Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Science Technology

Solar-Hydrogen Eco-House 467

Posted by michael from the just-add-sunshine dept.
Cymage writes "An architect in Malaysia has built a Solar-Hydrogen Eco-house, the first in the world that is fully self-sustainable and runs entirely on hydrogen. The house has an electrolyser to generate hydrogen that runs off of solar panels, then that hydrogen is used for heat and electricity for the house. Pretty cool stuff. I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Solar-Hydrogen Eco-House More

Solar-Hydrogen Eco-House

Comments Filter:

  • Not a bad price. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @03:57PM (#8921000)
    250000RM is $65,800 US. I would guess it would cost more in the US though.

    • No kidding! That house [thestar.com.my] totally rocks. It was designed by an *architect* over 4 months, and was constructed with an experimental climate control system - for $70k.

      I'm cashing out my retirement funds and moving to Malaysia, the US sucks.

      • Re:Not a bad price. (Score:4, Funny)

        by Xzzy ( 111297 ) <sether@noSpam.tru7h.org> on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:14PM (#8921282) Homepage
        > It was designed by an *architect* over 4 months

        Given your emphasis on "architect", I am led to believe you are surprised that an individual educated such is designing buildings.

        So could you explain to me precisely which profession designs buildings where you live? :)

        • Re:Not a bad price. (Score:4, Funny)

          by ArsonSmith ( 13997 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:26PM (#8921455) Journal
          Perhaps he lives on the ISS, where they get the luxury of having *Rocket Scientists* design their home.

        • Re:Not a bad price. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by joggle ( 594025 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:35PM (#8921578) Homepage Journal
          I presume that he's shocked that the house could be custom designed by a real architect for 4 months and still cost only ~$70k. The architect fees alone would be a fortune here in the US.

          • Re:Not a bad price. (Score:5, Informative)

            by MrChuck ( 14227 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @06:05PM (#8922699)
            Perhaps you're unaware that architecture is one of the lowest paying professions there is. Most architects can make solid secretarial wages for years and years (that's AFTER the master's degree).

            The few big name architects CAN make a bunch of money. And we're all Internet billionaires here too, right? (my stock options are 2-ply ... mmmmm, soft)

            Now an architecture firm might charge a lot for design, but that usually means that for 4 months, you are using a staff of highly trained people and their equipment (rolls and rolls of e-size paper) and resources (you must use 6x12 beams spaced on 12 inch centers here to support this amount of weight), plus the bonus that for whoever stamps the plans that are filed, they are pretty well perpetually liable.

            Someone slips on an icy sidewalk? The guy who designed the building 20 years ago is in the suit.

            So next time someone calls themselves a software "architect", mock them and refer to them as "software interior designers".

            Real architects get 6 years training and brutal exams on par with the bar. Too many "systems architects" and the like get some training on Microsoft Project and wonder why this web application they designed isn't scaling like it should. And most often, they are NEVER accountable for systems that fail.

    • From the article:
      AT FIRST glance, the quaint little house outside the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia engineering faculty looks like any house. But there is more to it than meets the eye.
      Hm...checking out that photo, if that's what "any house" in Malaysia looks like, I'd say they're a bit more advanced than I thought.

    • Re:Not a bad price. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Doug Coulter ( 754128 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @08:07PM (#8923756) Homepage
      I own a solar powered business and a solar powered house, and I think this thing is retarded and overpriced. The numbers quoted seemed like they had to be just for the solar part, not the whole thing. 42 panels? We use 16 for the business, and 10 for the house, and either system can back the other up. Why waste energy converting to and from hydrogen (it's nowhere near 100%) when you can just use the electricity as it comes in, saving only a little for nightime use in whatever sort of batteries you favor? PV panels are EXPENSIVE, but worth it if you don't waste the power. This design was obviously motivated by where the designer works. He's got a hammer, and now everything looks like a nail. I wouldn't want to be around when that hydrogen-embrittled storage tank goes up. A better choice of battery for lots of reasons will be the redox Vanadium Pentoxide cells. These store energy in the electolyte, which can be stored in tanks for "infinte" capacity, and they cost a lot less than fuel cells, because they don't need a fancy precious metal catylist. These are already being used as factory-wide UPS systems in Japan.
      • surprised no one replied to your comments. When I started reading about that thing yesterday I was still high from the surgery I had in the morning so I thought better not to comment. After looking at it again I have to say that "even high, it looked like a stupid design."

