Hydrogen Fuel Station in Iceland

klang points to this blurb about Iceland opening a hydrogen refueling facility. While it isn't, as the blurb states, the world's first hydrogen station, it is notable because it produces the hydrogen onsite with electricity from geothermal energy and electrolysis, making it an almost perfectly clean energy source.

All this talk...

I don't understand why creating water instead of carbon-monoxide is better for the environment. If we suddenly replaced all fossil fuel engines with hydrogen engines, we'd have the same problem: excess waste.

How many tons of waste do we humans send into the air every year? Do we think that equivalent amount of water is better? Instead of air pollution and all of the problems associated with it, we'd have to worry about the oceans being diluted, excess humidity, or some damn thing we can't think of.

I actually am not of the opinion that it's as bad as people think it is anyway. So talking about changing from one form of waste to another is just an unnecessary expense.

Re:All this talk...

Carbon-monoxide is not poisonous, but it can kill you because if there is more of it in the air than oxygen, the process of osmosis in your lungs will admit that, thus starving you of oxygen. (O2 is molecularly similar to CO.)

Where did you get your biology information? JC Penny? Carbon monoxide is very posionous. There doesn't have to be more CO than O2 in the air. The iron in hemoglobin is something like 20x more likely to bind with carbon monoxide than oxygen. And it won't release it as easily once bound. More info here: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question190.htm Secondly, there isn't osmosis taking place in your lungs because water is not moving across a membrane. The process taking place in your lungs is diffusion.

MOD PARENT DOWN

Mod parent down or don't mod at all (why mod up something that is wrong??????)

Chatting sh1t is not informative, it is flamebait/trolling.

> Carbon monoide is not poisonous
Uh, no.

> Carbon monoxide is not a problem... we have the technology
You have the technology? We have the technology to make diamonds from dust... how about using it instead of creating more CO???

> Carbon dioxide... the normal result of combustion. (That means it's unavoidable)
Yes, it is not the same or as disasterous as CO, but CO2 is still a problem. And it is avoidable - use energy sources which do not combust where alternatives exist. There is a big difference between normal bodily functions (breathing) and burning millions of tons of oil and coal every day. Do you understand that?

> Your problem is that you are not only ignorant
So, are you not ignorant and talking rubbish, or you are ignorant?

Its a pity you clouded some reasonable points such a lens effect and conflicts of different global warning theories (indeed, whether they really exist) with such ridiclous cr4p.

Re:All this talk...

Except that the hydrogen is obtained through electrolysis, which decreases the amount of water. Not to mention the earth as a whole could definately benefit from more fresh water in many places.

Re:All this talk...

Ahhh water:

1: In its vaporous state, it can cause severe burns....

2: It is found in high quantities in cancerous tumors.

3: It is a major component of acid rain....

How dare you say water is OK? ;)

Re:All this talk...

Usually you have a closed hydrogen cycle: water + electricity -> hydrogen + O2 -> water + heat. This is why I think of hydrogen as a storage rather than primary fuel source.

The real wildcard though is the source of the electricity. In this case it is clean, geothermal energy, though it could be solar, wind, etc. If you used fossil fuels, you would have the same problem as we have today but worse because of poor efficiency of the hydrolysis process.

Re:All this talk...

The real wildcard though is the source of the electricity. In this case it is clean, geothermal energy, though it could be solar, wind, etc. If you used fossil fuels, you would have the same problem as we have today but worse because of poor efficiency of the hydrolysis process.

Hear hear! A lot of people miss this, eg. some of the posters above calling it a "clean energy source". It's not an energy source, at least not if the Hydrogen is created using eletrolysis. In that case it's just a battery. I'm not sure whether using it without electrolysis is viable - that Hydrogen has to come from somewhere, after all.

Re:All this talk...

that Hydrogen has to come from somewhere, after all.

IMHO, Algae is the most likely source of renewable hydrogen in the foreseable future.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,5445 6,00.html

Re:All this talk...

I'm not sure whether using it without electrolysis is viable - that Hydrogen has to come from somewhere, after all.

maybe we can get it from stray protons from nuclear fission reactions. :)

Re:All this talk...

Hear hear! A lot of people miss this, eg. some of the posters above calling it a "clean energy source". It's not an energy source, at least not if the Hydrogen is created using eletrolysis. In that case it's just a battery.

I've heard this far too much. Photons are little packets (batteries) holding energy. The earth's core is just a giant battery holding in thermal heat. The sun is just a giant hydrogen battery.

There is no "source" of energy. Everything is energy. We just like to convert it into forms we can use easily.

I mean by your logic, photovoltaic cells are an energy "source", not the photons. A nuclear power plant's turbine is an energy "source," but not the plutonium. Fire is an energy "source," but coal is not.

Now if you said electricity source, maybe I'd agree with you, but otherwise you are just nitpicking.

Re:All this talk...

More tonnes of water evaporate off the oceans every day than man pumps CO into the air. A few million tonnes of water is nothing to the oceans. The water level wouldn't even measurably change.

Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]

Re:All this talk...

and unfortunately many places do not have handy geothermal vents

Obviously you are new to slashdot, where many of the posters vent a lot of hot air.

Re:All this talk... - you're kidding, right?

You cannot honestly label water as "waste". For as you and I are 90+% waste then ;)

Some would argue that to be a higher number. I personally find most people I interact with can be replaced by a small shell script, and thereby be a 100% waste (from my frame of reference).

I'm more interested in technology to remove stupid people from driving on freeway systems. Smart drive systems can save more resources because there will be less traffic jams. They aren't mutually exclusive, and I'd like to see both being developed, but that's where my interests lie.

Re:All this talk...

I'm trying to decide whether the parent is simply confused or a clever troll. It has enough things wrong with it that I suspect the latter. But just in case, I'll "reply not moderate" (although I'd like to know who modded this up to 4):

- Burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide as the primary pollutant (on a global scale at least; locally smog etc. could be considered more important). This is carbon dioxide that was not previously in the atmosphere, since the carbon came from stores in the ground. In comparison, using renewable biomass for fuel, for example, adds no additional carbon to the atmosphere.

- The system described here is closed cycle. Water goes in, hydrogen and oxygen come out; then when the hydrogen is burned it recombines with the oxygen to become water again. Diluting the oceans is impossible in this case (and rather ridiculous in the fossil fuel case; consider the volumes involved).

- The biggest win is probably on the local scale I mentioned. I don't think working to eliminate smog is an "unnecessary expense". Unless you think changing from breathing smog to breathing water vapor is just from "one form of waste to another", in which case I'll take the water and you can have the smog.

I'm personally open to debate about exactly how bad global climate change is. But it's dangerous and dishonest to hide behind bad science to resist progress.

NO SMOKING!

I bet that's sure a non-smoking facility =:-)

Depletion of geothermal energy

Well, that's brilliant. Now they'll just be depleting their source of geothermal energy, turning Iceland into a cold and dreary place...oh, wait...

Re:Depletion of geothermal energy

Pretty good trick don't you think? Have this big chunk of ice that is barely livable and call it "Greenland", then call this other land over here, that is nice and green, they decided to call it "Iceland". That was information security back then....

Oh wait, it doesn't seem we have come to far from security by obscurity...

Go calculate [webcalc.net] something

Future a step closer

This is cool, but I can't say I am surprised. Iceland has more energy than they know what to do with (they even grow bananas!) so I had expected them to build a hydrogen infrastructure for motor vehicles as well as energy storage. But it si still cool to see this happen.

For a bit of background

Here is a PDF [newenergy.is] outlining Iceland's ultimate aim of becoming the first hydrogen economy.

I wonder

how long it will be before the Bush Administration declares that they are making hydrogen bombs.

Gotta disarm them and hold the hydrogen in trust of the Icelandic people yaknow...

hydrogen from water

well, I guess Iceland is the logical place...

Finally!

Iceland has an export besides new last names for /.ers! ;)

hey cool

great now we just need some type of vehicle to take advantage of it

ok well we can start with some fire works :)

Hydrogen is not a source of energy

Hydrogen is a method for energy storage. If you're lucky like the icelanders you have cheap geothermal energy you can convert to hydrogen. But if the energy is coming from fossil fuels it only means that they will be burned at the power station instead of in your car engine.

Re:Hydrogen is not a source of energy

But if the energy is coming from fossil fuels it only means that they will be burned at the power station instead of in your car engine.

True, but that's still an improvement because then all the pollution control machinery can be made very large and very efficient. Compare that to the current situation where all the pollution-control equipment has to be small enough to fit in a car, and cheap enough that it doesn't significantly increase the price of the car.

And when the fossil fuels start to run out, we'll find it much easier to switch over to (solar/wind/fusion/whatever) if we only need to upgrade a few dozen large hydrogen-generation plants, instead of 50 million separate automobile engines.

Re:Hydrogen is not a source of energy

we only need to upgrade a few dozen large hydrogen-generation plants, instead of 50 million separate automobile engines

Actually for only about $1500 you can turn your car into a hydrogen fueled car. I found the link on google not too long ago, but I can't found it now, the best I can find is here [clean-air.org].

Re:Hydrogen is not a source of energy

The only thing that scares me about hydrogen is the explosion part.... Car wrecks could definitely get a lot scarier.

Yeah, good thing we're running on non-flammable, non-explosive gasoline right now.

I wonder how much they charge per tank?

And will they let you fill your balloon or are they going to insist on wasting it on a car?

Hydrogen is usually pointless...

All hydrogen is good for is a more efficient battery. This is nothing but a way to transport the geothermal energy more efficiently than current batterys will allow. Woop!

unlimited energy

if only we could somehow harness the pent up sexual frustrations of all the slashdot readers and turn it into electricity....

I have a question!

It's been on my mind for quiete some time, but I was wondering...

Would it not be simpler to store energy as liquid nitrogen (liquid air) instead of hydrogen?

And as far as I know, we wont run out of Nitrogen any time soon either.
And liquid Nitrogen when "consumed" does not involve any other chemical reaction then changing state liquid --> gas.
We would take nitrogen from the air, compress it and release it as is when used. Why isn't it a more explored area?

And producing it is quite simple to no?

The Scoop on Hydrogen

I'd like 1,300 Kl of unrefined, please.

Did anyone see the mini hydrogen thingie?

Did anyone see the [gothydrogen.com]
miniature hydrogen factory on the same page? Solar powered little gadget,
looks like it would be a neat way to get clean water on a camping trip.

No Oil?

They're not using a non Fossil fuel energy source?
Don't tell Bush, he'll label them as terrorists and bomb the hell out of them.

Hydrogen smydrogen

Can I get a 64 oz soda for 49 cents there?

cheap, clean geothermal energy...

The abundance of geothermal energy in Iceland is probably a large part of making this shift to hydrogen energy possible. They have an abundant source of clean electrical generation capacity, something that pretty much no other nation in the world comes close to. For years ore has been shipped all the way from Australia to Iceland for smelting because of the incredibly cheap electricity rates there - it takes a lot of energy to smelt bauxite (to create aluminum), so it turns out to be cheaper to transport the bulk ore thousands of miles by ship rather than smelt in Australia. Thanks to the abundant, cheap energy available in Iceland, hydrogen production should be no problem.

funny

once you think about it theres a certain irony in generating electricity with hydrogen. that is assuming the best way to get hydrogen is from water. you use electricty to create H2 and Oxegen and you use Hydrogen and oxegen to create electricity. every time you do that you lose energy in the form of heat.

Dihydrogen Monoxide

This process seems to use alot of Dihydrogen Monoxide [dhmo.org].
You think more people would be concerned.

Hydrogen?

This means that USA in a few years time will declare war to Iceland?

According to some Wired blurb.

Iceland has stated that it's going to go to all hydrogen, and sell polution credits under the Kyoto treaty. Between that and their incredibly profitable gene pool, they'll be per-capita, the wealthiest nation in the world soon enough.

Too bad they seem to be turning into nationalists. So much for emmigration.

hydrogen

All these people saying hydrogen is just as bad as burning fossil fuels because after all the hydrogen has to be produced by burning fossil fuels are annoying.

You would think all these people claiming to be programmers would grasp the idea of an abstraction layer.

Once everyone is filling their car up with hydrogen up at the pump you can change where the hydrogen came from without changing the cars. This is the whole point.

Got a windy plain? use wind power to make the hydrogen. Got geothermal energy? use that. Got huge rivers? use them. Got some new idea no one thought of yet? Try to use that! You can use whatever you want.

That's the whole point.

What will it be used for here in Iceland?

