BMW: High on Hydrogen

hi harold,
interesting posting!
it might also be pointed out that microorganisms, some of them, produce hydrogen. 'rafts' do not need to employ electrolysis.

the wikipedia article on 'hydrogen' and 'hydrogen economy' are good and the excerpt below is from the first. the article makes the general point about the need for more energy to electrolyse for hydrogen than will be produced in its burning, and the same for most other processes.

rox, here, as elsewhere, has 'the solution' for any social problem, usually involving somebody making a pile of loot after receiving subsidies from 'evil' and 'ineffectual' government; government apparently being capable of getting things moving, but bungling thereafter.

====
from 'hydrogen' wiki article

Production
H2 is produced in chemistry and biology laboratories, often as a by-product of other reactions; in industry for the hydrogenation of unsaturated substrates; and in nature as a means of expelling reducing equivalents in biochemical reactions.


Laboratory syntheses
In the laboratory, H2 is usually prepared by the reaction of acids on metals such as zinc.

Zn + 2 H+ → Zn2+ + H2
Aluminum produces H2 upon treatment with acids but also with base:

2 Al + 6 H2O → 2 Al(OH)3 + 3 H2
The electrolysis of water is a simple method of producing hydrogen, although the resulting hydrogen necessarily has less energy content than was required to produce it. A low voltage current is run through the water, and gaseous oxygen forms at the anode while gaseous hydrogen forms at the cathode. Typically the cathode is made from platinum or another inert metal when producing hydrogen for storage. If, however, the gas is to be burnt on site, oxygen is desirable to assist the combustion, and so both electrodes would be made from inert metals. (Iron, for instance, would oxidize, and thus decrease the amount of oxygen given off.) The theoretical maximum efficiency (electricity used vs. energetic value of hydrogen produced) is between 80 – 94%. Bellona Report on Hydrogen

2H2O(aq) → 2H2(g) + O2(g)
In 2007, it was discovered that an alloy of aluminium and gallium in pellet form added to water could be used to generate hydrogen.[30] The process creates also creates alumina, but the expensive gallium, which prevents to formation of an oxide skin on the pellets, can be re-used. This potentially has important implications for a hydrogen economy, since hydrogen can be produced on-site and does not need to be transported.


Industrial syntheses
Hydrogen can be prepared in several different ways but the economically most important processes involve removal of hydrogen from hydrocarbons. Commercial bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of natural gas.[31] At high temperatures (700 – 1100 °C; 1,300 – 2,000 °F), steam (water vapor) reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and H2.

CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2
This reaction is favored at low pressures but is nonetheless conducted at high pressures (20 atm; 600 inHg) since high pressure H2 is the most marketable product. The product mixture is known as "synthesis gas" because it is often used directly for the production of methanol and related compounds. Hydrocarbons other than methane can be used to produce synthesis gas with varying product ratios. One of the many complications to this highly optimized technology is the formation of coke or carbon:

CH4 → C + 2 H2
Consequently, steam reforming typically employs an excess of H2O.

Additional hydrogen from steam reforming can be recovered from the carbon monoxide through the water gas shift reaction, especially with an iron oxide catalyst. This reaction is also a common industrial source of carbon dioxide:[31] :CO + H2O → CO2 + H2

Other important methods for H2 production include partial oxidation of hydrocarbons:

CH4 + 0.5 O2 → CO + 2 H2
and the coal reaction, which can serve as a prelude to the shift reaction above:[31] :C + H2O → CO + H2

Hydrogen is sometimes produced and consumed in the same industrial process, without being separated. In the Haber process for the production of ammonia (the world's fifth most produced industrial compound), hydrogen is generated from natural gas.

Hydrogen is also produced in usable quantities as a co-product of the major petrochemical processes of steam cracking and reforming. Electrolysis of brine to yield chlorine also produces hydrogen as a co-product.


