Just an interesting study for H2 production.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The oil companies are the only ones that know anything about making, moving large volumes of hydrogen, hydroforming colossal amounts of substances, dispose of or reuse the waste and they are the best at moving tons of flammable liquid fuel and not to mention they already have pretty much everything needed to do all the above mentioned.
So even when liquid fuels are made from hydrogen split from water we will still rely heavily on the oil companies.

But that won't stop people such as myself, from making fuel. To be exact, it becomes a cottage industry of sorts. What is to stop me from setting up an electrolysis unit powered by sun or wind and run the resulting gas into a catalytic reactor along with partially oxidized farm clippings and using the resultant fuel to run my tractors and other farm implements? What if I have excess? I can register as a fuel producer and sell my product. I tally my sales and pay my taxes. No oil company involved. Have I done this before? Yes, with biodiesel. No, the oil companies couldn't do a thing about it. The only thing is my limited supply of waste vegetable oil limits me to a few thousand gallons a year and it would not be worth it for me. But quite a few local producers do far better with waste streams coming from large food producers. Once easy oil is gone and fossil fuels creep back up to 5 USD/gallon, this sort of thing becomes plausible and a diffused fuel production base will grow. It doesn't depend on a location with the correct geological formations and deposits. I just need cheap enough electricity and a carbon stream.

Carbonaceous trash is going to become a commodity.

[RustyLugNut]

This is a Toyota partnered test scheme involving wind>hydrogen>fuel cells. Powering forklifts at local yards. Yes, an argument could be made that powering the forklifts with electricity directly would be more efficient.

Public-Private Partnership to Test End-to-End Hydrogen Supply Chain | TOYOTA Global Newsroom

[RedDevil]

Well - it ain't all as shiny as it seems.
From that link:

Electricity generated at the Yokohama City Wind Power Plant (Hama Wing) will be used to electrolyze hydrogen that is compressed, stored, and then transported in a hydrogen fueling truck to four sites: a factory, a vegetable and fruit market, and two warehouses. At these locations, the hydrogen will be used in fuel cells to power forklifts operating in diverse conditions.

This low-carbon hydrogen supply chain is expected to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 80 percent compared with a supply chain using forklifts powered by gasoline or grid electricity.

Using hydrogen generated by windmill electricity generates less CO2 than using electricity straight from the grid.
Who could have guessed.
A bogus comparison means deliberate disinformation. It should make all the signs flare red.

The forklifts are compared to lead acid battery forklifts, which have a similar operating time but take 6 to 8 hours to charge.
Lithium iron phosphate battery forklifts would be lighter, last longer, charge faster, but also be more expensive than their lead acid counterparts.
I bet they'd still be cheaper than the hydrogen ones.

So, Toyota. Run your comparison to windmill fed LiFePO4 battery forklifts for a change.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Well - it ain't all as shiny as it seems.
From that link:

Using hydrogen generated by windmill electricity generates less CO2 than using electricity straight from the grid.
Who could have guessed.
A bogus comparison means deliberate disinformation. It should make all the signs flare red.

The forklifts are compared to lead acid battery forklifts, which have a similar operating time but take 6 to 8 hours to charge.
Lithium iron phosphate battery forklifts would be lighter, last longer, charge faster, but also be more expensive than their lead acid counterparts.
I bet they'd still be cheaper than the hydrogen ones.

So, Toyota. Run your comparison to windmill fed LiFePO4 battery forklifts for a change.

There are problems with the study, but there is certainly no disinformation. Only lack of understanding on your part.

First of all, you cannot build a "light weight forklift" as mass is stability for payload lift. This is why lead acid batteries have dominated for decades. They provide both power and ballast. Lighter propane powered lifts often have heavy steel ballast plates. Using Li-FePO4 batteries instead of the lead acid is logical and has already been tried. The problem becomes charging times for the cost. 30 minutes or more is a loss of productivity. A few minutes for a tank switch out means a hydrogen forklift is back to work being productive while the pure battery lift is charging. This doesn't mean you can't have battery change schemes, but now you have increased the cost of your battery pack reserves. The comparison to lead-acid battery powered lifts is logical as that is the overwhelming standard currently. They are ubiquitous and cheap enough to have more than enough on hand to provide service while some are on charge times.

And this is just a study. It is meant to find failure points and areas of improvement. Cost is not an immediate goal but it is understood. You are comparing common industry tech to cutting edge developments. This would be like me deriding all the electric powered cars on this forum for being way too expensive and finicky and hard to charge in comparison to my bio-fueled diesels which cost pennies per mile to run and are a proven long ranging transportation solution.

My biggest criticism of the study is the use of battery power for storage. This battery storage is to bridge over dead wind days and produce hydrogen at a constant rate. Producing hydrogen and storing that for bridge days would be far more logical and cost effective. Electrolysers are common and not expensive. So are metal hydride storage tanks.

[RedDevil]

The disinformation I was pointing out was not about the hydrogen itself, but with portraying it as a low carbon technology as it was fed by windmills while the comparison was with grid powered electric forklifts.
Add the same windmills to that side of the equasion, have them feed their surplus power to the grid; no way that it would have a larger carbon footprint then.

Low carbon had nothing to do with hydrogen in that example.
It had everything to do with windmills.
Toyota proved windmills reduce carbon output. But that was not the purpose of their press release.

I am not against hydrogen technology. But I want to keep the numbers straight. Comparisons fair and realistic.
I was not the one starting a comparison between cutting edge and standard technology, rather I tried to even the scale somewhat.

Low (battery) weight is not a problem in forklifts as it obviously can be compensated with ballast weights, lowering the center of gravity etc. Also a lighter pack makes it easier to swap, and the charge time is much less than lead acid anyway. Would work even without swapping batteries unless you need round the clock operation.

