Sign in / up

back to article Scientists find safer way to store hydrogen

Australian scientists have come up with a clever way of storing hydrogen that they feel could make it a viable portable fuel source. Hydrogen is abundant: pass a current through water and you'll make some. Hydrogen-powered fuel cells have therefore been advanced as a potential replacement for the internal combustion engine and …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Thumb Up

    Hydrides have *always* been the dark horse in the H2 storage race.

    40atm is c 600psi. This is *very* reasonable compared to the 5000psi of normal GH2 tanks and +50c - +350c is also a *lot* easier to handle IRL than the -250c needed for LH2 (unless you are used to fueling launch vehicles).

    Let's not forget that the cooling or compressing can use 3x the amount of energy needed to *make* the H2 in the first place.

    Bringing the storage temp and pressure more into a range most people are comfortable would make Hydrogen more acceptable but probably cheaper.

    Thumbs up for them pursuing a smart rather than simple solution to a very difficult problem.

    12 1
    1. Nuke
      Reply Icon
      Mushroom

      @John Smith 19 - Re: Hydrides have *always* been the dark horse

      "Thumbs up for them pursuing a smart rather than simple solution to a very difficult problem."

      I think any solution to this difficult problem would do nicely.

      H2 Bomb Icon

      0 0
      1. Danny 14
        Reply Icon

        Re: @John Smith 19 - Hydrides have *always* been the dark horse

        3x the energy wont be a problem in some areas where power is cheap and water is plenty. Iceland, coastal solar areas etc. Power plants could be modified to release H2 as part of their cooling cycles, especially some nuke plants.

        3 1
  2. Spender
    Thumb Down

    "can soak up so much of the stuff ..."

    "can soak up so much of the stuff that a fuel tank stuffed full of the compound could match a conventionally-sized fuel tank for energy potential"

    Can you define the difference between a "tank" and a "conventionally-sized tank"?

    2 1
    1. Yobgod Ababua
      Reply Icon
      Flame

      Re: "can soak up so much of the stuff ..."

      What they are trying to say is that the energy density is roughly equivalent, which is a big, big deal.

      5 0
      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: "can soak up so much of the stuff ..."

        But unlikely, even liquid hydrogen is only 1/4 the density of petrol and i can't see how you can adsorb a material to a higher density than a bulk liquid.

        ps Explosiveness of the gas isn't a big deal. It's a lot less explosive than LPG and only risky over a very small range of concentrations. A bigger problem is that keeping it under high pressure needs lots of metal and hydrogen under pressure does nasty stuff to metal, keeping it as a liquid is even worse.

        3 1
        1. squizzar
          Reply Icon
          FAIL

          Re: "can soak up so much of the stuff ..."

          Energy density, not mass-over-volume density. The density of the hydrogen in the storage medium may well be less than that of petrol.

          3 1
        2. Nigel 11
          Reply Icon

          Re: "can soak up so much of the stuff ..."

          i can't see how you can adsorb a material to a higher density than a bulk liquid.

          By rearranging things chemically so that the density of hydrogen atoms loosely bound to some carrier compound is greater than the density of hydrogen molecules in liquid hydrogen. It's akin to the old party trick of pouring a pint of water into a pint glass already full of sawdust. It all goes in! (Water packs more tightly around just about anything, than the dynamicall changing open structures in liquid water).

          The density of liquid hydrogen is an extraordinarily low 0.07 (water is 1.0) so there's a lot of scope for it to pack down into the interstices of open crystal structures. That's the problem with storing hydrogen at high pressure in metal tanks. It does pack down into the interstices in the metal crystals, and as this happens, the metal becomes progressively embrittled.

          (Source for 0.07 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen corroborated elsewhere by Google. That's quite a lot less than 1/4 the density of petrol. More like 1/12 working from memory)

          8 0
          1. Graham Bartlett
            Reply Icon

            Re: "can soak up so much of the stuff ..."

