Is it time to talk about Hydrogen?

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Wombat said:

Alas, we would need the Aussie dollar to crash to about 30 US cents in order to manufacture again! It is not just Chinese manufacturing we are up against, the whole Emerging World has dirt cheap labour and dirt cheap currencies. We are still doing some "niche" manufacturing in certain high-tech areas (vaccines, hearing aids, carbon-fibre wheels etc) and a fair bit in construction and food processing, but our manufacturing industry is now only 6% of GDP, compared to 10% in US, and about 15-20% in UK and most of Western Europe. I dunno if you have heard of "Dutch Disease" but we got a bad case of it. Stupid thing is, we don't even have a large trade surplus like Germany or China. It is just that the rest of the Western world use our currency as a proxy to bet on China. The Aussie/USD is now the world 5th largest currency trading pair, exceeding that of the Pound/Dollar. Our Reserve bank is trying desperately to lower the exchange rate, but they are spittin in the wind

The Dutch seemed to have recovered a lot of ground, Probably by joining the Euro and benefitting from an artificially low currency value relative to the strength of their economy. 

The other elephant in the room is house prices which has been one of the biggest factors driving wage inflation. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

The Dutch seemed to have recovered a lot of ground, Probably by joining the Euro and benefitting from an artificially low currency value relative to the strength of their economy. 

The other elephant in the room is house prices which has been one of the biggest factors driving wage inflation. 

That is what happens when you have mass immigration instead of steady immigration(Over 10% of total Aussie population are immigrants in last 10 years).  Population booms, housing takes a lot of time/resources to build and housing becomes scarce.  The governments response?  Instead of just letting things settle out in the short term, and capping immigration, so Australia can integrate a giant python lump of immigrants into society, they have demanded that wages massively increase instead while maintaining very generous immigration policy.  Sorry, infrastructure does not magically appear.  Immigration long term has an increase in GDP etc, but short term, you will feel a massive pinch. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

22 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

PEM electrolysis has an electrical efficiency of about 80% in working application, in terms of hydrogen produced per unit of electricity used to drive the reaction. The efficiency of PEM electrolysis is expected to reach 82-86% before 2030, while also maintaining durability as progress in this area continues at a pace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_electrolyte_membrane_electrolysis

At 80%, 30Kjoules in would produce 24KJoules of hydrogen. There are some issues with the nature of the electrodes and the operating temperature, among other things. However, a number of electrolysis technologies perform far better than the 30% you're quoting here.

Sweet, how many Mtons of Platinum/Gold/Iridium/titanium do we need for this? 

Great, we can make a whopping 2 or 3 of them for H2 production... and electrical production....

The world will listen when some genius gets rid of the Platinum/Gold/Iridium in these H2 PEM/Fuel cells.  Until then, this is nothing but Utopian dreaming of asteroid mining as that is what it will take to build all the Fuel Cells etc for a grid to operate on Hydrogen from water. 

[john bozeman + 42]

I guess this is off-topic but.....Can I ask you smart guys (gals ?) a question ?  Many of you may already know that I am primarily a gas producer (no jokes please) so I have an obvious bias...but...why isn't methanol more widely used as a motor fuel.  I get that it is toxic (like most every other fuel) but hasn't it been proven in race cars (indy) ?  I spoke to the manager of a relatively new methanol plant in Pampa, Texas a while back and they use pipeline methane to manufacture methanol.  They were paying $5.00/mcf when  raw gas (1100 btu) was selling for $1.00/mcf across the street from the plant.  Seems like it would be a major win for the environment AND my industry to increase methanol production and use it for motor fuel.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

11 hours ago, john bozeman said:

I guess this is off-topic but.....Can I ask you smart guys (gals ?) a question ?  Many of you may already know that I am primarily a gas producer (no jokes please) so I have an obvious bias...but...why isn't methanol more widely used as a motor fuel.  I get that it is toxic (like most every other fuel) but hasn't it been proven in race cars (indy) ?  I spoke to the manager of a relatively new methanol plant in Pampa, Texas a while back and they use pipeline methane to manufacture methanol.  They were paying $5.00/mcf when  raw gas (1100 btu) was selling for $1.00/mcf across the street from the plant.  Seems like it would be a major win for the environment AND my industry to increase methanol production and use it for motor fuel.

Not a Chemist, so armchair at best here, and frankly this is more of a response from sitting on the floor.  Methanol still has to come from somewhere.  Different sources obtain different chemicals easily. 

Lets put it this way, Largest crop in the world(corn) 53% of it is used currently to produce 5% of the energy needs for cars ONLY(not trucks).  Let that settle into your mind for a minute... 45% of Corn, in the BEST fertile ground in the world(or 2nd best), produces only 5% of energy needs for transportation and does not include the energy needed to GROW that crop to begin with.  I have not looked up the stats for Sugarcane to Ethanol in Brazil, but I would be shocked if the ratio is not about the same if not higher. 

For Methanol production, trees are a better source generally speaking is my understanding. 

As for your point why Methanol is not used... It is.  Methanol from Coal/Methane has been used and IS still being used around the world. 

PS: In case anyone is interested... the area farmed for Ethanol is the size of Montana where ~half of Montana is used EXCLUSIVELY for ethanol which by a MJ content accounts for a measly ~5% of Gasoline energy used in cars/light trucks.  Does not cover diesel, Kerosene, etc.  So for all those brain dead idiots saying we can "grow" plants for energy or "farm algae" which have same conversion efficiency as plants....

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

15 minutes ago, john bozeman said:

why isn't methanol more widely used as a motor fuel.

Because as little as 10 milliliters can cause permanent blindness. 

There are a lot of poor folks out there who'll drink anything that gives them a buzz. 

Methanol is a very cheap buzz . . . and it hits the optic nerve like crazy.

[NickW + 2,714]

56 minutes ago, john bozeman said:

I guess this is off-topic but.....Can I ask you smart guys (gals ?) a question ?  Many of you may already know that I am primarily a gas producer (no jokes please) so I have an obvious bias...but...why isn't methanol more widely used as a motor fuel.  I get that it is toxic (like most every other fuel) but hasn't it been proven in race cars (indy) ?  I spoke to the manager of a relatively new methanol plant in Pampa, Texas a while back and they use pipeline methane to manufacture methanol.  They were paying $5.00/mcf when  raw gas (1100 btu) was selling for $1.00/mcf across the street from the plant.  Seems like it would be a major win for the environment AND my industry to increase methanol production and use it for motor fuel.

It is in a way. Its reacted with Vegetable oil to make Biodiesel. The byproduct is glycerol. 

[NickW + 2,714]

40 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Because as little as 10 milliliters can cause permanent blindness. 

There are a lot of poor folks out there who'll drink anything that gives them a buzz. 

Methanol is a very cheap buzz . . . and it hits the optic nerve like crazy.

You can buy it on Ebay in barrels. I don't know about the US but in the UK it has to have a bitterant like Bictrex added to make it undrinkable. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 why Methanol is not used..

 

@john bozeman

 

Low energy density (about 50% the energy of gasoline by weight).

A little too volatile for easy handling and storage (boiling point is only 64.7 C) a hot day next to a exhaust system that is easily achievable (BLEVE risk).

It is water miscible; that combined with the high toxicity is bad.  Spill some into a water body and it is stuck, gasoline won't mix and gives you a chance to clean it up (booms, light it on fire, etc.).

Edited November 11, 2020 by Enthalpic

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Profits for hydrogen production would be pitiful, since the price of methane keeps hydrogen's commodity price well below its energy value in cents per kWh. At 100% efficiency it's far from lucrative, and I'm expected to believe that inefficient cells are supposed to make it work?

I think that whoever makes the hydrogen needs to be intent on using it themselves. At that point then earnings are calculated from avoided gas cost, which still isn't enough to justify doing it. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/9/2020 at 1:12 PM, NickW said:

If the economics of producing Hydrogen from stranded / surplus renewable energy (or off peak nuclear) are viable then this is fantastic news. 

For OZ it can utilise land which has little or no economic value for both wind and solar. For other countries especially net importers it offers an opportunity to offset some of its gas import costs by producing Hydrogen and blending into the network. The UK is a case in example. The Health and Safety Executive have concluded that blending up to 20% by volume is achievable without modifying the network. Thats about 6.6% by calorific value. 

The UK consumption of gas is about 75 bn m3 (812TWH). So the Uk can add approx 53 TWH of Hydrogen to the network. 

This is the biggest benefit  - It would effectively allow a massive overbuild of renewables with the gas network acting as a reservoir into which surplus H2 can be dumped. 

In addition plant adjacent to CCGT stations could produce H2 in surplus periods on site and the CCGT could use pure H2 at peak times. The turbine manufacturers already have models that can burn H2 or very rich H2 - CH4 mixes. 

Globally the World uses about 3.8 Trillion M3 of gas or 41000TWH. At 6% (assuming the HSE figure is representative) addition by calorific value thats 2500TWH of renewable Hydrogen that could go into the global gas grids. 

 

IMO just forget about it and use natural gas which is clean, cheaper, and super abundant. Use batteries for your wind turbines and solar panels. You are trying to reinvent the wheel. Europe has many potential sources for piped natural gas, LNG, biogas etc. So does Asia. It seems to me, that the "Masters of the Universe" just want to make more money for energy. The whole global warming game is a scam IMO. 

