Scientists Are Now Transforming Saltwater Into Hydrogen Fuel

[atpollard]

You stop in to a Supercharge station for 15 minutes and get a cold drink.

We had a "lunch and learn" on electric charging stations [I design Auto Dealerships]. The current bottleneck is a "VHS vs beta-max" problem ... there are 3 different "standards" for charging electric vehicles. This means a charging station needs adapters for at least 2 "other" standard plugs. The bulk of the support industry is waiting for the market to shake out a winner so everyone can settle on one standard.

As soon as a single "standard" for charging stations is available, there are investors ready to install charging stations at most locations that people frequent for any period of time ...

• mall parking lots
• restaurants
• Walmart
• food stores

The stores will have the option to purchase (or lease) the systems themselves and collect the fees from charging as an additional revenue source. If the store is not interested in managing the system, then the private investors will install the systems for free as a service for their Electric Vehicle customers and collect the revenue themselves. As I said, the only think holding it back from a large scale roll out is the need for 1 standard.

Close to 100% of all new Auto Dealerships that we are designing are installing electric charging stations for the free use of their customers (as a draw). Those that are not installing the stations, have installed the electric service capacity and conduit to allow them to be added later.

For what it might be worth, the automakers really are serious about electric cars and have already started building infrastructure for them.

Tesla unveiled plans to build "off the grid" charging stations at a cost of $0.07 per kWh and the math works out using their recycled batteries and solar panels in southern states [according to Selenian Boondocks].

 

[whartung]

We had a "lunch and learn" on electric charging stations [I design Auto Dealerships]. The current bottleneck is a "VHS vs beta-max" problem ... there are 3 different "standards" for charging electric vehicles. This means a charging station needs adapters for at least 2 "other" standard plugs. The bulk of the support industry is waiting for the market to shake out a winner so everyone can settle on one standard.

In the interim, the drivers can carry the adapters with them in their cars.

Look at the hoops Mac and iPhone users jump through.

 

[wellis]

I'm told the primary difference between electrical and hydrogen based propulsion is infrastructure, as you still have to send a tanker to gas stations.

It's said the Japanese missed the boat on pure electric propulsion; on the other hand, they're also very urbanized and increasingly concentrating their population there.

Is there an advantage or disadvantage to electric vs hydrogen regarding how densely populated cities are?

Also how come the Japanese missed the boat on electric propulsion?

 

[atpollard]

Is there an advantage or disadvantage to electric vs hydrogen regarding how densely populated cities are?

Also how come the Japanese missed the boat on electric propulsion?

One obvious factor is that electricity is already in rural locations ...

... so density means one Hydrogen Fueling station will serve more cars (which is good) and more cars need to share one electric charging station (which is bad).

From an ‘environmental’ standpoint, it is all a hoax. The cheapest way to make electricity is to burn oil or coal. The cheapest way to make hydrogen gas is from natural gas. So while either technology COULD reduce carbon, neither WILL in the near term. [Do you see environmentalists calling for more nuclear power plants?]

 

[Bromo33333]

Is there an advantage or disadvantage to electric vs hydrogen regarding how densely populated cities are?

Also how come the Japanese missed the boat on electric propulsion?

I don't think they have. It is such early days in the re-introduction(*) of EV's as an alternative to ICE tech, that the modified adage is:

"The Early Birds gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese"

Right now the "EV Industry" in the developed world is basically Tesla. There are lots of people trying to catch up. And, not for nothing, Tesla is having such trouble scaling, it will likely end up being bought by a large car company at some point.



(*) - Google "Detroit Electric" and "EV History" to see that around 1900 EV's were the dominant form of personal 'horseless carriages' -- good read!

 

[Bromo33333]

From an ‘environmental’ standpoint, it is all a hoax. The cheapest way to make electricity is to burn oil or coal. The cheapest way to make hydrogen gas is from natural gas. So while either technology COULD reduce carbon, neither WILL in the near term. [Do you see environmentalists calling for more nuclear power plants?]

There are a couple of competing things in your comments, I want to pull out:

1. What is cheaper to generate electricity with (not coal and oil these days, natural gas can be cheap, but in the US wind and solar have dropped in price so much they are replacing all the generation capability they can. Nuclear has never been cheap, but even then, the movement from the uranium-plutonium cycle to the Thorium cycle (inherently safer, less toxic waste, but you don't get enriched plutonium to make bombs with) promises to make a better source of electricty that should be a little cheaper.

2. Impact on greenhouse gasses: Coal and Oil produce more greenhouse gasses than natural gas (10-20% more) - the US carbon footprint and meeting the abandoned Kyoto accords is on track simply by switching over to LNG which has been happening with market forces.

