Water Power invented

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Some more debunking:

2) Kybosh: I'm not sure why it is you think that liquid with a relatively high combustion temperature is less dangerous than a compressed gas with an ignition energy more than 15 times lower is more dangerous, but trust me, perssurized hydrogen is a LOT more dangerous than gasoline.
Also, as for using Methanol for a source of hydrogen, that doesnt make much sense either. Methanol is partiall oxegenated methane which instatly means you get less bang for your buck, plus you need to make that methanol somehow, and that usually involves using methane, so why not just to straight to the source and use methane as a source of hydrogen, which has been suggested in the past. But we run into the same two problems. a) They hydrogen you'll end up with has a lower energy content than the methane you started with b) you're removing the carbon from the methane and that carbon has to go somewhere (usually in the form of CO2) so you get the same ammount of pollution but less useful energy to show for it, so it doesn't do you any good, and you might as well just use the methane to begin with.

I'll get back to you on the gasoline vs. hydrogen danger factor when I get more time.

As far as using methane to produce hydrogen instead of methanol you're absolutely right. I was merely mentioning the use of methanol instead of water. One thing about methanol versus methane though is that methanol is a liquid and is inherently easier to store and handle. One thing I should state is that this research into methanol fuel cells has much more applications to running small electrical devices such as cell phones and mp3 players than to running a vehicle or powering a home. There was one mp3 player I remember seeing that could run for a very long time on a thimble of methanol (I don't remember exactly how long but it dwarfed the length of time a current battery will give you).

Like you said, most of the world's industrially produced hydrogen is from methane, which does also produce carbon dioxide. So, I agree with you that a better way is needed.

By the way, are you an engineer by chance? You sound like an engineer . I'm an organic chemist.

[Bobblehead]

You're right BBS, but if the original source energy is solar, than, other than the panela the source is 'free'. So even if only 80% of the solar energy is converted, it is still a winning equation.

However, I suppose the issue comes down to an electric motor vs a hydrogen engine. Per 'unit' of solar generation, is it better to store this as power in a battery and then run motors, or is it better to convert to hydrogen and then use that in a hydrogen engine. A lot of factors in those equations.

[ernie]

The fact of the matter is the reason the hydrogen economy is stuck in neutral is because most hydrogen (or the energy needed to produce hydrogen) is produced by traditional methods (i.e. fossil fuels etc). And in the end the amount of energy you get from using the hydrogen is less than you spent creating it using the "evil" fuels in the first place.

There is no doubt mixing gaseous hydrogen and gaseous oxygen together under the right conditions produces a tremendous amount of energy. However, as the video says that is created by electrolysis of water....that electrolysis energy comes from the plug in the wall which is connected to the coal burning power plant. And believe you me the electrolysis of water takes a hell of a lot of energy...as the law of microscopic reversibility will tell you that the mechanism of a chemical reaction proceeds in one direction is EXACTLY the reverse of the other direction...ie. if you get a heck of a lot of energy out by making water you need to put a tremendous amount of energy in. And because us human beings aren't very good at building efficient equipment it becomes a problem as you start dumping in a lot more energy than you get out. So until someone manages to effectively harness non-destructive energy sources efficiently to produce that hydrogen the hydrogen economy is simply a pipe dream. It's a long ways from ever becoming a reality.

That said, every little step forward counts and this appears to be a step forward.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

You're right BBS, but if the original source energy is solar, than, other than the panela the source is 'free'. So even if only 80% of the solar energy is converted, it is still a winning equation.

However, I suppose the issue comes down to an electric motor vs a hydrogen engine. Per 'unit' of solar generation, is it better to store this as power in a battery and then run motors, or is it better to convert to hydrogen and then use that in a hydrogen engine. A lot of factors in those equations.

I agree, but my point all along has been, I even explicity stated it, that untill we can find a renewable nonpoluting method of producing hydrogen then the dream of the hydrogen economy is not only impossible, but stupid.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Kybosh:

Yup, I sure am.

But as far as methane being less safe than methanol, I'm not so sure.
I mean look at the infrastructure already in place for methane. Sure as it is a gas it is inherently more dangerous, but I think the fact that it is already used everyewhere probalby makes it easier to deal with.

