Posted on 04/14/2023 9:52:05 AM PDT by Perseverando
we dump the hydrogen, we want the O2
Title should be
“”Scientists” need more government money.”
The electricity will appear from the wall. Just like it will for all our forced electric cars.
Your hunch is correct. The best round trip efficiency I'e read about from using electrolysis (using electricity to make hydrogen from air and water) to store it as hydrogen gas, then later using that hydrogen to generate electricity with a fuel cell, is 50% to 70%. Thus you lose 30% to 50% in the process from start to end.
That makes it horrible except for certain use cases. However, if you're in a good situation for it (one of the use cases) then this news could be a significant breakthrough. One hurdle with electrolysis has been filtering the water to give the unit nothing but pure water; a hurdle they're touting they've crossed (if their claim is accurate).
For me, personally, my only interest in a hydrogen electrolyzer and fuel cell is if the Dims keep ramping up their stupid war on energy. Right now our all-electric home is 80% energy independent, including charging our EV for most of our driving (we have an ICE pickup for some driving). It'd be infeasible to make my home fully 100% energy independent because I'm running into the law of diminishing returns. But if the Dims use their energy policies to go full boar with their mark of the beast type promises they every now and then threaten us with, then I might consider an electrolyzer/fuel cell combination for long term energy storage beyond my current battery bank. On the days I have great sunshine and have already charged my home solar batteries and EV battery and have nowhere else to put the excess solar power, I might use that power to run an electrolyzer to generate hydrogen gas to store in a tank that my system can later power a fuel cell with when home battery power gets low. It would be an inefficient use of the solar power on a kWh-by-kWh basis, but on a dollar cost basis it's a lot cheaper to store many kWh's in a hydrogen tank (and increase capacity further by buying a larger tank) than it is to expand the battery stack an equal amount. Especially for the last 20% of power (which I don't need as often as the first 80%, thus I'm not as concerned about over 30% to 50% round trop loss).
More government maffs. Use 5 units of electricity to produce 1 unit of electricity.
” The fuel cells do not burn this gas. Instead, cells transform the chemical energy of the fuel into electrical energy”
What is the temperature range? The local cell towers here all fell for fuel cell backup generators using methanol based fuel. In the winter the tanks froze rendering them useless.
Yeah unless it’s a nuclear reactor, basically it’s seawater and electricity or regular tap water in electricity either one will work.
Turning electricity into hydrogen and back into electricity again. Each step wastes some energy due to inherent inefficiency. In the end, we will just have to burn more fossil fuels.
Yeah there’s a startup that is going to be doing drone deliveries out of Israel, he uses a plug-in hydrogen generator with tap water to generate the hydrogen and then the Drone flies out and then it’ll plug in to get a recharge of hydrogen and then fly out again. It also has a greater cargo capacity as well, range, capacity, flight time, reliability, and utilization time is all increased
“The new method extracts hydrogen from the ocean by funneling seawater through a double membrane system, using electricity. The design was successful in generating hydrogen gas without the accompaniment of large quantities of harmful byproducts.”
sounds to me like just another variation of good ‘ol electrolysis ... btw, you don’t suppose oxygen is the “harmful byproduct” they’re referring to? ... oh, and certainly salt and other mineral will be a byproduct of this “new” method ... the very same salt and minerals that california now claims would “pollute” the sea so much that they’re refusing to allow any more coastal reverse osmosis plants to be built ... i wonder if they’d allow sea water hydrolysis plants?
“Vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells are fed with compressed hydrogen gas.” ...
and that’s the rub, right? ... the amount of energy to compress hydrogen is enormous, so much so, that compressing hydrogen wastes so much power that its use as a fuel is uneconomic and results in much more carbon-equivalent output ... and then of course, there’s the issue of tremendous container weight and extremely difficult connector leakage issues because hydrogen molecules are the smallest molecules in the universe and can escape through the very tiniest of cracks ...
Coal.........................
Coal.
“compressed hydrogen gas”
Just what I want in my automobile, a 5,000 psi tank of hydrogen.
Just when we thought nothing could be worse than batteries for energy storage, along comes this idea.
So called new system is just good old fashioned electrolysis. Very energy intensive because both the first and second laws of thermodynamics have to be satisfied to get from the mostly fossil generating plant to the electrolysis plant. The reason you can get a lot of energy out of burning hydrogen is that the 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O forms very strong bonds 237kJ/mol. And you have to put that much back in to break it apart again same energy budget as batteries, but the potential for higher energy density storage. In fact hydrogen compares well with gasoline on a weight basis. The fly in the ointment is how do you store the stuff. Even highly compressed H2 requires a lot of volume to get the same weight as gasoline and hydrogen seeps through most non metallic materials. Cryostorage gets the emery by volume higher, but it takes a lot of energy to cool the hydrogen to liquid and it constantly evaporates due to heat seepage. And filling a hydrogen storage tank compressed to thousands of psi is probably not all that fast.
i saw that too...but go farther...how much electricity is needed for the process...reduce the entire “plan” to cost per mile.
A nuclear or fossil-fuel power plant, but you were not supposed to notice.
You also are not supposed to question how converting, transmitting, converting again, storing, then re-converting an energy source again can ever be more efficient and have less environmental impact than just using the original energy source directly.
That said, I’m pleased that they are researching new ideas; maybe they will find some shortcuts.
they said something about a key and a kite...
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.