I call for civility. Your use of post titles, terms like tedious, lack of understanding etc. appear unpleasant to me. You would not want to be called such either. So let's not do that.

[oil pan 4]

No one is saying you cant make fuel at home, the point is people are not going to be able to make a meaning full amount that can power society with out large industrial complex.
In 2010 something like 14 quadrillion BTUs of oil were burned.
Best case scenario 0.001% was not a fossil liquid fuel, did not involve the oil companies and did not involve government.

So far the best way to provide traction power a vehicle with out the oil company is solar to a battery powered car, as long as the solar panels weren't made by BP, hahaha.
Even with bio diesel production one still relies heavily on the petrochemical industry.
Methanol used in the process comes from natural gas, the sodium hydroxide also made in a gigantic petrochemical facility where the bi-products of lye production (hydrogen and choline gas) can be utilized.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

The disinformation I was pointing out was not about the hydrogen itself, but with portraying it as a low carbon technology as it was fed by windmills while the comparison was with grid powered electric forklifts.
Add the same windmills to that side of the equasion, have them feed their surplus power to the grid; no way that it would have a larger carbon footprint then.

Low carbon had nothing to do with hydrogen in that example.
It had everything to do with windmills.
Toyota proved windmills reduce carbon output. But that was not the purpose of their press release.

I am not against hydrogen technology. But I want to keep the numbers straight. Comparisons fair and realistic.
I was not the one starting a comparison between cutting edge and standard technology, rather I tried to even the scale somewhat.

Low (battery) weight is not a problem in forklifts as it obviously can be compensated with ballast weights, lowering the center of gravity etc. Also a lighter pack makes it easier to swap, and the charge time is much less than lead acid anyway. Would work even without swapping batteries unless you need round the clock operation.

I call for civility. Your use of post titles, terms like tedious, lack of understanding etc. appear unpleasant to me. You would not want to be called such either. So let's not do that.

It is clear to me they are making a BEFORE and AFTER comparison. It is a comparison of what IS and what COULD be. That seems very clear.

The current local power grid was listed as only 80% green and fed into the current lifts would only be so clean. This is in contrast to the possibility of a totally renewable power grid providing not just electric power, but motive power via stored hydrogen. It is an example in microcosm of what a larger system could be. It is not a perfect system, but one to study. The unfortunate derailment of the Icelandic attempt at a totally renewable power society leaves us with no large scale models.

And if my direct and blunt manner has made you uncomfortable, I apologize.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

No one is saying you cant make fuel at home, the point is people are not going to be able to make a meaning full amount that can power society with out large industrial complex.
In 2010 something like 14 quadrillion BTUs of oil were burned.
Best case scenario 0.001% was not a fossil liquid fuel, did not involve the oil companies and did not involve government.

So far the best way to provide traction power a vehicle with out the oil company is solar to a battery powered car, as long as the solar panels weren't made by BP, hahaha.
Even with bio diesel production one still relies heavily on the petrochemical industry.
Methanol used in the process comes from natural gas, the sodium hydroxide also made in a gigantic petrochemical facility where the bi-products of lye production (hydrogen and choline gas) can be utilized.

I brought it up as an outlandish example to compare with battery vehicles.

I will say this, if you cannot control the primary electrical generators, or the hydrogen generators that run on them or the numerous carbon sources, you cannot control the production of synthetic hydrocarbons. And that is the beauty of this. The oil companies may have distribution resources, but they don't own the hydro-power, wind-power or nuclear power. And the carbon sources are far too diffuse to coral a controlling interest. Personal fuel production aside, there is nothing stopping entrepreneurial endeavors from making enough fuel and marketing in a locality if not nationally. One can purchase or contract with tanker truckers to move the hydrocarbons. Many are independents and not beholden to any single oil company. Sales can then go through the numerous independent fueling stations.

The staggering amount of energy used world wide is just another reason to take the first steps to economize and cut back where at all possible. And, I emphasize again, use the best energy source for the niche it is best suited for. A hydrogen pathway is not going to be the solution for every energy need.

You continually use the example of NOW and deride a very plausible future. Electric cars make up a very few percent of the current vehicular mix. The current low cost of fossil fuel has dampened growth. But even with high fuel costs, the battery electric car cannot fulfill the needs of every segment of the current transportation market.

And I stopped making biodiesel and run my personal car directly on waste vegetable oil. So, my BioBenz still trumps your electric car in range and carbon footprint.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I still don't see hydrogen being used to directly power vehicles.

If hydrogen can be produced so easily then it would more easily be produced by the oil companies and used to hydro form liquid fuels that are more energy dense, less hazardous, less reactive, less volatile and all around easier and safer to handle.

I'd still not hold my breath for that, as it would be likely easier and less energy-intensive to turn celullosic residues into biofuels through the Fischer-Tropsch process like it was done by the Nazis during WW2 and was implemented commercially in South Africa after the war.

[freebeard]

My favorite effort is Cool Planet. They are carbon negative. I just looked, they had 3 press releases in Feb and Mar, so they're still kicking.

Insofar as hydrogen is concerned; I think it should be used in a composite semirigid airship for lift and thrust. The core would be a limp bag of hot hydrogen—in vacuum. That would be surrounded by ballonettes of steam. It has lift similar to helium as steam, but remove the (hydrogen-provided) heat and it condenses for dynamic control.

The hydrogen combution engines are the least interesting part to me. Oh—also Aeromodeller2



Sorry, Frank, it a big 'un. It buffers the hydrogen with nitrogen gas.

How about search?q=electricity+from+synthetic+photosynthesis. Big developments there in the last year.