Energy Storage

[peadar1987]

14 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I assume you missed the part where I said "not some hydro-electric powerplant monstrosity" — the discussion was about an energy storage solution on a house-by-house basis, Not at a powerplant level. I've visited the Dinorwig site. I doubt anyone will have that in their back yard.

I did miss that part. Oops!

@HCube:

It is a decent enough way to store energy, because it allows large power plants to operate at design-conditions, instead of part-load, where they are less efficient, and allows integration of non-dispatchable sources.

[magnemoe]

16 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I assume you missed the part where I said "not some hydro-electric powerplant monstrosity" — the discussion was about an energy storage solution on a house-by-house basis, Not at a powerplant level. I've visited the Dinorwig site. I doubt anyone will have that in their back yard.

I at least missed it, well for household storage I would use battery + thermal.

[Chakat Firepaw]

On 01/12/2015, 17:20:56, Kerbart said:

As Chakat mentioned, it's already done in places with elevated terrain; I suspect that you'll need a large scale project for this to marginalize the inevitable losses due to friction, etc.

JSYK:  It shortens to Firepaw, "Chakat" is more of a what than a who.  (See here for more info, NB the site does have NSFW content.)

On 01/12/2015, 17:20:56, Kerbart said:

Of course, that assumes that there are no losses in pumping the water up, and no losses in turning the water flowing back in the lower tank into energy. Let's be optimistic (because I think your losses will be far higher than that) and assume 50% loss in both directions; so in total 50%×50% is 75% loss. So your tank will need to be 40 m³ or about 2.24 m in diameter (or about 7'4" if you're into those units).

You have made a little error here:  The losses in pumping up don't increase the size of the tank needed.  In only increases the energy input to get the water you need up there.

On 01/12/2015, 17:20:56, Kerbart said:

While this doesn't sound too outrageous, the main questions are:

• Do you need more or less than 8 hours of reserve (adjust accordingly)
• How much energy storage does 40 m³ in batteries (even fairly simple lead-acid ones) get you?

I think it works for a utility company that creates an artificial lake because of the sheer size they can operate on. At home, a battery oriented solution seems the better way to go.

For small scale applications, batteries are indeed probably the best way to go.

On 01/12/2015, 20:33:25, PB666 said:

http://www.cnet.com/news/teslas-elon-musk-introduces-beautiful-money-saving-home-battery-back-up-system/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2015/05/01/from-elon-musk-the-battery-packs-he-hopes-will-rule-them-all/

Elon thinks hydrogen is a loser fuel.

That would be because hydrogen _sucks_ for energy storage.

It has lousy energy density.

It's a royal PITA to handle.

It has lousy energy density.

It can detonate when mixed with air.

It has lousy energy density.

Hydrogen flames are invisible to the naked eye.

It has lousy energy density.

You have to store it in high-pressure vessels that can become deadly missiles if they spring a leak.

It has lousy energy density.

It can slowly pass right through most metals.

Did I mention how its energy density sucks?

It gets used in rocketry because of the solitary saving grace of having about the best I_sp possible from a chemical rocket.

 

If you are going to manufacture fuel, I would look to a biomass/solar based Fischer-Tropsch plant.  Since you are basing it on atmospheric, (rather than fossil), carbon, you don't have carbon emission issues and what you get can be directly fed into the existing energy infrastructure.

[AngelLestat]

Quote

That would be because hydrogen _sucks_ for energy storage.

Lol...   why you dont check reality before make such statement.

Hydrogen will be the number 1 energy storage method in the world for reasons that I already explain.

