One possible application could be to further improve the HyDrive hydrogen generating system, e.g., http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/hydrive_sells_2.html

jcwinnie:

Wonder if this process could be miniaturized enough at a low cost for HyDrive type applications.

If so, it could further reduce ICE fuel consumption and associated GHG.

Hybrids and PHEVs could also benefit.

Interesting prospects.

Fascinating. Indeed, it sounds as a good enhancement for the Hy-drive system that is rather bulky (see this link for a picture of the Hy-drive system http://www.hy-drive.com/main/Default.asp?Page=78).

The reason is that Quantum Sphere claims that their electrolyzer is also 10 times more compact. This is how I read the following quote from their website “QSI has demonstrated that by using a blend of its nickel and other nano catalysts materials it is possible to exceed the Department of Energy’s target with 85% efficiency while achieving a ten-fold increase in production over all published data seen to date, and without any CO2.” http://www.qsinano.com/apps_hgen.php.

Nor does their electrolyzer use any platinum or other precious metals.

However, the most fascinating idea for an application of this electrolyzer was another one they mention at their website which is to equip hydrogen vehicles with onboard hydrogen generation. I quote “Research now being conducted seeks to generate high rates of the gas via on-board electrolysis to fuel plug-in hybrid electric / hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and for stationary fuel cell back-up power systems.” http://www.qsinano.com/news/releases/2008_25_02.php

This latter idea will create an even better car that should have the range of a gasoline car but never need to be refueled at a hydrogen station. Just plug it in at night to be sure the hydrogen tank is full in the morning. It will solve the key showstopper for hydrogen cars which is to build a hydrogen refueling infrastructure.

In the second paper listed above, they state that at 10 cents per kwh for electricity, a gallon of gasoline equivalent (125,000 BTUs) can be made for just over $4. Using that H2 in a fuel cell and motor with more efficiency than an ICE could yield more miles than burning that H2 in an ICE, but less than using that electricity in a BEV.

You still have 40% in a fuel cell but 80% in a battery (90% battery and 90% charger). The fuel cell tanks could be filled rapidly at the fueling station and the H2 could be produced off peak at night at the fueling station. However, you still have to store and pressurize the H2, which creates losses. So the BEV is a more efficient use of the electricity. Whether you could rapid charge many cars during peak hours at the charing station is still a question.

I would use this more efficient method of electrolyzing hydrogen with renewable electricity at the source. I would then use the H2 along with biomass gasification to make more C4 methane and pipe that methane for many other uses. Since the future energy picture is more than transportation, we will need many carbon neutral sources of energy. The methane can be used by industry, commercial and residential for chemicals, heating, and generating electric power as well as running transportation equipment.

Well if it passes durability twsts thats all folks h2 will come with force.

Because big oil gets cheap power and h2 will get subsidized like all oil alternates we are looking at h2 anywhere cheaper then gas. Combined with a simple absorbant tank system and even h2 ice makes sense cost per mile vs gas and yes deisel and nat gas too. If this pans out they just jumped 20 years forward.

The H2 doesn't need to be pressurized when you make it using electrolysis directly inside the car. Since the gaseous hydrogen is generated inside the pressure container, you don't need an extra pressure pump.
Combined with cheap solar energy panels on your roof, this could be the perfect range-extender.

http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png

So we go from 23KWh to 26KWh
It's nice, but this is isn't anything that significant.

==The H2 doesn't need to be pressurized when you make it using electrolysis directly inside the car.==

So lets go through what that would entail.

You then electrocute the water, and then create hydrogen, and then run that hydrogen through a fuel sell, and create electricity.

Effectively ending up where you started, but with a lot less electricity than you started with.

Why would that be useful?

I think it is the idea that you could create H2 to enhance ICE combustion. Whether lean burn or otherwise, you get a bit better efficiency and a lot less emissions.

I like their other applications much better.

They have some interesting battery projects (for example, the Alkaline primary cells they will produce this year with 5 times the energy density and 3.2 times the power). They also make claims of applying these nano-particle cathodes/anodes to NiMH rechargeable batteries and exceeding the performance of Li-ion rechargeable batteries.

Greyfalcon there are some errors on your thingy.

1 No transport is needed for the h2 as you only make it where its used as in at the gas station.
2 The current fc is 60% and the goal for 2012 is 75 .

