Part of hydrogen becoming a viable energy option in the United States is infrastructure, which isn’t much at present. Should business pick up, however, hydrogen would need to be stored as cheaply as possible to facilitate greater adoption.
Sandia Labs suggests storing hydrogen in salt and other underground geologic formations over above-ground tanks, as the latter costs three to five times more than simply tossing the gas down a cavern. Volume also plays a role, as underground structures are quite roomy over a pressurized tank near a fueling station, and such structures can be linked to electrical grids through electrolyzer systems, as well.
For this idea to be a success, the laboratory looked at salt caverns in four locations to determine permeability amid peak summer demand. It found that 10 percent above average demand over 120 days would be best. Further, salt was chosen over other geological formations in the first place, as the mineral is best at keeping hydrogen molecules from leaking out.
The main limitation is quantity: there are few salt formations in the U.S. to store the fuel. Thus, other options will need to be considered for a comprehensive national hydrogen reserve to happen.
Store it in Zeppelins.
Led ones
Fiat Panda! Looks like the 4×4 version built by Steyr in Austria.
Very popular in the Mongol Rally.
By the ride height, I’d say it’s regular Panda.
Yeah i agree.
The 4X4s had the plastic cladding all the way around
I think you’re all right.
I’ve just uncovered my lack of Panda knowledge.
Steyr built only the 4×4 drivetrain : clutch, transmission housing, diff, rear axle…
Store it inside giant solar-powered, corn-fed windmills. Invest in the future.
If Exxon/Mobil pays me enough, I’d be happy to store 1000 cu/ft in my basement.
Won’t that make your house float?
That depends on the storage pressure. So the question is, are they planning on just pumping the gas down into the salt mine, or will it be lightly pressurised.
Pressurizing would allow for more efficient usage of the storage space at the risk of additional leakage.
Oh it’ll be pressurized; and probably more than “lightly”.
Depending on the material and the specific storage site typical underground compressed gas storage pressures are easily in excess of 1,000 psi.
Yes, this includes flammable/explosive hydrocarbons.
Considering the amount of energy represented by a 500k cubic meter cavity full of 1,000 PSI natural gas; the safety record of this activity is admirable.
I’m confident that hydrogen can be safely stored at high pressure underground indefinitely. I’m somewhat doubtful that it will prove to be worthwhile.
It will likely be under high pressure.
Typical underground storage pressures for flammable/explosive gasses are in excess of 1,000 psi.
Figure out how to make the stuff first.
Expect this no sooner than 2050. They will need EPA approval, after all. And, what if….
I have to agree. While it will be a long time before enough hydrogen-powered cars make such storage necessary, the sheer effort of manufacturing enough cubic footage of hydrogen to fill such a reservoir would be incredibly expensive in both energy and in obtaining source materials from which to crack the hydrogen. Electrolysis is the best-known method for example, but the “waste product” is oxygen, which could upset the global atmospheric balance as badly as CO2 is doing now but in other ways. Cracking it from natural gas or coal is supposedly more efficient, but still energy intensive and offers a completely different set of waste products that may or may not be useful in the production of other things. In other words, claiming that hydrogen is a safer and better fuel than raw electricity itself is so narrowly focused that it ignores any and all peripheral effects. And those who argue that raw electricity still has to use fossil fuels to run the generators ignores the fact that you still have to use that SAME fossil-fueled energy to crack the hydrogen from that same source–multiplying the rate at which we would consume that source while also ignoring the fact that solar, wind and tidal generators are coming online at an increasing rate to replace those fossil-fueled generators going off-line.
As such, is hydrogen REALLY the answer, or just another stop-gap as BEVs continue to improve?
The big problem for BEVs is the battery. IF they can figure out how to make a battery with range and recharging time that approach the magic fuel (gasoline) in convenience, BEV will win out. But if we still don’t have that in 20 years, I won’t be surprised.
The notion that oxygen could become a pollutant of hydrogen production is an interesting one…
Too much oxygen in our air would be as bad as too little. As I understand it, the Oxy-Nitrogen mix needs to stay within about ½% to 1% of current levels or a significant measure of our oxygen-generating plant life will suffocate. You would think the CO2 would help balance that, but it doesn’t seem to work that way according to at least a couple studies I’ve heard about. If you watched the new Cosmos series narrated by Tyson, he covered an entire episode talking about how pollution is affecting our living environment and not just the air.
As for the battery question, different reports have it that a surprisingly slight modification to the lithium batteries currently in use by Tesla could double its range AND cut charging time in half–a technology that should be well-enough proven for actual production by the time Tesla’s “Gigafactory” partnership with Panasonic is completed. In other words, a matter of two to four years. Well below the threshold you set.
Would the problem of excess oxygen exist? Isn’t oxygen consumed when the hydrogen fuel is utilized, thus making it a zero sum game?
Exford – Correct, the Fuel Cell consumes O2 from the atmosphere and combines with the H2 to form water – without getting into it too much, yes – it’s a “zero-sum” game if the source of the H2 is the electrolysis of water, (Next: Assumptions) but if the source is cracked natural gas, then it’s a lot worse, as oxygen would be consumed in that cycle, as well as CO2 being released from the cracking.
Which is why getting H2 from cracking nat gas is a stinky idea.
Especially since nat gas already works so well in a combustion engine. Burns clean. Just need a safe and effective way of carrying it in the vehicle.
It’s not “zero sum” as there is always a loss of energy in the transfer even if you’re using electrolysis. But since electrolysis is also the single most energy-intensive method, it’s the least efficient even if it is the cleanest.
And yes, the waste gasses and particulates from cracking natural gas or coal are worse as they are much more immediately poisonous.
Want to know where the best source of hydrocarbons lies for global use? Try orbiting Jupiter where there is a moon with oceans of hydrocarbons. Try Jupiter itself where the atmosphere is made up of mostly hydrocarbons. If we have no other reason for expanding space flight from Earth, sending out mining ships for raw hydrocarbons and usable minerals would be the most profitable.
“Especially since nat gas already works so well in a combustion engine. Burns clean. Just need a safe and effective way of carrying it in the vehicle.”
Problem is, its energy density is significantly below gasoline and diesel. When running on CNG, a gasoline engine loses about 20% of its power and efficiency.
“When running on CNG, a gasoline engine loses about 20% of its power…”
While true, in this era of 200-300hp family sedans, I don’t think this is an issue.
“… and efficiency.”
Actually, I think the efficiency is comparable. If you’re talking the range on one fill-up, well, yes, the range of a family car on one gas cylinder (or two, or three) is less than the 400+ mile range we’ve grown accustomed to on one tank of gasoline.
This is all part of a hydrogen economy fantasy industry that’s been burning through money (as if it’s a limitless resource) for years.
Hydrogen is the smallest atom, and H2 is the smallest molecule in the universe. It is devilishly hard to contain, it finds leaks easily. Rock formations are porous, and even salt caverns have cracks.
They should be thinking about pumping CO2 into those caverns – oh, wait… No money in that.