• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheap hydrogen production.

RAMOSS said:
Gasoline is just as volatile.
Click to expand...

Wow...

No wonder you fail to understand the climate sciences. You don't even understand how different they are.
 
JacksinPA said:
I disagree with many of the statements about hydrogen in a big storage tank at 10,000 psi in your trunk not being a major safety problem. Look back at the newsreel footage of the Hindenburgh disaster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLzY88uHFn0 Rear end or side collisions are too common to wave this problem away.
Click to expand...

That is my only fear about using hydrogen for transportation fuel. What I would like to see is an inexpensive hydrogen storage for the home. Any extra daytime solar power can be converted to hydrogen. When energy demands spike, or for nighttime, use a fuel cell to keep powering the home. With a large enough storage tank, gradually increase hydrogen storage for the home with the shorter winter light.

It's a plus for getting completely off the grid.

Now to make hydrogen for transportation, it is important to note that it takes 44 kWh of electricity to make enough hydrogen for the equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline. At 12 cents/kWh, profits, inventory, labor, lease, etc. I wouldn't count on being able to buy unsubsidized hydrogen for less than $10/gal equivalent. With the expense of renewable energy make that $15/gal equivalent, for fuel with no subsidies.

Ready to pay that much? Now of course, that would be using a hydrogen internal combustion engine. Fuel cell electric would be better. probably about half the cost for fuel for the same miles traveled.
 
RAMOSS said:
I think you fail to understand the safety features the car manufactors think about.
Click to expand...

OK...

You have 10,000 PSI in a tank. Now you have a two car accident and a vehicle fire. Temperatures reach 500 F at the tank, and now you have a tank of which the hydrogen will increase pressure to 18,000 PSI, and the tank weakens from heat.

What do you think happens from an explosive gas, vs. a liquid?

Did Ford care about the Pinto's exploding fuel tanks?
 
RAMOSS said:
The one thing about gasline, wonce it starts burning.. it stays on the ground and keeps on burning till it's gone.

Hydrogen goes straight up.. and dissipates ..
Click to expand...

But all that stored energy becomes explosive heat very rapidly, where gasoline may burn for hours.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is quickly becoming obsolete... but yes, that is true at the moment. That is why the new catalysts for water electrolysis is so interesting, it reduces the cost of producing hydrogen drastically
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It still takes a given amount of energy to separate the molecular bonds. Better catalysts simply allow more production vs. size. Makes it scalable to commercial use. They probably reduce the less heat loss, but the heat loss is pretty small to start with.
 
Lord of Planar said:
OK...

You have 10,000 PSI in a tank. Now you have a two car accident and a vehicle fire. Temperatures reach 500 F at the tank, and now you have a tank of which the hydrogen will increase pressure to 18,000 PSI, and the tank weakens from heat.

What do you think happens from an explosive gas, vs. a liquid?

Did Ford care about the Pinto's exploding fuel tanks?
Click to expand...

Liquids , once ignited, stay on the ground, and keep burning

Hydrogen, being lighter than air, go up in the the air away from the car.
 
Lord of Planar said:
No it doesn't. It still takes a given amount of energy to separate the molecular bonds. Better catalysts simply allow more production vs. size. Makes it scalable to commercial use. They probably reduce the less heat loss, but the heat loss is pretty small to start with.
Click to expand...

more production vs size = economic cost going down
 
RAMOSS said:
Liquids , once ignited, stay on the ground, and keep burning

Hydrogen, being lighter than air, go up in the the air away from the car.
Click to expand...

And mixes with oxygen & explodes when there is a source of ignition. Either that or just a big fireball. Either way you're toast.
 
I think we could engineer a safe way to carry hydrogen, the problem is how long it would take for the demand
and the infrastructure to mature to the point it was anything close to common.
 
longview said:
I think we could engineer a safe way to carry hydrogen, the problem is how long it would take for the demand
and the infrastructure to mature to the point it was anything close to common.
Click to expand...

is that very different than the current efforts to expand fueling stations for electric vehicles
 
justabubba said:
is that very different than the current efforts to expand fueling stations for electric vehicles
Click to expand...
It looks like it will take a lot longer and cost a lot more.
Does the station pay the million dollar plus tab, when there is no demand,
or is there no demand because no one bought or sold the cars, because there were no stations.
 
RAMOSS said:
more production vs size = economic cost going down
Click to expand...

You still have that minimum 44 kWh of electricity to produce that given quantity of hydrogen.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You still have that minimum 44 kWh of electricity to produce that given quantity of hydrogen.
Click to expand...

And, companies like Hypersolar are working on integrated electrolysis/solar panels that they hope to be able to bring down the monetary cost of it
 
longview said:
I think we could engineer a safe way to carry hydrogen, the problem is how long it would take for the demand
and the infrastructure to mature to the point it was anything close to common.
Click to expand...

Right now, it isn't feasible. Most the hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels, and they shed CO2 making hydrogen.
 
JacksinPA said:
Pressurized hydrogen in big tanks in a moving vehicle is only a way to confirm the corollary to Murphy's Law: Murphy was an optimist.
Click to expand...

How is it different from pressurised tanks of LPG?
 
RAMOSS said:
And, companies like Hypersolar are working on integrated electrolysis/solar panels that they hope to be able to bring down the monetary cost of it
Click to expand...

It still remains that solar thermochemical cracking of water is more than twice as efficient as photovoltaic electrolysis.
 
JacksinPA said:
It still remains that solar thermochemical cracking of water is more than twice as efficient as photovoltaic electrolysis.
Click to expand...

at the moment. If this company develops their product, that won't be the case, from an economic point of view.
 
Manc Skipper said:
How is it different from pressurised tanks of LPG?
Click to expand...
Hydrogen gas is more volatile than LPG though I don't have any quantitative data to post. Being a very small molecule it tends to find ways to leak.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
at the moment. If this company develops their product, that won't be the case, from an economic point of view.
Click to expand...

At the moment.
 
I believe the current cheapest source of H2 is the cracking of methane from natural gas: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming

Natural gas reforming is an advanced and mature production process that builds upon the existing natural gas pipeline delivery infrastructure. Today, 95% of the hydrogen produced in the United States is made by natural gas reforming in large central plants. This is an important technology pathway for near-term hydrogen production.

How Does It Work?
Natural gas contains methane (CH4) that can be used to produce hydrogen with thermal processes, such as steam-methane reformation and partial oxidation.
===================================================================================
The downside of methane from natural gas is that much of it is lost at the well head due to the expense of collecting it. Unfortunately, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom