Working to solve the hydrogen storage dilemna with metal hydrides
Carnegie Mellon has some interesting research going on these days. Those who oppose hydrogen as a fuel source (electricity) have quite a few problems to hang their hats on. For one, where to get the hydrogen from? Yes, it is abundant, but it is tied up with other stuff... making things such as water. Much of the hydrogen currently in use is captured from natural gas, which is expensive and has dubious environmental benefits. Another problem is hydrogen storage. What do you do with the hydrogen once it has been captured? Lastly, fuel cells are very expensive and take a lot of research and development time. Carnegie Mellon is working on that last one right now. Check here for their press releaseI know that I'll take lots of flak for this, but at the risk of losing credibility with certain readers (you know who you are!), let me say I don't mind this research into hydrogen. I still strongly believe that electric cars have the brightest future, and hydrogen fuel cells may work as a good range extender. Yes, I agree that plugging in your electric car is the best solution, and for most people, a range extender will almost never be necessary. But, when it is necessary, hydrogen fuel cells are a possible source for that extra electricity. How far will you need to travel? OK... put that much extra hydrogen in the tank. You'll probably almost never need it!
What I am saying is this: Don't be too quick to write off hydrogen. Remember, when batteries were in their infancy, they would never have worked for electric cars either. Imagine a car full of acid filled glass jars!
[Source: Carnegie Mellon]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Chris M 4:15PM (5/14/2007)
Actually, the linked article mentioned "borohydrates" which presumably could be poured into a tank in the form of an aqueous solution. When H2 is needed, some of the solution is pumped into a chamber with a catalyst, which converts the borohydrate and water into a borate and H2. The borate waste would have to be recycled, as it can be toxic in large amounts.
The problems lie in the high cost of making the borohydrates, the cost of recycling the borate, and the weight of the fuel.
This is different from metal hydrates, which suffer from high cost, high weight, and very slow refill times.
Reply
Jeremy Korzeniewski 4:22PM (5/14/2007)
"We are currently studying the use of metal hydrides, such as alanates and borohydrides, to find materials that could ultimately improve the efficiency of hydrogen cars and curb pollution," said Sholl
That was a quote from the article. I am no chemist. Are we both correct... me saying metal hydrides and you saying borohydrates?
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 5:01PM (5/14/2007)
If storage of the stuff was the biggest or most important hurdle, then it might be worth some effort to solve that problem.
It isn't.
There is no scenario for using hydrogen to power an automobile that can't be rendered cheaper, safer, more efficient, and greener by leaving out the extremely wasteful and polluting* hydrogen conversion steps.
This is due to some fundamental laws of chemistry and physics, and is not susceptible to any improvements in efficiency in the technology.
I think that a simple look at the grant sources funding Carnegie Mellon's research will be sufficient to explain why they are wasting time and resources looking into this, when they can't possibly be unaware that the storage problem is moot. Unfortunately, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that Political Correctness combined with grant money can cause 'researchers' to ignore the obvious.
*Yes, polluting. Commercial hydrogen is not produced by electrolysis, because that process is much more expensive than methane reformation. Until that changes, hydrogen will remain not only the most expensive way to power a car, but the dirtiest.
PS I had a glitch when posting, and I hope it isn't a double-post like the last time that happened.
PPS It sure would be nice if ABG had a post preview feature.
Reply
rtz 9:17PM (5/14/2007)
I'm not so hyped about hydrogen. Lets say the fuel cell vehicle gets ~35mpg. Hydrogen is ~$4 a lb/gal/kilo/whatever.
Right back to where we are right now, minus the pollution. Big oil owns your wallet!
If your electric car got 1,000 miles per charge and was fast; why wouldn't this be the best solution for transportation!?
Reply
Henry 9:49AM (5/15/2007)
Mainstream journals like Wired and Popular Mechanics have already written off Hydrogen. If you wanted to extend your range use a CNG ICE engine it is cheaper,cleaner and more efficient than a fuelcell. You have still not shown the CNG Prius which is a lot cleaner and cheaper than the Fuelcell Prius.
Reply