All these selected news have something in common, they are all from today or yesterday.

http://de.total.com/en-us/home/media/list-news/total-opens-hydrogen-fuel-pump-innovative-cryo-compressed-and-700-bar-fuelling-technology-munich

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/germany-joins-global-group-to-encourage-zero-emission-vehicles

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2437427/ceres-fuel-cells-aim-to-shake-up-residential-and-commercial-markets

http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/12/02/792241/10157701/en/Connecticut-Hydrogen-and-Fuel-Cell-Industry-Expanding-as-a-Global-Leader.html

http://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/mercedes-benz-expected-unveil-new-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-2017/8526208/

http://www.njherald.com/article/20151202/ARTICLE/312029983

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/japan-renewable-energy-options-2020-olympics/

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151201005286/en/Annual-Fuel-Cell-Car-Bus-Sales-Expected

https://www.energyvoice.com/other-news/trainingtechnology/94396/afc-energy-focussed-on-the-future-with-its-fuel-cell-technology/

http://www.gasworld.com/fuel-cell-buses-development-in-china-expedited/2009659.article

http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Hydrogenics+(HYGS)+Enters+Fuel+Cell+Tech+Supply+Agreement+with+Several+Chinese+EV+Integrators/11075752.html

 

You can keep making solar and wind farms meanwhile you add some hydrogen stations at different locations, you will needed anyway for the new cars that are arriving (that is why all car companies are rushing to get their h2 car). Everytime you have an excess of energy, you make hydrogen. Then you can inject that hydrogen in the natural gas net, or sale it for vehicles or make fertilizers.

That would continue until your minimun renewable output will match with all your electricity requirements, so all the extra energy  you convert it in fuel for all kind of vehicles and transport.

There is not need to storage electricity with other methods to convert again to electricity.

 

 

[cantab]

With pumped storage the energy per kilo of water stored depends on the height you raise it through, basic gravitational potential energy. So it's good in large scale systems built into mountains. Incidentally it is by far the leading way to "store electricity", accounting for 99 percent of global capacity. It might be possible to employ it in tall buildings. Loads on skyscrapers are primarily wind so the extra weight of a water storage tank up top, perhaps within the architectural spire, could I think be engineered for without major increase in cost. But in a domestic house, it's not gonna be very effective.

[PB666]

4 hours ago, Chakat Firepaw said:

JSYK:  It shortens to Firepaw, "Chakat" is more of a what than a who.  (See here for more info, NB the site does have NSFW content.)

You have made a little error here:  The losses in pumping up don't increase the size of the tank needed.  In only increases the energy input to get the water you need up there.

For small scale applications, batteries are indeed probably the best way to go.

That would be because hydrogen _sucks_ for energy storage.

It has lousy energy density.

It's a royal PITA to handle.

It has lousy energy density.

It can detonate when mixed with air.

It has lousy energy density.

Hydrogen flames are invisible to the naked eye.

It has lousy energy density.

You have to store it in high-pressure vessels that can become deadly missiles if they spring a leak.

It has lousy energy density.

It can slowly pass right through most metals.

Did I mention how its energy density sucks?

It gets used in rocketry because of the solitary saving grace of having about the best I_sp possible from a chemical rocket.

 

If you are going to manufacture fuel, I would look to a biomass/solar based Fischer-Tropsch plant.  Since you are basing it on atmospheric, (rather than fossil), carbon, you don't have carbon emission issues and what you get can be directly fed into the existing energy infrastructure.

Well certainly if you are talking about commercial jets a kerosene like fuel is the best choice, biofuels such as palm oil would represent about 80% of the fuel and something like ethyl butanoate as 20%. But we cant really consider a battery. In a mad max situation in which fossile fuels became pariah fuels, you could move use non-chemical energy sources to drive super high speed trains to the extremes of countries or continents, and then hydrogen powered jets across oceans. 

Supposed you neede to fly from new york to taipei tiawan. You would take HSR to Seattle, Washington then a flight from Seattle to Hokkaido, the HSR from hokkaido to fukuoka and the a hydrogen powere jet to taiwan. If you wanted to travel to Austalia, you might fly to hawaii from the west coast, the a flihght tp tahiti, and then tahiti to sydney. 

However i have to say this the limit of fuel on a craft is not volume, but wing loading and weight. You could very easily increase the volume of a wing without dropping efficiency. You could also increas the volume of the fuselage. Increasing the wings volume could have a positive effect, since it means that jets can fly slower and higher, potentially normal jets flying at 13-16 km. The limit of altitude is largely determined by stall IAS for level flight, the angle of attck required to kepp the craft level at a given weight, and about 0.9 mach. So if aircraft can overcome the 44,000 ft limit because they can fly and thier engines work at slower face velocity the efficiency would suffice to overcome the limitations you give and keep long distance jets in the air using hydrogen. 

