AEC is working on something similar:

http://www.cleanwatts.com/

On their site they have a video demonstration of it working.

Reply

↓↑report

Intriguing. The plethora of fuel cell technologies are amazing as they're announced to the public. Maybe a fuel cell vehicle will be available by 2050.

Reply

↓↑report

Hydrogen is not a viable energy alternative as it stands. It's too dangerous, and the cost to produce it is too much. Fuel-cell and hydrogen power are pipe dreams right now.

Technology like this may be a step towards alternative fuels.

Reply

↓↑report

"Hydrogen is not a viable energy alternative as it stands. It's too dangerous, and the cost to produce it is too much. Fuel-cell and hydrogen power are pipe dreams right now."

You didn't read the article did you, this process produces it, it's not a storage technology of previously created hydrogen.

Reply

↓↑report

My comments may sound like I own stock or have a vested interest in this company --- I don't!

The concept seems sound and the science appears reasonable. I look forward to learning technical details, associated costs and how close they are to commerical production. The investor, Ormat, is most crediable with exceptional technical and practical scientific expertise, pioneering efforts, unique vision and financial skills within its senior management (and technical director) - with over 40 years of conducting business. The fact that Ormat is IN --- tells me I need to watch this closely.

H2 fueled (or mixtures thereof) internal combustion engines are, in my view, the bridge to the future for the use of "renewable and sustainable" fuels in our transportation systems.

jw

Reply

↓↑report

I struck upon this idea a long time ago, but unless they came up with a revolutionary breakthrough in chemistry (doubtful), either the reactants or waste products will be highly caustic (think Drano or battery acid). You simply can not generate energy by combining two stable substances. That's the basic definition of stability. Notice at the bottom of the page they mention hydrogen peroxide. Bad idea for the public to handle concentrated peroxide (think rocket fuel). Plus such energetic reactions would be very difficult to control. Good luck finding investors.

Reply

↓↑report

The lack of architectural discipline in the concept diagram automatically makes me suspicious of the claims. But there's more wrong with this than just sloppy modeling. Interesting that this fellow cites magnesium, aluminum, or boron as catalysts for the reaction. Especially suspicious is the mention of boron, which has a melting point of around 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit and is usually found as either a powder or crystalline solid. The story correctly states that Magnesium, when heated sufficiently, will break water and release hydrogen and oxygen (in the metal oxide form). In any event, there has to be some source of energy to heat the metals sufficiently enough (about 1000 degrees F) to break the water. Assuming normal temperatures, the mere introduction of Mg, Al, or B into water will not efficiently generate enough heat to break the water. Even sufficiently heated, the amount of on-board water needed to produce enough Hydrogen gas to power an automobile would render the automobile too heavy to power with normal internal combustion processes. If they really did get this to work, even if they simulated it on computers, they would know better than to list these elements. Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, but this company's claim just doesn't pass the credibility test.

Reply

↓↑report

Apparently alot of investors have not taken physics 101. But I'll spare the audience a pedantic lecture about conservation of energy and entropy. But here is a simple somewhat accurate description:

Fuel cell create electricity by combining hydrogen (pure hydrogen) from a tank and oxygen from the air (plenty of it for free around us) and it form water. Good old H2O. Or summarized, like this:

Hydrogen + Oxygen => Water + Energy (electric energy here)

It turns out the this is reversible. To get hydrogen from water, just apply energym and miracle, you get Hydrogen and Oxygen (and not for free, you spent some electricity doing that)

Then it is pretty obvious that any scheme proposing to power a car by storing WATER in a tank will obviously NEED ANOTHER SOURCE OF ENERGY to get the hydrogen out of the water to be used. Whatever smoke screen of catalyst and faux scientifistic principle is presented. It's bad science.

It's like claiming you have an internal combustion engine that runs on exhaust fume. Well that's not possible.

There are zillions of chemical reaction that will lead to the production of hydrogen (chemistry 101, metal + acid => salt + hydrogen) but the energy comes from the chemical reaction. HYDROGEN HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE.

Thank you for letting me rant. I've read so many inept comment about how Hydrogen I just had to vent a little.

Reply

↓↑report

Maybe the surplus energy comes from the metal wire ;)

Reply

↓↑report

Science is neither good nor bad --- It just "IS". (Certainly, now having a broader understanding of "what is is".)

It's the application of the science to the issue which can then be evaluated as to wheather it is "good" or "bad" --- with the answer likely shaped by a perspective or perception.

I look forward to the company's further disclosures and, hopefully, its real world, practical and economic application.

Certainly the world is now focused on energy issues and US motorists are looking for some different direction and have the strong feeling the present system in "broken or not reliable".