For the ultimate impact of an EV, as you pointed out, you must consider the greenhouse gas generated by the plant, and the hit to efficiency because of transmission losses. I still think EV's have an edge due to their inherent efficiency compared to ICE's. And of course varies regionally by a lot. Note this is English miles per US Gallons (3.8L)

This is an interesting link to people that did this calculation and calculated what kind of MPG you would need to "equal" an EV - take efficiencies and pollution of the electric generation into account: LINK.

Here is the chart if you don't want to read a long dry article:

Note Upstate NY is the region I am most familiar with, most of it's electricity comes from a combination of nuclear power, wind and hydro power (Niagara falls!) and some natural gas. No significant coal or oil at this point.

California has natural gas, and a ton of solar and wind. I think a couple of nuclear plants, too.

But there is nowhere in the US, with the "typical" miles per gallon of about 25-27mpg for ICE would be better for greenhouse gas emissions than an EV. There are some small cars, with small engines that can equal the mileages in the states that generate electricity with the dirties fuels (coal, oil) and not much in renewables, but if market forces continue to shift electric production to cleaner sources, that will be changing. Article is about how the shift is happening and in one year there were big shifts already.

 

[BRJN]

The most important barrier to adopting a new technology is price at the consumer's point of sale. Tesla knew going in that their original production model was a 'rich man's toy', and the $30,000 Model S was for the well-off (hence some of their problems with scaling up). People who scramble paycheck-to-paycheck will not be buying an EV until the cars hit the Used market, and chargers are already installed all over.

 

[Bromo33333]

The most important barrier to adopting a new technology is price at the consumer's point of sale. Tesla knew going in that their original production model was a 'rich man's toy', and the $30,000 Model S was for the well-off (hence some of their problems with scaling up). People who scramble paycheck-to-paycheck will not be buying an EV until the cars hit the Used market, and chargers are already installed all over.

According to Cleantechnica, the price of a new car will be cheaper for an EV than an ICE mobile in about 5 years or so (certainly not Tesla).

And right now, a Nissan Leaf is cheaper than a comparably used ICE car, too. I think it is primarily range anxiety at this point is keeping the less well heeled from taking the plunge.

 

[BRJN]

I think it is primarily range anxiety at this point is keeping the less well heeled from taking the plunge.

Climate anxiety, too, of a different kind: will Old Man Winter wipe out my battery and make me buy a replacement?

 

[BlackBat242]

There are a couple of competing things in your comments, I want to pull out:

1. What is cheaper to generate electricity with (not coal and oil these days, natural gas can be cheap, but in the US wind and solar have dropped in price so much they are replacing all the generation capability they can. Nuclear has never been cheap, but even then, the movement from the uranium-plutonium cycle to the Thorium cycle (inherently safer, less toxic waste, but you don't get enriched plutonium to make bombs with) promises to make a better source of electricty that should be a little cheaper.

2. Impact on greenhouse gasses: Coal and Oil produce more greenhouse gasses than natural gas (10-20% more) - the US carbon footprint and meeting the abandoned Kyoto accords is on track simply by switching over to LNG which has been happening with market forces.

For the ultimate impact of an EV, as you pointed out, you must consider the greenhouse gas generated by the plant, and the hit to efficiency because of transmission losses. I still think EV's have an edge due to their inherent efficiency compared to ICE's. And of course varies regionally by a lot. Note this is English miles per US Gallons (3.8L)

You forget the environmental impact of mining the materials needed to manufacture solar panels, wiring, inverters, etc - the rare and toxic metals (and other materials) cause their own pollution, in mining, refining, manufacturing, and disposal when "worn out" (solar panels lose ~ 1% of efficiency every year, ~30 years is about the point where they lose enough to require replacement to maintain output of the installation.

Then there is the environmental impact of transporting the raw materials to a refinery, that of refining them, then of manufacturing the components/end items.

ALL of that is usually deliberately left out of the claims and lectures in support of solar etc as "clean" energy.

I work in the industry (installing solar systems), and see the"hazardous material, dispose of properly" aspect regularly.

 

[Condottiere]

First stage is to kickstart off the industry, even if you do have to compromise with government subsidies and non kosher sources of electrical generation.

The economic case will vary, since you probably will get far more bang for your buck within densely populated urban agglomerations.

The Holy Grail is fusion, and then it just becomes an issue of electrical distribution and efficient batteries.

 

[wellis]

As of right now, what would you say increased production or quantities of cheaper hydrogen fuel would be useful for currently?

 

[BlackBat242]

Powering relatively clean gas turbine electric plants, to replace coal-fired ones.

 

[BRJN]

As of right now, what would you say increased production or quantities of cheaper hydrogen fuel would be useful for currently?

