S.C. Hopes To Lead Hydrogen Economy

[libertylover]

I've read where there are hydrogen cars
running around the state of Michigan, being
tests. Now I read South Carolina is doing
it part.

NEW ELLENTON, S.C. — Years ago, engineers for the federal government here studied hydrogen for its bomb-boosting capabilities. Now, scientists are working toward developing an economy that runs on the element

Using hydrogen as a fuel means cars will emit water rather than exhaust fumes, making it a clean, widely available alternative to fossil fuels. Hydrogen-run vehicles have been tested, but public availability is probably at least a decade away, said Todd Wright, director of the Savannah River National Laboratory.

Nearly every state has some sort of hydrogen initiative as they scramble to discover ways to cheaply and practically use the element as fuel. South Carolina lawmakers and business leaders believe the Savannah River Site's work since the early 1950s gives an edge to a state typically thought of as backward rather than futuristic.

"Because of SRS, we're ahead of the curve," said House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston. "Whoever cracks the nut first will probably be the center of the universe. ... This can be so powerful for South Carolina's economy."

Humes believes the research and resulting industry investments could tally $10 billion within the next 20 years and translate into tens of thousands of well-paying jobs if the state rises to the top.

"Many of the states have the smoke but no fire," he said. "South Carolina has the foundations and the fire."

The Savannah River National Laboratory, designated one of 12 national labs two years ago, boasts of having the nation's largest collection of hydrogen experts. The lab's initial mission was studying tritium, a hydrogen isotope used to boost nuclear bombs.

Its new research specialty is separating hydrogen from sources such as water and storing the element, normally a gas, onboard a vehicle in a safe, solid, lightweight form.

Making such expertise publicly available meant moving engineers offsite.

The lab is moving all its unclassified, nonradioactive hydrogen work into the Center for Hydrogen Research, which opened in February just outside the federal boundaries. The national facility is leasing half the center, built and owned by Aiken County; the rest is available for private industries.

So far, Toyota is leasing space, and General Motors, though not leasing, is working with the lab. Virtually every automaker is testing hydrogen-powered vehicles, which have received support from a five-year, $1.2 billion initiative announced by President Bush in 2003.

"Before, there was no mechanism for people to come in and work at SRS," said Humes, who was instrumental in creating the center. "We wanted to bring the technology outside of the fence and make it available to the world."

Half of the lab's 80 hydrogen scientists and engineers are moving to the center, whose new facilities are a marked contrast to the drab, '50s-era federal labs.

"It's exciting," said Theodore Motyka, a hydrogen technology program manager. "There are not many places you can do something as important as this."

The national laboratory and hydrogen center are two major components in the larger statewide initiative.

Others that make up what Wright calls the "dream team of hydrogen" include the University of South Carolina's national fuel cell center, the International Center for Automotive Research at Clemson University and the James E. Clyburn transportation center at South Carolina State University.

The South Carolina Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Alliance was formed in January to promote the groups' combined efforts, and it's already proved successful. In July, the National Hydrogen Association chose Columbia as the site for its 2009 convention, which should further propel South Carolina's status as a research and business leader.

Patrick Serfass, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based association, called South Carolina "one of the newest strong players." He credited a "magic combination" of governments, private industry and universities working together.

"The activity is growing very, very fast," he said. "South Carolina is really becoming a shining star."

Humes, an alliance member, said he expects South Carolina to be among the top three states for hydrogen research by the time the national convention arrives — but even that's not good enough for him.

"I will not settle for anything other than the recognition of being the number one state," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060910/ap_on_sc/hydrogen_economy

[fredusa]

