A hydrogen powered world? How much will it cost.

[bloodbob]

Well in the "International Journal of Hydrogen Energy" there was a book review for An end to global warming L.O. Williams; Pergamon, Elsevier science, Oxford, UK, 2002, 209pp. In which the author proposed build 2268 foating fusion reactors 30 GW(electrical output). Based upon the review's author Walter Seifritz over the time peroid the book author recommends the cost of building this new hydrogen world it would cost over $100 Trillion dollars which is roughly 5x the world's GDP and the cost of enegery would increase by 10 times. ( Thats for the electrical engery thats doesn't include costs producing hydrogen for whatever ).

So anyone with the current idea of switching the world to fusion and hydrogen power for the year 2050 can forget about it. Things are gonna take longer then that. Maybe 2100?

 

[Mariner]

As always these estimates have to consider using "current technology". You would always hope that some new technological breakthroughs will be made to bring these costs down.

As regards the Hydrogen economy, I like the thought of Solar-powered Electrolysis. Lots of research is being carried out into improving the efficiency of solar-cells and I find this an interesting example:

a system on a home's garage roof that is 10 percent efficient could provide enough hydrogen for a fuel-cell car to drive 11,000 miles per year.

Source

Power from Hydrogen is just so 'right' in every way that I just hope the scientists can get this sort of thing working as soon as possible.

 

[London Geezer]

The problem won't be the technology.

The problem will be politics: oil companies and countries (with very little water, coincidentally) depending on oil to run, supplying the whole world with oil, fixing their prices and tighten their grip on other countries knowing that they can't be touched or the world would stop working.

Once oil companies and oil rich countries lose their invisible grip on the rest of the world, world politics will change radically. Very radically.

It will either happen very very slowly, or very very chaotically. Or both.

 

[Simon F]

Power from Hydrogen is just so 'right' in every way that I just hope the scientists can get this sort of thing working as soon as possible.

Isn't hydrogen a bit of pain to store? The molecules are so small it leaks out of the containers too easily?

 

[Mariner]

I've not really read up on this subject much, but aren't scientists looking at using carbon nanotubes to store more weight of Hydrogen in a given area?

Can't say I've heard anything about leakage problems but I can see how they might exist and if they do, I'd hope some eggheads somewhere are looking into solutions now!

 

[Simon F]

I've not really read up on this subject much, but aren't scientists looking at using carbon nanotubes to store more weight of Hydrogen in a given area?

Can't say I've heard anything about leakage problems but I can see how they might exist and if they do, I'd hope some eggheads somewhere are looking into solutions now!

I have read (IIRC) that one approach is to form metal hydrides, but that seems that you would lose energy in the system forming and extracting the hydrogen.

Why can't they bond it to some free carbon atoms?......

 

[bloodbob]

a system on a home's garage roof that is 10 percent efficient could provide enough hydrogen for a fuel-cell car to drive 11,000 miles per year.

Yes and to buy the solar cell it would cost you between 24-64 years worth fuel depending on where you live. ( Actually it will be more then since current hydrogen production is cheaper then doing it by electrolysis so it should be more like 96-256 years though thats at current costs of hydrogen ).

 

[Frank]

As there are fuel cells that can burn methane directly, I think we will have to wait for them to take off until we've found a combination of a liquid that can be synthesized and a fuel cell that can burn it.

Transporting hydrogen is a huge problem, and you cannot store it for extended periods in a smallish container that isn't heavier than a battery with the same power.

 

[Frank]

Yes and to buy the solar cell it would cost you between 24-64 years worth fuel depending on where you live. ( Actually it will be more then since current hydrogen production is cheaper then doing it by electrolysis so it should be more like 96-256 years though thats at current costs of hydrogen ).

I think you made a typo there, that should be months, not years.

Seriously, it depends on the application and location, but the newer solar cells are much better than the older ones. And you're talking about the really old ones. They do progress.

 

[bloodbob]

Oh wait my bad maybe they are off a little it could be 5/6 of that time frame. It was based on $6 per 1 watt instead of $5.12 or whatever the current costs for solar cells in the US are. So for the uk it would be 54 years.