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

IMO just forget about it and use natural gas which is clean, cheaper, and super abundant. Use batteries for your wind turbines and solar panels. You are trying to reinvent the wheel. Europe has many potential sources for piped natural gas, LNG, biogas etc. So does Asia. It seems to me, that the "Masters of the Universe" just want to make more money for energy. The whole global warming game is a scam IMO. 

Is the record pin stuck again?

Not everyone wants to be 100% reliant on imports. If Hydrogen from renewables has reached parity with natural gas* then it makes sense to utilise this if you have the renewable resources. It creates jobs locally and improves energy security. 

Also this approach allows a mass overbuild of renewables 

*Electricity is used where there is demand and surpluses are used to generate gas. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

24 minutes ago, NickW said:

Is the record pin stuck again?

Not everyone wants to be 100% reliant on imports. If Hydrogen from renewables has reached parity with natural gas* then it makes sense to utilise this if you have the renewable resources. It creates jobs locally and improves energy security.

On a different note: My new long endurance Fortune LiFePo batteries have now HELD, yes HELD, 3.28-->3.29 Volts for over 6 months now.  Unlike NMC and LiMn, it would appear the new LiFePo batteries effectively hold their charge indefinitely.  True, I am holding them @~30% or so... I get to throw out the trickle charger on the trailer and hooking up/tripping over the damned cord!  ... About damned time!

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

On a different note: My new long endurance Fortune LiFePo batteries have now HELD, yes HELD, 3.28-->3.29 Volts for over 6 months now.  Unlike NMC and LiMn, it would appear the new LiFePo batteries effectively hold their charge indefinitely.  True, I am holding them @~30% or so... I get to throw out the trickle charger on the trailer and hooking up/tripping over the damned cord!  ... About damned time!

There has also been a major improvement in NIMH batteries. I bought a load to feed into my sons pile of toys but also torches. Switched a torch on the other day which I hadn't used for months - power still the same. 20 years ago they seemed to lose most of their charge after a few months. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

There has also been a major improvement in NIMH batteries. I bought a load to feed into my sons pile of toys but also torches. Switched a torch on the other day which I hadn't used for months - power still the same. 20 years ago they seemed to lose most of their charge after a few months. 

Say what?  They are the worst... This should have been news if that is the case...

Google time... and Panasonic Eneloop claims 10 years self discharge time... Huh... thanks for the tip, will look. 

$3/cell... almost same as Lithium... you have got to be kidding me... Who the Hell would buy a NiMH at that price when I can buy Lithium at 3.7V with higher mAh rating and all of your electronics will work just fine at 3.7V instead of 1.5V?!?!??  Its not like I went to Alibaba here... Yes, you have to modify your case to fit the bigger battery... Some you can, some you can't.  

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Say what?  They are the worst... This should have been news if that is the case...

Google time... and Panasonic Eneloop claims 10 years self discharge time... Huh... thanks for the tip, will look. 

$3/cell... almost same as Lithium... you have got to be kidding me... Who the Hell would buy a NiMH at that price when I can buy Lithium at 3.7V with higher mAh rating and all of your electronics will work just fine at 3.7V instead of 1.5V?!?!??  Its not like I went to Alibaba here... Yes, you have to modify your case to fit the bigger battery... Some you can, some you can't.  

I use Varta or JCB brand and they work fine. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

The most important thing you can do for home rechargeable battery purchases is to ensure you are not buying fakes/copies.  Learn how to identify fake rechargeable batteries and do not buy them online, even from Amazon.  Buy them in person and inspect them yourself, armed with at least a modicum of knowledge.

[nsdp + 449]

A lot of the energy efficiency assumptions above are at least 25 years out of date.  Lots of experts(unknown drips under pressure X-Spurt) posting on the web have not stayed current and still use 1980's vintage heat rates and values and efficicncies.  So caveat emptor when you find values on the net.  In 1995, NETL at Morgantown WV demonstrated a combustion air/ H2 fuel cell generation  system with topping and bottoming cycles  that was 72.8 % efficient.  Capturing and substituting the O2,  that is currently vented from the electrolyzer, for combustion air raises efficiency by 8% because you no longer heat and handle the inert  gases like N2, Ar and 40 bar CO2 and H20 in the process.   Current PEM cells with O2 capture and 99.99% purity are about 87-89% efficient at 40 BAR outlet pressures.   So a closed loop fuel cell, like what  NETL demonstrated in 1995, is 72% efficient(80%x 89%) round trip not 50-33% as stated above.   Substituting an aero derivative gas turbine (not an industrial gas turbine) for the closed loop fuel  cell gains another 4-5% mechanical round trip efficiency.  Japan Japanese patent JP6308479B2 China Chinese patent CN104937222B,  You also gain efficiency because the gas turbine can run just as efficiently  on 97% H2 and 3% H2O so there is no energy loss for the dehydration of the H2 to fuel cell spec of 99.99%. In 2018, this paper was represented at the annual ASME conference on 12th International Conference on Energy Sustainability https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/POWER/proceedings-abstract/POWER2018/51395/V001T06A004/277431

,This looks like a CCGT and has all the benefits like inertial mass, reactive power, voltage control , frequency control etc; but it can handle the 3750K H2/O2 flame temperature which a regular CCGT or  unmodified aero GT cannot handle; a regular CCGT just melts. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by nsdp
omitted H2 and commas

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/11/2020 at 3:24 AM, NickW said:

Is the record pin stuck again?

