Hyrdogen generation by electrolysis of water [Archive]

Rob Lister

4th July 2005, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Stitch
A quick google provides the following which may answer some of your questions
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hydrogen_from_Water
http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/h2homesystem.pdf
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Hydrogen/

Are you just joking with Capsid? I only looked at your last link. I'm not sure a Free Energy site is the best place to go for research.

Here's a start.

Research the amount of energy in a gallon of gas (btu -> j)

Research the average annual output of a windmill (w ->j) Don't pick the max output when the wind blows, it doesn't always. Find the long term average.

Exclude all inefficiencies from all processes because there's no need to get complex on the back of an envelope.

Divide windmill output by gallon of gas output.

Reseach gallons of gas currently used.

calculate number of windmills necessary.

Stitch

4th July 2005, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Are you just joking with Capsid? I only looked at your last link. I'm not sure a Free Energy site is the best place to go for research.

That last link isn't as woo as it seems. By Free energy they are referring (in the most part) to solar energy, which of course you don't have to pay for.

There was quite an interesting article about the Aussies finding a new way of using sun light to produce Hydrogen. I thought this may of interest as it is covering the same topic area:

Special titanium oxide ceramics harvest sunlight and split water to produce hydrogen fuel. Researchers at University of New South Wales anticipate an energy-harvesting device with no moving parts within 7 years

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/08/27/6900038_SolarHydrogen/index.html

There are other articles involving wind that also seem to meet the original request. I do admit there are a few rather more questionable articles but they seem to be preceeded with things such as "So and so claims to have..."

TjW

4th July 2005, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Capsid
How much energy does it take to generate hydrogen from water by electrolysis?

In theory, at low gas production rates, electrolysis can be greater than 100% efficient, since it can use heat from the environment to help generate gas.
In practice, the best commercially available electrolyzers are about 50% efficient. It's an expensive way to generate hydrogen, since it uses platinum, either as an electrode, or in a PEM membrane. You can use other materials, but they require more voltage (referred to as the "overvoltage" for a particular material), and that kills the effiency.

Is it possible for a solar panel or wind generator to provide the energy and generate enough gas to run a hydrogen car? How large would that solar panel/wind generator have to be? Could it be possible to set this up domestically helping to reduce the use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gases?

I'm just dreaming that this is what my kids could be doing in the future.

Not realistically. Solar energy (all of it) is about 1000 watt/sq metre peak at the earth's surface. That's pretty diffuse. Current PV cells are around 12% efficient. You may want to note that they will produce something close to peak output about 5 hours a day.
Converting to hydrogen with a commercial-quality electrolyzer, you're down to about sixty watt/sq metre.

It gets worse: compression or liquefaction of the hydrogen takes a fair amount of energy, too. In the neighborhood of 30%. Now you're down to about 40 watts/sq metre.

And then it gets worse. You still have to convert from hydrogen back to mechanical power. The same theory that says electrolyzation can use environmental heat to be > 100% efficient, also says a fuel cell can NEVER be better than 87% efficient. And like the electrolyzer, in practice they're worse than that. Actual fuel cells suitable for portable operation are around 25% efficient. You will hear numbers like 60%, but this is for stationary power generation with a "bottoming cycle" turbine that is able to recover some of the process heat. That isn't going to fit in a car.

So, for each square meter of PV solar collector, you can get probably 10 watts to the wheels of a hydrogen-powered car. A horsepower is 746 watts.

Wind turbine power scales by the square of the diameter, and the cube of the average wind velocity. By the time you get a turbine big enough to provide fuel for a car, the neighbors are going to be complaining. There's a reason commercial wind power farms are located in passes.

Electricity is so much more useful than hydrogen, that it doesn't make sense to use it to generate hydrogent. Ecologically, it makes far more sense to connect it to the grid and use that energy to displace a coal-fired plant somewhere. That way, for every 120 watts you get 120 watts of fossil-fuel displacement, instead of 10.

Rob Lister

4th July 2005, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by TjW
In theory, at low gas production rates, electrolysis can be greater than 100% efficient, since it can use heat from the environment to help generate gas.
In practice, the best commercially available electrolyzers are about 50% efficient...

I did a really rough calculation. I didn't double check my sources and I didn't include inefficiencies because 1) I'm lazy and 2) I'm lazy. Here are my assumptions and results. The probability of serious errors in my assumptions/calculations approaches 1.

Assume: Wind (w) Turbine Average Annual = 17,280,000 mj (4.8 mwh)

Assume: Gasoline (g) content per gallon = 126.3 mj (.035 mwh)

w/g= g/hour
So a wind turbine generates 4.8 / .035 = 137 gallons of gas per hour (energy equiv) or 1.2 million gallons per year.

U.S consumption is 136,875 million gallons per year.

136,875 / 1.2 = 11,400 wind turbines Just for cars in the U.S.

Now, include inefficiencies (and correct my errors).

I'm too lazy.

TjW

4th July 2005, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Stitch
That last link isn't as woo as it seems. By Free energy they are referring (in the most part) to solar energy, which of course you don't have to pay for.

