iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

hydrogen to run engines

Started by Tom L, August 27, 2014, 07:58:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

OneWithWood

Quote from: Gary_C on August 29, 2014, 10:50:49 AM

And then there is the "Ka Boom" problem.  ::)

Hmm.  Wasn't that part of the issue with the Hindenburg?
One With Wood
LT40HDG25, Woodmizer DH4000 Kiln

pineywoods

NASA spent a ton of money trying to find a way to store hydrogen. I had a neighbor who was on the research team. The thing that ultimately killed the idea was a process called hydrogen embrittlement. Hydrogen atoms are so small, they will seep through solid metal. In doing so, they make the metal extremely brittle. One experiment filled a cylinder with 2 inch thick aluminum walls with hydrogen under a few thousand psi. Came back later and most of the hydrogen was gone. Someone smacked the cylinder with a hammer and it shattered like glass..NOT IN MY CAR.. ::) The second stage booster of the apollo saturn vehicle used liquid hydrogen stored in insulated tanks at extremely cold temps. It would boil off rapidly, but who cares, gonna burn it all in about 10 minutes anyway. The stuff they stored in high pressure tanks was much smaller, used in a fuel cell to make electricity..

Now if PaulH could figure out a way to store wood gas, maybe we would have something  ;D
1995 Wood Mizer LT 40, Liquid cooled kawasaki,homebuilt hydraulics. Homebuilt solar dry kiln.  Woodmaster 718 planner, Kubota M4700 with homemade forks and winch, stihl  028, 029, Ms390
100k bd ft club.Charter member of The Grumpy old Men

Ianab

 :P Composition of average Wood Gas.

    Nitrogen N2: 50.9%
    Carbon monoxide CO: 27.0%
    Hydrogen H2: 14.0%
    Carbon dioxide CO2: 4.5%
    Methane CH4: 3.0%
    Oxygen O2: 0.6%.

So a significant part of that is actually Hydrogen. The nitrogen and CO2 do nothing, so it's the CO, H2 and CH4 that are actually the fuel, so it's more like 30% of the fuel is hydrogen.

Ian
Weekend warrior, Peterson JP test pilot, Dolmar 7900 and Stihl MS310 saws and  the usual collection of power tools :)

Ron Wenrich

Interesting.  Is that composition the same for all biomass or only wood?  Does moisture content change the components?
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Gary_C

Quote from: Ianab on August 29, 2014, 03:48:26 PM
:P Composition of average Wood Gas.

    Nitrogen N2: 50.9%
    Carbon monoxide CO: 27.0%
    Hydrogen H2: 14.0%
    Carbon dioxide CO2: 4.5%
    Methane CH4: 3.0%
    Oxygen O2: 0.6%.

So a significant part of that is actually Hydrogen. The nitrogen and CO2 do nothing, so it's the CO, H2 and CH4 that are actually the fuel, so it's more like 30% of the fuel is hydrogen.

Those percentages are by volume. By weight it looks a little different. (if I remembered how to convert correctly)

    Nitrogen N2: 57.6%
    Carbon monoxide CO: 30.55%
    Hydrogen H2: 1.13%
    Carbon dioxide CO2: 8.0%
    Methane CH4: 1.94%
    Oxygen O2: 0.776%.

So hydrogen and methane are just small players in the wood gas, it really is a fuel made of carbon monoxide. And the carbon monoxide is only present if you starve the wood fire of oxygen.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Ianab

Yes, but H2 has about 14X the chemical energy (by weight) compared to CO. A kg of hydrogen will make a much bigger "pop" than a kilo of almost anything else.

So although it not a major on the mass scale, it still provides a significant part of the "oomph".

Ian
Weekend warrior, Peterson JP test pilot, Dolmar 7900 and Stihl MS310 saws and  the usual collection of power tools :)

Ianab

Quote from: Ron Wenrich on August 29, 2014, 11:49:51 PM
Interesting.  Is that composition the same for all biomass or only wood?  Does moisture content change the components?

The ratios are variable, I guess it depends on how well the gasification is working. A bit more air going in and more of the methane would oxidise to CO2, CO and H2? Moisture content will probably affect the reaction, and you would get H20 (steam) in the mix. Type of feed stock must have an effect too, but if you are feeding in cellulose, it's chemically similar no matter if it's wood or straw or corn husks.. or...

But it's pretty much always going to be some mix of those gasses coming out.

Ian
Weekend warrior, Peterson JP test pilot, Dolmar 7900 and Stihl MS310 saws and  the usual collection of power tools :)

Brucer

Quote from: pineywoods on August 29, 2014, 03:28:11 PM
NASA spent a ton of money trying to find a way to store hydrogen. I had a neighbor who was on the research team. The thing that ultimately killed the idea was a process called hydrogen embrittlement. Hydrogen atoms are so small, they will seep through solid metal. In doing so, they make the metal extremely brittle....

This is the crux of the storage problem. I worked in an oil refinery 4 decades ago. One of the processes used compressed hydrogen, which was a byproduct of another process. We had a steel tank about the size of a modern SUV to store the hydrogen between the two processes. Every year we had to do non-destructive tests on the tank to measure the extent of the embrittlement.

