Slashdot Log In
World's First Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powered Island
Posted by
Hemos
on Tue May 14, 2002 10:14 PM
from the making-things-work dept.
from the making-things-work dept.
Albanach writes "According to this article in The Herald Newspaper, the island of Islay, on the West coast of Scotland is set to become the world's first Hydrogen Fuel Cell powered island. Scientests at Napier University wish to use the existing Wave Power Station to treat sea water and store the resulting hydrogen in fuel cells. The first plan is to power a building, moving on to powering the entire island in a decade."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Minor confusion (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't need another reason... (Score:5, Funny)
It's not only delicious, but environmentally friendly too!
Re:I didn't need another reason... (Score:2)
Phil
Re:I didn't need another reason... (Score:2)
The headline looked like a typo... (Score:2, Funny)
Nifty! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a great idea for any region with significant ocean frontage. Unfortunately, it is only a great idea in such locations. We can't fuel the US gas glutton SUVs via this method, there just isn't enough ocean frontage for all the soccer-moms.
Kudos to a truly self-powered island!
Re:Nifty! (Score:2)
Well, then you know what our duty is. Start rounding up the soccar moms...I'll start digging the ditch.
Re:Nifty! (Score:2)
Re:Nifty! (Score:2)
Re:Nifty! (Score:2)
Something tells me I'd rather live next to Yucca mountain than a hyrdrogen pipeline.
It's about time! (Score:2, Insightful)
P.S. What's been up with Slashdot lately? It's been really weird.
All this time I thought they were whisky-powered (Score:3, Funny)
seems a very expensive way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:seems a very expensive way (Score:5, Informative)
Hydrogen's fairly stable (without presence of oxygen molecules), and it takes only a wee bit of energy to start the chain reaction back to water and a ton of energy.
But to answer your question: yep, its expensive as hell.
Parent
Re:seems a very expensive way (Score:2, Funny)
Re:seems a very expensive way (Score:2, Interesting)
*evil cackle* (Score:3, Funny)
Ummm what about the envirorment? (Score:2, Interesting)
Won't all this vapor make the climate much wetter causing it to rain more and so on?
Plus since from what I've been told the vapor comes from the hydrogen mixing with oxygen in the air. Won't this also lower the oxygen content of the air?
Please tell me I'm completely off my rocker.
Or better yet explain why
Thank you.
Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I believe you get liquid water, not water vapor. It's pure and potable, although you'd probably want to add some minerals for taste. It may not be practical for vehicles to dump their exhaust into the public water supply, so you could either dribble it out behind as you go, or tank it to be dumped when you refuel. Or perhaps some clever engineer can come up with some other use for it.
Plus since from what I've been told the vapor comes from the hydrogen mixing with oxygen in the air. Won't this also lower the oxygen content of the air?
At a guess, not more than the internal combustion engine already does. All combustion draws oxygen out of the air. But if you look at the whole process from end to end, you see that oxygen is necessarily produced from the seawater along with the hydrogen. Assuming that oxygen eventually makes its way back into the atmosphere, either through being released on the spot or used in some application where it wasn't a reactant, there's no net loss.
But that leads to a good question: electrolysis produces hydrogen and oxygen in exactly the proportions needed for a fuel cell. Why don't they bottle the oxygen as well, and use that to feed the fuel cells' cathode? It would result in a significant boost in efficiency.
Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Good question. Your're right about the efficiency, and it could be done that way. The only problems aren't really problems as much as they are things we're too lazy to go out of our way to deal with.
First problem: you've got another thing to tank up and cart around. You think it's hard trying to get stations to carry H, try getting them to carry H and O.
Second problem: Oxygen is dangerous, more volitile than Hydrogen which, contrary to common belief, isn't the most explosive thing in the world.
Third problem: Maybe there is one, but I haven't heard of it...
Like I said neither of these are real problems. For instance, looking a number 2, oxygen probably isn't any more dangerous than carrying around gallons of something like, say, gasoline. The real issue is more about implementation and the "why bother" attitude about packaging and transporting something that's 20 percent of the air around us.
Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? (Score:2)
The oxygen is likely being released into the atmosphere at point A
and the water/water vapor at point B.
So unless I'm missing something once we all have fuel cell cars we'll be in trouble.
The usual questions *sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the article, the plant produces 500 kilowatts.
Btw, even if these answers aren't so great, it's still a cool experiment - but you have to cite more details than the article does to reasonably brag that you'd save the world except that the evil oil companies won't let you. :(
Not really a "long term" energy source though. (Score:2, Interesting)
The question has a much more serious ramification than the jokester may have realized:
The Earth is slowing down and will eventually break this system.
The Moon ya see is creating these things called tides that this generation plant is at least partially dependent upon.
The friction of the water being drug across the surface of the Earth by the moon is slowing decelerating the earth. Eventually the Moon will become geosynchronous with the Earth, and the lunar tides will cease.