Well, of course, by that logic, you don't have to pay for fossil fuels, either. It's just laying down there under the ground -- all you have to do is pump it up.

Solar energy is free -- until you have to build and maintain some sort of collector, store the energy, and so forth. Then you have to tie up capital in some form, and under most reasonable accounting systems, that's not free.

Under current conditions, solar electrical energy is some of the most expensive available.

Solar isn't too bad used as low grade heat -- domestic water heating can be a pretty good application. But the idea that it's "free" is just ludicrous.

pupdog

4th July 2005, 01:33 PM

They should just design all roads to go downhill.

It's also important to address the practical aspects of in what form the hydrogen will be distributed (and associated inefficiencies and leaks). How large a fuel tank would be necessary for driving reasonable distances? I think this was addressed in an article in Science magazine a year or two ago.

The idea

4th July 2005, 02:19 PM

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using horse-drawn carriages?

Rob Lister

4th July 2005, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by The idea
What are the advantages and disadvantages of using horse-drawn carriages?

There are mountains and mountains of disadvantages. Some literal, some figurative. I'll leave it to you to figure out of what those mountains would be composed.

Bruce

4th July 2005, 02:40 PM

What TjW said....

He nailed it, in fact. Well done!

Mind if I ask what your occupation is?

Bruce

4th July 2005, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by The idea
What are the advantages and disadvantages of using horse-drawn carriages?

The disadvantages are lots of hay and lots of horse poopie.

The advantage is that a horse can produce precisely 745.69 watts of energy, or 1 horsepower.

Rob Lister

4th July 2005, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Bruce
The advantage is that a horse can produce precisely 745.69 watts of energy, or 1 horsepower.

Is that right? I know that's how the name of the unit originated but I bet, given the right setup, a horse could do better than one hp. Imagine your 3 hp lawnmower engine running a gear attached to straight pinion (perfect traction). The engine moves along the pinion while three horses pull in the opposite direction. Do you really think it would be much of a tie? I'm not sure if the engine would just stall or simply self-destruct. The horses may or may not realize they are even being tested.

clarsct

4th July 2005, 04:58 PM

TjW did well...but even with platinum electrodes, you still have overvoltage in electrolyzing water. Hydrogen bonding ensures it.

So that lowers the end result further. Platinum does REDUCE the overvoltage a bit, compared to say, silver or copper. But that is due to the fact that platinum doesn't oxidize nearly as easily. The oxidation contirbutes, but electrolysis of water will always overvoltage.

Nit-picking.

The idea

4th July 2005, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Bruce
The disadvantages are lots of hay and lots of horse poopie.

Why is hay a problem? Regarding horse poopie, perhaps cat genes could be used to create a genetically modified horse that uses a litter box.

pmurray

4th July 2005, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
There are mountains and mountains of disadvantages. Some literal, some figurative. I'll leave it to you to figure out of what those mountains would be composed.
These mountains are a major health problem - speading cholera and whatnot. If you think our cities are filthy now ... .

Capsid

5th July 2005, 02:00 AM

Thanks for the replies. I was thinking of the upcoming G8 conference and the pre-conference soundbites I am hearing from Bush/Blair about seeking alternative technologies. This seemed to be one of them, in that it would not generate greenhouse gases. But perhaps we are still some way off.

Horse poop makes great manure, just spread it on the fields and watch the crops grow.

MRC_Hans

5th July 2005, 02:21 AM

Problems about horse power:

- Labor intensitive. Have to be raised, fed, and cared for.

- Pollution intensive. Horse manure is excellent fertilizer, but obviously cannot entirely displace the demand for fertilizer required to grow the horse feed in the first place (since the horse uses some of the energy).

- Dangerous. We tend to see modern cars as accident-prone, but they are FAR safer than horse-cariages. In the days of horse carriages, accidents were quite common. And there is not much you can do to reduce the risk; a 500 kg nervous animal will alwayse be dangerous.

Hans

Stitch

5th July 2005, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by TjW
Well, of course, by that logic, you don't have to pay for fossil fuels, either. It's just laying down there under the ground -- all you have to do is pump it up.

Solar energy is free -- until you have to build and maintain some sort of collector, store the energy, and so forth. Then you have to tie up capital in some form, and under most reasonable accounting systems, that's not free.

Under current conditions, solar electrical energy is some of the most expensive available.

Solar isn't too bad used as low grade heat -- domestic water heating can be a pretty good application. But the idea that it's "free" is just ludicrous.

Sometimes I think sceptics take things way too seriously.

Once you have built your power plant, you need to fuel it. Harvesting solar or wind energy once you're set up is free (or close to it) compared to supplying coal to coal fired power station.

Anders

5th July 2005, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by TjW

Not realistically. Solar energy (all of it) is about 1000 watt/sq metre peak at the earth's surface. That's pretty diffuse. Current PV cells are around 12% efficient. You may want to note that they will produce something close to peak output about 5 hours a day.
Converting to hydrogen with a commercial-quality electrolyzer, you're down to about sixty watt/sq metre.

It gets worse: compression or liquefaction of the hydrogen takes a fair amount of energy, too. In the neighborhood of 30%. Now you're down to about 40 watts/sq metre.

And then it gets worse. You still have to convert from hydrogen back to mechanical power. The same theory that says electrolyzation can use environmental heat to be > 100% efficient, also says a fuel cell can NEVER be better than 87% efficient. And like the electrolyzer, in practice they're worse than that. Actual fuel cells suitable for portable operation are around 25% efficient. You will hear numbers like 60%, but this is for stationary power generation with a "bottoming cycle" turbine that is able to recover some of the process heat. That isn't going to fit in a car.

So, for each square meter of PV solar collector, you can get probably 10 watts to the wheels of a hydrogen-powered car. A horsepower is 746 watts.

Wind turbine power scales by the square of the diameter, and the cube of the average wind velocity. By the time you get a turbine big enough to provide fuel for a car, the neighbors are going to be complaining. There's a reason commercial wind power farms are located in passes.

Electricity is so much more useful than hydrogen, that it doesn't make sense to use it to generate hydrogent. Ecologically, it makes far more sense to connect it to the grid and use that energy to displace a coal-fired plant somewhere. That way, for every 120 watts you get 120 watts of fossil-fuel displacement, instead of 10. [/B]
OK...TjW, your numbers are most probably correct, but! There are a few thing in your discussion that are not consistent with what all automotive companies set out to do. Hydrogen is a really good energy carrier, thatâ€™s the main point. You can produce hydrogen quite cheaply by the use of electrolysis and you can easily store that hydrogen. The hydrogen is then used in fuel cells, which in turn produce electric energy, which in turn turns the wheels of your car. The main point is not how many kW electrolysis produce, but how many kWh electrolysis produce.

Storing hydrogen is easy compared to store electricity. Hydrogen used as fuel in fuel cells are already in use, albeit very expensive.

I would also like to comment on your last point about ecology: Perhaps in some very sunny places on earth direct feeding of the grid from solar cells would work. In the north and far south, forget it!

Producing hydrogen by electrolysis and then using the gas, as fuel for fuel cells, is what works.

Bruce

5th July 2005, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Is that right?

No, I was trying to be funny. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that an average horse can produce 30 hp, but I don't remember where or when I heard it.

Bruce

5th July 2005, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Anders
You can produce hydrogen quite cheaply by the use of electrolysis and you can easily store that hydrogen.

But the energy you put in is far less than the energy you get out. That's one of the points he's trying to make.

Originally posted by Anders
The hydrogen is then used in fuel cells, which in turn produce electric energy, which in turn turns the wheels of your car. The main point is not how many kW electrolysis produce, but how many kWh electrolysis produce.

Still, the energy to make that fuel cell has to come from somewhere. If it comes from coal-fired power plants, you are making a trade-off. Instead each individual citizen using a little bit of fossil fuels, power plants are using a lot more. When you consider the over all plunge in energy efficiency, the increase fossil fuel burning in power plants is far greater than the fuel you 'save' by eliminating it's use in vehicles.

Originally posted by Anders
Storing hydrogen is easy compared to store electricity.

I have to disagree with you completely here. Hydrogen is the smallest molecule in existance. Leakage is easy. Hydrogen is also corrosive to metals. Also depends on what you mean by easy.

TjW

5th July 2005, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Anders
OK...TjW, your numbers are most probably correct, but! There are a few thing in your discussion that are not consistent with what all automotive companies set out to do. Hydrogen is a really good energy carrier, thatâ€™s the main point.

You say you think hydrogen is a good energy carrier. Why do you say so? Because it has high energy per unit mass? A good energy carrier for a terrestrial vehicle has high energy per unit volume.
There, hydrogen is terrible.
Actually, because the containers need to be fairly heavy (either a double-walled dewar for liquid hydrogen, or a heavy walled pressure vessel for compressed), the values that include the container for the fuel tend to favor hydrocarbons. A lightweight stamped sheet-metal or even a plastic tank works fine for gasoline or diesel.

You can produce hydrogen quite cheaply by the use of electrolysis and you can easily store that hydrogen.
The hydrogen is then used in fuel cells, which in turn produce electric energy, which in turn turns the wheels of your car. The main point is not how many kW electrolysis produce, but how many kWh electrolysis produce.

Well, you're right about energy being more important than power. There was an implied multiplier of average daily usage and generation which perhaps was not clear in my reply.
The important energy, though, in a transportation application, is not the energy produced, but the energy delivered to the driving wheels. By doing those conversions, electricity to hydrogen to electricity, you wind up with at best, one eighth of the generated energy that you put in. Less, if you account for compression or liquefaction losses.
With a lead-acid battery, you can get out about 75% of the energy you put in. Lithium can give 90% or so.

If electrolysis is so darn cheap, why isn't it used in bulk production of hydrogen? Large users NEVER use electrolysis. Reformation of hydrocarbons is far, far cheaper.

Storing hydrogen is easy compared to store electricity. Hydrogen used as fuel in fuel cells are already in use, albeit very expensive.

Sure. Build a hydrogen tank and compressor. Be sure to take into account the embrittling effects hydrogen has on metal, the ease with which hydrogen finds its way through most materials, and the extremely large range of mixtures with air that are explosive.
Recover one-eighth of the energy originally generated.

Compared to: Dump some lead plates in a sulphuric acid bath. Charge it.
Recover half of the energy originally generated.
Sorry, I think the batteries are easier. Neither of them is particularly good for a transportation application, but batteries, bad as they are, waste less energy.

Well for goodness sake. The first fuel cell was built in 1839. Only 166 years of development, and they'll be ready for market Real Soon Now. Ain't the speed of modern technology wonderful?

I would also like to comment on your last point about ecology: Perhaps in some very sunny places on earth direct feeding of the grid from solar cells would work. In the north and far south, forget it!
I'm afraid I don't understand. If getting 100% utilization of the energy is not practical, how does throwing away 7/8ths of the energy by converting electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity somehow make it more practical?

Producing hydrogen by electrolysis and then using the gas, as fuel for fuel cells, is what works.

Well, it's certainly physically possible. I don't think it's the most efficient use of energy, though, and the numbers bear that out.
Actually, I don't think the original post is so much about hydrogen as providing one's own transportation energy via PV. I think the real problem here is that solar energy is so diffuse that this is not likely to happen on an individual basis.
Could someone do it? Sure. Right now. Everything exists to do it, via hydrogen, or batteries, or even synfuels, if you want to go to that much trouble.
I think I'll stick with my original answer of "not realistically".

Anders

5th July 2005, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Bruce
But the energy you put in is far less than the energy you get out. That's one of the points he's trying to make.

Still, the energy to make that fuel cell has to come from somewhere. If it comes from coal-fired power plants, you are making a trade-off. Instead each individual citizen using a little bit of fossil fuels, power plants are using a lot more. When you consider the over all plunge in energy efficiency, the increase fossil fuel burning in power plants is far greater than the fuel you 'save' by eliminating it's use in vehicles.

I have to disagree with you completely here. Hydrogen is the smallest molecule in existance. Leakage is easy. Hydrogen is also corrosive to metals. Also depends on what you mean by easy.

I fully appreciate his argumentation, nothing wrong there. But you forget about the alternative cost. If fuel cells are no more energy consuming to manufacture then for example combustion engines, then there is no difference. Or I am wrong here?

The problem would be the size of the fuel cells, but remember that fuel cells 20 years ago just barely fitted in to a large van, nowadays there are prototype town cars with fuel cells.

Yes, the efficiency is a problem, but the great thing is that an electric motor has an energy efficiency around 90% or more! Compare to a combustion engine: 30%.

Yes, electricity is the best energy form there is, but the great problem is that we canâ€™t store it, that is the only problem with electric energy. So we try to find other ways to hold the energy before we use it. We store energy in water, in radioactive metals, in oil, in coal, and also hydrogen.

There is no natural law that says that oil economy is the only economy. 150 years ago we all thought that coal economy was the only kind of energy economy. In fact we quite a few parallel energy economies today: nuclear, hydro, oil, coal, solar, gas, where probably nuclear energy economy is by far the most effective.

Anyways, oil wonâ€™t be around forever. I donâ€™t know and probably no one else knows, if it runs out in 10 or in 200 years from now, but it will dwindle down to nothing.

About storing hydrogen, yes it is small, but so is air, nitrogen is not that much bigger. It can be stored, and the Hindenburg is not a good example.
Take a look here (http://www.nickelinstitute.org/index.cfm/ci_id/10813.htm)

And there seem to be a few "oil" companies that knows that thier focus should be energy not oil (http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=us-en&FC2=&FC3=/us-en/html/iwgen/news_and_library/press_releases/2004/hydrogen_station_launch_111004.html)

Anders

5th July 2005, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by TjW I'm afraid I don't understand. If getting 100% utilization of the energy is not practical, how does throwing away 7/8ths of the energy by converting electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity somehow make it more practical?
(A combustion engine throw away 70% of the energy.)

Because it is very important to be able store energy. The grid can't hold energy. Electric energy is produced and used in the exact same instant. We can use my beautiful homeland, Sweden as an example: We have mild winters and mild summers. We use more electric energy then almost all other nations. Half of the electric energy is produces in nuclear power plants, 10 reactors all in all. The rest comes from hydropower. The nuclear power plants run all year and the supply of fuel rods is constant. But, the supply of water is not constant. So we have to store water in big fat reservoirs during spring, for use the next winter when energy consumption goes up. Same thing in the US, Hoover reservoir for instance. But peak is in the summer.

Hydrogen is possible to store. Batteries? Well, there are a few chemical obstacles before they have the same efficiency like for instance petrol.

TjW

5th July 2005, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Stitch
Sometimes I think sceptics take things way too seriously.

Once you have built your power plant, you need to fuel it. Harvesting solar or wind energy once you're set up is free (or close to it) compared to supplying coal to coal fired power station.

