OT Posted on Facebook Solar Electric to Hydrogen

[wmgeorge]

These folks are posting on FB they have a new way to make Hydrogen from plain water and most of us already know its possible but not economically feasible. But they have solved that!! We are going to use excess solar generated power to do the process. I think its a scam so you folks who are smarter than me decide. NOVA Hydrogen Solutions

[Guido]

As compared to www.geothermex.com.? On stream now, for over fifty years. Hard numbers.

[fjk]

The basic idea is reasonable.
as with most systems, the devil is in the details

how much hydrogen can their electrolyzer produce?
how much hydrogen is needed to run fuel cells to generate electricity?
how much water does it use? They talked about saving the water from the fuel cell and re-electrolyzing it … how much is that?
what is their hydrogen storage system?
how much hyrdrogen must it store to account for how many days of reduced sunshine?
how much do all the pieces parts cost?
etc

that said i seem to recall some talk of doing this on an industrial scale in areas with lots of sun and water - and feeding the hydrogen into the natural gas pipeline system. YMMV

[polaraligned]

We are going to use excess solar generated power to do the process.

Excess solar generated power?

[wmgeorge]

They say compost tanks ?? totally ignore the pump and pressures needed to store Hydrogen and the fact its highly explosive to store and transfer. Try explaining the facts to FB users!!

[JRouche]

Excess solar generated power?

Pretty common around here (so cal). I have a 7kw system and get a check from edison every year. I never have a bill and I always produce more than I use. JR

[Rich Carlstedt]

Another tree huggers dream.
Sorry but you can't store Hydrogen . It's the smallest atom and will pass through steel or any other container .
Ask anyone who has a Hydrogen tank about longevity.
Ah ha ! -- they say , you can store it as a metal hydride ( solid form ), yes, but that takes energy.
Then when you want it, it takes more energy to release it -----called dumb and dumber

Can you use solar energy to make Hydrogen , yes, but the cost is only doable in a Lab where they have lots of $$$ to toss around

We have a very much cheaper way and just as clean method of energy production, it's called nuclear energy, but that is a swear word to some as they chase rainbows
Rich

[JRouche]

Another tree huggers dream.

Ah ha ! -- they say , you can store it as a metal hydride ( solid form ), yes, but that takes energy.
Then when you want it, it takes more energy to release it -----called dumb and dumber

Can you use solar energy to make Hydrogen , yes, but the cost is only doable in a Lab where they have lots of $$$ to toss around
Rich

It always gets me when "the smart folks" think there can be something for nothing. To me it sounds incredibly stupid to take the electricity produced from solar just to create electricity.. I didnt read any of the articles. Maybe it was just an experiment for experiment sake. As a legit method for storing electricity? Not in our life times. Nothing for free in my world. JR

[J Tiers]

Another tree huggers dream.
Sorry but you can't store Hydrogen . It's the smallest atom and will pass through steel or any other container .
Ask anyone who has a Hydrogen tank about longevity.
Ah ha ! -- they say , you can store it as a metal hydride ( solid form ), yes, but that takes energy.
Then when you want it, it takes more energy to release it -----called dumb and dumber

Can you use solar energy to make Hydrogen , yes, but the cost is only doable in a Lab where they have lots of $$$ to toss around

We have a very much cheaper way and just as clean method of energy production, it's called nuclear energy, but that is a swear word to some as they chase rainbows
Rich

I do not disagree with the problems.

But, to be fair, imagine hydrogen as if it were a battery.

If you store energy in a battery, it leaks out. It does so a LOT faster than hydrogen does.

When you store energy in a battery, it takes energy (losses) to do that. You have losses on the way OUT of the battery also. That may happen with hydrogen, but the losses may not all be "required".

Batteries are heavy. Really quite heavy, and per unit volume, probably store considerably less energy than common fuels. (check the energy in a gas tank vs the energy in a battery that is larger in volume.)

I have noticed that batteries are still popular, even though one can prove that they are a net energy loss. WHY?

Well, batteries allow you to "lose the extension cord".... The battery lets you store energy for later, and lets you carry energy. You can take the energy in a battery with you, by carrying the battery. That is basically the entire reason for batteries.

Hydrogen is flammable. Yep, that's why it is useful. Gasoline is ridiculously flammable also, even though the limits of flammability are narrower. We've been using it a long time, and it has not been an overall disaster as far as flammability goes.

