Hydrogen breakthrough
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
Epic this isn't new at all really.
There has been a guy storing hydrogen on microscopic metal bits for years. You get a coating of hydrogen, and yes it doesn't need to be at high pressure, and is safe in most scenarios, but the unfortunate thing is still the storage density, it takes a decent bit of space.
I addition recharging the material with hydrogen still takes time and if this is the same as previous methods takes a high pressure.
In other words you can't pull up to chevron and fill up your hydrogen in 2 minutes. But like many things it isn't linear so to get to 90% coverage might take 48hours, but to get to 50% might take 1, and to get to 33% might take 3 minutes.
I am not saying it sucks, or is silly just that it is not going to save the day. But this has long been the technology that I viewed as the most promising for hydrogen cars.
(Not that I am paranoid about high pressure tanks, b/c I am not)
There has been a guy storing hydrogen on microscopic metal bits for years. You get a coating of hydrogen, and yes it doesn't need to be at high pressure, and is safe in most scenarios, but the unfortunate thing is still the storage density, it takes a decent bit of space.
I addition recharging the material with hydrogen still takes time and if this is the same as previous methods takes a high pressure.
In other words you can't pull up to chevron and fill up your hydrogen in 2 minutes. But like many things it isn't linear so to get to 90% coverage might take 48hours, but to get to 50% might take 1, and to get to 33% might take 3 minutes.
I am not saying it sucks, or is silly just that it is not going to save the day. But this has long been the technology that I viewed as the most promising for hydrogen cars.
(Not that I am paranoid about high pressure tanks, b/c I am not)
Mintmaster
Veteran
Well according to epic's quote, it's 13 MJ/L. That's better than a third of gasoline's energy density (~35 MJ/L), which makes it quite practical IMO. No, it's not as good, but it's less than half an order of magnitude off.Sxotty said:
Let's cross our fingers. Could be what we're looking for.
WhiningKhan
Regular
Sxotty said:
But, if they really are suggesting the use of pellets, why would we want to reuse the same pellets and do the recharging in the vehicle? Why couldn't we just dump the exhausted pellets in the service station for reuse and shovel some already recharged ones into the trunk?
Don't know how badly that would affect the costs of the hydrogen supply infrastructure, but in any case moving to hydrogen will be costly, initially.
its initially going to cost an arm and a leg, but man i cant wait for hydrogen powered cars. Ill be an early adopter for that tech. /grin
epic
epic
WhiningKhan said:
That is a really good idea, but IMO they should use canisters of standard size. And change the numbers of canisters on a vehicle. Anyway make it so you toss it into a receptacle and put a new one in. That would make sense. I don't think you could really just shovel them though
Tim said:That is completely different technology, this one is string hydrogen by absorbing amonia is ordinary salt.
I doubt that hydrogen bound to metal bits would be handle direct fire without any problems.
wow, thats pretty damn cool. thanks for the info/pic.
Actually not that you care, but it would handle fire from what I know of it. I am glad you gave some more info, b/c the link that was originaly posted (mo offense btw) was not that informative as to what was actually going on.
If you could would you provide either a link, or clarification, b/c what you wrote
I assume you mean that it is a salt. (BTW there is nothing ordinary or extraordinary about salt except when people refer to NaCl as that is table salt for the most part, thus when you write ammonia salt and ordinary it makes no sense).
By the way many ammonia salts are actually quite unstable and worrisome. You can get ammoniumnitrate easily for example, and you know about fertilizer bombs.
I guess you are saying they make ammonia NH3-->NaNH4or some such thing then back when you get the hydrogen out. Anyway it could be a great idea, just depends on a whole host of different factors.
If you could would you provide either a link, or clarification, b/c what you wrote
Doesn't make any sense to me.
I assume you mean that it is a salt. (BTW there is nothing ordinary or extraordinary about salt except when people refer to NaCl as that is table salt for the most part, thus when you write ammonia salt and ordinary it makes no sense).
By the way many ammonia salts are actually quite unstable and worrisome. You can get ammoniumnitrate easily for example, and you know about fertilizer bombs.
I guess you are saying they make ammonia NH3-->NaNH4or some such thing then back when you get the hydrogen out. Anyway it could be a great idea, just depends on a whole host of different factors.
