Riversimple and Fuel Cell Discussions

[PV1]

Plenty of new houses built every day. Make this the standard new homes are built to, well insulated and self-sufficient. We'll have better luck at that than forcing the replacement or retrofit of millions of appliances and an entire infrastructure to switch from CH4 to H2.

 

[Phximiev]

Plenty of new houses built every day. Make this the standard new homes are built to, well insulated and self-sufficient. We'll have better luck at that than forcing the replacement or retrofit of millions of appliances and an entire infrastructure to switch from CH4 to H2.

Ideally, yes; but that's not reality as the natural gas market continues to grow: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_num_dcu_nus_a.htm

The fact is that millions of consumers burn natural gas. This leads directly to the CO2 statistics identified in the DOE link above. Switching how they use it would be a lot easier than removing it from them, which is also politically infeasible. Altering it, far more doable.

In any event, its a tough problem.

Perhaps, piggybacking for a start: https://networks.online/gphsn/comment/1000042/hydrogen-piggyback-natural-gas-infrastructure

 

[JoeS]

Built my all-electric home in the mid-70's - even have a useless 'award' certificate for its energy-efficiency. Haven't run the resistive central heating since the mid-80's, as one very efficient wood fireplace insert kept the whole house toasty warm, until I realized how bad burning wood is for the environment (even with the built-in catalytic converter). Now, I just use scattered electric space heaters as needed. Had a quote to convert the central heating to a heat pump unit for $15K, but continue to procrastinate but might go for it as global warming continues and the summers get hotter. Added ground-mounted 6.6kW solar 12 years ago and expanded with another 4.4kW rooftop solar in 2015. Adding electric cars into the equation, the solar amortized many years ago.

Back on topic, I still don't understand fuel cell vehicles from an overall energy-efficiency standpoint. Incidentally, it's my understanding that fuel cells require an extremely pure form of hydrogen.

Followed a Toyota Mirai down the freeway a few days ago, and its continuously dribbling water sprayed my freshly-cleaned windshield. :x

 

[Phximiev]

. . .Back on topic, I still don't understand fuel cell vehicles from an overall energy-efficiency standpoint. Incidentally, it's my understanding that fuel cells require an extremely pure form of hydrogen.. . .

To me, if the gas network were used for hydrogen distribution, which is probably feasible over the long term, the fact that it may help fuel cell vehicles is secondary. The first issue is stopping the natural gas burn.

If we manage to convert all cars to electric ( a maybe) and convert all coal burning power plants (another maybe), we'd still have global warming because of the burning of natural gas.

 

[PV1]

My issue with Hydrogen is, that even with Hazer's solution, it doesn't address the consumption of natural gas in the first place. Given that I live right in the middle of the Marcellus shale madness, putting wells in and fracking causes a great deal of emissions before any gas even comes out of the ground. As an alternative, electrolysis puts an enormous amount of pressure on our water supplies.

The problem needs tackled at the source. We need to obtain energy without going underground to get it. Whether we use Hydrogen through current methods or by using Hazer's methods, we're still extracting fossil fuels.

 

[Phximiev]

My issue with Hydrogen is, that even with Hazer's solution, it doesn't address the consumption of natural gas in the first place. Given that I live right in the middle of the Marcellus shale madness, putting wells in and fracking causes a great deal of emissions before any gas even comes out of the ground. As an alternative, electrolysis puts an enormous amount of pressure on our water supplies.

The problem needs tackled at the source. We need to obtain energy without going underground to get it. Whether we use Hydrogen through current methods or by using Hazer's methods, we're still extracting fossil fuels.

I couldn't agree more, but tell that to the millions that want it and Pruitt.

 

[Aerowhatt]

My issue with Hydrogen is, that even with Hazer's solution, it doesn't address the consumption of natural gas in the first place. Given that I live right in the middle of the Marcellus shale madness, putting wells in and fracking causes a great deal of emissions before any gas even comes out of the ground. As an alternative, electrolysis puts an enormous amount of pressure on our water supplies.

The problem needs tackled at the source. We need to obtain energy without going underground to get it. Whether we use Hydrogen through current methods or by using Hazer's methods, we're still extracting fossil fuels.

I couldn't agree more, but tell that to the millions that want it and Pruitt.

I have to agree with Phximiev on this one. Not because it makes the most sense or is most efficient. But because the majority of humankind will not even think about CO2 or climate change until it turns their personal world upside down. As we know it's past way too late then. So we have to do what can be done which keeps the cash flowing to the fossil fuel corporations which own public policy for the most part. The natural gas will flow and be burned anyway better that some of it have the carbon pealed off and sequestered into other products. That said, there are problems with using the existing infrastructure. Current Natural gas distribution networks leak like a sieve. Hydrogen molecules are smaller than methane by quite a bit = faster leakage.