            This is why I'm on here. Not only did I not know about liquid hydrogen's density before, I also now have a nifty party trick which AFAIK no-one I know is aware of. :)

            5 0
            1. Danny 14
              Reply Icon

              Re: "can soak up so much of the stuff ..."

              efficiency of the resultant will also play a point too. Even energy dense petrol may well be married to an inefficient engine. Ford quoted fuel cell efficiencies 2-3 times greater than a petrol engine. I certainly wouldnt mind a car with half the range if it cost half as much to run.

              1 0
              1. NukEvil
                Reply Icon
                WTF?

                What?

                "I certainly wouldnt mind a car with half the range if it cost half as much to run."

                Wouldn't that mean it costs the exact same amount, then?

                0 1
                1. Ammaross Danan
                  Reply Icon
                  Boffin

                  Re: What?

                  "I certainly wouldnt mind a car with half the range if it cost half as much to run."

                  "Wouldn't that mean it costs the exact same amount, then?"

                  @NukEvil: Nope. Half as much to run, at half the distance, is still half as much to run, you just get less range per fill-up. If it was half as much to run over half the range (note the change in word order and the use of "over"), then you're just saying it costs less due to reducing the distance driven.

                  0 0
            2. Al Jones
              Reply Icon

              @Graham Bartlett "I also now have a nifty party trick"

              Now try explaining why you're walking around with a back of sawdust......

              0 0
        3. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Mushroom

          Re: "can soak up so much of the stuff ..."

          Actually the flamable range of hydrogen - is actually VERY large, I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but kind of making this up to illustrate the point, it sort of ranges from about 5% hydrogen in 95% of air, to something like 87% hydrogen to 13% of air.

          It's alarmingly bad....

          Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy worse than any other fuel / air ratios.

          Speaking of genius moves...... I'd like to get a pipe say 1 meter in diameter, and 100Km long... and keep a stricometric mixture of swirling oxygen and hydrogen inside it, and to spark ignite one end of the gas mix, at one end of the pipe.

          I am wondering... IF given the ferociously nasty high speed of combustion in hydrogen and oxygen, mixed at the ideal ratio - if the pressure wave could get high enough in compression and speed, to transition from combustion to detonation by the preceeding shockwave?

          Just wondering...

          Any geniuses have an answer to this?

          0 0
  3. jungle_jim
    Flame

    Exhaust temperature?

    I wonder what the exhaust temperature of a hydrogen cobustion engine is? would be an easy way to get it up to temperature if it is anything near current exhaust temps.

    I want my hydrogen fuelled V8!

    1 1
    1. Ru
      Reply Icon
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Exhaust temperature?

      I vaguely assumed that a hydrogen car would be using a fuel cell and electric motors. Fuel cells are a pretty useful bit of kit; the principle problem is the sort of fuel they accept. Hydrogen fuelled cells are well understood. Ergo, the exhaust temperature will be moderate as you don't want to toast your proton exchange membrane.

      0 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Exhaust temperature?

        "Hydrogen fuelled cells are well understood"

        Hydrogen Fuel cells aren't fully understood.

        No one has managed to mass produce a cheap, reliable and very efficient fuel cell at this time.

        It's not impossible, just the tech still needs R&D to get a viable production solution.

        2 1
        1. Danny 14
          Reply Icon

          Re: Exhaust temperature?

          you mean apart from say the Merc F-Cell? Or the honda clarity? Without mass produced hydrogen they are running at "about" 30-40 mpg equivalent in cost of fuel. That is cost of fuel as they H2 consumption is about 60miles per KG.

          Whilst not perfect they are almost direct replacements available now without mass rollout of fuel. The costs are high though at 100k each. Fuel stations appear to be the limiting factor.

          0 1
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Exhaust temperature?

            Potentially 500-600 F-Cells and 40 Clarity's, hardly mass production.

            Given there are about 53m cars produced each year = 0.00001%

            0 0
        2. Avatar of They
          Reply Icon
          Thumb Up

          Re: Exhaust temperature?

          Didn't the japs design a home fuel cell, looked like a server rack but mounted outside the house and would provide 50000 hours to the average home.

          Pretty sure they were stable and almost ready for production a few years back, afterall in a home you won't have movement and likely bumps, jolts and crashes.

