Solar hydrogen

[AssTelescope]

Hi,

Has anyone done any experiments using solar concentration to extract
hydrogen from water and use it to drive a motor instead of storing it in
batter banks. I understand that it requires 5000C for a very efficient setup
but a small sized dish can reach approx 750C so it wouldent be an impossible
task at all.

This to me would seem more efficient as it can also be used for cooking
also.

Another question if I were to give this a go, how would I store the
hydrogen?

Thanks,

 

[Steve Spence]

I wouldn't write off thermal separation yet. It has a lot more promise
than electrolysis. What is separating 2H2 from O2 anyway?

Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust
http://www.green-trust.org

Contributing Editor
http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

 

[Steve Spence]

You won't want to "give it a go". It's not a backyard science project.
It might give you a "go". Storage requires compression and metal
hydrides, expensive technical processes. This is interesting, but it's
not homepower or pv. Try sci.energy

Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust
http://www.green-trust.org

Contributing Editor
http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

 

[Steve Spence]

I wasn't "defending" thermal separation, I was just pointing out ti
isn't the horrendous energy sink that electrolysis is. Hydrogen still
sucks as a mobile fuel. You can't beat the energy density of a liquid fuel.

Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust
http://www.green-trust.org

Contributing Editor
http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

 

[Andy Baker]

Agreed. Hydrogen blows unless you can burn it in a nuclear reactor and
that's a whole other story. The only reason we hear so much about hydrogen
is because it can be extracted from oil and look where that gets us, though
I did hear ( somewhere) that onboard reforming of petroleum to fuel cell to
electric motor, despite the extra steps, yielded much better MPG ratings.
There was a great article not too long ago in popular science that read
something like "1001 reasons why hydrogen is a giant waste of time and
money"

On algae to animal feed, I've heard of farmers throwing chicken manure in to
the water to cause algae blooms which the shrimp feed off.... sounds yummy.
I'm POSITIVE they sterilize that chicken shit really well.....yeah.....

Andy

| You won't want to "give it a go". It's not a backyard science project.
| It might give you a "go". Storage requires compression and metal
| hydrides, expensive technical processes. This is interesting, but it's
| not homepower or pv. Try sci.energy
|
| Steve Spence
| Dir., Green Trust
| http://www.green-trust.org
|
| Contributing Editor
| http://www.off-grid.net
| http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

 

[AssTelescope]

Ok maybe storage is what may stop me from doing this and the danger
involved.

But I do see it more efficient than electrolysis seeing you need electricity
in the first place. I guess I thought of a flammable gas that can be used
for anything, much like natural gas is used in cars and cooking today, so
when I saw an article on solar concentration for hydrogen extraction I put
two and two together, obviously it doesn't add up to 4.

Either way, I haven't got enough cash to spend on storage tanks or a reactor
for that matter!

Thanks for the replies everyone.

As for the Biodiesel replies, I don't think its practical, I still think
using the sun as my main power source is the way to go. After all, the Sun
is the reason we are all here and its given us energy since the dawn of
time.

Cheers,

 

[Jim Logajan]

The only reason we hear so much about
hydrogen is because it can be extracted from oil[...]

I don't think so. The primary reason hydrogen has a lot of interest among
some researchers is because the primary exhaust product contains NO carbon
dioxide. If the primary source of energy in future economies is going to be
solar or nuclear, then any ecologically neutral intermediate storage
mechanisms should sink as much of their exhaust products as they source. If
someone has a moderately efficient way to make hydrocarbon fuels using only
solar/nuclear, atmospheric CO2, and water then there is no need to consider
hydrogen. I suspect hydrogen will "stay in play" as a possibility until
someone comes up with a mechanism for high density energy storage
comparable to hydrocarbon fuels but none of the exhaust problems.

It's an engineering problem that includes not just efficiency as a
requirement, but a requirement that the storage mechanisms be
environmentally benign for usage over thousands of years for the entire
human race. Anyone fixating on efficiency is solving the wrong engineering
problem.

All IMHO of course.

 

[Don Lancaster]

The only reason we hear so much about
hydrogen is because it can be extracted from oil[...]

I don't think so. The primary reason hydrogen has a lot of interest among
some researchers is because the primary exhaust product contains NO carbon
dioxide.

Urban lore.

No means of producing terrestral hydrogen is known that does not create
substantial amounts of carbon dioxide. Typically much MORE so than
alternatives.

The sensible and practical goal should be a carbon neutral room
temperature liquid, not a carbon free one.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf


--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Derek Broughton]

The only reason we hear so much about
hydrogen is because it can be extracted from oil[...]

I don't think so. The primary reason hydrogen has a lot of interest among
some researchers is because the primary exhaust product contains NO
carbon dioxide.

Urban lore.