Biological syntheses

H2 is a product of some types of anaerobic metabolism and is produced by several microorganisms, usually via reactions catalyzed by iron- or nickel-containing enzymes called hydrogenases. These enzymes catalyze the reversible redox reaction between H2 and its component two protons and two electrons. Creation of hydrogen gas occurs in the transfer of reducing equivalents produced during pyruvate fermentation to water.[32]

Water splitting, in which water is decomposed into its component protons, electrons, and oxygen, occurs in the light reactions in all photosynthetic organisms. Some such organisms — including the alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and cyanobacteria — have evolved a second step in the dark reactions in which protons and electrons are reduced to form H2 gas by specialized hydrogenases in the chloroplast.[33] Efforts have been undertaken to genetically modify cyanobacterial hydrogenases to efficiently synthesize H2 gas even in the presence of oxygen.[34]

Other rarer but mechanistically interesting routes to H2 production also exist in nature. Nitrogenase produces approximately one equivalent of H2 for each equivalent of N2 reduced to ammonia. Some phosphatases reduce phosphite to H2.
 
Roxanne Appleby said:
The latest generations of nuke plant are incomparably safer and more efficient that the first two generations. With fuel reprocessing (also constrained in the US by politics) the quantity of waste is tiny (France's is stored in a space the size of a house trailer). With breeder reactors there will be sufficient fuel to sustain our way of life for tens of thousands of years, for every person on the planet.

I'm sometimes accused of being condescending here. I'm sorry if I come off that way in this post (and elsewhere). These are my sincere, informed views; they are scientifically sound, and I believe they are sociologically sound also.

Regrettably Roxanne your assertion of an informed view is not entirely accurate.

Some of the early nuclear stations were in fact particularly well built. I am thinking particularly of the Magnox technology of the 1950's.They were well built precisely because the engineers were unsure of the required safety margins.Thus over engineered. They were however inefficient producers of relatively high cost power.

The second generation technologies eg Chernobyl were, I agree much poorer installations. The early stations also, produced a fairly high quantity of low and medium grade waste which takes up a large storage facility The house trailer comparason is seriously stupid. You know I am sure that a small volume necessitates re-processing and that is the major issue because reprocessing produces very dangerous material indeed.

I do not disagree with your fundamental view that nuclear power has an important, indeed essential future. However, that future is not well served when you trivialise the reasonable concerns of others about the dangers of nuclear fuel reprocessing by- products; either ignoring the problems or sweeping the difficult issues under the carpet with banal generalisations.

You may well know the facts but they need to be explained, in detail, not merely asserted.
 
a churlish request,

rox As Trysail said, TANSTAAFL. The magnitudes of energy required by an industrial civilization are far greater than wind, water and sun can provide, even if expanded on a massive scale. Only concentrated sources like fossil fuels, nukes or possibly geothermal can provide those magnitudes.

i know it's churlish to ask for facts from a distintinguished intellect, but please supply evidence that solar power can never supply a significant portion of the energy our modern US society requires.

i wonder why it's always rox and reason against 'those who would destroy western civilization'.... anyone have a guess?
 
Last edited:
Weird Harold said:
What? Nobody wans to tell me how impractical hydrogen rafts would be?

The hydrogen rafts are technically quite feasible. Howerver, the security concerns make the idea impractical.
 
colddiesel said:
I do not think that is correct because in either case the danger is when they leak or explode. In the case of a leak Hydrogen is safer because it dissipates quickly and rises -away from the source and to atmosphere. Alternatively Liguified Petroleum Gas is much heavier than air and leaking LPG flows downhill to accumulate in a 'pool' which will eventually find an ignition source. I think the resultant explosion is what industry people call a BLEVE which I think stands for boiling liquid explosive something or other. So LPG is the greater explosion risk even though Hydrogen can produce a decent fire.

I wouldn't like to be too dogmatic but my hunch is that hydrogen is the safer material. Any engineers care to comment??
First of all, Hydrogen (H2) is one of the most highly explosive materials in the universe when mixed with oxygen. Hydrogen is so flamible that it cannot even exist in nature as single atoms, but only as two atoms of hydrogen bonded together.

However, when hydrogen explodes, it will generally blow straight upwards. If the tank is in under the car. If this were to happen, I don't think I would want to be in the vehicle at the time.

According to the Consummer Products Safety Commission, all gasoline powered vehicles sold in the U.S. from 1987 forward are required to have a Inertia Switch mounted near the front of the vehicle, which shuts off the gasoline supply in case of a front end collision. That's fine, but what happens if the vehicle is struck from the rear? Those are the accidends that rupture the fuel tanks and cause fires. I believe the same would be true of liquid hydrogen tanks.
 
