Porous, spongelike medium for H2 storage

[Laconian]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52328786

Using a squeezable sponge, they found that large quantities of hydrogen can be stored without the high pressures of existing gas cylinder based solutions. Highly pressurized tanks are expensive and less safe.

[MX793]

So does this material actually function like a sponge and physically trap H2 gas in its pores, or does it chemically capture hydrogen atoms and the release them as hydrogen gas?

[mzziaz]

Weird.

Strange that less space somehow creates less pressure.

[FoMoJo]

Do they just squeeze the sponge to get the hydrogen back out?

[MX793]

Weird.

Strange that less space somehow creates less pressure.

Yes, the entire notion of fitting the same mass of gas in the same, or less, volume at lower pressure violates the perfect gas law.  Unless the "sponge" absorbs H2 at a chemical/atomic level rather than storing it as a gas.

[FoMoJo]

Yes, the entire notion of fitting the same mass of gas in the same, or less, volume at lower pressure violates the perfect gas law.  Unless the "sponge" absorbs H2 at a chemical/atomic level rather than storing it as a gas.

Magic?

[cawimmer430]

The problems with hydrogen and the durability of batteries in EVs really convince me more and more that synthetic fuels are the solution...

[SJ_GTI]

Yes, the entire notion of fitting the same mass of gas in the same, or less, volume at lower pressure violates the perfect gas law.  Unless the "sponge" absorbs H2 at a chemical/atomic level rather than storing it as a gas.

It's bigger on the inside.

[MX793]

Magic?

I was thinking more like this material acts, for hydrogen, like hemoglobin in the blood does for oxygen.  It absorbs hydrogen at the molecular level, but that hydrogen can be easily extracted again.

Consider that if you extracted all of the hydrogen from 1 gallon (3.8L) of water, the hydrogen gas would take up over 4700 liters at 1 atmosphere of pressure.  So clearly, if you can store the hydrogen chemically, rather than as a gas, you can pack a lot of it into a smaller space without high pressures.  The trick is getting it out again.  Pulling hydrogen from water takes more energy than you'll get from burning that hydrogen.

[MX793]

The problems with hydrogen and the durability of batteries in EVs really convince me more and more that synthetic fuels are the solution...

Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels don't address the greenhouse gas issues.

[mzziaz]

I was thinking more like this material acts, for hydrogen, like hemoglobin in the blood does for oxygen.  It absorbs hydrogen at the molecular level, but that hydrogen can be easily extracted again.

Consider that if you extracted all of the hydrogen from 1 gallon (3.8L) of water, the hydrogen gas would take up over 4700 liters at 1 atmosphere of pressure.  So clearly, if you can store the hydrogen chemically, rather than as a gas, you can pack a lot of it into a smaller space without high pressures.  The trick is getting it out again.  Pulling hydrogen from water takes more energy than you'll get from burning that hydrogen.

Yeah, I suppose that must be it. Crazy if they have found an easy way to convert the hydrogen molecules back and forth like that.


Wonder how they will "squeeze the sponge' - electricity perhaps?

[Morris Minor]

I was thinking more like this material acts, for hydrogen, like hemoglobin in the blood does for oxygen.  It absorbs hydrogen at the molecular level, but that hydrogen can be easily extracted again.

Consider that if you extracted all of the hydrogen from 1 gallon (3.8L) of water, the hydrogen gas would take up over 4700 liters at 1 atmosphere of pressure.  So clearly, if you can store the hydrogen chemically, rather than as a gas, you can pack a lot of it into a smaller space without high pressures.  The trick is getting it out again.  Pulling hydrogen from water takes more energy than you'll get from burning that hydrogen.

Nukes/alternative energy for electrolysis of aqueous NACl? You can get the H2, plus Cl2 and NaOH.

[MX793]

Nukes/alternative energy for electrolysis of aqueous NACl? You can get the H2, plus Cl2 and NaOH.

Sure, but how much space will a nuclear reactor take up in a vehicle?

[MX793]

Yeah, I suppose that must be it. Crazy if they have found an easy way to convert the hydrogen molecules back and forth like that.


Wonder how they will "squeeze the sponge' - electricity perhaps?

Whatever method is used to extract the hydrogen from the sponge needs to draw less energy than is contained in the hydrogen extracted.

[cawimmer430]

Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels don't address the greenhouse gas issues.

As I understand it, they're made using CO2 taken from the air, the CO2 is removed for the most part and they burn even better in ICE than oil-derived gasoline/diesel fuel.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb_8DJF6Hp0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_0ftKqQ9XE




In German, but they claim their synthetic fuel is completely carbon- and CO2-free.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kG759INJ7Y

[Laconian]

As I understand it, they're made using CO2 taken from the air, the CO2 is removed for the most part and they burn even better in ICE than oil-derived gasoline/diesel fuel.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb_8DJF6Hp0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_0ftKqQ9XE




In German, but they claim their synthetic fuel is completely carbon- and CO2-free.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kG759INJ7Y

You have to harvest electricity which goes into the process of synthesizing the fuel. You have to transport the fuel, which is wasteful and hazardous. Then you have big thermal losses because ICE engines convert most of the chemical energy into heat, not motion. So many middlemen in the process. Just send the electricity to homes and enjoy the huge electric acceleration!