Running the demo to prove that hydrogen fuel is not Hindenberg Mk II, and the various experiments to figure out how to make it safe for casual widespread usage.

On the potential downside ... ethanol was "just five years away from being ready" for about 25 years, and only became ready when gasoline hit $5.00 per gallon. Hydrogen fuel enthusiasts want to avoid repeating that model.

 

[wellis]

Speaking of fuel cells, is this possibly be useful as well regarding them and hydrogen?:
https://m.phys.org/news/2019-09-platinum-graphene-fuel-cell-catalysts-superior.html

Films of platinum only two atoms thick supported by graphene could enable fuel cell catalysts with unprecedented catalytic activity and longevity, according to a study published recently by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Platinum is one of the most commonly used catalysts for fuel cells because of how effectively it enables the oxidation reduction reaction at the center of the technology. But its high cost has spurred research efforts to find ways to use smaller amounts of it while maintaining the same catalytic activity.

"There's always going to be an initial cost for producing a fuel cell with platinum catalysts, and it's important to keep that cost as low as possible," said Faisal Alamgir, an associate professor in Georgia Tech's School of Materials Science and Engineering. "But the real cost of a fuel cell system is calculated by how long that system lasts, and this is a question of durability.

"Recently there's been a push to use catalytic systems without platinum, but the problem is that there hasn't been a system proposed so far that simultaneously matches the catalytic activity and the durability of platinum," Alamgir said.

The Georgia Tech researchers tried a different strategy. In the study, which was published on September 18 in the journal Advanced Functional Materials and supported by the National Science Foundation, they describe creating several systems that used atomically-thin films of platinum supported by a layer of graphene—effectively maximizing the total surface area of the platinum available for catalytic reactions and using a much smaller amount of the precious metal.

 

[Condottiere]

Humans never seem very rational with the optimum use of available resources without external pressure, whether extreme environmental conditions or government regulations.

Independent sources of power generation and/or storage in rural areas is probably more economically viable.

 

[whartung]

Humans never seem very rational with the optimum use of available resources without external pressure, whether extreme environmental conditions or government regulations.

Because humans are naturally lazy and habit based.

Also, efficiencies also tend to be economically expensive (i.e. replacing your car).

I can't really influence where my electrical power comes from, beyond dropping thousands and thousands of dollars on personal infrastructure that needs continuing maintenance and support (however little that may be depending on what you build). So, I rely on the Power Company and the high order pressures they face to make better decisions over time.

Similarly, I've routinely, sorted my trash in the Green/Blue/Black cans. It's really no big deal. But the recycling programs are taking terrible hits with the lack of destinations to ship the raw materials. So, even if folks want to "do the right thing", they may not be able to if their community shuts down their local programs. We're back to Boy Scout Paper Drives.

 

[wellis]

Because humans are naturally lazy and habit based.

Also, efficiencies also tend to be economically expensive (i.e. replacing your car).

I can't really influence where my electrical power comes from, beyond dropping thousands and thousands of dollars on personal infrastructure that needs continuing maintenance and support (however little that may be depending on what you build). So, I rely on the Power Company and the high order pressures they face to make better decisions over time.

Similarly, I've routinely, sorted my trash in the Green/Blue/Black cans. It's really no big deal. But the recycling programs are taking terrible hits with the lack of destinations to ship the raw materials. So, even if folks want to "do the right thing", they may not be able to if their community shuts down their local programs. We're back to Boy Scout Paper Drives.

What's been happening here?

 

[BlackBat242]

People have been not rinsing their recyclable trash - meaning that when it arrives at the final sorting/recycling centers (most of which are in China) they are covered in mold etc - and are thus biologically hazardous to the sorters/processors.

Also, people have been mixing non-recyclables in with their recycling, meaning that a lot more sorting (labor costs, etc) is required, making processing the material uneconomical.

As mentioned above, China is the end-recipient of most recyclables, and they stopped (or greatly reduced) taking material from many places (especially the US) recently.

This has meant that there is no place to process and actually reuse the material, so it has been piling up at transfer points - and some cities have stopped storing it, going back to dumping everything in landfills!

 

[Condottiere]

Then the industrialized West better invest in state of the art recycling centres that minimize waste and pollution, because the only thing worse than building suburbs on ancient Indian burial grounds would be developing them on top of toxic waste dumps.

I tend to carry around my own little collapsible grocery bag, since plastic bags are now taxed, and a lot of businesses prefer to transfer that cost directly to the consumer.

As regards Third World garbage recycling transfers, that's probably at an end, if only due to the public relations picture it represents to the incumbent regimes; the smart thing is to off shore industries and thus make it internal trash.