          A quick google and found this.

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8563928.stm

          So pretty sure they understand it enough.

          0 1
          1. Red Bren
            Reply Icon
            Joke

            Re: "In a home you won't have movement..."

            I thought Japanese buildings were designed for bumps, jolts and crashes...

            Mine's the one with the map of Fukashima in the pocket. And I don't know why someone down-voted you...

            0 0
  4. frank ly

    True Cost/Efficiency

    Unless someone finds a huge natural supply of hydrogen gas (unlikely), then hydrogen for use in vehicle engines can only be an intermediate energy store that is manufactured using electricity. As such, it seems to be a convoluted way of getting grid electrical energy to the drive of a vehicle, compared to using batteries.

    Does anyone know about the relative comparisons for hydrogen manufacture, distribution, storage and use in vehicles; compared to the battery charging alternative? The main meaningful comparison would be the energy finally delivered to the vehicle for a given unit of grid electricity used. Another important comparison would be the costs of the entire supply and storage processes.

    Technical and performance considerations for the vehicle would be less important since the entire reason for developing these alternative power sources is to reduce the use of fossil fuels. It's already been shown that the 'average car' can run quite well and fairly conveniently using hydrogen or batteries.

    4 0
    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: True Cost/Efficiency

      It's probably less efficenct than battery+charging but it is a lot easier to ship long distance.

      So if you have lots of solar in the desert and lots of hydro in the north - it's an easy way of shipping Giga-Joules from their to LA.

      2 1
    2. Aaron Em
      Reply Icon

      Re: True Cost/Efficiency

      Nuclear fission for the electricity to crack hydrogen from water, and the benefit of hydrogen over batteries is a) less blowing the tops off mountains to get rare earths, and b) if you can't go more than fifty miles on a charge, the only way you'll ever get people to drive battery-powered cars is at gunpoint.

      5 2
      1. Steve Todd
        Reply Icon
        FAIL

        @Aaron Em

        "Can't go more than 50 miles on a charge"? So the Tesla series (with models rated at between 160 and 300 miles on a charge) are a myth then? IBM's plans for a Lithium-Air battery with a 500 mile range is all pie in the sky?

        You don't just have to electrolyse hydrogen, you need to cool it to a liquid or highly compress it for shipping, which needs lots of energy too. More than the power loss from grid transmission and charging, The moment that people can do what they want to do in en electric car for less money then you'll have to beat them off with a stick.

        1 4
        1. Aaron Em
          Reply Icon

          Re: @Aaron Em

          So the overnight charging requirement for a Tesla between those 160-300 mile runs is a myth, then, too? There's at least one Reg author who'll be very surprised to hear that!

          Fission has the characteristic of producing enormous amounts of electrical power, more cheaply per KWh than any other proven reliable generating technology. (Note I say proven reliable, which pretty much disqualifies pie-in-the-sky stuff like large-scale solar and wind.) And the whole point of the article we're talking about here is that some researchers have found a hydrogen storage method which doesn't require the kind of compression and cryogenic-storage requirements to which you refer.

          1 0
          1. Steve Todd
            Reply Icon
            Stop

            Re: @Aaron Em

            Apart from the fact that you're changing the subject, the current Tesla home charging rig can charge at a rate of about 60 miles range/hour. That's from a standard 240 volt domestic supply.

            It doesn't matter that fission based power is cheap, you'll still need a lot more of it to supply hydrogen as a fuel than charging batteries (the methods discussed were suitable for a fuel tank, but not bulk distribution, you'd still need tankers full of high pressure or liquid hydrogen to deliver it to fuel stations).

            0 3
            1. Aaron Em
              Reply Icon

              Re: @Aaron Em

              Steve Todd, where are you getting those numbers? They smack of theoretical maxima to me, especially in light of people having apparently complained about getting as little as 50-60 miles between charges, and then having to plug the thing in for 12 hours to charge its batteries back up. I would also note that 240V isn't standard everywhere; if you're at home in the US, you'll have access to a 2-phase 240V appliance socket, probably, but if you're anywhere else, 120V is all you can count on.

