Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies
NY Times ^ | November 28, 2004 | MATTHEW L. WALD

Posted on 11/27/2004 10:23:36 PM PST by neverdem

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 - Researchers at a government nuclear laboratory and a ceramics company in Salt Lake City say they have found a way to produce pure hydrogen with far less energy than other methods, raising the possibility of using nuclear power to indirectly wean the transportation system from its dependence on oil.

The development would move the country closer to the Energy Department's goal of a "hydrogen economy," in which hydrogen would be created through a variety of means, and would be consumed by devices called fuel cells, to make electricity to run cars and for other purposes. Experts cite three big roadblocks to a hydrogen economy: manufacturing hydrogen cleanly and at low cost, finding a way to ship it and store it on the vehicles that use it, and reducing the astronomical price of fuel cells.

"This is a breakthrough in the first part," said J. Stephen Herring, a consulting engineer at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, which plans to announce the development on Monday with Cerametec Inc. of Salt Lake City.

The developers also said the hydrogen could be used by oil companies to stretch oil supplies even without solving the fuel cell and transportation problems.

Mr. Herring said the experimental work showed the "highest-known production rate of hydrogen by high-temperature electrolysis."

But the plan requires the building of a new kind of nuclear reactor, at a time when the United States is not even building conventional reactors. And the cost estimates are uncertain.

The heart of the plan is an improvement on the most convenient way to make hydrogen, which is to run electric current through water, splitting the H2O molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. This process, called electrolysis, now has a drawback: if the electricity comes from coal, which is the biggest source of power in this country, then the energy value of the ingredients - the amount of energy given off when the fuel is burned - is three and a half to four times larger than the energy value of the product. Also, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions increase when the additional coal is burned.

Hydrogen can also be made by mixing steam with natural gas and breaking apart both molecules, but the price of natural gas is rising rapidly.

The new method involves running electricity through water that has a very high temperature. As the water molecule breaks up, a ceramic sieve separates the oxygen from the hydrogen. The resulting hydrogen has about half the energy value of the energy put into the process, the developers say. Such losses may be acceptable, or even desirable, because hydrogen for a nuclear reactor can be substituted for oil, which is imported and expensive, and because the basic fuel, uranium, is plentiful.

The idea is to build a reactor that would heat the cooling medium in the nuclear core, in this case helium gas, to about 1,000 degrees Celsius, or more than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. The existing generation of reactors, used exclusively for electric generation, use water for cooling and heat it to only about 300 degrees Celsius.

The hot gas would be used two ways. It would spin a turbine to make electricity, which could be run through the water being separated. And it would heat that water, to 800 degrees Celsius. But if electricity demand on the power grid ran extremely high, the hydrogen production could easily be shut down for a few hours, and all of the energy could be converted to electricity, designers say.

The goal is to create a reactor that could produce about 300 megawatts of electricity for the grid, enough to run about 300,000 window air-conditioners, or produce about 2.5 kilos of hydrogen per second. When burned, a kilo of hydrogen has about the same energy value as a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline. But fuel cells, which work without burning, get about twice as much work out of each unit of fuel. So if used in automotive fuel cells, the reactor might replace more than 400,000 gallons of gasoline per day.

The part of the plan that the laboratory and the ceramics company have tested is high-temperature electrolysis. There is only limited experience building high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, though, and no one in this country has ordered any kind of big reactor, even those of more conventional design, in 30 years, except for those whose construction was canceled before completion.

Another problem is that the United States has no infrastructure for shipping large volumes of hydrogen. Currently, most hydrogen is produced at the point where it is used, mostly in oil refineries. Hydrogen is used to draw the sulfur out of crude oil, and to break up hydrocarbon molecules that are too big for use in liquid fuel, and change the carbon-hydrogen ratio to one more favorable for vehicle fuel.

Mr. Herring suggested another use, however: recovering usable fuel from the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada. The reserves there may hold the largest oil deposits in the world, but extracting them and converting them into a gasoline substitute requires copious amounts of steam and hydrogen, both products of the reactor.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: abiogenic; anwr; atomicenergy; energy; energydepartment; gasoline; hydrogen; idaho; oil; petroleum; power; thomasgold; utah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: Jackson Brown

If you are really serious about energy independence we don't need hydrogen or nuclear. Hitler's scientists learned how to make gasoline from coal 60 years ago. It isn't exactly a new breakthrough. We could have all the gas we wanted somewhere around $2.50 a gallon, I would imagine. Which is probably why the Saudis don't want to see the price of their product go up too much more. The fact that this never, NEVER enters the discussion tells you how biased the authors of this rubbish are.


41 posted on 11/28/2004 4:43:53 AM PST by wastoute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d; El Gato; JudyB1938; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; ...

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.


42 posted on 11/28/2004 7:28:40 AM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Hey, that'd make a great bumper sticker:

"Only the Sun can cause global warming.
Extinguish the Sun NOW!"

"Earth OUT OF the solar system!"
(Now THERE's a call for 'spaceship earth')!

"Solar power IS nuclear power!"

43 posted on 11/28/2004 8:09:53 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Perhaps, you aren't clear, however, since you call hydrogen "an economical alternative to gasoline for vehicle fuels." Hydrogen, as the article makes clear, I make clearer, and you acknowledge IS NOT A FUEL.