[cawimmer430]

You have to harvest electricity which goes into the process of synthesizing the fuel. You have to transport the fuel, which is wasteful and hazardous. Then you have big thermal losses because ICE engines convert most of the chemical energy into heat, not motion. So many middlemen in the process. Just send the electricity to homes and enjoy the huge electric acceleration!

Nuclear power is the answer to everything. Duh! 

Call me old-fashioned, or a believer in the ICE, but EVs seem like a step-backward to me. Leaving aside the acceleration, you have generally less range and long charging times (quick charging is not good for battery life AFAIK). And while most people don't do 250 km daily trips, the range on EVs seems so finicky.

An affordable Renault Zoe has a range of 395 km - on paper. In the winter it's half of that. Then you have the on-board electronics or convenience features like heating or A/C which will further deplete the battery and range. So basically I want to say that the range on an ICE car is more or less stable, but on an EV it's majorly dependent on what creature comforts you're using. Range anxiety...

One of my clients has a Tesla Model 3 Long Range, and in the winter he claims he can't make it from Munich to Innsbruck in Austria on a 100% charge (admittedly with some fast Autobahn driving involved...).

[Laconian]

Range affects some people more than others. I know a lot of EV owners who prefer the low cost and convenience of at-home EV "filling". Of all my driving over the past year, the only two times EV range would've affected me would have been a trip to Whistler and a 4 hour ride from Belgium to France.

I don't think synthetic fuels will be much more than an interesting historical footnote. There's a lot more R&D to be done to produce it at a mass scale, and there probably isn't enough life in the idea for the capital costs to be amortized over time. Government subsidies are probably what's keeping the R&D moving along, but if it was brought to mass production, I don't think synthetic fuels would be profitable at all. ICEs will likely continue just exploding dinosaurs or perhaps biodiesel.

[Laconian]

I wish we kept developing nuclear power. Nuclear is actually very safe and we've newer reactor designs which physically can't meltdown. Chernobyl was too much of a mindfuck though.

[MrH]

Yes, the entire notion of fitting the same mass of gas in the same, or less, volume at lower pressure violates the perfect gas law.  Unless the "sponge" absorbs H2 at a chemical/atomic level rather than storing it as a gas.

+1  Yeah, this doesn't make sense to me.  Unless it's doing some sort of phase change into something more molecule dense, I don't understand how this could work.

[CaminoRacer]

I wish we kept developing nuclear power. Nuclear is actually very safe and we've newer reactor designs which physically can't meltdown. Chernobyl was too much of a mindfuck though.

Apparently the trade war with China really messed up nuclear development headed up by Bill Gates:

https://fortune.com/2019/11/22/bill-gates-nuclear-reactor-china-trade-war/

[CaminoRacer]

You have to harvest electricity which goes into the process of synthesizing the fuel. You have to transport the fuel, which is wasteful and hazardous. Then you have big thermal losses because ICE engines convert most of the chemical energy into heat, not motion. So many middlemen in the process. Just send the electricity to homes and enjoy the huge electric acceleration!

+1

EVs have a lot of development potential (mostly battery tech) and seem to make the most sense in the long run, due to the simplicity of the energy supply chain. Fossil fuels are amazing only because a lot of tough middlemen work has already been done naturally over the past however many million years.

[MX793]

As I understand it, they're made using CO2 taken from the air, the CO2 is removed for the most part and they burn even better in ICE than oil-derived gasoline/diesel fuel.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb_8DJF6Hp0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_0ftKqQ9XE




In German, but they claim their synthetic fuel is completely carbon- and CO2-free.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kG759INJ7Y

OK, let's put some perspective into this.  Yes, you can extract CO2 from the atmosphere, combine it with water and electricity and create a carbon fuel like Octane (the part of gasoline you really derive energy from).

Let's put aside the challenge of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere in large quantities.  Let's assume you already have an unlimited source of CO2 and purified H2O ready to go.

When you burn Octane, the chemical formula looks like:
2 C8 H18 + 25 O2 = 16 C O2 + 18 H2 O

This process releases 5500 kJ per mole of energy.  Reversing it to convert water and CO2 back into Octane will take, at least, 5500 kJ per mole of energy (electricity).

One liter of Octane contains 6.15 moles.  So the amount of electricity to create 1 liter of Octane is 33,825 kJ.  The US alone consumes 1,462,012,000 liters of gasoline PER DAY.  That's 16,921.4 liters per second.  That works out to 572,367,545.1 kJ per second (kiloWatts), or 572.4 GigaWatts, of constant power just to keep up with the demand.  Applied constantly for a year, that's a bit over 5e12 kWh

The entire electrical output of the US last year was 4.118e12 kWh.

