Science moves step closer to developing hydrogen as cheap and clean energy form

[xchrom]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-moves-step-closer-to-developing-hydrogen-as-cheap-and-clean-energy-form-8572525.html

Scientists have harnessed the principles of photosynthesis to develop a new way of producing hydrogen – in a breakthrough that offers a possible solution to global energy problems.

The researchers claim the development could help unlock the potential of hydrogen as a clean, cheap and reliable power source.

Unlike fossil fuels, hydrogen can be burned to produce energy without producing emissions. It is also the most abundant element on the planet.

Hydrogen gas is produced by splitting water into its constituent elements – hydrogen and oxygen. But scientists have been struggling for decades to find a way of extracting these elements at different times, which would make the process more energy-efficient and reduce the risk of dangerous explosions.

[Mopar151]

1. Hydrogen ain't no easy thing

Friggin' molecules are so small that the words "hydrogen leak" is a redundant phrase. I've seen the aftermath of a couple hydrogen explosions (in gas control consoles for plasma systems), and it sure as shit ain't nice. (One of them killed a Praxair technican doing an install at Rolls Royce {jet engines) in England)
The name Hindenburg mean anything to y'all?

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. The name Hindenburg mean anything to y'all?

Hmmm… so, you’re saying hydrogen is potentially explosive!? Unlike, for example, gasoline or natural gas or even fertilizer?

[Mopar151]

12. Yes - I'm saying it's tricky as hell and nothing for armchair scientists to mess with. n/t

[Fumesucker]

2. A minor quibble, hydrogen is not an energy *source*, it is a means of energy transport/storage n/t

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. OK, then so is every other fuel we know

It’s simply that the energy has been stored longer.

[Fumesucker]

5. I never meant to imply otherwise

Oil and coal are both simply solar energy in a long term storage form.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Then it is a meaningless distinction, isn’t it?

Generally, “fuels” are viewed as “sources” of energy.

[Fumesucker]

7. I think being accurate with terminology is a good thing and facilitates good decision making

Hydrogen is not an energy source since there is very little free hydrogen on the planet, hydrogen is both so light it escapes the atmosphere quickly and so reactive it combines rapidly with oxygen. In order to use hydrogen as a means of energy transport or storage it has to be split from some other molecule by means of using an actual source of energy.

[wtmusic]

10. Agree.

People get enraptured with the idea that hydrogen is a fuel source with no emissions.

Nissan plays off that same misconception to sell cars, claiming they're "zero-emission".

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. Potentially, hydrogen is a fuel source with no emissions

Just as battery electric cars are potentially emissions-free.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. OK, so answer me this… is wood an energy source? You know, if I burn it?

By your definition, which I’m not actually arguing with, it isn’t.

However, I would say that a person who heats their home with wood would disagree.

[kristopher]

8. Not meaningless at all since understanding the actual "source" is vital

In this case the energy input is derived from solar. That's good. However the most economic systems involving hydrogen have fossil fuels as the input.
The kind of research in OP might help us fill in some (small) gaps in our developing energy system, but it certainly couldn't be considered a game changer since the overall efficiency of hydrogen as a storage medium is low.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. You’ll need to define “low” and then, say, “as compared to…”

The efficiency of hydrogen as a storage medium, may not be quite as good as a battery, but is exceptionally good, when compared to say… plant-based biofuels.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=39729
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency

[kristopher]

19. "Low" has been defined many times.

And hydrogen is low. Hydrogen is a niche player and you know it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. Uh huh… We all know what “low” is. I mean, we do, right? (No need for defining our terms.)

Does “Low” mean “below 100%?” Does it mean “below 50%?” Are solar panels “Low efficiency?”

“Low” and “High” are relative terms. 20% efficient solar panels are highly efficient, compared to green plants.


I don’t know that “hydrogen is a niche player.” I guess I’m just frightfully ignorant.

Apparently a lot of people at the Department of Energy are just as ignorant as I am!