              Actually, given that, just as you say, you need a lot of it to support a hydrogen-powered vehicle scheme -- yeah, it really does matter that fission-generated 'leccy is super cheap. "You need a lot of it, so it being cheap doesn't matter"? What kind of argument is that? And what's wrong with cracking water right at the filling station? I mean, we currently truck petroleum products around, sure, but you can't just pull petrol out of the ground anywhere, and you can generate hydrogen gas anywhere you've got grid power and a water main.

              1 0
              1. Steve Todd
                Reply Icon
                Stop

                Re: @Aaron Em

                "Those numbers" are the official US DoT range numbers based on performance on a rolling road test, just like conventional cars get their MPG numbers.

                The charge speed is based on Tesla's latest charger, which is a 20kW unit that connects direct to your distribution unit. It assumes a charging efficiency of 80%, so well within practical capabilities, but the rate will fall back as the battery aproaches full (IIRC above 80% full).

                Like any car if you use a heavy right foot then your fuel economy will be significantly less than government figures. Charging from lower rated units will also take longer (12 hours implies a charger with only 5-6kW capacity), but doesn't mean that it has to be that slow.

                1 0
            2. Greg J Preece
              Reply Icon

              Re: @Aaron Em

              Apart from the fact that you're changing the subject, the current Tesla home charging rig can charge at a rate of about 60 miles range/hour. That's from a standard 240 volt domestic supply.

              Is that not the special three-phase huge pluggy thing? So what happens when you get to the other end and they don't have a special three-phase huge pluggy thing?

              1 0
          2. itzman
            Reply Icon

            Re: @Aaron Em

            Yes on the nuclear, yes on the limitations (theoretical) on batteries, no on the hydrogen. FAR better to use nuclear heat and pressure to make diesel out of water and CO2. Or just wait till batteries are good enough for reasonable range cost and longevity.

            That gives you a nuclear powered primary energy technology producing cheap electricity and expensive hydrocarbon fuels for the applications that cant realistically use anything else.

            0 0
            1. Danny 14
              Reply Icon

              Re: @Aaron Em

              solar cracking would be thermal based not electrical based so the > 15% would be possible.

              0 0
              1. Danny 14
                Reply Icon

                Re: @Aaron Em

                oh, also the hydrogen plant next to the windfarm idea would be perfect if it could also be reversed to supply the grid when there is no wind (and sell the excess H2 if any).

                0 0
    3. Stanislaw
      Reply Icon

      Re: True Cost/Efficiency

      You need to look at it not purely from an energy efficiency standpoint, but also from one of practicality.

      It takes a couple of minutes to brim my car's fuel tank and then it has a range of about 450 miles. It takes an overnight charge of a battery car to give you a range in the region of 100 miles - so to drive from Manchester to London could easily take two or three days. If a battery-powered car could be produced that gave 450 miles from a three-minute charge, I'd be right there in the queue to buy one. I'm not convinced it's going to happen though.

      The fuel cell, whilst certainly less energy-efficient overall, appears to be a more promising line of development from a practicality point of view, offering the possibility of a high-density fuel source that might be safe enough for the likes of us to handle.

      4 1
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: True Cost/Efficiency

        > It takes an overnight charge of a battery car to give you a range in the region of 100 miles - so to drive from Manchester to London could easily take two or three days.

        Sigh. Such a tiring argument. Electric cars are not for everyone. They are more part of the solution, than the solution as a whole.

        Just because it doesn't fit your specific needs doesn't mean it doesn't fit other's. (Please re-read that so it sinks in, not everything in the world is designed specifically for you.)

        There are lots of people who simply commute from their house to the office every day, a journey that's well within the range of an electric car. For these people such a vehicle would be perfect.

        7 4
        1. Stanislaw
          Reply Icon

          @AC 08:35

          >(Please re-read that so it sinks in, not everything in the world is designed specifically for you.)

          Sigh. Such a patronising response.

          These people who commute a short distance every day and for whom a battery car would be ideal - we never take days out? We never go on holiday? We never visit Auntie Jean in Truro for the weekend? We never, ever have an emergency while the car is charging up?