So you'd need to dedicate at least 21% more than the current total electrical output of the US just to manufacturing synthetic fuel in order to keep up with demand for gasoline in the US.

And that doesn't include inefficiency (physics says there have to be losses) or the energy required to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.  Even offsetting 10% of America's gasoline consumption would require the equivalent electrical output of Germany.

[Laconian]

The dream will never die!

[giant_mtb]

Wimmer always goes through troll phases. This is the "...but synthetic fuels!" phase. Except I don't even think I can call it trolling because he believes in it.

[MX793]

Wimmer always goes through troll phases. This is the "...but synthetic fuels!" phase. Except I don't even think I can call it trolling because he believes in it.

I'm not sure I'd call it trolling.  I think he reads an article or watches a video on synthetic fuels that is light on technical details and simply doesn't have technical/scientific background to see the technical hurdles involved that most of these news snippets tend to ignore.

[mzziaz]

I think wims just really want ICE cars to survive. I can definitely understand that.

[Laconian]

Also the hype is really one sided. Lots of pop science coverage is poorly grounded in reality.

[cawimmer430]

Range affects some people more than others. I know a lot of EV owners who prefer the low cost and convenience of at-home EV "filling". Of all my driving over the past year, the only two times EV range would've affected me would have been a trip to Whistler and a 4 hour ride from Belgium to France.

I don't think synthetic fuels will be much more than an interesting historical footnote. There's a lot more R&D to be done to produce it at a mass scale, and there probably isn't enough life in the idea for the capital costs to be amortized over time. Government subsidies are probably what's keeping the R&D moving along, but if it was brought to mass production, I don't think synthetic fuels would be profitable at all. ICEs will likely continue just exploding dinosaurs or perhaps biodiesel.

The problem with EVs is that they won't work for everyone. If you have your own garage and your commute is predefined and the range will work then go for it.

Most people in the city for example do not have their own garage and park their car on the street. Where are they going to charge their cars?


I think synthetic fuels do have potential, especially since they're practical. The energy density is high, they can be transported in fuel cans and they are renewable. At least they can be used for the next decades to 1) reduce CO2 output and 2) reduce dependance on foreign oil and 3) keep the ICE alive until EV technology is ready for the masses.

[cawimmer430]

OK, let's put some perspective into this.  Yes, you can extract CO2 from the atmosphere, combine it with water and electricity and create a carbon fuel like Octane (the part of gasoline you really derive energy from).

Let's put aside the challenge of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere in large quantities.  Let's assume you already have an unlimited source of CO2 and purified H2O ready to go.

When you burn Octane, the chemical formula looks like:
2 C8 H18 + 25 O2 = 16 C O2 + 18 H2 O

This process releases 5500 kJ per mole of energy.  Reversing it to convert water and CO2 back into Octane will take, at least, 5500 kJ per mole of energy (electricity).

One liter of Octane contains 6.15 moles.  So the amount of electricity to create 1 liter of Octane is 33,825 kJ.  The US alone consumes 1,462,012,000 liters of gasoline PER DAY.  That's 16,921.4 liters per second.  That works out to 572,367,545.1 kJ per second (kiloWatts), or 572.4 GigaWatts, of constant power just to keep up with the demand.  Applied constantly for a year, that's a bit over 5e12 kWh

The entire electrical output of the US last year was 4.118e12 kWh.

So you'd need to dedicate at least 21% more than the current total electrical output of the US just to manufacturing synthetic fuel in order to keep up with demand for gasoline in the US.

And that doesn't include inefficiency (physics says there have to be losses) or the energy required to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.  Even offsetting 10% of America's gasoline consumption would require the equivalent electrical output of Germany.

I'm no chemist or engineer, and I believe it that a lot of energy is required to produce this fuel, but I also believe that there are really smart people working on this attempting to simplify the process while yielding more results and using less energy.

The energy needed to produce synthetic fuel for example can be derived from overproduction from wind, solar, hydro etc. There are a handful of companies in Germany, in the north, which produce hydrogen from excess power generated mainly by offshore and inland wind power plants. Instead of letting that energy go to waste, use it for the production of hydrogen and synthetic fuel.

And this is another argument to use nuclear power, especially in Germany which had advanced and safe nuclear power plants. But Merkel was afraid of Tsunamis in Japan wrecking havoc in German nuclear power plants... in Germany... literally.

I do believe the future will be mixed: EVs, Fuel Cell, Synthetic Fuels and perhaps something else will come along. I'm just not excited about pure EVs, which aside from being fast, don't do much for me in terms of emotions. Yeah, they're less maintenance-intensive than an ICE, but some of us think with our emotions, not our wallets.