Aren't those energy guys silly? Spending all that money on coal, when the wind and the sun would deliver themselves for free.

Wind energy development was going gangbusters up in Banning pass until they took away the tax incentive. Stopped dead.. Now it's starting up again, and I suspectwind will evenutally carve out a respectable niche as supplementary power. I don't think it will ever carry the majority of the baseline load, because it's unpredictaable.

Solar 1, out in Daggett, ran for awhile, then morphed into Solar 2. It's shut down now. The grant to support it ran out, and it couldn't make money.

The Kremer Junction solar plant, out on Hwy 395, isn't shut down, but they're not expanding it, either. It generates 100 MW. The mirrors have to be washed every five to ten days to maintain a reasonable (70 percent) optical efficiency. To make the electricity it produces economically feasible requires substantial government subsidies and tax credits. It's "Alternative energy".

Now, you would think that these evil, greedy money-grubbing power producers would leap at the chance to exploit all that "free" energy. But for some reason they don't. It's odd. They have all the connections, (both political and physical, to the grid), and yet even with experience running such systems, they continue to stay away in droves. Perhaps they're really stupid. That must be it.

I think that in power generation, as in medicine, there's
the real thing, and then there's "alternative".
When something works, it's not alternative energy, it's just energy.
Wind power is starting to become just energy. I don't think it's there yet. It will be there when they are taxed instead of tax-credited, and people still put them up.

I don't think solar, particularly PV solar, is even close.

TjW

5th July 2005, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Anders
(A combustion engine throw away 70% of the energy.)

So do existing fuel cells. Neither fuel cells nor IC engines are near their theoretical peak efficiencies.

Because it is very important to be able store energy. The grid can't hold energy. Electric energy is produced and used in the exact same instant. We can use my beautiful homeland, Sweden as an example: We have mild winters and mild summers. We use more electric energy then almost all other nations. Half of the electric energy is produces in nuclear power plants, 10 reactors all in all. The rest comes from hydropower. The nuclear power plants run all year and the supply of fuel rods is constant. But, the supply of water is not constant. So we have to store water in big fat reservoirs during spring, for use the next winter when energy consumption goes up. Same thing in the US, Hoover reservoir for instance. But peak is in the summer.

Hydrogen is possible to store. Batteries? Well, there are a few chemical obstacles before they have the same efficiency like for instance petrol.

Pumped storage is far more efficient, far cheaper, and far safer than hydrogen.. With a 90 % conversion efficiency both ways , you can recover 80% of the energy. Compare this to hydrogen: 50% electricity to hydrogen, 70% after compression/ liquefaction (and since this is a fixed site app) I'll give you 60% or so hydrogen to electricity. .5x.7x.6 = .21 You get about one-fifth the energy out, compared to four fifths with pumped storage, the plant costs more, and the storage medium is far more dangerous.

I don't think the ways we use liquid hydrocarbons are particularly efficient, but they're safer and more convenient than hydrogen as a fuel

treble_head

5th July 2005, 05:30 PM

I have no knowledge as to how any of this works. I just thought you might find this interesting.

This spring, the company I work for, Hearth & Home Technologies revealed a new fireplace/sculpture called the Aqueon, which apparently uses electroalysis to produce flame. Not sure what they use to make the hydrogen flame visible, and I'm sure it's terribly inefficient, I just had thought it was a neat idea, and I happened upon this thread.

Bruce

5th July 2005, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Anders
If fuel cells are no more energy consuming to manufacture then for example combustion engines, then there is no difference. Or I am wrong here?

Technologically, no. Economically, yes indeed. Developing the technology in a lab is easy compared to getting it on the factory floor or implementing it in society. This biggest issue is, who is going to pay for it? The answer is, you are, either through taxes or through inflation. If the overall energy efficiency of your cars and power plants today is 7/8 of what it was yesterday, believe me, you are going to feel it.

Originally posted by Anders Yes, the efficiency is a problem, but the great thing is that an electric motor has an energy efficiency around 90% or more!

That depends on how much torque is placed on the motor. If you replace the motor in the car you havr right now with an electric motor, don't expect that type of efficiency. Don't expect to go very fast or make it up any steep inclines either.

Originally posted by Anders Yes, electricity is the best energy form there is, but the great problem is that we canâ€™t store it.

I don't understand what you mean. Batteries and capacitors store electrical energy. What about those?

Originally posted by Anders We store energy in water, in radioactive metals, in oil, in coal, and also hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the only thing that we store energy in because we have to manufacture it. We don't store the rest. It is already there, waiting to be used. The problem is with our ability to harness it.

Originally posted by Anders There is no natural law that says that oil economy is the only economy.

I agree that there is no natural law, but as far as we have been able to discover, it is the cheapest and most convenient. If we discover a way that is cheaper and better, wonderful, but discovery happens on its own time.

