From an emissions standpoint, hydrogen is one of the cleanest fuels available. Unfortunately, our most abundant source is water, and with current technology, breaking those two H atoms away from that one O atom (electrolysis) uses more energy that it creates. But water isn't the only hydrogen source. A Virginia company, H2Gen, makes a hydrogen-extraction device that basically (very basically) sucks the hydrogen right out of nature (see the graph for a somewhat more detailed explanation). An Orlando Chevron station has acquired one of their units and is currently testing the viability of using it for producing hydrogen right at the point of purchase. If the test works out, one more stumbling block, transportation of hydrogen, would be removed.
H2Gen claims the process is as much as six times more efficient than conventional electrolysis.
Now let's hope automakers' hydrogen programs, like BMW's test of its Hydrogen 7, work out. Then stand back and watch gasoline-powered cars go the way of the dinosaurs.
More details can be found in the press release after the jump.
[Source: H2Daily via EvWorld]
PRESS RELEASE:
APPLICATIONS
Fueling Stations
Hydrogen Fueling Stations
HGM's are ideal hydrogen sources for vehicle refueling stations. Their exceptionally-high fuel efficiency results in the lowest release of climate change gases from any hydrogen generator reliant on a hydrocarbon source. They are also the least expensive on-site system on the market today on an cost per output basis.
One HGM will produce 113 kg. of hydrogen a day, sufficient to fuel approximately 20 cars per day, or 3 buses. The unit is therefore an ideal size for fleet demonstration projects.
HGM's offer the following advantages for refueling station installations:
* Compliant with major North American and international codes and standards
* Easily integrated with other fuelling station components
* Unattended, automatic operation
* Sufficient PLC capability to serve as the station master controller, while providing remote data monitoring functions
* Ability to function as the station master controller, while providing remote data monitoring functions
* Ability to operate under the control of a station master controller communicating via OPC or via Profibus
* Smallest footprint available
* HGM's create no flammability hazard at grade, simplifying siting
* HGM's can be configured for Class 1, Division 2 or Zone 2 installations at space-constrained sites
H2Gen staff are very familiar with high pressure hydrogen handling, and integration with ground storage. Our engineering services can help you achieve special project objectives with ease.
Pontiac El Cami-"NO"
Spy Shots: Baby Cayenne caught on 'Ring!
First Peek: 2009 Dodge Ram R/T
Spy Shots: Corvette ZR1 attacking the Nurburgring
2008 International Engine of the Year awards announced...
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
First Drive: 2009 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen
Project Track Slut, Part One: Pick a weapon on the cheap
By the Numbers: April 2008
First Drive: 2008 Shelby GT500KR, Part 2
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Fabulo @ Apr 30th 2007 6:45PM
"...and with current technology, breaking those two H atoms away from that one O atom (electrolysis) uses more energy that it creates."
Well, with any technology it will always take energy to separate those h2 from the big o, because they are stuck so well.
It's like saying with current technology it takes a lot of energy to recombobulate 92 octane gasoline from water vapor and exhaust gas.
Otherwise, the claim to be 6 times more efficient than electrolysis is dubious at bast...
Rick Hunter @ Apr 30th 2007 7:09PM
So there are two fuel problems we are trying to solve. The first is the use of oil (or products sourced from oil/deposits), the second is CO2 formation.
The process uses natural gas or other hydrocarbons (hello, natural gas sits on oil deposits and can be formed along with other hydrocarbons from oil). Does not solve the first.
The process used here take hyrocarbons, adds water (another resource we do not want to be wasting) and results in the desired hydrogen....and CO2...creating the thing we are trying to eliminate by using hydrogen.
You are just moving the CO2 generation from the vehicle to the factory, although it would be easier to scrub there I will grant or turn into other products which require CO2.
elleff @ Apr 30th 2007 8:05PM
I'm not a scientist so maybe I'm missing something, but on their website it says that the process of converting the gas produces Hydrogen and Carbon Dioxide.
