Best Books on Hydrogen Future Possibilities
Gary
I'm a total layman / novice. But for some reason I find myself thinking a
lot about the possibilities of hydrogen.
I'd like to get some books that explain the possibilities and obstacles for
hydrogen. I'd like to avoid anything that is all hype but also avoid books
that can't imagine a future that doesn't exist yet. Not looking for anything
too technical, but I'm not stupid either, so if there is a little background
in the chemestry needed to explain things, that't fine too.
So, suggestions for the best books?
Thanks,
Gary
Eeyore
Gary wrote:
> I'm a total layman / novice. But for some reason I find myself thinking a
> lot about the possibilities of hydrogen.
>
> I'd like to get some books that explain the possibilities and obstacles for
> hydrogen.
You don't need a book.
Here's what you need to know about hydrogen.
Hydrogen in its elemental form doesn't occur in nature so it has to be
manufactured.
Manufacturing hydrogen currently uses fossil fuels so, aside from the possible
advantage of using it to reduce *local* air pollution, there is no advantage in
terms of total pollution or CO2 footprint. In fact these may be worse when using
hydrogen as the processes require an extra energy input.
Hydrogen so manufactured may be used as a fuel in many existing engines
(typically with slight modifications only) and in fuel cells.
When hydrogen is used as a fuel in internal combustion engines etc, most of the
energy value is wasted just like when burning fossil fuels in them.
Hydrogen used in fuel cells may produce electricity at around 50% efficiency
(so only half the energy value is lost).
Hydrogen manufactured using electrolysis requires vast amounts of electrical
energy. And doing so is 'lossy', so you end up with less energy value than you
had to begin with. Any 'hydrogen economy' would first require a 'crash
programme' of building huge numbers of new electrical power generating stations.
In order not to vastly increase greenhouse gas emissions, the only practical
power source for these would have to be nuclear.
Hydrogen is explosive over a wide range of air / hydrogen mixture values. It
therefore requires *extreme* care in handling and the security of any storage
containers.
Hydrogen leaks from ordinary steel pipelines and will make them brittle too.
Hydrogen occupies a very large volume for it's energy value and therefore
requires compression or liquefaction in order to be practically stored. This
wastefully requires additional energy inputs.
Willie Mook claims to have the answer to cheap photovoltaic solar power
generation of hydrogen but so far it's largely just talk. He vastly exaggerates
his claims. I wouldn't take him TOO seriously. His ideas are intereting but in
his enthusiasm for them, he appears to lost any sense of objectivity. Some of
his posts make him sound quite mad in fact.
Graham
Don Lancaster
But the hydrogen economy ain't gonna happen.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Don Lancaster
Here are the arguments against the hydrogen economy:
1. Terrestral hydrogen is ONLY an energy
carrier or transfer media and NOT a
substance capable of delivering net NEW
BTU's to the on-the-books economy.
2. Terrestral hydrogen creation is inefficient
as considerably more energy of usually
much higher quality has to be input than
is eventually returnable.
3. No large terrestral source of hydrogen gas
is known. Water, of course, is a hydrogen
sink and, by fundamental chemical energitics,
is the worst possible feedstock.
4. The CONTAINED energy density of terrestral
hydrogen by weight is a lot LESS than gasoline.
And drops dramatically as the tank is emptied.
The energy density of hydrogen gas by volume
is a ludicrous joke.
5. Virtually all bulk hydrogen is produced by methane
reformation. And thus is EXTREMELY hydrocarbon
dependent.
6. Hydrogen has the widest explosive range known,
the least spark energy required for ignition, and
has no known colorants or odorants. Its flame is
often invisible or nearly so.
7. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline
than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
8. No effective vehicle compatible means of hydrogen
storage is known that is remotely as cheap, safe,
dense, and convenient as carbon bonded hydrides.
9. No infrastructure exists for gaseous hydrogen
distribution. Pipelines in particular raise major
density and embrittlement issues.
10. Electrolysis from high value sources such as
grid, wind, or pv is totally useless as a hydrogen
source because of the staggering loss of exergy.
There ALWAYS will be more intelligent things
to do with the electricity.
11. Improper burning of hydrogen produces highly
polluting nitrous oxides.
12. Terrestrial hydrogen is basically a POLLUTION
AMPLIFIER that INCREASES the pollution of
its underlying sources. It is utterly ludicrous to
claim that hydrogen is in any manner, way,
shape, or form "nonpolluting".
13. Hydrogen rots most metals through embrittlement.
14. "Carbon Neutral" solutions would appear better
than "Carbon Free" because (A) A significant
measure of the energy of most fuels is in its carbon
fraction, (B) Carbon appears to be essential for
convenient and safe room temperature liquids,
and (C) Reformation is not required or else
is simpler, cheaper, and wastes less energy.
15. An optimal hydrogen storage solution exists by
carbon bonding as in heptane or iso-octane. Both
of these room temperature liquids ain't broke.
BradGuth
Usenet flak, similar to the shock and awe that we applied onto those
mostly innocent Muslims that so happened to be sitting on our oil.
99.9% of Usenet is officially big-energy opposed to any use of
hydrogen, and only double more so opposed to any use of hydrogen
peroxide. William Mook will inform you as to the making of hydrogen
via solar PV energy, and there are many regular internet posted
documents that'll only further support his notions, along with dozens
of books on the topic of making and using hydrogen, as well as a few
on h2o2 (a mostly Jewish Third Reich secret).
BTW, don't be too quick as to exclude the safe makings, storage and
use of h2o2 as part of that clean and renewable hydrogen energy
future.
- Brad Guth
Gary
I'd like to thank Don and everyone else that answered (will answer).
> "Don Lancaster" wrote:
> A book list appears at http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
Thanks!
> "Don Lancaster" wrote:
> But the hydrogen economy ain't gonna happen.
Well, I did read here a bit before posting. I GET that many here think that
hydrogen "ain't gonna happen." But I like to explore things for myself. I
don't intend (or need) to do experiments or even learn all the chemestry.
But I don't intend to just take the word of people that thing it is (or
isn't) going to happen. I want to read about it from lots of sources and in
some detail.
So, again, thanks for the book list.
> "Don Lancaster" wrote:
> Here are the arguments against the hydrogen economy:
>
I'm going to respond to this list. ~ In general, I do get your gist: There
are lots of obstacles and they are probably not surmountable. But, as you
will see in my responce, I'm not convinced, yet. I see this list a little
like saying, "We can't take that trip because we: Don't have a car. Haven't
packed. Have more stuff then any car could possibly carry. Have no money for
gas. Don't even know if a road goes where we want to go. ~~ Maybe it's
insurmountable. But just listing the problems, while overwhelming, does not
proove there is no value or hope.
Please, do not take this to mean that I believe that hydrogen is or will be
viable. Only that I don't (yet) believe that it's hopleless. I guess in the
most fundamental sense, that's why I'm here: To find out if I believe it's a
possibility or hopeless.
> 1. Terrestral hydrogen is ONLY an energy carrier...
Yep, I understamd that. But, as with electricity, a new carrier
might open up many useful possibilities.
> 2. Terrestral hydrogen creation is inefficient
> as considerably more energy of usually
> much higher quality has to be input than
> is eventually returnable.
>
Any carrier is going to be less than 100%
efficient. That does not make it useless. It
just means there are limits and also barriers to
overcome. (If we can.)
> 3. No large terrestral source of hydrogen gas
> is known. Water, of course, is a hydrogen
> sink and, by fundamental chemical energitics,
> is the worst possible feedstock.
>
Ok, this is a restatement of #1. Hydrogen is only a
carrier, not a source. We've estalished that.
> 4. The CONTAINED energy density of terrestral
> hydrogen by weight is a lot LESS than gasoline.
> And drops dramatically as the tank is emptied.
> The energy density of hydrogen gas by volume
> is a ludicrous joke.
>
Well, "ludicrous joke" is getting not only subjective
but downright biased. But OK, you're entitled if you
want.
Just because it's energy density is much
less than gas does not necessarily mean it's useless.
When the oil runs out the "energy density" of gas
is going to be zero ;-) So lets keep exploring our
options, shall we?
> 5. Virtually all bulk hydrogen is produced by methane
> reformation. And thus is EXTREMELY hydrocarbon
> dependent.
>
Yea, OK. But this is speaking to how hydrogen is produced today.
This does not mean that hydrogen HAS to be produced this way
in the future. ~ Put another way: That's the whole point -- to
find ways to produce and use hydrogen that do not rely on the
current fuels.
> 6. Hydrogen has the widest explosive range known,
> the least spark energy required for ignition, and
> has no known colorants or odorants. Its flame is
> often invisible or nearly so.
>
Admittedly not knowing the science, I find this argument to
be the least worrisom. Sure, explosions are bad. But IF we're
able to overcome the production and volume/storage problems,
I'm willing to bet it can be made reaonable safe (for at least
some uses).
> 7. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline
> than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
>
Ok, so you're back to redundantly repeating arguments again :-)
A point that is good or bad, true or false, is not made more
true or more false by repeating it. ~ (If I didn't grok how
#4 is not the same as #7 -- then sorry.)
> 8. No effective vehicle compatible means of hydrogen
> storage is known that is remotely as cheap, safe,
> dense, and convenient as carbon bonded hydrides.
>
Lots of things, in fact all things, are not known unil,
well...until they're known. Also, vehicles are not the only
possible use of hydrogen.
I do get your point though:
We have a lot of obstacles to overcome if hydrogen is
going to be viable. And since these obstacles are so
numerous and huge, and given we are not even "remotely"
close...it may be hopeless.
But if we don't try it certainly won't happen. The question is,
for how long do we try? When do we give up?
This is a relevent question if a government is to be involved. No
sense spending government money (or giving tax incentives) if it's
useless. But the question is who and when do we agree it's useless?
Lots of things that seemed impossible throughout history are now
commonplace. On the other hand, some thigns ARE impossible.
Fortunetly, non-governement people & businesses will probably
pursue this to exactly the right point, whether that be to failure or
success.
> 9. No infrastructure exists for gaseous hydrogen
> distribution. Pipelines in particular raise major
> density and embrittlement issues.
>
This is two seperate points.
9A. No infrastructure exists.
Most things don't exist until, well...until they do.
9B. There are density and embrittlement isssues.
Ok. Right. Yes. ~ Question is: Can they be solved?
This list seems to be written with the attitude that the
problems can not be overcome. And maybe they can't.
But they certainly will not be overcome if
we assume from the outset that they can't.
And just listing the problems is not sufficient for me to give up.
In fact, having well identified problems leads me to
have MORE hope the issues can be solved.
> 10. Electrolysis from high value sources such as
> grid, wind, or pv is totally useless as a hydrogen
> source because of the staggering loss of exergy.
> There ALWAYS will be more intelligent things
> to do with the electricity.
>
This, in some ways, might be the crux of the matter. If
hydrogen can't be made efficient, it might be too inefficient
to be useful. But two things...
A: Maybe it can be made efficient enough to be useful. ~ Just
stating that is isn't and "ALWAYS" won't be is not proof. It's
not even insightful. It's just stating a fact followed by an
assertion.
B: Even if is can't be made efficient, possibly it doesn't
matter. ~ If some energy source (nuclear) could produce
all the energy cheaply, than the "carrier" properties is
all that would count.
GRANTED: You have also pointed out that there are
numerous and difficult hurdles in using H as a carrier. So
maybe both the source and carrier issues make H hopelss.
But I don't think that's proven yet.
> 11. Improper burning of hydrogen produces highly
> polluting nitrous oxides.
>
Ahh, I've heard only a very little about this. I'd like to find
out more. Its one of the things I'm hoping to find in the books
I'm going to read.
Do you have any good web or book sources for information on this?
(I don't ask that in a "proove it" tone. I believe
you. I just want to find out more.)
> 12. Terrestrial hydrogen is basically a POLLUTION
> AMPLIFIER that INCREASES the pollution of
> its underlying sources. It is utterly ludicrous to
> claim that hydrogen is in any manner, way,
> shape, or form "nonpolluting".
>
Lets double back to the redundancy department before we
go any further forward. ~ If you mean that H derived from
current fuels still produces the pollution of those fules...we
covered that in #5.
And if you mean that H is itself a pollutant, we just
covered that in #11.
> 13. Hydrogen rots most metals through embrittlement.
>
Ok, now you're just trying to get on my nerves, yea?
We covered storage, distribution, and embrittlement issues in #8 and #9.
You made good points there. I see what you're saying
and think you may well be right. But constantly repeating make
me think of the Bush run-up to war in Iraq. Repeating something
does not make it true (or false for that matter).
> 14. "Carbon Neutral" solutions would appear better
> than "Carbon Free" because (A) A significant
> measure of the energy of most fuels is in its carbon
> fraction, (B) Carbon appears to be essential for
> convenient and safe room temperature liquids,
> and (C) Reformation is not required or else
> is simpler, cheaper, and wastes less energy.
>
Ok, honestly I'm getting tired. But, THIS is a decent perspective.
If Caron Neutral solutions can be found, that may well be
a better (set of) solutions. But remember this: I'll bet someone
could easily some up with a list of 15 reasons that "ain't gonna
happen." ~ Hopefully you won't let that list of nay-saying prevent
you from being interested in that approach.
> 15. An optimal hydrogen storage solution exists by
> carbon bonding as in heptane or iso-octane. Both
> of these room temperature liquids ain't broke.
>
Now I don't know what you are saying. Are you saying there
are liquids that we can use as energy that are non-polluting,
renewable, safe, etc? ~ Where does heptane and iso-octane
come from?
ANYWAY, many thanks to you Don. I really am NOT arguing with you. I
appreciate knowing
the problems and obstacles. It's what I came here for: To find out what the
obstacles are and to
get the best thinking on how these might be solve and/or why they just can't
be.
By the way: I use the word "obstacles". I fully realize that some things,
possibly most in this case,
are physical laws that aren't just "obstacles.
Peace & Hope,
Gary
BradGuth
Your official ruse of hydrogen naysayism is noted. Now go back into
that big-energy toilet of bloody and spendy fossil and yellowcake
energy, where you and other Semites of your Third Reich belong.
- Brad Guth
Willie...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Gary wrote:
> > I'm a total layman / novice. But for some reason I find myself thinking a
> > lot about the possibilities of hydrogen.
>
> > I'd like to get some books that explain the possibilities and obstacles for
> > hydrogen.
