Hydrogen
Broderick Crawford ilililililil
ships. The German air ships used hydrogen especially because it was
cheap and plentiful. Of course the news coverage of the Hindenburg
scared people shitless but only killed 36 people. But now that we want
to burn hydrogen in cars, all of a sudden it is expensive and hard to
make. I smell a big bullshit turd somewhere in these times.
Broderick Crawford ilililililil
CJT
I doubt the amount of hydrogen in the Hindenburg would move your
car very far.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
sno
For a few airships it was worth the expense....think about how many
cars and how much hydrogen we would have to make to fuel them....
Also the only hydrogen that had to be replaced was that amount that
was lost through the skin of the airship....so the only amount
needed to be replaced was this loss....so hydrogen was a one time
thing....
Hydrogen was cheap and inexpensive at the time due to the fact it
was not used for as many things as it is now....
hope helps...have fun....sno
--
No matter how dangerous nuclear power may or
may not be.....
Is it any more dangerous then what we are doing
now.....???
This tag line is generated by:
SLNG (Silly Little Nuclear Generator)
Eeyore
Broderick Crawford ilililililil wrote:
> How is it that hydrogen was cheap and plentiful during the age of air
> ships.
It wasn't.
Wrong initial condition.
Graham
Eeyore
Broderick Crawford ilililililil wrote:
> How is it that hydrogen was cheap and plentiful during the age of air
> ships.
Compare the number of safe voyages by hydrogen-filled airships with the number
of entirely safe 747 etc and other long range airliner flights.
I'll venture it's at least 10 MILLION to one.
Graham
Broderick Crawford ilililililil
trans-Atlantic flights. The Graf Zepplin, just before the last one
(Hindenberg) made hundred of trans-Atlantic flights.
Broderick Crawford ilililililil
channel tonight you would know different. It WAS cheap and plentiful.
And tons of it was needed to float a rigid airship.
Arnold Walker
"Broderick Crawford ilililililil" <bcrawf...@roadrunner.com> wrote in
message news:473273f1$0$25150$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Airships"
by Harold G. Dick ( a Goodyear Engineer assigned to Luftschiffbau Zeppelin
to work on
international co-projects ) Both Dr.Hugo Erckener and Paul W. Litchfield
wanted the Hindenburg and Graf Zeppelin to work with helium furnished by
Goodyear.
But international fears from at first the Kaiser of WWI......then Hitler
banned that sell....the Nazi had a grand total of coal for a chemical
stockpile and in both WWI&II. some of the worlds finest petro chemist.Much
of what they did then with coal gasification is what we do now at
refineries.
Most folks remember the nuke physics and rocket/jet /helicopter guys....but
the chemist where ,if anything better, at what they did. To make
fuel,plastics,sysnethic lube,explosives,and ...well, hydrogen.
So producer gas generated hydrogen was used instead.As time wore on Goodyear
was banned from even being in
Germany(about 1937) by both sides. Helium only has 93% of the lift of
hydrogen.Erckener was slowly but surely in the same boat ,as other Germans.
During that time as his company became a government company and then was
killed off for other Nazi uses .
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Roland Mösl
Newsbeitrag news:473273f1$0$25150$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
It's a difference when hydrogen is a waste product at some
chemical processes or has to be special produced
The Hindenburg had 200.000 cubicmeter hydrogen.
Thats 18 tons.
The current price for hydrogen at a fuel station is 8.-EUR
So the Hindenburg can be filled with 144,000.-EUR hydrogen.
Not so much investment.
But You want to burn it in cars.
There will be a time for hydrogen complete produced with
renewable electric power.
But You need for 1 kg hydrogen
40 kWh for electrolysis
12 kWh for liquification
This 52 kWh had to be paid
As long as there is not enough renewable energy,
hydrogen makes no sense
http://car.pege.org/2007-co2-mobility/bmw-7.htm
--
Roland Mösl
http://car.pege.org cars and traffic
http://live.pege.org building and live
http://www.pege.org
Roland Mösl
> channel tonight you would know different. It WAS cheap and plentiful.
> And tons of it was needed to float a rigid airship.
18 tons to be exact.
The BMW 7 hydrogen needs 3,9 kg / 100km.