Roxanne Appleby said:
Oops, given the magnitudes needed, there goes the fuel (sunlight) that feeds the plants that feed the plankton that are at the bottom of the ocean food chain.

I think it would be a very long time, if ever, before hydrogen rafts intercepted enough sunlight to significantly affect plankton growth -- especially since they wouldn't be solely solar-cell powered, but a combination of solar-cells,wind generators, wave-generation, thermal-incline generation, seawater "batteries" and any other "science class experiment" that can be adapted to generate an additional microwatt of electricity or nano-liter of hydrogen.

You may be correct that sunlight alone cannot generate the required energy, but there are many other sources of energy out in the middle of the oceans -- sources both ulttimately powered by sunlight and completely independent of sunlight.

Hydrogen IS truely an "energy transport medium" rather than a source of energy. But the immediate need is for a replacement for gasoline, diesel, and fuel oil that doesn't require scrapping the entire world's existing vehicle fleet; hydrogen fits that requirement perfectly because nearly every internal combustion engine (and most external combustion engines) can be converted to run on gaseous hydrogen for about $1000/engine in about four hours.

The ONLY thing preventing an immediate conversion to Hydrogen as our primary motor fuel is the production and distibution of sufficient hydrogen.

(Well that and Jenny's "but the Hindenburg blew up and they make bombs from hydrogen" paranoia.)

Jenny_Jackson said:
First of all, Hydrogen (H2) is one of the most highly explosive materials in the universe when mixed with oxygen. Hydrogen is so flamible that it cannot even exist in nature as single atoms, but only as two atoms of hydrogen bonded together.

Actually, Jenny, Hydrogen is one of the most reactive elements but that does NOT equate to "highly explosive." There is somehing like eight times as much energy in one molecule of gasoline than there is on one molecule of H2; gasoline is roughly eight times more explosive than Hydrogen.

Acetalene welding gas is somehign like a hundred times as "explosive" as gaseous Hydrogen. (Liquid Hydrogen is too cold to burn, BTW, it requires special preheating devices to warm it before it can be used in any chemical reaction.)

It is my pet theory that between the Hindenburg's spectacular and emotionally repored demise and the misnomer of "Hydrogen Bomb" applied to fusion bombs has given Hydrogen a serious "image problem" that has suppressed development of a hydrogen fuel economy.

R. Richard said:
The hydrogen rafts are technically quite feasible. Howerver, the security concerns make the idea impractical.

:confused:
How would Hydrogen rafts located hundreds of miles out at sea be more vulnerable to terrorists than a land based power or fuel production facility or deepsea oil platform?

Why would a Hydrogen tanker (ship or blimp) be more vulnerable than a comparable oil/gas tanker?

Pure's C&P said:
The electrolysis of water is a simple method of producing hydrogen, although the resulting hydrogen necessarily has less energy content than was required to produce it. A low voltage current is run through the water, and gaseous oxygen forms at the anode while gaseous hydrogen forms at the cathode. ... The theoretical maximum efficiency (electricity used vs. energetic value of hydrogen produced) is between 80 – 94%. ...

I don't envision Hydrogen rafts even approaching the theoretical maximum efficiency, nor do I envision them capturing even 10% of the theoretical energy available to a raft of energy collection devices floating in the middle of the ocean.

That's really the whole point of the concept -- substitute mass producion for efficient production and get some of the "free energy" being wasted on fish and plankton into America's internal combustion engines. (America's first and then the World)

We are (mainly) talking about fueling/replacing internal combustion engines, which are hardly the most efficient means of converting heat energy into Work. And we're talking about replacing the highly concentrated Energy of Gasoline or Diesel with the lesser energy potential (effieiciency) of gaseous Hydrogen.

What are a few more inefficiencies in the whole process going to matter as long as sufficient fuel arrives at the the pumps at an affordable price to fuel the days' traffic jams?

Note to Roxie: I am just talking about replacing gasoline and deisel in the transportation sector and NOT trying to replace the entire fossil fuel energy budget or power the eletricity grid.

