tdmidget " Smart, smart, smart: Germany has a huge excess of wind turbine electricity during late night hours and converting it to hydrogen via electrolysis has proved an ideal way to store it. The main idea of hydrogen is to decouple realtime generation and consumption of electric energy. Without hydrogen technology, intermittent renewable sources such as wind, tide, hydro, PV, solar concentration, etc., would be much harder to integrate into energy systems such as the power grid. There is so much off-peak excess wind energy in Germany that they are looking to use it for cryogenic removal of carbon dioxide from the air and then combining the carbon obtained with electrolysis hydrogen to make methane for distribution via natural gas mains. Efficiency is made important by scarcity. When the problem is excess...not so much. Why would only fossil hydrogen be used when there are so many clean ways to produce it?" The only reason that Germany and other European countries have all this wind and solar garbage is huge subsidies. If you have ever been there or have any knowledge of their climate you would know that Germany is one of the worst places in the world for solar energy. Face it , wind energy is a dead loser. It is only able to produce 35% of the time max, and the rest of the time it is a parasite, using energy to maintain the blade pitch controls, wind speed detection system, gearbox oil heater, and in the winter, blade deicers. If you knew anything at all about the energy business you would know that any time you convert from one form to another there are huge losses. The electrolysis of water is a 50% loser. To then try to convert it to methane would be another loser. Then you have to store and transport it. All this crap with a world wide glut of natural gas. I might point out that there is no such thing as fossil hydrogen.
"
Smart, smart, smart: Germany has a huge excess of wind turbine electricity during late night hours and converting it to hydrogen via electrolysis has proved an ideal way to store it. The main idea of hydrogen is to decouple realtime generation and consumption of electric energy. Without hydrogen technology, intermittent renewable sources such as wind, tide, hydro, PV, solar concentration, etc., would be much harder to integrate into energy systems such as the power grid.
There is so much off-peak excess wind energy in Germany that they are looking to use it for cryogenic removal of carbon dioxide from the air and then combining the carbon obtained with electrolysis hydrogen to make methane for distribution via natural gas mains. Efficiency is made important by scarcity. When the problem is excess...not so much.
Why would only fossil hydrogen be used when there are so many clean ways to produce it?"
The only reason that Germany and other European countries have all this wind and solar garbage is huge subsidies. If you have ever been there or have any knowledge of their climate you would know that Germany is one of the worst places in the world for solar energy. Face it , wind energy is a dead loser. It is only able to produce 35% of the time max, and the rest of the time it is a parasite, using energy to maintain the blade pitch controls, wind speed detection system, gearbox oil heater, and in the winter, blade deicers.
If you knew anything at all about the energy business you would know that any time you convert from one form to another there are huge losses. The electrolysis of water is a 50% loser. To then try to convert it to methane would be another loser. Then you have to store and transport it. All this crap with a world wide glut of natural gas.
I might point out that there is no such thing as fossil hydrogen.
Might "fossil hydrogen" be a term for H2 produced from Natural Gas? IINM, this is a common means for synthezing Hydrogen for industrial uses...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Natural gas reformate is what I mean by "fossil" hydrogen. Thanks, carnej1
"Natural gas reformate" is another energy loser. If you have natural gas, why waste energy to get hydrogen? It doesn't just "reform" to make you feel good, you know. This is ridiculous. You want to expend energy ( carbon based, I might add) to get a lesser amount of energy from hydrogen. This is like borrowing your way out of debt. It is a losing spiral.
Reformate hydrogen is used in petroleum refining and produced nearby for that purpose. Excess from that industry is used in steel production, fertilizer manufacture and a few thousand other ways.
Methane isn't a chemical substitute for hydrogen. "Reform" is a chemical term, not a feel-good neologism.
Do a little research , Stan. Hydrogen in steel production? Search hydrogen stress cracking. Fertilizer? Natural gas is converted to ammonia. It is NEVER done to produce a fuel. It is done to produce hydrogen for applications that require hydrogen, not as fuel. For instance, in the electrical generation industry, most generators are hydrogen cooled. It is not a viable fuel. Hydrogen is produced for those applications where, chemically or physically, nothing else will do. It is not done for fuel, except for such rare applications as rocket fuel . Not sure why it is done there since carbon based fuels have WAY more BTUs per unit of mass.
