Hydrogen Energy and its impact on Oil Prices

[Bling_Bling]

DaimlerChrysler's first hydrogen-powered car using fuel cell technology will be on sale from 2012, a company executive said.

http://xtramsn.co.nz/business/0,,5009-4205153,00.html

I am certain that the Japs are not too far behind in their development. Where will the crude oil prices be after 2010 when they start to commercialise hydrogen cars? I will be the first to buy the hydrogen cars when they start selling them at a realistic price.

Hydrogen will not only drive our vehicles, but also other large machinery in the future.

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=11433&hed=Hydrogen+cars+approaching&sector=Profiles&subsector=Companies
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1016_TVhypercar.html

We are heading towards a new revolution called the hydrogen revolution. In the past we had the machanical and technology revolution and now comes the hydrogen revolution.

Bling_Bling Where will they get all the water to make all this hydrogen from. Maybe water will be $100 per barrel or more.

[Bling_Bling]

I am no scientist, but I dont think it is made from water. My understanding is that the emmission is zero and comes out as water. The hydrogen will probable made from gas or electric power.

[rmbbrave]

I think hydrogen (and oxygen) is usually made by passing electricity through water.

[duncan macgregor]

BLING BLING, You seem to misunderstand the problem with hydrogen cars. The problem is the cost to produce the hydrogen in the first place. The ammount of energy required to the ammount returned. Stationary power will be electricity, motive power must end up after the oil runs out with hydrogen. The question then is [how much hydrogen does it take to create more hydrogen]. I dont think BLING BLING that you will be to impressed with the cost of running your first hygrogen car. Oil pumped out the ground will always be the cheap option, after that you will pay the real cost of power. The ammount of explosive power in a gallon of water is greater than the explosive power in a gallon of oil. The way i see it working out in the end is hydro, wind ,solar and that dreaded neclear power stations that run hydrogen production units for transport and large motive units. The only thing oil companies have to fear is not having oil. macdunk

[duncan macgregor]

ENIGMA, The world is two thirds water. macdunk
PS loose mathematics apply

[ananda77]

Hydrogen powered transport options/machinery/manufacturing eases the problem of dangerous emissions collecting around heavily populated areas because of zero emissions (apart from water).

However, since hydrogen, at this stage, will be mainly produced using conventional fueltypes (natueral gas, oil, coal, nuclear)...and the input of those conventional fueltypes is very high, more dangerous emissions will be produced.
Ergo, while we have less emissions directly collecting in densely populated areas, more emissions will be produced in less populated areas.

Secondly, as Duncan already mentioned, the production of hydrogen fuel to power today's vehicles for example requires the input of even more conventional fuel.

Hydrogen Power - GREAT - but this alternative will only be a win-win if we use alternative sources of energy in the primary production process.

Duncan but if you have to use energy to treat the water first you are back to square one.Check the price of water against the price of oil in the Gulf states. Scientists state that a shortage of drinkable water is not to far away with present usage. Now if you use it for fuel it is going to get short very quickly.

[duncan macgregor]

enigma, one little river anywhere has enough water to provede all the water required macdunk

[Paper Tiger]

Enigma: Water as a fuel is a renewable resource. But there are serious problems that are being ignored.
First you catch some rain water, then you get a factory of underpaid chinese to strip it of its hydrogen atoms, bottle them and sell them. (Probably undercutting western made hydrogen and ripping off all the designer hydrogen labels). You also bottle the oxygen.
Next step you burn the hydrogen which uses up the local oxygen supply but gives you steam which cools down making clouds and then rain.

So hydrogen using nations will have to buy that and extra oxygen from the producers but can sell rain back to the manufacturers for recycling. Consuming nations live under a permanent cloud and can never get their washing dry.

What NZ should be doing is using natural methane from our dairy herds: NZ can produce of 7.5Tcf (Tera = a big number, cf = cow fart) per annum.