So the 18 tons filling up the Hindenburg are just enough
to drive one single BMW 7 hydrogen 461.538 km
So all the hydrogen is just enough for one single car
used for a longer time
Roland Mösl
news:4732761B...@prodigy.net...
> Broderick Crawford ilililililil wrote:
>> How is it that hydrogen was cheap and plentiful during the age of air
>> ships. The German air ships used hydrogen especially because it was
>> cheap and plentiful. Of course the news coverage of the Hindenburg
>> scared people shitless but only killed 36 people. But now that we want
>> to burn hydrogen in cars, all of a sudden it is expensive and hard to
>> make. I smell a big bullshit turd somewhere in these times.
>
> I doubt the amount of hydrogen in the Hindenburg would move your
> car very far.
If he would drive a BMW 7 hydrogen
461538 km according to the 3,9 kg for 100km
Eeyore
Roland Mösl wrote:
> > If you had seen 'Lost Worlds', the Age of the Airships on the History
> > channel tonight you would know different. It WAS cheap and plentiful.
> > And tons of it was needed to float a rigid airship.
>
> 18 tons to be exact.
>
> The BMW 7 hydrogen needs 3,9 kg / 100km.
And you said hydrogen costs EUR 8 per kg.
So to travel 100km (about 60 mi) on hydrogen fuel will cost ~ EUR 32 ($50).
That's 83 cents per mile in fuel alone.
Graham
Broderick Crawford ilililililil
cognite tute
economy always depends on the application.
I have used a hydrogen generator to make a carrier gas for gas
chromatography.
the generator cost about $1500.
it used RO water.
and procduced less than 100ml per min.
Still, for the application it was economical.
j.
in airships you have only Hydrogen or Helium.
If the US won't let you have Helium, your only choice is Hydrogen.
You don't use it because it is cheap, but because it is the only choice,
no matter the cost.
That is, if you want an airship.
j.
Eeyore
cognite tute wrote:
> in airships you have only Hydrogen or Helium.
I don't think hydrogen is allowed any more.
Graham
Roland Mösl
news:4732F80A...@hotmail.com...
This is correct.
Regardless from what source, the hydrogen is produced,
it costa alone 12 kWh electric power for the ligquification
to bring it in the tank.
Trucks to distribute hydrogen can transport much less
energy, because one litre has only 2,3 kWh chemical energy
http://car.pege.org/2005-hydrogen/2-3-kwh-liter.htm
And all has to be extreme insulated.
Here some photos from the Linde hydrogen truck
http://car.pege.org/2007-iaa-2/linde-hydrogen-truck.htm
Erdemal
(I like the guard standing left of the picture :)
Knowing that hydrogen has a heat of combustion ~3 times greater
than diesel or gasoline and that gasoline density is 0.705,
8 € for a kg of hydrogen is *not* that *expansive* for an
uncommon good.
Fuel MJ/kg Mcal/kg BTU/lb
Hydrogen 141.9 33.9 61,000
Gasoline 47 11.3 20,400
Diesel 45 10.7 19,300
Gasoline density = 0.705, Gasoline retail price in Europe ~1.3 €/l
---- *In Western Europe:* ----
1 MJ of hydrogen costs 8/141.9 = 0.056 €
1 MJ of Gasoline Costs (1.3 €/l) / (0.705 * 47)= 0.039 €
------------------------------
Erdy
Roland Mösl
No, that's simple the truth
It has to be also said, a plug-in hybrid in the size of the BMW 7
is expected to use 20 to 25 kWh/100km
A 12 cylinder engine is most times very inefficient.
Only at full power the efficiency goes up,
but this are even on German highways rare oportunities
In opposit to this, the Chevorlet Volt has less only
around 0,8 kg hydrogen for 100km
http://car.pege.org/2007-iaa/chevrolet-volt-hydrogen.htm
0,8 * 8 = 6,40 EUR or $9,40 for 100km,
but only for longer distances, for short diestances
electric power alone
15 kWh/100 km
Broderick Crawford ilililililil
A. van Berkel
When you want to build an airship, your alternatives are hydrogen and
helium.
