Hydrogen fuel that substitutes for fossil fuel

[kkissinger]

Will be interesting to see if this idea gains traction:

http://www.cellaenergy.com/uploads/press/Filling%20up%20with%20hydrogen%20now%20a%20real%20possibility.pdf

[D.Miñoza]

here's a title you might like to check out, Kevin:

http://www.amazon.com/Hydrogen-Economy-Jeremy-Rifkin/dp/1585422541

imagine a complete flip of the system where each individual home generates power and feeds a larger grid where extra power is stored for public use.

you can imagine theres resistance to such an idea and the research and tech development to make it happen.

[nobody]

[kkissinger]

Dan, looks like an interesting book and I'll check it out.

I see the major advantage of hydrogen is that it is the most abundant element in the universe and the by product of burning it is H2O.

The disadvantage is that it is expensive to produce and hard to store. However, we may find ways to cross these hurdles. The technology from Cella Energy addresses the storage issue -- and apparently can make use of elements of the existing infrastructure.

However, to make Hydrogen requires electricity -- and it most likely will come from a coal-fired plant. So, we still have a ways to go.

[nobody]

[wmonk]

[nobody]

[glow worm]

[wmonk]

It indeed costs a lot of energy, (for example the power plant-to-wheel efficiency is about 25%). Does it require long wires? Not really, hydrogen plants don't have to be large scale to optimise the process. As of that, it is possible to have small plants near power plants. Now the big problem here is, power plants aren't very efficient too
There are other tricks to produce hydrogen, without using electricity. An example from a few years ago was bacteria (http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2008/080825.htm) After that article, I didn't hear more about this technology. Wonder what happened to it.

[v-un-v]

[jamos]

A lot of people don't seem to understand that hydrogen is not a source of energy: it is only a means for storing it.

Hydrogen does not exist on Earth in a pure state. It has to be separated out from water, leaving oxygen as a byproduct. This takes energy. When it is burned, it recombines with oxygen to produce energy. With inefficiencies, it is a net loss: more energy is used to separate, store, and transport the hydrogen than is released by burning it.

This doesn't mean it can't be used as a viable means of storing and transporting energy. The energy still has be generated - by burning coal, damming a river, or with turbines of solar collectors - before it can be stored in hydrogen form.

[emdot_ambient]

[emdot_ambient]

Problem 1:
Current hydrogen splitting technology requires platinum as the catalyst, extreme cold temperatures, high pressure and some kind of organic additives or solvents to treat the water.

Here's one that works with only a cobalt catalyst at room temperatures, neutral pH water and uses sunlight: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

I really think a combination of solar and hydrogen goes a long way to solving the energy problem.

But even just driving down the cost of the catalyst (platinum retails at $2,000 an ounce!), and getting rid of the need for the other organic additives/sovents makes it much more feasible (this one works on dirty water or even salt water):
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-05/cheap-metal-catalyst-can-split-hydrogen-gas-water-fraction-cost

..and more:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-catalyst-produces-hyd

Tons of research and ideas all addressing the same problem. All very encouraging if one can be found that's possible to be scaled up.

My dream is that every house will be totally off the grid. All you need is sunlight, a home hydrogen plant, fuel cells and water.

From a national security standpoint this would be idea. No one would be able to bring your power grid down, because their isn't one. You'd need to set off a major EMP bomb to disrupt power to a large swath of a country.

[v-un-v]