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen.html
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/

[NNadir]

37. You mean there is no difference whatsoever between the 1,234,679,012th solar "breakthrough" we've...

...heard about here and the energy stored by a series of supernovae over the last 10 billion years?

That is interesting.

This is probably a good explanation of why the accumulation of dangerous fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere is accelerating so rapidly:

People actually believe that there's no difference between a solar hydrogen fantasy, gasoline, crude oil, coal and uranium and thorium.

[wtmusic]

9. OK, let's think this one through.

"Professor Lee Cronin, the other author of the research, said: 'The existing gas infrastructure which brings gas to homes across the country could just as easily carry hydrogen as it currently does methane. If we were to use renewable power to generate hydrogen using the cheaper, more efficient decoupled process we’ve created, the country could switch to hydrogen to generate our electrical power at home. It would also allow us to significantly reduce the country’s carbon footprint.'"

Choices:

1) We can pipe a highly-explosive and finicky gas, with scant energy density, to millions of distributed users who must purchase a burner/generator with which to convert it to electrical energy. Or:

2) We can create hydrogen at a central facility, generate electricity there on demand, then distribute it ready for consumption via the existing power grid.

Somebody didn't have their thinking cap on.

[Mopar151]

13. The loss in most older "city" gas systems is appalling

And that's with natural gas, at relatively low pressures.

[longship]

11. Wrong on two points.

1. Hydrogen is not a energy source since it is not an element that stays on the earth in that form. Almost all hydrogen on earth is combined with other elements, like water. It takes more energy to get the hydrogen out than it makes by burning. Hydrogen cannot therefore be a source of energy. It may very well be a good energy storage medium.

2. Oxygen is the most common element on earth by mass. Silicon is the second.

Other than that, I agree that we need to develop hydrogen energy tech.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. I do get tired of this oft repeated bit of pedantic sophistry, “Hydrogen is not a energy source”

What in your estimation is an energy source? (other than the Sun.)

Clearly, plants are not energy sources, they are merely a form of stored solar energy. Therefore, biofuels are not energy sources, and by the same token, fossil fuels are not energy sources.

What about nuclear fuel? Well, Uranium was formed in the heart of a collapsing star, so it’s really not an energy source either, it’s just another form of stored solar energy.

Ultimately, every bit of energy on Earth comes from the Sun (or other stars.) And what is the source of their energy? …

Hydrogen.

(So, Hydrogen is the ultimate energy source.)

[kristopher]

20. I can see why the term "pedantic sophistry" was on your mind

It is what you are engaging in. And you are really, really bad at it if you think no one sees the temporal part of the problem.

When we "store" the energy for use at a different time, the means of accomplishing that is called "storage" and it has important costs in terms of how much energy we get for how much energy we spend.

We do not store the energy in the wind, sunshine, fossil fuels, plants, or uranium. That energy is there and available to be harvested. In any of those cases, for hydrogen to be part of the process requires an added step. We harvest one of those forms of energy and transform it in some manner to accomplish the process of storing a portion of it with hydrogen. We then need to further treat it with more energy to store/transport the hydrogen and then treat it yet again to retrieve a portion for useful work.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Give me a break

Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2013, 09:19 AM - Edit history (3)

Give me an example of an energy source.

I would not describe hydrogen as an energy source, but… claiming that “hydrogen is not an energy source,” is meaningless. Really, it’s all a matter of perspective.

I’ve always been amused by a little bit of electronics called a “power supply.” I mean, really, the typical “power supply” doesn’t supply power, it only converts it, but from the perspective of the other electronics, it’s where their power comes from. (It is their “power supply.”)


Looked at from a wide enough perspective (as I did as a reductio ad absurdum) everything is powered by hydrogen fusion. (Hydrogen is the “ultimate energy source.”)


Looked at from a practical viewpoint:

Let’s say I’m driving a conventional automobile. You ask me what it runs on. I reply, “Gasoline.” You probably wouldn’t ask me “What’s it’s energy source?” but if you did, my answer would probably be the same.

The next day, I drive up with a tank full of E-85. “What does it run on?” (“What’s it’s energy source?”) “Bio-Fuel!”