Hydrogen is a commodity in many industrial processes. It is generated by
reforming methane (or another hydrocarbon). This was already common
technology in early 20th century. It is even a waste product in many
processes (e.g. chlorine production). As a result, hydrogen prices today
can become as low as $1 per kg locally. Hydrogen is difficult to
transport over long distances and thus the price varies according to
local circumstances. There are places, close to chemical industry where
hydrogen is cheap and plentiful (even a waste product).
Helium on the other hand does not play a role in industrial processes.
Compared to hydrogen helium is not plentiful and you will not find any
places where helium is considered a waste product (maybe someday when
nuclear fusion finally works full-scale).
So, when you are an engineer designing an airship, hydrogen is cheap and
plentiful.
When you are an engineer designing a car, hydrogen is difficult to
transport, not really plentiful (compared to other fuels) and rather
expensive compared to other fuels since it is made from other perfectly
suitable fuels such as methane (and therefore more expensive per kJ than
methane). Only when hydrogen compensates for the higher price per kJ by
enabling a much better efficiency of the vehicle, then hydrogen becomes
attractive as a fuel.
Hydrogen is not hard to make however. It is just expensive to make (for
a fuel).
Arij
Roland Mösl
>> hydrogen makes no sense
>>
>> http://car.pege.org/2007-co2-mobility/bmw-7.htm
> And to think that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe!
And?
Hydrogen is good for atomic fusion,
this is common at stars, and we can use
this energy by photovoltaic
You
Broderick Crawford ilililililil <bcrawf...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> And to think that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe!
Oh it IS, but you neglect to understand that 99% of the Hydrogen on
this planet is already Bonded to other elements, and is not the Gas that
you require for your fuel............
better go back to High School, and take a refresher course in Chemisty,
or ask for a refund, because you didn't learn much while there, the
first time......
Trygve Lillefosse
I think the airships were meant to use helium, but as you have to go
to the US to get helium, they had to make do with what they had.
So they manufactured expensive hydrogen for use in the blimps instead.
I belive airships is the most expensive way to get from point A to B -
on earth ever made.
--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
Broderick Crawford ilililililil
Eeyore
You wrote:
> Broderick Crawford wrote:
>
> > And to think that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe!
>
> Oh it IS, but you neglect to understand that 99% of the Hydrogen on
> this planet is already Bonded to other elements, and is not the Gas that
> you require for your fuel............
>
> better go back to High School, and take a refresher course in Chemisty,
> or ask for a refund, because you didn't learn much while there, the
> first time......
Crawford is simply a grade A fuckwit.
I'm just waiting for him to suggest all we need are hydrogen wells.
Graham
Phil Ross
news:47332EAE...@hotmail.com...
Hindenburg burning up so quickly wasn't actually the hydrogen, but the
fabric dope that was used on the skin of the airship, which was extremely
flammable, almost explosive. Hydrogen was appealing to the Germans, since it
does have four times the "lifting" power of helium, and they didn't have
access to helium, which comes primarily from natural gas wells. It is
actually safer than implied by the Hindenburg disaster, but the negative
public perception is pretty much sealed by that incident. Besides, lighter
than air ships have other issues that limit their practicality.
Phil Ross
"Erdemal" <Erde...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:47333beb$0$7361$4d4e...@read.news.be.uu.net...
Vaughn Simon
"Phil Ross" <par...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:7ui1j.19164$4V6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> And the added benefit that the combustion of hydrogen is carbon free!
Unfortunately, the production of hydrogen is not necessarily carbon free.
Remember, there are no hydrogen wells, we must make the stuff. Look at the
whole picture, not just the pretty part!
Vaughn
Solar Flare
"Phil Ross" <par...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Jri1j.19163$4V6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
Phil Ross
news:KDi1j.41104$if6....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
the current methods of obtaining it commercially. That, and the
transportation and storage issues, are only some of the very real roadblocks
to hydrogen becoming a viable alternative to hydrocarbon fuels. However,
since hydrogen itself is a carbon free energy source, the more the
roadblocks become resolved, the more attractive it becomes.
Phil
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>... Hydrogen was appealing to the Germans, since it does have four times
>the "lifting" power of helium
No.
