Hydrogen fuel cell car is here
#1
Posted 16 June 2008 - 07:49 AM
#2
Posted 16 June 2008 - 08:21 AM
Now alls we need is a hydrogen fuel station infrastructure.
And somehow they need to get the cost of one of these puppies below $100k.
$600/month lease doesn't begin to cover that. And don't forget you now have a h-bomb sitting behind your seat that is under 10,000 psi pressure. At least if u go, you won't need an urn or a casket. You'll just be vaporized, which definitely helps global warming.
Pretty car tho...
Alls we need is more sources of energy, and hydrogen not an energy source.
Hydrogen is just another storage medium. It's a battery.
We are still going to need to produce energy (from coal, from nukes, from wind and solar) and then dump it into the grid so we can then make the hydrogen to tote around to power our vehicles.
My bet is electric transportation grabs a lot more market share than hydrogen.
#3
Posted 16 June 2008 - 09:10 AM
Alls we need is more sources of energy, and hydrogen not an energy source.
Hydrogen is just another storage medium. It's a battery.
We are still going to need to produce energy (from coal, from nukes, from wind and solar) and then dump it into the grid so we can then make the hydrogen to tote around to power our vehicles.
My bet is electric transportation grabs a lot more market share than hydrogen.
Exactly. Multi-pass nuclear will emerge kicking and screaming but it will emerge.
#4
Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:23 AM
#5
Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:35 AM
Three potentially-suitable reactor concepts have been identified, though only the first is sufficiently well-developed to move forward:
High-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR), either the pebble bed or hexagonal fuel block type. Modules of up to 285 MWe will operate at 950°C but can be hotter.
Advanced high-temperature reactor (AHTR), a modular reactor using a coated-particle graphite-matrix fuel and with molten fluoride salt as primary coolant. This is similar to the HTGR but operates at low pressure
Lead-cooled fast reactor, though these operate at lower temperatures than the HTGRs—the best developed is the Russian BREST reactor which runs at only 540°C. A US project is the STAR-H2 which will deliver 780°C for hydrogen production and lower temperatures for desalination.
The economics of thermochemical hydrogen production seem sound. General Atomics projects US$1.53/kg based on a 2400 MWt HTGR operating at 850°C, with 42% ovrall efficiency, and $1.42/kg at 950°C and 52% efficiency (both 10.5% discount rate). At 2003 prices, steam reforming of natural gas yields hydrogen at US$1.40/kg, and sequestration of the CO2 would push this to $1.60/kg. Such a plant could produce 800 tonnes of hydrogen per day—"enough for 1.5 million fuel cell cars" (at 1 t/day for 1800 cars).
In the meantime, hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis of water, using electricity from any source. Non-fossil sources, including intermittent ones such as wind energy and solar energy, are important possibilities (thereby solving a problem of not being able to store the electricity from those sources). However, the greater efficiency of electrolysis at high temperatures favors a nuclear source for both heat and electricity.
http://www.eoearth.o...m_nuclear_power
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
#6
Posted 16 June 2008 - 11:09 AM
Nuclear power already produces electricity as a major energy carrier. It is well-placed to produce hydrogen if this becomes a major energy carrier also.
The evolution of nuclear energy's role in hydrogen production over perhaps three decades is seen to be:
electrolysis of water, using off-peak capacity;
use of nuclear heat to assist steam reforming of natural gas;
high-temperature electrolysis of steam, using heat and electricity from nuclear reactors; then
high-temperature thermochemical production using nuclear heat.
Efficiency of the whole process (from primary heat to hydrogen) then moves from about 25% with today's reactors driving electrolysis (33% for reactor x 75% for cell) to 36% with more efficient reactors doing so, to 45% for high-temperature electrolysis of steam, to about 50% or more with direct thermochemical production. From hydrogen to electric drive is only 30-40% efficient at this stage, giving 15-20% overall primary heat to wheels, compared with 25-30% for PHEV.
High-temperature electrolysis (at 800°C or more) has been demonstrated, and shows considerable promise. US research is taking place at the Idaho National Laboratory in conjunction with Ceramatec.
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
#7
Posted 16 June 2008 - 11:12 AM
The economics of thermochemical hydrogen production seem sound. General Atomics projects US$1.53/kg based on a 2400 MWt HTGR operating at 850°C, with 42% ovrall efficiency, and $1.42/kg at 950°C and 52% efficiency (both 10.5% discount rate). At 2003 prices, steam reforming of natural gas yields hydrogen at US$1.40/kg, and sequestration of the CO2 would push this to $1.60/kg. Such a plant could produce 800 tonnes of hydrogen per day—"enough for 1.5 million fuel cell cars" (at 1 t/day for 1800 cars).
http://www.eoearth.o...m_nuclear_power
"Such a plant could produce 800 tonnes of hydrogen per day—"enough for 1.5 million fuel cell cars" "
There is no debate that you can use energy to produce hydrogen, which can then move cars around. That's not the question.
Here's the question: how many electric cars or natural gas cars could be fueled with the same amount? More than 1.5 million, or less? If less (and I bet it's less), then hydrogen is a loser.
Two problems with the eoearth.org position
1) Why go through all that? Why not just put the energy in a battery instead? Why use the energy to make hydrogen? What's the advantage?
2) In the example above, the cite regards the use of natural gas to produce hydrogen to fill fuel cells. Why not just burn the natural gas itself? It's ALREADY portable. Using one portable fuel to produce another is insanity.
Edited by Mike McCarthy, 16 June 2008 - 11:12 AM.
#8
Posted 16 June 2008 - 11:21 AM
Nuclear energy and hydrogen production
Nuclear power already produces electricity as a major energy carrier. It is well-placed to produce hydrogen if this becomes a major energy carrier also.
The evolution of nuclear energy's role in hydrogen production over perhaps three decades is seen to be:
electrolysis of water, using off-peak capacity;
use of nuclear heat to assist steam reforming of natural gas;
high-temperature electrolysis of steam, using heat and electricity from nuclear reactors; then
high-temperature thermochemical production using nuclear heat.
Efficiency of the whole process (from primary heat to hydrogen) then moves from about 25% with today's reactors driving electrolysis (33% for reactor x 75% for cell) to 36% with more efficient reactors doing so, to 45% for high-temperature electrolysis of steam, to about 50% or more with direct thermochemical production. From hydrogen to electric drive is only 30-40% efficient at this stage, giving 15-20% overall primary heat to wheels, compared with 25-30% for PHEV.
High-temperature electrolysis (at 800°C or more) has been demonstrated, and shows considerable promise. US research is taking place at the Idaho National Laboratory in conjunction with Ceramatec.
Again, why not use nuclear to supply the grid, and then use the grid to charge batteries?
There is no question that one can use energy -- from many sources, including nuclear -- to make hydrogen.
There is no question that one can use energy -- from many sources, including nuclear -- to charge batteries.
Which is more efficient? Hydrogen or batteries? That's the analysis we need to see. Explaining that energy can be turned into hydrogen is not an analysis or an argument, it's just a fact. What is the most efficient way to make that energy portable? Storage batteries or hydrogen? Which is it?
#9
Posted 16 June 2008 - 12:35 PM
#10
Posted 16 June 2008 - 03:54 PM