[AngelLestat]

Yeah methane is also part of the hydrogen economy as I mention before.

But I want to extend PB666 words on airplanes.

Today airplanes need normal fuels because they were designed for that, but this does not mean that we can not design an airplane to work with hydrogen, which is better fuel for airplanes than normal jetfuels.

The first clue... Skylon.. It would not be even a paper design without that fact.

Hydrogen is 3 times more lighter and it takes 4 times more volume (cryo liquid) compared with jetfuels.

An airplane with hydrogen will have 3 advantages.

1-High efficient engine: A jet turbine designed for hydrogen has the advantage that it can work at higher temperatures without melting because you use the same hydrogen as cooling, so the carnot efficiency increase, plus you recover the energy lost in the liquefaction because you help to expand the hydrogen with the heat.

2-Blended wind body aircraft: This type of body-wing shape allows extra volume but the most important decrease in a 25% the fuel consumption. This is achieve due PB666 points, like noice reduction, higher lift --> higher altitude --> decrease of drag. 

 

3-Hydrogen energy density:  So if we combine the 2 previous points, we have that we can save almost half of the fuel, but that half of the fuel with hydrogen will weight  3 times less than normal jetfuel, it means that we can achieve higher altitude --> less drag --> less fuel consumption, In resume it will be possible to save 55% of the fuel,  this mean that we need just 2 times more volume that is included in the shape.

    

 

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by AngelLestat

[justidutch]

Here's a BBC article on energy storage, though on the industrial scale.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34974644

 

[Mister Dilsby]

Some really good information in here. I have some relevant experience in hydrogen and can confirm that @PB666 is pretty much spot on (though when I was working in the field we had a legit prototype that, if scaled, would have made H2 for significantly less than $5/kg... in any case, not less than $2, so the point stands )

Trouble is that, right, it's a PITA to store (we never did try compressing or liquefying it) and just as hard to handle. And then there's what happens if you actually try to run an engine with it and you don't quite know what you're doing...

Bottom line is it's really hard to beat liquefied dead dinosaurs for sheer energy density. Batteries are getting cheaper and cheaper, which will allow higher renewables penetration all across the grid, and as more cars go electric the trick will be to have sufficient low or no-carbon electricity generation to keep up with exponentially rising demand.

[Chakat Firepaw]

23 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Lol...   why you dont check reality before make such statement.

Perhaps you should look a bit into the history of hydrogen boosterism.  While not as bad as the Lunar helium-3 crowd or the flying car people, it is all a lot of cyclical returning back to the same promises.  Promises which then die on the rock of storing and handling the stuff.

23 hours ago, PB666 said:

Well certainly if you are talking about commercial jets a kerosene like fuel is the best choice, biofuels such as palm oil would represent about 80% of the fuel and something like ethyl butanoate as 20%.

You miss the great thing about Fischer-Tropsch:  You don't need to go searching for a biofuel blend that works well, instead you simply make the exact high-quality blend that would work best.  If you want kerosene, you get the best, least contaminated, kerosene possible.

23 hours ago, PB666 said:

But we cant really consider a battery. In a mad max situation in which fossile fuels became pariah fuels, you could move use non-chemical energy sources to drive super high speed trains to the extremes of countries or continents, and then hydrogen powered jets across oceans. 

Note that I brought up batteries in the context of small-scale applications, (e.g. night power for a solar house).  That said, utility-scale batteries are entering the game, (they are competitive with things like natural gas peaking plants).