I happened to be in the maintenance department when we did a test. The hydrogen had penetrated about half way through the walls of the tank and had started delaminating the steel. In effect we started up with a conventional steel vessel, but ended up with a vessel of very brittle steel inside a pressure vessel of ductile steel. We had no choice but to scrap the tank and replace it. Apparently this happened so regularly that they had a spare tank ready to go.
Bruce    LT40HDG28 bandsaw
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers."

Brucer

Hydrogen can be made relatively efficiently by electrolysis of water. Which means you need electrical energy to make it. Where does that energy come from. If it's from fuel-fired power plants, than the hydrogen has to cost more than fuel oil.

Hydrogen can also be made by breaking down natural gas. So hydrogen made this way will always cost more than natural gas.

Internal combustion engines (and external combustion engines for that matter) are relatively inefficient. The maximum theoretical efficiency is about 75% -- in practice they are nowhere close to that.

So if you are going to use electricity to produce hydrogen to burn in an engine, you are better off to use the electricity to directly charge a battery and use it to power an electric motor. Keep in mind that the hydrogen storage tanks will probably weigh as much as the batteries, and will probably have the same life.

If you're going to use natural gas to produce hydrogen to burn in an engine, why not just burn the natural gas. Skip a conversion step and eliminate one inefficiency. Natural gas is also easier to store than hydrogen.


Bruce    LT40HDG28 bandsaw
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers."

sharp edge

I think there will be some form of (H) in the future of the earth. We had lots of problems with the nuclear stuff too and over came lots of them..   Just stay away from the H-bomb.

SE
The stroke of a pen is mighter than the stroke of a sword, but we like pictures.
91' escort powered A-14 belsaw, JD 350-c cat with jamer and dray, 12" powermatic planer

r.man

One of the advantages I see in a conversion that produces a clean fuel with an unclean fuel, say coal to electricity, is the ability to control the pollution at the source. Burn coal in a clean plant that is designed to minimize pollution and then use the electricity to power electric cars in cities without the pollution. From the perspective of this forum you could run a gas or diesel generator to power your sawmill, processor or splitter. Doesn't make much sense until you consider the fact that you can now stay away from the pollution of the motor involved by using a long cord to the machine.
Life is too short or my list is too long, not sure which. Dec 2014

Ron Wenrich

But, the pollution does eventually come down.  Just not in your backyard.  Acid rain in the NW PA had a pH value of lemon juice.  The source was from coal fired plants in the Midwest.  Scrubbers takes care of that, but the damage was done and it had to be drawn out in courts and Legislatures to correct the problem.

Electric cars would make more sense if they had a better battery solution and if they could power with cleanly generated electricity.  If using coal fired plants, all you're doing is driving with coal instead of oil.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Cornishman

Quote from: Jeff on August 28, 2014, 09:03:55 PM
I would think the ultimate answer would be to have solar that produced hydrogen. I know its possible, but no idea if it is scalable.
I am sure it could be. We have PV panels on our roof and down the road is 5 MWs worth.
I thought the main problem with hydrogen was safety.

Ianab

There are safety issues with hydrogen as a fuel. If can attack metal and has to be stored under high pressure.

But then there are issues with petrol and propane as well, and we live with those.

One plus that hydrogen has, if it does leak, it rises and soon disperses. Propane and petrol vapour are heavier than air, so tend to gather in any hollow around the leak. That's why they set up such a large safety cordon around a crashed LPG tanker. If it leaks it "pools" and spreads over the ground, and the whole cloud could be ignited by a distant ignition source.

That's why many people escaped the Hindenburg disaster. The burning gas rose away from them as they escaped. Very spectacular but the people running on the ground below it where able to escape.
Weekend warrior, Peterson JP test pilot, Dolmar 7900 and Stihl MS310 saws and  the usual collection of power tools :)

Alligator

This has been quite fun to read. I have always been curious about hydrogen as a fuel, and seen all the different claims that it can be a viable energy source. I am not a strong chemistry person. I did the experiments in high school to separate the 2 hydrogen from the 1 oxygen atom. The simple takeaway was that it takes "x" amount of energy plus H2O to produce "y" quantity hydrogen. "y" quantity of hydrogen yields "z" BTUs. Knowing "x" and determining "y" this gives $ per BTU that I can insert into my machine and make it go or do whatever it does.

Man kind spends trillions of dollars scouring the earths surface to find, drill, transport, refine, and deliver petroleum which takes energy. This is fairly evident that this is a profitable venture, looking at the fortunes that have been amassed from it.

It takes "x" amount of energy to produce "y" quantity of petroleum. "y" quantity of petroleum yields "z" BTUs. Gasoline yields roughly 114,000 BTUs per gallon. Today 10/19/14 gas is hovering at $3.00 per gallon / 114,000 BTUs.

x$$=BTUs & BTUs = x$$  Petroleum has a low BTU in to high BTU out ratio. Hydrogen at present not so much.

