New Catalyst for Electrolysis Reduces Costs by 97% and Increases Hydrogen Production 400%

Originally posted by -PLB-
But I have to say that I am not that well informed. Does anyone have an overview that compares methods to store energy for daily use (mainly cars)? So subjects like efficiency, cost, weight and pollution should be compared face to face between hydrogen methods and battery types, and any other method to store energy. In my opinion this is the whole essence of this debate, not how energy is generated.

Pollution is a major factor. I think it has been unfair to say that fossil fuel emission, with CO2, CO, etc, are more efficient when they still leave behind smog that needs to be further processed and broken down to return to some environmentally neutral state. As smog requirements increase, the efficiency on older smoggy cars are going to decrease due to the demands to neutralize emissions.

With hydrogen fuel cells, we are able to collect the emissions onboard in the form of water, and thus we can say we have a true zero-emissions vehicle (or stationary application).

Try to keep all that smog that comes out of th tailpipe onboard, and then lets compare efficiency.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by audas
You need a massive amount of energy to extract hydrogen from water

Please, post a source to backup your claim.

Here is one of the less expensive ways to transport hydrogen besides water:

AlumiFuel Cartridges: Portable Dry Hydrogen

The technology that you reference is aluminum metal reacting with water. Production of Al metal is one of our most energy intensive processes and this technology would not be economic on a large scale. This is a military application that is concerned primarily with portability. I'd guess electronic gear powered by small fuel cells.
A common way of producing industrial hydrogen at a moderate scale is to react steam with metallic iron. This, too, is mainly a matter of convenience as there are less expensive ways for yet larger amounts of hydrogen, i.e., methane reforming.
A good source for the claim of Audas is any table of thermodynamic data. Look up heat of formation of water for an easy estimate of what it would take to reverse the process. This is just simple thermo.

Originally posted by dzonatas
Pollution is a major factor. I think it has been unfair to say that fossil fuel emission, with CO2, CO, etc, are more efficient when they still leave behind smog that needs to be further processed and broken down to return to some environmentally neutral state. As smog requirements increase, the efficiency on older smoggy cars are going to decrease due to the demands to neutralize emissions.

With hydrogen fuel cells, we are able to collect the emissions onboard in the form of water, and thus we can say we have a true zero-emissions vehicle (or stationary application).

Try to keep all that smog that comes out of th tailpipe onboard, and then lets compare efficiency.

I agree that hydrogen and batteries are both a preferable solution over patrol. But I am especially interested in the pro's and con's between hydrogen and batteries. I suspect one of these will one day replace patrol as energy carrier for cars. Batteries have no emissions at all, but will generate toxic waste instead. But this could be outweighted by other factors.

Originally posted by pteridine
A good source for the claim of Audas is any table of thermodynamic data. Look up heat of formation of water for an easy estimate of what it would take to reverse the process. This is just simple thermo.

Consider that I have a small solar cell at home here that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen with a reversible fuel cell, it certainly doesn't seem to fit the description of "massive amounts of energy."

It's also doesn't fit the description of the data I already have, which shows it requires only to maintain about 2 volts cause the reaction to happen. I'll assume less voltage is possible, yet this is under practical application. It would be good to compare this to photosynthesizes.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by pteridine
A good source for the claim of Audas is any table of thermodynamic data. Look up heat of formation of water for an easy estimate of what it would take to reverse the process. This is just simple thermo.

Consider that I have a small solar cell at home here that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen with a reversible fuel cell, it certainly doesn't seem to fit the description of "massive amounts of energy."

It's also doesn't fit the description of the data I already have, which shows it requires only to maintain about 2 volts cause the reaction to happen. I'll assume less voltage is possible, yet this is under practical application. It would be good to compare this to photosynthesizes.

The voltage necessary for electrolysis is not a measure of the energy required to produce hydrogen. The total power is what must be considered. Volts times current times time per unit mass of hydrogen.
How much energy do you get back running the fuel cell with the H2 you produce?

One of the biggest issues for fuel cells has been the amount of hydrogen they require. If an avergae US home uses around 1,000kWh of electricty a year, that will amount to about 1.5kW per hour (although demand fluxuates of course). If we look at a first generation fuel cell (there are far more efficient ones out there now, but for the sake of argument...) like this one...

fuel cell

you've got a system that will produce 5kW of electricity but needs 84L/min of H2 to do it. That's alot of electrolysis and your simple solar cell isn't going to hack it. It takes about 240kJ of electricity to produce 1 mole of H2 using CONVENTIONAL electrolysis. That roughly translates in this example to 14.8kW of power needed to drive the electrolysis to produce enough H2 to produce 5kW of electricity at the fuel cell. Rounded numbers but you get the idea.

From the looks of it, hydrogen doesn't have to even exist in a contained form prior to it's use. It can be converted as it's needed with no danger involved.

Originally posted by pteridine
The voltage necessary for electrolysis is not a measure of the energy required to produce hydrogen.

Only the potential energy (in voltage) is significant.

The total power is what must be considered.

We can always expect amperage and wattage to vary for each application.

How much energy do you get back running the fuel cell with the H2 you produce?