It's nice to think that the majority of mankind will do the right thing and shift gears. But it's not realistic looking at history. We have been damaging our environment since we figured out how to harness fire. In all likelihood the irreversible tipping point for climate change has been crossed, or will be long before these emissions are eliminated entirely. And lets be realistic eliminated entirely is what it will take to put the brakes on. To get the planet back to the ideal balance we found it in will take far more. Using solar and wind to power pulling carbon out of the atmosphere and oceans and locking it away again on a massive scale will be required. Everyone who has a clue needs to do everything they can on every possible front to move in the right direction. Go Hazer's solution go!

Aerowhatt

 

[Phximiev]

My issue with Hydrogen is, that even with Hazer's solution, it doesn't address the consumption of natural gas in the first place. Given that I live right in the middle of the Marcellus shale madness, putting wells in and fracking causes a great deal of emissions before any gas even comes out of the ground. As an alternative, electrolysis puts an enormous amount of pressure on our water supplies.

The problem needs tackled at the source. We need to obtain energy without going underground to get it. Whether we use Hydrogen through current methods or by using Hazer's methods, we're still extracting fossil fuels.

I couldn't agree more, but tell that to the millions that want it and Pruitt.

. . . Current Natural gas distribution networks leak like a sieve. Hydrogen molecules are smaller than methane by quite a bit = faster leakage. . .

. . .Go Hazer's solution go!

Aerowhatt

That leakage is measurable? Causation? Are there published statistics on it? That's something that I wasn't aware of.

 

[Aerowhatt]

I couldn't agree more, but tell that to the millions that want it and Pruitt.

. . . Current Natural gas distribution networks leak like a sieve. Hydrogen molecules are smaller than methane by quite a bit = faster leakage. . .

. . .Go Hazer's solution go!

Aerowhatt

That leakage is measurable? Causation? Are there published statistics on it? That's something that I wasn't aware of.

A couple of interesting links below. It's an interesting topic and one that is pretty unquantified. In the US, Gas companies self report :roll: One imagines how accurate that is since a-lot of leakage in reports is not in their best interest. Personal experience in the construction industry tells me it's worse than reported. For the most part, gas distribution systems are policed by bystander reports of leaks. To be noticed a gas leak generally has to be about the flow rate equal to when a domestic water heater is heating water. Methane rises pretty fast in air so it takes a pretty good leak to be visible (blowing soil or bubbling through standing water), or smelled and reported. Gas companies as a practice do not use leak detection equipment on their distribution system unless a possible leak is reported or sometimes when construction is done in the area.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030142159090060H

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-natural-gas-leaks/

I think fuel cell automobiles will be obsolete before they blossom. Fuel cells do make some sense as fixed units. Backing utility grids and storing excess solar energy. Especially where water purification, as a side benefit, could be attractive where clean water is in short supply.

Aerowhatt

 

[Phximiev]

. . . Current Natural gas distribution networks leak like a sieve. Hydrogen molecules are smaller than methane by quite a bit = faster leakage. . .

. . .Go Hazer's solution go!

Aerowhatt

That leakage is measurable? Causation? Are there published statistics on it? That's something that I wasn't aware of.

. . .

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030142159090060H

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-natural-gas-leaks/

That's beyond huge, its a disaster.

Maybe a lot more of this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160815220050.htm

and this: https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/better-ways-to-stop-natural-gas-pipeline-leaks/

 

[Aerowhatt]

Yeah, one doesn't have to look very deep into natural gas production and use to see that it is no less fraught with problems and environment issues equal to coal, nuclear, oil and all of it's refined products. It's being sold as a better alternative because there is money in it for someone.

IMO the only viable (long term) way to feed fuel cells is with electrolysis produced hydrogen from renewable electricity. A stationary fuel cell would not cause water usage issues since the almost pure water exhaust could easily be captured and put to use.

Like PV1 stated, all this stuff needs to be left where we found it period! Getting that done is like turning a super tanker by spraying one side of the bow with a squirt gun! :roll:

Fundamentals have to shift dramatically to save ourselves and our ecosystem. Economics has to learn to celebrate stagnate, sustainable success instead of constant growth. We need the global population to be 2 billion or less, going forward. The good of the people and the eco system has to be first and foremost in every corporate and political decision (globally). We are light years away from such a society. One that could survive and thrive in the long term. Fuel cells could be a very useful tool to such a society! In this one that we live in??

Aerowhatt

 

[Aerowhatt]

Judging by some of the scattered projects capturing methane being produced by bio-waste, landfills, sewage treatment, live stock manure, and other ancillary "natural" sources, do we even need to be drilling for gas? Fuel cells offer distributed generation of electricity that can be scaled to the output of the fuel source. In large part this doesn't keep the CO2 from the methane out of the atmosphere. Haziers solution has the promise of mitigating some of the CO2.

However, it does keep the methane from escaping to the atmosphere. At 28 times worse than CO2 for climate change effects, that is a step in the right direction. Especially since the methane being produced as a byproduct of human waste (livestock, landfills, agriculture waste, all emitting methane) is almost all just escaping into the atmosphere (unmetered even) currently. From the projects in place, or studied, it is economically viable, perhaps even economically superior to current practice. Certainly if one considers the externalized economic costs to us all (climate change) for just letting it escape. It is very economically advantageous.