          Yes, we could hire something for extra-commuting activities but why should we? Having spent all that money on a car, isn't it reasonable to think it should be able to cope with nearly all one's transport requirements (trips to Ikea excepted maybe)?

          Battery cars are - in principle - a very, very good solution for short commutes. school runs etc. But for actual family use, they're not a practical means of transport.

          4 1
          1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
            Reply Icon
            Thumb Down

            Re: @AC 08:35

            > Yes, we could hire something for extra-commuting activities

            In fact even that is unlikely to work once everyone starts to do it, since there would be huge demand at Bank Holiday weekends and Christmas, and low demand for most of the year. No rental company could afford to keep huge fleets idle just in case. And then who would buy them when the rental companies sell off the used cars?

            1 0
          2. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @AC 08:35

            > >(Please re-read that so it sinks in, not everything in the world is designed specifically for you.)

            > Sigh. Such a patronising response.

            Deliberately so. Because frankly you're not thinking it through.

            Take an average family lining outside a ordinary town. Its pretty standard to have a house with a driveway and garage. Dad would drive the 10miles into town every day and back again. Sometimes stopping at the supermarket. Mum would do whatever mums do, including taking the dogs for a walk in the woods a few miles away. So we've got a two car family with a low daily mileage. So Dad has a electric car for the 20 or so miles he does a day. Mum would have a 'normal' petrol\diesel\hybrid car as its used much less. Still can visit Gran or do whatever, but also have the cut in fuel cost from running an electric car.

            So I'll say it again, just because it doesn't fit your purpose, don't think something is useless. Things aren't designed specifically for you. In fact generally new tech is for a niche.

            Take anything and I'll wager it wouldn't have suited YOU at the time it was cutting edge. A car in the early 1900s? Why do I need that I have a horse. A mobile phone in the 1980s? I don't need to be able to call someone that instantly. A television? Why do I need that I have a wireless and a paper.

            I mean seriously, the short-sightedness makes the mind boggle at times.

            1 2
            1. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @AC 08:35

              > Its pretty standard to have a house with a driveway and garage

              American, are you?

              0 0
            2. Stanislaw
              Reply Icon

              Re: @AC 08:35

              >> Sigh. Such a patronising response.

              >Deliberately so. Because frankly you're not thinking it through.

              Thought so. It smacked of green preaching. However it's my turn now - at least I'm not doing it anonymously - may I point out how muddled your thinking is?

              Your solution to the problem of a battery car's short range and long recharge time is to have a second car. Fair enough...

              ... until you realise that if you're going to have two cars anyway it would always make more sense to buy two hybrids. Same purchase price and you end up with two cars capable of long range, ie better value for your money. The running costs wouldn't be that different given the way the price of electricity is going & the frequency with which you have to recharge a battery.

              Nope, there's no good practical or economic argument for a battery car even if they are shiny and new and cutting edge and kind to the environment and everything. If you only have one car, you're stuffed for long range travel. If you have two cars, you get better value for your hard earned with a pair of hybrids (or diesels, or whatever).

              2 0
            3. Vic
              Reply Icon

              Re: @AC 08:35

              > Its pretty standard to have a house with a driveway and garage

              I wouldn't make that assumption. I have neither, and nor do most people in my road or the many adjoining roads.

              Vic.

              2 0
            4. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @AC 08:35

              I live in a house with a driveway and a former 2 car garage. The vast majority of the garages in my neighborhood have been converted into living area -- the conversions of some garages are quite well done, and some look pretty shitty. Most of the garage conversions have problems with insufficient heating and cooling in the former garage.

              0 0
        2. Neill Mitchell
          Reply Icon

          Re: True Cost/Efficiency

          "There are lots of people who simply commute from their house to the office every day, a journey that's well within the range of an electric car. For these people such a vehicle would be perfect."

          Unfortunately they also have relatives to visit, or drive to holiday destinations a couple of times a year. May only be a handful of journeys, but not ones you can use an electric car for. So they would either need to buy 2 cars or one that satisfies both needs. So they choose a petrol/diesel car.

