5 ms·

Researchers claim hydrogen energy advance

98 points by Istof 12y ago

mnw21cam 12y ago
Slightly more information: http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_358595_en.html http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_358595_en.html Full paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6202/1326.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6202/1326.abstract
- Shivetya 12y ago
  anyone with access to the full paper, is there an estimate of how much time is required to commercialize this? I love reading about discoveries and such but many are years off and I could not find such information in the linked articles
- jobu 12y ago
  Any details on what the energy density is of this "liquid sponge" they're using? If it isn't corrosive or difficult to store then it may be an option for large, stationary batteries, but it would be a really big deal if it's energy density is even comparable to ethanol. Pure ethanol is 76,330 Btu/gal and gasoline is 116,090 Btu/gal: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    The editors summary at the Science link says it's silico-tungstic acid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicotungstic_acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicotungstic_acid The university press release talks about replacing fossil fuels in fertilizer production, from that I would guess they aren't pushing it as a storage solution.
- dang 12y ago
  Thanks, we changed the url to that first one from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29168382 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-291683....
integricho 12y ago
How long will it take to put this technology into production?
yeureka 12y ago
I hope this makes my childhood visions of ocean floating hydrogen production factories come true!
3rd3 12y ago
Isn't there still the problem that storing hydrogen is impractical?
- valarauca1 12y ago
  Yes and No. Storing liquified gasses is a solved problem. The auto-industry at least has been experimenting with Liquid Propane Gas for a while, without issues. Actually most automobiles in Turkey run on LPG. Hydrogen is a slightly different animal, colder temperatures, and more explosive. We know the materials that will work, we know how to produce them. Its more of an engineering/production/economy of scale issue then anything else.
  - oillio 12y ago
    Hydrogen storage is significantly more difficult than LPG. The pressures need to be higher, which means stronger and more expensive tanks. It also means we must input more energy to compress the gas for storage. Hydrogen is also significantly smaller and more reactive than NG. Which also means the tanks are more expensive as they need to be resistant against corrosion. Additionally, the valves and seals in the system need to be of a higher class as hydrogen is more prone to leak.
    - jobu 12y ago
      Hydrogen embrittlement of metal storage tanks can also be an issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_damage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_damage
    - revelation 12y ago
      And then of course, since you can not stop the hydrogen from leaking, you have to make sure that the storage for the hydrogen storage is sufficiently secure. Can't keep the car in the garage.
      - amaterasu 12y ago
        Also the density of liquid hydrogen is extremely low, meaning you need a huge tank to store more than a little bit of it.
higherpurpose 12y ago
I don't think hydrogen has any chance of working in cars anymore, not when through the combination of solar panels and batteries, cars can run virtually for free. That said, it's probably good to see research continue on this, since we might end up using it for other purposes.
- seren 12y ago
  I am not sure that battery production could scale up to 50 millions vehicle produced each year, without mentioning we will also need to replace a significant part of the installed base regularly. We can however hope that self driving car would significantly reduce the number of car needed.
  - lkesteloot 12y ago
    Self-driving cars would not reduce not number of cars produced. If anything, it would increase it, since going somewhere would become easier.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      Self-driving cars may change the model from "everyone needs one" to Uber-esque "there's a shared fleet, one shows up when you ask" model.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  All electric cars take hours to charge off of 120v or 240v mains at up to 10kw. There's no way you're powering your car with even a garage roof full of solar cells this way, unless you want to wait days for the car to charge. 85 kwh is a lot of capacity to fill.
  - eitally 12y ago
    But if your solar panels are generating energy and storing it in a large capacitor (like Bloom Energy does) for later release, then it could -- in theory, at least -- be pushed to the car much faster than a standard 120/240v main.
jrapdx3 12y ago
This sounds interesting. Not real clear about details, but apparently it uses silicotungstic acid, a common oxidative catalyst. Water electrolysis produces oxygen, which would be catalytically oxidized to peroxide, binding O-, and presumably the H+ is bound somehow as well. Later hydrogen (as H-H) and oxygen are recoverable without further energy input, much as oxygen is released from hydrogen peroxide because it's already at a higher energy state. That's as much as I can glean from the paper's abstract. Perhaps some folks out there can read between the lines better than I'm able to. I gather the utility of the technology is not so much for high demand applications, like electric cars, but more for large scale electricity generation, replacing (or augmenting) current fossil-fuel sources feeding the electric power grid.
schiffern 12y ago
>Currently, industrial production of hydrogen relies overwhelmingly on fossil fuels to power the electrolysis process. Currently 95+% of hydrogen is produced from natural gas via steam reformation (releasing just as much CO2 and fugitive methane as burning it), which also uses lots of heat (read: coal). With such an enormous factual inaccuracy, it's hard to take the rest of the article seriously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
- wmeredith 12y ago
  Uh, coal and natural gas are both fossil fuels. Edit: As long as we're using wikipedia links for citation, here's the one on fossil fuels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
  - beambot 12y ago
    They are fossil fuels, but extracting hydrogen from natural gas does not use electrolysis. So the article is factually incorrect, yes?
    - wmeredith 12y ago
      Ah yes, I see. I thought you were saying that coal wasn't a fossil fuel and that's what the error was.
      - schiffern 12y ago
        That was a different person who replied, but their explanation is correct! Furthermore, the distinction is much more than just pedantic. Hydrogen production from electrolysis (which theoretically can be carbon neutral) is about 3x as expensive as hydrogen production from steam reformation (which realistically can't be carbon-neutral). And I'll give you one guess which method all the hydrogen articles talk about… When put in those terms, it becomes quite obvious that the whole operation is a fossil fuel bait-and-switch. http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/production.htm http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/producti...
huherto 12y ago
How would the hydrogen be used? Directly as a fuel, or as a means to create electricity ?
jstsch 12y ago
When you have cheap hydrogen it is relatively easy and cheap to use the Sabatier reaction to produce methane (and capture co2 from industry in the process). Basically natural gas. Easy to store and handle. Carbon negative.