Friday, at last it's Friday :)

[Nevl]

They will probally not actually explode the hydrogen to get the power but run the Hydrogen though fuel cells to get the electricity and then use that to run the cars. As to electralysing H2O to get the hYdrogen this can be done quite easily by alternative energy. Wind power with all the electricity going go produce Hydrogen will work as will solar cells. You can store hydrogen which is perfect. If it is windy at night the hydrogen can be produced and stored till needed. How about a river with a turbine placed in the river producing a low current but enough to seperate the atoms 24/7 and just storing it. Each town with a river can produce enough H. See the East River in New York. You no longer need huge dams to produce Hydro power but the latest turbines can float on the river or be embedded in the river and always keep turning. Same as tidal power. The Technology is so close. NZ with Tides, Wind and water is a perfect place to produce H cheaply. We could become a major energy producer. The same tecnology that they use to produce wind power can be modified to suit water. Water has 1000 times the force of air at the same velocity

[PGL]

This technology has been in development for the past 30 years and is only now getting to the point of being technically feasible.

Economic feasibility is another matter altogether and is still a long way off. Oil at $US50 is way below what will be required to kick-start any serious introduction of Hydrogen powered cars.

The fundamental problem has nothing to do with the availabilty of water and much more to do with the fact that to extract Hydrogen from water requires quite a bit more energy than will eventually be released when the hydrogen is converted back to water in the engine (this is one of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics - often paraphrased as "there's no such thing as a free lunch")

NZ is, even now, having problems producing enough power to keep the lights on, imagine how much more difficult it would be to produce twice or three times the power to electrolyse water for transport fuel.


Then remember that hydrogen is a gas so transport becomes a huge issue, energy content per unit volume is way lower than say petrol even when the Hydrogen is highly compressed.

Hydrogen is a very light gas and can be liquefied, but only at very low temperatures and high pressures (much more difficult and expensive than LPG or LNG) so will never be a practical proposition for export or import.

Oh - and then all the cars and petrol stations need to be replaced.

Absolutely no doubt that this, or another superior technology will replace hydrocarbons - but not in our lifetimes, or those of our children, but it is good to know that the fundamental science is being done now.

[Major von Tempsky]

Some good points PGL.
But I take it you are predicting that you won't live past 2012 then? Or you didn't read the opening post.....
I prefer MacDunk's view that we use solar, wind and surplus hydro (during the wrong part of a wet year when there's an embarassing surplus of hydro) to make hydrogen as a transport fuel.
Making hydrogen from natural gas or petrol always seems like a copout to me, orchestrated by the large oil companies.
It's amazing what can be done when the pressure is on, such as high oil prices and a shortage of oil. Why, even further back in PGL's life they were making large scale petrol from coal in Germany and then more recently ditto in apartheid South Africa.
And we have the long range statement that at $5 a gallon for petrol it is then economic to make petrol from ethanol from pine trees (at last some demand for pine trees!), sugar beet, etc etc.
One can't help suspecting a certain amount of footdragging by large oil companies and car manufacturing companies who prefer a quiet life and the status quo.
"Guinea pigs love peace" and I don't mean the experimental ones, I mean guinea pigs as moronic non aggressive vegetarian fairly brainless animals.

[PGL]

MVT

I did notice the 2012 date.

You can bet that these cars will be hugely more expensive than a standard car and will have evry limited range (since very few fuelling stations will exist and where they do exist, the fuel will be VERY expensive)

The only way the technology will become viable for large scale use is if governments (or manufacturers) subsidise the infrastructure development for a considerable time. In NZ, this will not happen until some time after the government is forced to do it by economics (just look at our approach to the existing roading infrastructure ie way too little way too late)

My other point was the nature of the fuel. Being a gas, storage and transport is very difficult - it is simply not feasible, and never will be, to produce fuel in the winter and store for the summer. It is far more likely that hydrogen production will take place at the point of sale ie the filling station, this means that the necessary electricity generation (and accompanying transmission infrastructure) will need to be built.