>
> You don't need a book.
>
> Here's what you need to know about hydrogen.
>
> Hydrogen in its elemental form doesn't occur in nature so it has to be
> manufactured.
Its manufacture requires sunlight and water, two of the most abundant
resources on Earth. Hydrogen once it is available burns under
conditions all fuels currently in broad use already burn, so very
little infrastructure change is needed to accomodate hydrogen -
especially in stationary applications. Hydrogen when consumed forms
water again, which is easily and cheaply converted to hydrogen and
oxygen again in a balanced system powered by abundant sunlight.
On the other hand, coal, natural gas, and crude oil, were made by the
action of sunlight on ancient biomass. In this way sunlight water and
carbon were converted into hydro-carbon compounds. A small fraction
of this was captured by random geological processes. An even smaller
fraction of that captured biomass was converted to hydrocarbon fuels,
coal, natural gas and crude oil. And a small portion of that, in
appropriate geological formations is produced using current methods of
drilling and mining. There are no ways to replace the oil coal and
natural gas that is burned. Burning these substances fouls the air
irreversibly and causes climate change.
To get an idea of the relative abundance of sunlight on Earth when
compared to coal oil and natural gas, if you took ALL the world's
remaining crude oil, ALL the world's remaining natural gas and ALL the
world's remaining coal and burned it, it would only take the Earth
1/5th of a SECOND to capture that much energy in the form of
sunlight. Burning this much coal natural gas and crude oil would
TRIPLE the amount of carbon-dioxide in the air.
> Manufacturing hydrogen currently uses fossil fuels
Not true. While it is true that the production of hydrogen can
involve the use of fossil fuels AND WATER, manufacturing hydrogen also
includes its production via direct electrolysis of water powered by
sunlight, nuclear, hydroelectric power, tidal power and wind, and that
use is growing as the cost of these forms of energy drop due to
technical improvements while fossil fuel costs rise due to limited
supples.
> so, aside from the possible
> advantage of using it to reduce *local* air pollution, there is no advantage in
> terms of total pollution or CO2 footprint.
Not true. Carbon sequestration is an important technology that is
easily implemented when using fossil fuels to make hydrogen from
water. The simplest way to do this is to use the shift reaction;
C + 2 H2O ---> CO2 + 2 H2
Where 3 tons of carbon plus 9 tons of water produce 11 tons of carbon
dioxide and 1 ton of hydrogen. The carbon dioxide is easily
separated from the hydrogen by cryogenic processes, and the carbon
dioxide is easily injected in old natural gas wells for long-term
sequestration. The hydrogen may be burned to release the energy
formerly contained in the coal, without polluting the air at all.
This is not the only way to make hydrogen, as mentioned above, the use
of nuclear, solar, hydro, and wind generation is TOTALLY clean, and
produces hydrogen by electrolysis with NO carbon footprint at all and
no sequestration either.
> In fact these may be worse when using
> hydrogen as the processes require an extra energy input.
Anything MAY be worse if done stupidly. This is not an argument
against doing it wisely. Graham/Eeyore is famous for mistating facts
and misleading people with half truths and when that fails, outright
lies and intimidation. He needs to quote his sources and the
rationale for this statement. As it stands, there's no basis for it
at all.
> Hydrogen so manufactured may be used as a fuel in many existing engines
> (typically with slight modifications only) and in fuel cells.
Hydrogen made by ANY of the processes described above can be used in
this way.
> When hydrogen is used as a fuel in internal combustion engines etc, most of the
> energy value is wasted just like when burning fossil fuels in them.
Here is a prime example of how Graham twists the truth to make it seem
that hydrogen is inferior to fossil fuels when in fact if used in the
way he suggests, hydrogen may be replaced DIRECTLY wherever fossil
fuels are used with very little change in the way we do things.
What matters is the cost of the fuel and the cost of using it.
Hydrogen made at less than $800 per ton releases the same heat energy
as crude oil at $35 per barrel, or gasoline at $0.79 per gallon - and
can burn with slight modifications in the engines everyone already
uses. Obviously at these prices hydrogen is a good deal for the
average consumer - especially when considering that NO CARBON is
produced when using hydrogen.
>
> Hydrogen used in fuel cells may produce electricity at around 50% efficiency
> (so only half the energy value is lost).
This is more than double that gas mileage of a typical car. Put
differently, a car that gets 40 miles per gallon with an internal
combustion engine will get over 90 miles per gallon with a fuel cell
powered electric engine. Combine this improvement in efficiency with
low costs, and its like getting your gas for less than $0.40 per
gallon.
> Hydrogen manufactured using electrolysis requires vast amounts of electrical
> energy.
This is true. But what is the cost of that electrical energy? If its
surplus energy produced by a hydro electric plant at night, or a
nuclear power plant at night, when there is not demand, or a wind
generator when the wind is blowing when there is no demand or a solar
generator that produces more than is needed when the sun is shining,
this surplus energy's value is lost unless somehow stored. The
lowest cost way of storing this excess is to make hydrogen with it.
> And doing so is 'lossy', so you end up with less energy value than you
> had to begin with.
This is true of any system that processes fuel. A barrel of crude oil
produces products that have only 80% of the original barrel's energy
after it goes through the refining process. To operate the refinery,
pipelines, ships, tankers, and pumps, takes another 20% of the energy
in that barrel. Does this make the use of crude oil uneconomic? Not
in the least, the value of a gallon of gas at the pump merely reflects
these added costs.
Lets put it this way. Lets say that HALF the energy in a ton of
hydrogen is used to get it into your tank. Its way less than that,
but lets just say that. That means that at $800 per ton - at the
generator - hydrogen would cost $1.58 per gallon of gas equivalent, or
$70 per barrel of oil equivalent - DELIVERED. Of course things are
way better than this, so hydrogen is even a better deal. When you add
in the fact that hydrogen doesn't produce ANY carbon when its burned,
and add in the fact that its vastly more abundant than dwindling
supplies of coal, natural gas and oil, you can see why the future
belongs to hydrogen.
> Any 'hydrogen economy' would first require a 'crash
> programme' of building huge numbers of new electrical power generating stations.
This is an important fact. That's why the COST of those generation
stations are important. I have developed a solar panel system that
produces hydrogen from sunlight - and the capital expense is $0.07 per
peak watt. In typical applications this makes hydrogen avaialable at
the panel for $200 per metric ton. When piping, storage, retrieval,
and other costs are added, the cost of production rises to $270 per
metric ton. We just saw that $800 per metric ton hydrogen is a real
value in today's energy economy. So, clearly there is PLENTY of room
for profit. And where there's potential for profit, capital is
attracted to earn it.
The world presently uses 23.8 billion barrels of crude oil, 5.5
billion tons of coal, and 2.2 billion tons of natural gas each year.
This produces 40 trillion tons of carbon dioxide each year. This
demand for fuel is rising at 4% per annum. Humanity spends $4
trillion per year on fuels, and creates $66 trillion in value each
year. ALL this fuel can EASILY be replaced with 3.34 billion tons of
hydrogen per year producing NO carbon dioxide. To do this with my
solar panels requires 554,000 sq km of panels generating 99.72 TW peak
power. At $0.07 per peak watt that's $6.98 trillion in capital
equipment. Less than what the stock market vaporized between 1999 and
2002.
There are 9.5 million millionaires in the world. Collectively they
control nearly $40 trillion. They are always looking for good
investments. Obviously, by risking less than 20% of their total
portfolio (not all at once obviously) they could earn tremendous
returns on investment solving the worlds energy problems.
In short, yes, new generator capacity is needed. The least expensive
generator capacity around is concentrating photovoltaic panels. These
scale well to the sizes we need. The land area is already under the
control of a handful of mining companies who will pay solar power
companies to take the land. Those mines are already well connected to
the industrial infrastructure.
> In order not to vastly increase greenhouse gas emissions, the only practical
> power source for these would have to be nuclear.
Nuclear is an option that is being looked at seriously. However the
cost of nuclear, both in out of pocket costs, and in security and
disposal costs, it appears to be a nonstarter.
> Hydrogen is explosive over a wide range of air / hydrogen mixture values.
Yes, that means it works in every engine that uses any other fuels,
since internal combustion engines explode the air/fuel mix.
> It
> therefore requires *extreme* care in handling and the security of any storage
> containers.
As does any fuel. Look at TWA flight 800, or the history of the Pinto
motorcar.
> Hydrogen leaks from ordinary steel pipelines and will make them brittle too.
The ASME just completed issuing standards for the hydrogen economy in
2006. You can now buy off the shelf tanks, pipelines, valves, and all
the rest that are more reliable than any system in history and will
last 60 years. No other fuel infrastructure is as safe, reliable and
trouble free as hydrogen. From 1969 through 1972 the United States
launched rockets to the moon. These rockets were powered by
hydrogen. There were absolutely NO accidents of any type in handling
thousands of tons of hydrogen under very difficult conditions. The
hydrogen infrastructure was designed in the 21st century. Fossil fuel
infrastructure was designed in the 19th century. There is no
comparison as to the safety reliability and ease of use of the
hydrogen system when compared to antiquated, dangerous and dirty
systems used for fossil fuels.
> Hydrogen occupies a very large volume for it's energy value and therefore
> requires compression or liquefaction in order to be practically stored. This
> wastefully requires additional energy inputs.
Yet those energy inputs are less than the losses incurred by
processing and distilling oil. Hydrogen airplanes and automobiles
have been built and flown and driven. There are no show stoppers in
the use of hydrogen throughout ALL of our industrial economy.
> WillieMookclaims to have the answer to cheap photovoltaic solar power
> generation of hydrogen but so far it's largely just talk.
You gotta start somewhere.
> He vastly exaggerates
> his claims.
Specifically how?
> I wouldn't take him TOO seriously.
Specifically why?
> His ideas are interesting
Yes.
> but in
> his enthusiasm for them, he appears to lost any sense of objectivity.
No, I tell it like it is, and that bothers you for some reason. You
are going out of your way to mischaracterize anything I say, and when
I defend myself, you mischaracterize THAT as being not objective.
> Some of
> his posts make him sound quite mad in fact.
Only when I am responding to mad statements that you make.
> Graham
ScreenR...@aol.com
He doesn't know the real chemistry of Hydrogen and he pretends to be
one....Heeeheee...
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d2db581-e3f8-4a8c...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
ScreenR...@aol.com
so you will gain a better understanding... Actually Hydrogen is a product
of GOD made, not of man made as Eeyone said, what he meant about
manufacturing is the process of separating Hydrogen Gas from other molecules
that occurred naturally or through transition of chemical reaction..
That's my $0.01 evaluation... Heeheee...
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:477D1903...@hotmail.com...
Eeyore
"theloner...@aol.com" wrote:
> so you will gain a better understanding... Actually Hydrogen is a product
> of GOD made
Do you believe in the tooth fairy and Father Christmas too ?
Graham
BradGuth
> I'd like to thank Don and everyone else that answered (will answer).
>
> > "Don Lancaster" wrote:
>
> read more »
Unlike most others of this anti-think-tank of their infowar Usenet
from this infomercial spewing hell on Earth, I believe that making
pure hydrogen and including the fluid form of a hydrogen peroxide of a
clean energy future is no longer an option, but a necessary result of
what a few too many greedy and highly faith-based bigoted folks have
managed to cause such ongoing collateral damage and horrific carnage
of the mostly innocent, not to mention having the most to do with the
ongoing demise of our frail environment in order to keep our hard
earned loot flowing into their offshore bank accounts.
There is simply no such terrestrial shortage of affordably clean and
renewable energy. Only the ongoing arrogance, greed and bigotry of
big-government and big-energy is what's getting in the way of our
affordably cleaning up our energy, food and fresh water consuming act
without involving WWIII.
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
> > Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
> > Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> > rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
> > Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
>
> Your official ruse of hydrogen naysayism is noted. Now go back into
> that big-energy toilet of bloody and spendy fossil and yellowcake
> energy, where you and other Semites of your Third Reich belong.
>
> - Brad Guth
This reply of mine was not intended for Gary, but instead intended for
lord all-knowing Don Lancaster, as our chief Usenet rusemaster of all
that's energy as long as it's limited to fossil or yellowcake.
- Brad Guth
ScreenR...@aol.com
wrote:
I'm sorry, I am a DUMBASS.........The only thing I know about hydrogen
is that Water has some in it............Heehee...........The only
other thing I know is that Gregory Morrow is making these Imposter
Posts under My Screen Identity.........Donchaknow...........So please
address me as "Greg"..........Thanks..........
ScreenR...@aol.com
Do you believe your word is Law Graham?
Hydrogen Atom IS NOT manufacturable, Extracting Hydrogen out of water is
possible, but Manufacturing Hydrogen as you said have been successful in
human race, so fix your wording and stop your ego.
Two different things! Heeheee.... Don't let the DUMBASS like me to point
out to a genius like you... Heehee.....
ScreenR...@aol.com
"theloner...@aol.com" <ScreenR...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4f5322f7-37b1-4a6a...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 5, 5:32?am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "theloneranger...@aol.com" wrote:
> > so you will gain a better understanding... ? Actually Hydrogen is a
> > of GOD made
>
> Do you believe in the tooth fairy and Father Christmas too ?
>
> Graham
> I'm sorry, I am a DUMBASS.........The only thing I know about hydrogen
> is that Water has some in it............Heehee...........The only
Oh hi sGrew Moron, making a copy of me again? You said you paid less than
$3 for Gas while other paid $100/barrel, you demonstrated how dumb you are,
about science and measurement system. In reality you paid about $170/barrel
because you have no clue about anything, Did you finish licking BUSH's dick
yet? DON"TCHUKNOW Busharaf's cock?
ScreenR...@aol.com
Do you believe your word is Law Graham?
Hydrogen Atom IS NOT manufacturable, Extracting Hydrogen out of water is
possible, but Manufacturing Hydrogen as you said have NEVER been successful
Willie...@gmail.com
> Gary wrote:
> > I'm a total layman / novice. But for some reason I find myself thinking a
> > lot about the possibilities of hydrogen.
>
> > I'd like to get some books that explain the possibilities and obstacles for
> > hydrogen. I'd like to avoid anything that is all hype but also avoid books
> > that can't imagine a future that doesn't exist yet. Not looking for anything
> > too technical, but I'm not stupid either, so if there is a little background
> > in the chemestry needed to explain things, that't fine too.
