Breakthrough Holds Promise for Hydrogen’s Use as Fuel Source

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2011/10/27-13641_Breakthrough-Holds-Promise-for-Hydrogens-Use-as-Fu_article-wide.html

Breakthrough Holds Promise for Hydrogen’s Use as Fuel Source

UT Dallas Graduate Student to Present Recently Published Findings at Upcoming Symposium

Oct. 27, 2011

Imagine your car running on an abundant, environmentally friendly fuel generated from the surrounding atmosphere. Sounds like science fiction, but UT Dallas researchers recently published a paper in the journal Nature Materials detailing a breakthrough in understanding how such a fuel – in this case, hydrogen – can be stored in metals.

…

“Our research into an aluminum-based catalyst turned out to be much more useful than just designing good storage materials,” he said. “It has also provided very encouraging results into the possible use of this system as a very cheap and effective alternative to the materials currently used for fuel cells.”

…

For use as a fuel-storage device, aluminum could be made to release its store of hydrogen by raising its temperature slightly. This system presents a method for storing and releasing hydrogen at lower temperatures than what is currently available, which is critical for safe day-to-day applications.

…

The research results will be presented by Chopra at the upcoming http://www.avs.org/">AVS: Science and Technology of Material, Interfaces, and Processing Symposium on Nov. 1 in Nashville, Tenn.

[Fumesucker]

1. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium..

Not a primary energy source.

This quote seems to confuse the two.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. This is a common mistake…

However, I’m willing to assume the researchers understand it… even if the Press Release author does not.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We’re talking about using aluminum as a catalyst to break down hydrogen, to store hydrogen, and to use hydrogen in a fuel cell.

[Fumesucker]

3. A very good reason not to repeat that mistake..

Which is why I posted originally, no need to spread the misconceptions.

Nip it in the bud, so to speak..

[Nederland]

4. ALL fuels are merely energy storage mediums...

...so I don't really see your point.

[kristopher]

5. First sentence, second paragraph

"“Hydrogen, which is in abundance all around us, has shown a lot of promise as an alternative fuel source in recent years...”"

Hydrogen isn't a "fuel source" in the commonly perceived way that petroleum is. If you are going to run your automobile on " fuel generated from the surrounding atmosphere" (as the first sentence in the article states) you need an upstream source of energy to do the "generating".

The marketing of hydrogen with this type of verbiage is analogous to promoting batteries with the claim that they are an "alternative fuel source".

[Nederland]

6. There is no difference between gasoline and hydrogen

They are both the result of chemical processes, sometimes they even have the same input material. You can take crude oil and process it to create gasoline, and you can take crude oil and process it to create hydrogen. One process might be more efficient than the other, but otherwise there is no difference.

However, I would agree that the phrase "fuel generated from the surrounding atmosphere" is rather misleading. The reality is that most hydrogen today comes from steam reforming of natural gas, because that is the most efficient way to create it.

[kristopher]

7. You're odd...

yes, there is hydrogen in hydrocarbons that can be used in fuel cells, but that doesn't mean that "there is no difference between gasoline and hydrogen". Hydrogen is touted at a clean alternative to gasoline and as a way to reduce dependency on gasoline, so the only way your point is relevant is to point out that moving to fuel cells with reformers is an environmentally unfriendly process and it is NOT what the article is about. The article is about catalyzing water and storing the resulting hydrogen.

[Nederland]

8. My point was that the phrase "Hydrogen is not a Fuel" is incorrect

That is my point.

If gasoline is a fuel, then hydrogen is a fuel, period end of story. Both products are the result of taking some raw substance--oil, natural gas, water, whatever--and applying a chemical process to it. I'm not sure where this notion that hydrogen is not a fuel came from, but it clearly wrong anyway you look at it. I've never understood why people believe applying a chemical process to oil to get gasoline is somehow fundamentally different from applying a chemical process to water to get hydrogen. The only difference is that one process is more efficient than the other. Gasoline and hydrogen are both storage mediums, and they are both fuels.

[kristopher]

9. It is only the "end of story" if you are trying to distort the discussion.

It is wrong because it has the DELIBERATE IMPLICATION that it can perform the same INFRASTRUCTURAL FUNCTION that gasoline does.

It can not because it isn't a fuel in the sense that petroleum is, period, end of story.

[wtmusic]

10. Steam-reforming natural gas is not only less efficient

but the result is a product which has 1/3 the energy density.

Reformers put that nasty CO2 into the atmosphere for me, so I don't have to trouble my conscience with it. It's not my fault they're not "green" like me!