For a myriad of reasons I find it quite sad that this so-called "hydrogen economy" is being touted by so many well meaning (and NOT so well meaning) people and companies! While the energy is available from hydrogen, and the creation of nearly pure molecular/atomic hydrogen is a fairly easy thing, hydrogen is a highly explosive substance when combined with the O2 in concentrated amounts, in the atmosphere.
Frankly, I don't think the idea will be safely viable for many years, even with highly subsidized (by you and me, via taxes!) methods.
But, oh well, I guess I'll just have to redouble my efforts on a much safer, easier, less expensive energy producer which I've been working on for a while now.
Let me say one other thing here, though :
Back when Richard Milhouse Nixon was our president his advisors convinced him that the "only viable alternative to fossil fules" was the nuclear programs, and, as such he tried to get the federal government totally behind the developement of this alternative. Bad as it may sound, I find it a good thing that we had both the Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania, and the Chernoble incident in the former Soviet Union. These and some other accidents pointed out the problems inherent in the nuclear production of energy, even though there was little said about the waste products of it.
Now, were are told, repeatedly, I might add, that the "only by-product of using hydrogen is water."!! Yeah, in the final useage, that's true. It's in the production stages, the storage phases, etc. where this argument falls on its face.
And, say you have a tank of hydrogen (under pressure so it can feed your [still] internal combustion engine), enough to take you and your transportation device 300-400 miles. You have an accident, or you hit a large bump, or an animal runs across the road and, while you try to miss it, it is slammed by the undercarraige of your car. Any of these and a myriad of other scenarios can rupture something in your fuel system, releasing hydrogen into the air around you. Remember this air contains from 16% to 21% molecular oxygen. A temperature difference can, easily, be enough to cause a violent reaction (an explosion). That sounds a lot worse, at least to me, than the "only by-product of using hydrogen is water."!!
Truth? NOTHING is going to be totally safe. That's not how the physical universes work! NOTHING is totally without some form(s) of pollution. That, also, is not how the physical universes work. But the much touted "hydrogen economy" will present us with, simply, a different set of problems than we have now, while keeping the production and distribution in the hands of large conglomerates. Better when we can produce our own energies with our own efforts, at our own homes, etc., isn't it?

[ceb]

The real question in my mind is where does the energy to create the hydrogen come from?

1) Focal fuels?
2) nuclear fission?
3) solar PV
4) solar heat -> disassociation? (http://web.mit.edu/mit_energy/resources/public/DavidDanielsonSusEnergyTermPaper.pdf)
5) wind, geo, hydro, tidal?
6) solar (biological / algae)

Until that question is answered - to me it just seems to be another tricked played on the masses.

[ceb]

Any of these and a myriad of other scenarios can rupture something in your fuel system, releasing hydrogen into the air around you. Remember this air contains from 16% to 21% molecular oxygen. A temperature difference can, easily, be enough to cause a violent reaction (an explosion).


Is hydrogen safe?

Its from a fuel cell maker - but makes a lot of sense:
http://www.fuelcellmarkets.com/article_default_view.fcm?articleid=3062&subsite=45 3

Most people's vision of hydrogen as explosive comes from the Hindenburg fire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster

I guess my take is that it burned rapidly - not exploded - and the flames are mostly above the zeppelin.

[fredusa]

ceb, sorry, but both the sites you gave us have said nothing to me! *My "belief in the explosiveness of hydrogen" has not a thing to do with the Hindenburg, but everything to do with chemistry courses, and studies of many books on physics, as well as a close working relationship with a fossil fuel refinery near me in which hydroigen is one of the (by?) products, and is kept in a pressurized containment vessel.
* * Here's the scenario---and the officials of ANY such refinery will tell you the same thing---(oh, a BTW, the first site you gave us says the "ignition temperature" of hydrogen is around 550F. *More on this in a second or two, okay?) :
* *When pressurized (as I said in my first post under this thread), should hydrogen escape to normal atmosphere, what can happen (not necessarily WILL happen) is that a temperature difference from the pressurized tank to the air of just 4-5 F can cause that violent reaction of the hydrogen combining with the atmosperic 02. * Therefore EXTREME care is taken NOT to let this happen! * Now, and again, as I said in the first post here, to feed your internal combustion engine, the stored hydrogen must be under pressure. *Now do you see the problem?
* *So, while hydrogen just floating around may require an absolute temperature of 550F, when it's pressurized, therefore more compacted, more dense, the temperature thing changes dramatically.
* * Also, yes, indeed, the Hindenburg didn't explode, but burned quite rapidly. *But, again, the hydrogen was in a large gas bag, and the pressure was, at most, 1-2% above that of sea level atmosperic pressure---probably, however, considerably LESS than atmospheric. * As the Hindendurg would rise into the air the hydrogen pressure would rise somehwat compared to the air around it simply due to the lessening of the air pressure with heighth above sea level! *This is simple and common physics.
* *I do not mean to poo-poo the ideas of those who believe in the viability of hydrogen as a fuel of the future. *It is the most abundant element in the universe. *It fuels the sun and all the stars we can see (a different process, however). *It can be taken from nature, used, and taken again.
* *Still, I think the infrastructure needed for the production and storage, and even the transportation of the hydrogen as a fuel is far into the future, and the safety and pollution elements of this part of the use of it as fuel is still further off!

* modified to correct a couple of spelling errors.

[idris]

I read that the hydrogen engine exists as us pat # 2006676, 2 july 1935: but one needs to download fandangles in order to even look at the thing, much less read the text. this info is given by Dr Arden Andersen, along with such gizmos as the Hyde generator and the Popp noble gas engine: all of which can be googled. I am sure that it does not involve reducing aluminium foil in lye [caustic soda] so as to produce Hydrogen.

