New technology makes hydrogen more viable car fuel

TylerDurden

100 GW
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
7,176
Location
Wear the fox hat.
New technology makes hydrogen more viable car fuel

By Stuart McDill – Thu Mar 31, 5:21 am ET
LONDON (Reuters Life!) – A new technology that allows hydrogen to be stored in a cheap and practical way, could make its widespread use as a carbon-free alternative to petrol a reality, according to its developers.
The technology is based on a new way of producing nano-fibers from hydrides, materials that soak up hydrogen like a sponge, and then encapsulating them in tiny plastic beads so small they behave like a liquid.
The process is being developed by Cella Energy, a spin-off from Britain's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, who say that the technique allows hydrogen to be released at a much faster rate and at lower temperatures than before.
"What we've been doing is taking these materials and encasing them in plastic and making them into a very fine powder and that improves their properties," Cella Energy Chief Scientific Officer Stephen Bennington said. "It also means you can pump it like a fluid and it's safe. It is not gong to easily burst into flames," he said.
Hydrogen produces only water when its burned and is considered an ideal solution to cutting carbon emissions from petrol or diesel vehicles, which are estimated to cause 25 percent of all carbon release.
But until now, attempts to store hydrogen have not been consumer-friendly so this has not been a viable option. Cella Energy Ltd say their technology would allow people to use the carbon-free fuel with their existing car after a few modifications.
"You would pump it into your petrol tank of your car -- that would go off, be heated, drive the hydrogen off, which would go and run your vehicle and then the waste little beads that we have created you store in the car. And when you go and refuel your car you have two nozzles. One which puts in the new beads and one which takes out the old beads which goes off to be recycled and the hydrogen added to it again," Bennington said.
The development has been to turn hydrides into fibers or beads, 30 times smaller than a human hair, through a process of electro-spinning. This produces a white tissue-like material that can be controlled to capture and release hydrogen.
The encapsulation process protects the hydrides from oxygen and water, prolonging their life and making it possible to handle them safely in air and because it behaves like a liquid, current infrastructure will need minimal modification.
"You can use tankers to carry the material around," said Bennington. "You can take it to forecourts and then you can pump it into the vehicle and give the customer the same kind of experience they have now."
All part of the reason Cella Energy believe their process could herald a new era of carbon-free motoring.
"The experience that most people have now is using regular liquid fuels where it takes three minutes to fill your vehicle and then you can travel 300 miles," said Stephen Voller, Cella Energy's CEO. "Now you can have exactly the same experience with hydrogen but you can't have that experience with an electric car."
The company said hydrogen could be an economically viable alternative to fossil fuels if the gas is produced with renewable energy sources like wind or solar. It has three times more energy than petrol per unit of weight and could power cars, planes and other vehicles that currently use hydrocarbons.
It said it is also attracting interest from large established companies in the energy and transportation sectors.
(Editing by Paul Casciato)
 
Not that i know much about the processes they use but isnt encasing hydrogen soaked hydrides in plastic kind of defeating the point... not only will we still be relying on petrolium for the plastic coating but when burned the plastic coating will release CO2 anyway?

Maybe im missing something???
 
You missed the point where the plastic is recycled
"You would pump it into your petrol tank of your car -- that would go off, be heated, drive the hydrogen off, which would go and run your vehicle and then the waste little beads that we have created you store in the car. And when you go and refuel your car you have two nozzles. One which puts in the new beads and one which takes out the old beads which goes off to be recycled and the hydrogen added to it again," Bennington said.
Dan
 
DAND214 said:
You missed the point where the plastic is recycled
"You would pump it into your petrol tank of your car -- that would go off, be heated, drive the hydrogen off, which would go and run your vehicle and then the waste little beads that we have created you store in the car. And when you go and refuel your car you have two nozzles. One which puts in the new beads and one which takes out the old beads which goes off to be recycled and the hydrogen added to it again," Bennington said.
Dan