 

[Mariner]

But the thing is, the research into improving efficiency of solar cells is also looking for cheaper ways in which to produce them. If cheaper technologies can be first developed and then mass produced then the cells may eventually become 'cheap enough.' I seem to remember reading somewhere about solar cells being developed from plastics which would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the current stuff.

If we are able to greatly increase the efficiency of solar cells whilst greatly reducing the costs it could certainly become a reasonable alternative source of power.

Edit:

I wonder how the development of this is getting along:

STM Cheaper cells

 

[Frank]

Oh wait my bad maybe they are off a little it could be 5/6 of that time frame. It was based on $6 per 1 watt instead of $5.12 or whatever the current costs for solar cells in the US are. So for the uk it would be 54 years.

Ok, I'm going to do some independent research on this and uranium and such. In the mean time, I'll accept your figures on them.

But in that case, we should just go on using oil, because that's the cheapest one, and when it becomes too expensive switch to nuclear. And forget about everything else, because it is still too expensive at this moment anyway.

And seen like that, it is just a waste of money to invest in other sources, which is probably why that is done so little and they are still so expensive. Let's just wait until the oil price reaches very high levels, and then go build nuclear reactors as fast as we can.

That nicely takes care of the waste problem as well: there won't be any alternative, and nobody is prepared to pay much more for it anyway.

 

[Frank]

If we are able to greatly increase the efficiency of solar cells whilst greatly reducing the costs it could certainly become a reasonable alternative source of power.

The efficiency of solar cells is a totally skewed figure. For starters, solar energy is a whole spectrum, from very high energy particles, to very long radio waves. And forget about turning both of those into electricity.

Each layer in a cell can capture a small part of the whole spectrum with an efficiency of nearly 100%, depending on the thickness and transparency of the layer(s). Add different layers to catch more (and thereby up the efficiency percentage), but by doing so you make the cell much more expensive and decrease the effectiveness of the individual layers.

So, solar cells are nearly 100% efficient in what they do already. And making them cheaper is (for now) a much better option than increasing the amount of different layers, which all need their own process and such.

 

[bloodbob]

But in that case, we should just go on using oil, because that's the cheapest one, and when it becomes too expensive switch to nuclear.

No we just make our own oil from coal we have massive reserve and we also swtich to LPG. Oil produce from coal liquification cost about the same as we are paying for it now. Many SA have had oil embargos for YEARS so they made coal liquification plants and actually have built cities around them. ( If you import australia LPG australia can become the next middle east muhahahah then I will send my suicide bombers to blow up your solar cell researchers ).

And forget about everything else, because it is still too expensive at this moment anyway.

No it will take time the author of this book wanted to do this by 2050 as I said maybe 2100.

That nicely takes care of the waste problem as well: there won't be any alternative, and nobody is prepared to pay much more for it anyway.

I'm assuming your talking about nuclear waste here? if so I should also point out fusion produces nuclear waste.

Frankly in my opinon we probably can't afford to stop using fossil fuels by the year 2050 using any power source or combination of power sources.

 

[Frank]

No we just make our own oil from coal we have massive reserve and we also swtich to LPG. Oil produce from coal liquification cost about the same as we are paying for it now. Many SA have had oil embargos for YEARS so they made coal liquification plants and actually have built cities around them.

Or just burn the coal to generate electricity directly. Much cheaper. And there isn't very much natural gas anymore. Hard to transport, so we already burned most of it away, as waste gasses.

No it will take time the author of this book wanted to do this by 2050 as I maybe 2100.

If we use the oil only for transportation, it will last twice as long. And when we have another, cheap energy source, liquifying coal might make sense.

I'm assuming your talking about nuclear waste here? if so I should also point out fusion produces nuclear waste.

I know. The current ones even more so than fission reactors.

Frankly in my opinon we probably can't afford to stop using fossil fuels by the year 2050 using any power source or combination of power sources.

That is, if it lasts that long. While there is plenty of oil and coal, the moment it takes more energy to extract and process it than is produced by it, it isn't an energy source anymore, just an energy carrier. For things like transportation.

So, solar cells are nearly 100% efficient in what they do already. And making them cheaper is (for now) a much better option than increasing the amount of different layers, which all need their own process and such.