Re H2 never used as fuel:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/hydrogen/hydrogen.htm
http://www.h2journal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=391
BNSF is one of the biggest railroads in the US. Loco HH 1205 runs on hydrogen.
South Africa has begun using hydrogen locomotives in mining operations.
"Never" is a bit strong, TDM.
H2 was a viable fuel (energy carrier) for the electrical service on the Apollo flights. When did it cease to be?
How do you explain the existence of Ballard, Hydrogenics, GE's fuel cell division, Nedstack and all the other companies that have been making hydrogen fuel cells for years? And China's 2010 announcement?
Re never used in steel making:
http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/doc/low_carbon_tec_plan/ref_roadmap2.pdf
You're right in saying that hydrogen is used "...where, chemically or physically, nothing else will do." But isn't that also true of the other 91 elements?
as some other poster put ---- Hydrogen is an energy storage item not a source of energy. It takes energy to produce elemental hydrogen. much better would be natural gas which is an energy source./.
Blue streak 1,
Natural gas is a great fuel but it can't be used for transportation without releasing the "C" in CH4 as "CO2".
Last year was the hottest on record in the US by a full degree. Katrina and Sandy and the drought and fires in the South and the West and Australia are real—and they're just for openers.
Unless one's a "solacaust denier," carbon consequences have to be taken into account when capital resources are allocated among future railway technology options.
stan -- there is alot more carbon atoms in any source to make elemental hydrogen. that is excluding hydro that is maxed out or nuclear that is iffy.
I should have said that hydrogen is not a practical fuel. Practical fuels do not include those used by spacecraft unless you are going into space. Say that hydrogen is used in steel production because it might be used for emission control is like saying you car is powered by platinum because it has a catalytic converter.
A practical fuel cannot result in a loss of energy due to it's production.
From what I can see, hydrogen might become a big fuel, it just needs plenty more research before it can become viable. It took diesels at least 50 years to become a big source of motive power on the railroads and hydrogen might be the same way. There is still a chance that it might not work, but there is still a chance that it will.
Lone Geep
\
LG,
Hydrogen has been working in fuel cells since the 1800's. It needs no more research than gasoline.
The problem is that the non- technical media have painted is as a car technology; it's not. It's an energy distribution system that particularly suits things that move, from electric bikes to road switching locomotives.
What if steam had been cast as a wagon technology before there were any paved roads, local boiler mechanics or machinists? It wouldn't have worked.of course, but that says nothing about steam. It says everything about technology introduction.
Trains are like early hand-wired electronics with transistors on circuit boards. Cars are like stuff that runs on chips.
Steam trains predated steam cars by 65 years.
Electric trains predated electric cars by about 13.
Diesel trains predated diesel cars (with pump islands to feed them) by 50 years.
Yet the media would have us believe that early-adopter luxury retail products (that require sudden ubiquity of product and support to have any market appeal) should somehow precede streetcars that are just hydrogen buses on easier-rolling steel wheels.
Nescience, not science, is the bottleneck. Science and industry know all that needs to be known...at this point in the paradigm shift.
But until the media become science- and history-iterate and they let the public in on the story, the uninitiated will keep trying to put the H2 cart before the (iron) horse.
"A practical fuel cannot result in a loss of energy due to it's production."
That includes Saudi oil hauled half-way around the world and assumes that process heat used in refining comes from...where? Willingness to pay pump prices doesn't say anything about well-to-wheel efficiency; only about tradition and market dynamics.
Stan T. Steam trains predated steam cars by 65 years.
Not exactly correct. Develeopement of steam powered road vehicles was at least contempory with the development of steam railways. Experminents date from the 1770's and there were successful applications by 1831.
Richard Trevithick built several steam carriages before he built a steam railway locomotive.
In England the impetus for the development of the steam railways was in part the damage to roads caused by steam traction locomotives resulting in their use being severly restricted. Latter improved designs, which caused less damage, along with improved roads that were less susceptible to damage, led to a resurgence in their use.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
All true, DSchmitt, and the Cugnot front-wheel drive model was a road vehicle too. Germany had some diesel cars in the 1930s.