Ok, I'm being a little picky, but the orbiter for the space shuttle has three main engines which burn liquid hydrogen. In this sense, it IS a fuel although perhaps not a very reasonable one for most uses.

44 posted on 11/28/2004 8:16:26 AM PST by GummyIII (America's number one energy crisis is Monday morning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"This process, called electrolysis, now has a drawback: if the electricity comes from coal, which is the biggest source of power in this country, then the energy value of the ingredients - the amount of energy given off when the fuel is burned - is three and a half to four times larger than the energy value of the product. Also, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions increase when the additional coal is burned."

That says it all.....

45 posted on 11/28/2004 8:20:14 AM PST by OregonRancher (illigitimus non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Sounds about as practical as the wireless extension cord.


46 posted on 11/28/2004 8:44:48 AM PST by Old Professer (The accidental trumps the purposeful in every endeavor attended by the incompetent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timestax

Let's just say that hydrogen and oxygen share a fatal attraction.


47 posted on 11/28/2004 8:46:32 AM PST by Old Professer (The accidental trumps the purposeful in every endeavor attended by the incompetent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
They do have the undesirable trait of destabilizing L6.
48 posted on 11/28/2004 8:50:21 AM PST by Old Professer (The accidental trumps the purposeful in every endeavor attended by the incompetent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: All
The most efficient, and safe, hyrogen storage medium has already been found.
Its called->> Gasoline..
49 posted on 11/28/2004 8:57:51 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ursus arctos horribilis
As an automotive battery is charged, it generates hydrogen gas, have a spark or high heat near the battery's vents, and the word is, "ka-boom" from an exploded battery.

That depends on the rate of charge. A properly maintained battery produces very little hydrogen. The electrical energy goes into the electrolyte. Now if you are boiling your battery dry. . . . . . . .

50 posted on 11/28/2004 9:05:14 AM PST by Nov3 ("This is the best election night in history." --DNC chair Terry McAuliffe Nov. 2,2004 8p.m.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I used to be a speed-reader but then I had a serious accident. I hit a bookmark doing 400 words a minute and I was laid up for a while. Now I read at a much safer pace and I count my blessings everyday that I am still able to read at all.
51 posted on 11/28/2004 9:09:23 AM PST by SamAdams76 (Red Sox Win The World Series...And Bush Wins Re-election Too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gibsosa

bump


52 posted on 11/28/2004 9:13:01 AM PST by lilmsdangrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bedford Forrest

added & ping


53 posted on 11/28/2004 9:13:53 AM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Please put me on your H&S ping list. Thanks.


54 posted on 11/28/2004 9:17:59 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Actually, it is the single, grossly-misunderstood word, "nuclear" that panics the illiterate and irrational masses.

IIRC, what is now called "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" ("MRI") was originally (and accurately) known as Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging". The simple use of the word, "Nuclear" caused the brainwashed populace to shun the technique -- until the name was changed...

Now tell me that our public schools are doing their job properly...

The idiocracy waould probably panic themselves into imagining they were dying of cancer if they learned that every cell in their bodies has a "nucleus"...

55 posted on 11/28/2004 9:18:21 AM PST by TXnMA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

Just curious, what nuclear element does MRI use?


56 posted on 11/28/2004 9:22:04 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

And then it hits me...it's the stuff they inject into you, eh?


57 posted on 11/28/2004 9:22:38 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
I don't think there's any doubt that using nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen is the only sensible solution, and I agree with you that nukes are political poison today.

However, later in this century, probably by 2040 or so, we're going to face a choice. Worldwide demand for oil will be far in excess of what can be produced as China and India continue to modernize. Even assuming we exploit tar sands, clean coal, etc., the worldwide demand for energy is going face a gap.

Stupid windmills and solar panels won't begin to make a dent. The only thing that possibly can is nuclear energy.

We will face that fight when the choice is between building new nuclear plants or entering a permanent depression. And I'm confident we'll make the right choice.

The only Hail Mary that would prevent that choice is a scientific breakthrough in fusion technology, but that's far more likely to be something perfected a couple centuries from now. Until then, it's nukes or nothing in terms of making up the energy gap.

58 posted on 11/28/2004 9:28:43 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII
My point isn't to get into the semantics of "fuel" which some people seem to be hung up on. My point is that hydrogen technology is battery technology. On earth, we have energy stored in fossil fuels because solar energy was converted to binding energy by plants. This energy can be release when fossil fuels are burned. This isn't what we do with hydrogen, because there is no free hydrogen on earth. We have to manufacture free hydrogen: doing that takes energy. So when people call hydrogen an "energy source" they're being misleading (and, I would argue, often deliberately so). It isn't: it's a storage material for energy.
59 posted on 11/28/2004 9:44:21 AM PST by FredZarguna (Free markets. Free Speech. Free Minds. But no Free Lunch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
And then it hits me...it's the stuff they inject into you, eh?

Not exactly. The magnetic field interacts with the nuclei of the atoms of the materials which compose your body -- notably the nuclei of hydrogen atoms...

60 posted on 11/28/2004 9:51:42 AM PST by TXnMA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson