Thread 16732001

I remember some time ago this was discussed in 4chins, diy hydrogen production. It was constantly brought that "it wasn't efficient", but I went and threw some math at it, and it appeared to make sense. Mostly, considering you have electricity surplus, like having your own solar panels. And water wasn't worth gold prices. It was a straightforward way to store energy. Note I'm not comparing it to batteries, I haven't done the math in that regard, but hydrogen you can store as easily as storing gasoline, except it is gas. A simple gasoline or diesel engine can work with hydrogen, except with prolonged time, it'll rust. But that doesn't mean that there can't be engines specially designed for this purpose. Granted this is outside of the scope for most people.
All in all I'd like to see you /sci/entists throw math at this and see what happens.
Some people swear this is the ice's green replacement. What do you say?

>>16732001 (OP)
*
vid link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY08xO-_11w

We would drop liquid nitrogen in PET bottles.
This did result in some nice bangs.

>>16732060
just read that it needs to be subzero cold to be liquid, interesting
>This did result in some nice bangs.
like opening the bottle, pouring it in and closing the lid I assume? did it react with the air in the bottle in some kind of way I assume?

>>16732067
We had access to huge dewar bottles with liquid nitrogen in them.
At least a hundred liters plus.

>>16732081
sheeeeit, what did you all did with them?

>>16732001 (OP)
>hydrogen you can store as easily as storing gasoline, except it is gas
NO!
Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store. The stuff will leak out of "airtight" containers like it's nothing. It's impossible to pressurize at any reasonable temperature. And it's constantly looking for any excuse to explode.

Hydrogen is evil stuff when you've got any meaningful volume on your hands.

>>16732087
peru is filled to the brim with cars that run on natural gas, they're the majority, because they have local gas production

>>16732090
>>16732087
* and gasoline is too expensive for them

>>16732085
We did a lot of experiments.
Fill a little bit of it in a regular PET bottle.
It will explode in a rather rough way.
Ad some weights and throw it into the Rhine.
It's a huge bang.

>>16732096
you fuckos had fun eh? nice nice

>>16732090
>>16732092
NatGas and hydrogen are two different things, anon.

>>16732102
both are gas elements in normal state, why would hydrogen gas have different behavior than natural gas?

>>16732118
>how can two completely different gasses have different sets of properties?
Not trying to be rude here but the existence of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) aside, hydrogen gas is a much smaller molecule than methane and so can much more easily seep through valves and fittings in tanks that are otherwise considered "airtight." It's also more volatile so static on your clothing is more likely to set it off.

>>16732144
I see, interesting. google is telling me it's rocket science and that it has to be presurized. However there's people inflating a normal balloon with it or storting it in some kind of DIY reconditioned standard gas tank

>>16732157
If you treat it with sufficient respect, you can do little science fair level demonstrations without killing yourself. This is pretty far removed from any sort of industrial application though.
Right now the primary realm for innovation in "green hydrogen" technology is storage and transport. There exists things like "Powerpaste" that store hydrogen in a chemical form from which it can easily be released. But economic viability is still very much in question.

>>16732162
thanks for being civil, it helps, when you discuss this shit with people in 4chans it would seem that an oil tycoon is paying them to hatepost their hardest with 0 evidence

I'll keep "researching" the topic, because it is interesting as fuck to me. A diy gas fuel from water and electricity. Fucking sick.

>>16732173
I'd recommend starting here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen
There's even chemical methods to produce the hydrogen so you don't necessarily need to use electricity to generate it.

>>16732181
thx pham

>>16732118
you're american right?

>>16732118
>both are gas elements in normal state
No, one is a diatomic element and one is a short chain hydrocarbon. the molar mass of methane is 8 times higher than hydrogen's, it's massive by contrast. Helium has a similar problem, it's so small it'll seep through things that would otherwise be airtight to larger molecules.

>>16732239
what's the cheapest and simplest way to store hydrogen, is it really that hard?
>>16732207
no I just didn't pay much attention in chemistry, but I get it now thanks to anons explaining itt, when I said gas I mean as in gas/liquid/solid, not whatever super technical other meaning it might have

breaking news

>>16732100
Think of a pet bottle. It's gonna explode, which requires at least something like 6 bars of overpressure.
It will send light pieces of plastic as shrapnel around.
If you have a basic understanding of physics, you know that makes for terrible shrapnel, it has a very low density and loses energy fast.
Yet, that stuff went deep into a pallet that was nearby.
Took me some time to get it out.

Of course we did this multiple times in a building with 100+ people. Nobody complained.

>>16733529
Oh, and I'm sorry if your education sucked.
Companies payed over a million to educate me.
Of course this is only possible in a very selected few of countries.
The US not being one of them.

>>16732731
>when I said gas I mean as in gas/liquid/solid, not whatever super technical other meaning it might have
It's hardly "super technical."
You can store marbles in a loosely woven basket just fine. Try to store sand in there and it will leak like a sieve.

I think i am late to the "hydrogen storage debate"-party but anyways:
We were told last semester in inorganic chemistry lecture that one of the biggest difficulties of storing under high pressure is that it will diffuse through the lattice of the iron atoms of the pressure tank that surrounds it. There it will react with the stored carbon atoms that make the steel flexible.
This results in very short standing-times of hydrogen pressure tanks (in germany they need to be checked every 6 months if i remember correctly)

In addition to the other points mentioned here, another issue with storing hydrogen is its shitty energy density per unit of volume. You need bulky tanks to store any useful amount. For a real world example, the Toyota Mirai, which has h2 tanks as large as you can practically fit into a mid sized sedan can only carry 5.6 kg of hydrogen. That's the only the energy equivalent of 21 liters / 5.5 gallons of gasoline.

>>16732731
>what's the cheapest and simplest way to store hydrogen, is it really that hard?
Yes it is really that hard. The best way to store hydrogen is as water to be electrolysized(?) later when needed. Unless you're producing industrial amounts of hydrogen at a reasonably constant rate and storing it in a large pressurized tank under sub zero temperatures, you're gonna lose so much to it leaking that you effectively can't store it.

>>16733529
>anone reveals mega bomb recipe

>>16733534
honestly that's how it should be, the companies I work with have spent some in my education, don't want to be specific, but unlimited paid courses portal, and then some certs

>>16733584
yeah, that's not hard to get, however I don't see why that can't be contained in a cheap enough way

>>16733603
Hm, store as liquid and make into gas at the time of combustion maybe?does it mean sense?

How much water du u carry, if you got proest u can get electrolisis?

>>16733924
rookie numbas ;_;

>>16733991
but w8, 10 kg of hydrogen takes you 1000km in gas form, not that bad

>>16733992
>A car with good fuel economy (e.g., 15-20 kmpl) might need around 50-70 liters to travel 1000 km

>>16732001 (OP)
The best way to make hydrogen an effective fuel is to turn it into ammonia, and make an ammonia fuel cell to run your electric car.

>>16734022
>have solar panels
>access to infinite water 0 extra cost
>>some people I figure not too many match this description
and you refill 10kg of hydrogen gas into that car and you're redy to travel fucking far as fuck

>>16733912
In order to liquify Hydrogen, it must be cooled down below its critical temperature (33K).
To generate such low temperatures in a car is not practical, if not impossible.
>>16733761
Electrolysis of water is just shifting the problem since you need another way of storing the energy that you want to turn into flamable hydrogen when needed.

>>16734022
Ammonia is toxic if the concentration in the air is high enough, which makes it kind of unsafe to put a shitload of it in a car. That is the reason it is not commonly used as a refrigerant in consumer devices.

>>16732087
Storage seems an unnecessary diversion. Why pain over advanced storage systems, when you could store the water itself, ready for electrolysis.

>>16734356
>Electrolysis of water is just shifting the problem since you need another way of storing the energy that you want to turn into flamable hydrogen when needed.

>>16734356
Because electrolysis requires more energy to do than you get out of burning the hydrogen.
This literally only makes sense if you mass produce the hydrogen in one time and place to be burned in another. Otherwise it's a net loss of energy.

>>16734356
according to the math I've thrown to google, in order for that to make any sense the process of electrolysis has to improve its performance like 1000x fold, try googling how much water would you need to generate hydrogen to travel 100km

>>16734534
here
>>16734356
and themath is in the pic here
>>16733991

so is there room for improvement in hydrogen electrolisis, my intuition says yes, mostly because they make it look like some kind of gorka morka science. to specify, probably room for improvement in the materials and shapes of the elements

>>16732001 (OP)
just convert it to methanol much more efficient storage than pressurizing h2.

Considering the cost of all those conversions there is simply now way this is better than a battery.

>>16732001 (OP)
I like it because it looks cooler when it explodes compared to batteries

>>16733892
>anone reveals mega bomb recipe
We let it go off in a building, full with other people, that was mainly the fun part.
It's hardly dangerous... Unless you would modify I... Sorry, I have to stop.
>>16733897
Good to hear.
I haven't even worked that much on that job, but in the time I did, I saved them a couple millions easily.
So, I guess it was worth it for them.
Not a bad time for me either, I was mostly left to do what I wanted.
I'm kind of a lazy fuck, so I just started automating a ton of process analyzing, hello excel and vba, my old friend.

>>16734349
>just shifting the problem since you need another way of storing the energy that you want to turn into flamable hydrogen when needed.
Yes, because it's not an economic way of storing fuel.

>>16736412
Current large scale methods of electrolysis are around 70% to 80% efficient. So yes, there is some room for improvement, but not a enough by itself to make a big change in the economic viability.

>>16732001 (OP)
Yeah it's not to bad in terms of energy expended depending on your reactor design.
But uh...
*explodes*
woops...
Consider this anon, Hydrogen gas is an atom made of only one proton.
It's so sooooo tiny, and sooooo reactive. Once it finds it's way out of your container, and it will, it will very soon react with the diatomic oxygen in the air.

>>16736578
>Sorry, I have to stop.
keks were had
>jobs
I've been automating stuff lately a couple of projects this month, node really is agile in this regard
I haven't saved them anything, or maybe I have and I'm not aware, in my case it is about not letting the money flow stop under any circumstance, stressful

>>16737045
I see that it is extremely inflammable and explossive, I know it is super dangerous, but I also see potential in these properties

>>16732001 (OP)
your math is wrong
I will not elaborate further, but hydrogen storage is far from trivial and one of the key headaches involved in hydrogen-based energy storage.

