Page 6 of 7

Re: Hydrogen powered cars in CA next year

PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:58 am
by davidg
conklinc wrote:as much as $450,000 an hour

Um ........ $10,000 per megawatt hour .............

Re: Hydrogen powered cars in CA next year

PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 11:16 am
by Smurf1976
Cancellation of new plants - yep, there have been quite a few of those and it does ultimately come down to supply versus demand. Overall demand is going nowhere and there's been a lot of new solar (households) and wind generation plus a little bit of other renewables built. So that results in a decreasing output from the large, centralised fossil fuel power stations.

Another big factor is that the industry seems to be slowly waking up to what some have known for quite a while about gas prices. Suffice to say that at present there are modern gas-fired plants (eg Tallawarra in NSW, a modern combined cycle gas plant on the same site as a previous black coal-fired plant that closed 20 or so years ago) running hard 24/7. But once the gas prices rise to export parity, well then we'll see a lot less use of these new plants and a return to prefering coal.

All this coal and gas stuff is ultimately temporary however, it can't go on forever. In contrast, the oldest power station on the grid (so far as I'm aware) in Australia is Lake Margaret (Tas). 99 years after it commenced operating, the turbines are still roaring away right now. It was built before computers, TV or even radio broadcasting but it still works just fine today and the resource itself (water) will never be used up. Coal and gas aren't anywhere near as durable as that either the plants themselves or ultimately the fuel in the ground..

Re: Hydrogen powered cars in CA next year

PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:54 am
by Peter J Schoen
conklinc wrote:Since you know so much about it Smurf, do you know what the issues are, if any, with the leftover by products after extracting hydrogen from natural gas? I mean, hey, it can't be good! has to be some bad stuff remaining, like CARBON! :o OTH, using water leaves us with oxygen. Not bad. Not bad. Besides, water is a lot more plentiful than nat gas. Transportation logics and extraction issues are greatly reduced
by sourcing hydrogen from water, right? :P With nat gas, there is danger on either side of the extraction, whereas with water, the danger is only with the hydrogen.



When water AKA H2o Two hydrogen Atoms and One Oxygen Atom are separated via introducing a voltage to water AKA Electrolysis, there are no drawbacks.

The only drawback is as mentioned with regards to the efficiency conundrum, where the energy used to produce hydrogen to use hydrogen, comes short when that hydrogen energy is to be utilised, thus it would have been better to use the energy directly.

But here's something interesting to consider, there is an advantage if the energy to split water is sourced via solar Energy because the losses are no where near to the losses that Grid connected energy producers have to contend with.

For example lets say we have 5~10 Kw of solar panels - to which if all that energy is used to create and store enough hydrogen to power a 4~7 Kw generator for a couple of days, then obviously all our energy should be covered - No need to be grid connected unless forced by whatever laws, to which would need the system to be large enough to cover whatever forced connection fees apply.

So obviously the advantage is that all the energy produced during the day is not lost to greedy energy retailers who are only paying anything from 1% to 8% of what they charge, when that energy is fed back, which can be anything from 4 to six times than what you forcefully got for it..

Mind you had you go-ogle "Cheap, Deep-Cycle & Long Life Batteries" 6 months ago and then again today, it should be obvious - it wont be too long before everyone with a solar System will be in the position to store all produced energy and even go off the grid, that is if the connection is not enforced.

And if it is - and seeing how greedy those energy companies are - One may have to source a system that includes wind power - which for now a 7Kw system may get most of us by, but give it a year and it may need 20 to 30 Kw systems to cover that forced grid connection :lol: :mrgreen:

But if that grid connection is not enforced - it would mean we're not that far away from Energy companies greed seeing them being totally redundant if their rates remain as ridiculously unfair as they are now.

The only way for them to survive is to ensure a fairer exchange rate to what it is now, and the quicker they act on this the less likely those batteries will end up being relied upon..

Re: Hydrogen powered cars in CA next year

PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:35 pm
by conklinc
Smurt. That's an interesting little essay :D I know that for some time now alternative energy experts have been talking about the so-called "Death Spiral" of Fossil-sourced grid energy plants and distribution systems. Consumer expenses are continually climbing (temp slight drop when the Budgie Smuggler abolished the Carbon tax) so more and more consumers are going solar/wind, further reducing income for the grid system. So they increase their rates again, death spiral.

ENHANCED by rapidly declining lithium deep cycle battery prices. I went in the other day to a place that sells batteries in Frankston. They had a new lithium battery, 100 amps, deep cycle, $1600. He said he sold one in June for $2000. I hear the key figure that will spell doom for the grid is battery costs at $100 a kWh. Trouble is, batteries are rated in amps, not kWh's. This confusing the lay consumer like me.

With Elon Musk,Telstra and Pansasonic joining to build multiple mega-plants to manufacture lithium ion by a tad bit more than the fistful, perhaps the $100 per kWh magic figure is only the time it takes to construct the plants away. (I hear GM and Damlier Benz have just sold their interest in Tesla)
Can I get yo--2u or Kurt or David to explain the equivalents in kWh of a 100 amp deep cycle battery, and visa-versa. Or is it not that simple?