[fredusa]

Not sure what "hydrogen engine" you tell us re: the patent.
The most common use of hydrogen fuel in an automotive type engine is the very common internal combustion, reciprocating piston engine that is in most of our vehicles---whether gasoline or deisel fueled (also in use for the most common type of steam engine, BTW).
The second most common "new" powering system which can use hydrogen as a fuel is the fuel cell/electric.
Niether of these should properly be called a "hydrogen engine", so can you enlighten me as to what this thing is?

[idris]

I just heard on the radio this morning, ' it will be just like putting gas in your car: Hydrogen can be either liquid, or in fuel cells.' So, the message is : you can have H-powered vehicles, so long as we get to manufacture and distribute the Hydrogen fuel cells. >:( I'd be looking for the fuel produced in situ version, if that be possible. What a rip-off!
Whatever became of that car which Nikola Tesla had?[1937] :'(

[JAK]

The real question in my mind is where does the energy to create the hydrogen come from?

1) Focal fuels?
2) nuclear fission?
3) solar PV
4) solar heat -> disassociation? *(http://web.mit.edu/mit_energy/resources/public/DavidDanielsonSusEnergyTermPaper.pdf)
5) wind, geo, hydro, tidal?
6) solar (biological / algae)

Until that question is answered - to me it just seems to be another tricked played on the masses.
I used to think that way also, and still do. They are still selling it for something which it is not, but so is ethanol for that matter. These are all really just energy conversion technologies. South Carolina is just jumping on the hype as a political job creation and mass delusion scheme just as they and many other places have done with software development and call centres.

The only real advantage of hydrogen is that it can be simply and efficiently converted from electricity, and then converted to mechanical energy cleanly, with reasonable efficiency. The main disdavantage is that it takes up a lot of space. Fusion technology will improve effciency somewhat, but you can get pretty decent efficiency using hydrogen in a desiel, 4 stroke, turbine, or some sort of internal combustion steam engine hybrid.

Where I see hydrogen economy being real is in using hydrogen as an enabler for wind power and nuclear power. Currently wind power can only be used for about 20% of electricity within a region, and nuclear power only 50%, and they don't mix very well because one is intermittent and the other isn't easily variable. Hydrogen can be produced as a clean transportation fuel or a combined heat and power fuel using surplus wind power on windy days, or surplus nuclear power on days of reduced demand. It can be transported as natural gas is through pipelines, so it is also justifies the expansion of a natural gas distribution system even though we will eventually run out of natural gas. It doesn't make a lot of sense though until we start using less gasoline, and more wind power. I don't see nuclear power as expanding much more than it already has. It will likely double, perhaps even quadruple, but wind power will eventually catch up with it.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/figure3_data.xls

U.S. Fuel Consumption [quadrillion Btu] * * * * * * * * * * * *
Primary Fuel --- 1980 - 2004 - 2030 - 2030*
Petroleum ------- 34 --- 40 --- 54 --- 20
Natural Gas ----- 20 --- 23 --- 28 --- 11
Coal ------------ 15 --- 23 --- 34 --- 23
Nuclear ---------- 3 ---- 8 ---- 9 ---- 16
Hydropower ------ 3 ---- 3 ---- 3 ---- 3
Wind etc. -------- 3 ---- 3 ---- 6 ---- 16
TOTAL ---------- 78 --- 100 -- 134 -- 90
*The last column is my own best prediction/guess/hope
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Using even my fugures, and assuming 50% of nuclear and wind power is converted to Hydrogen, and assuming 50% of petroleum will be used for transportation, there will be as much gasoline as hydrogen in use by 2030. The other possible use of hydrogen is in the conversion of bitumen and heavy crude oil into suitable transportation fuels. Currently natural gas is used in the Alberta Tar Sands in the production of Synthetic Crude Oil. Eventually I think that hydrogen, produced by nuclear or wind power, will be used for this. I don't put a lot of stake in biofuels because they use 100 times as much land as wind power, and 1000 times as much as solar power. Switch grass and algae will improve this, but not enough. I think Biofuels will be used primarily as a means of energy recovery, from waste and surplus crops. Agriculture and Forestry need to become less reliant on fossil fuels, rather than trying to replace them.

We will also see cars get much lighter as we see more hydrogen and electric cars introduced. Most of the gains will come simply from cars get lighter, and engines smaller. We may have to have a major economic recession first before we are political able to make these changes.