Sometimes we get to be too "purist" (for lack of a better term) and don't give rather inefficient solutions their due consideration. At the same time hundreds of millions of us don't think anything of buying and using ICE transportation which is generally less than 20% efficient overall.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/toyota-fuelcell-energy-renewable-power-hydrogen-plant

http://www.powermag.com/fuel-cells-starting-to-make-an-impact-at-grid-scale/?printmode=1

Aerowhatt

 

[Phximiev]

As an update on the conversion of methane to hydrogen I read this rather interesting piece: https://www.techexplorist.com/four-stroke-engine-cycle-produces-hydrogen-methane-captures-carbon-dioxide/4911/

This could probably work in a home off of a gas network.

 

[rmay635703]

As an update on the conversion of methane to hydrogen I read this rather interesting piece: https://www.techexplorist.com/four-stroke-engine-cycle-produces-hydrogen-methane-captures-carbon-dioxide/4911/

This could probably work in a home off of a gas network.

Sounds like a syngas rig without wood.

Of you could skip the conversion losses, complex system and just use the “methane” as is.

 

[Phximiev]

As an update on the conversion of methane to hydrogen I read this rather interesting piece: https://www.techexplorist.com/four-stroke-engine-cycle-produces-hydrogen-methane-captures-carbon-dioxide/4911/

This could probably work in a home off of a gas network.

Sounds like a syngas rig without wood.

Of you could skip the conversion losses, complex system and just use the “methane” as is.

By syngas, you mean something like this?
http://depcik.faculty.ku.edu/?q=syngas

 

[Phximiev]

Another interesting article about the use of hydrogen in the Orkney islands:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190327-the-tiny-islands-leading-the-way-in-hydrogen-power

 

[JoeS]

What an excellent article about starting up hydrogen production using electricity that the islands are unable to export. A wonderful small-medium-scale demonstration. I had three takes from this:

1. "The island’s population had invested in a community-owned wind turbine in 2012, hoping to sell electricity back into the UK national grid and profit from the green energy revolution. But later that year, the grid operator announced that too many new turbines had sprung up in northern Scotland and that they couldn’t take all the clean energy produced...". At 30% under-utilization, this is rather sad and perhaps needs to be re-examined on a macro level, as one would think that interconnected grids should be able to absorb and distribute all the power that's generated.

2. Using electrolysis for generating hydrogen which is storable is a terrific solution for utilizing this excess electricity despite, in the overall scheme of things, it being an awfully inefficient way of finally achieving the end result which is fuel cells for either transportation or as 'batteries' for load balancing.

3. Converting from an oil-industry-based economy to a fossil-fuel-free one has resulted in new-tech jobs filling in the void as the old ones fade away.

It's great that hydrogen is also being seriously pursued for ships and ferries. I understand how a ship needs to carry its fuel for the long distances it travels, so why not hydrogen instead of filthy bunker oil?

As far as our vehicles are concerned, from an overall energy-utilization standpoint where we start with electricity and use it to produce hydrogen (which needs to be stored and transported) to power the fuel cells which then convert back to electricity, I can't help but wonder how that compares with the conversion inefficiencies of utilizing batteries and the ac/dc converters which allow us to do that, not to mention costs...

 

[phb10186]

Another interesting article about the use of hydrogen in the Orkney islands:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190327-the-tiny-islands-leading-the-way-in-hydrogen-power

Very interesting article, I had no idea that this was going on up there. One of the things that has been discussed in the wider energy mix debate in the UK is the need for multiple implementations of projects like this, as we do have a huge amount of coastline, and more potential wind energy that the rest of Europe combined (apparently). Problem will always be an political-economic one - does central government plan and fund directly, or is this going to need regional planning and implementation on a multiple, small scale basis.

I would assume that the Orkney project involves local budgets with some central subsidy, an array of supplier contractors, and a very strong oversight... the latter being the most difficult from what I have experienced.

Clearly beneficial to produce hydrogen locally, rather than transport it from afar for end use - but the large national grid in the UK does mitigate the electricity transportation problem - so it at least doesn't have to consider that part as much.

Great thing for Orkney is the Hydrogen storage could greatly help with load balancing energy demand, which is a large problem for them, but less so for a substantial grid feeding in from multiple production types. Where they are, I doubt solar would be that efficient.

 

[Phximiev]

Another interesting hydrogen article: https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-hydrogen-gas-oil-bitumen.html

Might make a difference as to justifying a hydrogen network in some geographical areas.

 

[Phximiev]

Delft and others trying their hand at hydrogen fuel cell airplanes: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/worlds-first-liquid-hydrogen-powered-aircraft-boasts-unmatched-range-and-endurance-171670.html

Given what Delft did with the race car, they’ll probably succeed.