Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[Shrek]

Ogres are gas experts...

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Maybe I missed something, but what does carbon capture have to do with Hydrogen production like, at all?

Also it's H, not H2, correct? The molecules aren't like oxygen, they do not bond to one another.

5 pages back, someone mentioned converting natural gas to H2 in centralized plants to capture the carbon generated from that process, instead of burning fossil fuels in cars. I pointed out that at that point, it would be more efficient to burn the methane and run CCS on the fossil fuel plant and power cars directly with the electricity.

Hydrogen likes forming one bond - a single hydrogen atom is an H+ ion. However, due to cool stuff called valence, two can bond and form a neutral molecule.

 

[Bomby569]

i'm not an expert on this, can someone explain this to me (someone quoted this somewhere else):

With carbon
capture and storage, hydrogen can be
produced directly from coal with near-zero
greenhouse gas emissions. Since growing
biomass consumes carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere, producing hydrogen
through biomass gasification results in
near-zero net greenhouse gas emissions
without carbon capture and storage.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/fcto_hydrogen_production_fs.pdf

I'm assuming energy.gov is a governmental US thing.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

i'm not an expert on this, can someone explain this to me (someone quoted this somewhere else):

With carbon
capture and storage, hydrogen can be
produced directly from coal with near-zero
greenhouse gas emissions. Since growing
biomass consumes carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere, producing hydrogen
through biomass gasification results in
near-zero net greenhouse gas emissions
without carbon capture and storage.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/fcto_hydrogen_production_fs.pdf

I'm assuming energy.gov is a governmental US thing.

CCS basically collects the exhaust from a power plant and takes out the carbon dioxide. It was saying that producing hydrogen from biomass (plants, trees etc) is nearly carbon neutral without CCS, but CCS can be used for methane-based.hydrogen production.

 

[Shrek]

CCS basically collects the exhaust from a power plant and takes out the carbon dioxide. It was saying that producing hydrogen from biomass (plants, trees etc) is nearly carbon neutral without CCS, but CCS can be used for methane-based.hydrogen production.

Nature locked up a lot of CO2 in what became limestone mountain ranges

Collecting is one thing, locking away is another; what is the intended end product?

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Nature locked up a lot of Co2 in what became limestone mountain ranges

Collecting is one thing, locking away is another; what is the intended end product?

IIRC, CCS CO2 is stored under a layer of bedrock. Possibly in an old natural gas well.

 

[Bomby569]

CCS basically collects the exhaust from a power plant and takes out the carbon dioxide. It was saying that producing hydrogen from biomass (plants, trees etc) is nearly carbon neutral without CCS, but CCS can be used for methane-based.hydrogen production.

how can you do it without CCS as they claim? is this like a magical claim from the Trump denial times?

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

how can you do it without CCS as they claim? is this like a magical claim from the Trump denial times?

The biomass that they are burning has already collected the carbon from the atmosphere. They are just re-releasing the same carbon.

 

[Bomby569]

The biomass that they are burning has already collected the carbon from the atmosphere. They are just re-releasing the same carbon.

probably something was missed in translation, but are you saying the carbon neutral is just releasing the carbon into the atmosphere? then any fossil fuel is neutral, it was collected at some point.

i hope i misunderstood.

 

[Shrek]

I think he is saying that if one grows corn for ethanol then one first takes the CO2 out to grow the plant and then returns it; net zero here and now

Fossil fuel increases the amount of CO2 here and now

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Fossil fuels are technically carbon neutral, but on a scale waaay bigger than climate change - think eras or eons. Biomass is more or less carbon neutral on an annual scale - one crop cycle if they are using ethanol based biomass systems. If timber, more like 20 year cycle at a guess.

 

[the54thvoid]

Fossil fuels are technically carbon neutral, but on a scale waaay bigger than climate change - think eras or eons. Biomass is more or less carbon neutral on an annual scale - one crop cycle if they are using ethanol based biomass systems. If timber, more like 20 year cycle at a guess.