>
> > So, suggestions for the best books?
>
> > Thanks,
> > Gary
>
> Here are the arguments against the hydrogen economy:
If they're listed below, they're bogus arguments.
>
> 1. Terrestral hydrogen is ONLY an energy
> carrier or transfer media and NOT a
> substance capable of delivering net NEW
> BTU's to the on-the-books economy.
By this accounting natural gas coal and oil are energy sinks since
they too are energy carriers made by ancient biomass that no longer
exists and cannot be replaced once burned. That is, every BTU of
energy released by burning coal, natural gas and oil irretrievably
diminishes the fixed supplies of the stuff made by ancient sunlight.
So, by this accounting hydrogen made from water and sunlight by solar
panels and electrolyzers is far superior than coal, crude oil, and
natural gas made from sunlight, water and carbon by ancient biomass
that no longer exists.
>
> 2. Terrestral hydrogen creation is inefficient
> as considerably more energy of usually
> much higher quality has to be input than
> is eventually returnable.
By this standard terrestrial sources of coal oil and natural gas is
woefully inefficient and takes astronomical amounts of energy of very
high quality than is returned. Consider that to make a ton of coal
likely involved the processing of over 10,000 tons of ancient biomass
fed by sunlight water and carbon sources and further by geological
processes over millions of years to form. There is no way to
efficiently replace a ton of coal once it is burned. Not so a 140 kg
of hydrogen - which has the same heat value.
> 3. No large terrestral source of hydrogen gas
> is known.
Yes there is - its called the HYDRO-sphere - aka the world's oceans -
and for each ton of recoverable carbon there are tens of thousands of
tons of recoverable hydrogen from this source.
> Water, of course, is a hydrogen
> sink
This is a mischaracterization based on faulty analysis. Hydrogen is
produced today in laboratories and in fertilizer plants around the
world by a wide variety of means. Some involve electrolytic
decomposition of water to form hydrogen. Other processes involve the
shift reaction of water with carbon to form hydrogen. In all cases
the source of hydrogen is the same - water.
> and, by fundamental chemical energitics,
> is the worst possible feedstock.
Another mischaracterization based on faulty analysis. Applying the
same analysis to the PRODUCTION of coal, crude oil and natural gas by
the action of sunlight on ancient biomass, produces the result that
water produced by electrolytic decomposition of water where the
electricity comes from solar wind nuclear or hydropower is VASTLY
superior to processes that no longer operate and are incapable of
replacing ANY of the coal crude oil and natural gas that's consumed.
This inability to replace coal crude oil and natural gas is the reason
for the price rises in these products over time.
These price rises are the only way the owners of a declining asset can
improve their profits.
An effcient effective alternative to crude oil natural gas and coal
puts downward pressure on rising prices.
Obviously, those who own fossil fuels would not want to see a hydrogen
economy arise until AFTER ALL the fossil fuels were sold.
Plainly, it is in the public interest to see strong competition emerge
between fossil fuels and alternatives to fossil fuels.
The world recently consumed 28.3 billion barrels of crude oil each
year, 5.5 billion tons of coal each year, and 2.2 billion tons of
natural gas each year and produced over 40 billion tons of carbon
dioxide. 98 TW of solar panels, covering 554,000 sq km of desert
lands are capable of converting 30 billion tons of water into 3.34
billion tons of hydrogen gas and 26.66 billion tons of oxygen each
year - this much hydrogen gas displaces ALL the fossil fuel use, and
ELIMINATES ALL the carbon production on the planet without reducing
the energy usage of ANYONE. At a cost of $0.07 per peak watt,
including electrolysis unit, this infrastructure can be easily built
on existing strip mines in desert regions and produce great profit
while reducing energy costs of everyone. The ultimate win-win
scenario.
> 4. The CONTAINED energy density
Please define this term. I checked with ASTM Technical Handbook of
Engineering and Scientific Definitions and found it did not exist as a
real technical term. So, please clearly concisely and plainly, define
this term. Otherwise, its just bullshit.
> of terrestral
> hydrogen by weight is a lot LESS than gasoline.
Which is very important in aircraft and mobile applications where
hauling weight around reduces vehicle performance.
> And drops dramatically as the tank is emptied.
This is true as ALL tanks are emptied! haha.. I can't believe Don
is talking about this like its some sort of important technical
detail. Here's what he's talking about. You fill a 20 gallon gas
tank with gas. 20 gallons contains about 2.4 GJ. Right. So, you run
the tank down to 1 gallon and burn off 19. But the EMPTY tank still
COULD hold 20 gallons. So, the contained energy of the tank is still
20 gallons. So a 20 gallon gas tank only has 0.12 GJ - haha.. what
a trip. Fact is, ALL tanks as they are emptied CONTAIN less
energy. Why would you expect hydrogen tanks to shrink as you empty
them? It doesn't make sense.
> The energy density of hydrogen gas by volume
> is a ludicrous joke.
This is an emotional, not a technical logical or rational argument.
Fact is, the energy density of hydrogen is 1/3 that of gasoline. This
is true. But the weight is like 1/10th that of gasoline. SO, you
only have to carry about 1/3 of the weight around. This is a good
thing. The question here should be, is hydrogen worth the effort?
The answer is YES! Why? Because the weight of gas in a car is
something like 5%. The volume is something like 3%. The tank weight
is something like 2% of the weight of the gas, so its 0.1% the weight
of the car. In an airplane, the weight of the gas, can be as high as
47%, the volume something like 15%, the tank weight 1% of the gas
weight or 0.05% of the weight of the airplane. Okay, now switch to
LIQUID HYDROGEN okay? Now, the weight of gas in the car is 2% for the
same range and performance. The volume is something like 10% of the
total - larger but not a huge problem. The weight of the tank for car
applications is something like 20% of the fuel weight, so that's 0.4%
of the total car weight. Again, not a big problem. In an airplane
the difference is huge. Fuel weight drops to 15% of the aircraft, the
volume increases to something like 45% of the aircraft - which entails
increasing the size of the fuselage (Airbus and others have completed
studies for this and these modifications are easily accomplished) -
and the tank weight, which is 10% the weight of the hydrogen for
aircraft use - is something like 1.5% of total takeoff weight. So we
end up in cars, with slight improvements in performance or no change
in structure, slight changes in tank placement and so forth. In
aircraft we end up with MODERATE changes in fuselage dimension and
MASSIVE IMPROVEMENTS in performance. None of this suggests that the
use of hydrogen is a ludicrous joke, despite its low mass density.
> 5. Virtually all bulk hydrogen is produced by methane
> reformation. And thus is EXTREMELY hydrocarbon
> dependent.
Hydrogen made to produce ammonia for fertilizers and explosives use
the shift reaction or the reverse of the Sabatier process.
C + 2 H2O --> CO2 + 2 H2 (shift reaction)
or
CH4 + 2 H2O --> CO2 + 4 H2 (inverse sabatier)
The first uses coal, the second natural gas. That's because when
Haber developed the process for making Ammonia in 1911 natural gas and
coal were the primary sources of energy for the planet. In 2008
supplies of these fuels are waning. As a result other more efficient
processes were developed. These include;
Electrolytic reduction of water
2 H2O + 4e- --> 2 H2 + O2
With electricity coming from nuclear sources, solar power sources,
wind sources, hydro-electric sources.
Thermolytic reduction of water
2 H2O + heat --> 2 H2 + O2
With heat coming from nuclear reactors, solar power sources, or waste
heat from conventional generators.
>
> 6. Hydrogen has the widest explosive range known,
True. This means that it can burn under the same conditions as ALL
the following fuels;
Coal, natural gas, crude oil, crude oil products and
distillates.
This means that hydrogen can DIRECTLY REPLACE ALL THESE FUELS WITHOUT
ANY MAJOR CHANGE OF INFRASTRUCTURE. That is, you could burn hydrogen
in your car with slight changes. In fact, BMW, GM, Ford and others
have built hydrogen powered cars. NASA, Boeing, and others have built
hydrogen powered airplanes. Others have built hydrogen powered boats
- all very similar to todays fossil fuel versions - to demonstrate the
ease with which these engines can be made to use hydrogen.
> the least spark energy required for ignition,
Not clear what is meant by 'the least spark' But to the extent Don is
suggesting hydrogen is an explosive, he's wrong. Besides, its not
true that Hydrogen + spark will not ignite hydrogen. Not true at
all. Fact is, Hydrogen + spark + oxygen - MIGHT ignite hydrogen if it
is mixed in the appropriate range to support ignition and the spark
energy is sufficient. The spark energy to ignite hydrogen is
sometimes less sometimes more than the spark energy for other fuels,
depending on the fuel and the mix of oxygen and fuel and pressures and
so forth - but generally hydrogen has the same spark energy range as
any other fuel.
> and
> has no known colorants or odorants.
That's not true. In fact I posted on three separate occasions to
Don's rants detailed peer reviewed articles that reported on a number
of odorants and colorants that were used with hydrogen. The fact
that he has quality information that is nearly 10 years old now, that
describes in detail the efficacy of colorants and odorants used with
hydrogen fuel, and he still repeats this falsehood, says a lot about
Don's LACK of commitment to truth and accuracy. Shame on you Don for
repeating this lie. It may have been true once, but as of 1998, it
wasn't true.
> Its flame is
> often invisible or nearly so.
Depends on the details. The same can be said for a number of fuels,
such as certain alcohols. So what? That doesn't stop alcohol from
being used as a fuel, and it doesn't stop hydrogen either.
> 7. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline
> than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
The point of this statement is a mystery to me because it has nothing
to do with hydrogen as a fuel. There' s more hydrogen in a gallon of
water than in a gallon of gasoline. Yet there is NO useable energy
gained from a gallon of water.
There are 264.17 US gallons in a cubic meter. The density of liquid
hydrogen is 70 kg per cubic meter. The density of gasoline is 680 kg
per cubic meter. The density of water is 1,000 kg per cubic meter.
Liquid hydrogen is 100% hydrogen by weight.
So, there's 70 kg of hydrogen per cubic meter of hydrogen,
Gasoline is 15% hydrogen by weight.
So, there's 680x0.15 = 102 kg of hydrogen per cubic meter of
gasoline,
Water is 11% hydrogen by weight
So, there's 1,000 kg x 0.11 = 110 kg of hydrogen per cubic meter of
water
What does this have to do with hydrogen as a fuel? Nothing!
What's important is the energy contained in each fuel and its cost and
availability.
Hydrogen contains 143 GJ per metric ton, and is easily made from water
by a variety of processes, can burn under all conditions other fuels
burn, and produce no carbon emissions when burned.
Gasoline contains 46.9 GJ per metric ton, every drop is irreplaceable,
burns under more limited conditions than hydrogen, and produces
massive quantities of carbon dioxide sufficient to change climate.
Water contains 0.0 GJ per metric ton. there is tens of thousands of
times as much water as gasoline, and water is a byproduct of burning
hydrogen as well as a source of hydrogen.
> 8. No effective vehicle compatible means of hydrogen
> storage is known that is remotely as cheap, safe,
> dense, and convenient as carbon bonded hydrides.
This is true as far as it goes. This is a mischaracterization however
if after reading this you believe that hydrogen can't compete with
gasoline and its distillates. That's because the size, weight and
cost of the fuel tanks in a vehicle drive train are very small parts
of the total cost of that drive train!! As mentioned above, hydrogen
vehicles have been built and operated and there appears to be no show
stoppers to making massive use of hydrogen once adequate supplies are
made available by investing in the needed technology to make those
supplies from abundant water and sunlight.
> 9. No infrastructure exists for gaseous hydrogen
> distribution.
Hydrogen distribution systems have been in use since 1911. In Canada
and Europe, since the 1950s saw large pipelines built by the chemical
supply and fertilizer industries which allow cheap effective
transmission of hydrogen gas across continents. In 2006, after much
delay, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) completed
their standards for hydrogen infrastructure. It is now possible to
specify to any qualified supplier any component needed to store and
distribute hydrogen on any scale needed.
> Pipelines in particular raise major
> density and embrittlement issues.
When Haber built his first hydrogen production system in 1911 to make
fertilizer, he noted that hydrogen caused embrittlement in certain
types of steel. He ranked this in importance as LESS troubling than
other challenges pipelines have, such as corrosion. In 1958 when NASA
was building its infrastructure to supply hydrogen fuel to its deep
space rockets and moon rockets, embrittlement was noted as a
contributing factor to its high cost relative to liquid oxygen.
Despite over a decade of use of this infrastructure, no failures,
accidents, or troubles were found in its operations despite sending
tens of thousands of tons of hydrogen off world. As mentioned above,
in 2006 ASME completed standards for the hydrogen economy. These
techniques created in the 21st century produce systems that are vastly
more reliable, cost effective, trouble free, and safe, than the
ancient methods of handling and transporting fossil fuels developed in
the 19th century. That is why today despite nearly a decade of
industrial use, you have never seen a pipeline accident, or shipping
accident with hydrogen yet these accidents routinely occur in the
shipping and handling of fossil fuels.
> 10. Electrolysis from high value sources such as
> grid, wind, or pv is totally useless as a hydrogen
> source because of the staggering loss of exergy.
Exergy is not defined in ASTM handbook of technical and scientific
terms. Please clearly and concisely, with a formula, define what you
mean by exergy? Give me a clear cogent example of its use and why
its relevant?
Barring that, Don seems to be saying that electricity is more valuable
than hydrogen. That depends on the details. For example, certain
types of generation capacity produce when there isn't demand to accept
it. A hydro-electric dam that has a lot of water behind it from a
rain fall - needs to be emptied in the dead of night when there isn't
any demand for electricity. A nuclear power plant that can't easily
change its output, and doesn't change its cost hardly at all with
changing output, produces more electricity than is needed in the dead
of night. A wind generator is producing lots of electricity when the
wind is blowing, but the capacity isn't needed right now. A solar
generator is producing lots more electricity in the day than the grid
needs.
ALL these examples involve WASTING energy, dumping water over a dam
without generation, grounding the output of a nuclear plant to balance
the grid, taking the solar panels or wind generators off grid, or
alternatively, grounding out other generation that cannot be easily
cut back... ALL these would BENEFIT from STORING the energy
somehow. That is, this electricity isn't the same as highly valued
electricity. So, this electricity is conveniently used to convert
water into hydrogen and oxygen.
> There ALWAYS will be more intelligent things
> to do with the electricity.
Depends on the details. The owners of the hydro-electric dams, on
both sides of the border, have excess capacity at night. That's why
they have been seriously contemplating the production of hydrogen gas
from water, and the shipment of liquid hydrogen from the site to sites
in Europe.
> 11. Improper burning of hydrogen produces highly
> polluting nitrous oxides.
Imrpoper burning of ANY fuel produces highly polluting nitrous
oxides. Don again is stating something that is true, but in a way
that mischaracterizes reality, if you come away thinking that hydrogen
properly burned, produces MORE nitrous oxides than other fuels. In
fact it does not. While it is true that its very easy for hydrogen to
burn hotter than other fuels, and thus produce nitrous oxides, its
also true that hydrogen being far simpler and more explosive than
other fuels, when properly burned in an appropriately designed burner,
produces LESS nitrous oxides than other fuels produce. Airbus and
others that explored the changes one could make in burner design of
jet engines needed to support a hydrogen fueled airliner, found that
when they tested hydrogen in modified engines on the bench in 1998,
they produced 1/40th of the nitrous oxides that today's jet engines
produce.
> 12. Terrestrial hydrogen is basically a POLLUTION
> AMPLIFIER that INCREASES the pollution of
> its underlying sources.
Generally speaking this is not true. Even if we use hydrogen made by
the dirtiest process known, the carbon shift reaction, where 11 tons
of CO2 is produced by each 3 tons of carbon and 9 tons of water to
produce 1 ton of hydrogen - sequestration of the carbon dioxide at the
point of production is particularly easy to achieve.
When one considers sources of hydrogen where there is no pollution
whatever in the underlying source - say the hydroelectric dams of the
Niagra river - NO pollution is produced whatever. zero times any
number is still zero.
> It is utterly ludicrous to
> claim that hydrogen is in any manner, way,
> shape, or form "nonpolluting".
Not true. Hydrogen is the least polluting of all fuels we can
imagine. When burned properly it produces less NOx than produced by
properly burned fossil fuels. When burned it produces NO carbon
emissions whatever. When produced from carbon sources that sequester
the carbon emissions, or when produced from electrical sources that
HAVE ZERO carbon emissions, the production of hydrogen is
nonpolluting. The burning of hydrogen produces water, which can
again be used to store energy - which is the basis of regenerative
systems, now being flown on solar powered aircraft, and automobiles.
The burning of fossil fuels reduces the amounts of irreplacable
hydrocarbons that are better used to make plastics and other high
value goods.
> 13. Hydrogen rots most metals through embrittlement.
Rot is a non technical high pejorative term. It is true that certain
metals cannot be used with hydrogen. Just as certain materials cannot
be used with crude oil distillates. The ASME specifications for a
hyrogen economy detail cost effective, reliable, safe, and easy to
use, procedures to store, transmit and use hydrogen on an industrial
scale that exceed the standards of safety and reliability of anything
achieved in the fossil fuel industry. For example, gaseous hydrogen
tanks built to spec last over 60 years. No other tank as reliably and
safely fulfills its role as hydrogen tanks do.
> 14. "Carbon Neutral" solutions would appear better
> than "Carbon Free" because
Please explain Carbon Neutral? The dirty little secret of the carbon
neutral movement is that it does very little to actually change our
carbon impact, while giving major coal natural gas and oil industries
a fig leaf of cover to continue polluting the planet. I saw an ad on
the side of a bus in Australia the other day from BP. It said that
this bus was carbon neutral. Why? Because natural gas the bus burns
produces SLIGHTLY LESS carbon than gasoline or diesel fuel. And no
particulates. This slight advantage per unit energy allowed BP
through fancy accounting to say that about 10% of the buses that
burned natural gas were 'carbon free' because 10% less carbon was
emitted. They avoided the fact that 90% of the carbon was emitted
before as after - and this may be an over-estimate. Because talking
to the bus drivers, natural gas powered buses underperform compared to
their gasoline cousins - and so, in operation, they may take more than
10% of the time to climb a hill, or navigate a difficult terrain - and
their actual emissions may not be less at all.
Bottom line, a highly theoretical calculation of carbon savings is
spun in a way to suggest that ALL the buses are carbon neutral - when
in fact, only a small fraction - if any - are.
> (A) A significant
> measure of the energy of most fuels is in its carbon
> fraction,
Most fossil fuels sure. In hydrogen there is NO carbon - which is the
point.
> (B) Carbon appears to be essential for
> convenient and safe room temperature liquids,
> and
Gasoline and jet fuel are room temperature liquids. They are not
particularly safe, as owners of the Ford Pinto, or passengers on TWA
800 found out. Gasoline is not particularly convenient, given the
number of cancer and lukemias caused by the fumes, the number of
deaths and disfigurements due to fires and inhalation, and the amount
of environmental damage leaky tanks and spillage cause to ground and
water.
> (C) Reformation is not required or else
> is simpler, cheaper, and wastes less energy.
Not clear if Don is talking about chemical reformation of methane or
reformation of our energy system to use hydrogen. In any case, the
market will adopt a more efficient solution if the restrictive
regulations that prop up the oil coal and gas industries are removed
to allow alternative energy companies play on an even playing field.
For example, regulate liquid and gas emissions from oil and gas wells
and coal mines, the same way they're regulated from your tail pipe.
The market would freely adopt the better solution.
CHeck it out. The world spent $4 trillion last year to buy 28.3
billion barrels of crude oil and distillates, 5.5 billion tons of
coal, and 2.2 billion tons of natural gas. These were burned and
produced over 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide. ALL this fuel could
be replaced with 3.34 billion tons of hydrogen made from 30 billion
tons of water using 98 TW of solar panels covering 554,000 sq miles at
desert strip mine sites at a cost of $800 per ton - which totals $2.67
trillion dollars per year - a substantial savings over existing
systems
> 15. An optimal hydrogen storage solution exists by
> carbon bonding as in heptane or iso-octane.
So? This actually reduces the energy in hyrogen. As you pointed out
above, MOST of the energy comes from carbon in these materials. These
materials when they occur naturally, are the result of sunlight being
captured by ancient biomass which is then processed geologically and
discovered by those looking for them underground. That means these
materials are IRREPLACEABLE. BURNING them increases their demand and
value to their owner, but it ELIMINATES them from ALL FUTURE USE.
This is a HUGE WASTE OF RESOURCES to satisfy the greed of the present
day owners. The use of fossil fuels should be restricted to use in
plastics, carbon composites and similar uses. Hydrogen should be
adopted whenever possible.
> Both
> of these room temperature liquids ain't broke.
Residual oil, used in certain power plants, must be heated to be
pumped through the system. Jet fuel sitting in fighter jet tanks and
airliner tanks in polar regions, like Anchorage Alaska, must be pre-
heated to opereate in the jets. Since when is room temperature
operation a requirement? What is the rationale? Fact is, there is
non. Gaseous hydrogen tanks operate at room temperature. Liquid
hydrogen tanks do not. So what? What matters is the safety
reliability cost and ease of use of the fuel. Hydrogen is adequate on
all these counts, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with hydrogen.
Hydrogen ain't broke either.
On the other hand, coal, natural gas, and crude oil, have value beyond
their heat value. They are very limited when compared to the
availability of water and sunlight. If you burned all the oil coal
and natural gas recoverable in the world today in a big bonfire, you
would equal the amount of energy falling on the Earth for 1/5th of a
second. About the time it takes you to blink. There is no known
process to recreate coal, oil or natural gas as cheaply and
conveniently as it can be produced from known reserves. Hydrogen gas
made from low cost solar panels and water, competes head to head price
wise and in every other way against these other fuels. The value of
these carbon materials to future generations in inestimable. Today we
know how to make plastics, fertilizers, explosives, carbon fibers,
nanotubes, with these carbon sources. In the future, we will know
more than we do today. The value of these materials will be higher in
the future than they are today. These on a weight or volume basis are
dozens to millions of times more valuable than their use as a fuel.
It is obviously massively wasteful to burn something that is
irreplaceable as a fuel, when it can have more value in the future as
a constructive material. We are robbing future generations of these
valued irreplacable substances whenever we burn a tank of gas or a ton
of coal. Furthermore, we are CAUSING massive climate change and
hurting future generations that way. Fossil fuels ARE broke, and have
been broke for a long time. Hydrogen ain't broke, and all the
elements are coming together for a massive shift in the way people use
energy - moving away from the things that are broke, and toward the
things that are not.
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don, we have had this conversation before. You have not usefully
responded to anything I have pointed out here. You have not even
acknowledged well known facts that put the lie to many of your
statements. You are certainly not a dumb or foolish person. But,
increasingly it appears, you are a dishonest one. That's too bad.
But you can change this. Acknowledge that ASME has indeed adopted
standards that allow the production, storage and transmission of
hydrogen on an industrial scale that are far safer, more reliable and
easier to use than any comparable system used by the petroleum and
natural gas or coal industries. Acknowledge that nearly all of your
points are red herrings that have little or nothing to do with
practical efficient systems. Then, maybe you can restore a little of
the trust you have lost with this massively dishonest post above.
BradGuth
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Don, we have had this conversation before. You have not usefully
> responded to anything I have pointed out here. You have not even
> acknowledged well known facts that put the lie to many of your
> statements. You are certainly not a dumb or foolish person. But,
> increasingly it appears, you are a dishonest one. That's too bad.
>
> But you can change this. Acknowledge that ASME has indeed adopted
> standards that allow the production, storage and transmission of
> hydrogen on an industrial scale that are far safer, more reliable and
> easier to use than any comparable system used by the petroleum and
> natural gas or coal industries. Acknowledge that nearly all of your
> points are red herrings that have little or nothing to do with
> practical efficient systems. Then, maybe you can restore a little of
> the trust you have lost with this massively dishonest post above.
The likes of Don Lancaster never gets involved with constructive
intentions, so he's in many ways a mindset bigot exactly like
yourself. You two opposed bigots belong together because, it seems
either of you isn't ever going to accomplishing much of anything
without such costing the rest of us more than we can afford.
- Brad Guth
Don W
> ... Please, do not take this to mean that I believe that hydrogen is or
> will be viable. Only that I don't (yet) believe that it's hopleless. I
> guess in the most fundamental sense, that's why I'm here: To find out if I
> believe it's a possibility or hopeless.
In fact, many hydrogen vehicles have been built and they do go when you gas
them up and drive them. To date there is no such thing as a practical
hydrogen powered vehicle and the myriad obstacles of which you're aware put
the hydrogen economy in the realm of stupidsville -- a solution that creates
ten more problems is not a solution.
Near-term, filling your vehicle with hydrocarbon fuel is a far more
reasonable solution than building or buying a hydrogen vehicle and the
infrastructure to support it. Long-term, synthetic hydrocarbon fuels are a
more reasonable solution than H2. Both now and in the future conservation
is the most sensible step. Eliminate non-essential travel (wherever
possible conduct business and communications through electronic media.)
When traveling, use efficient and economical means of travel. Fix our
regulations so that more Americans can drive economical diesel passenger
vehicles. Hybrids have already made market in-roads and that's a positive
note.
> Admittedly not knowing the science, I find this argument to
> be the least worrisom. Sure, explosions are bad. But IF we're
> able to overcome the production and volume/storage problems,
> I'm willing to bet it can be made reaonable safe (for at least
> some uses).
You might want to reconsider that bet. Any energy storage system with the
volumetric energy density required to power automotive vehicles will present
some significant safety challenges, but hydrogen has some special challenges
because of its fluffiness. Automotive applications require either
liquefaction or extremely high pressure. I wouldn't want every adult in the
country filling 300 psi scuba tanks without proper training and supervision,
and for every adult American to fill a 5,000 psi to 10,000 psi hydrogen tank
once a week (or more likely once a day)... well, it just seems out of the
question. We hear about remarkable progress being made in the area of high
pressure hydrogen containment, but I've never seen anyone run the numbers
for a typical filling station. How many BTU or kWh do the typical
underground tanks in a filling station hold and what would it take to hold
that many BTU in hydrogen? I really don't know the answer, but I'll bet
high pressure is not an option in those quantities, so the hydrogen would
probably have to be liquefied. That means throwing away a LOT of energy in
a hydrogen infrastructure. These are pretty major issues!
We should be allocating our time, money and natural resources in the most
effective way. Trying to make the least practical energy storage medium
work for automotive applications (oh, and by the way, build and entire
infrastructure to support it) is a farcical utilization of resources. I
resent the use of my tax dollars on such folly.
Don W.
Don W
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote
> This is a mischaracterization based on faulty analysis. Hydrogen is
> produced today in laboratories and in fertilizer plants around the
> world by a wide variety of means. Some involve electrolytic
> decomposition of water to form hydrogen. Other processes involve the
> shift reaction of water with carbon to form hydrogen. In all cases
> the source of hydrogen is the same - water.
You obviously have a lot more time to spend posting to this newsgroup than I
have, so I'll only respond to this one itty, bitty point.
Talk about mischaracterization! The hydrogen used in fertilizer plants is
all made from hydrocarbons (and yes, a little of that hydrogen is
contributed by water which also contributes some of the O in the CO2.) The
only place you'll find electrolytic decomposition of water forming hydrogen
for storage of significant quantities of energy is in government subsidized
pilot programs designed to make it look like hydrogen is a feasible
automotive fuel.
Don W.
Fred Kasner
And you should also point out, Don, that the energy used to create
electrolysis hydrogen is greater than the energy that the hydrogen
contains by any known chemical reaction to extract its energy. Sounds
like an idiot play to in x + delta joules to create x joules of fuel.
FK
Don Lancaster
effective.
These are ALL characterized by (A) the value of the generated hydrogen
vastly exceeding its pitiful energy content, and (B) immediate nonstored
use, and (C) an overwhelming convenience of on-demand generation, and
(D) the scale being so small that exergy is not an overwhelming
consideration.
All of which are EXACT OPPOSITES of hydrogen energy sources.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf
BradGuth
> Don W wrote:
> > <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote
Your naysayism imposed upon all that is not of fossil or yellowcake
derived energy is noted, as is your global pollution footprint that
the ongoing blood and guts of the mostly innocent is representing
itself as the one and only Lancaster alternative. No wonder you voted
for everything GW Bush and, you'd work for Hitler if you only could.
If that's not being a good Jew (aka, pretend atheist), then perhaps
nothing is.