Doesn't releasing CO2 as exhaust from the converter defeat the purpose of a pollution free fuel?
paul34 @ Apr 30th 2007 8:53PM
#2: Water is plentiful... besides, I do believe cars that run on this technology are supposed to produce water from the tailpipe, anyway.
#3: I'm sure it'd be significantly less than each individual vehicle producing a lot of cardon dioxide.
Surprising to see my city mentioned here... who knew Chevron was actually doing something like this. Very interesting.
Jim @ Apr 30th 2007 9:22PM
"...source is water, and with current technology, breaking those two H atoms away from that one O atom (electrolysis) uses more energy that it creates"
Until someone revises the laws of physics, it will always take more energy to seperate the H from the O than you get back by recombining them. Didn't you take high school physics, Chris?
Barney @ Apr 30th 2007 9:45PM
So, why not use the energy to make steam? Stanley & the boys new how.
Chris Tutor @ Apr 30th 2007 10:29PM
I did, Jim, and thought I got the statement correct.
With current technology, electrolysis takes more energy than it produces. Isn't that incorrect?
Nick @ Apr 30th 2007 10:51PM
Chris, your statement was correct.
The point is that no matter what new technology we come up with, we'll never be able to get more energy out of something than we put in, or else we'd turn that around and put it right back in and have a cycle giving us an infinite source of energy. This would break the Law of Conservation of Energy... the high school physics bit Jim mentions.
I think more what you meant, however, is that electrolysis is particularly inefficient - it takes on hell of a lot more energy to split water than we get from burning the resulting hydrogen. A good argument for good old, non-CO2 producing nuclear power if I ever heard one.
Chris Tutor @ Apr 30th 2007 11:07PM
Much better stated, Nick. I see how my statement might have made it seem as if some super electrolysis technology was just on the horizon.
gbernardi @ May 1st 2007 2:58AM
I still haven't figured out why we're bothering with hydrogen at all. Hydrogen seems like the a wasteful middleman to electric cars. I think that the hydrogen cash would be better spent in battery technology. Firstly, it would be amazing to just plug in at home. Secondly the battery technology can filter down to consumer electronics. A 100 hour laptop battery would be awesome!
TuuSaR @ May 1st 2007 5:22AM
"I still haven't figured out why we're bothering with hydrogen at all"
Because big oil needs something to sell. In the future, people can easily produce electricity independently, making fuel distribution networks and companies quite obsolete.
egs @ May 1st 2007 7:42AM
what about airpowered engines? there is a cab in france that runs on compressed air. its not pretty, but its a cleaner than anything else; it actually cleans the air.
egs @ May 1st 2007 7:44AM
the cab:
http://www.theaircar.com/models.html
Steve @ May 1st 2007 7:47AM
#11. TuuSar,
I think you are about half right there, bu tthere are also unintended consequenses to going full electric... you see, you filling up you tank everyday at your local gas station gives them a reason to be in business, but it also gives me the privelege of being able to drive thru your part of the country, and vice-versa, so if we started powering electric cars at home off the grid, then as commuters we'll all be fine, but we might also be seriously limiting our ability to travel overland by car for any distance... it's the extention cord effect.
Phil L. @ May 1st 2007 8:15AM
#12 - egs:
Actually, it isn't an air *powered* car. It simply uses compressed air as a storage medium, similar to the batteries in current hybrid cars. As with all vehicles, the energy to run it still has to come from somewhere.
regguy @ May 1st 2007 8:49AM
Please consider the following perspective:
- Oil will run out in 80 years or so;
- Burning oil releases gases and particulates that are problematic;
- Oil is located (to a large extent) in unfriendly areas;
- A replacement for oil is highly desirable;
- The replacement for oil will not show viability in 3 - 5 years but in 10 to 50 years;
- Hydrogen is a very plentiful element, located in friendly areas, when combined with oxygen produces no problematic gases or particulates, and shows the greatest promise as the clean energy-carrier of the future;
- With a switch to hydrogen, there will be sometimes puzzling proposals and challenging issues to resolve, but think "long term solution to a global issue";
- Using an appropriate mix of wind, wave, solar, and nuclear power to release hydrogen looks promising, but is not without challenges;
- A 50/50 mix of natural gas and renewably-sourced hydrogen shows promise for a near-term source-to-tank net reduction in CO2 release (vs. gasoline)...but use of natural gas will be limited because of its net CO2 release;
- On-site hydrogen production is being investigated to reduce CO2 releases from truck/rail transport and liquification processes;
- Electric cars are being heavily researched, but missing battery breakthroughs and slow charge rates are obstacles.
