I was reading the latest issue of popular mechanics at the barber shop yesterday when I stumbled upon an article about a prototype 4-wheeler called the Quark. The Quark is apparently the first fuel cell powered vehicle of its type. What struck me as useful about this vehicle is the hydrogen fuel tank: A 9-liter container that can hold up to 10,500 psi of hydrogen. The tanks are also swappable, you remove it and replace it with a full one.

This got me thinking such a thing could be used for high pressure hydrogenations. If the tank is swappable as they say then it should be available as a separate component. I just wonder how you fill the thing. Does France have hydrogen fuelling stations? Does it come with its own hydrogen charger?

In the next 5 to 10 years hydrogen powered vehicles should become much more popular. That means our access to hydrogen, hydrogenation catalysts, and pressure tanks should improve markedly.

Does anyone have more information on the Quark they would like to share?

Here in Michigan, there are several(numbering in the 50s) fuel stations where you can fill up your hydrogen powered car. Same as a gas tank. I dont know what its like elsewhere though. Its supposed be getting more and more popular around here. And there are *plans* for opening up more of the gas-hydrogen stations.

EDIT: A new topic appeared on Slashdot. http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/01/04/2055247.shtml?tid=126&tid=14
Has some decent links to hydrogen economy.

A 9-liter container that can hold up to 10,500 psi of hydrogen.

Thats a pretty damn good pressure rating, I could find such a strong tank useful :) .
Scuba tanks and gas cylinders used for storing gases used in welding (Ar, CO2, N2, etc.) only operate at 3000psi max. I use a 3000psi N2 tank for charging my pneumatic weapons, but a 10,500psi cylinder (with a proper reg. of course) would be awesome :D.

I guess I've gone a tad OT, but meh.

I can only hope H2 powered cars will be successful in the future, those damn oil companies will probably be trying to get in the way, unless they can ensure that refilling these cars won't be easy at home, so they can make money off H2 :mad: .

I've always wondered how a hydrogen car is suddenly better for the enviroment, when hydrogen is made by electrolysis, and the majority of electrical power is generated from burning coal (I think).

Last time I checked coal burned with alot more pollution than gasoline.

Of course, nuclear power is very clean, but nooooo, nuclear means evil. If we use nuclear power, all our children will DIE! And everyone will get cancer and the world will end!

Exactly how would one control the pressure on something like that? Are high pressure pumps and other assorted pieces of equipment capable of operating at that kind of pressure easily available, or close to becoming available? This isn't my area, but this certainly looks interesting for the future.

Exactly how would one control the pressure on something like that? Are high pressure pumps and other assorted pieces of equipment capable of operating at that kind of pressure easily available, or close to becoming available? This isn't my area, but this certainly looks interesting for the future.

Regular equipment probably wouldn't be able to handle it, special, and very strong equipment/valves/regulators would be needed for such pressures.

BTW, ever heard of solar power :P. It can be used on a large scale to liberate fair quantities of Hydrogen gas.

Large scale solar power plants use vast quantities of toxic chemicals and hydrocarbon lubricants to operate. It would also require large amounts of plastics for home based panels. That and rare earth minerals and metal alloys that require extensive industrial porcessing.

Hydrocarbon based electrical power plants are better for the environment because they are more efficient due to the economy of scale, and have better environmental controls. Think of it this way, what is better, a $10,000,000 exhaust gas scrubber or a $50 catalytic converter? Electrical power plants can also benefit the environment by using decarbonization and sequesterization technology, as well as keeping carbon dioxide for industrial purposes.

Another benefit of such plants is that they lose far less volatile hydrocarbons to the atmosphere. Every time you pump gas and open your tank you vaporize gasoline to the air. This adds up to huge losses anually. The plant hardly loses anything. Hydrogen dispensing stations also use more secure fittings that minimize hydrogen loss.

For the short term coal, oil, or gas plants are better, but in the end all the CO2 ends up in the same place anyway. The only technology mature enough to supply all of our energy needs for now and far into the future are nuclear breeder reactors. If we built 5 breeders a year within 15 years we could replace all of our old wasteful coal plants and have enough abundant power to start the hydrogen economy on its way as well as severly limit our dependance on foreign oil.

The Hydrogen economy is a joke. Did a rather interesting dinner with a guy at the bleeding edge, and he was really pro, but then he gets £50 an hour to talk about it. Overcame all my objections very smoothly, but he couldn't answer the big question/lie.

The big lie is that solar cells and burning Hydrogen make electricity - no, they don't. What they do is take large amounts of electricity, and make a glass/silicon sandwich which makes a small amount of that electricty back over the next 30 years. Think of them as more of an unreliable lead-acid battery - it needs constant charging from the sun to get a little power back.
Without electricity that is too cheap to meter, there is no point, since the conversion from silicon into glass is very costly

Turning 2H2O to H2 & O2 is always lossy. Remember, you are starting with ash, and turning it back into fuel, then burning it again. When you burn it, you get the usual 40% thermodynamic limit (unless you use a fuel cell) and so you lose a fortune in electricity.