Somebody needs to make an inverter so that we can get 240v out of our i-MiEV battery. Do that and I'd be off the grid if it weren't for the 66 cent PFIT! But hey, Origin is fast at work to negate that, believe me! So it could pay to go off grid even before 2024 when the PFIT expires.

One more thing. I've been told that the REAL drawback of hydrogen is that the molecule is so small that its almost impossible to store it without leaking . . . not at dangerous levels, but leaks, nevertheless. OT,H, size the solar/wind system adequately and that ceases to become an issue.


Langwarrin VIC
3.7Kh: 20 SunEarth 180's, 5000tl Sunnyboy
'13 i-Mi-EV

Re: Hydrogen powered cars in CA next year

PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:42 pm
by Gordon-Loomberah
kWh is just AH * voltage/1000, so a 400AH 3.3V LiFePO4 cell is 1.32kWh. 16 of them makes ~21kWh, which is what I have here. I paid over $500/kWh, so the price has a long way to fall before getting to $100/kWh.

I think the current real drawback with H2 as a renewable fuel is the losses involved in producing it from H20 via electrolysis, which is a very inefficient process. Much better to use the electricity directly.
Producing it from fossil fuels isn't renewable.

Re: Hydrogen powered cars in CA next year

PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:10 pm
by conklinc
Thanks Gordon Still a little shaky on the amps to kWh, but the $500 per kWh cost for the batteries is most informative. Are they lithium or lead acid? Yes, still a ways to go, but Musk wants to build 5 giga-factories and flood the market with cheaper lithiums--economies of scale. He's estimating a 30% drop from the current price. $500 per kWh minus 30% would be a $150 reduction in price. Headed in the right direction anyway.

I get your comment about electrolytic inefficiency in creating hydrogen. That and difficulties in storing it are killers. BUT, if you sources a wind or solar array to provide A.) enough electricity for normal day use AND B) enough to fill X amount of energy for no wind low sun periods, that should take care of these issues.

So it seems to me to be more of an issue of cost effectiveness. OTH The thought of everyone having a substantially sized hydrogen storage tank in their back yard, even underground . . . is sobering: KABOOM!


3.7 kWh: 20 Sunearth 180's; 5000tl Sunnyboy
'13 i-Mi-EV

Re: Hydrogen powered cars in CA next year

PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:34 pm
by Gordon-Loomberah
conklinc wrote: Are they lithium or lead acid?

They are LiFePO4, that costing was in 2012. I don't think they need to get anywhere near as low as $100/kWh for people to consider going off-grid. I looked up what the electricity retailers are charging just to be connected around here the other day - over $600/year, and subject to frequent increases. If you are a modest energy user and spend $6000 on a 20kWh battery (@ $300/kWh - in the near future), which should last at least 10 years, then going off-grid is a no brainer!
The battery easily pays for itself in just the avoided connection fees... and the electricity consumed is essentially free from an existing array, meaning Lithium for $500/kWh is pretty close to worthwhile right now!

If you use 10kWh/day @35c/kWh, that's about $1200 worth of electricity expense avoided each year, so purchasing a 5kW array and ancillary equipment that lasts say 15 years is easily going to be paid off with the $18000 (+any increases) in avoided expense.

Why are you still connected to the grid? ;)

Re: Hydrogen powered cars in CA next year

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:23 pm
by Peter J Schoen
I remember when the current battery technology was in development, and I also remember how most were adamant those batteries would never be commercially viable, and yet a year later they were on the market and two years after that they were so much cheaper and what's more you will find them powering Electric cars and in current storage systems sold now.

And now if not already - there is a new technology that is going to replace EVERY Battery out there!

They're going to be cheap, compact, light, durable, long lasting with an amazing ability to deep cycle better than all that is on the market right now!.

If you want to know more about what this game changer is then Google " Super Capacitors " &
" Graphene "..

Re: Hydrogen powered cars in CA next year

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 3:08 pm
by Cherokee Solar
Peter J Schoen wrote:I remember when the current battery technology was in development

I hope that you know that lead acid battery technology is a mature technology that has been around for 100+ years. How old are you again? ;)

Re: Hydrogen powered cars in CA next year

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:41 am
by Peter J Schoen
Cherokee Solar wrote:
Peter J Schoen wrote:I remember when the current battery technology was in development

I hope that you know that lead acid battery technology is a mature technology that has been around for 100+ years. How old are you again? ;)

:lol: My bad :oops:
I just tried to make my post as short as possible, so it wouldn't need to be hacked :|

Anyway - I was/am referring to the Current on the market Lithium Variety of Batteries - Anyone remember the memory drawback with Nickel- Cadmium AKA "NiCad" batteries, whilst Li-On and NiMH Batteries were still in the Research & Developmental or "R&D" stage?

Most ALL Electric Cars rely on a variety of the latter mentioned technology, rather than lugging around old heavy technology that has no where near the deep cycle returns as the current batteries.. :)

The new Batteries in R&D will replace ALL Batteries and has/is introducing umpteen new Battery applications, having us witness to a new technological error that may surpass the transition from Valves to Transistors :) so yeah in reality I am rather old.. :(