An interesting article regarding research into producing hydrogen from water.
Interesting in that it proposes to solve a problem that has already been solved many times previously? There is always room for improvement.
The phys.org website is jam packed with articles going back years claiming the holy grail of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules cheaply amd efficiently.
I wonder where it will lead. There is a year old research item from QUT in BrisVegas that uses a catalyst based on nickel oxide, cobalt, and gold dust. Two of these three products might have been found in Clive Palmers Townsville Nickel Refinery. Some might say all three, although Iām not sure about what sort of dust Clive is known for.
2 Likes
This case has been rather hyped up. They havenāt found the holy grail they have used a computer to model where it might be found. Do they or anybody have funding to actually do the search? Will anybody take it further or will it remain just a point of interest?
2 Likes
Easy, donāt tax the hydrogen at all. In this context, hydrogen is a (rather inefficient) carrier of energy. If it must be taxed, then tax the energy. Whether that would send the desired messages to the market, on the other hand ā¦
2 Likes
My preference is to leave the taxes on ICE fuel and only create a road tax once non ICE vehicles have become widespread and in true mass production, this functions as a subsidy to get non ICEs going faster and past the design and tool-up stage. Purists will say a government should not pick the winner in a race between new tech but this isnāt doing that, it is picking the loser.
3 Likes
It also leaves a significant revenue shortfall in the Federal budget, while reducing funds available to the states for road infrastructure. Something that needs all gives to agree to. (Look, did you see that Tasmanian Tiger over there on the Parliament House lawn?)
Subsequently which brand of government is going to dare to then add a big fat tax road on clean energy powered road vehicles?
P.S.
Independent of road vehicles, does producing hydrogen and exporting it without taxing the energy content look after Australians? It needs a solution! Yes, we currently virtually give our LNG away with the profits all vaporising into foreign entities?
1 Like
The WA government seems rather keen. I presume theyāve worked through the revenue implications:
2 Likes
āIn the fullness of time!ā
Political presumption is an uncertain place?
WA has a habit of thinking independently, irrespective of the shades of political leadership.
It is of course a positive announcement.
2 Likes
A good over view of the differences between hydrogen fuel cell, battery and hybrid vehicle technology.
Illuminating is the suggested low overall energy efficiency of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle cycle. It requires 3-4 times as much renewable energy as a battery vehicle for the same mileage.
On an industrial scale compressed hydrogen if used in a high efficiency engine such as a gas turbine (practical) or modern Stirling (theoretical) engine would only approach half the energy efficiency of modern battery storage systems.
3 Likes
A good article but what is the truck on the display stand supposed to represent?
On a slightly different note, I recall when all the doom and gloom news was about āpeak oilā a couple of decades ago and one documentary actually ended with someone having their Hummer being towed by draughhorses.
I also recall watching an interview with the Saudi oil minister at this time, and he said one of the most pragmatic things I have ever heard.
āThe stone age did not end because they ran out of rocks, and the oil age will not end because we have run out of oilā.
The world is still awash with oil but it appears it wonāt be needed for much longer.
1 Like
Whilst this may be the case, there will be other factors as well in the equation. Some of these have been listed earlier in this thread. Inefficiencies is possibly less of a concern when made from renewables as H2 has the potential to be made when renewable generation peaks and exceeds demands on the network. If H2 was not produced, the excess renewable generation opportunity will be lostā¦rather than used to less efficiency H2 production. As the byproducts of H2 creation will be ozygen and heat, these are less of an issue than say a traditional energy source which would have high inefficiency of conversion (where CO2 and NOx, SOx etc are produced).
There has also been discussion about nuclear and generating H2 as well for the same reasonsā¦the extra energy generated by nuclear could be turned into H2 instead of being lost. Countries with nuclear have the potential to capture this opportunity.
There are many countries which are also (renewable) energy resource poor. These countries will need a energy source to power their electricity grids, but the other energy users such as transportation. It would be even more inefficient to produce transportable hydrogen in Australia, ship it to these countries for them to turn it back into electricity to then use to charge EVs.