98 points by Istof 12y ago

Slightly more information: http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_358595_en.html http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_358595_en.html Full paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6202/1326.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6202/1326.abstract

Shivetya 12y ago
anyone with access to the full paper, is there an estimate of how much time is required to commercialize this? I love reading about discoveries and such but many are years off and I could not find such information in the linked articles
jobu 12y ago
Any details on what the energy density is of this "liquid sponge" they're using? If it isn't corrosive or difficult to store then it may be an option for large, stationary batteries, but it would be a really big deal if it's energy density is even comparable to ethanol. Pure ethanol is 76,330 Btu/gal and gasoline is 116,090 Btu/gal: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
- maxerickson 12y ago
  The editors summary at the Science link says it's silico-tungstic acid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicotungstic_acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicotungstic_acid The university press release talks about replacing fossil fuels in fertilizer production, from that I would guess they aren't pushing it as a storage solution.
dang 12y ago
Thanks, we changed the url to that first one from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29168382 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-291683....

integricho 12y ago

How long will it take to put this technology into production?

yeureka 12y ago

I hope this makes my childhood visions of ocean floating hydrogen production factories come true!

3rd3 12y ago

Isn't there still the problem that storing hydrogen is impractical?

valarauca1 12y ago
Yes and No. Storing liquified gasses is a solved problem. The auto-industry at least has been experimenting with Liquid Propane Gas for a while, without issues. Actually most automobiles in Turkey run on LPG. Hydrogen is a slightly different animal, colder temperatures, and more explosive. We know the materials that will work, we know how to produce them. Its more of an engineering/production/economy of scale issue then anything else.
- oillio 12y ago
  Hydrogen storage is significantly more difficult than LPG. The pressures need to be higher, which means stronger and more expensive tanks. It also means we must input more energy to compress the gas for storage. Hydrogen is also significantly smaller and more reactive than NG. Which also means the tanks are more expensive as they need to be resistant against corrosion. Additionally, the valves and seals in the system need to be of a higher class as hydrogen is more prone to leak.
  - jobu 12y ago
    Hydrogen embrittlement of metal storage tanks can also be an issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_damage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_damage
  - revelation 12y ago
    And then of course, since you can not stop the hydrogen from leaking, you have to make sure that the storage for the hydrogen storage is sufficiently secure. Can't keep the car in the garage.
    - amaterasu 12y ago
      Also the density of liquid hydrogen is extremely low, meaning you need a huge tank to store more than a little bit of it.