[duncan macgregor]

PGL, YOU have it all wrong. A hydrogen car will not cost more than a normal run of the mill car. We can have hydrogen production plants scattered all over the country, close to power supply soarces, limiting power loss in lines. The problem is production cost and the ammount of power required to produce this clean and green gas. The oil companies and big business dont want this to happen,so dont hold your breath. To fill your tank will only require you to change the bottle transporting bottles in containers to the refuel depo is easy.
It will be very simple, no great gas tankers on the road only a container with all the refills to dump at the service centre and take the container with the empties back. This will happen like it or not, but only when the oil starts to run out. macdunk

[PGL]

Duncan,

Hydrogen when compressed to 800 atmospheres which is a very high pressure still occupies 3 times as much volume for a given energy content as petrol. Fo road transport, 200 atmospheres is the practical limit, hence the volume to be transported is 12 times as great as for liquid fuel and we haven't even started to talk about the size and weight of the tank required. Basically a 40 ton truck required to move 400kg of Hydrogen.

"A 40 ton truck can deliver 25 tonnes of petrol to a conventional petrol station. One daily delivery is sufficient for busy station. A 40 tonne truck carrying compressed hydrogen can deliver only 400 kilograms (and a container load of separate tanks is completely out of the question). That is because of the weight of the tank capable of holding 200 atmospheres of pressure. An empty truck will weigh almost as much as a full one. The compressed hydrogen tank must be robust. The energy used to compress the hydrogen to 200 atmospheres would be released instantly if a tank ruptured. The fireball would cover a football field. Hydrogen is more energy dense than gasoline (by weight) and hydrogen powered transportation is more energy efficient. Yet the hydrogen filling station will require 15 deliveries every day, everything else being equal. The energy cost of truck transport becomes unacceptable unless the source of hydrogen is very close to the point of use. A cryogenic truck could carry more hydrogen but the energy cost to liquefy hydrogen makes this infeasible in most cases.

Hydrogen can be transported by pipeline. According to B&E, it take about 4 times more energy to move hydrogen through a pipeline compared to natural gas."

[PGL]

Also the 'cheap' electricity argument could use a little examination

One litre of petrol has an energy content of approximately 40MJ - to replace this energy content by splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen will require 40MJ of electricity plus conversion losses of around 50% - say 60MJ - or approximately 18Kwh of electricity (Conversion losses also include around 20% lost in the compression process)

The petrol currently costs around NZ50c (taking taxes out of the equation) The equivalent wholesale cost of 18Kwh of electricity is considerably higher than this.

[waaihoek]

PGL,

agree with your points .....

we may eventually end up with a hydrogen fueled economy, but it will be alot more expensive than the current cost of our energy based on our still very cheap oil and gas.

I see a slow staged transfer to the H economy, with extensive LPG use plus liquids from oil shales and tar sands coming into the equation before a full H economy. May take the next 75 - 150 years. By then electrolysing water using nuclear power could be widespread round the world (may even happen in NZ (??)). But agree H fuels much more difficult to handle, store and transport ..... nothing can match the ease of use and sheer energy density per kg weight of our present liquid fuels (petrol, diesel, aviation kerosene etc).

As I understand it the days of cheap "easily produced and pumped" liquid fuels are drawing to a close ..... to be replaced by more expensive liquid fuels from difficult to produce and refine ultra heavy crudes, tar sands and oil shales.

But whats important in my mind is that as of now the supply - demand equation looks like oil prices are going to be underpinned by rising world demand exceeding the rate at which new easily pumpable (and therefore relatively cheap) oil can be found, developed and delevired.

Hence from now on I see oil prices likely staying above US$ 35-40 / barrel (and perhaps above US$ 50 / barrel). I think the OPEC countries will also want to "manage" oil prices to keep them at these higher levels for their own benefit etc.