        Solar>electrolysis>Hydrogen>fuel cell>conversion - what a stupid and wasteful chain of supply. Now I understand why BP and the oil companies are so into hydrogen - not because of the sale of hydrogen, but because of all that m

  • If you think that's cool... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @03:58PM (#8921003)
    You should check out my methane-powered nightmare house on nacho night.

  • Hydrogen Abundant? (Score:4, Funny)

    by tokki ( 604363 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @03:58PM (#8921013)
    I'm guessing this was a translation issue:

    "Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future," said Kamaruzzaman.

  • Heading off at the pass.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The Ape With No Name ( 213531 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @03:58PM (#8921015) Homepage
    Yes, hydrogen is explosive. Yes, it can be used safely. No, there is no chance in a properly engineer application for hydrogen to make this house go BOOOM! like the Hindenburg. Give up, Dick Cheney is not paying attention.

    • A leak is not only dangerous, but it can also be comical. For instance, I inhaled some and then lit a cigarette. I've never seen a ribcage fly quite that far before.

    • Hindenburg (Score:5, Informative)

      by addie ( 470476 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:11PM (#8921227)
      I'm sure many /.'ers are aware of this, but the fact that the Hindenburg was filled with Hydrogen had very little to do with the disaster. The problem was the coating of the balloon, which was highly flammable and susceptible to static buildup (someone provide more details if possible). Add in the metal frame, and as soon as a small spark erupted it arced across the whole balloon and the rest is history.

      Hydrogen is pretty safe, if you know what you're doing. But a good point the Hindenburg can teach us is that all elements of a system must be inspected with respect to each other, in order for something to be truly safe.

      • Re:Hindenburg (Score:5, Informative)

        by slickwillie ( 34689 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:25PM (#8921440)
        In effect, the Hindenburg was coated with solid rocket fuel [carolina.com].

      • Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by David Hume ( 200499 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:31PM (#8921512) Homepage

        I'm sure many /.'ers are aware of this, but the fact that the Hindenburg was filled with Hydrogen had very little to do with the disaster.


        I'm not sure this is true. While Hydrogen was not the cause of the disaster -- as in the substance that first caught fire -- it is not clear to me that the fact the Hindenburg was filled with Hydrogen didn't make the disaster much worse. Would the disaster have been as bad had the Hindenburg been filled with Helium? Would it have been consumed by fire so quickly? Is there any chance that more people could have survived?

        I honestly don't know, but I think the above are legitimate questions.

        • Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but.... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by dbrower ( 114953 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @05:31PM (#8922330) Journal
          Would the disaster have been as bad had the Hindenburg been filled with Helium? Would it have been consumed by fire so quickly? Is there any chance that more people could have survived?

          Some people did survive. Yet it was effectively the death blow for commercial airships. So, one wonders how survivable are landing accidents of heavier-than-air vehicles? That is: was even the hydrogen accident really that much worse than the first that engulfs a plane full of fuel when it goes down? I don't know that a Hindenberg into the WTC would have burned as hot for as long as the planes did.

          -dB

        • The fire went on for something like 20 minutes and burned very hot. A bag full of hydrogen simply CANNOT sit on the ground and burn for 20 minutes unless the fuel is something other than hydrogen.

        • Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but.... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Arjuna ( 61107 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @06:30PM (#8922961)
          In fact only a year or so previous to the Hindenberg disaster, a similar event took place in California though fewer lives were lost. That blimp was full of helium and it still went up in a great ball of flames - because like the Hindenberg it was coated with cellulose acetate (I think to keep water off it). Not sure if it had the aluminium paint as well though.

          So yeah, I think the gas used for bouyancy makes little difference to the hazard.

          Now if we could produce some kinda field that stabilises positive muons by an order of, say, many trillions, we could have muonium lofted blimps that make do with 10% the volume. But. Alas...

    • Re:Heading off at the pass.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScottGant ( 642590 ) <<scott_gant> <at> <sbcglobal.netNOT>> on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:12PM (#8921231) Homepage
      yes, this is probably what is going to slow down hydrogen fuel cells in the US with fears that cars will start exploding like the Hindenburg (even though it was the Aluminum paint on the skin of the airship that caused the explosion I belive...at least this is one of the theories).

      Yet people drive around with a tank full of gasoline which we all know is VERY explosive....and people cook with tanks full of propane that also is explosive. (no, I don't sell propane and propane accessories).