Originally posted by Anders nuclear, hydro, oil, coal, solar, gas, where probably nuclear energy economy is by far the most effective.
I agree with you on the nuclear, but what do we do with all that waste? Hydro is fine if you have a river nearby, but you need to build a dam, and any environmentalist will tell you that dams are terrible for river ecology. Solar is great too if you can collect enough energy from it, but as it stands we don't know how to collect enough to run our economy. Same goes for the other 'alternative' fuels.

Originally posted by Anders
Anyways, oil wonâ€™t be around forever. I donâ€™t know and probably no one else knows, if it runs out in 10 or in 200 years from now, but it will dwindle down to nothing.

We have much more than what you would think. New pockets are being discovered all the time. Still, I would rather see it be used to make the vast amount of wonderful products that are derived from it rather than torching it.

Originally posted by Anders About storing hydrogen, yes it is small, but so is air, nitrogen is not that much bigger.

You are very wrong there. It is very much smaller than all the other gases, and that's the root of many of the problems. It causes metals to become brittle because its small enough to creep into any metal lattice and weaken it. Look up Hydrogen Embrittlement.

It's also light enough to float directly into our upper atmosphere and into the ozone layer. Did you know that hydrogen destroys ozone? It combines with O3 to make water. Ozone all gone. It's not being made into a big issue now because everyone seems to want a hydrogen economy, but believe me, if we switch to a hydrogen economy, it will become a HUGE issue.

Bruce

5th July 2005, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by treble_head
I have no knowledge as to how any of this works. I just thought you might find this interesting.

This spring, the company I work for, Hearth & Home Technologies revealed a new fireplace/sculpture called the Aqueon, which apparently uses electroalysis to produce flame. Not sure what they use to make the hydrogen flame visible, and I'm sure it's terribly inefficient, I just had thought it was a neat idea, and I happened upon this thread.

That's interesting. I think it's interesting because hydrogen doesn't burn. It explodes. There is no flame unless a carbon source is introduced, but even then, it's a violent reaction and would probably look more like a cutting torch. If they are introducing a carbon source to make the flame, then they've totally killed the point of using electrolysis. :p

Any chance you could do some digging? I would like to know more, but I don't want you to get in trouble. :(

treble_head

5th July 2005, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Bruce
That's interesting. I think it's interesting because hydrogen doesn't burn. It explodes. There is no flame unless a carbon source is introduced, but even then, it's a violent reaction and would probably look more like a cutting torch. If they are introducing a carbon source to make the flame, then they've totally killed the point of using electrolysis. :p

Any chance you could do some digging? I would like to know more, but I don't want you to get in trouble. :(

http://www.wcnc.com/sharedcontent/features/housegarden2/061005cccahgdads.2fa91d3f2.html
under the heading Hydrogen Heat

http://www.hydrogennow.org/HNews/PressReleases/HearthNHome/AqueonFireplace.htm

I'll see what else I can find out from the company Intranet.

Rob Lister

5th July 2005, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by treble_head
http://www.wcnc.com/sharedcontent/features/housegarden2/061005cccahgdads.2fa91d3f2.html
under the heading Hydrogen Heat

http://www.hydrogennow.org/HNews/PressReleases/HearthNHome/AqueonFireplace.htm

I'll see what else I can find out from the company Intranet.

If you don't mind my saying so, the second link seems on the surface to be a dangerous idea. I can see, a little, how adding extra (created) o2 to the flame along with the already present room air might 'change the color of the flame' but at what expense? I can see how the two might be recombined directly to create an invisible flame that would in turn make some glow-nuggets look like glowing embers but I don't get the other part. What is the extra o2 combining with to make the flame burn in the visible spectrum? Something's fishy. Is there an extra add-on component not in the ad? I'm thinking it's an add-on component. Some type of other gas maybe that you can buy refills for.

I like their marketing, though. All hype, no examples, no pics. Very vague explaination. Any marketing that I like is usually the product I stay farthest away from. No offense to you.

Got a pic of the product in action?

Rob Lister

5th July 2005, 07:14 PM

.dup post

treble_head

5th July 2005, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
If you don't mind my saying so, the second link seems on the surface to be a dangerous idea. I can see, a little, how adding extra (created) o2 to the flame along with the already present room air might 'change the color of the flame' but at what expense? I can see how the two might be recombined directly to create an invisible flame that would in turn make some glow-nuggets look like glowing embers but I don't get the other part. What is the extra o2 combining with to make the flame burn in the visible spectrum?

I like their marketing. All hype, no examples, no pics. Very vague explaination. Any marketing that I like is usually the product I stay farthest away from.

Got a pic of the product in action?

Well, the picture on the first link, but from what my boss tells me, (he saw it at the HPA (Hearth Products Association show), the flame looks unlike the picture on the first link. He said it was a faint whitish green. Not very impressive as a flame, but it won the top award at the show.

(From the Heat n Glo Website)
Upon separation, the two elements channel individually and the Aqueon instantly ignites the hydrogen to create the flame. Tom Bachinski, Vice President, Research & Development/Engineering, Heat & Glo, elaborates: "By instantly igniting the hydrogen, the Aqueon ensures a real time combustion process that removes any chance of hydrogen fuel build-up. The Aqueon either introduces the oxygen as a secondary source to add flame color and brightness or simply releases it into the room."

