Too bad we don't have any natural gas in this country.

"LNG imports are expected to increase substantially and play a prominent role in the future"

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/nat_gas.html

Could be good for Honda at home, unless china wants to fight over supplies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4789072.stm

^^

It's part of a diverse hetergeneous solution. No approach will work everywhere, but this one may work best in the Northeast corridor of the US where the Iroquois pipeline brings in gas, as well as further north in Canada where they have less gas but fewer people.

And if Russia can maintain gas infrastructure, this has great application there.

Alex.

You have asked the question that no one has satisfactorily answered. I guess hydrogen is perceived as sexier.

This article confirms what you are saying copper. Even though the Gulf Of Mexico is massively shutdown from Katrina yet, a surplus of natural gas still exists in the market.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/24/chesapeake-encana-
peyto-in_ie_0227soapbox_inl.html

I -think- maybe the idea here could be to get people used to the idea of generating their own power while also allowing for incremental advancement towards fuel-cell cars. Assuming that's where you want to go, this would allow you to, for instance, get a hydrogen ICE car and refuel it conveniently at home now. Later on when/if they develop a practical fuel-cell car then not much else has to change. As other people have pointed out, you also use domestic NG instead of imported crude.

That still doesn't quite explain why one would want to go with hydrogen as the fuel source for the car instead of using NG directly, at least in the near-term. Later on maybe, when (if?) everyone is driving fuel-cell cars, but now..?

What I'd ultimately be interested in for around here (sunny S. California) is a mainly solar-based system for power with perhaps one of these as a backup power generator for extended non-sunny periods. Maybe I'd also use it as a charger for a GO-HEV since grid power here is so expensive. (Our marginal cost per kwh for electricity, retail, here is $.09/kwh in the winter, $.25 or more in the summer). I'd have to see a cost/benefit on that though before I'd sign on and there's not much to go on in that respect in the article.

If they ever get practical fuel-cell cars on the lots, this would be useful there too, especially if they have trouble getting the range up. I wouldn't mind having a cheap commuter car that could only make it to work and back, as long as I could start off every morning with a full fuel tank (and as long as I had a long-range vehicle for those weekend camping trips out away from civilization. )

The concept of small-scale heat-cold-power co-generation using absorption chillers is becoming feasible technically. There are individual projects in operation in e.g. Germany, though for larger buildings than individual residential homes. Virtually all of these use spark ignition engines and natural gas as a fuel.

There is also a growing trend toward CNG engines in cars in Europe, with Italy and Germany leading the way. Argentina has even more, btw. Setting up a distribution network takes time, but already there are research projects for 300 bar pressure fuelling stations and monovalent vehicles with composite tanks. These no longer have a gasoline tank at all and their engines are designed to take full advantage of NG's superior properties (RON = ~130, ignition limit at lambda = ~4 i.e. no throttle needed). In principle, the CH4 can come from biogenic sources as well.

Compressing a gas to high pressure requires multi-stage pumps, intercooling and safe storage tanks. This is doubly true for hydrogen gas. Special attention must be paid to the filling process for both gases. It's certainly not something I would want to do inside my own home.

IMHO, the whole hydrogen lark is a creature born out of a combination of California's ZEV legislation and the nuclear lobby's desire to make its technology respectable again. The DOE is aggressively funding hydrogen research so anyone who wants US taxpayers to pay for their R&D ties it to hydrogen in some way.

Don't understand the theory that on site power generation can only be applied to single family. What is inherent about multifamily that precludes sharing solar, wind, whatever. After all, we're all part of the grid, the ultimate multifamily provider.

As Rafael posted, this is happening in Germany. And this was more common earlier in our nation's history. In fact, I seem to recall an application in New York City where a wind generator provided the power for an apartment building.

I would think that centralized photovoltaic system would be more efficient (up to a point) for multiple dwellings as many of the component costs could be spread out amongst multiple users. Instead of 20 inverters, for example, you could have one inverter servicing 20 dwellings or apartments. Also, you could spread out any maintenance costs.

t, Robert-

Yes, it is logical and more cost effective in multi-unit dwellings (compared to single family units). The fact is, the overwhelming majority of apt. owners are looking for profit, not attempting to do something beneficial for the environment. I have never heard of any multi-family dwelling setting up any type of on-site alternative energy components other than the 1 or 2 which have had articles in magazines such as "Home Power". The sad fact is that the majority of people, especially those with the financial capabilities to own large pieces of property, tend to be interested in profitability first and foremost. Secondly, some would even complain that Solar, Wind, or other on-site power generation is not aesthetically pleasing enough (I once had a home in a community with an HOA which stated any solar cells or water heaters could not be visible from the street and my house faced south so I was unable to do what I wanted...ever look into city zoning requirements and trying to set up wind power???).

Engineer-Poet -

with respect, I beg to differ. In heat-cold-power co-generation, the waste heat of the ICE is used for space climatization year-round. Adding solar collectors or panels increases the initial cost of the installation with no obvious benefit.

The energy contained in an ICE's coolant stream is roughly comparable to that delivered at the crankshaft. Engine-out temperatures of the coolant are about 90 degC at atmospheric pressure. This is quite high enough to achieve COPs of 0.8 or so in a well-designed single-stage absorption chiller with internal heat exchanger. For higher cooling power, you can cycle the coolant at elevated pressure or, exploit the heat of the exhaust gases in a second stage.

The other advantage over traditional compressor-chillers is that you avoid the inevitable slow leakage of R134a refrigerant - a potent greenhouse gas.

Anybody knows if it is possibile to buy the Home Energy System and technical details about, in particular, the Hydrogen Booster (it can reach , if correct, 350 bar of final pressure to feed the vehicle tank.