For now, there is only one vehicle in the country that runs on hydrogen fuel, they put 1 kg of hydrogen in it at the ceremony: http://skeljungur.is/uploads/images/Raðherra dælirC.jpg That car will be sent back to Mercedez soon I think. For the nearest future, 3 hydrogen fueled busses have been ordered and will arrive in august. The sole purpose of this hydrogen fuel station is to service these 3 busses (for now). Actually, this means that 4% of all the busses in the capitol will run on hydrogen :) The next step is to start powering our fishing ships with hydrogen, which make a big part of the CO2 that comes from Iceland. Hydrogen is for now mostly useable for big machinery such as busses and ships, the personal car will come hydrogen fueled later on (it's not very practical at this time).

Hair

I love it, great energy source and semi-permanent hair removal.

Clean except..

The geothermal process is clean if it is a closed system. Water is piped down to the heat source and back up again driving a turbine creating electricity. The problem is vent gases from the geothermal sources which can be malodorous at best and highly toxic at worst. So everything is ducky as long as they can contain the nastiness from the heat source.

Ice land

Most places don't have access to the abundant geothermal energy that Iceland has access to, located on a spreading center as it is. Spreading centers (places where two plates are moving away from eachother, creating new crust) bring magma very close to the surface of the Earth, much closer than pretty much anywhere else (except volcanoes, but those are a little tricky to harness the thermal energy from). I can't think of a single place (dry place, that is) besides Iceland that sits right on top of an active spreading center, so they are in a pretty unique situation (sure, there are failed rifts in Africa, but those are not active. Also possibly failed rifting in the U.S., but again, not active)
So unless you find a way to get energy from dozens to hundreds of kilometers underground, much deeper than we have ever even drilled, then we will have to be stuck with our few spots of high geothermal activity for producing energy in that way. Oh yeah, and depending on geothermal energy just delays the problem - the Earth is cooling, albeit very slowly.

manure

why aren't we burning shit? more of that gets created daily than coal is mined.

Hydrogen source?

I've got a great idea! Couldn't we use fossils to create hydrogen?

Oh... Wait...

That almost makes me forgive them...

...for unleashing Bjork on the world.

Norsk Hydro hydrogen technology

Norsk Hydro [hydro.com] is the same company who supplied Timothy McVeigh with fertiziler for the Oklahoma city bombing.

Now, they are making hydrogen fuel stations, undermining the oil based economy. I'm not a sucker for conspiracy theory, but it makes you wonder.

Geothermal Energy and Electrolysis

The power plant operators could bring in some extra cash by renting out a room to one of those "Unsightly Hair Removal" salons - after all, they would benefit from the electrolysis too. Imagine that... "We use only earth-friendly geothermal energy to remove your unsightly hair via electrolysis."

Stuart Energy

has been developing hydrogen fuel systems across North America for the past few years.

1. http://www.stuartenergy.com/main_news.html [stuartenergy.com]

Re:Has NO ONE been paying attention?

You dont quite understand the difference between a nuclear bomb and a tank of compressed gas.

Re:Has NO ONE been paying attention?

well there are a few things you need to realize (if you allready dont)

A) it would need oxegen to burn and B) hydrogen burns extremely quickly imagine filling a baloon with hydrogen there would be a (VERY) quick flash of flame and then that would be that . . . I think you would need an awfull large amount of hydrogen to create a catastrophic explosion

You haven't been, obviously.

Burning hydrogen creates about an electron volt of energy per molecule or so. FUSING hydrogen into helium, what a hydrogen bomb does, generates several MILLION electron volts of energy per atom. So unless you have a hydrogen tank for your car that is at EXTREMELY high pressure, you don't have a hydrogen bomb. There are dozens of chemicals that generate far more explosion energy for a chemical bomb, such as, say, GASOLINE!

Re:Has NO ONE been paying attention?

Unlike the Hindenburg, cars will have small, reenforced, crash protected tanks [ch2bc.org] (about halfway down the page). Not Huge volumes of H2. If you drove you H2 car in to a skyscrapers, you would need ALOT more fuel then what you will have in this tank. If the tank is protected for car crashes, driving it in to a building will do no more then driving you gas powered car that you have now.

Re:Has NO ONE been paying attention?

In many years of research, a NASA scientist at Cape Canaveral has found proof that neither the hydrogen in the hull nor a bomb was to blame, but the fabric of the Hindenburg's outer skin and a new protective coating.

(from your link...)

Vehicles containing hydrocarbon fuels, on the other hand are extremely hazardous in collisions and make deadly terrorist weapons. Also, fabric coated in explosives is bad, whether you make a tent out of it or a blimp.

Re:Clean, but Disastrous!

Hey now, what's wrong with California?