Japan is also targeting a H2 cost so that the energy cost will be comparable to existing transport fuels. If this occurs, then H2 will potentially be a game changer.
Another article regarding research into producing hydrogen from water.
- List item
A very distant relative worthy of its own topic.
āDecarbonising the production of metalsā?
It is not just iron that is dependant on coal and hydrocarbons in itās production. There are carbon costs at all stages of production of metals from mining through to final manufacturing. Iron making is the most obvious big one.
More of general interest about what is possible. Also a topic able to easily take on Alice in Wonderland or Danteās Inferno like discussion for those with some relevant experience and knowledge.
I thought maybe too remote from a consumer issue.
Which is why I posted.
Some of the principle pro-fossil-fuel arguments centre around industrial process heat and metal ore reduction. Hydrogen holds promise in both.
On the other hand:
https://www.iom3.org/news/2013/may/24/new-alloy-makes-it-possible-produce-iron-electrolysis
More than just for heat.
Different forms of iron/steel also require carbon in the final product to change its properties to suit its engineering needs Traditionally this has come from coking coal used in the smeltering process. I wonder where the carbon came from for the German steel furnace? Charcoal from vegetation or other organic sources of carbon?
The carbon content of steel is minuscule. Analysis of the Damascus steel of antiquity suggests that the carbon source was herbal. By some accounts, the process of manufacturing the billets was subject of ritual, with specific herbs introduced at specific stages.
1 Like
It isnāt minuscule. Some steel products have up to >2% carbon content by weight. Depending on the steelā¦it ranges from 0.05-0.25% for mild , 0.29% to 0.54% for medium, 0.55% to 0.95% for high and 0.96% to 2.1% for very high carbon steel. Pig iron is even higher at 3.8ā4.7% carbon.
As the world produced around 1800 million tonnes or steel in 2018, the amount of carbon used in steel production world wide is significant. At say a conservative average of 0.5% carbon in steel content, this is about 9 million tonnes of carbon consumed through steel production.
If herbal (or vegetation biomass to produce charcoal) is used, this correlates to about 18 million tonnes of dry biomass (dry biomass is about 50% carbon). As moisture content of green biomass is around 50-80+%, this indicates that about 40+ million tonnes of green biomass to make enough renewable carbon for steel productionā¦a significant amount not to be dismissed.
If one looks at bio-oil as a alternative carbon source to charcoal, the percentage of carbon is even less and would require higher volume of biomass if created through pyrolysis or if plant based oils are diverted to steel production (a concern of plant oils as it potentially reduces the potential for food production).
Another option could be to use general municipal waste or even dry biosolids as a feed stock to steel production as these waste would are both carbon source and have energy supplement potential. Biosolids may however have a higher and better used in agriculture, to which it is becoming more commonly used.
You are both right depending on how you look at it. Much steel processing is removing impurities that are introduced through the blast furnace, including excess carbon which is typically burnt off in a secondary furnace.
Other processes of making iron from ore such as electrolysis have been known for a long time. Many of these (I am guessing hydrogen is in this category) produce quite pure iron that can be used to make specialist steels, in some cases they add measured amounts of carbon.
The problem the alternative methods have is that to date they have been very costly compared to the blast furnace, even including the cost of purification and reprocessing of blast furnace iron. Cost is the cruncher. I would be interested to see any estimates on the cost of the H2 process.
If ever the cost problem is solved I think adding the required amount of carbon will fall into line as a lesser challenge of the process. My guess is that they will use some kind of charcoal that can be made leaving out sulphur and most other impurities that are in excess undesirable in steel making. Charcoal can be manufactured in a renewable way from trees.
3 Likes
Still be a lot of trees. In some respects, some of the carbon (not lost through manufacturing) will end up in the steel, locking up for a very long time. Possibly an indirect form of sequestration.
This is where opportunities using existing waste streams may provide an alternative option.