Not really. If you simplify one crop = the same CO2 re-absorbed in one growth cycle, you cannot equate that to the geological processes that created oil. It's not as simple as one tank of petrol, given millions of years = one tank of petrol undeground. Oil was deposited as organic matter over millions of years, many millions of years ago (in what were once oceans). If you burn carbon-based matter now, that CO2 moves to the atmospheric cycle. The photosynthesis required to lock it back in happens in algae (perfect anaology for sedimentation) and trees. Those trees though are being felled by man. The soils are being turned over by man. The natural processes are being disrupted by us, so the creation of oil itself can't be considered the same as it was millions of years ago. The natural cycle has been altered by our industrial activities.

Basically, when we burn oil, it's not going to go back through quite the same processes as that which created it.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Not really. If you simplify one crop = the same CO2 re-absorbed in one growth cycle, you cannot equate that to the geological processes that created oil. It's not as simple as one tank of petrol, given millions of years = one tank of petrol undeground. Oil was deposited as organic matter over millions of years, many millions of years ago (in what were once oceans). If you burn carbon-based matter now, that CO2 moves to the atmospheric cycle. The photosynthesis required to lock it back in happens in algae (perfect anaology for sedimentation) and trees. Those trees though are being felled by man. The soils are being turned over by man. The natural processes are being disrupted by us, so the creation of oil itself can't be considered the same as it was millions of years ago. The natural cycle has been altered by our industrial activities.

Basically, when we burn oil, it's not going to go back through quite the same processes as that which created it.

Yes, true barring an extinction event. If we're are getting that technical though, the carbon from long-extinct plants and animals was once part of the atmospheric cycle...

Really though, Biomass can claim to be carbon neutral because they are going through a constant recycling of the carbon.

 

[the54thvoid]

Anyhoo.... I OT'd to your OT, which is in line with a lot of Off Topic in this hydrogen cars thread.

Thread needs put back on the right track. Or it's getting locked in the TPU thread capture cycle.

 

[Bomby569]

Fossil fuels are technically carbon neutral, but on a scale waaay bigger than climate change - think eras or eons. Biomass is more or less carbon neutral on an annual scale - one crop cycle if they are using ethanol based biomass systems. If timber, more like 20 year cycle at a guess.

assuming whatever biomass is used didn't grew on rocks or something like that, if it grew on a even moderately fertile grow (and most likely it just grew on very good soil) something else would be there and removing co2 in it's place and not releasing it afterwards and in many cases removing a lot more depending on what is used.

That's why i don't like the term carbon neutral, but i'm a bit guilty here, i don't think planting a tree and flying is carbon neutral. It's stupid shit we invented to keep polluting and felling better. We are planting a tree because we deforest in the 1st place. Overall nothing is neutral here.

I don't think that's a honest view, i think that's the type of shenanigans that makes the problem worst, using biomass is not carbon neutral. In a time we're it's already too late to just stop releasing co2, we should be actively capturing to effectively solve the problem, i think this is incredibly dishonest. It's label to trick people, just like the rainbow hydrogen.

Carbon neutral "label" to me should just be applied to something that we actively capture the co2 by mechanical, chemical means not by using replacement nature.

Scientists should not use the term like that.

 

[KLiKzg]

Unless you have some source for this, I have serious doubts.


Maybe I missed something, but what does carbon capture have to do with Hydrogen production like, at all?

Also it's H, not H2, correct? The molecules aren't like oxygen, they do not bond to one another.

Cannot reveal sources, but I do work in Rimac Tech. So either believe or not, to what I say in cells.

Check here, how you get from CH4 a H2 molecules (gas): https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming

 

[dragontamer5788]

I think he is saying that if one grows corn for ethanol then one first takes the CO2 out to grow the plant and then returns it; net zero here and now

Fossil fuel increases the amount of CO2 here and now

Note: the calculations of this are stupidly complicated, because growing corn requires fertilizer and trucks, and those two use energy which releases carbon into the atmosphere.

Ethanol is net positive on CO2 emissions, but something like green hydrogen (which is needed for the fertilizer) would lower emissions.

This is important to remember the energy loops here. We pump energy into nitrogen/hydrogen chemicals so that our food grows quicker.

Hydrogen and green hydrogen is a good idea. But taking hydrogen out of fertilized food is just an idiotic loop reminiscent of a perpetual motion machine.

 

[Bomby569]

we really got to be more honest with the terms we use, on one side it tricks people intentionally or not, and on the other if fuels the climate deniers and random crazy people out there

we cannot call carbon neutral if we cut a forest and grow industrial tree plantations that will take some time to grow, it usually replaces natural forest for fast growing trees causing all sorts of other problems, and the burning causes all sorts of health problems, not all that comes out of burning is c02, etc...