3 The h2 route uses wholesale priced oil company boaught power.. the battery system uses your outlet abd thus far more costly power.
4 a single kilo of h2 will move even a big car 75 miles and at the original goal of 75% they knew they could reach 350 per kilo as long as the electrolyzer itself wasnt too spendy AND could put out enough h2... this makes that and leaps beyond.

If you put the electrolyzer on the car, you would still need a compressor to get the H2 into the tanks. This would eliminate all that in your garage, but now you are carrying it around.

If it is small and light, that might not be such a big deal. Then you could be "plug and play" at any charging station or outlet and your fuel cell would be the range extender for your BEV. I think Volt had it right with the E-flex idea. All versions are BEVs with different range extenders.

I think the exciting thing about this announcement is that the H2 from renewables can now be competitive with reformed NG. For any application that requires H2, you are no longer competing for the same resource. I'm guessing that this is one of the more significant announcements this year.

==3 The h2 route uses wholesale priced oil company boaught power.. the battery system uses your outlet abd thus far more costly power.==

Wait.

You're saying hydrogen created with electricity would be cheaper than electricity itself?

That doesn't make any sense.

Grey... what do YOU pay per kwh... now what do you think the oil company is payin?

If you have 10 cent per kwh electricity, you could make 1 gasoline gallon equivalent (about one kilogram) of H2 for around $4. If you had a renewable source of electric, say hydro, wind or solar at 5 cents per khw, it would cost you $2 per kilogram. However, you would miss out on the opportunity to sell the electricity on the grid for 10 cents per kwh. That says that you should have a real good high value use for the hydrogen and do not have to compress it nor store it. Reforming NG to H2 will still be the preferred method for oil refining and other applications.

The only important bit is it never costs the oil company 10 cents and that they cant resell what the buy for more because if they could they wouldnt have gotten it tjat cheap;/

Comsider that the oil companies spend 17 BILLION just for one oil platform.. now ANYTHING cheaper then 7-8 cents per kwh is a well to them.


As I told my friend you will know big oil has decided to go h2 when your driving along and you see a windfarm 10000 square miles in area with switchgrass growing inbetween.

From a chart that I saw, methane is a final product of refining, so they just reform it to get the H2 for hydro cracking, no problem.

Please don't tell me Leeo Wellz is on to something...

Scale it up. Park it in the desert with lots of sun and wind. Use high efficiency (nano-particle PV) and wind to make H2/methane for power utilities and pumps in dark, non-wind environs. H2 is renewable energy transport.

If HH0 method is true it means that you GAIN more energy that you CONSUME FOR SPLITTING WATER INTO HHO.
IT IS PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBLE.
IT MEANS THAT THE PERPETUUM MOBILE HAS BEEN INVENTED, BUT UNFORTUNATELLY AND ANY 14 AGED SCOOL-CHILDREN KNOWS THAT SUCH A THING DOESN’T EXIST.
Because:
YOU TAKE WATER, CONSUME ELECTRICITY(ENERGY)TO SPLIT IT INTO HH AN O, THEN BURN THE HHO AND RETURN IT BACK INTO THE SAME WATER.
WHAT REMAINS INSTEAD FOR ENGINE TO RUN?
MORE THAN THAT, YOU CONSUME ENERGY TO TURN WATER INTO HHO AND AT THE END TO WATER AS IT WAS INITIALLY.
EXPLANATION FOR KINDERGARDENS:
IF YOU TAKE SOMETHING (ENY KIND OF ENERGY) AND PUT IT INTO A BASKET (ANY KIND OF ENGINE) AND AT THE END YOU TAKE OUT THE SAME QUANTITY, NOTING REMAINS FOR THE BASKET (ENGINE TO DO HIS JOB) :)

No, Leo and people like him are selling snake oil.

If you have a 30% efficient ICE and a 70% efficient alternator and a 50% efficient electrolyzer you have maybe 10% efficient H2.

If you are using 30k btus to create 3k btus worth of hydrogen that is trading 10% less efficiency for 1% higher efficiency, not a good deal in anyones book.

Those gadgets you see for $49.95 do nothing. If they did actually do something, they would probably ruin your
car's electrical system and blow the engine up.

When energy is changed from one form to another it is never a 100% conversion.

When energy is changed from one form to another it is never a 100% conversion.