At any rate, I think the point is moot, because I think we can both agree that this whole Water Power debate is about as useful as debating whether or not to use angels to power our cars

[Kybosh]

The dangers of liquid hydrocarbons versus pressurized hydrogen is summarized here:

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid536.php

I have some primary literature on this but I can't easily post it. I am also well aware of the dangers of pressurized gas vessels. I have seen the aftermath of several accidents but these are relatively rare and it is often quite difficult to cause one of these vessels to rupture. On average I still stand by liquid hydrocarbons being far more dangerous than hydrogen.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Wow, I don't know where to start, but using an innefficeint source of power to produce fuel to be used in a more efficient engine is still less efficient than just using the electrical energy in the first place.
If you don't beleive me consider this.
assuming the energy cells are say 80% efficient and the engine you speak of is 90% efficient.

using just the energy cell and say 1000W of power from the sun you get

1000 * 0.8 = 800 W (pretty good)
now using your engine as well (and assuming the hydrogen production process is 100% efficeint wich we all know it is)

1000 * 0.8 * 0.9 = 720 W

720 < 800 Efficinecies are always less than 1 Lanny, and if I have to expalin to you what happens when you keep multiplying numbers less than 1 then this debate is pointless to begin with.

Okay, fine and to produce this hydrogen you need an energy source in the car. So you're storing energy in the car in some fashion and we have another example of my point above.

And it is a FACT that the ammount of energy that went into making that hydrogen (from the electricity) was greater than the ammount of energy released when the hydrogen burned. For easy reference, see my first point.

Interesting stuff, but I think you may be missing my point. From what I have seen Electric cars just aren't efficient by todays standards. They don't have the HP or sustained power or ability to go the distance as examples. So the goal is to get a combustable fuel that will work in the combustion engine, hence hydrogen. So you use the free energy from the sun to generate the fuel required to work in the combustion engine, which will work by today's standards. Is that more clear? The photocell system is used to seperate the fuel for the combunstion engine, which is used to power the engine and move the vehicle. As for deminishing efficiency, who cares? The power is from the sun and from water. Its all about using the right fuel to do the right thing. Until they find a way to build electric cars that can do what the combustion engine can, a hybrid approach like this is probably the best solution, don't you think? If you can add a $1000 solar cell, a $1000 converter, a $1000 storage system, and a $1000 engine modification, and be able to run your car with your garden hose, who isn't going to be all over that and not really caring about the cost? Water is renewable, and the sun is going to be around for a few more billion years.

[photon]

Hydrogen is usefull not as a SOURCE of energy, but as a method of transferring that energy from one place to another.

If we had better batteries we could use electric cars but because batteries are big and expensive and the energy density isn't that high, we look to other things like hydrogen.

But as has been covered, there's a lot of incorrect thinking about the topic, particularily by people who see a short youtube video of horrible "science " reporting and instantly think our energy problems are solved.

One thing I've read about recently is the use of sodium boro-hydride to store the hydrogen. It's an aqueous solution at atmospheric pressure so there's no need for high pressure cylinders or need to liquify the hydrogen. They pass the solution through a catalyst to release the hydrogen and the leftover is benign. It's really expensive so far though.

[Cube Inmate]

As an aside, hydrogen-powered vehicles would not generally be of the internal combustion type. A huge fraction of the fuel's energy is wasted as heat in the IC engines we use today. Instead, they would use electric motors and a fuel cell which uses the re-combination of H2 and O2 to produce electricity.

The idea of taking inefficient solar electricity to generate hydrogen to turn back into electricity is a little bit ludicrous.

edit: that last statement applies to "on-the-fly" applications, and not cases where you could store the H2 for later use, not really caring about the efficiency of that conversion.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

As an aside, hydrogen-powered vehicles would not generally be of the internal combustion type. A huge fraction of the fuel's energy is wasted as heat in the IC engines we use today. Instead, they would use electric motors and a fuel cell which uses the re-combination of H2 and O2 to produce electricity.

The idea of taking inefficient solar electricity to generate hydrogen to turn back into electricity is a little bit ludicrous.

edit: that last statement applies to "on-the-fly" applications, and not cases where you could store the H2 for later use, not really caring about the efficiency of that conversion.

Yeah, that is what I was kind of getting at - H2 was just used as a battery to store the energy that could be gathered from stationary panels.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

If you can add a $1000 solar cell, a $1000 converter, a $1000 storage system, and a $1000 engine modification, and be able to run your car with your garden hose, who isn't going to be all over that and not really caring about the cost? Water is renewable, and the sun is going to be around for a few more billion years.

Costs have to be reasonable though (and they aren't right now) and effencies must increase. It doesn't help if it takes 2 weeks of sun to get a 100km trip out of your car.

[Kev]

So for all those saying that this is not possible, this video clip must be a hoax?