 

[dragontamer5788]

we really got to be more honest with the terms we use, on one side it tricks people intentionally or not, and on the other if fuels the climate deniers and random crazy people out there

we cannot call carbon neutral if we cut a forest and grow industrial tree plantations that will take some time to grow, it usually replaces natural forest for fast growing trees causing all sorts of other problems, and the burning causes all sorts of health problems, not all that comes out of burning is c02, etc...

While that's true, switchgrass ethanol looks extremely promising to me.

There's lots of different methodologies out there. Switchgrass uses natural grasses that grow in these locations without the need of fertilizer, removing one major source of "non-green-ness" from the puzzle. Without modern fertilizers, the primary source of CO2-emissions is negated.

Since it is the natural grass of these lands, Switchgrass is probably good for the environment as well. The fact that we can make ethanol from it suggests that we're close to a truly carbon-neutral source of ethanol, though more studies are needed.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

While that's true, switchgrass ethanol looks extremely promising to me.

There's lots of different methodologies out there. Switchgrass uses natural grasses that grow in these locations without the need of fertilizer, removing one major source of "non-green-ness" from the puzzle. Without modern fertilizers, the primary source of CO2-emissions is negated.

Since it is the natural grass of these lands, Switchgrass is probably good for the environment as well. The fact that we can make ethanol from it suggests that we're close to a truly carbon-neutral source of ethanol, though more studies are needed.

Which could run in standard ICE vehicles, albeit at a lower lifespan (and maybe changing out seals etc.). Many ICE vehicles on the market right now can take 85% ethanol without issue - a good way to ease the transition to other methods of propulsion without forcing people to buy expensive cars they cannot afford.

 

[Bomby569]

While that's true, switchgrass ethanol looks extremely promising to me.

There's lots of different methodologies out there. Switchgrass uses natural grasses that grow in these locations without the need of fertilizer, removing one major source of "non-green-ness" from the puzzle. Without modern fertilizers, the primary source of CO2-emissions is negated.

Since it is the natural grass of these lands, Switchgrass is probably good for the environment as well. The fact that we can make ethanol from it suggests that we're close to a truly carbon-neutral source of ethanol, though more studies are needed.

Sure as long as you apply it to a specific thing, it doesn't go broader, generalisations. Still i would say burning whatever it is shouldn't be the solution, probably the least of all evils.
But we already have "green" nuclear or "green" gas now in the UE, we had "clean" coal in the US. I would prefer they all died like carbon neutral in general.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Sure as long as you apply it to a specific thing, it doesn't go broader, generalisations. Still i would say burning whatever it is shouldn't be the solution, probably the least of all evils.
But we already have "green" nuclear or "green" gas now in the UE, we had "clean" coal in the US. I would prefer they all died like carbon neutral in general.

There is no solution with current technology. There is only improvements until we can create a solution.

The true solution is Fusion, but ... We really need options that can be used in the place of current techniques without major disruption of the existing systems.

 

[ARF]

Burning coal, oil and fossil gas is dangerous for our future because it causes climate change - for example western europe is now hot and dry, when it used to be cooler and wetter.

We have to move to hydrogen, all the oceans wait for it.

 

[Bomby569]

Burning coal, oil and fossil gas is dangerous for our future because it causes climate change - for example western europe is now hot and dry, when it used to be cooler and wetter.

We have to move to hydrogen, all the oceans wait for it.

Again, hydrogen is not a fuel source, you have to use some source of energy to create the hydrogen. Hydrogen is functioning as energy storage. It only serves to complement the renewable fuel sources, on itself it solves nothing. It's important for things like storing solar during the day, to be used on planes or ships that can't use batteries, etc...
If we burn coal, gas, to create hydrogen we are going nowhere, that's the problem.

 

[defaultluser]

Burning coal, oil and fossil gas is dangerous for our future because it causes climate change - for example western europe is now hot and dry, when it used to be cooler and wetter.

We have to move to hydrogen, all the oceans wait for it.

Why not just turn those h2 plants into making syngas?

Container ship using it:

I don't see why we cant run natural gas buses on the same; Its carbon-neutral,and doesn't require any new infrastructure!