The next day, I have a tank full of ethanol. “What does it run on?” (“What’s it’s energy source?”) “Ethanol!”

The next day, I drive up in an electric car. “What does it run on?” (“What’s it’s energy source?”) “Batteries!”

The next day, I have a tank full of hydrogen. “What does it run on?” (“What’s it’s energy source?”) “Hydrogen!” “You know… Hydrogen isn’t an energy source!”


Do you really think that everybody who describes “hydrogen” as an energy source thinks that we will be sinking “hydrogen wells” into the ground? I expect that it would be just a few more than the number who think that we can mine electricity.

i think just about everyone knows that hydrogen needs to be produced somehow. (Typically, they describe creating it by splitting water.)

[kristopher]

26. Yes, it is a matter of perspective.

And science is the perspective that guides discussion of energy on this forum. Hydrogen STORAGE is what it is called and what it is. While it is true that there are hucksters who try to generate enthusiasm by obscuring the actual role hydrogen STORAGE plays in the delivery of energy to end users, that doesn't validate your arguments.
Playing on the lack of information among the general public isn't proof of your position either; but it is evidence of your priorities.

Edited for clarity

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. Is hydrogen different from other fuels in some way?

Am I missing something magical here?

[kristopher]

29. If you want to get in it at that level

Hydrogen isn't the "fuel" any more than a battery is the "fuel" or a pumped hydro facility is "fuel".

ETA: that's the last bump for the deceptively titled thread.

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. Hydrogen isn’t even a fuel!?

So, “fuel cell” is a misnomer then?

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. A different example

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10325

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Hydrogen is an energy source for hydrothermal vent symbioses[/font]

Jillian M. Petersen, Frank U. Zielinski, Thomas Pape, Richard Seifert, Cristina Moraru, Rudolf Amann, Stephane Hourdez, Peter R. Girguis, Scott D. Wankel, Valerie Barbe, Eric Pelletier, Dennis Fink, Christian Borowski, Wolfgang Bach & Nicole Dubilier

Nature 476, 176–180 (11 August 2011) doi:10.1038/nature10325 Received 15 April 2011 Accepted 20 June 2011 Published online 10 August 2011

[font size=4]Abstract[/font]

[font size=3]The discovery of deep-sea hydrothermal vents in 1977 revolutionized our understanding of the energy sources that fuel primary productivity on Earth. Hydrothermal vent ecosystems are dominated by animals that live in symbiosis with chemosynthetic bacteria. So far, only two energy sources have been shown to power chemosynthetic symbioses: reduced sulphur compounds and methane. Using metagenome sequencing, single-gene fluorescence in situ hybridization, immunohistochemistry, shipboard incubations and in situ mass spectrometry, we show here that the symbionts of the hydrothermal vent mussel Bathymodiolus from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge use hydrogen to power primary production. In addition, we show that the symbionts of Bathymodiolus mussels from Pacific vents have hupL, the key gene for hydrogen oxidation. Furthermore, the symbionts of other vent animals such as the tubeworm Riftia pachyptila and the shrimp Rimicaris exoculata also have hupL. We propose that the ability to use hydrogen as an energy source is widespread in hydrothermal vent symbioses, particularly at sites where hydrogen is abundant.[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

23. It's not that difficult.

"With potential energy as found in nature."

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. OK, so… gasoline is an energy source and ethanol is not?

Or is the fact that ethanol is the product of a natural process mean that it is an energy source?

[wtmusic]

25. Both are.

Ethanol gets its potential energy from the sun.

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. OK, so if I have a strain of algae which produces hydrogen…

Is that hydrogen an energy source?

[wtmusic]

32. I suppose it could be

although there's nothing that's cheap about it. Expensive to store, expensive to transport, expensive to create useable energy from.

That was your initial premise.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. And, so… hydrogen produced by “artificial photosynthesis”

Would that be an energy source as well?

[wtmusic]

34. Not a cheap one.

[OKIsItJustMe]

36. But you agree, it is reasonable to call it an “energy source”

This was my point.