      But you say Hydrogen and they think Hindenburg and the Bikini Atoll...(as in the Hydrogen Bomb).
    • In a properly engineered environment, what about when stuff starts to break and wear out? The risk is a bit more of an issue than you seem to admit. I would have the same problem using Hydrogen in my home as I currently do using natural gas, hence why I don't use gas and instead opt for normal electrical power from Entergy. I would be much more apt to convert from standard power to say solar or wind or something less potentially hazardous as piping flammable gases throughout my home.
    • HERE [iahe.org] is a link concerning safety issues and applications for hydrogen when used as a fuel source. The site is by the International Association for Hydrogen Energy. This site may need to be taken with a grain of salt though.

  • PDF Mirror (Score:3, Informative)

    by MrRuslan ( 767128 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:00PM (#8921043)
    http://www.narvakitchens.com/Solar.pdf

  • Not a physics major (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bravehamster ( 44836 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:00PM (#8921051) Homepage Journal
    "Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future," said Kamaruzzaman. "People tend to equate hydrogen with hydrogen bombs, but in fact, it is really quite safe because it is so light that it disappears into the atmosphere as soon as it is released."

    Apparently physics is *not* this guys strong suit.

  • What sort of fire hazard is this place? Assuming the hydrogen is stored in a combustible state (which is very likely), and that a very large volume will be stored (which is also very likely), this could be a bit of a death trap.

    Tom Petty would not approve [google.com].

    I'm not really concerned about the danger of the place. Maybe his neighbors are though. I was just pointing out one of the drawbacks...
    • What sort of fire hazard is this place? Assuming the hydrogen is stored in a combustible state (which is very likely), and that a very large volume will be stored.

      Plenty of people store large tanks of propane outside their house which they use for the stove, water and even lighting. It is very common in mountain and beach houses.

      Btw, welcome back.
    • How is this any different than the 2 gigantic natural gas tanks I have sitting out in my back yard?

      Lots of people use natural gas for heating, and you don't hear about their houses blowing up.

      I imagine in a commercial unit, they would add trace amounts of mercaptans so you can smell a leak, if there is one.

    • Re:Not to rain on his parade... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sylver Dragon ( 445237 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:18PM (#8921339) Journal
      First off, storing volitile gases in tanks outside of the house is a common, and noramlly safe practice. Granted, when the fire swept through Oak Hills here in Southern California last year, there were some big booms, but that is a very rare occurance. Second, hydrogen is safer to store than propane is. Hydrogen, when release from a tank, tends to spread out, or mostly up, too fast to create a good explosion, unless you are storing the hydrogen mixed with oxygen, and I doubt that they would be that dumb. Overall, I'd much rather have a huge tank of hydrogen outside my house, than a huge tank of propane. And (insert diety here) forbid that I would end up driving around sitting on a very volitile liquid for hours on end, oh wait, I do, and its considered safe.

  • The house that NASA built (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IWantMoreSpamPlease ( 571972 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:01PM (#8921056) Homepage Journal
    I recall seeing "the house of the future" once, built by Nasa engineers. Solar-powered, thermally efficient, geo-thermal power, yada yada yada yada.

    All protected by a security system, whose password was "1978".

    The year the house was designed, built and shown to the public. The same year I saw it.

    I'm still waiting for all this great technology to hit mass market.

    And you know why it won't? It's too damned expensive.

    • Re:The house that NASA built (Score:4, Informative)

      by nordicfrost ( 118437 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:10PM (#8921198)
      Although we're not too hot (pun intended) on the soal power issue, the scandinavian houses seem to be quite energy efficient with good insualtion and a good deal of us use thermal power. The thermal power is simply water heated in the crust of the earth, so you save some of the energy otherwise wasted on heating it to that point. A friend of mine lives in a thermally heated, very thouroughly insulated house (with good ventilation), and they spend a tiny, tiny amount of dough on heat. He recons the thermal system would be paid off in six years, making it a total of ten years in investment. He also applied for a grant from SINTEF for repairs, and got it. Not a bad deal.

      • Re:The house that NASA built (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Syberghost ( 10557 ) <.moc.tsohgrebys. .ta. .tsohgrebys.> on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:49PM (#8921779)
        They seem this way, until you look at the economics and environmental issues of building the solar cells.

        For instance, it costs $50 to $100 million US dollars to build a typical plant, depending on whether they're making crystalline silicon or thin-film cells.

        Actually making the cells requires 2900-degree temperatures, and you don't create those with input from a bank of solar cells. The processes produce toxic chemicals, and the more efficient the cell is, the more toxic chemicals are involved in its construction.

        Further, the cells only last a few decades, and are not 100% recyclable. The more efficient the cell, the less recyclable it is.

        Frankly, I'm surprised the eco-terrorists are standing still for this. They should be protesting in the streets against solar cells.