Timing and present events are now aligned for popular SUPPORT for a new direction --- this SUPPORT and demand for change has been lacking until now.

jw

Reply

↓↑report

Fabulo -

Thanks for your comments. Yes, the whole concept of hydrogen needs some clear thinking.

One way to get started:

Petroleum has been an "energy source" for us for quite some time. By that, I mean that we invest less energy pumping it out of the ground and refining it than we get by burning it.

Hydrogen (given physics - and current technology) isn't an "energy source" for us: It takes more energy to get pure hydrogen divorced from whatever it's attached to (see Fabulo above) than we get from burning it or using it in a fuel cell. It's more accurate to think of hydrogen as an "energy form": A convenient way to store and use energy, but some other energy source is needed to power the whole process.

Mind you, hydrogen can be a very convenient energy form. Once you've got it, here are lots of different ways to use it, and converting it to do useful work tends to be more environmentally friendly than most anything else we're using today.

But that still doesn't change the fundamental problem: Current hydrogen approaches count on plentiful energy from some other source, whether it's electricity to suck hydrogen out of water, or energy locked up in the components of a chemical reaction.

I applaud efforts to develop hydrogen technology, but those efforts don't - at least not yet - have anything to do with developing future energy sources.

Reply

↓↑report

Thanks Phyl. Yep. Think of hydrogen as a mean to store energy, like a fancy battery.

Jack, yes, I could argue to death about science and good or bad. My point is, principles that "sound right" because there a "scientific" explanation, even if the explanation is all wrong are just there to deceive you. When it does not work, it just does not.

The above diagram and explanation leads you to believe that all you have to do is fill up your car with WATER. Wow, don't you wish it was true. But to curb any critical thought, they throw in catalysts, light metal and recycling. Smoke screen.

Perpetual motion. Eugenism. Using human bodies in an elaborate scheme to produce energy (The Matrix, movie). Water powered car. All exemple of BAD SCIENCE, because IT DOES NOT WORK.

Crap I do argue to death. I'm such an dolt!

Reply

↓↑report

Everyone claiming this "works" is missing the point: Hydrogen as a fuel is not the debate. It's been tested and it works.

Hydrogen as a fuel source is the debate. There are very few natural sources of pure hydrogen because it tends to bond with EVERYTHING! Stripping hydrogen away from whatever material usually involves more energy than the energy you get out of it. Now, perhaps a massive solar electricity array can be used to split water into H and O2, but otherwise, using Hydrogen as a fuel has so far been a losing proposition as you put more energy into creating H than you do out of burning it.

Reply

↓↑report

All good points.

My view is to give the company the opportunity to demonstrate what it just announced yesterday it intended to do. Sounds like most of us here have experienced demonstrations which were much less or nothing like the advertised bill of fare --- Fabulo has named few a few of very many.

Most of a high level technical group viewing a demonstration of an energy storage system --- a super-conductive magnetic bearing flywheel energy storage operating at 10(-3) torr --- would be a waste of their very valuable time --- turned out to be an most effective, fancy and efficient (don't ask about cost effectiveness in MOST applications) way to store or transport energy for future electric generation needs.

In the near term, I presently have high hopes for H2 as being a transportable form of energy (fuel?) "manufactured" (methonal?) from massive, but, otherwise not transportable energy resource (quads) to be added to a nations energy assets.

Remote locations on the Ring OF Fire are known to contain vast amounts of attainable earth heated liquids and mass (geothermal) --- and at some locations, supercritical in nature --- with some few exceptions, the energy is unused.

A Canadian company uses this approach to move natural gas (CH4) to market in ocean going tankers as "manufactured" methonal (fuel transnport) where no "conventional" natural gas transportation system exists.

It seem these efforts a well supported by present technology and adapted experience.

The question is --- is it economic (at what price). It seems that we are getting close with H2, in some form, as "transportable geothermal energy".

All this aside, I hope these guys are onto something or which will lead on to something.

jw

Reply

↓↑report

Ok, I read these blogs and I am totally disgusted @ what read. When was the last time anyone read or heard anything in the Mainstream Media Broadcast or print about "SUPPRESSED TECHNOLOGY". I have been researching Alternative Energy for over Twenty Five years. Believe me when I tell you that there is HYDROGEN POWERED CARS. Hydrogen on Demand is here to stay and I am in the process of building one myself. How about an 18 year old kid that built one on an old Cadillac. Another did the same in Missouri. I could go on and on about it, but, let me just tell you this, when goons from the gov and so called companies threaten you and your families, that is why you don't hear about it. They said it would hurt the Economy if they tried to sell them to the public. The Economy? What happens to the economy when the Oil flow is interupted by natural or terrorist acts? Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Hydrogen on Demand is here folks and I can prove it!!!! DG

Reply

↓↑report