23 hours ago, PB666 said:

However i have to say this the limit of fuel on a craft is not volume, but wing loading and weight. You could very easily increase the volume of a wing without dropping efficiency. You could also increas the volume of the fuselage. Increasing the wings volume could have a positive effect, since it means that jets can fly slower and higher, potentially normal jets flying at 13-16 km. The limit of altitude is largely determined by stall IAS for level flight, the angle of attck required to kepp the craft level at a given weight, and about 0.9 mach. So if aircraft can overcome the 44,000 ft limit because they can fly and thier engines work at slower face velocity the efficiency would suffice to overcome the limitations you give and keep long distance jets in the air using hydrogen. 

Kerosene is made of a mix of compounds with enthalpies of combustion running from 4000-10000 kJ/mol, molar masses running from 84-226 and densities from 0.66-0.77 g/cm^3. This means we have energy densities around 60-70 kJ/cm^3, you can match this with hydrogen, but it means storing the fuel in pressure vessels rather than thin-walled liquid fuel tanks, (which wipes out any mass advantage).

This is before you start dealing with all the dangers of handling hydrogen.

[PB666]

25 minutes ago, Chakat Firepaw said:

 

This is before you start dealing with all the dangers of handling hydrogen.

I might not be an objective opinion on the matter since i've worked with things many fold more dangerous than hydrogen. If you want to rate use according to danger we shouldnt be useing lithium ion or lead batteries. I think a better word is unfamiliarity, which is not really a problem for an aircraft service technician. 

I'm actually looking forward, most folks are strangely unawre that the world was once a bunch of CO2 that went underground as reduced carbon and carbonates, coal being the majority, all the easy oil is gone, its all 80 to 100 dollar on just about every recent dig, the next generation of wells will be 180-200 stuff like deepwater wells, etc. Even the shale plays, the oil drops out real fast.

Unlike the others, ide actually like to preserve petroleum for neccesities like air travel and wean the auto industry. When CO2 is 600 ppm you will be able to grow and harvest a forest in half the time, we can bulldoze these under ground and regenerate coal beds, not so easy for oil. Conservation has its own benefit aside from dealing with climate change. If oil reaches 200 bbl an economy class ticket to japan would cost 4 or 5000 dollars. 

 

[Bill Phil]

Hydrogen is hard to handle, not necessarily as dangerous as others. Lithium ion batteries have been given quite a bit of safety features, so they're pretty safe. Since people drop phones and they don't explode... I'd say it's pretty safe.

Now, Hydrogen seeps through quite a lot of materials, is better stored cold (and even then, a few liters isn't as good as a few liters of gasoline), and is dangerous when exposed to air.

[Hcube]

10 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Yeah methane is also part of the hydrogen economy as I mention before.

But I want to extend PB666 words on airplanes.

Today airplanes need normal fuels because they were designed for that, but this does not mean that we can not design an airplane to work with hydrogen, which is better fuel for airplanes than normal jetfuels.

The first clue... Skylon.. It would not be even a paper design without that fact.

Hydrogen is 3 times more lighter and it takes 4 times more volume (cryo liquid) compared with jetfuels.

An airplane with hydrogen will have 3 advantages.

1-High efficient engine: A jet turbine designed for hydrogen has the advantage that it can work at higher temperatures without melting because you use the same hydrogen as cooling, so the carnot efficiency increase, plus you recover the energy lost in the liquefaction because you help to expand the hydrogen with the heat.

2-Blended wind body aircraft: This type of body-wing shape allows extra volume but the most important decrease in a 25% the fuel consumption. This is achieve due PB666 points, like noice reduction, higher lift --> higher altitude --> decrease of drag. 

 

3-Hydrogen energy density:  So if we combine the 2 previous points, we have that we can save almost half of the fuel, but that half of the fuel with hydrogen will weight  3 times less than normal jetfuel, it means that we can achieve higher altitude --> less drag --> less fuel consumption, In resume it will be possible to save 55% of the fuel,  this mean that we need just 2 times more volume that is included in the shape.

    

 

 

You just made up these numbers didn't you ?

The single fact that hydrogen is so dangerous and impractical makes it impossible to use in large scale airliners 

[shynung]

8 hours ago, Hcube said:

The single fact that hydrogen is so dangerous and impractical makes it impossible to use in large scale airliners 

That, and the density's far too low to be useful in most circumstances. It takes a huge tank to carry any useful amount of hydrogen, since a cubic meter of it weighs only 70kg. Typical fuel oils are close to 1 ton per m².

Edited December 5, 2015 by shynung

[YNM]

Well... Batteries sure are best I thought ? Mechanical ways rocks but then you'll be at loss when evaporation is a huge problem (with water storage) .

[AngelLestat]

22 hours ago, Kuzzter said:

And then there's what happens if you actually try to run an engine with it and you don't quite know what you're doing...

Is not hard to make work any gasoline engine with hydrogen, in fact here in argentina, 1/5 of the vehicles use a modification that cost 500 dollars with tank included to to run on natural gas (because here is subsidized for some silly reason), but if you charge hydrogen instead natural gas is the same.

Old zeppelings instead vent the hydrogen, they injected into engines to gain a lot of range vs helium airships.

 

17 hours ago, Chakat Firepaw said:

Perhaps you should look a bit into the history of hydrogen boosterism.  While not as bad as the Lunar helium-3 crowd or the flying car people, it is all a lot of cyclical returning back to the same promises.  Promises which then die on the rock of storing and handling the stuff.

The history shows me no interest in the co2 emission and there was not renewable energy sources cheap enough to capitalize that.

 

15 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Hydrogen is hard to handle, not necessarily as dangerous as others. Lithium ion batteries have been given quite a bit of safety features, so they're pretty safe. Since people drop phones and they don't explode... I'd say it's pretty safe.

Now, Hydrogen seeps through quite a lot of materials, is better stored cold (and even then, a few liters isn't as good as a few liters of gasoline), and is dangerous when exposed to air.

Is not more dangerous than natural gas, and we use it in all houses. Hydrogen has bad reputation which is not deserved,  promoted by USA since airships times when they wanted to exploit their helium resources, then the bad reputation go back when oil companies also look at hydrogen like some kind of competence. 

LIthium batteries are not so safe, they can get fire very easy at car energy density, a new kind of batteries are coming to solve that issue.

Another benefic is that you produce the hydrogen in the same h2 stations, that reduce a lot the energy loses and the transport risk.

 

12 hours ago, Hcube said:

You just made up these numbers didn't you ?

The single fact that hydrogen is so dangerous and impractical makes it impossible to use in large scale airliners 

What number I made up?  The extra 10% to 15% of hydrogen jet turbines?     The 25% fuel reduction with the new nasa blended body design that also increase the internal volume?   Or the fact that if the airplane will weights 1/4 less due hydrogen amount and mass which it will translate to a new 20% decrease in fuel consumption?

Also dangerous and impractical??  Why you don't provide some examples of how liquid hydrogen with their safety systems will be more dangerous than jet fuel?

 

3 hours ago, shynung said:

That, and the density's far too low to be useful in most circumstances. It takes a huge tank to carry any useful amount of hydrogen, since a cubic meter of it weighs only 70kg. Typical fuel oils are close to 1 ton per m².

If you use electric engines with fuel cell, your are increasing the fuel efficiency by a factor of 3, so you need 3 times less fuel to keep the same range.  This still requires 3 times more volume, but electric engines and fuel cell require less space than a full otto engine with their gas escape, radiators, gearbox, alternator, etc.

And hydrogen cars just started, the technology will keep maturing decreasing the cost and volume.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Bill Phil]

Hydrogen's energy per liter is still awful. And that's even when it's stored cold. It's cryogenic, and still only efficient per unit mass, which is what rockets are more about, but automobiles measure fuel by volume, and hydrogen just isn't good according to that measure. It's good for rockets, but rockets are usually more concerned about energy per mass unit. That's fine, but cars are very different.

Bulk power generation can use hydrogen if producing it takes less power than generated. Gasification could be used. Syngas is partly composed of molecular hydrogen. But it's a very exothermic reaction to make it... 