    • Re:The house that NASA built (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dasmegabyte ( 267018 ) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @05:27PM (#8922276) Homepage Journal
      Waiting for the technology to hit mass market? Well, then today's your lucky day [atlantisenergy.org]. Or rather, three years ago. This solar shingle technology is simple, aestherically pleasing, and relatively cheap (pays for itself in roughly 8-10 years).

      And as for it being "too damned expensive," it's funny that you mention that. The argument of the majority of the eco-doomsayers that I know is that oil will run out, and we'll have no viable solutions in place. My counterargument is that we have no incentive to PUT said alternatives into place until oil reaches a level of scarcity that the outlay price of implementing the alternative is less than the price of just burning oil over a period of time. Right now, hydrocarbon fuels are insanely cheap -- cheaper than electricity generated by any other fasion. But with crude production shrinking and demand increasing by almost half a billion barrels per year, we're going to reach that point fairly soon. At which point tons of manufacturers and installers will jump on the bandwagon to further decrease prices of the alternatives.

      In other words: the alternatives exist thanks to show-off programs like this Malay house and like that NASA deal. But an oil crunch is the only thing that will spur installation of those alternatives. Oil is simply too easy to use and too profitable to control for solar to show up overnight.

  • Why convert to hydrogen? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lazn ( 202878 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:02PM (#8921083)
    Isn't it fairly ineffecient to use the electricity to make hydrogen? It seems to me you would get more usable energy by just useing the power the solar cells create directly.

    ==>Lazn

    • Re:Why convert to hydrogen? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jwitch ( 731255 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:08PM (#8921173) Homepage
      I assume the hydrogen is being used to store the energy from the solar cells. This way, there is still a source of energy when the solar cells are not functioning (night, cloudy day) However, i'm sure it would be more efficient, as you said, to use the electricity directly from the cells during the day.
    • I would assume they do so, unless they're making more then they need at that particular moment. At which point, they save the excess power. Sure, it's lossy, but so are all power storage systems. At least this one doesn't involve hundreds of pounds of lead and gallons of acid...

    • Re:Why convert to hydrogen? (Score:5, Informative)

      by SenatorTreason ( 640653 ) <senatortreason.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:12PM (#8921239)
      Storage?
      If you are not using the electricity from the solar panels, conventionally, it is stored in huge battery arrays. With this setup, it is converted to hydrogen and can be stored more easily in a big tank, or, if the tank is filled, that electricity is then fed back into the grid directly. That hydrogen tank probably doesn't need to be maintained like a battery array, and, if you'd like to upgrade, a bigger tank, or another auxilliary tank is probably cheaper than the equivalent batteries.

      • Re:Why convert to hydrogen? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by NorthDude ( 560769 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:58PM (#8921886)
        I always wondered if, in those case when the setup is stationary (as it is the case here), if it would not be more efficient to just use (lets say) a big block of steel to store potential energy...

        They could just use a small electric motor to lift up the steel block up a rail of some kind so they would accumulate potential energy (mechanical batteries?). Then, when they would need to use the stored energy, they could let this steel block go down slowly (with reduction gears etc etc) which would in turn drive a generator...

        I really don't know, but I would think that much less energy would be lost due to friction and heat in such a setup then in an electrolysis setup... What is wrong in this idea?

        Someone knowledgable could explain me?
        • Well, flywheels are used to store kinetic energy. And they can be made pretty darn efficient at it. There was a 1996 article in Discover magazine about a man named Jack Bitterly that wanted to use the darn things to power automobiles. In many ways, that article probably instilled my resolve to later get a degree in engineering.

          Here's an "update article" from 2000 in Discover about it.
          Re-Energizer [wired.com]

        • Re:Why convert to hydrogen? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @06:52PM (#8923158) Homepage
          I always wondered if, in those case when the setup is stationary (as it is the case here), if it would not be more efficient to just use (lets say) a big block of steel to store potential energy... They could just use a small electric motor to lift up the steel block up a rail of some kind so they would accumulate potential energy (mechanical batteries?). Then, when they would need to use the stored energy, they could let this steel block go down slowly (with reduction gears etc etc) which would in turn drive a generator... I really don't know, but I would think that much less energy would be lost due to friction and heat in such a setup then in an electrolysis setup... What is wrong in this idea?

          I think friction would cause problems for such a device on a small scale. The mechanical conversion of energy from a slow-moving heavy weight to fast moving rotating axle is too complicated. They do, however, do something similar on a macro scale with the power grid as a whole. During non-peak hours, the excess generating capacity is often used to pump water uphill into a reservoir. Later, when demand increases, they use the reservoir to generate power hydroelectrically.