It's hydrogen production, as the title states explicitly. We would actually want to compare how long it takes this fuel cell (aluminum based) to produce hydrogen under the same conditions with a fuel cell with GridShift’s process applied. This is how we should see the 400% said gain.

Actually, length of time is not quite the right factor for the overall harvest process.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by dzonatas]

reply to post by jtma508


Your model assumes that all the produced hydrogen ultimately goes through a process to generate electricity.

reply to post by dzonatas


What's your point? We have a fuel cell that requires 84l/min to produce 5kW of electricity. That's about 3.8 moles of H2. It takes about 274kJ to electrolyze one mole of H2 from water.

I don't get the point you're trying to make.

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by dzonatas

 

What's your point?

I think you missed the point of being able to simply harvest hydrogen -- not produce electricity.

Over 90% of all hydrogen used today is made from steam-reformed petroleum. This process produces greater than 5 kg of carbon dioxide for each kg of hydrogen if using methane and even more if using natural gas. Hydrogen made from this process is about 70% energy efficient and costs about $4.50 per kg of hydrogen. Hydrogen from electrolyzed water dates to 1800; however, the process has been very energy inefficient and expensive. This Whitepaper discusses a three-dimensional electrode used for water electrolysis. The surface of the metallic reticulate electrode is coated on all surfaces with a plurality of nano catalysts adhered by a unique electrochemical process that produces excellent electrical contact with the powders while allowing them to interact with the electrochemical boundary layer. The result is a very high rate, solid-state, three-dimensional (3D) electrode. Data shared here is in the full cell and surpasses 80% energy efficiency at 1 Amp/cm2 in a monopolar design. The goal is to reach 85% energy efficiency, which is 47 kWh/kgH2 or $2.53 per kg of H2, about half the cost of hydrogen from petroleum.

Source from white paper abstract in OP link.

The technology pointed out by this thread costs less to produce hydrogen and produces less pollution, which being carbon neutral can be said no pollution.

reply to post by dzonatas

"Simply harvesting hydrogen" for what purpose? After production, the gas must be dried and stored somewhere for some purpose. Storing significant amounts of hydrogen is problematic and storage as a compressed gas or cryogenic liquid requires even more energy. For a small user, capital investment in such unit ops would never pay back. If one needs hydrogen, the storage for small users is often in a different form; the aluminum powder and water system, for example.
Your small solar cell and electrolyzer combo makes hydrogen. What would you plan to do with it if you had, for example, enough solar cell capacity to run your house? Would you bother to make hydrogen or just use the power?
The original post showed a new electrolyzer unit that claimed 80% efficient electrolysis. If true, this is an improvement over existing units that max at about 70-75% efficiency but it is certainly not a 400% improvement. The stated goal is "to reach 85% energy efficiency, which is 47 kWh/kgH2 or $2.53 per kg of H2, about half the cost of hydrogen from petroleum." I would question this cost analysis, as existing electrolyzers would still be significantly less expensive than reforming if this were true. This is not the case. Users of large amounts of hydrogen do not use electrolysis because of the cost of power. Methane reforming or gasification of pet coke is less expensive.

Originally posted by pteridine
Your small solar cell and electrolyzer combo makes hydrogen. What would you plan to do with it if you had, for example, enough solar cell capacity to run your house? Would you bother to make hydrogen or just use the power?

For home use? One example of a setup for home use would be to harvest hydrogen while there is sunlight in order to use it throughout the night. This can be called a hydrogen buffer.

Excess hydrogen could be converted to dry form, which then can be safely stored for longer purposes or transported.

The original post showed a new electrolyzer unit that claimed 80% efficient electrolysis. If true, this is an improvement over existing units that max at about 70-75% efficiency but it is certainly not a 400% improvement.

You are still stuck on efficiency alone and left out other factors. Cost alone is about two times less than then steam-reformed petroleum. Double bang for the buck right there.

reply to post by -PLB-


"Solar and wind power are pretty unreliable as energy supply as it will dependent on the weather. So we will always require a power grid anyhow."

This is not true, where do you get your information from? A solar cell will generate electricity under any under weather condition, albeit at varying voltages. Go buy a solar calculator and test this yourself; or you can use a multimeter and read any solar panel, such as ones from a solar lawn light. Wind turbines, in my opinion, are strictly for back up power to augment a solar panel array. When you use these technologies in conjunction they work rather well, especially once they're properly constructed and fine tuned.

"The whole idea of using hydrogen as fuel has totally nothing to do with how we generate energy in the first place. It is merely a method of storing the energy we already generated. And it seems to me it is not the most efficient method."

Again, how can you say that hydrogen has nothing to do with how we make power? Isn't the creation of mechanical energy a form of power??? Hydrogen is a fuel and a superior one at that. It burns cleanly, it's by-product is water and there is an endless fuel supply!! Water, it literally falls from the sky...

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by pteridine
A good source for the claim of Audas is any table of thermodynamic data. Look up heat of formation of water for an easy estimate of what it would take to reverse the process. This is just simple thermo.

Consider that I have a small solar cell at home here that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen with a reversible fuel cell, it certainly doesn't seem to fit the description of "massive amounts of energy."

It's also doesn't fit the description of the data I already have, which shows it requires only to maintain about 2 volts cause the reaction to happen. I'll assume less voltage is possible, yet this is under practical application. It would be good to compare this to photosynthesizes.

Thanks for pointing that out. Hydrogen is EASY to make, two little solar panels from two yard lights and you're up and running. At this voltage you're only going to produce small amounts but this is easily solved by constructing a bigger and better system. Trial and error...

Originally posted by jtma508
One of the biggest issues for fuel cells has been the amount of hydrogen they require. If an avergae US home uses around 1,000kWh of electricty a year, that will amount to about 1.5kW per hour (although demand fluxuates of course). If we look at a first generation fuel cell (there are far more efficient ones out there now, but for the sake of argument...) like this one...

fuel cell

you've got a system that will produce 5kW of electricity but needs 84L/min of H2 to do it. That's alot of electrolysis and your simple solar cell isn't going to hack it. It takes about 240kJ of electricity to produce 1 mole of H2 using CONVENTIONAL electrolysis. That roughly translates in this example to 14.8kW of power needed to drive the electrolysis to produce enough H2 to produce 5kW of electricity at the fuel cell. Rounded numbers but you get the idea.

Can you please expand upon "CONVENTIONAL"? There are many types of H2 generators that range from easy which require hand tools & Home Depot, to advanced which requires sophisticated equipment and training to use that equipment. Here's a good example --->

www.waterpoweredcar.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by cupocoffee

 

This is a losing proposition no matter how you look at it. Electricity is used to make hydrogen and 20% of the energy is lost. What will you do with the hydrogen? It would be better to use the electricity directly and not convert it into an energy carrier that is difficult to store and only provides 80% of the input energy.

first off H2, it makes electricity storeable, conversion losses might be outweighed by the fact that existing cyclical power generation could be used to a greater extent. i'm no sold either, but 80% sounds very good already, especially if you have use for the residual heat. (big if)

Originally posted by ANNED
If you use the hydrogen to make butanol a liquid fuel then run a fuel cell with it you eliminate the dangers of hydrogen gas.
peswiki.com...:Butanol

adding another conversion will not improve your efficiency, will it? it never ceases to amaze me why people are so obsessed about vehicles when there are lots of stationary uses which are a breeze to convert by comparison.

edit: with nuclear power, thermolysis rather than pure electrolysis and conversion to LPG kicking the petroleum habit is feasible, it's just not desirable with today's tea pot style nuke plants.

[edit on 2010.5.25 by Long Lance]

reply to post by patmac
Bob Lazar's hydrogen corvette does not create hydrogen on demand. He charges up hydride tanks to store it safely and simply releases it on demand.

There was a guy posting on an ATS thread about Bob Lazar that said deuterium oxide was a great fuel and could release hydrogen at something like 400L/m.

The on-demand systems are far more exciting than Bob's for obvious reasons (his hydride bottles are waaay too slow to charge)

Originally posted by UndergroundMilitia
Isn't the creation of mechanical energy a form of power???

Some are gonna think this is silly, but I still want to see a photovoltaic material applied directly to a fuel cell. It would be like psuedo-photosynthesis, yet where oxygen is released and hydrogen is stored. The main idea to this setup is to avoid any loss due to energy being in the form of electricity as medium between the solar source and the voltage required to split water. It's mechanical unless someone wants to argue the solar source is not mechanical.

The kind of technology used in the OP to form the GridShift material is a step towards being able to combine photovoltaic materials directly to fuel cell materials.

Originally posted by UndergroundMilitia
This is not true, where do you get your information from? A solar cell will generate electricity under any under weather condition, albeit at varying voltages. Go buy a solar calculator and test this yourself; or you can use a multimeter and read any solar panel, such as ones from a solar lawn light. Wind turbines, in my opinion, are strictly for back up power to augment a solar panel array. When you use these technologies in conjunction they work rather well, especially once they're properly constructed and fine tuned.

It is true. Unless you make the capacity of your solar panels suitable for worst case scenarios. And that would mean that 99% of the time you are only using a small part of their capacity. Just think of the seasons. Winter means both shorter days and more cloudy weather. Difference between sun and cloudy already means about halve the power production Where I live the longest day is 17 hours, and the shortest day 8 hours, again about halving the power production. And especially in the winter you are using most energy to keep your house warm and your lights on.

It is just not practical to have solar cells as your primary power source, as you would have a huge overcapacity for most part of the year.

Again, how can you say that hydrogen has nothing to do with how we make power? Isn't the creation of mechanical energy a form of power??? Hydrogen is a fuel and a superior one at that. It burns cleanly, it's by-product is water and there is an endless fuel supply!! Water, it literally falls from the sky...

Hydrogen is not a power source, it is a power carrier. We can't harvest hydrogen like we harvest oil, hydropower, sunlight, wind etc. You can compare hydrogen to a battery. When a battery is empty it needs to be recharged. You can also charge batteries using solar power. And you can also use batteries to power your car. So hydrogen and batteries are at the same level. They both won't solve any of our energy problems.