I was being too general and too "retail." I stand cheerfully corrected! Thanks!
—ST
Parsons College Media Relations News Release:
The Engineering and Archeology Departments of Parsons College have received a Department of Energy grant to study the feasibility of hydrogen powered, external combustion locomotives powering America's railroads.
The proposal would involve removing a CB&Q steam locomotive on static display from a nearby county seat and restoring it to operation. "The big difference will be the locomotive will be fueled with hydrogen, not coal," said Engineering Department Chairman I. R. Hudson.
Professor Hudson said that hydrogen burned in the locomotive firebox will drastically reduce dangerous green house gas emissions and soiled laundry drying near railroad tracks. "These environmentally friendly aspects of hydrogen were a major factor in our receiving a grant," said Professor Hudson.
"Our research shows external combustion is capable of powering a locomotive," added Spade Turner, Chairman of Parson's Archeology Department. "According to legend, great external combusiton enginges once powered railroad trains not far from campus. Digs along longitonial mounds of earth found evidence of railroad spikes and cinders."
The Parsons College team hopes to have their prototype locomotive in operation in time for the 2018 harvest season.
Victrola1 Parsons College Media Relations News Release: The Engineering and Archeology Departments of Parsons College have received a Department of Energy grant to study the feasibility of hydrogen powered, external combustion locomotives powering America's railroads. The proposal would involve removing a CB&Q steam locomotive on static display from a nearby county seat and restoring it to operation. "The big difference will be the locomotive will be fueled with hydrogen, not coal," said Engineering Department Chairman I. R. Hudson. Professor Hudson said that hydrogen burned in the locomotive firebox will drastically reduce dangerous green house gas emissions and soiled laundry drying near railroad tracks. "These environmentally friendly aspects of hydrogen were a major factor in our receiving a grant," said Professor Hudson. "Our research shows external combustion is capable of powering a locomotive," added Spade Turner, Chairman of Parson's Archeology Department. "According to legend, great external combusiton enginges once powered railroad trains not far from campus. Digs along longitonial mounds of earth found evidence of railroad spikes and cinders." The Parsons College team hopes to have their prototype locomotive in operation in time for the 2018 harvest season.
How would they do that? They would have to get the hydrogen into the firebox like oil, but hydrogen gas and bunker C oil are different things,And the hydrogen would probabley have to be liquified. It would be nice to see steam return but there is a lot more to steam then just replacing coal.
Fifty years ago I read an article about using hydrogen as a fuel. I remember that the authors proposed using electricity to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water. They proposed that the facilities (producing?) the hydrogen be built on artificial islands in the ocean, each with a nuclear power plant to provide the electricty.
DSchmitt Fifty years ago I read an article about using hydrogen as a fuel. I remember that the authors proposed using electricity to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water. They proposed that the facilities (producing?) the hydrogen be built on artificial islands in the ocean, each with a nuclear power plant to provide the electricty.
It is called electrolysis, separating the hydrogen from the oxygen.
And yes, the hydrogen would have to be stored in the tender as a liquid. Since bunker C oil and hydrogen are both fluids (describes both gases and liquids), I can see why they plan on using hydrogen. However, what kind of firing element would they use? Also, how efficient would the hydrogen be?
The Lehigh Valley Railroad, the Route of the Black Diamond Express, John Wilkes and Maple Leaf.
-Jake, modeling the Barclay, Towanda & Susquehanna.
Lehigh Valley 2089 DSchmitt Fifty years ago I read an article about using hydrogen as a fuel. I remember that the authors proposed using electricity to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water. They proposed that the facilities (producing?) the hydrogen be built on artificial islands in the ocean, each with a nuclear power plant to provide the electricty. It is called electrolysis, separating the hydrogen from the oxygen. And yes, the hydrogen would have to be stored in the tender as a liquid. Since bunker C oil and hydrogen are both fluids (describes both gases and liquids), I can see why they plan on using hydrogen. However, what kind of firing element would they use? Also, how efficient would the hydrogen be?