    • I'm no chemist/physicist, but the way I understand it for the fuel cell to convert the energy stored in the hydrogen to a usable form is more efficient than directly using sunlight -- photocells have terrible efficiency.

      So this house is supposedly self-sustaining because it stores rainwater and then uses solar power to free the hydrogen, which is used in the fuel cell. My question is, if you're getting enough water to convert to hydrogen, are you getting enough sunlight to power the electrolysis process
    • Storage is the most liekly reason. With solar-only electric you need large banks of batteries to store the electricity for later use during dark periods. These batteries take a lot of space, must be replaced periodically and their disposal is not environmentally friendly.

      By converting the solar to hydrogen you get an efficient fuel that is easily stored in a smaller space. There is no/less need for replacement of the storage vessel and it is very environmentally friendly, making disposal a mute point.

    • Re:Why convert to hydrogen? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Gaewyn L Knight ( 16566 ) <vaewyn.wwwrogue@com> on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:14PM (#8921278) Homepage Journal
      Two words "cheap storage" beats the pants off of batteries for long and short term... also can use more efficient heat transfer techniques with gas heating.

      Even provides you backup incase you loose the power grid and can't use it as a "battery"

  • Methane (Score:2, Funny)

    by eclectus ( 209883 )
    I want a house that can run on Methane. That way my mexican cooking won't go to waste.

    Hmmm, but what kind of collection method can be used? uh, nevermind. I withdraw my request.

  • No Conversion Possible (Score:4, Interesting)

    by glpierce ( 731733 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:03PM (#8921102)
    "I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?"

    Apparently, you didn't even skim the article - the physical design of the house is just as important as the power technology. A Prius wouldn't get 60 mpg if it wasn't tiny and aerodynamic.

  • Cost of transforming energy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:03PM (#8921105) Journal

    There is no way to have 100% effecency in transforming energy from one from to the other - so we have a loss from transforming sunlight to electricity, and then a loss transforming the electricity to a storable chemical (hydrogen), and then yet another loss as it's transfered back to electricity to run the house. Sounds like they are wasting power by having unnecesary steps here...

    Now, I'm not a rocketscientist, and I dont research fuelscells and batteries - but would it not been just as efficient, or even more efficient, to just store the electricity in a batterybank? Unlike in a car, weight and to a certain degree volume isn't a limiting factor in a house.

    • Decent batteries are very expensive.

      A stack of car batteries, for example, just wouldn't be up to the job - the discharge/recharge cycle would break them (they don't like being more than 30% discharged). The water-hydrolisis thing sounds pretty cool.

      By the way, people should RTFA, the hydrogen tank is quite far from the house.

    • Re:Cost of transforming energy? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by merlin_jim ( 302773 ) <<moc.tlupatarts> <ta> <nekcarCcM.semaJ>> on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:10PM (#8921209)
      Now, I'm not a rocketscientist, and I dont research fuelscells and batteries - but would it not been just as efficient, or even more efficient, to just store the electricity in a batterybank? Unlike in a car, weight and to a certain degree volume isn't a limiting factor in a house.

      It's all about cost and energy density. The energy density in hydrogen is far greater than that of a similarly sized battery bank. And while a fuel cell is expensive, so are batteries. The difference being that this house can add extra energy storage just by installing an extra tank. To do that with batteries you've gotta buy a whole bunch more batteries.

      That and batteries are cranky, require special circuitry, can vent harmful and corrosive substances (unignited hydrogen is neither harmful nor corrosive), and require replacing every 5-7 years in an application like this. And battery electrolyte can't directly power heaters, stoves, or air conditioners...
    • one potential use of the hydrogen, not previously mentioned by other posters, is as a replacement for natural gas. if i'm not mistaken, natural gas heaters/rangetops/etc. are more efficient than electric. So with a hydrogen powered house, you can use the hydrogen not only for power, but also for cooking, the water heater, etc. and further dissociate yourself from the utility grid.

      don't know how the overall efficiency of this compares to just using electric for everything.
      • Indeed, natural gas heating is far, far more efficient than electric heat.

        • Re:Cost of transforming energy? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Laur ( 673497 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:44PM (#8921718)
          Indeed, natural gas heating is far, far more efficient than electric heat.

          Actually, converting electricity into heat is 100% efficient! Of course, what you really mean by efficiency is the total efficiency of the system including electrical generation. Assume your local power plant uses a natural gas turbine to produce electricity (actually, most energy production is still done with coal, but we'll assume natural gas for this). This has an efficiency of at most 40% (can't remember the exact values). After the electricity is generated it must be transmitted to your home, with all the transmission losses associated with this. Finally, the electricity can power your electric heater. Compare this to just burning the natural gas directly, and you can see why a price difference of an order of magnitude between electric and gas heating it not at all unreasonable.

  • Might cost more for some of us. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Thunderstruck ( 210399 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:04PM (#8921112)
    It seems like a great idea for Malaysia, but lets consider North Dakota:

    1. Heat: Its a high plains desert in a northern climate. If I need electric heat I'm going to burn a lot more hydrogen. Winters get down around -30F

    2. Entertainment: Nights last longer up here, so I can't live without my 500w sound system, my Sun Lamps and outdoor lighting.

    3. Oh yeah, water for Hydrogen production is in short supply.

    It may be a few more years before technology catches up with us, right about the time the local theatre starts showing Phantom Menace.

  • Not entirely self sufficient... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:05PM (#8921136) Homepage
    When the hydrogen tank is full and household appliances are not in use, the excess electricity will be injected back into the grid.

    On the other hand, if the PV panels do not generate enough electricity to power the electrolysis system, power will be drawn from the grid.
    Even though the house may be self-sufficient in the net balance of things, it's still using the grid as a "virtual battery" to accomodate periods without sunlight.
  • I live in Arizona where there is a lot of sun and from what I hear some people that use solar energy to generate electricity get money for the extra electricity their installation produces.
  • Luckily /.ers are libertarian. Home power is a great way to put your libertarian ideals into action! Check out "home power" magazine too--it's all about getting off the grid. Vote Nolan!
  • I don't think we give near enough thought to the way that we are ravaging our planet. Don't get me wrong, I love tech. But I am dying for a freeway safe electric car. Even then though, we use dirty tech to make electricity. It can't last, but we are addicted to it.
    I hope someone does come up with a way to make clean technologies widely available.

  • Conversion kits already available (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:08PM (#8921179)
    I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?

    They already exist. They're called matches. They will convert any regular house into carbon dioxide and water vapor. You will have to figure how to control the rate of reaction and store all the excess heat that is released in one go. The rate at which you must supply new houses may also be cost prohibitive.

  • Interesting project (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Phreakiture ( 547094 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:11PM (#8921211) Homepage

    It is an interesting project, but, I fear, taps into the hydrogen-mania that seems to have gripped the world lately.

    I don't believe there is a major reason to be concerned about the safety of the hydrogen. I don't believe it is actually much, if any, more dangerous than other things that we live with every day (methane, gasoline, diesel, batteries) for reasons that vary by what particular thing we are comparing it to.

    I would wonder, though, if by powering the house from a fuel cell run from a hydrolizer, are they doing seriously better than if they had used a battery bank? For the hot water and the air conditioner, they might be doing better by running them directly from hydrogen, but what about the household electrical supply?

    Also, might better efficiency be realized by uniting the DC bus of the solar panels with that of the fuel cell, at least unidirectionally? What I'm saying is, doesn't it make sense to send electricity straight to the house from the solar panels when it is available, rather than sucking H2 into the fuel cell to get it? Yes, H2 production would drop according to household load, but H2 consumption would drop further.

    Just a few random thoughts.

  • Safety of Hydrogen (Score:5, Informative)

    by gevmage ( 213603 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:11PM (#8921213) Homepage
    Hydrogen (gaseous that is, not liquid) is actually a reasonably safe fuel. As far as explosiveness, it's roughly equivalent to, say, natural gas, and much less explosive than acedalene.

    Keeping hydrogen in a tank (outside of a house or in a vehicle) is fairly safe. If the tank is ruptured, the hydrogen is so light that it leaks into the air and floats up and away very quickly. (Unlike, say, gasoline, which tends to sit on the ground, mix with air, and cause explosions). (The article said that the H2 tank was _outside_; having it inside _would_ be dangerous.)

    By the way, the reason that the Hindenburg was such a horrific accident wasn't primarily because it was filled with Hydrogen. It was because the body of the blimp was painted with a substance that was essentially rocket fuel.
    • While you're correct that hydrogen isn't much more combustible than conventional fuels, the fact remains that it is a difficult fuel to store safely.

      If you want to store molecular hydrogen in liquid form, you have to do so cryogenically since its boiling point is 20 Kelvins (-253C, -423F). Needless to say that's impractical for most applications.

      If you store it at room temperature, very high pressures (over 5000 psi) are necessary to achieve an energy density comparable to conventional fuels. Storing an

  • If you can do this for a house... (Score:4, Funny)

    by StressGuy ( 472374 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:12PM (#8921246)
    Then you should be able to do it for a yacht or larger boat. It would be really cool to see somebody sail around the world on eco-power.
    --
    now, let me anticipate a few responses....

    1) Ummmm...what about sails?
    A: Sails don't generate heat and electricity.

    2) Cloudy days?
    Can also use wind generators in addition to solar power.

    3) Cloudy windless days?
    ya got me there....

  • Safety (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jwitch ( 731255 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:13PM (#8921257) Homepage
    I don't understand why people are fussing about the safety of using hydrogen. Hydrocarbon gas (ands its byproducts) can be just as dangerous. I seriously doubt that something going comercial like this would have a high risk of danger.
  • Dammit they stole my idea :P

    I was going to use windmills though.

  • Don't be fooled. (Score:2, Informative)

    by camrdale ( 725797 )

    "Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future," said Kamaruzzaman.

    Being abundant has nothing to do with being the fuel of the future.

    Despite what the fuel cell lobby would like you to believe, Hydrogen is not an energy source, as there is no ample supply of usable hydrogen fuel. As in this case, the Hydrogen has to be produced, which consumes energy. This is done using the most abundant energy source in the universe [and the atmosphere ;)], the SUN!

  • But it's not built with sustainable materials (Score:5, Informative)

    by weiyuent ( 257436 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:20PM (#8921351) Journal
    The designers should be commended for the power self-sufficiency of the house.

    But I notice from the photo that the house has been constructed primarily from steel and concrete, which are hardly sustainable materials. The amount of energy that goes into extracting and processing steel or concrete is thousands of times more than that for wood or masonry. The net energy balance from both the construction and long-term operation of this house is likely to be very negative.

    For reference: stats [calforests.org], stats [honoluluadvertiser.com] and more stats [eeba.org]

    • Re:But it's not built with sustainable materials (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No offense, but did you even read the links you provided? The last one specifically details the environmental advantages of concrete-based construction. Hardly supports your position that concrete is "thouands of times" more energy intensive than other alternatives.

    • "the house has been constructed primarily from steel and concrete, which are hardly sustainable materials" That's an intresting way of looking at it, considering that those building materials last practically forever, where as wood most certinally does not. Would you propose that we build all of our houses out of paper and replace tehm every couple of years?

      Why do you think that it requires more energy to make concrete than to make masonry? They're essentially the same thing (except that a few chemicals

  • sol-terra (Score:3, Informative)

    by gCGBD ( 532991 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:26PM (#8921453) Homepage

    One of the more advanced energy efficient, solar power homes in the country is under construction in Ohio: http://www.solterra.info [solterra.info]

    It uses 5 alternative energy sources.

  • Hydrogen is a storage medium (Score:3, Informative)

    by verloren ( 523497 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:40PM (#8921660)
    One of the attractions of Hydrogen is its storage potential, as that allows us to make full use of 'alternative' energy sources such as solar, wind etc. Whether it's in a garage that needs less frequent tanker visits because of the solar cells on it roof, or in a car that refuels itself and runs the air conditioning while parked on a hot day, or in a house like the one mentioned, hydrogen's best feature is not its cleanliness, but its ability to smooth the link between supply and demand that allows us to use these cleaner alternatives.

    On a larger scale industrial installations would allow us to do the same thing, so that we could have fewer power stations running at 100% day and night, rather than having inefficient spinning reserve. And of course we could get by with less still if we all had a power station in the basement. There are alternatives such as using superconducting magnets, or compressed air, but the ubiquity and relative safety of hydrogen makes it a real enabler of such change. Assuming the political/economic will is there of course.

  • Ouch. Watch for falling hydrogen (Score:4, Funny)

    by dr_canak ( 593415 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @04:50PM (#8921794)
    "The house has an electrolyser to generate hydrogen that runs off of solar panels, then that hydrogen is used for heat and electricity for the house."

    I hate getting hit from hydrogen running off of solar panels.

    Oh wait, I get it:

    "To generate hydrogen, the house has an electrolyser that runs off of solar panels. The hydrogen is used for heat and electricity in the house."

  • NEW JERSEY will pay 70% of your PV installation (Score:3, Informative)

    by nxs212 ( 303580 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @05:13PM (#8922097)
    Check out New Jersey's renewable energy program - http://www.njcleanenergy.com
    State will GIVE you back 70% of what you spend on all hardware and labor.