At these higher prices local and international oil companies are set to make good profits and hence IMHO the liquid fuels industries are great investments over both the near and longer term.

W

[craic]

Forget about alternative fuels. For over a year now Uncle George has been signalling his intent to dig up Alaska and now he has sent the lads out there with the drills. There is a lot of oil to be recovered in the Arctic.

[Winston001]

Good old Uncle George. Knew we could rely on him.

H2O. Water. Run electricity through it, and Hydrogen and Oxygen are produced. Easy. You could do it at home and probably did at high school. But you have to put energy in first so there is a cost. And if oil, coal or natural gas are burnt to make the initial electricity, then it is an expensive way of obtaining energy.

I've got to agree with PGL - there are some major barriers.

Hydrogen. An extremely light gas and bloody dangerous. Remember the Hindenburg? So it needs handling with care. But CNG, LPG etc are dangerous too and we manage, so technologically its a possibility.

Containment and distribution means infrastructure. More cost and energy used up.

Fuel cells - these recombine H and O back to water. These two atoms get rather excited when they meet, so they are introduced gradually in a fuel cell. Through an osmosis process. Electricity is generated so we can think of this technology as being a continuous battery. To move a car this is estimated to be about 28-32% energy efficent. Petrol is 20% efficent.

In fact, methanol is a better choice than H.

The better, but more challenging method is using H for internal combustion. BMW have a working engine. Instead of burning petrol, H and O are let into the combustion chamber for a spectacular bang. If the electricity to make the H comes from hydro or wind etc then the total efficency for moving the car rises to 60%.

[Bling_Bling]

The major barriers to storage and the cost of producing Hydrogen will be overcome with hude investments in R&D currently being implemented today. I personally know a few friends who are PHD engineers in Australia currently doing research on Hydrogen production. The Aust government and the large corporations are pouring billions of dollars into Hydrogen research. Hold on tight guys, the Hydrogen revolution is coming. You are either with it and go for a ride or get left behind.

Now, time for Bling Bling to put his money where his mouth is and invest some dosh that has the word "H" in it.

[PGL]

BB & W

I agree that liquid fuels will be replaced by Hydrogen technologies (or some other technology) at some stage, my earlier point was just that Daimler-Benz releasing a fuel cell powered hydrogen car in 2012 will be only a very small step in a long, expensive and technically difficult process - and Duncan, I confidently predict that the oil companies will have their paws all over every aspect of it.

I imagine that the technologies which are finally adopted will be a long way from what we can currently predict by the process of extrapolating existing methods.

The best current candidate for the storage and transport solution is to dissolve the hydrogen in another (as yet undeveloped) material so that the hydrogen can be stored at high density without being compressed (Analogous to say dissolving salt in water) So that the hydrogen can be carried in (and retrieved from) the empty spaces between the atoms/molecules of the carrier compound.

Yet to be developed technology may allow high strenth but lightweight carbon nanotube materials to be used for construction of lightweight storage tanks for pressurised hydrogen.

Then there is the ever-elusive low cost hydrogen fusion reactor which could change the economics of power production quite radically.

What about benchtop cold fusion, discredited some years ago but now enjoying something of a resurgence.

Then once we get the technology sorted we can start to deal with the NIMBY problem.

Anyway, not in my lifetime (and I am a child of the sixties)

[Winston001]

Bling - no doubt technology can deal with storage and distribution. But to get two H atoms, you've got to firstly introduce two electrons, to persuade the O to let go - assuming we're splitting water. And the best source of unemployed electrons is electricity.

The conundrum of hydrogen power is that you have to put energy into it to get H, just so you can later get the energy back to turn the wheels of a motor. Why not provide the energy once?

Which leads us to Coopers point about fusion reactor motors. Sci-fi at the moment but CERN are working on it. A relatively safe nuclear option.

Actually the best option will be anti-matter reactors. Not as far-fetched as it might sound. But again, it takes a lot of energy to produce anti-matter at present, so science has a bit to work on.

