplied by 2.8 times ?
If you had to install two more wind machines to get to 100% would it
still be cheaper than coal ?
Of course the additional machines would have to be installed elsewhere
or they would all stop at the same time.
Then they have to be connected via the grid. Are they still cheaper ?
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 10 November 2018 3:04:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz, It would be more logical to ban vehicles powered by liquified hydrocarbons. Any escaped fuel in the gaseous form would drain to the lowest part of the park, whereas the light hydrogen would move upwards and be dispersed into the atmosphere quite quickly.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 10 November 2018 3:20:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well David the hydrogen would move upwards but it appears that the
regulations in the UK is concerned that they accumulate on the ceiling
and are trapped there. They only need a spark to set it off.
Could come from lots of places, fluo starters for one.
The one case I have had good information was a bus manufacturer's
workshop or garage. The local council required major modifications to
the roof shape and installation of exhaust fans. They normally only
had two or three buses in the shed at a time.
My informant is managing director of the company and is an engineer.
He also commented that the fuel cells lifetime was uneconomically short.
There is a long time before all these energy problems are resolved.

73 Bazz
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 12 November 2018 7:40:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy