Hydrogen Powered Heater

[longestlongers]

Maybe I actually am a little stupid, BUT, surely to god, humanity has the most efficient and pollution free fuel in the form of water? ie. H2O. Or perhaps all the Oil companies just buy up the patents on ways to efficiently split the molecule apart?

[insane_alien]

and what do you use to split the water appart? electricity.

where does the electricity come from? fossil fueled powerplants mainly.

 

until we get an extensive nuclear/renewable energy infrastructure then this isn't going to help much.

[Flashman]

There's pretty much no point, electric heaters are near 100% efficient, the inefficiencies in other uses of electricity are typically related to how easily it makes heat.

 

Besides, even if "they" buy the patents, they're still registered, there's numerous patent databases on the internet now. Since typically you can use information in a patent for personal/research purposes all you have to do is search out those marvelous patents and make yourself one.

[CaptainPanic]

I'm afraid that this thread is related to all the HHO crap that you can find on the internet.

 

But on topic again: The use of hydrogen should be seen in the same category as using a battery. You can charge and deplete a battery, but if you can connect anything directly to the net, then that's the way to go.

 

Also, cars run on fuel. You can use hydrogen for that, but it is indeed made of fossil fuels. The only advantages of hydrogen in cars are: cleaner city centers (it's only a local effect, certainly not global) and perhaps innovation will go faster with a larger hydrogen-vehicle market.

[timetes]

longest, I just helped with a report two weeks ago on the regards to a management class on the "Three Big Bail Out with the automakers" and one of the most interesting research was about a new company called EEStor. The goal for this company was to develop alternative to the internal combustion engine....a high energy-solid state battery. Well apparently they have and developed a ceramic battery chemistry that could provide 10 times the energy density of lead acid batteries, a ferroelectric ceramic material with a photorefractive effect and piezoelectric properties. Fully green too and half the price per tored watt hour....250 miles per charge with a three to five minute charge time and millions of charges. My comment to you is that you may be right because this company signed a contract this year 2008 with "Lockheed Martin" (originally owned inthe 50's i think by GE or GM...not sure) for exclusive international rights agreement to intergrate and market "Electrical energy storage units (EESU)'s for "Military and homeland security applications" So its not going to be used for the public and the public could desperately use this tecnology. So If you have a good patent sell it to the public.

[electricman6913]

The best way ive seen for heat is to use a concaved reflitive dish to heat a heat collector using oil as a fluid. The oil can be heated to temps of 500 -700 degrees put in to a storage tank and with a secondary heat exchanger droped to 180 and should keep warm till the sun comes out again.

[timetes]

There's pretty much no point, electric heaters are near 100% efficient, the inefficiencies in other uses of electricity are typically related to how easily it makes heat.

 

Besides, even if "they" buy the patents, they're still registered, there's numerous patent databases on the internet now. Since typically you can use information in a patent for personal/research purposes all you have to do is search out those marvelous patents and make yourself one.

 

Why would electric heaters be efficient....you cant store electric heat.....isnt that the issue? Storing energy? and pseg went up 10% .17 per kwh....not financially efficient.

[tvp45]

longest, I just helped with a report two weeks ago on the regards to a management class on the "Three Big Bail Out with the automakers" and one of the most interesting research was about a new company called EEStor. The goal for this company was to develop alternative to the internal combustion engine....a high energy-solid state battery. Well apparently they have and developed a ceramic battery chemistry that could provide 10 times the energy density of lead acid batteries, a ferroelectric ceramic material with a photorefractive effect and piezoelectric properties. Fully green too and half the price per tored watt hour....250 miles per charge with a three to five minute charge time and millions of charges. My comment to you is that you may be right because this company signed a contract this year 2008 with "Lockheed Martin" (originally owned inthe 50's i think by GE or GM...not sure) for exclusive international rights agreement to intergrate and market "Electrical energy storage units (EESU)'s for "Military and homeland security applications" So its not going to be used for the public and the public could desperately use this tecnology. So If you have a good patent sell it to the public.

 

Help me out here. I'm old and I wasn't all that bright when I was young. What the heck would a battery do with a photorefractive effect? And, back when there still was a New York Stock Exchange, Lockheed-Martin was a publicly traded company. All you had to do was a hostile take-over (see Chainsaw Al for details) and you'd own this patent. You'd be a megagazillionaire.

[insane_alien]

Why would electric heaters be efficient....you cant store electric heat.....isnt that the issue? Storing energy? and pseg went up 10% .17 per kwh....not financially efficient.

 

you can store electricity which you can turn into heat with near 100% efficiency. alternatively, you can store the heat after it has been converted from electricity, i have a storage heater(electric as well) in my room, it heats up some very heat capacitive bricks inside it then switches itself off and the heat released by the bricks keeps the room warm.

 

as for the efficiency of electric heaters, well, the only place the electrical energy can go is into heat(with some small amount forming electromagnetic fields and being lost to the transmission wires before it gets to your house) but since you want heat anyway, this is a favourable quality from an efficiency point of view

[timetes]

Help me out here. I'm old and I wasn't all that bright when I was young. What the heck would a battery do with a photorefractive effect? And, back when there still was a New York Stock Exchange, Lockheed-Martin was a publicly traded company. All you had to do was a hostile take-over (see Chainsaw Al for details) and you'd own this patent. You'd be a megagazillionaire.

 

LOL your right....but I guess Lockheed-Martin dosnt need to be on the stock exchange they have all the government contracts. But who ever figures out how to store energy effeciently and cheep (LOL) sell the service to the public...solar, electric, wind and last which i hate nuclear..

[dudeofstuff]

I've been thinking; Why not make hydrogen via solar panel and battery: To heat home, Cook,and or heat water?

