Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen will have a role. (just not in cars)...

[fotajoye via EV]

Yes, hydrogen has a role; long distance fuel cell hybrid airliners.  Works
like this: Use the hydrogen fuel cell to create electricity that will drive
electric motor ducted fans directly and charge buffer batteries that will be
used for acceleration and intermittent power.   The major advantage is you
no longer burn hydrocarbon in the upper atmosphere and you create water. 
The future will be fuel cell aircraft for long distance air travel and
hyperloops for medium distance travel between cities.  An airplane will no
longer be needed for travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles, or Boston
and Washington, etc.   

--
View this message in context: 
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Hydrogen-will-have-a-role-just-not-in-cars-tp4678162p4678165.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at 
Nabble.com.
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen will have a role. (just not in cars)...

[Ben Goren via EV]

On Oct 18, 2015, at 10:05 AM, Robert Bruninga via EV  wrote:

> Agree 100% that dumping excess solar/wind energy into H2 for storage is an
> absolute good idea that will work.

The gaseous form is one of the worst of the options for hydrogen storage.

In a cruel twist of irony...gasoline and diesel and similar short-chain 
hydrocarbons are about as good as it gets.

We're always going to need significant quantities of hydrocarbons -- for fuels, 
for feedstocks for plastics and fertilizers, for lubricants, and more.

And making syngas, a good base from which the rest can be refined or 
synthesized, from nothing but atmospheric CO2 and water and energy input, is 
ancient technology. The only problem is that it's energy-intensive -- which is 
to be expected, since it takes at least as much energy as is released from 
burning hydrocarbons, plus all the various inefficiencies.

The ideal way forward is with grid-tie rooftop solar that primarily directly 
powers stuff right there, including BEVs, and the excess going to the grid 
first for others that can use it that moment, and any remaining surplus (which, 
of course, at time will be significant) going to manufacturing hydrocarbons 
from atmospheric CO2. Local battery storage will likely be the economic 
preference for overnight needs, with existing natural gas (etc.) power plants 
burning the fuels made during the day making up the difference. Most of the 
fuels made during the day, though, would go to plastics and fertilizer and jet 
aircraft fuel and the like.

The way we're _actually_ headed, though, thanks to the idiocies of the electric 
utilities, is rooftop solar without the grid. That gets us oversized local 
systems with surpluses going to waste.

b&
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: 

___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

[EVDL] Hydrogen will have a role. (just not in cars)...

[Robert Bruninga via EV]

Agree 100% that dumping excess solar/wind energy into H2 for storage is an
absolute good idea that will work.  Now, then how to turn around and burn
it:

1) Come up with a distribution system to pipe this billions of cubic feet
of hydrogen in little tiny chunks over hundreds of millions of square miles
of the country to the tiny tanks in cars in garages all across the country.

2) Electrolyze the hydrogen at the wind or solar aggregator and then burn
it there at one spot in a turbine when needed.

3) Electrolyze the hydrogen into local tanks at existing gas turbine
generating plants and burn as needed.

My opinion is that #1 is stupid. but that #2 and #3 could be done
economically.

4) it might be possible (but again stupidly complex) to let each Fool cell
home garage have an electric hydrogen generator that absorbs excess
solar/wind peaks and makes hydrogen and then compresses it into the cars
tank.

5) Put the hydrogen hydrolyzer/compressor/tank on the car and simply PLUG
IN the Fool Cell car to the 220v outlet in the garage getting signals when
to operate on excess energy.  Here the fool cell car really does run on a
water tank and dumped excess energy.

But I cannot see how #4 or #5 could EVER be simpler or economical compared
to an EV with only one morving part and a battery.

Bob, WB4APR

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Michael Ross via EV 
wrote:

> H2 as an energy storage medium and source of power for EVs to has
> theoretical merit if we ever have truly significant renewable power
> generation in the US.
>
> In this scenario the inefficiencies are of less consequence because on a
> very large scale storing H2 is quite cheap particularly in comparison to
> batteries. You just need big tanks.  Comparable battery storage is hard to
> even conceive.
>
> Batteries look OK in EVs assuming we can really make enough of them.
> There is a choice to be made between EVs getting charged from a grid or
> mounting a tank and fuel cell or H2 ICE.  But smoothing out renewable power
> into a 24 hour cycle is tricky. We don't have a good, really large scale
> way to do this, and we need one.
>
> Once you have that renewable capacity the economics of H2 looks a lot
> better.  Assuming we need to get out of the fossil fuel business and I
> accept that, then we need a really simple storage means for generated
> energy, H2 makes sense.  Batteries, pumped hydro, and so on don't scale
> well to this level.
>
> Returning  to Toyota and their choice to stick with ICE and fuel cells -
> for a really long game they may be onto something. I have no idea I'd this
> is their thinking.
> On Oct 16, 2015 3:34 PM, "Ben Goren via EV"  wrote:
>
> > On Oct 16, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Roland  wrote:
> >
> > > Install the hydrogen tank in a ICE vehicle using standard propane
> > equipment that I was already running the engine on.
> >
> > We're obviously veering sharply offtopic, now. Some years back I looked
> > into doing pretty much that -- running H2 in, in this case, an aircooled
> > '68 VW Westfalia Campmobile in the stock engine with a modified fuel
> intake
> > system, similar to a propane conversion. I seem to remember that there
> was
> > somebody in Tucson that had done it with a pickup truck of some sort. I'd
> > use electricity from rooftop solar panels to analyze water and collect
> the
> > hydrogen.
> >
> > The numbers just didn't add up. The volumetric density of H2 at sane
> > pressures is abysmal and the embrittlement of the engine from constant
> > exposure to H2 was going to shorten the lift of the engine enough that it
> > didn't make environmental sense. And all that's before getting into the
> > question of putting in an hydrogen storage tank plus the collection and
> > compression facilities and how to get from storage tank to the
> vehicle...in
> > the middle of suburbia...
> >
> > ...compare that with even a lead acid EV conversion and the difference is
> > quite stark. Comparable driving range, potentially much superior driving
> > performance, much better inherent safety, and _far_ easier recharging.
> And
> > the entire system's energy efficiency is so much better with electric
> > rather than all the waste of analyzing the hydrogen and compressing it
> and
> > so on.
> >
> > That was the final piece of the puzzle. Both methods went from solar
> > panels on the house's roof to propelling the car. One method was very
> > direct and simple and efficient; the other was an insane and wasteful
> Rube
> > Goldberg kludge.
> >
> > The fool cell is only marginally better than running H2 in an internal
> > combustion engine (which most any engine built for gasoline will happily
> do
> > with no more than modifications to the intake and operating parameters
> like
> > timing). Even still, lead acid would have a fool cell beat...and, with
> > modern battery chemistries? There's no comparison.
> >
> > b&
> > -- next part --
> > A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> > Name: signature.asc
> > Type: a