Not everyone wants to be 100% reliant on imports. If Hydrogen from renewables has reached parity with natural gas* then it makes sense to utilise this if you have the renewable resources. It creates jobs locally and improves energy security. 

Also this approach allows a mass overbuild of renewables 

*Electricity is used where there is demand and surpluses are used to generate gas. 

How are you going to blend the hydrogen into the natural gas lines? Natural gas lines are not available where most wind turbines are built. Blending is fine, batteries are fine. What is your objection? Do you think that the natural gas pipelines are interested in blending in hydrogen? At what price?

[NickW + 2,714]

9 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

How are you going to blend the hydrogen into the natural gas lines? Natural gas lines are not available where most wind turbines are built. Blending is fine, batteries are fine. What is your objection? Do you think that the natural gas pipelines are interested in blending in hydrogen? At what price?

There are these things called electricity transmission pylons - thats how the electricity gets from the turbine to your house😉. You simply build the electrolysis plants where the electricity transmission lines intersect major gas pipelines. 

Or you build them at CCGT plants. They happen to have large gas pipelines and elecricity transmission 

Here is a map of the UK and Irelands high pressure gas network. Some of those pipes are 4 feet in diameter

 

 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Nick: More power to you, I was thinking in terms of America. Our rural wind turbines are more widespread and further from the lines or pipes. I still think you should frack but since the landowners don't get paid it never worked out. 

[NickW + 2,714]

30 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Nick: More power to you, I was thinking in terms of America. Our rural wind turbines are more widespread and further from the lines or pipes. I still think you should frack but since the landowners don't get paid it never worked out. 

You don't need to build the electrolysers near the turbines. Infact  on the same site as a CCGT would be the best place - access to HV electricity and large diameter gas lines. Can also feed the H2 straight into the turbine if its geared to take H2

Problem with fracking in the UK is the areas that are good have large populations living above them. 

[NickW + 2,714]

36 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Nick: More power to you, I was thinking in terms of America. Our rural wind turbines are more widespread and further from the lines or pipes. I still think you should frack but since the landowners don't get paid it never worked out. 

It will be decades before the USA needs to consider H2 injection. The next stage of large scale  wind development will be in the NE Atlantic with direct access to one of the USA's most densely populated regions and there electricity demand. 

[JoMack + 549]

On 11/10/2020 at 9:31 PM, ronwagn said:

IMO just forget about it and use natural gas which is clean, cheaper, and super abundant. Use batteries for your wind turbines and solar panels. You are trying to reinvent the wheel. Europe has many potential sources for piped natural gas, LNG, biogas etc. So does Asia. It seems to me, that the "Masters of the Universe" just want to make more money for energy. The whole global warming game is a scam IMO. 

In addition, subsidies would be astronomical for extraction and infrastructure would be an enormous hurdle.   Note, Keystone XL pipeline will not be completed under Biden, the Dakota Access Pipeline's updated use permit is stalled in court and will be terminated next year since the new Energy Czar, John Kerry, is Al Gore on steroids and pipelines are satan.  We'll be lucky to be holding oil and gas production at pre-Trump levels and dropping when the regulations start hitting the industry soon.  Kerry may be able to get Congress to agree to let billons go for hydrogen with little to show, of course, since the climate change religion must continue to accelerate and fed to the uninformed so Agreements like the Paris Climate Accord can be sustained, indefinitely.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, JoMack said:

In addition, subsidies would be astronomical for extraction and infrastructure would be an enormous hurdle.   Note, Keystone XL pipeline will not be completed under Biden, the Dakota Access Pipeline's updated use permit is stalled in court and will be terminated next year since the new Energy Czar, John Kerry, is Al Gore on steroids and pipelines are satan.  We'll be lucky to be holding oil and gas production at pre-Trump levels and dropping when the regulations start hitting the industry soon.  Kerry may be able to get Congress to agree to let billons go for hydrogen with little to show, of course, since the climate change religion must continue to accelerate and fed to the uninformed so Agreements like the Paris Climate Accord can be sustained, indefinitely.

Whew!  I hope you feel better?  I do, and I didn't even type/write it!