There is a lot more, like it is impossible to make a hydrogen cutting torch, as there just isn't enough energy there, the explosive limits for Hydrogen are daft - 3% to 97% or something like that! Certainly the widest known range, anyway - there are massive pressure issues, etc.

The energy density sucks, too. A tank of petrol holds something like 8 times more energy than the same weight of liquid Hydrogen, but one had to be chilled right down, taking a whole lot of energy, after being split from the ash. Then you have the massive pressure tank, so that drops it further. There have been all sorts of ideas, like slush Hydrogen (add chunks of frozen hydrogen to the liquid Hydrogen cos it is 40% more dense) and metal systems with massive surface areas so that the Hydrogen adsorbs into the surface, and is trapped, then can be removed by heating.

Simple fact is, crude oil and natural gas finds its own way out under pressure. The same energy equations apply, of course, but the plants and animals a billion years ago were the photocells, and the energy is already stored. If there were big deposits of liquid H2 under the sea, or we could pump it from a gas cloud, or whatever, then it would be great (more rain, though!) but there aren't.

The tanks are probably filled by metering a certain amount of liquid H2 into them, and letting them warm up. The filling nozzles I've seen are incredible, like a space capsule docking system or something. Then there is the problem of Hydrogen embrittlement - Hydrogen reacts with steel and most metals to form a hydride under pressure, which means things fail. Plastics cannot hold Hydrogen, either, as the molecules are too small. Think how fast a Helium ballon goes down with rubber - hence silvered Mylar ones. They are $$$ compared, and they *still* go down slowly! The Helium is barely under pressure in them either, and H2 molecules are half the size and far, far more reactive!

Of course, big business loves all this stuff. They throw a ton of money at it, get most of it back from tax breaks and more from the enviro-whiners via the government. Shell and Esso don't care where they get the money from, only that they get it. If they hold all the cards, then they will win big in the long term.

EDIT: But imagine running a gas gun off one of these tanks! 10,500PSI and a tube with a marble in it, with a gas with a speed of sound 8 times that of air!!! :eek: :D

Wow. Thats disturbing. But electric cars are ok right? So long as powered by nuclear power? You said the guy couldnt answer that. Does anybody have an idea how long the typical hydrogen tank setup is supposed to last? And if the seals on the tank were to go, then all the seals leading from that to the engine... wow. One spark and it turns into a Ford Pinto...
But the big whistling car thing would be great.

AFAIR, there is another hydrogen storage system involving boron hydride. First they synthesize boron hydride with boron and hydrogen and then, they simply react boron hydride with water to regenerate the hydrogen gas and use it in a fuel cell. Since the hydrogen is chemically stored, its power density is much more than gaseous hydrogen and overcomes the problems associated with high pressure hydrogen storage systems.

In the end, it is all about storing energy. It doesn't matter if you use nuclear/wind/solar/hydrocarbon power to charge a battery or electrolyse water so you can use the hydrogen. All you are doing is changing energy into a form that is easier to carry around and use as you please.
Sure, there may be different efficiencies with the conversion processes, but the principle remains the same. However, with an abundant energy source such as the sun ( remember the sun drives practically all the "green" energy sources such as wind and freshwater power. Only exception is tidal forces from the moon ), hydrogen can be used and recycled indefinately without compromising the environment; so what if it isn't as efficient as some other methods. Obviously, you could use other ( simple ) compounds for this cycle, the only constraint is that it must be possible to synthesize the fuel with relative ease.
One possibility is vegetable oil which can be grown on fields ( so here the sun drives the proces via photosynthesis ), thus scavenging the CO2 from the atmosphere.

The point of all this is:
- The fossil fuels are needed as raw materials for just about all the synthetic polymers out there.
- There is only a limited amount available; it doesn't matter excactly how much - sooner or later it will run out.
- We can't synthesize these chemicals in anywhere near the quantities they are needed.

So, there you are: The sun will be used up in a couple billion years, fossil fuels in perhaps 50-100 years ( rough estimate; lots of diverging opinions ).

But electric cars are ok right?

LOL, that reminds me of an episode of the simpsons, where they were on a tour at a petrochemical place. They got to ride in an electric car MADE by the petrol people. The car was made slow and slugish on purpose and it said this to the passengers: "I am an electric car. I'm slow, crappy, and if you ride me, people will think your gay". And there were robots looking like gay guys saying "One of us! One of us!...".

Shows you how much the petrol companies are trying to cover up alternative energy sources.

While The hydrogen fuel cell does alliviate the harmful emissions associated with hydrocarbons, it brings in its own emission that causes nearly the same effect.

The combustion reaction between hydrogen and oxygen results in water as we all know, but this water will be in the vapor form, this will cause increased cloud cover which has the same effect as the greenhouse gasses people cite as their reason of convertion to other energies.

So the source of global warming will change but the overall problem will not have been solved .