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
BradGuth
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote
How much hydrogen is in the blood and guts of those mostly innocent
Muslims? or how about the blood and guts of coal miners throughout
the world?
I bet it doesn't even count in your sooty, CO2, NOx and radium w/radon
polluted environment, dose it.
- Brad Guth
Willie...@gmail.com
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > This is a mischaracterization based on faulty analysis. Hydrogen is
> > produced today in laboratories and in fertilizer plants around the
> > world by a wide variety of means. Some involve electrolytic
> > decomposition of water to form hydrogen. Other processes involve the
> > shift reaction of water with carbon to form hydrogen. In all cases
> > the source of hydrogen is the same - water.
>
> You obviously have a lot more time to spend posting to this newsgroup than I
> have,
Not really. It took you a helluva long time to come up with that list
of bullshit you keep repeating, and you repeat it over and over and
over again - which must take HUGE amounts of your time. I don't have
time to keep up with your repetitive posting of the same errors.
> so I'll only respond to this one itty, bitty point.
Alright
>
> Talk about mischaracterization!
?? Okay, lets.
> The hydrogen used in fertilizer plants is
> all made from hydrocarbons (and yes, a little of that hydrogen is
> contributed by water
half if you use natural gas, all of it if you use coal.
> which also contributes some of the O in the CO2.)
Yeah, I gave the reactions;
C + 2 H2O --> CO2 + 2 H2 for coal
CH4 + 2 H2O --> CO2 + 4 H2 for natural gas
> The
> only place you'll find electrolytic decomposition of water forming hydrogen
> for storage of significant quantities of energy is in government subsidized
> pilot programs designed to make it look like hydrogen is a feasible
> automotive fuel.
Electrolytic decomposition of water is used to supply oxygen to
nuclear submarines, and its used in a wide range of laboratory and
industrial processes where the quality of hydrogen is an important
factor and cannot use hydrogen thats polluted with CO2 and other
chemicals. Electrolytic decomposition of water is used in a variety
of demonstration and development projects. Characterizing these
programs as attempts by the government to lie about the feasability of
hydrogen as a transportation fuel is a mischracterization of these
programs and reveals an underlying misapprehension on your part of the
role of demonstration and development projects. haha... which I find
interesting because you're the one who keeps shouting for examples of
things working. Well here they are! It turns out that you KNOW of
these systems, but sweep them under the rug and continue voicing your
mis-statements as if they didn't exist. Just goes to show the lengths
you'll go to to avoid the truth and continue repeating your erroneous
mistatements.
www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_3_doe_utility.pdf
>
> Don W.
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
What's idiotic Fred is that we all agree that it takes more energy to
create hydrogen than you get from hydrogen. This is a consequence of
thermodynamics. ALL PROCESSES have this same feature. The energy
that the ancient biomass processed into crude oil through the
geological ages was far greater than the energy we ever get out of the
crude oil by burning it. In fact, burning crude oil is probably one
of the most wasteful uses of it, and in my opinion should be outlawed
on that account. We should not only not burn fossil fuels to save our
atmosphere from returning to the condition it was in before the age of
mammals, we should also not burn fossil fuels because they're TOO
VALUABLE AS A CHEMICAL FEEDSTOCK to be used as mere heat sources,
especially when abundant sunlight and water are available to give us
hydrogen fueled heat more cheaply.
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> >>This is a mischaracterization based on faulty analysis. Hydrogen is
> >>produced today in laboratories and in fertilizer plants around the
> >>world by a wide variety of means. Some involve electrolytic
> >>decomposition of water to form hydrogen. Other processes involve the
> >>shift reaction of water with carbon to form hydrogen. In all cases
> >>the source of hydrogen is the same - water.
>
> > You obviously have a lot more time to spend posting to this newsgroup than I
> > have, so I'll only respond to this one itty, bitty point.
>
> > Talk about mischaracterization! The hydrogen used in fertilizer plants is
> > all made from hydrocarbons (and yes, a little of that hydrogen is
> > contributed by water which also contributes some of the O in the CO2.) The
> > only place you'll find electrolytic decomposition of water forming hydrogen
> > for storage of significant quantities of energy is in government subsidized
> > pilot programs designed to make it look like hydrogen is a feasible
> > automotive fuel.
>
> > Don W.
>
> There are certainly places where electrolysis is practical and cost
> effective.
Agreed.
>
> These are ALL characterized by (A) the value of the generated hydrogen
> vastly exceeding its pitiful energy content, and
This is a biased statement. I agree with the value of generated
hydrogen exceeding its cost of production. You err in assuming that
hydrogen has pitiful energy storage capacity. Look at the Centaur
upper stage on a Delta or Atlas rocket. Its hydrogen and oxygen
powered. That has HUGE energy enough to blast things off the planet.
Obviously, there is lots of energy in hydrogen fuel. The only thing
you need to do to correct your mistatement done is to retract the
idiot portion that assumes hydrogen cannot be cost-effective energy
source.
> (B) immediate nonstored
> use, and
This is one way to use hydrogen, certainly, but not the only one. For
example, with modern hydrogen storage and distribution technology, its
possible to have regenerative fuel cells, and a variety of gaseous and
stored hydrogen system that deliver energy at any time its needed, any
place its needed.
www.energetics.com/ASME_SRNL_DOE_Workshop/pdfs/ASME-SRNL-DOE%20Agenda%20v8-3-07.pdf
-
So, I would rephrase (B) to read
(B) the value hydrogen must also exceed the cost of storage,
retrieval and distribution of hydrogen in any use that involves this.
Storage and distribution costs are of course lowest with immediate
nonstored use, but this does not preclude the stored and distributed
uses possible with hydrogen.
So, you are making another erroneous statement - that needs retracted
and corrected and amplified to be more accurate.
(C) an overwhelming convenience of on-demand generation,
Remove the word overwhelming - sure - you have the basis of any
logistical analysis. Where do you put the electrolyzers in the
hydrogen supply chain - between the low-cost solar panels and the end
users? Same question as where do you put the refineries in the crude
oil supply chain between the oil wells in the Middle East and your gas
tank?
> and
> (D) the scale being so small that exergy is not an overwhelming
> consideration.
Please give a clear concise and worked out example, of exergy? You
keep saying the word but never explain it to my satisfaction. I tried
looking it up in well respected sources. There doesn't appear to be
any clear consistent entries with worked out problems. So, any
pointer or example would be helpful.
From your statements that you've made previously I think this revolves
around the efficiency with which energy from a primary source, like
off peak hydro-power at Niagara Falls, is converted to end use energy
as hydrogen.
The only answer to this is to answer - what are the numbers? What
are the numbers? Well lets look at a few.
Lets take the example of Niagara Falls. Off-peak, there's 2 GW too
much damn energy for about 3 hours every night during the off peak
times. So, that's 6 GWh of electrical energy that's wasted. Both the
Canadian and US sides of the border have said someone like myself can
have that energy for 1.5 cents per kWh - SO, that's $90,000 per day.
A great deal.
Now Aloca and Alcan looked at this, but since the electrolysis units
to make Aluminum need to operate full bore 24/7 to be efficient, it
was a non starter for them. What was needed was a low cost variable
load electrolyzer that efficiently absorbs spare electrical capacity
when avaialable - and is content to sit idel when its not available.
This costs about $0.01 per peak watt - and is based on systems used
for my ultra-lowcost solar panels. So, 2 GW system is $20 million.
So, at 8.5% per annum, that's about another $5,000 per day.
So, we have a cost of $95,000 per day.
And we take 6 GWh of electrical energy that either wouldn't get
generated because the water would be dumped over without passing
through a generator, or it would be grounded somewhere.
With 6 GWh we make 120 metric tons of hydrogen gas. That's $792 per
metric ton. About 20% of this energy is lost through storing and
transporting it to where its desired. So, net, we get 100 metric tons
of the gas - at $950 per metric ton.
Now, 65 metric tons per day is subtituted in a coal burning power
plant that burns 403 metric tons of coal per day to generate 40 MW
continuous power at 8 cents per kWh. The numbers look like this;
VALUE CREATED $137,040
40 MW x 24 hr = 960 MWh
960 MWh x $80/MWh = $76,800 electricity sales
403 MT Coal x $80 per MT = $32,240 coal purchases saved
1,400 MT carbon dioxide x $20 per MT = $28,000 carbon credits
HYDROGEN COST: $61,750
65 MT Hydrogen x $950 = $61,750 hydrogen cost.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE:
35 MT Hydrogen + 403 MT Coal ---> 118,480 gallons petrol
with no emissions!!! The only ADDED cost is the hydrogen
ADDITIONAL VALUE CREATED: $240,964
118,480 gallons x $2/gallon = $236,964
40 tons asphalt x $100/ton = $4,000
HYDROGEN COST: $33,250
ADDITIONAL COSTS: $20,000 Capital Expense
Capital Expense: $12,0000: To convert coal to hydrogen at a rate of
403 tons of coal per day requires the installation of a $51.5 million
Bergius reactor. At 8.5% per year, this adds $12,000 to the daily
cost of making petrol
Maintenance/Operations: $8,000: Operations and maintenance costs of
5.6% per year is typical for this type of system.
COST: $95,000 hydrogen cost
NET BENEFIT: $263,400, electricity, carbon credits, fuel sales,
asphalt sales less added capital, maintenance and operations costs.
So, 100 tons of hydrogen made at a cost of $950 - ELIMINATES the
carbon foot print of a 40 MW coal fired power plant, while maintaining
electrical output at 100% and makes 118,000 gallons of gasoline each
day, along with 40 tons of asphalt - generating $2,634 per ton of
hydrogen
>
> All of which are EXACT OPPOSITES of hydrogen energy sources.
Your conclusion doesn't make sense Don because it talks in terms of
details that aren't tied to a complete picture. Take a look at the
practical example I gave above. Here energy is being WASTED when its
NOT converted to hydrogen. Water is falling over the dam not turning
a generator, or the electricity is shorted out somewhere. Hydrogen
allows us to recapture that. Now, I'm doing something very easy with
this hydrogen. I'm allowing for the losses due to storage and
transmission, and I'm not supposing anything fancy. No fuel cells.
Just one for one replacement on a heat value basis in ANOTHER
electrical generator. Also, setting aside a little of the hydrogen
energy to process into gasoline.
DESPITE THE ENERGY LOSSES or efficiency losses - I still don't know
what Exergy means until I see a few worked examples - there is still
VALUE CREATION! How can that be? Because not all energy is created
equal.
Electrical energy purchased from Niagra on an as available basis for
1.5 cents per kWh, is worth less than 8.0 cents per kWh baseload power
in a coal plant somewhere. The savings in carbon emissions is an
added benefit. In fact, its a way the clean energy capacity of
Niagara complex can be exported to other polluting sources. It is
also a practical model of how clean solar energy can be similarly
exported from remote locations where there is no demand for
electricity but plenty of sunlight.
Furthermore, hydrogen is used to upgrade relatively low valued coal,
into high valued gasoline.
Check it out;
Gasoline: 120 MJ/gallon at $2.00 per gallon ---> $16.67 per
GJ
Coal: 23 GJ/tonne at $80.00 per tonne--> $3.47 per
GJ
Hydrogen 143 GJ/tonne at $950 per tonne --> $6.64 per GJ
Obviously, by combining 14.3 GJ of hydrogen at $6.64 per GJ with 23 GJ
of coal at $3.47 per GJ to create 35.3 GJ of gasoline at $16.67 per GJ
- is a very profitable thing to do. Despite the fact that 2 GJ is
lost in the process;
14.3 GJ hydrogen + 23.0 GJ coal ---> 35.3 GJ gasoline + 2.0
GJ waste heat.
$6.64 $3.47 $16.67
$94.95 total $79.81 total $588.45 total
includes $413.69 profit!!!
> http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf
This URL is full of mis-statements and errors which really should be
noted by anyone pointing to it.
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see like Brad and his commitment to the concept that there are
aliens on Venus, the facts and recent research has no impact on your
fixed prejudices against hydrogen. That's too bad for you and marks
you off as a lunatic every bit as much as Brad.
Don W
> Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are certainly places where electrolysis is practical and cost
>> effective.
>
>Agreed.
>>
>> These are ALL characterized by (A) the value of the generated
>> hydrogen vastly exceeding its pitiful energy content, and
>
>This is a biased statement. I agree with the value of generated
>hydrogen exceeding its cost of production. You err in assuming that
>hydrogen has pitiful energy storage capacity. Look at the Centaur
>upper stage on a Delta or Atlas rocket. Its hydrogen and oxygen
>powered. That has HUGE energy enough to blast things off the planet.
>Obviously, there is lots of energy in hydrogen fuel. The only thing
>you need to do to correct your mistatement done is to retract the
>idiot portion that assumes hydrogen cannot be cost-effective energy
>source.
...yet you cite an example where hydrogen was chosen for its contribution to
high Isp (due to low mass), not because it's cost effective. In this rare
case, the low mass characteristic of hydrogen makes it a logical fuel choice
(not an economical energy source.) And by the way, what percentage of the
hydrogen used in space craft do you suppose is electrolytically extracted
from water? NONE! 0% Your example in no way contradicts the statement
that dissociation of water by electrolysis is not a practical means of
storing large quantities of energy. As Don stated, electrolysis is only
used to produce hydrogen in situations where the value of having hydrogen on
hand without having to store hydrogen outweighs the capital cost of the
electrolyzer and the energy cost to produce the hydrogen. (I would add to
that a few pathetic demos where government subsidies the capital cost of the
electrolyzer and the energy cost to produce hydrogen or some entity's desire
to make the impractical appear practical outweighs...)
>
>
>> (B) immediate nonstored
>> use, and
>
>This is one way to use hydrogen, certainly, but not the only one. For
>example, with modern hydrogen storage and distribution technology, its
>possible to have regenerative fuel cells, and a variety of gaseous and
>stored hydrogen system that deliver energy at any time its needed, any
>place its needed.
>
Isn't it interesting that while we all know these things are possible they
are still not practical and likely never will be? Years ago I had a
conversation with Fred Mitlitsky who told me he had worked with an associate
who developed a fairly promising unitized regenerative fuel cell, but it
wasn't a hydrogen fuel cell and involved some chemistry more toxic than
hydrogen and oxygen. In a closed system I hardly see how that matters, but
still no URFC at Home Depot. I used to use NiMH batteries (kind of like a
URFC), but now I'm sticking with Li batteries. Still having trouble finding
one good terrestrial example of electrolysis used to produce large scale
hydrogen for massive energy storage?