    What's even more exciting, is the venture capital fund that will give your business 5 to 500k recoverable grant to expand your renewable energy business development. This money could help you buy installation equipment, trucks, warehouse space, help hire additional staff,etc. Unfortunately, this fund is only 5 million is size. If a lot of companies apply, there won't be enough for everyone.
    I think any experienced roofer would be crazy not to at least consider doing solar installations. I mean if they are already ripping an entire roof and replacing shingles, why not offer to install some solar panels or tile south side of the roof with solar shingles?

  • I have been saying this sort of thing for years... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dnamaners ( 770001 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @05:28PM (#8922283) Journal
    Hydrogen is probably the perfect storage device for energy derived from small scale and less than optimal renewable sources. The biggest problem with home generation of energy from wind, solare or whatever renewable energy you pick is often the problem of regulating the output to achieve a constant usable powere supply. Many of these renewable energies are difficult to use and made much more expensive by this single requirement. That is why they only build wind and solar farms in certain places whit a constant source of wind or sun. Imaging trying to powere you computer with solar power that cut off at knight and in the day and browend in and out all the time and would often spike 20% higher under high illumination thanthe average. You can use expensive line conditioning to fix the momentary ups and downs but when it goes you you will need a powere storage device like battries. Unfortunately conventional lead acid battries are only 5-15% efficient at charging up and have a limited life not to mention the extra cost. The use of hydrogen can offer an alternative to this.

    about hydrogen:
    1 - Easy to make trough electrolysis (electricity + water = hydrogen and if desired oxygen)

    2 - Electrolysis unlike electronics is fairly insensitive to power fluctuations and does not have to work a 100% duty cycle provided the amount of stored gas is sufficient, so carfull powere regulation is unneeded.

    3 - Excess hydrogen could be sold (if there was a demand).

    4 - Electrolysis is at least as efficient as battery powere storage

    5 - You can easily make a car run on it (imaging DIY home filling)

    6 - There are fuel cells that make a 85% efficient conversion to electricity from this fuel (very expensive but NASA has them and mass production could bring that cost down). The use of hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen / oxygen fuel could be one of the world most efficient energy solution but may be not the cheapest.

    7 - There are numerous safety innovations that can help reduce fire risk (hydrogen can easily be as safe if not safer than natural gas / propane).

    8 - You can easily make a cars that will run on it (imaging DIY home filling) not to mention that care need not be a new one. You can have a conventional 350 big block with all the power you would expect run on hydrogen. The conversion is expensive now, but masproduction would lower that to the cost of a engine rebuild that you may need already. You will not need to fear a explosion in a wreck as there are fuel cells that even if punctured and on fire can not explode as they only release the gas fast enough to burn.

    9 - It is a 0 emission fuel that may be used in any place that natural gas could be used.

    10 - Hydrogen fuel use can really lower smog. I have seen allot of emphasis on electric cars, however these are not really 0 emission. Fossil fuel was burned someplace to make the electricity (40% efficient process) that charged your batteries (15% efficient). this This means that using an electric car is about 6% efficient. I would bet that '86 Suburban has better energy milage than an electric car. You folks in cites and Ca need to think about that.

    *imagine enviromental value "ahem" of a 0 emissions vehicle that would do 0-60 in 8 sec flat.

  • Okay for Malasia. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jaywalk ( 94910 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @05:30PM (#8922320) Homepage
    Those of us who don't live so close to the equator would get more benefit from cheaper systems that convert solar energy into heat rather than to electricity. Converting from photovoltaic energy to electricity to heat will lose a lot of energy unnecessarily. And areas with heavier cloud cover won't capture as much solar power anyway, causing further problems with the economics of the system.

    Still, using hydrogen tanks as a storage medium for unused electricity is a nice touch.

  • It should be noted..... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ziggy_zero ( 462010 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @06:12PM (#8922764)
    ....that the natural air-conditioning method described in the article was discovered in the 1930's by R. Buckminster Fuller, during the development of his Dymaxion House.

  • Hardly the first of its kind (Score:3, Interesting)

    by quax ( 19371 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @10:11PM (#8924755)
    There are houses like this in Austria [pege.org], the Netherlands [www.bear.nl], Baveria [www.dbu.de] and Swizerland [solaragency.org] (NOTE: Last two links are to non-English PDF files but contain pictures).

    These houses are referred to as "Nullenergiehaus" in German. Searching for this term on Google [google.com] will demonstrate that at this point already a whole industry has evolved around constructing these buildings. How else could Europe ever hope to fulfill the CO2 demands imposed by the Kyoto treaty?

    It is nice to see that slashdot spends some attention on this but Michael is way of the mark when copying the claim of the article that this is the first fully self-sustainable Eco-home.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Close