[craic]

I believe NZR already maufacture water - something to do with the soft drink industry - is this a precursor to hydrogen production? chemistry was never my thing but paranoia - now that's different.

[Macrob]

The answer to this problem (and not only) is solar cell. Average power cell produce 100W from 1sqm. If you cover roof of your home with solar cell (or rather roof is made of solar cells) every house may produce 10-30kW of electricity. That is more then you need for home appliances and to recharge your electric car. You can make even profit selling electricity to grid. And the best of all is that there is no reason that prices of solar cells not to drop to $10 /sqm since is made of the most available product - sand (silicon). All we need is mass production. The worry is that Arab coutry have most of the oil, most of the sand too.

[Winston001]

Good thinking Macrob. However science has a little way to go before your proposal is economic.

Silicon is actually a poor converter of light to electricity. Better photovoltaic cells use alloys of aluminium, nitrogen, gallium etc. Even so, they only have a best efficency of 25%.

Nevertheless as the price of energy rises, the cost of research and development becomes viable, and I'm sure we will see new photovoltaic cells with perhaps 50% efficency soon.

There is an environmental issue too. Do we really want entire cities, let alone iconic landscapes like Queenstown, to become square-kilometer mirrors? Personally I say a resounding no. I'm sure pilots will agree.

There will be a solution. Probably the cells can be made non-reflective - ultimately they are supposed to absorb energy, not reflect it.

In the near future there should be a good market for solar electricity but mostly for domestic use. Industry needs too much for solar to supply. Any company which provides an economic package for dwellings should be a good investment.

[Bling_Bling]

What is the average cost to install a solar unit to a three bedroom home to supply enough power to run a household?

[Paper Tiger]

Being branded a looney greeny by your neighbours [?]

[Placebo]

Placebo was reading his Waste Management Annual Report last night tucked up with his Milo ;), in there was a reference to WAM's trucks running off stuff called biodiesel. This is diesel made from organic waste and is an alternative to mineral oil (the stuff pulled out of the ground).

So it seems that other technologies will be developed to keep the dear old infernal combustion engine around for a while yet :D

[PGL]

Agree with Winston001

While solar power does seem a good option - the economics are a long way from making the technology viable just yet - it will come in time though.

Also don't forget that the systems will need storage capacity - (batteries or some such) for when the sun don't shine and a means of converting from the DC produced by the solar cells to AC used by many appliances - this will add a significant cost to a home installation.

Another factor to consider is that if only a small area of a solar panel array is in shadow (Say from birdsh**, or fallen leaves) then the whole array becomes inoperative.

[OutToLunch]

quote:Originally posted by Winston001


In the near future there should be a good market for solar electricity but mostly for domestic use. Industry needs too much for solar to supply. Any company which provides an economic package for dwellings should be a good investment.


I saw one such co. mentioned with respect to the Aussie market a while ago. Something to do with solar hot water heating kits for domestic households. Can't remember the name of it though, Sol-something-or-other. Solco maybe? Anyone looked at this one?

Edit: Found it. Solco (ASX code: SOO). Don't know much about it, but they look interesting and are keen to expand. Haven't checked out the financials so can't say what shape they're in.

[PGL]

Solar hot water systems don't normally use photovoltaic cells at all -no electricity involved. They are normally just black plastic heat collection systems with water inside them - quite a different beast.

[Bling_Bling]

quote:Originally posted by Paper Tiger

Being branded a looney greeny by your neighbours [?]


Who cares what my neighbour thinks. If I did care, I would be driving a ferrari instead of my 7 year old Swedish car. He can learn a thing or too.Wouldnt mind putting in a unit for the fun of it. Plenty of sun where we live.

[OutToLunch]

quote:Originally posted by PGL

Solar hot water systems don't normally use photovoltaic cells at all -no electricity involved. They are normally just black plastic heat collection systems with water inside them - quite a different beast.