Returning to the original post for a moment:
3113 said:
So...how and where do you "fill 'er up?"

I'm old enough to remember when Diesel engines were first became small enough and quiet enough to be practical for private autos. They weren't very popular at first because there were no Diesel pumps anywhere except "Truck Stops" and "Heavy Equipment Yards" -- but enough people went to the trouble of finding the few places that Diesel fuel was available to the public that regular gas stations invested in additional tanks and pumps.

One place that a hydrogen fueled vehicle might be able to buy fuel is local the Regional Transportation Center's bus yard -- there are a few hydrogen powered busses on the road around the country and, like Diesel fuel a few decades ago, bus companies can be convinced to sell fuel to a few pioneering private individuals.
 
Jenny_Jackson said:
First of all, Hydrogen (H2) is one of the most highly explosive materials in the universe when mixed with oxygen. Hydrogen is so flamible that it cannot even exist in nature as single atoms, but only as two atoms of hydrogen bonded together.

However, when hydrogen explodes, it will generally blow straight upwards. If the tank is in under the car. If this were to happen, I don't think I would want to be in the vehicle at the time.

According to the Consummer Products Safety Commission, all gasoline powered vehicles sold in the U.S. from 1987 forward are required to have a Inertia Switch mounted near the front of the vehicle, which shuts off the gasoline supply in case of a front end collision. That's fine, but what happens if the vehicle is struck from the rear? Those are the accidends that rupture the fuel tanks and cause fires. I believe the same would be true of liquid hydrogen tanks.

At the risk of being blown up I'm gonna have to argue that Hydrogen is not only much safer than LPG it is also safer than an ordinary gasoline tank on a car.

"Another characteristic of Hydrogen fires is that the fires tend to rise rapidly in the air as illustrated by the Hindenberg (airship)causing less damage than Hydrocarbon fires. For example two thirds of the passengers survived the accident and the main causes of death were firstly falling and secondly-- from gasoline burns from the engines fuel tanks ".(source Dangerous properties of Industrial Materials - Irving Saxe and Wikipedia. Google of Bleve shows some big BLEVES on You Tube)

Hydrogen is therefore much less dangerous than LPG.

If you also consider the fact that it is stored (in a car) in a very strong steel pressure vessel made to exacting standards rather than the standard gasoline tank which these days is plastic. I would suggest that it is far more dangerous to be hit whilst driving a normally fuelled car than a Hydrogen model.

Further, as well as the relative explosivity of Hydrogen compared to LPG noted by Harold the amount of energy stored in a presurised container is much less than that stored in a normal gasoline tank.

Conclusion. Your sainted Butt will be much safer with Hydrogen propulsion.

Correction to previous post. BLEVE stands for Boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion.
 
colddiesel said:
Further, as well as the relative explosivity of Hydrogen compared to LPG noted by Harold the amount of energy stored in a presurised container is much less than that stored in a normal gasoline tank.

A company named "United Nuclear" has developed a hydrogen fuel conversion kit for most gasoline engines. Part of their system is "metal hydride storage tanks:"

Bearing in mind that they are selling their solution, here's what they have to say about storage options:

From: http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm
Storage

Since you can't make Hydrogen quickly enough to power a car in real time, you must produce it separately, and store it as you store your Gasoline fuel supply in your vehicle now.
There are but 3 ways to do this:

1. Store the Hydrogen as a compressed gas.
2. Store the Hydrogen as a liquid.
3. Store the Hydrogen chemically bonded to a chemical.

We'll cover each option in order.

1. If you choose to store the Hydrogen as a compressed gas, you'll need HUGE tanks, and many of them, since Hydrogen isn't very dense, so a tank really can't hold all that much. In addition, you'll be driving a giant bomb. In a collision, expect to die in a huge fireball/explosion.

2. Choosing liquid does solve the density problem since liquids are far more dense than gasses, so you can reduce the amount of tanks and their sizes required to power the car. The new problem that pops up is the fact the liquid Hydrogen in cryogenic... in short REALLY cold. It requires vacuum-thermos ( dewar ) tanks and vents to exhaust the boiling Hydrogen gas. You'll also have to find a source for liquid Hydrogen which is far more expensive than Gasoline. You've also now increased you danger factor when it comes to a collision. Not only will you have more Hydrogen gas spewing around that's going to explode and burn, but you'll also have a liquid spraying about that's over 400 degrees below zero. Once you add in the added complexity of the system due to the cryogenic liquid, your vehicle will wind up being a giant, low efficiency, rolling bomb that costs more than your house, and costs far more to run than it did on Gasoline.

