The Ohio State University granted $1.6 million by Department of Energy for hydrogen research
It is no secret that the "hydrogen economy," as proposed, requires very large amounts of hydrogen if it will ever come to reality. One reason proponents of hydrogen as fuel wish to pursue their ideas is because hydrogen is in no short supply, being that it is a part of water, helping to make it the most abundant chemical element in the universe. However, it is rather expensive to separate the hydrogen from the water, and right now it's more attractive to extract it from natural gas.
The Ohio State University was just chosen out of twenty applicants to receive an award of $1.6 million to research and develop a method of capturing hydrogen using coal. Their process would separate hydrogen, carbon dioxide and chlorides, as well as sulfur from coal made into a synthetic gas, and then into pure hydrogen via a process known as chemical looping.
According to this article, "Once the coal has been transformed, the syngas is then put through a reactor where it encounters steam. Fan said at a certain temperature and pressure a reaction will turn the syngas into hydrogen, without using any catalyst."
"It is a very efficient, economical and technology-viable way to generate hydrogen," according to Dan Ciccero, technology manager for hydrogen and syngas for the National Energy Technology Laboratory, a branch of the Department of Energy.
A single stage chemical looping reactor will be built at the University to make this research possible.
Related:
[Source: The Lantern]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Howard Lee Harkness 1:36PM (1/19/2007)
Anyone with an understanding of chemistry (which apparently does not include Jeremy) will see that this article is grossly inaccurate. First of all, coal contains almost no hydrogen; coal is nearly 100% carbon. The hydrogen in the process comes almost exclusively from the steam -- which DOES have hydrogen in it. And the process results in CO2, a greenhouse gas that must be dealt with separately.
It would be far more efficient, cleaner, and safer just to burn the coal to generate electricity, which would have essentially the same amount of CO2 generation for a lot more economic benefit.
But the gross scientific screwup evident in this report pales in significance in light of the fact that the money used to finance this boondoggle was stolen from the taxpayers. If hydrogen had any chance at all of being a viable fuel, it would not need government subsidy. Big business would be all over it, funding all the research for their own benefit.
Reply
Tim 4:06PM (1/19/2007)
Hey, free money... Let's party, dude!
After they have spent the money, they will give us the same answer we already have. Hydrogen is a really bad idea for many reasons. Doubt this, just read some of the other Hydrogen blogs on this site and do your own research. They will continue to beat this dead horse as long as they are paid to do so.
Reply
Xoham 5:39PM (1/19/2007)
I wish we could stop the who hydrogen thing now, before we waste more money on it.
Big Oil and Big Coal will be more than happy to continue to help us make dirty inefficient technologies work, like hydrogen fuel cells.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells - "Now even less efficient than petroleum, but with bogus happy feelings of green!"
Reply
CM 7:48PM (1/19/2007)
The hydrogen promoters are thinking that the hydrogen can then be used in fuel cells to produce electricity more efficiently than current plants. Unfortunately, the improvement over existing plants is marginal.
Carbon from coal (or any other source) can be used in a high temperature molten carbonate fuel cell to produce electricity directly, no hydrogen involved. Direct carbon fuel cells are much more efficient than going the "steam reforming & hydrogen fuel cell" route.
Reply
Bill Maher is an Idiot 10:43PM (1/19/2007)
Yeah! We all know electricity is future. I thought so because the same ten misfits on this blog keep saying it is!
Reply
Jeremy 11:56PM (1/19/2007)
Howard, I have made an update to the post to reflect the fact that the hydrogen does not come from the coal. Thanks for pointing that out.
PS - I know a little chemistry, not a great deal. You could have made your point without questioning my knowledge. We report on topics of interest to our readers, which includes hydrogen, the "hydrogen economy" and any new technology that merits it, regardless of our personal feelings on what, if anything, will come of it.
I appreciate your opinions and hope to read more comments from you, as you are a source of insight on many of the sites topics of converstation. Have a nice day.
Reply
Der Alte 3:05AM (1/20/2007)
Who's directing this research, Rube Goldberg? This is assinine. If we're going to burn coal, its much more efficient to burn it directly to produce electricity to feed BEV or PHEVs than it is to waste time burning it to make steam to produce hydrogen to ship it through a very complex fuelling infastructure to eventually end up in a car with a fuel cell so it can drive an electric motor. Nobody has yet to produce convincing research on how a vehicle fuelled on hydrogen can be any more efficient than a vehicle fuelled on electricity directly from the grid. If somebody's tried...I'd like to see it.
Reply