What I did find out is that there is such a thing as a hydrogen compressor. And that glass tube bending is done with a hydrogen stove by neon light makers. And solar panels are obtainable as well.

Is this a good place to find out more about what I'm working on?

Edited May 13, 2009 by dudeofstuff
Needed to add a Q.

[insane_alien]

because it is vastly more efficient to just use the electricity directly?

 

electrolysis introduces a whole slew of losses which means the amount of energy you get from utiliseing hte hydrogen is a lot less than if you just used the electricity directly.

[dudeofstuff]

I've been thinking; Why not make hydrogen via solar panel and battery: To heat home, Cook and or heat water.

What I did find out, is that there is such a thing as a hydrogen compressor. And that tube bending is done with a hydrogen stove by neon light makers and solar panels are obtainable as well.

Is this a good place to find out more about what I'm working on? Like how big of a panel is necessary? Converting stove into heater for house?

[Mr Skeptic]

because it is vastly more efficient to just use the electricity directly?

 

electrolysis introduces a whole slew of losses which means the amount of energy you get from utiliseing hte hydrogen is a lot less than if you just used the electricity directly.

 

What if you do electrolysis in your house, use the waste heat to heat your house, and either sell the hydrogen or use the hydrogen rather than electricity during peak times?

[Moontanman]

It all sounds good but how many square meters of solar panels would it take to generate enough hydrogen to cook on much less heat your house and have some left over to sell to others? I used about 130 gallons of propane to cook and heat water in my home in six months. does anyone know how much energy that represents as hydrogen and the electricity to make it? I'm betting that much energy would take a huge solar panel to generate the required electricity to make hydrogen and that doesn't include heating my home.

[henrywilson]

Correct usage of any device or any resource is very important for its existence and welfare of the environment. Wastage of anything results, thinking about it existence. Proper usage of electricity and improved technology is enough to save our resources to far better. Thanks for sharing with us.

[Dave Cell]

I don't have much to add that others haven't said. However, I would caution you on your use of vocabulary in a scientific forum. I know people who would wig out if they heard you call water a fuel

 

Just to reiterate: It takes more energy to separate hydrogen/oxygen from water than you will ever get out of it. Aside from price, we use fossil fuels because they already exist in mostly useful forms. On the other hand, this is also true of wind, solar, and hydro sources. Hydrogen is more of interest as an energy carrier (battery) than anything else. Using solar power to heat our homes and make hydrogen for stored power or automotive use is a nice idea, but it would be nowhere close to being as affordable and reliable as what we are running on now.

[padren]

I don't have much to add that others haven't said. However, I would caution you on your use of vocabulary in a scientific forum. I know people who would wig out if they heard you call water a fuel

 

Water as a "fuel source" could be more aptly described as a fuel "source" because it can be used to make a fuel - just that it contains no chemical energy you can pull out as a fuel.

It's like the difference between a compressed spring and a loose spring. Water is like a loose spring which you can compress and use to store energy, and release it later. Of course, a compressed spring will never have more energy than the amount you put into compressing it, and you'll waste energy during the compression process so you'll get less than 100% efficient returns.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What if you do electrolysis in your house, use the waste heat to heat your house, and either sell the hydrogen or use the hydrogen rather than electricity during peak times?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage

 

You'll probably have more trouble with the hydrogen than you would storing it in a battery or selling peak power back to your power grid and pulling when you are idle.

 

You could argue the energy wasted in the hydrogen process would just be "more useful heat" as a heater, but considering the transportation of "excess hydrogen" you'd probably be better off sticking with just electricity and selling your excess power back into the main electrical grid. That would probably be more efficient than trucking around the hydrogen and its cumbersome container.

[kmhunt]

I was wondering why you can't do electrolysis to emit a small amount of hydrogen, say a bicycle needle's worth, which shouldn't use much electricity. Then after all the safety features to prevent flashbacks and whatnot-ignitor fires and heats up copper rods which a fan extracts heat and blows out.

 

I understand you will use electricity for the ignitor to fire and the fan as well as the electrolysis process, but since hydrogen burns at very high temperatures it should be enough heat for a decent sized home.

 

I am assuming with just a bicycle flame one would not have to use much electricity to accomplish heating up copper rods as elements.

 

Please let me know where my thinking is flawed. Thank you.

 

kmhunt

[insane_alien]

electrolysis is crap is where the flaw is.

 

lets say you need a 5 kW heater to heat a home(a small well insulated home but we just need a figure here).

 

now, with an electrical heating system, you need 5kW of power to be supplied to your heating system in order for it to work.

 

in order to do the same amount of heating with electrolysis of water then burning the resulting hydrogen then you'd need a LOT more. its going to be somewhere up around 50kW to heat the exact same small house.

 

let me explain why it is this high(again).

 

1/ Electrolysis is inefficient. At best with electrolysis you can get out what you put in. but its not so simple in reality. the solution you are electrolysing has a very high resistance and a lot of energy will be lost here and i mean a LOT. you'll maybe get about 30% of the theoretical output of hydrogen if you're doing it really efficiently.

 

2/ burning stuff for heat is inefficient. this is down to the thermal efficiency. you're only going to be able to extract a limited amount of the energy given off by burning the hydrogen. for a hydrogen flame it is possible under ideal conditions to get this to 91% but would require you very unlikely conditions its more likely to be in the range of 70-80% maximum.

 

these losses are going to suck up energy like nothing else. if only there was some way you could get rid of them, say, by removing the electrolysis stage all together? yep. thats right.

 

get yourself an electric heater and 99.9% of the energy you pump in will pop out as heat. electrical heaters are startlingly efficient at their jobs.