[Hcube]

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

What number I made up?  The extra 10% to 15% of hydrogen jet turbines?     The 25% fuel reduction with the new nasa blended body design that also increase the internal volume?   Or the fact that if the airplane will weights 1/4 less due hydrogen amount and mass which it will translate to a new 20% decrease in fuel consumption?

Also dangerous and impractical??  Why you don't provide some examples of how liquid hydrogen with their safety systems will be more dangerous than jet fuel?

Actually, all of them. Looks a lot like you are pulling those from your pocket without estimating some important factors like increased drag impact for lower mass, etc etc.

 

About hydrogen, a few reasons for why it's impractical in an airport and for rapidly fueling jets :

 

1) It must be cooled down to 33K.

->expensive new set of tubing for every airport in the world, and since the tubing is often underground... That's some hardwork. It's gonna need MUCH more maintenance because metal tubes don't like having supercold fluids running through them.

->storing a liquid that must be cooled down at 4K sucks. It's gonna need special tanks and you'll need energy to keep it cool (probably much more than what you get from using H2)

->Extra safety measures and protection for all the personnel ! Who wants a frostbite ?

 

2) It has the nasty habit to invisibly, odorlessly mix with air and explode. How safe is that ?

->the fact that it is so less stable than kerosene and that it tends to detonate for no reason goes against the obsession of safety that rules every airline today

->the flames are invisible ! How practical and handy is that. 

->It will asphyxiate you in its gaseous form, guess a leak in the cabin would suck

 

 

 

Jet fuel does none of this. It's stable, liquid, warm storable and cheap.

 

[shynung]

2 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

If you use electric engines with fuel cell, your are increasing the fuel efficiency by a factor of 3, so you need 3 times less fuel to keep the same range.  This still requires 3 times more volume, but electric engines and fuel cell require less space than a full otto engine with their gas escape, radiators, gearbox, alternator, etc.

And hydrogen cars just started, the technology will keep maturing decreasing the cost and volume.

 

 

That's still a loss.

Say a certain trip needs 30 kg of gasoline fuel using an Otto engine. Density of gasoline about 900 kg/cubic meter, or 0.9 kg per liter. That means the fuel tank needs to be able to hold 27 liters of fuel.

Suppose we replace the engine with a fuel cell that's 3 times as efficient. Assuming similar energy densities, that means 10 kg of liquid hydrogen. Since density of liquid hydrogen is only 70 kg/cubic meter, or 0.07 kg per liter, the tank now has to hold a whopping 143 liters of liquid hydrogen.

Now here's the kicker: while liquid hydrogen indeed have a larger specific energy (that is, energy divided by mass) compared to gasoline, it has a smaller energy density (energy divided by volume) compared to gasoline. In short, a 1 liter tank of gasoline carries more energy than a 1 liter tank of liquid hydrogen. 4 times more, in fact.

[Bill Phil]

12 minutes ago, shynung said:

That's still a loss.

Say a certain trip needs 30 kg of gasoline fuel using an Otto engine. Density of gasoline about 900 kg/cubic meter, or 0.9 kg per liter. That means the fuel tank needs to be able to hold 27 liters of fuel.

Suppose we replace the engine with a fuel cell that's 3 times as efficient. Assuming similar energy densities, that means 10 kg of liquid hydrogen. Since density of liquid hydrogen is only 70 kg/cubic meter, or 0.07 kg per liter, the tank now has to hold a whopping 143 liters of liquid hydrogen.

Now here's the kicker: while liquid hydrogen indeed have a larger specific energy (that is, energy divided by mass) compared to gasoline, it has a smaller energy density (energy divided by volume) compared to gasoline. In short, a 1 liter tank of gasoline carries more energy than a 1 liter tank of liquid hydrogen. 4 times more, in fact.

And that's 143 liters that have a surface area that needs to be insulated heavily. And constructed so that it doesn't lose any hydrogen. And be strong enough to not break in a wreck. Of which thousands happen per year. And hydrogen's dangerous. Even some gas powered cars have caught fire thanks to the gas, what'll happen to the hydrogen without proper construction*?