Don W.
Don W
>On Jan 7, 2:15 am, "Don W" <dNOSPAMwidd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > This is a mischaracterization based on faulty analysis. Hydrogen is
>> > produced today in laboratories and in fertilizer plants around the
>> > world by a wide variety of means. Some involve electrolytic
>> > decomposition of water to form hydrogen. Other processes involve the
>> > shift reaction of water with carbon to form hydrogen. In all cases
>> > the source of hydrogen is the same - water.
>>
>> You obviously have a lot more time to spend posting to this newsgroup
>> than I
>> have,
>
>Not really. It took you a helluva long time to come up with that list
>of bullshit you keep repeating, and you repeat it over and over and
>over again - which must take HUGE amounts of your time. I don't have
>time to keep up with your repetitive posting of the same errors.
>
anything. You may have the last word here as I do have better things to do
with my time and it's unlikely I'll continue replying to your silliness.
>> so I'll only respond to this one itty, bitty point.
>
>Alright
>
>>
>> Talk about mischaracterization!
>
>?? Okay, lets.
>
>> The hydrogen used in fertilizer plants is
>> all made from hydrocarbons (and yes, a little of that hydrogen is
>> contributed by water
>
>half if you use natural gas, all of it if you use coal.
Virtually all commercial hydrogen comes from reformed natural gas. You can
probably show me where someone is making hydrogen from coal and I'll find
that mildly interesting but of no significant consequence.
>> which also contributes some of the O in the CO2.)
>
>Yeah, I gave the reactions;
>
> C + 2 H2O --> CO2 + 2 H2 for coal
> CH4 + 2 H2O --> CO2 + 4 H2 for natural gas
>
Slight over-simplification, but in the end what goes in and what comes out
are correct. Who cares? Let's get back to the statement to which you
referred as a "mischaracterization":
3. No large terrestral source of hydrogen gas
is known. Water, of course, is a hydrogen
sink and, by fundamental chemical energitics,
is the worst possible feedstock.
Water is ASH (Already Suckeddryofitsenergy Hydrogen). So one would have to
agree that for bulk energy storage applications, water isn't necessarily the
best place to go looking for hydrogen. The reactions you gave imply that
water happily renders its hydrogen when mixed with methane and of course
that is not the case. When coaxed with heat from an external source and the
partial oxidation of the carbon (in the presence of a catalyst) the water
grudgingly renders its hydrogen to the reactor and it's oxygen to the carbon
to create carbon monoxide. This reaction is endothermic -- it requires
energy from an outside source in addition to the methane feedstock.
Fortunately, part of that energy can be supplied by the second reaction of
CO with H2O. It still takes just as much energy to coax water into giving
up its hydrogen, but this time the CO is so desperate to get hold of another
O that it supplies the energy required to do the coaxing. In the end, water
supplies NONE of the energy and overall recoverable hydrogen chemical energy
is less than 70% of the energy that would have been available just by
burning the original supply of methane.
Perhaps Mr. Lancaster's point might have been better made just by saying
"there ain't no more chemical energy left in water", but a
mischaracterization it was not. Hydrogen economy proponents are indeed
mischaracterizing water when they say that hydrogen is the most plentiful
element on the Earth's surface. There's virtually no H2 on the Eath's
surface, only hydrogen ASH. H2 = very fluffy chemical energy. H2O = wet
stuff without any chemical energy.
>> The
>> only place you'll find electrolytic decomposition of water forming
>> hydrogen
>> for storage of significant quantities of energy is in government
>> subsidized
>> pilot programs designed to make it look like hydrogen is a feasible
>> automotive fuel.
>
>Electrolytic decomposition of water is used to supply oxygen to
>nuclear submarines,
(ENERGY SUPPLIED BY NUCLEAR REACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING OXYGEN TO
THE SUB -- NOT FOR STORAGE OF SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF ENERGY)
>and its used in a wide range of laboratory and
>industrial processes where the quality of hydrogen is an important
>factor and cannot use hydrogen thats polluted with CO2 and other
>chemicals.
...AND THESE APPLICATIONS INVOLVE THE STORAGE OF SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF
ENERGY? YOU'RE REACHING, BUT NOT QUITE GRASPING.
>Electrolytic decomposition of water is used in a variety
>of demonstration and development projects. Characterizing these
>programs as attempts by the government to lie about the feasability of
>hydrogen as a transportation fuel is a mischracterization of these
>programs and reveals an underlying misapprehension on your part of the
>role of demonstration and development projects.
Of course those programs are nothing more than propaganda! The cost of
electrolytically decomposing water is astronomical in comparison to the
value of the LHV of the resulting hydrogen. This is not a practical way of
making fuel, but if the government spends enough money on it they might
persuade some people that it is. Allow me to provide you with a link to a
government document showing how our government feels we must be
endoctrinated:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/national_h2_roadmap.pdf
Go straight to chapter 8 (page 35), "Education and Outreach". Here is a
quote (I apologize about the length, but it's a classic propaganda effort
and I didn't want to cut out a single word):
"Develop a comprehensive public education and outreach program.
Hydrogen needs to get "on the map" and in the minds of consumers. Getting
the
message out will require a coordinated effort by government, industry, and
non-profit
communities to develop a broad-based education and outreach program. This
program,
which should be developed as soon as possible, should include public
relations and
advertising campaigns. Public spokespersons need to be identified and media
briefing
packets produced. A product recognition tag, similar to EnergyStarŽ, should
be
developed, and hydrogen success stories should be touted. Other public
relations and
outreach activities would include:
?? Construction of traveling exhibits on hydrogen
?? Expansion of online hydrogen databases and information center
?? Creation of compact disks and Internet marketing materials
Key components of the education and public relations program include the
creation of
effective consumer messages, awareness campaigns, and media outreach.
Innovative ideas
and creative incentives are needed to prime the population for migration
toward a
hydrogen economy. Consumers need to feel compelled to learn more about
hydrogen and
must be clear about how a hydrogen economy can benefit the environment and
energy
security of the Nation.
Hydrogen needs to be "branded" and "personalized" for the consumer; safety
needs to
be stressed. Messages need to be consistent (e.g., "Hydrogen is the Freedom
Fuel,"
"Hydrogen-It Works," or "Hydrogen is 'The Power'").
In addition, industry should work with filmmakers to include product
placement in
movies. Community models and exhibits should also be developed to promote
consumer
participation and action.
Create a public demonstration hydrogen village. Homebuilders, architects,
lending institutions, realtors, technology manufacturers, and related
associations should
lead an effort to launch a community model or hydrogen village that
identifies
stakeholders, products, and the infrastructure of a hydrogen economy.
Multiple villages,
in whole or in part, could be situated in strategic locations across the
United States as
instructional models for outreach programs directed toward students,
government, and
industry.
Commit resources for long-term education of students at all levels. Student
education is a key component to broadcasting the hydrogen message and
developing a
knowledgeable, involved hydrogen support network. Without a targeted
technology (and
applications-level) education program for students and teachers, our past
will continue to
define our future. Long-term resources should be committed to educate all
students.
Easy-to-integrate curricula should be developed for kindergarten to grade
12, vocational,
four-year engineering, and advanced-degree students. Hydrogen education
packages
should be created, including lesson plans, videos, demonstration hardware,
and
experiments to help educate science teachers and their students.
Educator training should be made available to all interested teachers
through summer
workshops and in-service training. Prizes could be offered for college-level
engineering
theses and projects on vehicle systems, stationary applications, and storage
technologies.
In addition, a hydrogen fellowship program should be created to encourage
interest in
the industry at the graduate-level. Lead organizations for this effort
include the National
Science Teachers Association, the U.S. Department of Education, education
agencies
and boards, and textbook publishing companies. This effort should begin
immediately
with an inventory of educational resources and development of teacher
training materials
that can be integrated with existing energy education materials."
In other words, the hydrogen economy is a washout on its own merits, so
we'll just have to sell everyone on the bad idea!
>haha... which I find
>interesting because you're the one who keeps shouting for examples of
>things working. Well here they are! It turns out that you KNOW of
>these systems, but sweep them under the rug and continue voicing your
>mis-statements as if they didn't exist. Just goes to show the lengths
>you'll go to to avoid the truth and continue repeating your erroneous
>mistatements.
>
>www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_3_doe_utility.pdf
I'm glad you're amused, but again it seems you're confusing me with someone
else. I've never shouted for examples of things working. It seems to me
you're avoiding the truth because you're trying to capitalize on something
that doesn't make sense and isn't going to make sense without some false
assumptions. If you're as smart as you say you are, then you already know
those assumptions to be false.
Oh well, I'm outta here. Try to have a good life, Mook, and please don't
forget the virtues of honesty and helping others as opposed to scamming
them.
Don W.
Willie...@gmail.com
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>
> >> There are certainly places where electrolysis is practical and cost
> >> effective.
>
> >Agreed.
>
> >> These are ALL characterized by (A) the value of the generated
> >> hydrogen vastly exceeding its pitiful energy content, and
>
> >This is a biased statement. I agree with the value of generated
> >hydrogen exceeding its cost of production. You err in assuming that
> >hydrogen has pitiful energy storage capacity. Look at the Centaur
> >upper stage on a Delta or Atlas rocket. Its hydrogen and oxygen
> >powered. That has HUGE energy enough to blast things off the planet.
> >Obviously, there is lots of energy in hydrogen fuel. The only thing
> >you need to do to correct your mistatement done is to retract the
> >idiot portion that assumes hydrogen cannot be cost-effective energy
> >source.
>
> ...yet you cite an example where hydrogen was chosen for its contribution to
> high Isp (due to low mass), not because it's cost effective.
Isp is a measure of exhaust velocity, which is a measure of
temperature, which is a measure of energy content. The statement I
was responding to was lancasters characterization of hydrogen as
"woefully lacking in energy." Obviously this is a
mischaracterization given the fact that hydrogen is the MOST energetic
of fuels.
> In this rare
> case, the low mass characteristic of hydrogen makes it a logical fuel choice
Yes, as it does in others. The insensitivity to cost is one reason
NASA was an early adopter of hydrogen fuels. This is typical of any
technology. The early adopters pay more. Whether its a mainframe
computer used by a bank in 1968 that has 16 k ram and cost $1 million
- or whether its me buying a digital watch for $2,300 in that same
year! lol. Just because something starts out high priced doesn't
mean it stays there. To figure out why, we have to engage in
fundamental analysis.
> (not an economical energy source.)
Its the most economical for that application you just said. You have
done zero analysis of cost to make this statement for OTHER
applications. I have shown with quite detailed calculations that I
can manufacture hydrogen from sunlight and water for $200 in the
field, and deliver anywhere in the US for $270. I have also shown
that on a heat value basis, it competes with all fossil fuels at a
retail price of $800 per metric ton.
> And by the way, what percentage of the
> hydrogen used in space craft do you suppose is electrolytically extracted
> from water? NONE! 0%
What is the point of your statement? Just because hydrogen is
produced by the shift reaction between water and coal, or water and
methane, doesn't mean water wasn't a source, or that hydrogen was the
best choice for that application.
> Your example in no way contradicts the statement
> that dissociation of water by electrolysis is not a practical means of
> storing large quantities of energy.
The amount of energy in a ton of hydrogen is the same no matter how
its produced. My example puts a lie to the statement that Lancaster
said hydrogen was woefully lacking in energy. It is the highest
energy fuel known. PERIOD. THat's all that meant. You are seeing
umbras and penumbras around what I said because you are bound and
determined to say dismissive things regardless of whether its the
right and logical thing or not.
Chill dude. Hydrogen has more energy per unit weight than any other
commonly available chemical fuel, bar none. 143 GJ per ton. Natural
gas 55 GJ per ton. Crude oil 44 GJ per ton. High rank coal 23 GJ per
ton. Live with it.
> As Don stated, electrolysis is only
> used to produce hydrogen in situations where the value of having hydrogen on
> hand without having to store hydrogen outweighs the capital cost of the
> electrolyzer and the energy cost to produce the hydrogen.
That's not true. I gave a report from Teledyne of several industrial
electrolytic applications. You have chosen to ignore reality to
persist in your false statements.
> (I would add to
> that a few pathetic demos where government subsidies the capital cost of the
> electrolyzer and the energy cost to produce hydrogen or some entity's desire
> to make the impractical appear practical outweighs...)
You are repeating Lancaster's lies. The Teledyne presentation of
which I gave you the power point for, discussed a wide number of
commercial industrial applications where electrolytic production of
both hydrogen and oxygen made sense. While less mature than shift
reaction technology, the ultimate price point and fundamental path of
growth is clear. You choose to ignore this to persist in your
pointlessly dismissive comments.
The question we have, that any industry has, is to figure out what's
going to happen tomorrow? TO answer this question correctly requires
a knowledgeable analysis of the current state of technology, a deep
understanding of fundamental limitations, and a clear vision of where
technology is going. Mature shift reaction based production that
relies on diminishing supplies of increasing valuable hydrocarbons has
little to know potential for growth or change. New electrolytic
thermolytic and photlytic production technologies that have
significant potential for growth and change that relies on reserves of
hydrogen and energy that are hundreds of thousands of times greater
than the supplies of hydrocarbon OBVIOUSLY are the basis of continuing
growth in the energy sector.
>
> >> (B) immediate nonstored
> >> use, and
>
> >This is one way to use hydrogen, certainly, but not the only one. For
> >example, with modern hydrogen storage and distribution technology, its
> >possible to have regenerative fuel cells, and a variety of gaseous and
> >stored hydrogen system that deliver energy at any time its needed, any
> >place its needed.
>
> Isn't it interesting that while we all know these things are possible they
> are still not practical and likely never will be?
Isn't it interesting you speak this way ever after ASME published
(finally - after years of delay caused by the oil industry) standards
for hydrogen storage and distribution. You can know go out to any ISO
certified fabricator and have an industrial hydrogen storage system
quoted, specified and built - and pay no more on either a CAPEX basis
or a recurring cost basis per delivered GJ than one pays for any other
industrial energy source.
> Years ago I had a
> conversation with Fred Mitlitsky who told me he had worked with an associate
> who developed a fairly promising unitized regenerative fuel cell, but it
> wasn't a hydrogen fuel cell and involved some chemistry more toxic than
> hydrogen and oxygen.