We have found H2O! When someone devises a method of producing hydrogen that will yield a $ per BTU ratio that is lucrative to the producer, there will be a hydrogen station on every corner.
Esterer Sash Gang is a  Money Machine

Al_Smith

Quote from: OneWithWood on August 29, 2014, 01:28:15 PM
Quote from: Gary_C on August 29, 2014, 10:50:49 AM

And then there is the "Ka Boom" problem.  ::)

Hmm.  Wasn't that part of the issue with the Hindenburg?
I think the Hindenberg pretty much put the stoppers in hydrogen for fuel about like three mile island did for nuclear  power .The kaboob factor did it .

Alligator

I don't think the "Hindenberg" or "Ka Boom" factor are effecting the use of hydrogen in this day and age. We have so many, as explosive or more explosive materials or other more deadly materials around us, it would terrify you to know.  The Hindenberg was not using it as fuel nor containing as we contain our explosive fuels. It was more or less contained in a huge pillow case. (over simplification) None the less not well protected against leaks.

Feasibility is hydrogen's problem. With the raw resource being free, the energy to separate the 2 hydrogen atoms from the one oxygen atom is equal to or less than the amount of energy produced. Petroleum doesn't come out of the ground as gasoline, it has to be separated. Petroleum and water are both natural resources. A BTU of gasoline today cost $0.00002632 give or take 100 or so millionth of a cent. The person who can get the cost of a BTU of hydrogen one hundred thousandth of a cent of that will become a very rich person. 8) 8) This is not a perpetual motion machine, the fuel is locked it water, and no one has figured a way to extract mass quantities at a rate per BTU anywhere close to gasoline price above. That number is an inflated number because it includes taxes.
Esterer Sash Gang is a  Money Machine

Brucer

Quote from: Alligator on October 19, 2014, 10:50:59 PM
... the energy to separate the 2 hydrogen atoms from the one oxygen atom is equal to or less than the amount of energy produced...

It cannot be less than the amount of energy produced. You can only get back from combustion what you used to separate the atoms in the first place. First law of thermodynamics.
Bruce    LT40HDG28 bandsaw
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers."

Gary_C

Quote from: Brucer on October 21, 2014, 01:11:21 AM

It cannot be less than the amount of energy produced. You can only get back from combustion what you used to separate the atoms in the first place. First law of thermodynamics.

The first law is only true for a closed system. It does not say you cannot allow energy to escape in a process.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Ianab

QuoteThe first law is only true for a closed system. It does not say you cannot allow energy to escape in a process.

True, but if you allow energy to escape from said closed system, it must eventually "run down". If energy is escaping from your system, then you need to be adding more in some way. Falling water to turn your generator, sunshine on your solar panel, fuel added to the gas tank etc.
Weekend warrior, Peterson JP test pilot, Dolmar 7900 and Stihl MS310 saws and  the usual collection of power tools :)

Brucer

We agree, Gary. In this case the suggestion (if I understood it correctly) was that the system would have a net gain in energy. Hence my reference to the first law.
Bruce    LT40HDG28 bandsaw
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers."

maple flats

I had an uncle who was (he died a few yrs. ago at age 93) a Dr. of geophysics. He told me that he was certain that in the next half century, lots of energy would be made from electrolysis of water. He never lost his faculties even at 93. He envisioned wave power generators anchored offshore, electrolyzing water and then piping the hydrogen onshore where it would fire electric turbines.
He was a mental giant in my view, in everything he ever did, as well as those who worked with him (in 1952 Van had taken enough courses in math, physics, geology, and chemistry to have graduated with a major in any of the above. [taken from http://virtualmuseum.seg.org/bio_robert_van_nostrand.html) I hope he was right, waves are a free energy source and a big system run that way seems far safer than nuclear when there are people out there who consider it an honor to destroy another people.
logging small time for years but just learning how,  2012 36 HP Mahindra tractor, 3point log arch, 8000# class excavator, lifts 2500# and sets logs on mill precisely where needed, Woodland Mills HM130Max , maple syrup a hobby that consumes my time. looking to learn blacksmithing.

HuckFin

I can make hydrogen for next to nothing. I have a micro/hydroelectric system that runs 24/7 charging 8 L16 batteries. When the batteries reach full charge the excess voltage is used to power a heater, (to keep the alternator from over revving) so instead of using the heater for a governor, I could make hydrogen instead but don't feel that adventurous.

Bill

fwiw - I recall an article some time back about some researchers that claimed to have found a simple organism ( from a swamp or volcano or ??? ) that took in - oops I forget - but one of the byproducts was hydrogen . Now lest anyone jump to conclusions - it was some time ago - after those folks that claimed that they'd solved " cold fusion " but some time back none the less . Now I'm not saying it was a hoax or not - just that its failed to make  more recent news .

Bottom line - imho - its more expensive to make hydrogen than to just use the fuel you would have used to make hydrogen .

Gary_C

The search for a way to produce hydrogen economically is not over. 

Hydrogen fuel breakthrough could pave the way for clean cars

This is research done by scientists at Virginia Tech, peer reviewed, and published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The only thing left to do is scale the process up to prove it is feasible on a large scale. But that is always easier said than done.

Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Thank You Sponsors!