No they aren't but there don't seem to be any reasonable or cost effective method to greatly increase the preformance ( best performance from research stuff is like 28% commerical silicon ones are around 18%? maybe a bit lower ). You'd be better off trying to say reduce the costs of conductive glass ( used in the STMicro style cells which use an organic dyes to capture light ).

You don't get it. They can convert that fraction of the total energy released by the sun that reaches that part of the surface. It's a broad spectrum of different wavelengths of energy and particles (although those particles normally don't reach the surface).

A single layer can transform, say, 12% of that spectrum into electricity, with an efficiency of almost 100%. Add a second layer, and you can, say, transform 18% of that spectrum with an effiency of 75%, as the first layer has to be thin and transparent, to let the rest of the energy pass trough so it can reach the second layer. That's how it works.

The old NASA space crafts already used cells that could transform about 30% of all the energy, but consisted of many different layers and were extremely expensive.

Like, you can use a silicium layer, and a GA-AS layer. Two totally different semiconductor processes, that both react to a different part of the spectrum.

 

[Simon F]

I'm assuming your talking about nuclear waste here? if so I should also point out fusion produces nuclear waste.

Isn't that either going to be Tritium (H-3) which has a half-life of ~12 years and isn't terribly radioactive (it's used in signs)) but can also then be used as fuel, or Helium, which we need for scientific and medical uses and (apparently) we're running short of (and it isn't being helped by party balloons!)

I suppose the components of the reactor may become radioactive but (after some googling) this seems to be 1000x less than a fission reactor.


Edit: Hmm. This report was interesting.

 

[Frank]

I suppose the components of the reactor may become radioactive but (after some googling) this seems to be 1000x less than a fission reactor.

Yes, but you're talking about replacing the whole reactor shielding every couple of years, as that is used to convert the neutrons to other particles and radiation. So it might not be as radioactive, but it is a much larger pile.

 

[Mariner]

The efficiency of solar cells is a totally skewed figure. For starters, solar energy is a whole spectrum, from very high energy particles, to very long radio waves. And forget about turning both of those into electricity.

Well, at the moment perhaps, but this article indicates some promising research into the development of cells which function over the whole of the solar spectrum:

Linkage

Early days as yet though.

 

[bloodbob]

I suppose the components of the reactor may become radioactive but (after some googling) this seems to be 1000x less than a fission reactor.

yeah neutron capture by non fuel parts actually as far as cleanliness goes ts more like 10000x the cleanist fission and thats not including the stray neutron capture. I've seen papers for reactors that will only need 300 year storage for the high level waste from a fisson reactor and theres hardly any of the waste ( since they burn off the minor actinites. The majority of the fusion reactor should be safe to deal with after 40 years.

Diguru you mentioned oil so I assumed we were still using it for some time to come. And there is a fair bit of natural gas that we were are trying to ship it to the schwarzenegger

That is, if it lasts that long. While there is plenty of oil and coal, the moment it takes more energy to extract and process it than is produced by it, it isn't an energy source anymore, just an energy carrier. For things like transportation.

Yes well we can deal with that in 1000 years can't we for the forseable future we have heaps of coal.

Multi-layer solar cells aren't gonna be the way to go its just to damn expensive and the efficeny gains of layers drops very quickly.

Mariner diguru has already covered it.

In principle, dozens of different layers could be stacked to catch photons at all energies, for efficiencies better than 70 percent -- but a host of problems intervenes. If the dimensions of adjacent crystal lattices differ too much, for example, strain damages the crystals. Other limits are imposed by opacity, poor heat capacity, and the need in some materials for thick layers to absorb photons.

The opacity is the real problems as each has to be transparent to ALL the layers below it. Also you can't use the trick of coating a reflective layer below and reflect the light back through mean essientially doubling your thickness. ( which also means double the blockage of the light to the layers below. )

Okay bed time since I don't seem to be speaking english no more.

 

[Frank]

Well, at the moment perhaps, but this article indicates some promising research into the development of cells which function over the whole of the solar spectrum:

Linkage

Early days as yet though.

Nice! I really hope they can get the growth process under control!