Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Powerpaste to power small to large fuel cell vehicles?

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,508 ✭✭✭ jkforde


    zom wrote: »

    "Only half of the hydrogen comes from the power paste, the other half from the water in the reaction."

    That's just genius.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,906 ✭✭✭ McGiver


    Good news, but It's nothing new.

    MgH2 has been one of the candidates of hydrogen storage for many years. And MgH2 in slurry sort of form has also been studied for a while.

    Obviously, there are issues with it - how to recycle the spent one back to the unspent one, how to make the whole manufacturing and recycling cycle cost effective etc.

    Hydrogen is at least 20 years behind battery tech in terms of development and adoption.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,390 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_Lad


    McGiver wrote: »
    Good news, but It's nothing new.

    MgH2 has been one of the candidates of hydrogen storage for many years. And MgH2 in slurry sort of form has also been studied for a while.

    Obviously, there are issues with it - how to recycle the spent one back to the unspent one, how to make the whole manufacturing and recycling cycle cost effective etc.

    Hydrogen is at least 20 years behind battery tech in terms of development and adoption
    .

    All they have to do is make a Rex type system and burn the hydrogen directly, simple and effective. No Fuel cell needed.

    Making the hydrogen, easy, they could make it from Nucelar, 100% emission free energy.

    Storing hydrogen another matter but I'm sure it will work eventually.

    For HGV I can't see them run on battery any time soon if ever, same with trains, planes etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭ zom


    McGiver wrote: »
    Hydrogen is at least 20 years behind battery tech in terms of development and adoption.

    Problem is that battery tech doesn't seem to progress significantly in recent years and there is nothing really promising ahead.
    I know magnesium hydride is nothing new but lot of successful technologies started with obvious idea developed new way - iphone for example.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 6,084 Mod ✭✭✭✭ liamog


    zom wrote: »
    Problem is that battery tech doesn't seem to progress significantly in recent years and there is nothing really promising ahead.

    We've pretty much gone from a 24kWh battery that cost around $1,000/kWh to 62kWh batteries with prices around $130/kWh in 10 years time, each taking the same physical space (Nissan Leaf). As technology progression goes that's pretty impressive.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,906 ✭✭✭ McGiver


    liamog wrote: »
    We've pretty much gone from a 24kWh battery that cost around $1,000/kWh to 62kWh batteries with prices around $130/kWh in 10 years time, each taking the same physical space (Nissan Leaf). As technology progression goes that's pretty impressive.

    Correct. And that's mostly with the same tech, it's just design changes and small adjustments basically to cathode or cell design (NMC611 to NMC 822 to NCA)

    2010 - $1131/kWh
    2020 - $130/kWh

    Yes, it is slowing down but there changes to chemistry coming up (graphene anodes, solid state etc), so the progress won't stop.

    TLDR - battery tech is 25 years ahead of FC tech, I can't see how can FC catch up in real life. Yes, FC will probably be used, eventually...question is when and at what state the battery tech will be then given the head start.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,906 ✭✭✭ McGiver


    Mad_Lad wrote: »
    All they have to do is make a Rex type system and burn the hydrogen directly, simple and effective. No Fuel cell needed.

    Making the hydrogen, easy, they could make it from Nucelar, 100% emission free energy.

    Storing hydrogen another matter but I'm sure it will work eventually.

    For HGV I can't see them run on battery any time soon if ever, same with trains, planes etc.
    I usually agree with you Mad_lad and I also think REx is the future for some applications (BEV+FC Rex though and by FC where a electrochemical or chemical reaction takes place, doesn't have to be a HFC).

    But burning H2 directly is crazy, that's really a no-go :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭ zom


    liamog wrote: »
    We've pretty much gone from a 24kWh battery that cost around $1,000/kWh to 62kWh batteries with prices around $130/kWh in 10 years time, each taking the same physical space (Nissan Leaf). As technology progression goes that's pretty impressive.

    WOOOOOW!!
    With this progress we will have 200kWh battery the size of beer can and costing €10 in year 2030!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,906 ✭✭✭ McGiver


    zom wrote: »
    WOOOOOW!!
    With this progress we will have 200kWh battery the size of beer can and costing €10 in year 2030!!

