Underhood versus Onan

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by jon

Wait until some engineers work out a method other than electrolysis to process hydrogen then Elon Musk will look "DUMB."

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

There are many ways already, all other have carbon emission and all of them have to deal with sufficient energy to break the covalent bond.

Fuel cells which can run on methane directly have some promise, still carbon footprint but at lower level. Microbial fuel cell converts methane to electricity | Penn State University

[jon]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

There are many ways already, all other have carbon emission and all of them have to deal with sufficient energy to break the covalent bond.

Fuel cells which can run on methane directly have some promise, still carbon footprint but at lower level. Microbial fuel cell converts methane to electricity | Penn State University

I know there other ways to get hydrogen, but I assumed that he was calling fuel cells DUMB because electrolysis takes so much electricity to fee up the hydrogen.

I should remember not to assume....
But I don't so it usually makes an ass out of me.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

[avanti]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

Lower efficiency combined with inherent difficulties dealing with compressed or liquefied hydrogen makes the hydrogen fuel cell market penetration very gloomy in my view, time will tell but I have big doubts.

I agree with your conclusion, but not your arguments. The efficiency issue is totally beside the point. This is why I cited the photosynthesis benchmark. It is a rather successful process, despite pathetic efficiency.

I also don't see why the difficulties of storing hydrogen are "inherent". I guess all unsolved problems seem so, until they aren't.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by avanti

I agree with your conclusion, but not your arguments. The efficiency issue is totally beside the point. This is why I cited the photosynthesis benchmark. It is a rather successful process, despite pathetic efficiency.

I also don't see why the difficulties of storing hydrogen are "inherent". I guess all unsolved problems seem so, until they aren't.

Efficiency is just one of factors in the decision process. I have difficulties to understand the photosynthesis efficiency in this subject. The efficiency analysis should relate to competing technology like battery.

Hydrogen molecule is tiny, for example it can permeate through solid palladium, it can embrittle metals, and in case of a leak it can cause big boom-boom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

This is good read for storage - Hydrogen Basics - Storage

“The 300-mile driving range requires 5-10 kg of usable hydrogen depending upon the size of the vehicle. Although various hydrogen storage technologies are presently available, none completely satisfies all of the auto industry requirements. In fact, finding a solution to the hydrogen storage problem is considered by many to be the foremost challenge for the hydrogen economy.
Hydrogen can be stored in three ways:

• As a compressed gas in high-pressure tanks. - 3,000 - 10,000PSI
• As a liquid in dewars or tanks (stored at -253°C).
• As a solid by either absorbing or reacting with metals or chemical compounds or storing in an alternative chemical form.”

[jon]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

“The 300-mile driving range requires 5-10 kg of usable hydrogen depending upon the size of the vehicle. Although various hydrogen storage technologies are presently available, none completely satisfies all of the auto industry requirements. In fact, finding a solution to the hydrogen storage problem is considered by many to be the foremost challenge for the hydrogen economy.
Hydrogen can be stored in three ways:

This is why Musk was calling fuel cells "dumb," why bother with trying to figure out the best way to carry 300 miles worth of Hydrogen when you can store that much electricity much easier in lithium batteries. Then if you create the electricity via sun or wind it's even better.....
On the other hand batteries don't charge instantaneously so I think the portability of fuel cells might be better....
Maybe a tesla with a range extending fuel cell in the trunk would be best.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

Efficiency is just one of factors in the decision process. I have difficulties to understand the photosynthesis efficiency in this subject. The efficiency analysis should relate to competing technology like battery.

It is relevant as an existence proof of an extremely effective system that is also grossly inefficient. Efficiency is always desirable, it is often not necessary. Batteries and hydrogen storage systems have to be efficient, since they have to be carried around. Battery chargers and hydrogen production systems do not have to be efficient, assuming the availability of abundant energy such as solar. Efficiency and scalability are fungible.

Hydrogen molecule is tiny, for example it can permeate through solid palladium, it can embrittle metals, and in case of a leak it can cause big boom-boom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

This is good read for storage - Hydrogen Basics - Storage

“The 300-mile driving range requires 5-10 kg of usable hydrogen depending upon the size of the vehicle. Although various hydrogen storage technologies are presently available, none completely satisfies all of the auto industry requirements. In fact, finding a solution to the hydrogen storage problem is considered by many to be the foremost challenge for the hydrogen economy.
Hydrogen can be stored in three ways:

• As a compressed gas in high-pressure tanks. - 3,000 - 10,000PSI
• As a liquid in dewars or tanks (stored at -253°C).
• As a solid by either absorbing or reacting with metals or chemical compounds or storing in an alternative chemical form.”

Those are the options for storing hydrogen molecules physcally. But there are a great many other possibilities, notably using various materials for the adsorption or absorption of the molecules:

https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage

Not ready for prime time, but quite plausible.