Technically, I should be able to sell this thing, but it hasn't been officially released for sale yet. They're being specifically tight-lipped about it, as it is a new technology for the hearth industry, and they don't want others to copy it. (what I've heard anyway).

I do assure you of one thing, however. If it does get released, it will be safe. HHT is a group of safety nuts. It will most likely be ANSZi and UL approved. We have safety meetings at each location 4 times a year. Anyway, I'll see what else I can find out.

Rob Lister

5th July 2005, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by treble_head
Well, the picture on the first link, but from what my boss tells me, (he saw it at the HPA (Hearth Products Association show), the flame looks unlike the picture on the first link. He said it was a faint whitish green. Not very impressive as a flame, but it won the top award at the show.

Technically, I should be able to sell this thing, but it hasn't been officially released for sale yet. They're being specifically tight-lipped about it, as it is a new technology for the hearth industry, and they don't want others to copy it. (what I've heard anyway).

I do assure you of one thing, however. If it does get released, it will be safe. HHT is a group of safety nuts. It will most likely be ANSZi and UL approved. We have safety meetings at each location 4 times a year. Anyway, I'll see what else I can find out.

I'll take your word for it but when I click your first link I'm asked to fill out a form to register for something or other. There are no pictures on the page to speak of. Maybe you could post the picture yourself?

P.S. I don't think this is going to be a big seller but it might be if it can profit from the building hype of 'the hydrogen economy (that will never exist)'. That is what they appear to be focusing on.

NG is not only cheaper but it's just as safe (safer, I would think, because you can see the flame!). I have a closed NG fireplace in my house. No venting necessary. It makes a very pretty and very warm flame. It is a little loud however. The loudness has to do with the way the NG is channeled and burned so that it doesn't create any CO.

P.P.S. Are you the marketing behind this? If so, hat's off to you. It's not bad for not having a product to show or a technology you're willing to detail.

treble_head

5th July 2005, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Maybe you could post the picture yourself?

Done and done.

Originally posted by Rob Lister

P.S. I don't think this is going to be a big seller but it might be if it can profit from the building hype of 'the hydrogen economy (that will never exist)'.

Agreed. It's $35,000. I think they're going for the novelty effect.

I also agree about NG as a fuel source. Unfortunately there is a huge ammount of mystery surrounding NG ventless. (It makes your windows fog up, it smells bad, promotes mildew growth, uses all the oxygen in your house up, et al.) I am well familiar with ventless NG, (I sell a lot of units for basements), and I can tell you that from reading the reports, all of the misconseptions are untrue, however prevalent. It's an unfortunate situation.
Anyway, on to the pic!

Bruce

5th July 2005, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by treble_head

Technically, I should be able to sell this thing, but it hasn't been officially released for sale yet. They're being specifically tight-lipped about it, as it is a new technology for the hearth industry, and they don't want others to copy it. (what I've heard anyway).

Dude, seriously, my BS detector is deeply in the red zone right now. You are looking at fraud, my friend, plane and simple. This product does not work the way it's advertised. Hydrogen does not make a flame like the one that is pictured, and in now way can it make a "whitsh green flame". Keep you hands out of this one, and if you are in too deep, start covering your ass right now.

I can think of several ways to pull off this little trick. One would be that the vessel for the water sets off a pressure sensitive switch that turns the real technology hidden within the unit.

They don't specify wether or not the until requires electrical power or batteries, but if it doesn't, then there are batteries hidden within the unit. If it's putting out measurable heat, then those batteries won't last long.

If this weren't the company you work for, I would e-mail this site directly to Mr. Randi, or maybe create a new post to call more attention to it from the other scientists here. Again, I don't want to create trouble for you, so I'll leave that up to you.

Rob Lister

5th July 2005, 09:01 PM

Thank you for your response. It's really hard to judge from a photo without obvious scale but that one looks like a real loser. (just my opinion).

I see the tiny, tiny, 'flame' at the very base but I don't know what to make of it. It's orange in color. I'm not going to google search for what broadcasts that spectrum. Suffice it to say that it ain't hydrogen. I can't see any other part of the flame but . . . well, that's already been said in this thread; you wouldn't!

Good luck on that one. I recommend adding a ultra-thin strip of any of a number of metallic alloys. These can be wound up like a watch spring in varying lengths and feed automatically and very, very slowly into the flame to make it the flame glow any color the consumer desires.

Replacements being ubber-expensive, of course.

It's all about the marketing and this product needs marketing desperately.

Rob Lister

5th July 2005, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Bruce
Dude, seriously, my BS detector is deeply in the red zone right now.

Bruce, you and I are pretty much on the same page here. Notice the posting times of our two last posts.

See the orange-like colors at the very bottom of the [rest of the] flame [that you can't see see but assume is there]?

What do you want to bet that is the result of the heat burning the residual carbon left over from the manufactoring process of whatever it is they are using as a combustion chamber?

treble_head

5th July 2005, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Bruce
Keep you hands out of this one, and if you are in too deep, start covering your ass right now.

