1. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    20 Oct '08 10:38
    This is great news:

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Oct '08 10:521 edit
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    This is great news:

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
    I wish they gave out a few more details, like how much more efficient is it than regular electroysis.
  3. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    20 Oct '08 11:083 edits
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    This is great news:

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
    It sound good but, before we get too exited, there is a catch: it works by generating hydrogen fuel. There are currently two problems with hydrogen -the worst one is that, as far as I am aware, is fact that a practical way of storing large amounts of hydrogen reasonably cheaply has yet to be found.
    You could compress it but that would take up huge amounts of energy just to do that and you would need expensive heavy thick-walled containers to store it in.
    You could also liquefy it but that also takes up huge amounts of energy and you would also have to keep it cold in storage.
    You could also dissolve it in certain metal alloys that have been discovered to be able to soke up many times there own weight in hydrogen but such alloys are extremely expensive! -and can only be used a few times before degrading.

    The other problem with hydrogen is that if it leaks into the atmosphere it is a many time more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide! -there would have to be some extremely strictly enforced international safety rules to prevent many accidental leaks in order to prevent this becoming a global problem.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Oct '08 11:33
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    It sound good but, before we get too exited, there is a catch: it works by generating hydrogen fuel. There are currently two problems with hydrogen -the worst one is that, as far as I am aware, is fact that a practical way of storing large amounts of hydrogen reasonably cheaply has yet to be found.
    If it was used to produce hydrogen at solar power stations during daylight and then burnt in a power station during the night or on cloudy days, then surely the storage problems would not be much different than those facing natural gas power stations? Or does hydrogen have less energy by volume than natural gas? Or is it harder to liquefy?

    The other problem with hydrogen is that if it leaks into the atmosphere it is a many time more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide! -there would have to be some extremely strictly enforced international safety rules to prevent many accidental leaks in order to prevent this becoming a global problem.
    I didn't know about that. I always thought that the whole 'hydrogen economy' craze in the US was politically motivated and didn't make much practical sense, but now it sounds like it is downright stupid. There is no way we can run our cars on hydrogen and guarantee low levels of leakage. I am surprised I haven't heard of it before.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Oct '08 11:35
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    It sound good but, before we get too exited, there is a catch: it works by generating hydrogen fuel. There are currently two problems with hydrogen -the worst one is that, as far as I am aware, is fact that a practical way of storing large amounts of hydrogen reasonably cheaply has yet to be found.
    You could compress it but that would take up huge ...[text shortened]... afety rules to prevent many accidental leaks in order to prevent this becoming a global problem.
    There is a lot of promising research going on in that area, here is one such:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080516164817.htm

    Do you know if H2 is a worse GH gas than methane?
  6. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    20 Oct '08 12:09
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    There is a lot of promising research going on in that area, here is one such:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080516164817.htm

    Do you know if H2 is a worse GH gas than methane?
    … http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080516164817.htm ..….

    This sound interesting but:
    how long would it likely to be until it is practical?
    how expensive would it be? -would it be too expensive?
    -these are the pressing questions that are always in my mind when I hear about research like this.

    …Do you know if H2 is a worse GH gas than methane?
    ..…


    I don’t. I don’t know how it compares with methane -I only remember hearing somewhere that it is “much worse than CO2” as a greenhouse gas but I honestly don’t remember where.

    I got this link that at least explains why hydrogen is a greenhouse gas:

    http://www.ghgonline.org/otherhydrogen.htm
  7. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    20 Oct '08 12:161 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    If it was used to produce hydrogen at solar power stations during daylight and then burnt in a power station during the night or on cloudy days, then surely the storage problems would not be much different than those facing natural gas power stations? Or does hydrogen have less energy by volume than natural gas? Or is it harder to liquefy?

    [b]The other hydrogen and guarantee low levels of leakage. I am surprised I haven't heard of it before.
    … If it was used to produce hydrogen at solar power stations during daylight and then burnt in a power station during the night or on cloudy days, then surely the storage problems would not be much different than those facing natural gas power stations?..….[/b]

    I think you have a very good point there.