Thanks,

That will teach me for rushing through reading something on my break at work and then commenting on it lol. :)
 
SF Fusion said:
What are the advantages of using hydrogen as a fuel? Does that reduce carbon dioxide emission? Will cars be able to run on a lesses amount of hydrogen fuel/?? Can somebody please answer...
From the article:
"Hydrogen produces only water when its burned and is considered an ideal solution to cutting carbon emissions from petrol or diesel vehicles, which are estimated to cause 25 percent of all carbon release.
But until now, attempts to store hydrogen have not been consumer-friendly so this has not been a viable option. Cella Energy Ltd say their technology would allow people to use the carbon-free fuel with their existing car after a few modifications."
 
The only thing that irritates me is that the release really told me nothing. "The technology is based on a new way of producing nano-fibers from hydrides, materials that soak up hydrogen like a sponge, and then encapsulating them in tiny plastic beads so small they behave like a liquid."

wtf? Hydrides are anions of hydrogen, and generally incredibly unstable (they have uses in chemical reactions and can only be "stored" as super strong bases such as LiAlH4 and BH4, which both act to deliver the H anion).

As far as I know, hydrides are have nothing to do with Hydrogen, H2.

Furthermore, Hydrides don't soak up anything, they're just protons with electrons around them, and they don't really "exist" unless the conditions allow them to exist (the way you can keep a leaf against a wall if you have wind pushing it, but the leaf isn't really part of the wall).

So then they just jump in after that fake soak up like a sponge fact, and say something new- that they encampsulate them in plastic beads. The plastic bead technology I've heard of somewhere before, but I'm not even sure if it's plastic.


A
GGGHHHAGGHHGHGHGHGHG I CANT STAND FAKE-SCIENCE ARTICLES. THE STATE OF SCIENCE NEWS REPORTING IS AWFUL. Discovermagazine is the only group I've seen making quality and readable science articles that are relatively free of misinformation.
 
Kin said:
The only thing that irritates me is that the release really told me nothing. "The technology is based on a new way of producing nano-fibers from hydrides, materials that soak up hydrogen like a sponge, and then encapsulating them in tiny plastic beads so small they behave like a liquid."

wtf? Hydrides are anions of hydrogen, and generally incredibly unstable (they have uses in chemical reactions and can only be "stored" as super strong bases such as LiAlH4 and BH4, which both act to deliver the H anion).

As far as I know, hydrides are have nothing to do with Hydrogen, H2.

Furthermore, Hydrides don't soak up anything, they're just protons with electrons around them, and they don't really "exist" unless the conditions allow them to exist (the way you can keep a leaf against a wall if you have wind pushing it, but the leaf isn't really part of the wall).

So then they just jump in after that fake soak up like a sponge fact, and say something new- that they encampsulate them in plastic beads. The plastic bead technology I've heard of somewhere before, but I'm not even sure if it's plastic.


A
GGGHHHAGGHHGHGHGHGHG I CANT STAND FAKE-SCIENCE ARTICLES. THE STATE OF SCIENCE NEWS REPORTING IS AWFUL. Discovermagazine is the only group I've seen making quality and readable science articles that are relatively free of misinformation.

OK, they screwed up. However, storing hydrogen as a is an active area of research. If you look at the ultimate reference, Wikipedia, you find that the word "hydride" not only refers to the H- ion, but "Hydrides may refer to any compound that hydrogen forms with other elements,[2][3] ranging over most of the periodic table." (References 2 and 3 there are college inorganic chem textbooks) So they have a little wiggle room in their statement.