- Natures best example of sustainability is the sun...with its hydrogen reaction process.
For more detailed information on the issues, the new CARB report has a lot of helpful information.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevreview/zev_review_staffreport.pdf
sodamninsane @ May 1st 2007 9:21AM
hydrogren is a wonderful fuel, the trouble is producing it... Solar powered electrolysis is a long way off because the efficiency of solar cells is terrible, they just can't provide enough energy to make enough hydrogen to supply user demand...
The C02 generated during the process of making hydrogren is lower per kJ than the C02 generated from car exhaust and oil refining... THEORETICALLY making it better for the environment by reducing net C02 emissions.
gbernardi @ May 1st 2007 11:47AM
"- Hydrogen is a very plentiful element, located in friendly areas, when combined with oxygen produces no problematic gases or particulates, and shows the greatest promise as the clean energy-carrier of the future;"
While hydrogen is plentiful, it's also locked in a strong bond with oxygen, in a substance that is critical to all life on this planet. In order to release that bond we need a bunch of electricity. Once we get that hydrogen, we store it, transport it, and burn it to make...electricity...much less than it took to get the hydrogen. Again I ask, why bother?
dlm3 @ May 1st 2007 12:15PM
"I still haven't figured out why we're bothering with hydrogen at all. Hydrogen seems like the a wasteful middleman to electric cars."
Ah, there's the rub. Electric cars would be wonderful if we had a way to store electricity that had the same energy density as gasoline or diesel.
The trouble is that we don't.
Batteries store electricity in the form of a reversible chemical reaction among some fairly toxic compounds. Lithium Ion batteries, the current battery technology du jour, do not have the energy density of gasoline, necessitating cars that are significantly lighter and less safe than an equivalent (size/weight) gasoline-powered vehicle.
Supercapacitors exist, but they don't have the energy density of even alkaline batteries yet.
Hydrogen, used in hydrogen PEM fuel cells, is essentially an energy storage medium. And at that, given the waste heat on both production of, and energy conversion from, hydrogen, makes it an inefficient solution. Hydrogen make sense in some venues - LH2/LOX fueled rockets for example - but as an energy storage medium, it's not even an also-ran.
Like them or not, hydrocarbons are with us for many years to come. Methane, propane, gasoline, and diesel are most readily produce, stored and converted to mechanical energy over any exotic solution out there.
This is not to say things won't change. They will. The price of hydrocarbon fuels may continue to rise for a while, though personally I doubt the "stratospheric" prices of today will last too much longer as they enable more sources of oil and natural gas to be exploited with a reasonable return on investment. (keeping firmly in mind that today's prices are still less than their constant dollar equivalents from the 1970s)
But these same forces will eventually allow for more exotic systems to become economically feasible. We aren't there yet, and the wishful thinking of over 100 years of electric cars will someday pay off. But when that day will come, I wouldn't even hazard a guess.
It certainly isn't now, no matter what Al Gore and his friends say to the contrary.
superjeff @ May 1st 2007 12:27PM
Nick and Chris,
I feel I have to nitpick here.
Nick, you quoted the Conservation of Energy, or the First Law of Thermodynamics. This law states that energy (or mass) cannot be created or destroyed. This means that it takes the same amount of energy to break the bonds in H2O as is released when the bonds are reformed.
I think what you meant to quote was the Second Law of Thermo which states that, essentially, all processes have inefficiencies. e.g. There is no perfect engine that can break the bonds, put them back together, and on, and on forever.