You speak as if closed cycle regenerative hydrogen oxygen fuel cells
haven't been built. Dude, Helios was built in the 1990s - Boeing is
flying a manned electric aircraft powered by regenerative fuel cell.
Where the hell have you been?
> In a closed system I hardly see how that matters, but
> still no URFC at Home Depot.
What does this have to do with anything? Systems are flying,
processes are under development. I have quoted paper after paper,
system after system. How long should switching to a new system
take? How long did it take to switch from steam to internal
combustion engines on the railroad? Ford introduced the motorcar
before the turn of the century. The last steam engine has yet to
retire from service, but the last major commercial carrier retired
their steam engines in favor of diesel electric engines by the
1950s.
NASA flew the first solar powered regenerative fueled aircraft less
than 10 years ago. Boeing is now flying a manned regenerative fuel
aircraft. Assuming rates of development are double what they were in
1900 - we'll see a major shift in aircraft by 2040.
Like I said elsewhere, you apply a different standard to the oil
comapnies. There's still no significant production out of Sakhalin
Island after 12 years and billions of dollars of investment either.
Does that mean there's no recoverable natural gas there? That the oil
companies are wasting their time? Obviously not. Same here.
> I used to use NiMH batteries (kind of like a
> URFC), but now I'm sticking with Li batteries. Still having trouble finding
> one good terrestrial example of electrolysis used to produce large scale
> hydrogen for massive energy storage?
Jesus Don W, I gave a power point from a report by Teledyne that had
27 pages that went into every gory detail and nuance of electrolytic
hydrogen and oxygen production - in a wide range of industrail
applications. Did you miss that? Sheez.
> Don W.- Hide quoted text -
Willie...@gmail.com
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message ...
> >On Jan 7, 2:15 am, "Don W" <dNOSPAMwidd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> > This is a mischaracterization based on faulty analysis. Hydrogen is
> >> > produced today in laboratories and in fertilizer plants around the
> >> > world by a wide variety of means. Some involve electrolytic
> >> > decomposition of water to form hydrogen. Other processes involve the
> >> > shift reaction of water with carbon to form hydrogen. In all cases
> >> > the source of hydrogen is the same - water.
>
> >> You obviously have a lot more time to spend posting to this newsgroup
> >> than I
> >> have,
>
> >Not really. It took you a helluva long time to come up with that list
> >of bullshit you keep repeating, and you repeat it over and over and
> >over again - which must take HUGE amounts of your time. I don't have
> >time to keep up with your repetitive posting of the same errors.
>
> You must be thinking of someone else.
No, I'm thinkig of you.
> Please cite where I "keep repeating"
> anything.
You gotta be kidding. I really don't have that kind of time you
freak.
> You may have the last word here as I do have better things to do
Um.. and because I'm right and you're wrong. lol.
> with my time and it's unlikely I'll continue replying to your silliness.
You have yet to point out anything that's silly - you have been
providing tons of silliness to which I'm responding though.
> >> so I'll only respond to this one itty, bitty point.
>
> >Alright
>
> >> Talk about mischaracterization!
>
> >?? Okay, lets.
>
> >> The hydrogen used in fertilizer plants is
> >> all made from hydrocarbons (and yes, a little of that hydrogen is
> >> contributed by water
>
> >half if you use natural gas, all of it if you use coal.
>
> Virtually all commercial hydrogen comes from reformed natural gas.
Got the numbers? I concur that a lot of hydrogen comes form reformed
natural gas where half comes from water and the other half comes from
the methane. But a lot of that methane is also made by coal
gasification systems. SO, the hydrogen in THAT methane came
originally from water.
In the higher carbon alkanes more of the hydrogen comes from the water
as well.
So, MOST of the hydrogen (MORE THAN HALF) is made by the shift
reaction of carbon and water whether you're using coal as a feedstock
- SASOL for instance in their LURGI reactors, or methane as a
feedstock.
> You can
> probably show me where someone is making hydrogen from coal and I'll find
> that mildly interesting but of no significant consequence.
What is of no significant consequence is that MORE THAN HALF the
hydrogen from natural gas comes from water;
CH4 + 2 H2O --> CO2 + 4 H2
Half with methane WIth higher alkanes, more ... and since only about
80% of natural gas (by molecule count) is methane, MORE THAN HALF THE
HYDROGEN COMES FROM WATER.
ANd this assumes the methane isn't made in a Lurgi reactor or other
coal gasification system.
> >> which also contributes some of the O in the CO2.)
>
> >Yeah, I gave the reactions;
>
> > C + 2 H2O --> CO2 + 2 H2 for coal
> > CH4 + 2 H2O --> CO2 + 4 H2 for natural gas
>
> Slight over-simplification,
It shows where the stuff is coming from.
> but in the end what goes in and what comes out
> are correct.
Correct.
> Who cares?
You do apparently because You and Lancaster both said that the shift
reaction of methane doesn't use water. or uses only slight amount of
water - the reality is that even here MORE THAN HALF of all the
hydrogen that comes out comes from water!!!
> Let's get back to the statement to which you
> referred as a "mischaracterization":
Yes.
> 3. No large terrestral source of hydrogen gas
> is known. Water, of course, is a hydrogen
> sink and, by fundamental chemical energitics,
> is the worst possible feedstock.
>
> Water is ASH (Already Suckeddryofitsenergy Hydrogen).
So was the hydrogen and carbon that is in a gallon of gasoline before
it was processed by the ancient biomass that made it using solar
energy.
> So one would have to
> agree that for bulk energy storage applications, water isn't necessarily the
> best place to go looking for hydrogen.
Why? It was the same place you went looking for energy to make coal
and crude oil and natural gas! I'm saying something rather simple.
BY YOUR DEFINITIONS - hydrogen is an energy sink. BY YOUR SAME
DEFINITIONS APPLIED TO THE PRODUCTION OF OIL COAL AND NATURAL GAS - SO
ARE THESE FUELS!!!! You are attempting to change the subject. You
can't have it both ways. You can't call hydrogen an energy sink and
not call coal oil and natural gas an energy sink. As yourself this
question; WHERE DID COAL COME FROM? WHERE DID OIL COME FROM? WHERE
DID NATURAL GAS COME FROM? If you say from a coal mine, from an oil
well from a gas well - you are missing the point. Its like a baby
saying that milk came from the refrigerated case in the store. That's
where it was stored for easy recovery. Its not where it came from.
ALL THESE FOSSIL FUELS DERIVED FROM SUNLIGHT, WATER AND CARBON by that
action of ancient biomass that is no more. About 10,000 tons of
biomass was processed by the biosphere for each ton of stored biomass
we recover today. Each GJ of energy produced in this way
irretreviably destroys valuable hydrocarbon feedstock, and is not only
irreplacable, but by any fair accounting of energy efficiency, took
millions of GJ of energy over millions of years to produce. USING
THE SAME STANDARDS YOU APPLY TO HYDROGEN - HYDROGEN MADE FROM SUNLIGHT
AND WATER IS THE MOST EFFICIENT PROCESS KNOWN FOR CREATING FUELS
KNOWN.
> The reactions you gave imply that
> water happily renders its hydrogen
No I didn't. I fully recognize that hydrogen and oxygen must be
separated by the application of energy. SO, please do not put words
in my mouth.
> when mixed with methane
No I didn't.
> and of course
> that is not the case.
That is true.
> When coaxed with heat from an external source and the
> partial oxidation of the carbon (in the presence of a catalyst) the water
> grudgingly renders its hydrogen to the reactor
Yes.
> and it's oxygen to the carbon
> to create carbon monoxide.
So? You're getting into chemical details that don't change the
balance of things as you said earlier. Merely because I didn't launch
into a treatise on chemical energetics is not a logical basis to
assume I don't know it, or to talk like you're the only one here who
does. This sort of analysis actually makes the energy efficiency of
the shift reaction less efficient when compared to electrolysis - but
I considered a detail not worth pursuing given my time limitations and
the fact you weren't even getting the basis right.
> This reaction is endothermic -- it requires
> energy from an outside source in addition to the methane feedstock.
Agreed.
> Fortunately, part of that energy can be supplied by the second reaction of
> CO with H2O.
Correct.
> It still takes just as much energy to coax water into giving
> up its hydrogen,
Of course - thermodynamics demands this.
> but this time the CO is so desperate to get hold of another
> O that it supplies the energy required to do the coaxing.
Energy as well as mass must always balance in the end.
> In the end, water
> supplies NONE of the energy
Correct. Please note I never said water was a source of energy. I
said water was a source of hydrogen. Energy must be supplied by an
outside source. Why do you persist in mischaracterizing what I am
saying?
You are getting off the point. Surely you know that coal, oil and
natural gas are products of ancient photosynthesis that took CO2 and
H2O and produced alkanes and free carbon in a variety of bio-chemical
and geo-chemical processes more complex than anything we're talking
about here. In this case, the source of energy trapped in coal, oil
and natural gas, IS SUNLIGHT! By any measure of efficiency you care
to apply to any renewable system that processes water and sunlight to
hydrogen - would show it to be far more efficient than the system that
PRODUCED coal oil or natural gas. Furthermore, we don't know how to
make new oil, new coal or new natural gas on a scale needed to sustain
our energy industry with them so they meet rising demand. This means
that oil coal and natural gas are very limited and irreplaceable
resource. Obviously the MOST DESTRUCTIVE THING we can do is BURN coal
oil and natural gas. Plainly we need to preserve this valuable
commodity - which likely only exists on Earth - as an easy to use
feedstock for more valuable things than merely heat for heat engines.
> and overall recoverable hydrogen chemical energy
> is less than 70% of the energy that would have been available just by
> burning the original supply of methane.
That's true, which is the cost of hydrogen is at least 1/.7 x as great
as natural gas prices - which is why to break this relationship,
you've got to use electrolytic, thermolytic, or photlytic processes.
But again you're missing my original point. Where did the methane
come from? It came from sunlight acting on ancient biomass. BY YOUR
OWN DEFINITIONS - the original amount of energy needed to make the
methane you so glibly take as a given, was thousands if not millions
of times greater than is recovered from the ancient methane. Modern
methods of producing methane from sunlight and carbon dioxide are far
more efficient.
> Perhaps Mr. Lancaster's point might have been better made just by saying
> "there ain't no more chemical energy left in water",
That's true. Yet you persist in your ignoring my point that the
energy contained in coal, oil and natural gas, was put there by
sunlight acting on ancient biomass. You ignre the fact that the
original source of carbon in those fuels was carbon dioxide absorbed
by that biomass - which was also devoid of energy. You ignore the
fact that the original source of hydrogen in those fuels was the very
same water you decry for hydrogen. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT YOU USE
YOUR ANALYSIS TO ANALYZE FOSSIL FUELS THE SAME WAY YOU ANALYSE
HYDROGEN. You do that and you will find that hydrogen made by solar
panels is vastly superior to burning for heat highly valuable carbon
feedstocks our children would need. If you don't want to spare the
air of increased carbon. If you don't care about global warming.
Please consider the tremendous value each ton of carbon burning is
destroying for our future generations.
> but a
> mischaracterization it was not.
It certainly was. He is confusing the SOURCE of hydrogen with
hydrogen as a fuel, while not applying the same analysis to say coal.
If we ignore HOW coal got made, and the tremendous amounts of sunlight
and carbon dioxide and even water - was used to create each ton - we
can say each ton contains 23 GJ. By the same token if we ignore HOW
hydrogen is made, and the amounts of primary energy and water needed
to make each ton, we can say each ton contains 143 GJ.
If we choose to talk about the fact that about 165 GJ of electrical
energy must be applied to 9 tons of water to create that ton, or that
30 GJ is needed to compress it or liquefy it for storage - then we
need to talk about the fact that about 230,000 GJ of energy was needed
by the ancient biomass and geological processes to capture and store
each ton of carbon in coal, and that hundreds of thousands of tons of
water, air, and even rock was needed to make each ton - over millions
of years.
USE THE SAME STANDARDS FOR EACH - that's all I'm saying. When we do
we realize JUST HOW VALUABLE COAL and oil and natural gas ARE!
They're so valuable unique and irreplaceable in fact, we are FOOLS to
burn them for heat value, when hydrogen is so FREELY available.
> Hydrogen economy proponents are indeed
> mischaracterizing water when they say that hydrogen is the most plentiful
> element on the Earth's surface.
That's where all the hydrogen in the alkanes came from originally.
> There's virtually no H2 on the Eath's
> surface,
You are making a huge issue over a small detail.
I agree that there is no energy in carbon dioxide, yet the carbon
cycle in the biosphere uses carbon dioxide as a freely available
source of carbno.
I agree that there is no energy in water, yet the source of hydrogen
is water.
The source of energy, contained in coal, oil, natural gas - is
sunlight orignally. The source of hydrogen in these fuels is water.
The source of carbon in these fuels is carbon dioxide. Is it that
hard to understand? NO. Why are you attempting to confuse things?
Because you want us to apply one standard to hydrogen and another to
fossil fuels.
> only hydrogen ASH. H2 = very fluffy chemical energy. H2O = wet
> stuff without any chemical energy.
The source of all hydrogen in fossil fuels was originally water.
The source of all energy in fossil fuels was originally sunlight
So, by your own definitions - fossil fuels are not really fuels, are
even more highly inefficient than any method of hydrogen production
(excepting those involving these very same inefficient energy
carriers)
This shows that you are highly biased and are interested only in
painting hydrogen with a brush you have no intention of fairly
applying to the fuels you defend. Which just shows how intellectually
dishonest you are.
>
> >> The
> >> only place you'll find electrolytic decomposition of water forming
> >> hydrogen
> >> for storage of significant quantities of energy is in government
> >> subsidized
> >> pilot programs designed to make it look like hydrogen is a feasible
> >> automotive fuel.
>
> >Electrolytic decomposition of water is used to supply oxygen to
> >nuclear submarines,
>
> (ENERGY SUPPLIED BY NUCLEAR REACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING OXYGEN TO
> THE SUB -- NOT FOR STORAGE OF SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF ENERGY)
Well, now we get into a nuance in how energy is measured in chemical
reactions. Fact is, the sailors would die without oxygen because the
chemical processes in their bodies would cease. The cigarettes cigars
and pipes smoked on board (assuming that still happens) wouldn't
burn. neither would the candles on the birthday cakes. So, this is
an important energy source.