Nick
Eeyore
Vaughn Simon
>However, since hydrogen itself is a carbon free energy source, the more the
>roadblocks become resolved, the more attractive it becomes.
I thought we could agree on something, but then came your last line which
contains two factual errors:
1) Hydrogen is not a "Power Source", it is only a way of storing and
transporting energy.
2) Unless made with dedicated carbon free energy, hydrogen is not carbon free.
Vaughn
Eeyore
Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Phil Ross" <par...@pacbell.net> wrote
>
> >However, since hydrogen itself is a carbon free energy source, the more the
> >roadblocks become resolved, the more attractive it becomes.
>
> I thought we could agree on something, but then came your last line which
> contains two factual errors:
>
> 1) Hydrogen is not a "Power Source", it is only a way of storing and
> transporting energy.
> 2) Unless made with dedicated carbon free energy, hydrogen is not carbon free.
Those aren't errors.
Graham
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>> >... Hydrogen was appealing to the Germans, since it does have four times
>> >the "lifting" power of helium
>>
>> No.
>
>Indeed. About 1.3 times.
No.
Nick
BobG
> And the added benefit that the combustion of hydrogen is carbon free!
Are we down on carbon now too, or is 'carbon' some sort of shorthand
slang for 'carbon dioxide'? Isn't there enough misunderstanding about
the mystical thermodynamic properties of carbon dioxide without
calling it something else?
Erdemal
YES, it's even worse :)
Air density (dry) 1.293 g/L
Hydrogen density 0.08988 g/L
Helium density 0.1786 g/l
All at 0°C and 101 kPa
'lift' Helium: 1.293 - 0.08988 = 1.203 g/L
'lift' Hydrogen: 1.293 - 0.1786 = 1.114 g/L
So Helium 'lift' is just 1.07 times less than hydrogen
Helium is much more expansive I guess ?
Erdy
Eeyore
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>> >> >... Hydrogen was appealing to the Germans, since it does have four times
>> >> >the "lifting" power of helium
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >Indeed. About 1.3 times.
>>
>> No.
>
>Please show your calculations.
"Lifting power" is proportional to the difference between the molecular weight
of the atmosphere and the molecular weight of the gas, no?
Nick
Eeyore
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
Yes. I admit to a small miscalculation. It's more like 1.2 times.
Graham
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
You seem to have missed the point again :-)
Nick
Phil Ross
commercially viable methods of obtaining it by itself. And, I didn't say
"power source" I said energy source, you know, the "stuff" it releases when
combined with oxygen.
Vaughn Simon
Hydrogen is also not an "energy source", and we should never say that it is.
It would make just as much sense to say that compressed air is an "energy
source" when actually it is just an energy storage medium. It is arguably
correct (in the micro case) to call a tank of compressed air an "energy source",
but it is inarguably a sloppy and misleading way of using language. In regards
to the hydrogen economy, I can see that YOU know the difference, but we must
remember that the average Joe doesn't. When you use misleading terms like
hydrogen as an "energy source", it is natural for "average Joe Citizen" to
assume that hydrogen is the next big energy reservoir waiting for us to tap when
all of the fossil fuel is gone.
In the same manner, we should never refer to hydrogen as being carbon free,
without qualifying our statement.
Vaughn
Phil Ross
statement because of what "average Joe Citizen" may know or not know, it
would be nearly impossible to write anything without providing footnotes
every other sentence. Oh, and by the way, since E=mC2, everything is
technically an "energy source" (and before you start another lecture, I do
know the difference between chemical and nuclear energy). If you choose not
to consider hydrogen (or any fossil fuel, for that matter) as an energy
source, that is your prerogative, but don't expect many other people to buy
into it enthusiastically. I do get your point that it may be helpful to
consider these fuels as energy storage media so as to consider the whole
picture in terms of what it actually "costs" to use them, but to insist that
hydrogen is not an energy source is just silly.
Phil
Phil Ross
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:fi4ifd$c...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
Vaughn Simon
>
> "Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimo...@att.FAKE.net> wrote in message
> news:A222j.47891$if6....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
To insist that hydrogen IS an energy source is just silly, not to mention
misleading.
I guess there is no ground for us to agree here, so the above will conclude
my comments in this subthread.
Vaughn