3. The 3rd option is simply the only way to go. There are materials call Hydrides that absorb Hydrogen like a sponge absorbs water. Typically, the tanks are filled with granulated Hydrides, and Hydrogen is pressurized into the material. Hydrides have many advantages over liquid & gas. One is that the density of the Hydrogen stored in the Hydride can be GREATER than that of liquid Hydrogen. This translates directly into smaller and fewer storage tanks.

Once the Hydride is "charged" with Hydrogen, the Hydrogen becomes chemically bonded to the chemical. Even opening the tank, or cutting it in half will not release the Hydrogen gas. In addition, you could even fire incendiary bullets through the tank and the Hydride would only smolder like a cigarette. It is in fact, a safer storage system than your Gasoline tank is.
Then how do you get the Hydrogen back out? To release the Hydrogen gas from the Hydride, it simply needs to be heated. This is either done electrically, using the waste exhaust heat, or using the waste radiator coolant heat.

NB Their rejection of pressurized tanks is seriously overstated.

True,Pressurized gaseous hydrogen can't mach the range of gasoline fueled vehicles without more weight in pressure bottles than a typical suspension can stand, but that mehod can provide sufficient range for a cummuter vehicle; you would just have to refuel every day instead of once or twice a week.

Further, pressurized gaseous hydrogen is cheaper and less susceptible to failures to implement than their metal hydride system. There is more risk from the pressure bottle being damaged, but "expect to die in a huge fireball/explosion" is some serious fear-mongering. I've seen pressure bottles and LOX botles recovered from aircraft crashes that were totallly undamaged despite near-total destruction of the rest of the aircraft; if you're in a collision that could damage a properly designed and placed pressure bottle, a fireball is going to be the least of your concerns.



from their home page news column:
May 22nd, 2007:

Our Hydrogen Fuel System is not yet available for sale. There are legal problems with several components of the unit which is preventing its sale.
Until the legal proceedings are complete, we won't be moving forward the system.
Thank you all for your emails & support. The legal action is due to the actions of the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) attempting to remove the necessary chemicals used in this system from public use.
 
Weird Harold said:
:confused:
How would Hydrogen rafts located hundreds of miles out at sea be more vulnerable to terrorists than a land based power or fuel production facility or deepsea oil platform?

A remote hydrogen raft is vulnerable to any terrorist with the money to buy a boat or ship that can approach said raft close enough to launch an effective explosive device. The same is not true of a land based system, since the terrorist first needs to penetrate coastal defenses.

A deepsea oil platform is indeed exposed. However, a deepsea oil platform is a major investment and they are protected to some extent. [I am/was involved in the security system design.]
 
R. Richard said:
A remote hydrogen raft is vulnerable to any terrorist with the money to buy a boat or ship that can approach said raft close enough to launch an effective explosive device. The same is not true of a land based system, since the terrorist first needs to penetrate coastal defenses.

A deepsea oil platform is indeed exposed. However, a deepsea oil platform is a major investment and they are protected to some extent. [I am/was involved in the security system design.]

A hydrogen raft would also be a "major investment" -- especially the first few -- but they would be much more difuse targets, on the order of as many square miles as a deepsea oil platform is acres.

Some consideration would have to be given to security, but the design considerations to make the rafts weather-proof would also tend to make them resistant to explosive devices -- even considering the pervasive presence of gaseous H2 and elevated O2 levels in the area (if the O2 isn't being bottled for sale, too)

As I envision the rafts, a terrorist attack would destroy one day's production at most with minimal (<10%) damage to actual hydrogen production capacity for that raft. It would take a humongous explosive device to be an "effective explosive device;" something capable of searing eight to ten square miles to destroy just one of the rafts I envision and I envision somewhere between "hundreds" and "thousands" of independent, self-sufficient rafts.
 
Back
Top