MIT claims 24/7 solar power [more on new electrolysis claim]

EE Times ^ | 7/31/2008 | R. Colin Johnson

[PapaBear3625]

This is a poorly written article. It’s very difficult to figure out what they have done that hasn’t been done before.

Ignore the solar angle for now. What they've done is invent a method for turning water into hydrogen and oxygen with "almost 100%" efficiency. The hydrogen (whether created by solar power or nuke power) can be stored, and turned back into electricity by fuel cells when needed

The method may be more useful for very-long-distance transmission of power (via hydrogen pipeline) from nuke plants, but they're more likely to get grant funding if they tout it as a way to make solar power viable

[thackney]

The method may be more useful for very-long-distance transmission of power (via hydrogen pipeline) from nuke plants

This still would require a large amount of compression of the hydrogen to economically move through the pipeline. With the low specific molecular weight of hydrogen, significant energy is wasted through heat during compression lossing a lot of efficiency in the system.

[PapaBear3625]

Expanding on my prior post, being able to get hydrogen from water at high efficiency, means that you can take that hydrogen, combine it with coal, and get hydrocarbons (like gasoline) that can more easily drive a car

[PapaBear3625]

See post #23. Also, I’m thinking that much of the downside of lossy transmission of hydrogen might be offset by the advantage of being able to better accommodate peak usage rates (nuke plants working continuously at max output, storing their output as hydrogen in the pipeline). As one more advantage, a home fuel cell would generate both power and heat.

[Uncledave]

Renewable Energy Ping

Please Freep Mail me if you'd like on/off

[thackney]

Nuke plants already work round the clock fully loaded. They are base load plants and generation like Natural Gas Turbines typically provide peak swings.

We would need to nearly quadruaple our nuclear power plant capabilities before we reach the point we have excess nuclear capacity at night.

[SteamShovel]

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Ever since the "Scientists" at most universities have been pushing Global Warming as a FACT, I don't trust what they say.

I need more evidence from these researchers before I even believe they are telling the truth.

[Wonder Warthog]

"This still would require a large amount of compression of the hydrogen to economically move through the pipeline. With the low specific molecular weight of hydrogen, significant energy is wasted through heat during compression lossing a lot of efficiency in the system."

True enough, but even considering the losses, transmission of hydrogen by pipeline is still more efficient than transmission as high-voltage electricity at distances greater than (as I recall it) 500 miles.

[thackney]

transmission of hydrogen by pipeline is still more efficient than transmission as high-voltage electricity at distances greater than (as I recall it) 500 miles.

I disagree. Compression heat loss are much greater. Also frictional loss in gas flow through the pipeline are significant as well. That is why gas pipeline require multiple compressor stations for distances over 500 miles.

[PapaBear3625]

We would need to nearly quadruple our nuclear power plant capabilities before we reach the point we have excess nuclear capacity at night.

Sounds good to me. We need more nuke plants, especially if we ever get decent battery or hydrogen-powered cars. France gets about 75-80% of their power from nukes, and we should too

[sionnsar]

All that’s a given, but we have little in the way of mechanisms for storing significant amounts of energy that is not created specifically on demand. Reverse-pumped dams are about all that comes to mind. Is it lossy? Sure, but if you have energy available that is in excess of instant demand you have a choice: blow it off, or store it. This could be a more efficient means for the latter, if the promise of lower energy waste in electrolysis holds out, and a means for reducing reliance on peaking plants.

[El Gato]

the Fuel Cell that converts the hydrogen back to electricity is also prone to inefficiencies.

Probably not as inefficient as burning it in an internal, or external, combustion engine, and using that engine to power a generator, or run your a/c.

[El Gato]

We would need to nearly quadruaple our nuclear power plant capabilities before we reach the point we have excess nuclear capacity at night But that's what we should be doing. And then any additional power generated during off peak hours would be used to generate hydrogen, which could then be burned in a turbine, instead of natural gas, for peaking purposes.

The same principal can be used with say wind or tide power. With the additional complication that you really can't control the when and how much you can get from the generators, so you need to store it when you get it, if you don't need it right then.

Some places do this with hydro power. During the peak load times, the water is running the turbines, during the off peak times the water is pumped back into the reservoir, using energy from those base load systems, to be used when needed.

[thackney]

used to generate hydrogen

Creating, storing and the burning hydrogen is a very inefficient method of moving power generation from off peak to peak. Pumped storage would be far more efficient, cheaper and safer.