Last edited by a moderator:
Karma Police
Regular
I hate to rain on the parade, but how efficient is it's ability to "withdraw" the hydrogen from the pellets? I've known for awhile about storing hydrogen using carbon nanotubes under pressure, but they couldn't figure out a way to get it back out in enough volume to make a difference.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Cartoon Corpse
Veteran
still though producing the hydrogen is the issue.
i still think solar/wind (passive/green) at the poles would be a good way to go. it takes 26% more NRG to get the H than the fuel cell produces, though the sun and wind are there all the time, could be storing into 'batteries' then transported in huge H powered ships to market.
i still think solar/wind (passive/green) at the poles would be a good way to go. it takes 26% more NRG to get the H than the fuel cell produces, though the sun and wind are there all the time, could be storing into 'batteries' then transported in huge H powered ships to market.
Sxotty said:
No I meant what i wrote, I don´t know the exact process (have not read the patent yet) and it is possible that what they are doing is actually creating some kind of ammonia salt (it should all clear up once we read the patent). The exact words from the pressrelease is: "The reason is that the tablet consists solely of ammonia absorbed efficiently in sea-salt."
Press release
Last edited by a moderator:
Sxotty said:
I have done a bit of research now(or rather found the right link, but saying I did some research just sounds better) , the salt is Mg(NH3)6Cl2. (I wrongly assumed that they meant NaCl by sea-salt)
To split the Mg(NH3)6Cl2 into magnesiumchloride and amonia it is heated to around 100C. After that the NH3 are lead over a hot platin catalysator and split into H2 and N2.
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brintpille (in Danish)
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately that does not sound as promissing as I originally thought. But thanks for looking into it.
When people say sea salt it is almost unknowable what they mean. The sea has everything in it and as you know if it is soluble then there are really no salts together anyway (you know they are split into ions).
It simply sounds better to the average Joe if you say sea salt ("Hey that has to be environmentally friendly, Right?")
Anyway we will just have to wait and see how long it takes to recharge, if you can recharge it, and so forth. Otherwise it would be prohibitively expensive.
And cartoon corpse mate you are crazy No really though solar cells at the poles would not net you much remember the incident angle of the radiation is important. Now wind is a different matter IMO, it might be a groovy thing. There are actually many ways to get hydrogen now, Steam Methane Reforming is 78% efficient. But you have to use methane and you make CO2 in process. Yet you can isolate and capture the CO2 as part of the process which is ot feasible technoogically on a per car basis. Therefore you can see that there is a place for it. In addition you can make hydrogen from electrolysis as you noted with nuclear power as well. Coal can be used to make hydrogen around 60% efficiently. There are also biological producers bacteria(cyano) and others that will create hydrogen, but their efficiecy is extremely low. Of course all they take is sunlight and some fuel (sugar ect.) so the efficiency is not paramount. If you care I actually have fairly comprehensive literature about both chemical and biological production of hydrogen as they stand at this point.
I do not have nearly as comprehensive research on storage methods though...
When people say sea salt it is almost unknowable what they mean. The sea has everything in it and as you know if it is soluble then there are really no salts together anyway (you know they are split into ions).
It simply sounds better to the average Joe if you say sea salt ("Hey that has to be environmentally friendly, Right?")
Anyway we will just have to wait and see how long it takes to recharge, if you can recharge it, and so forth. Otherwise it would be prohibitively expensive.
And cartoon corpse mate you are crazy
No really though solar cells at the poles would not net you much remember the incident angle of the radiation is important. Now wind is a different matter IMO, it might be a groovy thing. There are actually many ways to get hydrogen now, Steam Methane Reforming is 78% efficient. But you have to use methane and you make CO2 in process. Yet you can isolate and capture the CO2 as part of the process which is ot feasible technoogically on a per car basis. Therefore you can see that there is a place for it. In addition you can make hydrogen from electrolysis as you noted with nuclear power as well. Coal can be used to make hydrogen around 60% efficiently. There are also biological producers bacteria(cyano) and others that will create hydrogen, but their efficiecy is extremely low. Of course all they take is sunlight and some fuel (sugar ect.) so the efficiency is not paramount. If you care I actually have fairly comprehensive literature about both chemical and biological production of hydrogen as they stand at this point.I do not have nearly as comprehensive research on storage methods though...