>and its used in a wide range of laboratory and
> >industrial processes where the quality of hydrogen is an important
> >factor and cannot use hydrogen thats polluted with CO2 and other
> >chemicals.
>
> ...AND THESE APPLICATIONS INVOLVE THE STORAGE OF SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF
> ENERGY? YOU'RE REACHING, BUT NOT QUITE GRASPING.
I gave you a reference to a Teledyne paper. I really don't have time
for more. There were 27 pages of industrial applications. You're the
one grasping pointing to 100 year old technology that is about 99% or
more along its development curve. You've already shown that you have
detailed understanding of this process. So you know there's not much
room for improvement. Its a dead end. It uses non renewable
resources that are far more valuable as chemical feedstocks. Yet you
persist in ignoring that PEM, and other technologies are relatively
speaking brand new, and very early on their development curve, and
have the potential to kick ass - and ARE kicking ass every day - and
that this is where we are going and in the end we will not be using
any of these fossil fuels for anything but highly valued carbon
feedstock.
>
> >Electrolytic decomposition of water is used in a variety
> >of demonstration and development projects. Characterizing these
> >programs as attempts by the government to lie about the feasability of
> >hydrogen as a transportation fuel is a mischracterization of these
> >programs and reveals an underlying misapprehension on your part of the
> >role of demonstration and development projects.
>
> Of course those programs are nothing more than propaganda!
Obviously you do not understand the importance of research and
development. That's like saying building a gigabit memory chip at
high cost is propaganda - when the market is buying megabit memory
chips. Anyone who understands the importance of R&D will say its
money well spent. Only a fool with their head up their asswould say
it was propaganda and dismiss it. same here. Any reasonable look at
the physics and technology involved would see the difference
immediately between tired old spent technology and new vital growing
technology.
> The cost of
> electrolytically decomposing water is astronomical in comparison to the
> value of the LHV of the resulting hydrogen.
Got numbers? Like I said, 9 tonnes of water and 160 GJ produces 143
GJ of hydrogen. Take out another 20 to 30 GJ for storage and
distribution, and you've got 120 GJ by putting in 160 GJ from a
primary source. There's nothing astronomical about that.
The production of 23 GJ from a ton of coal required 230,000 GJ and
10,000 tons of carbon to be processed by the ancient biomass with
millions of GJ of sunlight falling across a broad region for millions
of years. The source of this carbon was carbon dioxide which
contributed NO energy to the system, because SUNLIGHT did all the
work.
> This is not a practical way of
> making fuel,
It is not POSSIBLE to make coal from carbon dioxide by any process
known. So, you merely ignore it, and hope anyone reading your
bullshit isn't smart enough to apply what you say TO coal.
> but if the government spends enough money on it they might
> persuade some people that it is.
The government spends far more money defending, propping up, and
ignoring the costs and dangers of coal oil and natural gas. So, I
wouldn't go too far in this directoin if I were you. Whatever
government programs have developed whatever little progress in the
hydrogen economy, have done so against HUGE opposition and ridicule
from the entrenched energy companies.- none of which is deserved.
> Allow me to provide you with a link to a
> government document showing how our government feels we must be
> endoctrinated:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/national_h2_roa...
>
You didn't provide a complete linke..your statement implying that the
government wishes to indoctronate us is a gross mischaracterization of
reality - this paper is merely a discussion of the progress being made
in this reserach area.
> Go straight to chapter 8 (page 35), "Education and Outreach". Here is a
> quote (I apologize about the length, but it's a classic propaganda effort
> and I didn't want to cut out a single word):
No read the entire document to get a sense of what Chapter 8 is really
about. If you jump right to chapter 8 without seeing all the good
work that went into their conclusions, then you won't understand the
sound logical basis for their conclusion. This is a paper that
presents sound scientific and engineering results. It discusses how
to overcome the propaganda of the major energy companies. Propaganda
isn't preceded by EIGHT CHAPTERS of solid research! lol. Yet, Don W
wants to ignore the MEAT of the report, so that he can quote OUT OF
CONTEXT one small little piece. He's hoping you will be overwhelmed
by the depth of work in this document - that's why he 'apologizes' he
hopes you won't read it, but merely read the sound bite he wants you
to hear and accept his LIES about the document without any real
critical analysis.
So, please please please - if you take the trouble to find the
document from his fragmented pointed - take the trouble to download it
and read it carefully and fully BEFORE reading chapter 8.
> "Develop a comprehensive public education and outreach program.
> Hydrogen needs to get "on the map" and in the minds of consumers. Getting
> the
> message out will require a coordinated effort by government, industry, and
> non-profit
> communities to develop a broad-based education and outreach program.
Yes. The same thing was done with cancer and smoking.
> This
> program,
> which should be developed as soon as possible, should include public
> relations and
> advertising campaigns. Public spokespersons need to be identified and media
> briefing
> packets produced. A product recognition tag, similar to EnergyStar®, should
> be
> developed, and hydrogen success stories should be touted. Other public
> relations and
> outreach activities would include:
> ?? Construction of traveling exhibits on hydrogen
> ?? Expansion of online hydrogen databases and information center
> ?? Creation of compact disks and Internet marketing materials
> Key components of the education and public relations program include the
> creation of
> effective consumer messages, awareness campaigns, and media outreach.
> Innovative ideas
> and creative incentives are needed to prime the population for migration
> toward a
> hydrogen economy. Consumers need to feel compelled to learn more about
> hydrogen and
> must be clear about how a hydrogen economy can benefit the environment and
> energy
> security of the Nation.
Yes, and everyone of these points has a solid foundation in the
preceding 8 CHAPTERS of scientific work reported in this document.
> Hydrogen needs to be "branded" and "personalized" for the consumer; safety
> needs to
> be stressed.
Just like McGruff 'take a bite out of crime' crime dog, and other
similar public campaigns. Don W doesn't address the fact that the
first 8 CHAPTERS put a lie to every single one of the points he's
attempting to make about hydrogen. So, please please please - READ
THE PRECEDING CHAPTERS before reading chapter 8 and THEN decide.
.
> Messages need to be consistent (e.g., "Hydrogen is the Freedom
> Fuel,"
> "Hydrogen-It Works," or "Hydrogen is 'The Power'").
Yes. We need to get the truth out - and quit lying to people the way
you are Don.
> In addition, industry should work with filmmakers to include product
> placement in
> movies.
Absolutely.
> Community models and exhibits should also be developed to promote
> consumer
> participation and action.
Yes this will help too.
Please note what they're NOT asking for. Government subsidy to make
it profitable for hydrogen producers and hydrogen users. That's
because hydrogen CAN COMPETE and that's why major fossil fuel
companies are afraid of.
See, they've got a problem. They have a declining resource. And,
they have a need to increase profits each quarter. So, what do you
do? You use supply and demand and scarcity to bid up prices. That
way, even though you have less fuel each quarter, you have more
profit. Now what happens when ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUEL actually
and truly compete? That's right, it puts downward pressure on prices
and the oil companies coal companies and natural gas companies feel
the pressure in their pocketbooks. So, what are they going to do?
EVERYTHING THEY CAN - INCLUDING LYING TO YOU AND ME AND THE GOVERNMENT
TO MAINTAIN THEIR POSITION.
> Educator training should be made available to all interested teachers
> through summer
> workshops and in-service training. Prizes could be offered for college-level
> engineering
> theses and projects on vehicle systems, stationary applications, and storage
> technologies.
> In addition, a hydrogen fellowship program should be created to encourage
> interest in
> the industry at the graduate-level. Lead organizations for this effort
> include the National
> Science Teachers Association, the U.S. Department of Education, education
> agencies
> and boards, and textbook publishing companies. This effort should begin
> immediately
> with an inventory of educational resources and development of teacher
> training materials
> that can be integrated with existing energy education materials."
In the 1960s King Hubbert warned that by 1970 the USA would enter
secondary production and by 2015 the WOrld would enter secondary
production. JFK charged Brookhaven National Labs with coming up with
a solution. They came up with compact nuclear sources that produced
hydrogen from water on a massive scale and at very low costs. JFK was
killed, but LBJ continued with the program. Nixon got in office and
scrapped the BNL study and installed the present oil companies in
their energy advisory roles. Hubbert was marginalized. The US
entered secondary production. The US began importing oil on a massive
scale. The dollar weakened. The US went off the Gold Standard.
There was an energy crisis. Oil went from $2 per barrel to $10 per
barrel. Carter vowed to do something about energy. Carter got
elected and sought $20 billion for the Department of Energy to do
something about energy independence. The 1960s BNL study was
resurrected. After 50 years of safe and reliable operations, two
nuclear accidents happened - three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Due to
mis-steps and mis-information to the President from the CIA - Carter
lost Iran - and due to further mishaps and ntelligence failures -
hostages were taken in Iran. Carter's energy program was all but
forgotten, and while tons of money were spent, NONE was spent on the
very practical BNL study that showed how we could develop a hydrogen
economy built around compact low cost high energy nuclear sources.
Nuclear was a non-starter after TMI and Chernobyl. Its still a
nonstarter. Jane Fonda starred in China Syndrome. Another failed CIA
effort to extract the hostages - involving the crash of a marine
helicopter ended Carter's focus on energy - and the media began
painting him as an ineffectual President. The personable actor,
Ronald Reagan was elected by a landslide - Watergate, the appointment
of Ford, and his subsequent pardon of Nixon was forgotten. Ronald
Reagan with the broad and wildly enthusiastic support of an emerging
right wing media became the teflon president - and the major oil
companies were re-installed in their dominant roles and alternative
energy was marginalized and forgotten. (lalala indeed)
> In other words, the hydrogen economy is a washout on its own merits,
Not at all. If you would take the trouble to read the first chapters,
you will see this is a sound public education program. There is no
call for public subidy - that oil and coal and natuaal gas gets.
There is no call for special tax treatments, or special exemptions
from safety and environmental rules everyone lives with - which coal
oil and natural gas get -
Fact is, on a equal playing field hydrogen - whether powered by low
cost nuclear or low cost solar - would kick fossil fuel's ass! That's
Carter ws marginalized and everything possible was done to alienate
people from nucleear.
Go back to the 1950s Forbes and Fortune magazine where they declared
that by 1970 power would be too cheap to meter. The science hasn't
changed. Built on an appropriate scale, in an appropriate way,
nuclear power WOULD make energy cheaper more reliable safer and
cleaner. That is an impossiblity now because of a dedicated effort
among specialists who worked for those who are threatened by
alternatives to the way energy is made now.
> so
> we'll just have to sell everyone on the bad idea!
Reality doesn't need defended. Reality is. It will be what it is no
matter what anyone believes. So, why do efforts to educate people
about the very solid first 8 chapters of very good research and
development, scare you and the oil companies?
Is there anything in the report that is in error? Anything? I must
assume that if there were, you would say so. You haven't so there
isn't. So, the only thing you've got to carp about is that to counter
the disinformation put out for decades by the major energy companies,
that people are educated about the REALITY of hydrogen.
Nothing would help undermine any program more than for people to
promote lies and have them be proven to be lies. This is not what
this program is calling for. This program is calling for people to
come to realize that the US *can* be not only less dependent on the
mIddle east, not only indepedendent of th emiddile east, but the US
can dominate the energy picture in the world despite the middle east.
This is an important thing to know and to achieve because this is the
only way we'll end our war on terror. Now, the only problem you
Don's have is that it will bankrupt the oil comapanies. Well, I don't
wish hardship on anyone, but if they bankrupt themselves, it will be
because they lacked any sort of vision or capacity to do anything
different than what they've been doing. And that's their problem, not
ours, not the American public's and certainly not the problem of our
troops who are fighting and dying every day - not for us, but for the
greed of the oil comapnies.
>
>
> >haha... which I find
> >interesting because you're the one who keeps shouting for examples of
> >things working. Well here they are! It turns out that you KNOW of
> >these systems, but sweep them under the rug and continue voicing your
> >mis-statements as if they didn't exist.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
BradGuth
situated deep under ground plus under our salty oceans by a good
25,000+' ?
Was Earth once of a 25,000' less radius, as hosting those thousand
foot thick layers of live and robust biomass growth and somehow
forever regrowing throughout a good thousand or more ice-age cycles?
- Brad Guth
RadicalModerate
> Lets take the example of Niagara Falls. Off-peak, there's 2 GW too
> much damn energy for about 3 hours every night during the off peak
> times. So, that's 6 GWh of electrical energy that's wasted. Both the
> Canadian and US sides of the border have said someone like myself can
> have that energy for 1.5 cents per kWh - SO, that's $90,000 per day.
> A great deal.
[...]
> With 6 GWh we make 120 metric tons of hydrogen gas. That's $792 per
> metric ton. About 20% of this energy is lost through storing and
> transporting it to where its desired. So, net, we get 100 metric tons
> of the gas - at $950 per metric ton.
SO is this happening as we speak - or is it still in the proposal stage =
obtaining funding and regulatory approval, pending construction of a
electrolyzer facility in the Niagara Falls area which can make 2 GWe/hr
worth of H2 for 3 hours during the wee hours and compress it
to a pipeline and tank big enough to store 24 hours worth of H2
to the 40 MWe coalburning plant?
Or is the H2 liquified then delivered to the plant?
How far does the H2 travel to reach the plant?
[snip lots of good looking stuff]
So to sum up, is this surplus Niagara Falls electricity-to-hydrogen
something being done now, is it under construction or is still in the
"Microsoft Office" phase? That is PowerPoints for the electric company(s)
involved, Excel spreadsheets for the capital providers and MS Word DOCs
for the various regulatory authorities here and in Canada who will have
to approve the project?
--
The published From: address is a trap.
BradGuth
Nothing is being done now, of ever in the past and it's highly
unlikely in the near future.
However, I'd be one of those in favor of flooding Canada with an extra
ten meters worth of extra dam, as then we'd have loads of stored
hydroelectric energy to burn(sort of speak), even if having to share
it 50/50 with Canada.
This screwed up ENRON country of ours, with all of our shut-down
factories that might otherwise use such energy, doesn't have any such
spare/surplus energy to speak of, much less a sufficient power grid
for sharing squat, so therefore anything that's of Mook's H2 has got
to happen primarily because of his custom PV farms, of a few donated
and tax-free million acres each should do the trick.
.
- Brad Guth