Those were other questions I though of too. If I have it right, steam was inefficient compared with diesel. Bunker C oil is jelly-like and needs to be heated up to flow but I don't think hydrogen is that way.
lone geep Lehigh Valley 2089 DSchmitt Fifty years ago I read an article about using hydrogen as a fuel. I remember that the authors proposed using electricity to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water. They proposed that the facilities (producing?) the hydrogen be built on artificial islands in the ocean, each with a nuclear power plant to provide the electricty. It is called electrolysis, separating the hydrogen from the oxygen. And yes, the hydrogen would have to be stored in the tender as a liquid. Since bunker C oil and hydrogen are both fluids (describes both gases and liquids), I can see why they plan on using hydrogen. However, what kind of firing element would they use? Also, how efficient would the hydrogen be? Those were other questions I though of too. If I have it right, steam was inefficient compared with diesel. Bunker C oil is jelly-like and needs to be heated up to flow but I don't think hydrogen is that way.
Right, in fact, since hydrogen is a gas under normal circumstances, it would flow more easily than bunker C.
Since water is the only by product of burning hydrogen, it is more environmentally friendly than coal or oil.
However, another question came to mind. How expensive is it to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen?
Hydrogen can be stored as a liquid but the liquifaction consumes a good bit of energy that is not reclaimed when the hydrogen is reconverted to energy via oxidization.
High compression of H2 into composite tanks involves the same problem.
A third alternative is to dissolve the hydrogen in powdered nickel alloy or misch metal at near ordinary temperatures and pressures and release it as needed by applying waste heat from fuel cells—as on this University of Birmingham hydrail demonstration locomotive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i4zIBeKYgY
BNSF's hydrail locomotive needs no tender for the same reason diesel electric locomotives don't have them:
http://hydrail.org/sites/hydrail.org/files/7_allan_video-USA.wmv
One of the things the DoE's Savannah River National Hydrogen Laboratory studies is development of adsorption materials lighter than nickel or misch metal.
http://srnl.doe.gov
How expensive it is to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen has a lot to do with how much the local electric company charges per kWh during the wee hours of the morning.
In places where hydroelectric power or wind power are plentiful, it's very cheap indeed.
In places where it's a waste product from chlorate manufacture, H2 costs whatever it takes to purify, compress and deliver it:
http://www.linguee.com/english-french/translation/%22by+capturing+waste+hydrogen%22.html
The answer to, "How expensive is it to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen?" probably depends more on where, geographically, it's separated than anything else.
When hydrogen becomes a general energy medium, like petroleum and the grid, most will be made locally—from whatever comes to hand.
Not only does hydrogen (gas or liquid) not need to be heated to flow, it may be the most fluid substance in the universe. Anyone one know of a more fluid substance?
LG, this "release" is humor. Don't take it literally.
Stan T. Not only does hydrogen (gas or liquid) not need to be heated to flow, it may be the most fluid substance in the universe. Anyone one know of a more fluid substance?
Ultracold helium.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic Stan T. Not only does hydrogen (gas or liquid) not need to be heated to flow, it may be the most fluid substance in the universe. Anyone one know of a more fluid substance? Ultracold helium.
That explains those latex balloons tied to my mailbox.... It was almost freezing last week.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Re liquid helium, superfluid liquid hydrogen is equally fluid ... but not less. (Can't have less than no viscosity!)
http://library.thinkquest.org/08aug/02316/index_files/Page1111.htm
Other than hydrocarbons and ammonia, are any liquified gases commonly hauled by rail?
Also known as superfluid helium. As far as I know, liquid hydrogen does not have a superfluid phase as the required temperature is well below the freezing point of hydrogen. Helium-4 has a higher superfluid transition temperature (~2K) than Helium-3 due to the pairing up (hence cancellation) of the electron, proton and neutron spins, so many atoms can share the same quantum state.
- Erik
Erik, consider my king tipped-over. I'm hopelessly out-quantumed!
Liquid hydrogen is diatomic, another reason why there is no superfluidicity observed under normal conditions.
On the other hand, helium is a wretched fuel... <VBG>
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.