But, the classic metal hydrides (MHx) can actually often be made by reacting elemental metals with H2 gas, an electron gets transferred to each H atom. Then one reaction pathway for decomposition is heating the hydride, which releases H2. Another way to get H2 off is to add water, giving you the metal hydroxide and H2 gas. I don't have the article referred to here, nor any of the background data, but it is quite feasible that the "breakthrough" it talks about uses nanotechnology for two reasons: (1) The surface area of the stuff that the H2 reacts with is enormous compared with metal powder, etc, so much more H2 can be positioned at a surface for rapid storage and release (the inside of a solid is for all practical purposes worthless for chemical reaction, everything happens at the surface), and (2) if you put these nanofibers inside a nanoporous polymer ("plastic") structure, you may be able to moderate their reactivity, so things don't immediately flame up when they hit humid air, and it's easier to handle and recycle the spent stuff, with little or none of it being lost in transfer.

This work may not go anywhere (too expensive, early results may not be scaleable, may actually use too much energy to recycle material, something else might come along tomorrow that is better, etc.), but it is interesting science and just might be exactly what we need. Time will tell.

Cameron
 
Truth be told, you addressed a number of things accurately. In a sense I mean "you are right";I may have been a bit too much in a ranting mode. There are also plastic bead hydrogen storing technologies, and I think this *could* be a good article. I'm not saying I'm not interested in science articles, I'm dying for them, I just wish they were a bit better.
 
Kin said:
Truth be told, you addressed a number of things accurately. In a sense I mean "you are right";I may have been a bit too much in a ranting mode. There are also plastic bead hydrogen storing technologies, and I think this *could* be a good article. I'm not saying I'm not interested in science articles, I'm dying for them, I just wish they were a bit better.

Yeah, I'm with ya. The science literacy of some of these science writers who work for general-type news companies can leave something to be desired. They may have heard things right, but took notes so quickly, concentrating on spelling "hydride" correctly, didn't get the verbs right, and filled in with what their heads had a general impression of what the person interviewed meant, and came out with a disaster. An example of a barely science-literate journalist was Erica Hill (now on the CBS "Early Show", not doing science), who used to be one of the science talking heads for CNN. I think she's a fairly sharp lady in general, but when it came to most of her CNN science reports, if she couldn't read exactly what she was supposed to say in a story or ask in an interview, fuggedaboudit. It's a shame that so many of us science geeks (including me) have a personality which would translate on-screen in front of 5 million people (or 500) to either a catatonic snail or a stuttering fool that would make Porky Pig look like Winston Churchill giving a speech. It's just so hard to correct a typo in live speech. If you know a youngster who is both sharp enough to understand science and a good off-the-cuff speaker, please encourage him/her to go into journalism.

Cameron
 
So storing hydrogen in a tank at 10000 psi in your trunk is a bad idea?
 
Arlo1 said:
So storing hydrogen in a tank at 10000 psi in your trunk is a bad idea?

Not in the right container.

Cameron
 
The benefits of solid storage are reduced vessel pressure. The downside is increase heat.

Stan Ovshinsky was working on this a few years back. He did not have nano-tech formulas and his project faded from view.
 
But until now, attempts to store hydrogen have not been consumer-friendly so this has not been a viable option. Cella Energy Ltd say their technology would allow people to use the carbon-free fuel with their existing car after a few modifications.

Since when is Hydrogen a carbon-free fuel?...That'd be real news!
 
When they say, "hydrides",it is implied they mean a metal-hydride compound...


You can store more H2 by volume when absorbed into hydrides than as pure H2. (due to the huge distance between atoms difference.)


This sounds reasonable, feasible, and a good idea IMHO.

Rather than burning the H2 in an ICE, react it in a fuel cell with electric drive and have higher efficiency from avoiding the carnot cycle losses.
 
REdiculous said:
But until now, attempts to store hydrogen have not been consumer-friendly so this has not been a viable option. Cella Energy Ltd say their technology would allow people to use the carbon-free fuel with their existing car after a few modifications.

Since when is Hydrogen a carbon-free fuel?...That'd be real news!
Pure Hydrogen is Just H2 there is nothign else! So its a very carbon free fuel!!!
Just have to make sure the energy used to produce it is carbon free as well!
 
Just have to make sure the energy used to produce it is carbon free as well!