No means of producing terrestral hydrogen is known that does not create
substantial amounts of carbon dioxide. Typically much MORE so than
alternatives.

Not so. No _reasonably efficient_ process exists. I can generate Hydrogen
right now without creating any CO2, from my solar/wind installation. I
can't _do_ anything with the hydrogen...

 

[Don Lancaster]

ummmm elctrolysis fed from a solar panel?

--
Tater
KC9ESF
NAR #79654 L1
AMA #747769
EAA #703312

The only reason we hear so much about
hydrogen is because it can be extracted from oil[...]

I don't think so. The primary reason hydrogen has a lot of interest among
some researchers is because the primary exhaust product contains NO carbon
dioxide.

Urban lore.

No means of producing terrestral hydrogen is known that does not create
substantial amounts of carbon dioxide. Typically much MORE so than
alternatives.

The sensible and practical goal should be a carbon neutral room
temperature liquid, not a carbon free one.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf


--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Triples the losses.
Not one net watthour of pv solar electricity has ever been produced to
date.

Also, there are ridiculously better things to do with electricity than
destroy most of its exergy through electrolysis.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Don Lancaster]

The only reason we hear so much about
hydrogen is because it can be extracted from oil[...]

I don't think so. The primary reason hydrogen has a lot of interest among
some researchers is because the primary exhaust product contains NO
carbon dioxide.

Urban lore.

No means of producing terrestral hydrogen is known that does not create
substantial amounts of carbon dioxide. Typically much MORE so than
alternatives.

Not so. No _reasonably efficient_ process exists. I can generate Hydrogen
right now without creating any CO2, from my solar/wind installation. I
can't _do_ anything with the hydrogen...

Dream on.

If you objectively look at the staggering loss of exergy in your method,
you will realize how ridiculous it is.

Thermodynamic fundamentals GUARANTEE that the value of a kilowatt hour
of electrical energy is absurdly higher than the value of a kilowatt
hour hour of unprocessed hydrogen gas. Your process is exactly the same
as 1:1 exchanging US dollars for Mexican pesos.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.

Also, when fully burdened and truly accounted, your solar/wind
installation generates HUGE amounts of CO2 if used to produce hydrogen
gas.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Derek Broughton]

Dream on.

I have no intention of dreaming about it at all. I don't happen to think
the "hydrogen economy" is either desirable or particularly achievable.

If you objectively look at the staggering loss of exergy in your method,
you will realize how ridiculous it is.

Don't be an ass. I agreed it wasn't economically feasible. _You_ said it
wasn't _possible_. There's no CO2 involved in the PV process. I'll grant
you that there's CO2 in the production of the components - but strictly,
most of the components in a PV array should be _waste_ products of the
silicon chip industry.

Also, when fully burdened and truly accounted, your solar/wind
installation generates HUGE amounts of CO2 if used to produce hydrogen
gas.

What I _use_ the system for is irrelevant - unless it's to somehow drill for
fossil fuels. When "fully burdened and truly accounted", I'll worry much
more about the heavy metals in the batteries and the PV array.

 

[Kimmo Klemola]

The only reason we hear so much about
hydrogen is because it can be extracted from oil[...]

I don't think so. The primary reason hydrogen has a lot of interest among
some researchers is because the primary exhaust product contains NO carbon
dioxide. If the primary source of energy in future economies is going to be
solar or nuclear, then any ecologically neutral intermediate storage
mechanisms should sink as much of their exhaust products as they source. If
someone has a moderately efficient way to make hydrocarbon fuels using only
solar/nuclear, atmospheric CO2, and water then there is no need to consider
hydrogen. I suspect hydrogen will "stay in play" as a possibility until
someone comes up with a mechanism for high density energy storage
comparable to hydrocarbon fuels but none of the exhaust problems.

It's an engineering problem that includes not just efficiency as a
requirement, but a requirement that the storage mechanisms be
environmentally benign for usage over thousands of years for the entire
human race. Anyone fixating on efficiency is solving the wrong engineering
problem.

All IMHO of course.

Most of world's electricity is produced in coal-fired power stations.
Rather than producing hydrogen wouldn't it be better to use the extra
nuclear, wind or solar power to substitute dirty coal (or natural gas)?
When all fossil power has been replaced in year 3000, we can rethink
hydrogen via electrolysis.

 

[Derek Broughton]

The best alternatives to petroleum is bio-fuels, such as biodiesel,
bio-ethanol, bio-methanol and bio-methane. Both bio-methane and
biodiesel are environmentally friendly.

And bio-alcohols aren't, why? Still no way to make them without inputting
more energy than we get out?

 

[bee]

The only reason we hear so much about
hydrogen is because it can be extracted from oil[...]

I don't think so. The primary reason hydrogen has a lot of
interest among some researchers is because the primary
exhaust product contains NO carbon dioxide.