          2 2
          1. Andrew Alan McKenzie
            Reply Icon
            Coat

            Re: True Cost/Efficiency

            Reread the earlier posters post.!

            Just because it doesn't suit you, doesn't mean it doesn't suit anyone. Two car households are not exactly rare.

            When I go on my handful of holiday journeys, i need a car that can cross seas and travel in excess of 500 mph, but as they aren't readily available (rotten scientists failing to design my personal jet-pack) i made a compromise and bought a petrol car that handles the normal run of journeys.

            1 0
        3. bill 36
          Reply Icon
          Mushroom

          Re: True Cost/Efficiency

          "There are lots of people who simply commute from their house to the office every day, a journey that's well within the range of an electric car. For these people such a vehicle would be perfect."

          How do you know that? I suppose you are talking about "semi-detached suburban man with 2.3 kids and a conservatory are you?.

          He already has the perfect solution, its called a 3 cylinder turbo diesel made by VW which is proven cheaper and cleaner than any electric car

          I have yet to see the "commute" mileage of any electric car thats been stuck on the M25 on a freeezing cold and wet January morning with the headlamps blazing, wipers going and the heater....heater? what heater? going full blast, meanwhile wondering if you can make it the office before you have to push.....misery!

          Electric cars are a solution to problem that does not exist.

          Hybrids on the other hand are more honest in that they offer a solution to the ever growing demand for fossil fuels by attempting to increase the mpg and therefore reduce the commute cost.

          6 1
        4. Vic
          Reply Icon

          Re: True Cost/Efficiency

          > For these people such a vehicle would be perfect.

          Perfect *for their commute*. Useless for their holiday away.

          And this is the nub of the transport problem: we don't have the ability to select vehicles according to our current requirements. We have to buy something that covers all or most of the bases we can foresee. That means that, with current technology, very few people are going to buy an electric car as their primary/only vehicle, even if it does cater nicely for >90% of their motoring requirements.

          Stand on a bridge over the motorway some time. Watch the number of 4+-seater cars driving underneath with a single occupant...

          Vic.

          1 0
      2. DaeDaLuS_015
        Reply Icon

        Re: True Cost/Efficiency

        I think to some extent this is also turning 2 problems into 1. The nice thing about this (and batteries for that matter) is that we remove petrol from the list of issues we need to tackle and effectively turn it into the problem with power plants (lack of coal, whatever else). We know that we have a stop-gap measure we can implement there which is nuclear so this conversion buys us time more than anything.

        Then if we crack fusion, problem entirely solved, sort of, probably...

        0 0
        1. Aaron Em
          Reply Icon

          "Stop-gap" fission? No

          Because if everyone involved in it treats it as a "stop-gap", just sort of an emergency measure to tide us over until we realize the impossible -- or at least highly improbable -- dream of fusion, then there's a strong impetus to spend as little money as possible on it, because after all we'll just be tearing down all the fission plants again in fifty years, right?

          If we're going to build fission plants at all, we need to be building them to last a century apiece at least. Then, if fusion ever does manage to happen, of course we'll have a great big decommissioning party -- but if it doesn't, we don't find ourselves saddled with a bunch of half-assed BWRs which even whose lowest-bid builders won't certify for more than a decade and a half.

          2 0
    4. ciaran
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Re: True Cost/Efficiency

      I agree, Hydrogen is a way of storing energy, and a poor one compared to petrol. What we need is an energy store that's as easy to use as petrol but that's easy to produce. I vote for Ethanol.

      2 4
      1. Ru
        Reply Icon
        Boffin

        Re: "I vote for Ethanol"

        Unfortunately, votes don't work very well on the laws of physics or the complexities of engineering.

        The best source for the volumes of ethanol an industrialised nation would need to keep itself going would be something like a vast algal bioreactor; technology that's way up there in pie-in-the-sky territory. Compare with hydrogen that we could conceivably run our cars and industry on using modern day tech, were it not for the fact that petrochemicals are a wee bit more convenient.

        2 1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like