No such thing...

Solar panels require materials to make, which have to be shipped and then the panels themselves need to be shipped to their install point. Hydro requires quite a bit of work before it, well, works. Windmills don't grow from seed. Etc and so on. :wink:
 
there will never be such a thing as carbon free... not untill it is designed, manufactured and produced from 2nd generation carbon free manufacturing processes and by a lifeform that does not expel co2 when it breathes lol :lol:
 
REdiculous said:
Just have to make sure the energy used to produce it is carbon free as well!

No such thing...

Solar panels require materials to make, which have to be shipped and then the panels themselves need to be shipped to their install point. Hydro requires quite a bit of work before it, well, works. Windmills don't grow from seed. Etc and so on. :wink:
Dude we have a bunch of old hydro dambs powering our province and they have been for over 60 years. The amount of carbon emissions used to produce the hydro power we use basicaly does not exist! We are on our closed loop carbon free system already. If someone built a electric car and used electric vehicals to transport all the goods here in bc to build it and always charged it from solar, wind, or hydro it will basicly be 100% carbon free!
 
Dude we have a bunch of old hydro dambs powering our province and they have been for over 60 years. The amount of carbon emissions used to produce the hydro power we use basicaly does not exist!

I've never damed a river using machines from 60 years ago but I bet it takes a fair amount of diesel, man power, concrete and rebar. With a 60+ year life it's not bad compared to other stuff (I'm guessing) but it's still not "carbon-free" and it never will be...even if it ran for a million years totally unattended.
 
REdiculous said:
Dude we have a bunch of old hydro dambs powering our province and they have been for over 60 years. The amount of carbon emissions used to produce the hydro power we use basicaly does not exist!

I've never damed a river using machines from 60 years ago but I bet it takes a fair amount of diesel, man power, concrete and rebar. With a 60+ year life it's not bad compared to other stuff (I'm guessing) but it's still not "carbon-free" and it never will be...even if it ran for a million years totally unattended.
Lol the numbers you are talking about are so so so small its not funny!!!
And now that we have hydro we can use hydro to build more hydro dams so the new ones will be carbon free.
I cant belive you are concidering the carbon used 60 years ago as a foot print like we are talking .00000000000000000000000000000000000000%!
 
And now that we have hydro we can use hydro to build more hydro dams so the new ones will be carbon free.

No, it doesn't work that way...

Using low-carbon energy to run the machines to make new dams would not make the new dams carbon free, it would just make them extremely-low carbon. The new dams would still need concrete+rebar, people, steel and copper....and electric excavators don't just appear from thin air so their carbon cost would also need to be considered and compared to traditional (used) machinery.

It doesn't really matter how small the numbers are - if it's more than 0 then it's not carbon free.
 
So what's the big deal about "carbon free"? What we need to do is come up with ways to store/extract energy which have collectively a lower carbon footprint than what we're using now. Reforestation has potentially a negative carbon footprint, until the tree dies and the bugs eat it and breathe out CO2. The hydro power has potentially zero carbon footprint after the dam and generator are built, and if that was 100 years ago, then we are for all practical purposes producing energy "carbon free". To calculate the carbon footprint of an existing energy source, you don't go back to Day One and amortize the CO2 emissions from then until today. The problem isn't in what people did 100 years ago, but in what people are doing today. We are animals after all, and we're supposed to have a positive carbon footprint - stop breathing and you die - don't act stupid, and we just might find a way out of this mess we're creating through gluttony and/or sloth.

Cameron
 
The hydro power has potentially zero carbon footprint after the dam and generator are built, and if that was 100 years ago, then we are for all practical purposes producing energy "carbon free". To calculate the carbon footprint of an existing energy source, you don't go back to Day One and amortize the CO2 emissions from then until today.

You have to amortize it or you're sweeping most of the emissions under the rug and claiming they don't matter. Also consider maintenance, and when it's no longer serviceable, destruction and reclamation.
 
Back
Top