    The problem is the extremely high energy content of petrol.

    1 l of petrol contains equivalent of 10.83 kWh electricity.

    So your typical 40l tank contains 433 kWh and you can go let's say 570 kms with it.

    The efficiency is very bad though some 0.76 kWh/km.

    EVs have roughly 0.16 kWh/km, which is 4.75 times better.

    So the battery equivalent needed for the same range is 91 kWh. These cars are already driving around. We don't need 200 kWh batteries for personal cars.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,133 ✭✭✭ Padre_Pio


    McGiver wrote: »
    The problem is the extremely high content of petrol.

    1 l of petrol contains equivalent of 10.83 kWh electricity.
    So you're typical 40l tank contains 433 kWh and you can go let's say

    True, but then factor in efficiency.

    That petrol engine is maybe 50% efficient, so you're at 216kWh, with the rest lost mainly to heat.

    The cost of extraction, refining, storage and transport is largely sunk at this stage, so petrol is cheap. This would have to be started again for hydrogen on a large scale. The challenges with hydrogen are far more difficult as the atom is so small.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,474 ✭✭✭ innrain


    zom wrote: »
    WOOOOOW!!
    With this progress we will have 200kWh battery the size of beer can and costing €10 in year 2030!!
    It is more likely than the alternative. "Green H2" is just in brochures. For the last 100 years more than 95% of H2 is produced generating CO2.

    Splitting H2O it is using electricity with an efficiency of 60-80% to store energy which you would convert it back to electricity. Even an unlimited source of energy has a cost and it is pure wasteful. Maybe it would be a niche market but not the universal solution.
    attachment.php?attachmentid=542553&stc=1&d=1612800635


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,390 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_Lad


    McGiver wrote: »
    I usually agree with you Mad_lad and I also think REx is the future for some applications (BEV+FC Rex though and by FC where a electrochemical or chemical reaction takes place, doesn't have to be a HFC).

    But burning H2 directly is crazy, that's really a no-go :)

    Lol, they're burning it in domestic Gas boilers as a pilot scheme I think it is in Scotland, no reason it can't be burnt in an ICE. It's been done because there is likely to be no viable alternative to Natural Gas.

    There's been Gas vehicles for years, I suppose an accident might be a problem though. :D

    Fuel Cell Rex would eliminate all the need for chargers and the issues with charging cold batteries and having to plug in and out and p1ss about activating chargers in the Cold, Wind, Wet and Rain. :D


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,995 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    McGiver wrote: »
    Hydrogen is at least 20 years behind battery tech in terms of development and adoption.

    The problem with Hydrogen, it has always been 20 years away :D
    Mad_Lad wrote: »
    Lol, they're burning it in domestic Gas boilers as a pilot scheme I think it is in Scotland, no reason it can't be burnt in an ICE. It's been done because there is likely to be no viable alternative to Natural Gas.

    The problem with directly burning hydrogen in ICE (hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle or HICEV) is that it produces NOx at levels similar to Diesel and is thus not a zero emission technology.

    As a result it is a non starter due to various zero emission policies being embraced by countries around the world.

    HICEV isn't a new tech, HICEV buses have been rolling around parts of Northern Europe for the past 20 years. But they are being phased out for full EV buses or Hydrogen Fuel Cell buses now, HICEV is a dead end technology.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,390 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_Lad


    innrain wrote: »
    It is more likely than the alternative. "Green H2" is just in brochures. For the last 100 years more than 95% of H2 is produced generating CO2.

    Splitting H2O it is using electricity with an efficiency of 60-80% to store energy which you would convert it back to electricity. Even an unlimited source of energy has a cost and it is pure wasteful. Maybe it would be a niche market but not the universal solution.
    attachment.php?attachmentid=542553&stc=1&d=1612800635

    The solution is simple, expensive but it's a solution, more nuclear needed and more research into newer Nuclear tech which has the potential to meet most if not all of our energy needs without littering the planet with eyesore wind turbines and turning green fields black with solar farms, I've seen some in Germany and it's not a pretty sight and it's really just another environmental catastrophe the visual impact on the land.