 

*Which will hurt performance

Edited December 5, 2015 by Bill Phil

[Elthy]

I see the main problem in hydrogen in the permanent danger of leaks. It find it way even through solid steel, so everything with hydrogen has to be vented well.

[PB666]

42 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

And that's 143 liters that have a surface area that needs to be insulated heavily. And constructed so that it doesn't lose any hydrogen. And be strong enough to not break in a wreck. Of which thousands happen per year. And hydrogen's dangerous. Even some gas powered cars have caught fire thanks to the gas, what'll happen to the hydrogen without proper construction*?

 

*Which will hurt performance

if hydrogen were available i would drive a hydrogen powered car, it takes the engine out of the vehicle, replace with fuel cell and bigger battery, put an efficient solar panel on the roof. For most people the battery would get them were they needed to go and the hydrogen would make the diff.  When hybrids came out everyone said they would't last and you have to replace battery every 50,000 mikes. My prius at 100k miles is the most carefree car i ever owned, if i want to travel cross the country, i dont even consider the price of gas. The other thing at 100k im still on the factory brakes.  Bring on the hydrogen let the naysayers and fear mongers cower in the corner together. My next investment, solar panels and an inverter for my house. Maybe i'll start generating electrolytic hydrogen, modify my old pickup to run on hydrogen. 

Solution to hydrogen, place a blow-out vent on the roof of the car, if the tank goes over pressure the hydrogen, much lighter than air goes bye-bye.

BTW the most dangerous fuel is oil, it stays in one place and burns hot, hydrogen has a density on 15th air, it will not stay in on place waiting for sparks, it will go up. I used to have a business associate who ran a whole fleet of propane powered nissan trucks in his company, he routinely got 300-400k miles out of the trucks, never once heard of a fire, many cities are using propane buses. Non particulate emitting engines are the way to go in big cities. 

Of course if you can reduce CO2 to CO you can treat it with hydrogen and generate formaldehyde, which can be converted to methanol by any nuber of means and used as a fuel which is has one of the highest energy densities for a clean burning fuel. Its also a regulatory mess because of substance abuse. 

Edited December 5, 2015 by PB666

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

if hydrogen were available i would drive a hydrogen powered car, it takes the engine out of the vehicle, replace with fuel cell and bigger battery, put an efficient solar panel on the roof. For most people the battery would get them were they needed to go and the hydrogen would make the diff.  When hybrids came out everyone said they would't last and you have to replace battery every 50,000 mikes. My prius at 100k miles is the most carefree car i ever owned, if i want to travel cross the country, i dont even consider the price of gas. The other thing at 100k im still on the factory brakes.  Bring on the hydrogen let the naysayers and fear mongers cower in the corner together. My next investment, solar panels and an inverter for my house. Maybe i'll start generating electrolytic hydrogen, modify my old pickup to run on hydrogen. 

Solution to hydrogen, place a plow out vent on the roof of the car, if the tank goes over pressure the hydrogen, much lighter than air goes bye-bye.m

This isn't fear. It's pointing out problems. Hydrogen is simply not a good fuel for mobile power production. It can be done, and is being done, but it's not a good fuel. Everything can be done, but everything has a cost. You want hydrogen, your insurance will likely skyrocket. And the car itself won't perform much better, will have pretty low kpl, and will be costly to fuel, both economically and energy wise. It's terribly impractical. Now, is it better environmentally? Yes it is. Is it better in any other way? Not at all. Electric is much more practical and safe. Especially if the battery is constructed from many smaller batteries, then it's a bit(literally a bit) more economical.

Quote

BTW the most dangerous fuel is oil, it stays in one place and burns hot, hydrogen has a density on 15th air, it will not stay in on place waiting for sparks, it will go up. I used to have a business associate who ran a whole fleet of propane powered nissan trucks in his company, he routinely got 300-400k miles out of the trucks, never once heard of a fire, many cities are using propane buses. Non particulate emitting engines are the way to go in big cities. 