    …Or does hydrogen have less energy by volume than natural gas?..…

    I am not sure but, it certainly has MORE energy by WEIGHT than natural gas!

    … Or is it harder to liquefy?
    ..…


    Unfortunately it is. It requires higher pressures or lower temperatures to liquefy.
  8. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    20 Oct '08 12:29
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    … If it was used to produce hydrogen at solar power stations during daylight and then burnt in a power station during the night or on cloudy days, then surely the storage problems would not be much different than those facing natural gas power stations?..….

    I think you have a very good point there.

    …Or does hydrogen have less energy by ...[text shortened]...
    ..…


    Unfortunately it is. It requires higher pressures or lower temperatures to liquefy.[/b]
    Burning natural gas produces CO2.
    Burning hydrogene doesn't.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Oct '08 12:35
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Burning natural gas produces CO2.
    Burning hydrogene doesn't.
    It is an indirect GH gas acting on an OH- radical in the atmosphere.
  10. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    20 Oct '08 12:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It is an indirect GH gas acting on an OH- radical in the atmosphere.
    What about the half-life of H2?
  11. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    20 Oct '08 20:01
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    What about the half-life of H2?
    Even taking account of the half life of H2 (which in this case and in practical terms would mean the amount of time for half of it to fully oxidise in the atmosphere), if H2 was widely used then, as a result of almost continuous and regular accidental leakage (if nothing is done to prevent this), at any one moment of time there may be enough H2 still not oxidised to cause a significant greenhouse effect. This could be true even when, because of its half-life, its concentration in the atmosphere doesn’t keep going up and up continuously but levels off at some concentration (but then doesn‘t drop because of continues leakages).
  12. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    21 Oct '08 01:571 edit
    ***Looks at title of thread***

    Living in Oklahoma, I'd just like to point out that the process is just as useful for wind turbines as it is for solar power. The discovery here is the new way to store energy, not simply how you derive it.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    21 Oct '08 03:25
    Originally posted by Eladar
    ***Looks at title of thread***

    Living in Oklahoma, I'd just like to point out that the process is just as useful for wind turbines as it is for solar power. The discovery here is the new way to store energy, not simply how you derive it.
    Yes, we knew that, also would be good for wave power, any form of intermittent energy production technique.
    You still have to generate the original energy for sure. I posted another link to a new battery technology that is a hybrid between lead acid and an ultracapacitor, built into the same box. The problem with lead acid batteries used for say, cars, is the extremes of energy withdrawn, which is why the car companies went with NiMH batteries which povides a higher discharge and charge rate and Lithium Ion batteries which are a lot more energy dense but very expensive. So this new lead acid unit combines the best of ultra capacitors which can feed a whole lot more energy in a short time to a motor, much faster discharge rate than the lead acid, which if run at its extreme, builds up deposits on the electrodes which stops the battery action so the combination will be a lot cheaper than either NiMH or LION. Electric is definitely looking up.
  14. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    21 Oct '08 05:141 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    ***Looks at title of thread***

    Living in Oklahoma, I'd just like to point out that the process is just as useful for wind turbines as it is for solar power. The discovery here is the new way to store energy, not simply how you derive it.
    Yes, but it seems a bit more practical for me to cover my roof with solar panels than erect a giant wind turbine in my backyard.

    EDIT: And there is this as well:

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cylindrical-solar-cells-give-new-meaning-to-sunroof&ec=su_cylindricalsolar
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    21 Oct '08 05:21
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Yes, but it seems a bit more practical for me to cover my roof with solar panels than erect a giant wind turbine in my backyard.

    EDIT: And there is this as well:

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cylindrical-solar-cells-give-new-meaning-to-sunroof&ec=su_cylindricalsolar
    His point was just that the energy storage system is useful for any form of intermittent energy supply, not just solar. Of course wind and wave power is just solar delayed.
Back to Top