>>16732731
>what's the cheapest and simplest way to store hydrogen, is it really that hard?
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis using coal to make short chain alkanes.

>>16737482
I've done some math, and my main concern is that it consumes a fuckton of water, according to google, that is. so taking that into account, it'd be very limited solution, meaning that you need free electricity (you have it with solar panels), and apparently a fuckton of water, so you better have a water spring nearby that you can get all the water you want from.
other than that, common sense says to store it outside of your house, since it is very inflammable and explosive
still though, let's say you got the setup I described, and you have your EV vehicle, and you also have some kind of hydrogen fueled vehicle
so you can just "fuel" your vehicle this way
I admit it doesn't make much sense, but still. the main awe inspiring point is
>I can make fuel with just water and electricity?
yes, you can :DDDDDDD

>>16737600
NTA but I will look into this further. Already into investing and having reasonable success with it.
Nothing big like creating a company but figuring stuff out and making a guide? Maybe.

>>16737670
these keywords in yt showed me some examples "DIY hydrogen electrolisis ", I'd also check wikipedia, Google, yandex and see what the AI chats have to say about it, but Google alone can already give you some numbers on the process

>>16737684
Thank you for the leads

>>16737600
For personal use you would not need a huge amount of water; 1 liter of water contains about 110 grams of hydrogen. The Toyota Mirai (the most common fuel cell car) gets about 110 km per kg of H2 on the EPA tests, so if you drove you drove that much a day (that's like double the average American, mind you) you would need like 9 liters of water, which is trivial compared to other household uses.

The real issue with a home hydrogen setup up is that the high pressure pumps you need need to compress hydrogen enough to be useful in running a car are not cheap, and require regular maintenance. If the regular maintenance on them is not performed you get nasty explosions. Zoning laws in many areas will forbid those sorts of pumps as a safety hazard.

>>16737758
I see, nearly exclussive for very legally permissive places or for totally or almost off grid setups

>>16737758
dame, it's be perfect scenario for home heating fuel, if it wasn't because it's fucking explosive as fuck, I wonder if there's a setup where this is mitigated

>>16732001 (OP)
Not hydrogen but a hydrocarbon, you don’t have to stop the process at Hydrogen because you also get CO2 out of the process. The US Navy already sussed this out years ago because they were toying with the idea of using the excess power of a carriers nuclear reactor to create jet fuel on board from sea water instead of having to get fuel delivered from a logistics ship. Turned out to not be economically feasible when at sea but no one’s really crunched the numbers for an on shore application with a similar size/cost/type reactor.

>>16732001 (OP)
Fuel cells are more efficient than hydrogen combustion, which is a hassle too.
And if you're using gas or diesel to make hydrogen you're better off using gas or diesel to power what needs to be powered in the first place.
You're just adding more thermodynamic steps without good reason.
The sole advantage of full electric is that these steps are reduced: from photons or kinectic energy to electricity and then final use. Inherently more efficient. The limiting factor is electric energy storage and, in the case of countries with decadent infrastructure, transmission and distribution. Of course, batteries are not perfect in storage either, but their losses are more manageable. Ideally you wouldn't have batteries but HYPERCAPACITORS as energy storage.

>>16737786
the concept of using the surplus energy of a fucking nuclear reactor to refuel your planes at will being "not cost effective" blows my mind, I kind of want to laugh, I can picture that that would necessarily imply creating new plane engines that would be hydrogen compatible, and I can see that being a massive money sink, but not "generating fuel" that cost you almost 0

>>16737464
Don't worry. It's useless to worry about work mostly.
But, personally, I still keep all the shit running.
Because it's not that hard to do that.
Of course, the communists start accusing me next.

>>16738344
We already take all the energy nuclear plants can make and need more. And it doesn't cost 0 at all. Their OpEx is quite high actually.
And making anything that burns hydrogen is a hassle, includinh rocket engines. Hydrolox rockets are notoriously harder to make and launch than methane and kerosene. And they're not at the sweet spot considering the density of hydrogen (yes, even as liquid).

>>16738344
You misunderstood that a bit; the idea the Navy was experimenting with was creating synthetic aviation fuel, that would work with existing planes. No need to develop new engines. Basically by making hydrogen from water using electrolysis, and extracting carbon from CO2 dissolved in seawater, and combining the two into hydrocarbon fuel.

But the economics just didn't work out; do remember that the power from a nuclear plant is not free, using more power would require the ship to be refueled more often and refueling naval reactors is currently a long, costly operation. And the equipment to electrolysis the hydrogen & extract the carbon, store them, and combine into fuel also costs money, and also needs regular maintenance; as others have mentioned hydrogen is a bitch to work with, anything touching hydrogen needs to be treated carefully. Especially on a ship, which adds all the fun of salt based corrosion on top of the hydrogen issues.

>>16738842
I was under the impression that nuclear = infinite energy forever, no refueling