The whole “hydrogen isn’t an energy source” business is really just a form of ad hominem. “Show’s what you know, hydrogen isn’t an energy source. (So there!)” It really adds nothing of value to the discussion.

Personally, I wouldn’t describe hydrogen as an energy source, but, I think it can reasonably be called one.

[wtmusic]

38. It's not an energy source, yet.

Maybe one day it will be. "Source" implies viability. In the meantime, it's storage.

[OKIsItJustMe]

39. At what point does it achieve “viability?”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viable

…

3 a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives>

…

[wtmusic]

40. That's a matter of opinion.

IMO, when it's competitive with existing sources.

[OKIsItJustMe]

35. Regarding Expense

They’re working on it. Here are some 2012 goals which may interest you:

(Please note, US Department of Energy publication — copyright concerns are nil.)
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/pdfs/production.pdf

[font face=Serif]…

[font size=5]3.1.1 Technical Goal and Objectives[/font]

[font size=4]Goal[/font]

[font size=3]Research and develop technologies for low-cost, highly efficient hydrogen production from diverse renewable sources.[/font]

[font size=4]Objectives[/font]

[font size=3]Reduce the cost of hydrogen production to <$2.00/gge[font size="1"]¹[/font] ($2.00-$4.00/gge delivered and dispensed[font size="1"]^2,3[/font]).
This cost is independent of the technology pathway and takes into consideration a range of assumptions for fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) to be competitive with hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). Those considerations include a range of gasoline prices and fuel economies. Technologies are being researched to achieve this goal in timeframes appropriate to their current states of development.

• By 2020, reduce the cost of distributed production of hydrogen from biomass-derived renewable liquids to <$2.30/gge (?$4.00 delivered and dispensed).
• By 2020, reduce the cost of distributed production of hydrogen from water electrolysis to <$2.30/gge (?$4.00 delivered and dispensed).
• By 2015, reduce the cost of central production of hydrogen from water electrolysis using renewable power to $3.00/gge at plant gate. By 2020, reduce the cost of central production of hydrogen from water electrolysis using renewable power to ?$2.00/gge at plant gate.
• By 2020, reduce the cost of hydrogen produced from biomass gasification to ?$2.00/gge at the plant gate.
• By 2015, verify the potential for solar thermochemical (STCH) cycles for hydrogen production to be competitive in the long term and by 2020, develop this technology to produce hydrogen with a projected cost of $3.00/gge at the plant gate.
• By 2020, develop advanced renewable photoelectrochemical hydrogen generation technologies to produce hydrogen with a projected cost of $4.00/gge at the plant gate.
• By 2020, develop advanced biological generation technologies to produce hydrogen with a projected cost of $10.00/gge at the plant gate.
• By 2017, develop technologies for direct solar-to-hydrogen (STH) production at centralized facilities for ?$5.00/gge at the plant gate.
• By 2020, demonstrate plant-scale-compatible photoelectrochemical water-splitting systems to produce hydrogen at solar-to-hydrogen energy conversion efficiencies ?15%, and plant-scale-compatible photobiological water-splitting systems to produce hydrogen at solar-to-hydrogen energy conversion efficiencies ?5%.

———————————————————————
[font size="1"]¹[/font] The energy content of a gallon of gasoline and a kilogram of hydrogen are approximately equal on a lower heating value basis; a kilogram of hydrogen is approximately equal to a gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge) on an energy content basis.
[font size="1"]²[/font] This cost range results in equivalent fuel cost per mile for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle compared to gasoline hybrid vehicles in 2020. The full explanation and basis can be found in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Record 11007 (see http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_records.html).
[font size="1"]³[/font] All costs in this plan are in 2007 dollars to be consistent with EERE planning which uses the energy costs from the 2009 Annual Energy Outlook.
[/font][/font]

[Mopar151]

14. A ray of light?

Is there a process yet to combine the carbon from atmospheric CO2 with free hydrogen, to synthesize a readily transportable hydrocarbon?