Fear not. I am merely a salesperson. HHT owns the stores.

Originally posted by Bruce
Keep you hands out of this one, and if you are in too deep, start covering your ass right now.

I can think of several ways to pull off this little trick. One would be that the vessel for the water sets off a pressure sensitive switch that turns the real technology hidden within the unit.

They don't specify wether or not the until requires electrical power or batteries, but if it doesn't, then there are batteries hidden within the unit. If it's putting out measurable heat, then those batteries won't last long.
I'm sure that it plugs in. As I said, this is a novelty item.
Originally posted by Bruce
If this weren't the company you work for, I would e-mail this site directly to Mr. Randi, or maybe create a new post to call more attention to it from the other scientists here. Again, I don't want to create trouble for you, so I'll leave that up to you.
I admit it seems like improbable techology, however HHT is not a fly-by-night wool-over-the-eyes kind of place. They are a division of HON industries, a multi billion dollar a year corporation. HHT trades on the NYSE. They own Heatilator, Heat & Glo, and Quadrafire, some of the biggest manufacturers of Woodburning Fireplaces, Direct Vent NG fireplaces and Wood Burning Stoves (respectively). They would have too much to lose by lying at the HPBA show. (the industry standard show for Fireplaces and furnishings).

But, as I have nothing to lose from it, and it sounds a bit fantastic to me as well, I'll post another thread to address the issue. I have pretty well no doubt that the product is genuine, if a bit mysterious.

Bruce

5th July 2005, 10:55 PM

It's hard to tell because of the tiny flame, I doubt that it's residual carbon from the manufacturing process. When I said source of carbon, I was thinking more along the lines of a gas that contains carbon, such as propane, butane, etc.

There are also halogen bulbs that can be engineered to look like flickering flames. http://www.christmastreehill.com/flicflamcanb.html

I don't know how they get the flickering effect, but you get different colors from halogen bulbs by using various elements for the filiment. Sodium is a bright orange color, often used in parking lot street lamps. Calcium is a very bright, but much deeper orange color. Those are often used in so-called "neon" lights. I don't believe they use neon anymore. Too tired to check sources on that one right now. If it is a flickering halogen bulb, then I'm betting it's either sodium or calcium.

If the floor model your boss saw was a whitish green, it may have been an iron filament. There are other elements that glow green, but I can't think of them right now.

rwguinn

6th July 2005, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Bruce
That's interesting. I think it's interesting because hydrogen doesn't burn. It explodes. There is no flame unless a carbon source is introduced, but even then, it's a violent reaction and would probably look more like a cutting torch. If they are introducing a carbon source to make the flame, then they've totally killed the point of using electrolysis. :p

Any chance you could do some digging? I would like to know more, but I don't want you to get in trouble. :(
huh?
I'm sorry, but what chemistry course did you take in Jr. High school?
We burned hydrogen in mine, after extracting it via some reaction (I think it was zinc and an acid)
Seems it burned with an extremely blue flame. As I recall, two of the young ladies failed to allow the reacton to develop for enough time to purge the flask, and blew their set-up into shards...

TjW

6th July 2005, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Bruce
It's hard to tell because of the tiny flame, I doubt that it's residual carbon from the manufacturing process. When I said source of carbon, I was thinking more along the lines of a gas that contains carbon, such as propane, butane, etc.

There are also halogen bulbs that can be engineered to look like flickering flames. http://www.christmastreehill.com/flicflamcanb.html

I don't know how they get the flickering effect, but you get different colors from halogen bulbs by using various elements for the filiment. Sodium is a bright orange color, often used in parking lot street lamps. Calcium is a very bright, but much deeper orange color. Those are often used in so-called "neon" lights. I don't believe they use neon anymore. Too tired to check sources on that one right now. If it is a flickering halogen bulb, then I'm betting it's either sodium or calcium.

If the floor model your boss saw was a whitish green, it may have been an iron filament. There are other elements that glow green, but I can't think of them right now.

Another thing to consider is that most of a hydrogen flame's emissivity is in the UV. So a material that fluoresces could be used.
I know when I used to blow up hydrogen balloons as a kid, they'd pop with an orangish flame. I always figured it was sodium impurities (I used lye and aluminum foil, and the gas had lots of moisture in it).
I hope that no one is stupid enough to put salt in the water -- it will evolve chlorine gas. In a not-so-well ventilated room this could be a Bad Thing (tm). I don't think there's enough chlorine or chloramine in treated water to be a problem. It might be that the colors of the flames depend on what trace minerals are in your water supply.
But, if it can be kept safe, it's probably not a bad heat source.
I'll bet they're using something like stainless steel for the electrodes, which gives an enormous inefficiency and only a little gas. The beautiful thing is, you don't care about the energy that goes up as heat. It's a heater. It probably boils the water and works as a humidifier, too. Burn off the hydrogen for a light show, and voila, a $35000 mass produced artwork that will also warm up your livingroom!