Could be right there PGL, I see no mention of solar 'power' with respect to hot water in their latest update. However they also have their fingers into solar pumps and solar power (via an acquisition) so there's a bit more to them than just hot water. I don't have any shares in this one, was just curious.

Hydrogen, wind, whatever... as oil goes up in price/diminishes in supply, alternatives are going to become much more attractive. Would be interesting to see what 'ground floor' opportunities come up in the medium term.

[Winston001]

quote:Originally posted by PGL

Solar hot water systems don't normally use photovoltaic cells at all -no electricity involved. They are normally just black plastic heat collection systems with water inside them - quite a different beast.


Agreed. Solar hot water is simply a black container with cold water in one end, and warm water out the other. Basically 20-50m of small irrigation pipe would do the job.

Of course this is a great idea - very simple. You can literally turn your superheater off in parts of NZ in summer.

Solar electricity is a much more complex and useful creature. Not only can you heat water but also run your TV, fridge etc. I have a couple of mates with one system each. I'll check what they have to say.

[Winston001]

quote:Originally posted by Placebo

Placebo was reading his Waste Management Annual Report last night tucked up with his Milo ;), in there was a reference to WAM's trucks running off stuff called biodiesel. This is diesel made from organic waste and is an alternative to mineral oil (the stuff pulled out of the ground).

So it seems that other technologies will be developed to keep the dear old infernal combustion engine around for a while yet :D


A very salient point Placebo. Hydrogen technology is exciting but we can overlook the fact that there are billions of internal combustion engines already on the planet. They aren't going to be replaced overnight, if ever.

In the American Midwest, "gasohol" has been for sale at pumps for 25 years. It is a mixture of gasoline, and ethyl alcohol which is made from fermented corn usually. Sugar beet would do. Thailand is making the use of gasohol compulsory.

There is plenty of room to develop cultivated (renewable) sources of hydrocarbons to continue burning as fuel.

[Nevl]

Just chatted to a Danish friend who is a chemical engineer studing the combustion of solid bio fuels. That is waste agricultral products like straw and the chaff from wheat. She says the Technolgy for her type of Bio fuels and also Ethanhol is very close and economical now. It is just getting the scale and distribution. ie as soon as oil goes too high we can be growing our own deisel and oil. Good for NZ as we can grow lots of stuff. Also we forget about companies such as whisper gen and WDT who are always inventing more economical ways of using fuel. Also as to the solar heating. I think it is about $3000 for a solar heating system. This can be paid off in 4 years in power savings. The line rental is the killer.

[Elwood]

If you want to have a look at what can be achieved with Bio Diesel go to www.earthrace.net. This is a New Zealand based organisation that is trying to do something on the world stage. They are still short on some funding so anyone interested I am sure that they would be grateful of some contact.
Discl. Pete is my brother-in-law.

[Placebo]

I appear to have overstated WAM's commitment to this:


quote:We are currently investigating the potential costs and
benefits of biodiesel as a fuel for running some of our
fleet. Biodiesel is made of waste animal or vegetable
products and not from mineral oil. This means that
waste materials are being re-used and that our mineral
oil requirement is reduced. In addition, the quality of the
exhaust emissions is much improved, with reduced GHG
and a significant reduction in particulate emissions.
While Australia has financial incentives that make
biodiesel use viable, the current lack of financial support
in New Zealand makes it economically difficult to justify.

Yes we do like internal combustion. Speaking as a petrolhead, I do find it more attractive to have race cars that make big noises and look like "real" cars than silent electric ones that look like giant cockroaches. [8D]

But that's just me [^]

[Macrob]

Since you like old noisy card there is possibility to attach to new generation silent electric cars big speakers to emulate engine noise, even add fog generators to emit fumes. Don't you think you may look a little bit silly anyway, Placebo? For me car is just a mean of transportation, nothing more, to take you from place A to B. Similar to shares- to invest and make profit not to fall in love with.