[RougeUnderoos]

Okay so then is this a hoax? The little news report showed the guy actually powering his machine (or at least pouring something that looked like water) with water. He's patented the process, is trying to make money off it, he's apparently trying to develop a water/gasoline Hummer with the US military.

No offense to anyone but the people who say this is a bunch of crap really sound like they know what they are talking about. They've convinced me. So what was that on TV? A hoax, some lying, dumb/gullible reporters and media? It was a local newscast but I saw that report on CNN I'm sure of it.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Interesting stuff, but I think you may be missing my point. From what I have seen Electric cars just aren't efficient by todays standards. They don't have the HP or sustained power or ability to go the distance as examples. So the goal is to get a combustable fuel that will work in the combustion engine, hence hydrogen. So you use the free energy from the sun to generate the fuel required to work in the combustion engine, which will work by today's standards. Is that more clear? The photocell system is used to seperate the fuel for the combunstion engine, which is used to power the engine and move the vehicle. As for deminishing efficiency, who cares? The power is from the sun and from water. Its all about using the right fuel to do the right thing. Until they find a way to build electric cars that can do what the combustion engine can, a hybrid approach like this is probably the best solution, don't you think? If you can add a $1000 solar cell, a $1000 converter, a $1000 storage system, and a $1000 engine modification, and be able to run your car with your garden hose, who isn't going to be all over that and not really caring about the cost? Water is renewable, and the sun is going to be around for a few more billion years.

No, I understand what you're saying, and sure if you can find a hydrogen engine that is more efficient than an electrical motor that runs directly off of these great solar energy cells then go ahead and make your car. But I find it hard to beleive that an internal combustion engine can be more efficient than an electic motor. If that were the case then we wouldn't have hybrid cars. and if you're using a fuel cell, then it defeats the purpose, as it is another example of the first law of Thermodynamics.

As a storage means, hydrogen is great, but only if it can be produced by a renewable non poluting source, but as has been said, as an on demand fuel source it is not going to be feasible, at least not untill we can make an internal combustion engine that is more efficient than an electric motor.

[Cube Inmate]

Looks like bad reporting. He says right off the bat (in the video) that his machine uses electricity as well (for electrolysis, one would think), and that's just glossed over by the enamoured reporter. Beyond that, I won't claim to understand the operation of the torch.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by photon

One thing I've read about recently is the use of sodium boro-hydride to store the hydrogen. It's an aqueous solution at atmospheric pressure so there's no need for high pressure cylinders or need to liquify the hydrogen. They pass the solution through a catalyst to release the hydrogen and the leftover is benign. It's really expensive so far though.

I would be interested in reading this. Maybe this is something different than I'm familiar with but sodium borohydride (NaBH4) is used to reduced aldehydes and ketones to alcohols. In aqueous solution sodium borohydride will go to boronic acid B(OH)3, hydrogen gas and sodium salts. No catalyst required for this, just dump the powder into water and voila it will fizz. Anyway, if this is anywhere on the net let me know.

That is another plus factor for the usage of methanol as a source of hydrogen. It is much easier to transport over long distances than methane through piping and such.

[Kybosh]

For the confused people out there I would say that this guys invention likely does work but all the energy used is still from traditional fossil fuel sources (like Cube said). Regardless, it is still pretty neat.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

I would be interested in reading this. Maybe this is something different than I'm familiar with but sodium borohydride (NaBH4) is used to reduced aldehydes and ketones to alcohols. In aqueous solution sodium borohydride will go to boronic acid B(OH)3, hydrogen gas and sodium salts. No catalyst required for this, just dump the powder into water and voila it will fizz. Anyway, if this is anywhere on the net let me know.

That is another plus factor for the usage of methanol as a source of hydrogen. It is much easier to transport over long distances than methane through piping and such.

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/hydrogen_workshop/Wu.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_borohydride
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_...ride_fuel_cell

NaBH4 + 2H2O → NaBO2 + 4H2

The catalyst is apparently is propritary though.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by photon

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/hydrogen_workshop/Wu.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_borohydride
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_...ride_fuel_cell

NaBH4 + 2H2O → NaBO2 + 4H2

The catalyst is apparently is propritary though.

Interesting, like you said though cost is an issue. I can by 2kg of sodium borohydride for about $650 for use in the lab and that isn't exactly feasible for general usage.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

Interesting, like you said though cost is an issue. I can by 2kg of sodium borohydride for about $650 for use in the lab and that isn't exactly feasible for general usage.

Keep in mind research labs get screwed by a factor of 6 or so for research quantities. Sodium borohydride ranges from $22-30 dollars a pound in bulk.