    I'm quite confident that in the next 10-20 years there will be more and more new tech Nuclear reactors. If Bill Gates's Company Terrapower can get a commercial TWR reactor up and running there's no doubt it will change the world as it can run on Existing nuclear waste + it can run on fuel from seawater for millions of years, not fusion but very safe and very efficient, so efficient it can run for 30 years without refuelling a true green unlimited supply of energy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,906 ✭✭✭ McGiver


    Mad_Lad wrote:
    Lol, they're burning it in domestic Gas boilers as a pilot scheme I think it is in Scotland, no reason it can't be burnt in an ICE. It's been done because there is likely to be no viable alternative to Natural Gas.
    As an additive to NG (methane)... Few % max.
    Dangerous stuff anyway.

    So you're essentially advocating for CNG+H2 Rex on top of BEV :)

    I've no issues with that. Better than diesel petrol rex or ICE


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,390 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_Lad


    McGiver wrote: »
    As an additive to NG (methane)... Few % max.
    Dangerous stuff anyway.

    So you're essentially advocating for CNG+H2 Rex on top of BEV :)

    I've no issues with that. Better than diesel petrol rex or ICE

    Lol, when you need it any Rex is better than no Rex. :D

    A bio fuel Rex and a 40-60 Kwh battery would be amazing for now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,906 ✭✭✭ McGiver


    Mad_Lad wrote:
    A bio fuel Rex and a 40-60 Kwh battery would be amazing for now.

    But you'd need more than 7 litre tank for the reformed spent McDonald's frying oil (that's also biodiesel :))


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,390 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_Lad


    McGiver wrote: »
    But you'd need more than 7 litre tank for the reformed spent McDonald's frying oil (that's also biodiesel :))

    No oil burner, I was thinking along the lines of Ethanol but our Government killed biofuels over night with foolish decision to tax the bejesus out of it.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,995 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    McGiver wrote: »
    As an additive to NG (methane)... Few % max.
    Dangerous stuff anyway.

    In the UK, they are actually thinking of converting their natural gas network to 100% hydrogen, not just a hydrogen at a small percentage mixed with natural gas!

    So they need to replace all natural gas boilers with hydrogen boilers and other changes required.

    I don't know, it all feels a bit mad to me. The hydrogen of hydrogen running up and down every street and open hydrogen flames on cookers sounds crazy dangerous to me.

    That is what they are trailing in a town in Scotland at the moment, it will be interesting to see how it goes and maybe it will prove to be safe.

    Here I haven't heard of any talk of doing this. Instead the plan seems to be get as many homes as possible on high insulation + heat pumps and for the rest of homes continue to use natural gas, but with Carbon Capture Storage tech to offset it.

    Mad_Lad, the problem with your Nuclear power plan (other then Nuclear issues) is that hydrogen is always about 1/3rd less efficient then using the same electricity directly in batteries.

    So if a battery is an option (in terms of weight, cost and sufficient power storage), then it will always be more efficient and cost effective to store the same electricity in the battery. Hydrogen is only likely to make sense where batteries fail to meet those needs, places like aircraft, ships, etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,390 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_Lad


    bk wrote: »

    Mad_Lad, the problem with your Nuclear power plan (other then Nuclear issues) is that hydrogen is always about 1/3rd less efficient then using the same electricity directly in batteries..

    I suppose batteries are made with 0 Energy ? and the chemicals and mineral production is 0 emission, then transported around the world with 0 energy needed ? lets not go there lol,

    Whatever issues exist with current Nuclear tech are a lot less with this TWR reactor + it can burn up resisting waste from existing reactors and due to it's amazing efficiency only needs refuelling every 30 years + they are much safer reactors.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,906 ✭✭✭ McGiver


    bk wrote:
    I don't know, it all feels a bit mad to me. The hydrogen of hydrogen running up and down every street and open hydrogen flames on cookers sounds crazy dangerous to me.

    It is mad! Zeppelin and all that :)

    But kidding aside, it's seriously dangerous, corrosive, pervasive gas, running that all around the place for boiler is insanity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,133 ✭✭✭ Padre_Pio


    Mad_Lad wrote: »
    I suppose batteries are made with 0 Energy ? and the chemicals and mineral production is 0 emission, then transported around the world with 0 energy needed ? lets not go there lol,

    Whatever issues exist with current Nuclear tech are a lot less with this TWR reactor + it can burn up resisting waste from existing reactors and due to it's amazing efficiency only needs refuelling every 30 years + they are much safer reactors.

