A letter from an IceNews reader with some interesting ideas about Iceland’s energy reserves:
My name is Johnny Duncan and I am from Edinburgh in Scotland and read about the idea on the internet that Iceland could supply power derived from Volcanic Geothermal origins via an electricity cable to Scotland. That is a great concept but:
Would it not be a better idea to use the geothermal energy to produce hydrogen using electrolysis instead of an electrical cable?
A pipeline transporting hydrogen gas to Scotland could be used instead. For sure more energy would be required at-source to produce hydrogen from electricity than just electricity alone, but that would be significantly outweighed by the fact that during transportation there would be dramatic electrical loss in the conductor cable — but not so with a gas pipeline.
In my view Hydrogen is most definitely the fuel of the future with no pollution when burnt, only water vapour. A gas network already exists in Scotland which will be under pressure in the future to use more hydrogen. It is proposed that hydrogen could also be supplied to Southern Europe from North Africa using power derived from solar cells.
The cheapest way to make hydrogen is to throw water onto white hot coals, perhaps Iceland can find a way to pump water down a volcanic fissure and produce hydrogen? Just watch out for the carbon monoxide!
I do admire the way Iceland has handled the Economic crisis that has befallen this autonomous nation.
Best Regards
John Duncan
This letter for publication was sent in by John Duncan, an IceNews reader.
Everyone is welcome to send material (whether news, an opinion column, or other information) to email: news[at]icenews.is.
IceNews reserves the right to reject submissions without explanation.
MIT scientist develops artificial solar cell leaf that can power a house for a day with a single gallon of water
From Natural News
http://www.naturalnews.com/031879_artificial_leaf_solar_cell.html
Daniel Nocera recently told attendees at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in California that when his prototype leaf is placed in a pool of water, it effectively captures sunlight and splits water into oxygen and hydrogen at ten times the rate of a natural leaf. Operating for at least a full 45 straight hours without any decline in performance, the leaf acts as a small, highly-efficient solar cell that produces energy for use in power generation.
“The artificial leaf shows particular promise as an inexpensive source of electricity for homes of the poor in developing countries,” said Nocera in a statement. “Our goal is to make each home its own power station. One can envision villages in India and Africa not long from now purchasing an affordable basic power system based on this technology.”
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031879_artificial_leaf_solar_cell.html#ixzz1Hz2L7qfM
But we in Scotland still need your Hydrogen Iceland for we have higher heating requirements and too much cloud especially in winter when we need it most. We don’t want nuclear anymore and toxic oil and gas. Hydrogen is taking off. When I am too old to pedal uphill I would like to go mountain biking with my hydrogen mountain bike no noise or pollution expelled just water for the plants! Make it happen Iceland I would like to put your Hydrogen in my tank as it would be reliable and green.
I would need to improve my riding skills as this video I made will testify.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Md21lPWbeI
By harnessing geothermal energy to heat salt water and using geothermal or hydro electric energy to produce radio frequency waves the efficiency of producing hydrogen could be vastly improved from the standalone electrolysis method. Possibly 90% one way as the hydrogen produced and sent to Scotland would not need to be converted back into electricity. Hydrogen could power transport including cars, motorbikes and jet planes.
Cars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaniEb3yAhM
Motorbikes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_Whbb_hlPs
Jet Planes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExlH43E4y9U
Salt water fuel
We watched as they poured Morton’s salt into a container, mixed it with water and then exposed the fluid to the Kanzius radio frequency device.
An intense flame erupted over the test tube.
“In this case we weren’t looking for energy,” said John Kanzius. “We were looking for something that might do desalinization. And the more we tried desalinization, the more heat we produced until we got fire.”
http://www.wkyc.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=74285
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4gOS8aoFk
Geothermal/Hydro produced Hydrogen is supply on demand where the output can be controlled and can act as storage whereas renewable energy from wind and sun is intermittent. Intermittent supply and usage of electricity creates power losses such as off peak demand at night compared to peak day time demand. Nuclear and fossil fuel power plants smooth out demand by providing power for pump storage hydro schemes at night during off peak. This requires pumping water uphill at a 25% loss of energy. Hydrogen is a viable alternative energy storage medium if you do not have to reconvert it to electricity.
Great idea,
then pay the Bond holders of Landsbanki and Kaupthing what Iceland stole from them.
How is Iceland going to react when the rest of the world steals from you? Your President will also put it to the vote and wait for a 100 years :-) by then I’m dead too.
Unfortunately, methanol is very toxic and contains a number of hazards. It is less volatile than hydrogen, but also much heavier, which could allow contamination in the case of spills or tank leaks. A wide range of groups are constantly looking for new and innovative uses for methanol, and it seems apparent that it will have a role in the energy economy of the future. Whether that role is as the key player or a supporter to hydrogen or some other fuel source remains to be seen.
The longest hydrogen pipeline in Europe is owned by Air Liquide and extends 250 miles from Northern France to Belgium.
Since 1939, Germany has had a 130-mile pipeline carrying 20,000 lb/hour of hydrogen in a 10-inch pipe at 290 psi gauge (psig).
Based on the design parameters of some hydrogen pipelines and on experience with natural gas pipelines, it is reasonable to suggest
some design parameters that could very well be applicable to the flow rates, distances, and pressures associated with long-distance transmission of hydrogen via pipeline.
At a given pressure, the energy density of hydrogen is approximately one-third that of natural gas. However, for the same pipe diameter and pressure, hydrogen flows approximately three times as fast as natural gas. As a result, if hydrogen compressors could be operated to meet similar pressure requirements as natural gas compressors, it could be expected that hydrogen pipe diameters would approach those for natural gas transmission pipelines. As noted in the discussion of natural gas pipelines, pipe diameters of up to 48 inches are seen. Actual hydrogen pipeline diameters would of course depend on hydrogen demand, the pressures achievable, and codes and standards that are yet to be developed.
Jack Nicholson’s Car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM&feature=player_embedded#at=144
This video demonstrates that there has been a conspiracy and I am accusing BIG OIL and THE AMERICAN AUTOMAKERS of colluding to suppress technology that could have had a major impact on the current climate crisis by allowing technology to move forward that would have resulted in a huge decrease in demand for OIL
http://current.com/technology/89549586_big-oil-and-auto-maker-hydrogen-spoil-conspiracy-revealed-in-jack-nickolson-1978-video.htm
The figures say it all, JohnnyD; piping H gas is a none starter. whats the worlds longest H pipeleine? 50miles? and you are suggesting a near 2000mile to market pipeline?
As Axel has pointed out, real world, practical solutions already exist and are happening.
Why don’t you raise the couple of billion euros and build it yourself, if it makes such economic sense, go ahead and raise the money.
Carbon recycling has built a small Methanol factory in Svartsengi in Iceland, it should be opperational later this month,
they intend to build a much larger factory at Krafla, using a 60 mw geo thermal power plant that is not being used,
they expect to produce 100 million liters at Krafla, intended for export.
This is very likely to happen, and will be decided in the next few weeks.
http://www.carbonrecycling.is/
The construction of H2 transmission pipelines started in 1938 in the German Rhein-
Ruhr area. This pipeline is still operational today. Since then an estimated 1600 km of
H2 pipelines have been built in Europe, and about 800 km in the US (Perrin et al.,
2007).
Hydrogen Pipelines
Approximately 700 miles of hydrogen pipelines are currently operating in the United States (compared to more than one million miles of natural gas pipelines nationwide). Owned by merchant hydrogen producers, these pipelines are located where large hydrogen users, such as petroleum refineries and chemical plants, are concentrated (for example, in the Gulf Coast region).
Transporting gaseous hydrogen via existing pipelines is currently the lowest-cost option for delivering large volumes of hydrogen. The high initial capital costs of new pipeline construction, however, constitute a major barrier to expanding hydrogen pipeline delivery infrastructure. Research is also focused on overcoming other technical concerns related to pipeline transmission, including the potential for hydrogen to embrittle the steel and welds used to fabricate the pipelines; the need to control hydrogen permeation and leaks; and the need for lower cost, more reliable, and more durable hydrogen compression technology.
One possibility for rapidly expanding the hydrogen delivery infrastructure is to adapt part of the natural gas delivery infrastructure to accommodate hydrogen. Converting natural gas pipelines to carry a blend of natural gas and hydrogen (up to about 20% hydrogen) may require only modest modifications to the pipeline; converting existing natural gas pipelines to deliver pure hydrogen may require more substantial modifications. Current research and analyses are examining both approaches.
Another possible delivery process involves producing a liquid hydrogen carrier at a central location, pumping it through pipelines to distributed refueling stations, and processing the carrier on-site to produce hydrogen for dispensing at the station. Ethanol, made from renewable resources with near-zero net greenhouse gas emissions, is among the hydrogen carriers under consideration. Liquid hydrogen carriers offer the potential of using existing pipeline and truck infrastructure technology for hydrogen transport.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/delivery/current_technology.html
Some figures on the uneconomical aspect of Hydrogen gas
“Low energy density
Hydrogen has the lowest energy density of any fuel (4). At room temperature and pressure, hydrogen takes up 3,000 times the volume of gasoline containing an equivalent amount of energy. To be useable, hydrogen needs to be compressed or liquefied and more energy is lost:
* Compressing hydrogen to 10,000 psi is a multi-stage process that loses 15% of the energy contained in the hydrogen. (5)
* Liquefying hydrogen enables you to get more hydrogen energy into a smaller container, but you will lose 30-40% of the hydrogen’s energy in the process. (6)
Transport
Canister trucks can carry enough fuel for 60 cars (9). These trucks weight 40,000 kg but deliver only 400 kg of hydrogen. For a delivery distance of 150 miles, the delivery energy used is nearly 20% of the usable energy in the hydrogen delivered; at 300 miles it is 40%. The same size truck carrying gasoline delivers 10,000 gallons of fuel, enough to fill about 800 cars (10).
Pipelines – Natural gas pipelines can’t be used for hydrogen because they are composed of metal that would become brittle and leak, and is not the correct diameter to carry hydrogen efficiently. The average cost of a natural gas pipeline is about $1 million per mile. The US has about 200,000 miles of natural gas pipeline. A similar infrastructure to deliver hydrogen would cost about $200 trillion. The major operating cost of hydrogen pipelines is compressor power and maintenance (11). Compressors in the pipeline keep the gas moving, using hydrogen energy to push the gas forward. After 620 miles, 8% of the hydrogen will have been used to move it through the pipeline (12).”
http://www.climatechangeconnection.org/Solutions/Hydrogen-energy.htm
Ok, I give up.
Nobody will ever build a gaseous hydrogen pipeline, but you can dream. The HVAC North Sea network is being built now and Iceland can tap into it. You will note that there is no user of Hydrogen that doesn’t compress it to liquid, alternative (eg nano) technologies are being investigated to store it but you cannot pipe a solid.
As I said, Al is the best way of transporting the energy and if the catalyst fuel method works then converting Al back into fuel will become a world wide industry, it has a power density half that of gasoline so its viable.
There is already a comparable length of subsea natural gas pipeline between Norway and England.
There are already pipelines that carry Hydrogen and they are made of 300-series stainless steel.
The grade most suitable would be 310 grade.
Forget liquid hydrogen. The problem with liquid hydrogen is that it boils around -253 degC and requires cryogenic storage which imposes a large energy loss.
The installation of long distance electricity cable between Iceland and Scotland would be the longest in the world and would have to use HVDC power transmission lines as used in the subsea cable between Norway and Holland.
http://www.engineerlive.com/Energy-Solutions/Transmition_Distribution/Underwater_HVDC_power_cable_sets_standard_for_transmission_projects/21325/
The losses on this cable would be approximately 3% per 1000km so total cable loss between Iceland and Scotland would be approaching 5%. Massive and very expensive converters would have to be used to convert to the AC grid. They would cover 9 football pitches and cost around $200 million each. HVDC is less reliable and has lower availability than AC systems, mainly due to the extra conversion equipment. Single pole systems have availability of about 98.5%, with about a third of the downtime unscheduled due to faults. Converting between DC and AC will incur losses of 0.8% to 1.7%. Add to that the losses considered when generating electricity from geothermal heat of 23% which I considered in my 67% efficiency figure for Hydrogen and you get an efficiency figure of 68.6% for Electricity transmission to Scotland.
Electricity cannot be stored as electricity (that is why we have chemical batteries) so when the power is cut there will be no gradual depletion instead sudden power loss often without warning. Hydrogen is a more efficient way to store energy than batteries.
There is a need for hydrogen and it has been mooted as the basis for future economies.
The Norway Hydrogen Highway in the here and the now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdYMTtbS3u0
Honda regards Hydrogen as the future of motoring.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Hydrogen?topic=49557
Germany is already providing the infrastructure:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=german-hydrogen-powered-cars
Located in remote regions, power plants would electrolyze seawater; the hydrogen produced would travel to distant cities by pipelines. Pollution-free hydrogen could replace natural gas, gasoline, etc., and could serve as a reducing agent in metallurgy, chemical processing, refining, etc. It could also be used to convert trash into methane and ethylene.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Hydrogen?topic=49557
What happened to the Methane from Landsbanki and Kaupthing? :-)
They stocked large amounts of manure.
What happened to the junk investment contracts from Landsbanki and Kaupthing? :-) They stocked large amounts of worthless paper.
“Pure Gaseous hydrogen is the energy for the future and the now.”
Wrong on both counts. There is no demand for hydrogen, there is no infrastructure for hydrogen today or quite probably in the future.
By your own figures, converting electricity to hydrogen would lose 33% of it in the fundamental conversion. Transmitting that electricity would only lose <5% in sending it to Scotland.
You cannot economically pipe H gas, its lightweight makes it very inefficient to pump. Also the tiny molecules can pass through many materials and escape – you would end up with a long line of bubles.
There is no record of anyone pumping Hydrogen any distance – its always transported as liquid. As is ALL other energy gases such as propane and methane.
On the other hand, building long distance electricity lines at great efficiently is perfectly practical and is already under way. Iceland could feed into the North Sea high voltage network, it would need to get to at least Scotland and then pay (incur further losses) to be transmitted to Holland etc.
I'm sorry, but you idea is utterly ridiculous and completely impractical. Suggesting an impossible to build pipeline to waste 98% of the electricity generated so that it can be delivered to a place where there is no demand and now way of using is ridiculous. [IceNews note: Final sentence removed for directly contravening commenting guideline number 1 ( https://www.icenews.is/index.php/comment-guidelines/ )]
Hi Klop thanks for your response to this idea that engages the debate on the Iceland Scotland hydrogen pipeline.
Already there are gas pipelines that have been laid at a greater depth than envisaged for the Iceland Scotland hydrogen pipeline. The Bluestream Natural gas pipeline between Russia and Turkey crosses the Caspian sea at depths of up to 2,150m.
http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/blue_stream/
Conveniently there exists between Scotland and Iceland the Greenland Scotland ridge where the depth of water is below 2000m. The pipeline could skirt the Faroe Islands and head to Scotland.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/north-east-atlantic-ocean-physiography-depth-distribution-and-main-currents
The latest seabed mapping technology would have to be implemented to pinpoint the pipeline route exactly.
http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP467/p467.htm
Still the pipeline would have to be of thick and heavy construction to overcome the buoyancy effect of hydrogen.
The cost to the environment of burning fossil fuels has been well documented yet vast amounts of money is still being spent on pipeline infrastructure for gas (the unatural natural type!). Transporting truly green energy in the form of hydrogen will not only pay for itself by solving the energy needs for the people of Scotland but would go along way to reducing our carbon emissions to zero.
Hi Peter I do not see the need to liquefy hydrogen there is a demand for it now in the gaseous state. You can actually store more hydrogen in a metal than you can in a liquid!
Obtaining hydrogen from salt water using electrolysis is 67% efficient that is good enough I believe as there are no toxic overheads.
Iceland has indeed aluminium smelters which require vast amounts of energy and vast amounts of imported bauxite. 80% of Iceland’s renewable energy is diverted to the smelting of aluminium which too uses the electrolysis process. Perhaps you know a better way to make Aluminium Peter?
Aluminium metal itself is a fuel because a significant amount of the energy required in the manufacturing process is locked into the molecular structure that wants to convert back to its natural ore state but cannot because of a forming oxidised layer. When the oxidised layer breaks down the energy is released.
New process generates hydrogen from aluminium alloy to run engines, fuel cells:
http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html
You can also generate hydrogen by putting caustic soda in water and adding aluminium foil this creates a lot of heat. Caustic soda is hazardous to the skin and eyes.
Aluminium production emits perfluorcarbons (PFCs), powerful greenhouse gases which remain permanently in the atmosphere once released.
Pure Gaseous hydrogen is the energy for the future and the now.
Better yet, use the energy to make Aluminum. Its cheap and safer to transport and there is much more demand for it than hydrogen. This fact is why there are Al plants in Iceland.
Electrolysis is also not very cost effective at making hydrogen, there are other technological ways of making hydrogen without the same energy input. Also liquefying hydrogen is very energy intensive.
Problem list
1. Would be extremely expensive to construct
2. Would be extremely expensive to maintain
3. The depth pressure would probably collapse the pipe
4. Probably would not pay off itself with points 1 and 2
5. There is no straight/flat path to lay the pipe to Scotland (Major problem)
Best option would be to liquefy the gas and ship it to Scotland,
this would cost much less and you can also supply other countries Like Greenland, Sweden, Norway and any other place.