I have reason to believe the Quark is using fuel tank technology made by Quantum Technologies, namely their TriShield tanks. These use a carbon fiber polymer lined shell to resist the corrosive effects of hydrogen and have a pressure rating of 10,000 psi. Read all about it at http://www.qtww.com/core_competencies/gf_storage.shtml

Well, hydrogen has massive energy content if you get it to go nuclear, the energy content is 344,418,000,000,000 joules per kilo of dueterium. Gasoline is around 40,000,000 joules per kilogram. Of course, dueterium makes up only 0.015% of all hydrogen... so thats 5,166,270,000,000 joules per kilogram. Since we only get 11% of hydrogen per weight in water, then thats down to 568,289,700,000 joules per kilogram of water....

Which means everytime you flush your toilet, you could have powered your house for 47 years.......(assuming average power consumption of 5kW and a 13 litre toilet)


Very interesting about the vapour effect on global warming, the effect might even be worse as hydrogen will create alot more combustion products (by mass) than gasoline.

I figured that they would probably have to use a plastic-like inner coating, this also makes it better for any use we might find of it as it won't react very easily to whatever is put in it.
Also, I would assume it would have safety margins like that of a propane tank, so might be able to hold up to 30kpsi for short peroids, if some way of creating this pressure was found. Might be cool to shoot with a large rifle if you had a spare.......

I disagree about hydrogen as polution cause. It does produce water but so does the hydrocarbon fuel you use everyday, so as for the water they are equal. But hydrogen do not produce CO2 which is main greenhouse effect cause. At the end if you had something like fuel cell that can have efficiency of up to 70% (in theory - in practice about 40% in produced electricity for the types I looked upon), and compared it with Carnot based engine the hydrocarbon fuels are used to (with 30% efficiency limit) - what are we talking about? It can cut the fuel consumtion several times with less number of poluting sources. Did I miss something you guys know? Any comment is welcome.

The problem with hydrogen economy is that if you use hydrogen with an internal combustion engine then the engine shall produce too much NOx since the internal combustion engine attains higher combustion temperatures leading evolution of too much NOx.

So only feasible way of hydrogen economy is fuel cells which do not involve high temperatures and can attain very high efficiencies unlike internal combustion engines. HTH.

using hydrogen in a internal combustion engine is not convenient.
Hydrogen has a very low density plus a very low octane number, so for making the engine work you have to lower alot the compression ratio, lowering it leads to reducing the efficiency. (beside that with so low density you will have very poor mileage in your tank)
Assuming we are running around 27% efficiency with gasoline engines running ar around 11:1 compression ration, hydrogen requires less than 7:1 to work properly and 8:1 in particular conditions (no hotspots, proper lubrication, perfect stratification).
If i remember good, eta=1-((V1/V2)^-2/5) teoretical, eta*0.5=pratical eta.
For a gasoline engine with 11/1 compression ratio we have an eta of around 30%
for an Hydrogen engine with 7/1 compression ratio we have an eta of 4%, assuming we will have a great technology to improve combustion and reduce fuel waste we could reach not more than 20% efficiency (and that's already a big efficiency for an hydrogen engine! very unlikely to be reached)..
Considering that for making hydrogen we use electricity, and that conversion of "fuel" and for fuel i mean any kinda of fuel from nuclear to turbogas, will have an eta of around 45% in media, plus we have around 90% yeld of hydrogen from electricity, we have a nice conversion efficiency around 40%..
That will waste even more the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, making the combined cycle efficiency as low as 8%....
So burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine will led to an 8% efficiency..
very poor..
If we switch to fuel cells we can work with greater efficiency stuffs, around 88-90% for a fuel cell and 90% for an electric engine..
So doing we will have a teoretical efficiency of around 31% (the whole cycle from generating to using)..
Consider around 2-5% hydrogen loss from pipes, 2% diffusion from the tank, 4-5% loss due to not perfect fuel cell (old, polluted by other costituents) and see the efficiency of hydrogen approach the one of a gasoline engine..
We already have diesel engines that run around 35% efficiency, and some high tech hybrid gasoline engine that approach 38%...someone would please tell me where is the convenience of using hydrogen? since i still don't see..
Of course, when we will have access to an illimitate clean and almost free energy source like fusion technology i will agree that hydrogen is a nice choice..but until then...for me is just a waste.
Of course i didn't count the energy needed to convert crude into gasoline, since i don't know it i will assume around 20% energy loss for the conversion..make the calculations and see that using fuel is still convenient against H2..

Warning: The Hydrogen Economy May Be More Distant Than It Appears
Nine myths and misconceptions, and the truth about why hydrogen-powered cars aren’t just around the corner (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/generaltech/article/0,20967,927469,00.html) is rather interesting. They take the top 9 things said by fans and demolish them step by step. I wonder if this thread inspired the author?

Jacks Compleat:

it is impossible to make a hydrogen cutting torch

I agree with what you said with the exeption of that quote. In an old chemistry book I have it has a plate showing a hydrogen torch that first splits H2 into single H atoms and then recombines them producing temps in eccess of 500C IIRC.

I think hydrogen will not work as well as we hope but try and tell that to the stary eyed hippies

5000 is what you meant, which is pretty insane, and I also remember reading about the hydrogen cutting torch. It uses an 800V 20A arc to split the H2 to H, which then recombines and heats up to insane temperatures. It was used alot back in WWII, however it is no longer used as there are much cheaper altermatives.