Urban lore.

No means of producing terrestral hydrogen is known that does not create
substantial amounts of carbon dioxide. Typically much MORE so than
alternatives.

Hmm. You don't know much about photosynthesis. Plants use sunlight to split
water, expelling the oxygen and using the hydrogen to convert carbon
dioxide into carbohydrates and other useful organic substances. Not only
does photosynthesis NOT create carbon dioxide, it actually reduces it!

Besides, in burning hydrogen, the "primary exhaust product contains NO
carbon dioxide", even if carbon dioxide is created elsewhere.

The sensible and practical goal should be a carbon neutral room
temperature liquid, not a carbon free one.

Either "carbon neutral" or "carbon free" fuels could be a practical goal.
It's a matter of engineering and economics.

CM

"Carbon free" fuels ain't gonna happen.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

 

[G. R. L. Cowan]

The only reason we hear so much about
hydrogen is because it can be extracted from oil[...]

I don't think so. The primary reason hydrogen has a lot of
interest among some researchers is because the primary
exhaust product contains NO carbon dioxide.

Urban lore.

No means of producing terrestral hydrogen is known that does not create
substantial amounts of carbon dioxide. Typically much MORE so than
alternatives.

Hmm. You don't know much about photosynthesis. Plants use sunlight to split
water, expelling the oxygen and using the hydrogen to convert carbon
dioxide into carbohydrates and other useful organic substances. Not only
does photosynthesis NOT create carbon dioxide, it actually reduces it!

Besides, in burning hydrogen, the "primary exhaust product contains NO
carbon dioxide", even if carbon dioxide is created elsewhere.

The sensible and practical goal should be a carbon neutral room
temperature liquid, not a carbon free one.

Either "carbon neutral" or "carbon free" fuels could be a practical goal.
It's a matter of engineering and economics.

CM

"Carbon free" fuels ain't gonna happen.

Sailors recently injured on the *San Francisco*
have reason to disagree.


-- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet

 

[Derek Broughton]

Both ehanol and methanol are alcohol.

That's why I didn't say "and bio-ethanol and bio-methanol aren't, why?".


So here goes:

Why aren't bio-ethanol and bio-methanol environmentally friendly?

 

[Derek Broughton]

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.

Also, when fully burdened and truly accounted, your solar/wind
installation generates HUGE amounts of CO2 if used to produce hydrogen
gas.

I'm a fair and reasonable person. I read that, and I would agree with
almost all of it. Your "fully burdened and truly accounted", though, is
highly debatable. On a pure accounting basis, my system is no _more_
expensive than connecting to the commercial grid, so I just don't buy that
argument. To say "If your solar panel is generating two cents worth of
electricity a day and the interest cost is three cents a day, you have a
net energysink" fails to "fully burden" the cost of commercial energy. The
subsidies available for production of fossil fuels are staggering. The
subsidies that have been given to nuclear can't even yet be measured as
nobody knows who's going to pay for spent fuel storage and decommissioning.
Meanwhile, my PV/wind system actually produces about 15 cents of
electricity per day, but there are no interest costs because the capital
expense to bring in grid power was (approximately) the same as solar, and
also if I was on-grid, you can bet I'd be spending _more_ than $0.15/day on
electricity. I'd have to go back to the total fuel bills for the past few
years to know how much, because I'm not now using electricity for some
things I did when I was on-grid - range, hot water & fridge - but there's
definitely a lower total bill, even though fuel costs of all kinds are
higher than where I used to live.

All that said, I generally recommend _against_ installing solar or wind
generators for people who have available grid connections.

"Excessively annoyed pond scum also can apparently produce hydrogen". I
think if you call people pond scum, it goes without saying that they'll be
excessively annoyed, but I've never seen them give off hydrogen.

 

[Charles Edmondson]

Ed Earl Ross wrote:



And bio-alcohols aren't, why? Still no way to make them without inputting
more energy than we get out?

Pretty much. Remember, for the alcohols, you have a double process.

First, you have to grow the grain, which requires quite an energy
budget. Then, you have to ferment and distill the grain, with a second
high energy budget. This usually means that you have a net energy loss,
and unless you intend the output for recreational beverages, a net
economic loss. Presently government subsidies offset the economic
losses of the producers...

For methane and bio-diesel, it is basically a one step process. Just
let the micobes operate for methane, and capture the output, and just
crush and extract the oils for bio-diesel. The methane route is used,
because it involves waste products that need to be processed anyway.
For bio-diesel, it is economically efficient for small users (using
waste products, again...) but is not quite ready yet for large scale
production. Petroleum at the well head is still too much cheaper...

 

[Don Lancaster]

Of course, photosynthesis doesn't create hydrogen.

Not even wrong.

Read any of the metalloradicals papers.

One link in http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf


--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com