Okay, first off, oil is not the fuel. It's oil products. Second off, it's very safe. Only people who don't know what they're doing are getting hurt (for the most part). Hydrogen is only "safe" because it's not a big industry, and it's very carefully moved around. But cars are inherently "uncareful", so to say. Third off, Diesel (not exactly an oil product...) only burns once compressed, gasoline only burns when it's a vapour, and they need energy to light it. Fourth, hydrogen will stay in one place. It's in the tank, which has a crack in it, which lets in oxygen. Fifth, propane is a good fuel. According to wikipedia, LPG propane has a higher energy per volume than hydrogen (by greater than a factor of 2).

Quote

Of course if you can reduce CO2 to CO you can treat it with hydrogen and generate formaldehyde, which can be converted to methanol by any nuber of means and used as a fuel which is has one of the highest energy densities for a clean burning fuel. Its also a regulatory mess because of substance abuse.

Methanol has less energy than propane. Although certainly more (per liter) than hydrogen.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Bill Phil

[Chakat Firepaw]

21 hours ago, PB666 said:

I might not be an objective opinion on the matter since i've worked with things many fold more dangerous than hydrogen. If you want to rate use according to danger we shouldnt be useing lithium ion or lead batteries. I think a better word is unfamiliarity, which is not really a problem for an aircraft service technician.

You would be shocked at just how dangerous large quantities of hydrogen get, due mostly to two properties of the hydrogen/oxygen reaction:

First, it's an incredibly complex branching chain reaction that generates free radicals.  This results in hydrogen/oxygen mixtures anywhere near the 2:1 molar ratio not going up in a fireball but rather detonating as an explosion.

Second, the reaction emits no visible light.  This means that the only way to see that flaming leak is by either noticing a heat shimmer or seeing what happened to the thing you inadvertently stuck into the flame.

21 hours ago, PB666 said:

When CO2 is 600 ppm you will be able to grow and harvest a forest in half the time, we can bulldoze these under ground and regenerate coal beds, not so easy for oil.

You're right, oil isn't that easy:  It's way easier.

We've known how to _make_ oil for about a century.  While it was traditionally done with coal as both feedstock and energy source, (Germany has plenty of coal but has to import oil, which becomes difficult when there's only one smallish source not blocked by the Royal Navy or the Red Army), you can use biomass and electricity.

21 hours ago, PB666 said:

Conservation has its own benefit aside from dealing with climate change. If oil reaches 200 bbl an economy class ticket to japan would cost 4 or 5000 dollars.

$200/bbl is around the short-term stable price cap as that's about where it becomes profitable to build a solar powered Fischer-Tropsch plant.  Once such plants start getting built they can easily become a strong negative pressure on price for a number of reasons, (operating profits can be had at much lower prices, expanding is easier than building new, lower cost in building to match a proven design).

[PB666]

3 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

This isn't fear. It's pointing out problems. Hydrogen is simply not a good fuel for mobile power production. It can be done, and is being done, but it's not a good fuel. Everything can be done, but everything has a cost. You want hydrogen, your insurance will likely skyrocket. And the car itself won't perform much better, will have pretty low kpl, and will be costly to fuel, both economically and energy wise. It's terribly impractical. Now, is it better environmentally? Yes it is. Is it better in any other way? Not at all. Electric is much more practical and safe. Especially if the battery is constructed from many smaller batteries, then it's a bit(literally a bit) more economical.

Okay, first off, oil is not the fuel. It's oil products. Second off, it's very safe. Only people who don't know what they're doing are getting hurt (for the most part). Hydrogen is only "safe" because it's not a big industry, and it's very carefully moved around. But cars are inherently "uncareful", so to say. Third off, Diesel (not exactly an oil product...) only burns once compressed, gasoline only burns when it's a vapour, and they need energy to light it. Fourth, hydrogen will stay in one place. It's in the tank, which has a crack in it, which lets in oxygen. Fifth, propane is a good fuel. According to wikipedia, LPG propane has a higher energy per volume than hydrogen (by greater than a factor of 2).

Methanol has less energy than propane. Although certainly more (per liter) than hydrogen.

More per liter than propane, because it does not need to be compressed and has a higher operating temperature.