    I suppose nuclear reactors are built with zero energy?

    What's the payback on them? 10 years to build and 30 years before they make money?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,293 ✭✭✭ TheBoyConor


    The production of nuclear power is ft out illegal in Ireland. So forget any such notions.

    Mad lad, your ideas are crazy head in the clouds stuff. Where is all this hydrogen going to come from? The entire gas network would need to be replaced. Pipes and equipment that would hold natural gas would piss out hydrogen like a sieve.
    Hydrogen is so small it will even permeate through the walls of a solid steel pipe as if it were a tubular sponge. As hydrogen is absorbed it also causes the metal to become harder and become brittle and more prone to cracking.
    It simply isn't possble to just hook the network up to a hydrogen "factory" and away you go. Everything, every single component would need to be replaced from the ground up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,390 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_Lad


    Padre_Pio wrote: »
    I suppose nuclear reactors are built with zero energy?

    What's the payback on them? 10 years to build and 30 years before they make money?

    These newer reactors would be significantly cheaper to build so payback would be a lot quicker.

    No they wouldn't be built with 0 energy but they will add significant energy to the Grid over their life time and also could be used to provide energy to build more reactors.

    Currently no other solution exists to meet current and future total demand for energy that doesn't include significant amounts of fossil fuels, if you move transport to the grid the energy has to come form somewhere and wind and solar just won't provide all this energy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,390 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_Lad


    The production of nuclear power is ft out illegal in Ireland. So forget any such notions.

    Mad lad, your ideas are crazy head in the clouds stuff. Where is all this hydrogen going to come from? The entire gas network would need to be replaced. Pipes and equipment that would hold natural gas would piss out hydrogen like a sieve.
    Hydrogen is so small it will even permeate through the walls of a solid steel pipe as if it were a tubular sponge. As hydrogen is absorbed it also causes the metal to become harder and become brittle and more prone to cracking.
    It simply isn't possble to just hook the network up to a hydrogen "factory" and away you go. Everything, every single component would need to be replaced from the ground up.

    Yeah, Ireland can be backward as f1ck, I remember when the mobile phone masts came out RTE had a crowd of women with signs with a mast in the background and one of them put up their hand saying she could feel the heat from here, this is the mentality in Ireland. :D

    Lots of hurdles to overcome but we've a long way to go before BEV is a proper replacement to ICE due to range and in particular cold weather charging on DC and slow charging low range electrics might be a good solution for many Irish People living on a small Island but the rest of the world and the car manufacturers will dictate what we drive, car manufacturers are not going to build cars to suit our little Island and I can see Hydrogen along with BEV in the future possibly for HGV more so or a combination of the two.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,293 ✭✭✭ TheBoyConor


    Nuclear energy is illegal in Ireland.
    Talk of nuclear energy is completely pointless.

    Mad lad, I have been following your posts for a long time. 99% of what you say is fever'd dreaming and cloud cuckoo land stuff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,390 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_Lad


    Nuclear energy is illegal in Ireland.
    Talk of nuclear energy is completely pointless.

    Mad lad, I have been following your posts for a long time. 99% of what you say is fever'd dreaming and cloud cuckoo land stuff.

    You'd think I was standing up debating this in the Dail, I'm not, I'm on boards.ie ffs :D

    It's not pointless talking about Nuclear, if we don't we'll end up importing most of our energy for the next 100 years.
    If this TWR reactor design works it will change the world, cheap abundant 0 emission energy, that's not cloud 9 cuckoo land stuff, burning foreign energy for the next 100 years is cloud 9 cuckoo, having foreign companies controlling wind turbines taking our energy as they did our fossil fuels is mad.

    And you can request an ignore function on boards so that you don't see my posts if that would help or just don't let my crazy posts bother you.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 6,084 Mod ✭✭✭✭ liamog


    As much as the nuclear debate is an important topic, it's not particularly relevant to the OPs hydrogen storage paste.


Advertisement