And, surprise..... A big reason for using fuel is that you can carry energy with you, and avoid needing a hose behind the car , truck, or train. (we won't explain airplanes, that should be obvious). Fuels all have disadvantages, and can all be proven to be energy losers.

Hydrogen is not "that" different. The biggest difference is that you have to "make" it, by supplying the energy that came out of it long ago when water was made. That costs money for equipment. So, it will be more expensive. But, there is a huge cost in refining crude petroleum as well. Billions of dollars of investment are needed.

When you need to carry energy with you, a tank that is relatively cheap, does not wear out fast, and holds a lot of energy, is far superior to a battery that is crazy expensive, wears out fairly fast, and holds very little energy.

Throw in the long recharge time vs essentially "pouring in fuel", and the comparison becomes fairly ridiculous. Fuel wins. Always has. That's why electric cars are STILL rare, despite having existed for over 130 years.

[Mike279]

I heard a story from the guy who inspected my car the other day. He says he read that if you tow a Tesla with a Tesla it recharges the towed car faster than the tow car uses electricity. So in theory you can drive forever free by just switching positions. I guess you just have to buy two Tesla's.

[rdfeil]

I heard a story from the guy who inspected my car the other day. He says he read that if you tow a Tesla with a Tesla it recharges the towed car faster than the tow car uses electricity. So in theory you can drive forever free by just switching positions. I guess you just have to buy two Tesla's.

I wonder if it is more efficient if you push the recharging car instead of towing it 🤔. I am VERY sure: Your mileage may vary 🤣.

[Tundra Twin Track]

I guy in Ontario is burning Ammonia in a 2001 F-350,0% carbon out the exhaust.They won’t Grant him Patents,he’s been applying since 2015.

[gellfex]

Every storage system known has it's inefficiencies and costs. It's really hard to keep them all in your head. It seems to me the only advantage of H2 is it's portability. You lose energy storing and moving it, and a tremendous amount to thermal inefficiency burning it in an IC engine. It's a tremendous waster of energy. IMO the 'hydrogen economy' was always silly, it just became a GWB talking point as a way to kick the can down the road but look like he had a plan.

My favored 'gap fuel' to get us by till we get the battery thing sorted is cellulosic ethanol. There's a lot of infant biologic and enzymatic technologies that were shelved because they could not compete with $30/bbl oil that can be revived if oil looks like it's staying at $100/bbl. It has the advantage that it's infrastructure needs are almost identical to gasoline, and vehicles require very little modification. And it's carbon neutral.

As for storing the excess electricity, we should be building pumped hydros across the parts of the sunbelt with vertical gradient. Proven, scalable technology. And not wasted at all if we finally get back into the nuke business, pumped hydros have been used for many decades to store off peak nuke power.

[gellfex]

I guy in Ontario is burning Ammonia in a 2001 F-350,0% carbon out the exhaust.They won’t Grant him Patents,he’s been applying since 2015.

That sounds safe in an accident! My chemistry ain't great, what's the advantage of burning compressed gaseous ammonia (NH3) instead of H2?

[J Tiers]

Every storage system known has it's inefficiencies and costs. It's really hard to keep them all in your head. It seems to me the only advantage of H2 is it's portability. You lose energy storing and moving it, and a tremendous amount to thermal inefficiency burning it in an IC engine. It's a tremendous waster of energy. .......................

Well, you might not HAVE TO waste as much energy as you think.

Just think about it for a moment.... you get oxygen WITH the hydrogen. Most would let it float away, but the smarter move would be to keep it. (yes I am aware there are problems. That;s why there are engineers)

The higher the temperature you use for combustion, the higher your efficiency. Normal cars etc cannot (by law) use efficient temperatures, because of NOx emissions.

BUT..... suppose you use the oxygen that you get with the hydrogen, and don't let in any air at all? Then there is no nitrogen to form NOx compounds and thus no pollution output. All you get out is burnt hydrogen.... and we know what that is.

That plan would totally eliminate the pollution issues that have forced very low efficiency of IC engines. Problems of actually making the engine, and dealing with oxygen and hydrogen would obviously remain. But those, at least, are physical issues that can be studied and potentially solved.

The higher efficiency probably makes the problems worth taking a crack at. If you have to use "manufactured" fuel, you want to use it in the most efficient way possible. It would be nice to get closer to the Carnot efficiency than any current IC engine is allowed to by law. Again, that is what engineers are for.

I will point out that even batteries are not free of Carnot limits.