higherpurpose 12y ago

I don't think hydrogen has any chance of working in cars anymore, not when through the combination of solar panels and batteries, cars can run virtually for free. That said, it's probably good to see research continue on this, since we might end up using it for other purposes.

seren 12y ago
I am not sure that battery production could scale up to 50 millions vehicle produced each year, without mentioning we will also need to replace a significant part of the installed base regularly. We can however hope that self driving car would significantly reduce the number of car needed.
- lkesteloot 12y ago
  Self-driving cars would not reduce not number of cars produced. If anything, it would increase it, since going somewhere would become easier.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    Self-driving cars may change the model from "everyone needs one" to Uber-esque "there's a shared fleet, one shows up when you ask" model.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
All electric cars take hours to charge off of 120v or 240v mains at up to 10kw. There's no way you're powering your car with even a garage roof full of solar cells this way, unless you want to wait days for the car to charge. 85 kwh is a lot of capacity to fill.
- eitally 12y ago
  But if your solar panels are generating energy and storing it in a large capacitor (like Bloom Energy does) for later release, then it could -- in theory, at least -- be pushed to the car much faster than a standard 120/240v main.

jrapdx3 12y ago

This sounds interesting. Not real clear about details, but apparently it uses silicotungstic acid, a common oxidative catalyst. Water electrolysis produces oxygen, which would be catalytically oxidized to peroxide, binding O-, and presumably the H+ is bound somehow as well. Later hydrogen (as H-H) and oxygen are recoverable without further energy input, much as oxygen is released from hydrogen peroxide because it's already at a higher energy state. That's as much as I can glean from the paper's abstract. Perhaps some folks out there can read between the lines better than I'm able to. I gather the utility of the technology is not so much for high demand applications, like electric cars, but more for large scale electricity generation, replacing (or augmenting) current fossil-fuel sources feeding the electric power grid.

schiffern 12y ago

>Currently, industrial production of hydrogen relies overwhelmingly on fossil fuels to power the electrolysis process. Currently 95+% of hydrogen is produced from natural gas via steam reformation (releasing just as much CO2 and fugitive methane as burning it), which also uses lots of heat (read: coal). With such an enormous factual inaccuracy, it's hard to take the rest of the article seriously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming

wmeredith 12y ago
Uh, coal and natural gas are both fossil fuels. Edit: As long as we're using wikipedia links for citation, here's the one on fossil fuels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
- beambot 12y ago
  They are fossil fuels, but extracting hydrogen from natural gas does not use electrolysis. So the article is factually incorrect, yes?
  - wmeredith 12y ago
    Ah yes, I see. I thought you were saying that coal wasn't a fossil fuel and that's what the error was.
    - schiffern 12y ago
      That was a different person who replied, but their explanation is correct! Furthermore, the distinction is much more than just pedantic. Hydrogen production from electrolysis (which theoretically can be carbon neutral) is about 3x as expensive as hydrogen production from steam reformation (which realistically can't be carbon-neutral). And I'll give you one guess which method all the hydrogen articles talk about… When put in those terms, it becomes quite obvious that the whole operation is a fossil fuel bait-and-switch. http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/production.htm http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/producti...

huherto 12y ago

How would the hydrogen be used? Directly as a fuel, or as a means to create electricity ?

jstsch 12y ago

When you have cheap hydrogen it is relatively easy and cheap to use the Sabatier reaction to produce methane (and capture co2 from industry in the process). Basically natural gas. Easy to store and handle. Carbon negative.