(I will bow out of this one soon. It really isn't one of my causes. )

[Saldar]

This article describes a fuel cell that runs off propane instead of hydrogen. The initial systems aren't small, but maybe they could be.

"fuel-cell generators that produce electricity through a chemical reaction"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/b...er-energy.html

[GeorgeRa]

Bloom Energy fuel cells are using hydrogen gas which is generated in situ by high temperature chemical reaction between natural gas and steam.
https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hy...-gas-reforming.

An RV fuels cell attempts use similar technics to extract hydrogen from LPG.
In larger scale, like Bloom Energy, it could be financially more feasible and successful. Issues with high temperature steam/methane reforming reaction, gas storage and other potential issues in smaller devices could go away in large installations.

[booster]

The small, gas or diesel powered linear generator is looking better all the time, if you are going to use hydrocarbon fuel. Make it 4 cylinders, which could give near perfect balance, low speed, and with a very good muffler, and be done, running silently off the van tank.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by booster

The small, gas or diesel powered linear generator is looking better all the time, if you are going to use hydrocarbon fuel. Make it 4 cylinders, which could give near perfect balance, low speed, and with a very good muffler, and be done, running silently off the van tank.

Agree, no invention required.

[jon]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

Agree, no invention required.

But..but...but it's not nearly as cool as a 10 times more expensive fuel cell.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by jon

But..but...but it's not nearly as cool as a 10 times more expensive fuel cell.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

Indeed

[booster]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

Indeed

Oh so true

[GeorgeRa]

I am beginning to change my view regarding fuel cell, this new one is coming and will be here soon, very soon. I wouldn’t be surprisde that some more advanced in R&D B-class manufacturers are already working on implementation.

But, but, but, this could be a game changer for the World. Plenty of boron and hydrogen on this earth and no radioactive byproducts. https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/sc...2%80%99-energy

[booster]

Interesting, and if anyone cut you off in traffic you could melt them with the two "huge" lasers

I always take the stuff like this with grain of salt, sort of like the cold fusion fiasco, but either way we will be long dead before it shows up in RVs, I think.

I am sure something will come along, though, whether or not this is it or not. Any fuel powered generator would be the practical bridge to get us there while the stuff is getting perfected. I don't think the existing Onans and big alternators are going to be even the medium term solution, as they will continue to be banned in more and more places.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by booster

either way we will be long dead before it shows up in RVs, I think.

Speak for yourself, please!

[avanti]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

But, but, but, this could be a game changer for the World. Plenty of boron and hydrogen on this earth and no radioactive byproducts.

So, if we have an unbounded source of cheap, nuclear energy, doesn't that lead to the mother of all global-warming problems? It would just cut out the solar/carbon middleman.

[Davydd]

I have a two year window of opportunity and that may be my last RV if I pull the trigger. So, if it ain't so by then I am not interested.

So far for fuel cells I think the only thing on the market is Efoy and there biggest unit produces 210 amps. It's big and the fuel source is bulky and not readily available. If I want what I have had and enjoyed for the last 3 years, 800ah of battery energy I would need four of them. Ain't gonna fit in a B van, no way. Lithium and second alternator is the way to go for my foreseeable future.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Davydd

the only thing on the market is Efoy and there biggest unit produces 210 amps. It's big and the fuel source is bulky and not readily available. If I want what I have had and enjoyed for the last 3 years, 800ah of battery energy I would need four of them.

You would only need four if you are consuming 800A all the time. Fuel cells are generally used as battery chargers. You should be comparing it to your under-hood generator, not your battery. Their merit is that they can crank out the amps 24/7. Very likely 210 amps would be plenty for any reasonable usage pattern in a B.

If it weren't for the fuel availability and cost issue, I would be taking a careful look at the Efoy.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by booster

Interesting, and if anyone cut you off in traffic you could melt them with the two "huge" lasers

I always take the stuff like this with grain of salt, sort of like the cold fusion fiasco, but either way we will be long dead before it shows up in RVs, I think.

I am sure something will come along, though, whether or not this is it or not. Any fuel powered generator would be the practical bridge to get us there while the stuff is getting perfected. I don't think the existing Onans and big alternators are going to be even the medium term solution, as they will continue to be banned in more and more places.

It could work both ways, for folks cutting you off in front and tailgaters, perhaps Tesla could introduce it for self-driving vehicles for ultimate safety by vaporizing all obstacles.

Yes, Salt Lake cold fusion was a fiasco with hundreds if not thousands trying to duplicating the results. Electrochemical pumping of hydrogen into palladium lattice made some shalow sense attracting attention of many.
These lasers induced hot fusion makes more sense, just don’t know how electrical energy could be extracted directly, but I believe their claim.