If lunar tides cease to exist, ocean temperatures will likely equalize a little (less water movement at all), and so winds will become less intense. Lower wind speeds mean lower waves (wind and tides are the major causes of waves).
This may not really be the long term soution they think it is.
Re:Not really a "long term" energy source though. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Did they say Islay? (Score:2)
Mats
How appropriate... (Score:2)
Re:How appropriate... (Score:2)
Lagavullin is my other favorite as well, but Laphroiag is very well this way and for me even outranks Lagavullin
Re:How appropriate... (Score:2)
Islay's Second Product? (Score:3, Funny)
So, will we be seeing oygenated whiskey as Islay's Next Big Thing? It could conceivably slow or prevent the loss of brain cells. It's a pity they're not going to produce Helium (squeak)...
Who DOESN'T know where Islay is? (Score:2)
Bowmore, Laphroiagh, Ardbeg, Lagavulin, Port Ellen, Bruichladdich, Caol Ila and Bunnahabhain -- eight distilleries on this island, each one of them producing a fantastic malt. (Though my favorite right now is a 17yo Ardbeg.)
Sadly though, some of these stills have been dozed...
Seriously, what do they need hydrogen for? They have plenty of fuel, just tap from the stills
Re:Population? (Score:2, Informative)
R.
Re:Population? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Waste of energy! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Waste of energy! (Score:5, Informative)
You're right, it isn't perfectly efficient. But, efficiency isn't the most essential aspect of power production. Usability is.
Sadly, the consumer's use of electricity doesn't vary in proportion to the tide. If it did, and the tide always produced exactly the right amount power to keep everyone's lights on then it would be best to pipe the electricty directly from the water to your power outlet. But, that's not the case.
Fuel cells allow them to store the power and distribute it as needed. This ends up being most efficient in the long run because the water-driven power station only needs to produce power equal to the usage averaged over a period of time. It dosen't need to increase production during peak hours and won't be wasteful during off-peak hours. The fuel cells take care of that.
Parent
Re:Waste of energy! (Score:2)
Say you want to drive a clean car. You have an electrical engine. You have to store your energy somewhere, since draging an extensioncord along the road is not a viable solution
You can charge inefficient, mostly very heavy bateries at home, or use the electrical energy to create hydrogen, a light substance that can easily be used to generate electricity for your car again.
The last option is certainly viable.
Re:I wonder where they get the hydrogen... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:I wonder where they get the hydrogen... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:capitalist propoganda (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know if it was your meant to troll, but troll you did.
Cuba may have made some efforts to use clean, renewable energy sources (wind, wave, solar) but it's also made considerable effort to use dirty, finite sources as well, including nuclear power.
The nuclear power plant at Juragua [nukeworker.com] has been under construction since 1983. It's not yet been completed, so it's not up and running, but Cuba is still trying to get the plant productive.
Unsurprisingly, for what it calls "safety concerns", the US isn't too keen to see that happen - apparently, it's OK for the US to have nuclear power plants all over the country, nuclear powered ships and submarines and even to launch nuclear powered satellites but God forbid that some communists 200 miles off the coast of Florida should want to use nuclear power too.
It's true that these concerns aren't totally unfounded as the type of reactor that the plant uses (the Soviet-designed VVER-440) doesn't have an exemplorary track record but let's remember that while the USSR had Chernobyl [chernobyl.com], the US had Three Mile Island [tmia.com].
By withholding its funding to the International Atomic Energy Agency - an overly-aggressive and short-sighted attempt to pressurise that body into abandoning all assistance that its giving Cuba to safely complete and operate the plant - the US is effectively shooting itself in the foot. By doing everything it can to make sure that the Cuban plant isn't built, the US is only ensuring that cost-effectiveness and completion at any cost are the paramount in Cuba's considerations, at the expense of safety.
Yet elsewhere, the US is spending millions to make sure that similar Soviet-designed plants are as safe as possible. Overall, a rather naive approach by US legislators - not the first time and it won't be the last either.
(So, in a way, there is a capitalist conspiracy, but not where you were looking.)
But I digress. Cuba obviously isn't 100 percent wave powered and, frankly, it's never likely to be. Wave power stations cost money too and, if you've got chronic power shortage problems like Cuba has, they're far less cost-effective than the alternatives.
On the other hand, Islay is hoping that its wave power station may soon provide all the energy that it ever needs - a noble goal, well worthy of our praise and good wishes.
Parent
Re:capitalist propoganda (Score:2)
Re:capitalist propoganda (Score:2)
I'm shocked - SHOCKED! -- that you could think such a thing! Next, you'll be suggesting that the US forced out the head of the body that monitors compliance with international chemical weapons treaties -- even though the USA had ALREADY been granted an unprecedented waiver allowing them to just deny the inspectors access to any facility, without needing to give even an explanation -- because he was saying that it wouln't be a problem to get into Iraq and verify that, in fact, they have no more WMD,and that would remove the US's pretext to bomb a few thousand more women and children to bits.Good heavens, people may then start to wonder if the US forced Mary Robinson out of office as the head of the UNHCR (high commission on refugees) because she spoke up for the human rights of the civilians being massacred in Jenin, and that might slow sales of US tanks, planes, bombs and so on to Israel. They might even suspect that perhaps the Bush administration feels that, because they've got more hydrogen bombs than anyone else, they can do whatever the fuck they feel like, to anyone, anywhere, any time, without needing an explanation more valid than "it's in our best interest". You must surely be some sort of anti-American terrorist hippy communist drug-dealer.People like you should be secretly arrested,imprisoned without trial or access to legal representation, or in short, "disappeared". Oh, wait --
20 year to build a nuke plant (Score:2)
Re:Why not use a renewable resource? (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, I know you're trying to pass yourself off as CmdrTaco but can you spare us the obvious atrocious spelling mistakes please?
Re:Why not use a renewable resource? (Score:2)
Hydrogen and fuelcells is only the infrastructure for the energy. There would probably not be a better solution than getting the oilcompanies to transport hydrogen over the world. The origins are still electricity which would probably come from wind or solar power which there are plenty of everywhere. Even if they were to use natural gas from oil-production, hey they burn it for no use today anyway...
Re:Why not use a renewable resource? (Score:2)
could green power derived from nature be the best way to extract hydrogen from water as it is constant and basicly 24-7?
Wave power, fuel cells (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if you re-read the original article you will see that hydrolysis is powered by wave energy, you know, ocean waves, not light waves.
Also, may I point you at a simple explanation of how fuel cells work? [fueleconomy.gov] It has this cool animated gif, [fueleconomy.gov] displaying the process. Note: no turbines.
There is this really cool tool on the web, called google, it is a search engine. You can use it to look things up, before you post stuff, preventing you from looking like a complete dope. You should try it out!
Parent
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, let's. You certainly don't.
1: Seawater is made out of Hydrogen and Oxygen (with lots of energy in the bonds)
No, the energy of a water molecule is lower than that of hydrogen and oxygen in pure form. You have to add energy to the system to break water down. It's an endothermic reaction. If there were lots of energy "in" the bonds within water, water would burn.
2: Solar panels at the sea locations provide the energy, albeit slowly, to electrolyze the water to the gaseous components. H 2 and O2.
Yes, they're electrolyzing hydrogen out of the seawater. No, they're not generating the electricity from solar panels. They're using a plant that generates electricity from the motion of the waves.
3: The H2 is stored until used in Hydrogen Fuel cells. Combining of Hydrogen gas, Oxygen gas and heat give lots of heat. This turns turbines.
No, not even partial credit for this one. The hydrogen is stored in tanks of some kind: "bottled" is the term they used. Proton exchange membrane fuel cells generate electricity directly from a reaction with the hydrogen (which is fed to the cell from the tank) and the oxygen in the air. You get electricity and heat, along with pure water for exhaust. There's not necessarily a turbine involved at all, although for maximum efficiency in a stationary installation you could conceivably capture the heat and use it to drive a turbine so as to increase your electrical output. But that's not really necessary; a fuel cell makes electricity all by itself.
No need to comment on your blather about solar cells; there aren't any involved. Nobody stores hydrogen in metal form as this requires temperatures near 0K. You could store it in liquid form cryonically, but it's more often stored as compressed gas at high pressure.
Parent
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? (Score:2)
Yes, but when the original clueless poster said "in metallic form" he probably meant metallic hydrogen.
Which apparently can exist as a liquid at relatively high temperatures and huge pressures:
http://www-phys.llnl.gov/H_Div/GG/met
"they found that metallization occurs at pressure equivalent to 1.4 million times Earth's atmospheric pressure, nine times the initial density of hydrogen, and at a temperature of 3000 K (5000 F). Because of the high temperature, the
hydrogen was a liquid."
(They did cool it to 20K before hitting it with a shock wave though).
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2000/split/pn
Not that we're likely to be mining Jupiter's core for fuel anytime soon.
eco-freaks or petrol heads? (Score:2)
is this sponsored by any eco-freaks?
Are you one of those fake readers created by US oil companies?
Can't be less efficient than drilling oil in some far off country like the USA and shipping it 3000 miles to be used...
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? (Score:2)
That's the key. The BIG issue here is break-even. You cant go over 100%(cause of thermodynamics), but you can compare efficency of that plan to that of Standard Oil (semi-pun intended). And no, it's not all startup coses and minimal maintenance. YOu know those big heavy propane drums? Well, the hydrogen drums will have to be much heavier and costlier, because H2 can break open microfractures in seals.
You forgot one. (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps the most important and certainly the "cleanest" storage method for H2.
Sodium Borohydride (soap).
Chrysler even made a minivan [popsci.com] that uses it. It acts as the H2 storage medium and is easily 're-energized'. Think about it. No explosive H2 to mess with. You get in a wreck and the only thing that leaks out is soap and water. Clean streets!