hydrogen myths
Eric Jacobsen
AMORY B. LOVINS
Rocky Mountain Institute
"Recent public interest in hydrogen has elicited a great deal of
conflicting, confusing, and often
ill-informed commentary. This peer-reviewed white paper offers both lay and
technical readers,
particularly in the United States, a documented primer on basic hydrogen
facts, weighs competing
opinions, and corrects twenty widespread misconceptions. It explains why the
rapidly growing
engagement of business, civil society, and government in devising and
achieving a transition
to a hydrogen economy is warranted and, if properly done, could yield
important national and
global benefits."
Myth #1. A whole hydrogen industry would need to be developed from scratch.
Myth #2. Hydrogen is too dangerous, explosive, or "volatile" for common use
as a fuel.
Myth #3. Making hydrogen uses more energy than it yields, so it's
prohibitively inefficient.
Myth #4. Delivering hydrogen to users would consume most of the energy it
contains.
Myth #5. Hydrogen can't be distributed in existing pipelines, requiring
costly new ones.
Myth #6. We don't have practical ways to run cars on gaseous hydrogen, so
cars must continue to use liquid fuels.
Myth #7. We lack a safe and affordable way to store hydrogen in cars.
Myth #8. Compressing hydrogen for automotive storage tanks takes too much
energy.
Myth #9. Hydrogen is too expensive to compete with gasoline.
Myth #10. We'd need to lace the country with ubiquitous hydrogen production,
distribution, and delivery infrastructure before we could sell the first
hydrogen car, but that's impractical and far too costly - probably hundreds
of billions of dollars.
Myth #11. Manufacturing enough hydrogen to run a car fleet is a gargantuan
and hugely expensive task.
Myth #12. Since renewables are currently too costly, hydrogen would have to
be made from fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
Myth #13. Incumbent industries (e.g., oil and car companies) actually oppose
hydrogen as a competitive threat, so their hydrogen development efforts are
mere window-dressing.
Myth #14. A large-scale hydrogen economy would harm the Earth's climate,
water balance, or atmospheric chemistry.
Myth #15. There are more attractive ways to provide sustainable mobility
than adopting hydrogen.
Myth #16. Because the U.S. car fleet takes roughly 14 years to turn over,
little can be done to change car technology in the short term.
Myth #17. A viable hydrogen transition would take 30-50 years or more to
complete, and hardly anything worthwhile could be done sooner than 20 years.
Myth #18. The hydrogen transition requires a big (say, $100-300 billion)
Federal crash program, on the lines of the Apollo Program or the Manhattan
Project.
Myth #19. A crash program to switch to hydrogen is the only realistic way to
get off oil. 37
Myth #20. The Bush Administration's hydrogen program is just a smokescreen
to stall adoption of the hybrid-electric and other efficient car designs
available now, and wraps fossil and nuclear energy in a green disguise.
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-20HydrogenMyths.pdf
Dan Bloomquist
Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> Twenty Hydrogen Myths - 12 July 2003
> AMORY B. LOVINS
> Rocky Mountain Institute
> ...
>
Is this AMORY B. LOVINS around to discuss this list? Would you like to
take the reins?
Best, Dan.
--
if( this == NULL )
return that;
Don Lancaster
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf instead.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Bill Bradley
> Twenty Hydrogen Myths - 12 July 2003
> AMORY B. LOVINS
> Rocky Mountain Institute
>
>
> "Recent public interest in hydrogen has elicited a great deal of
> conflicting, confusing, and often
> ill-informed commentary. This peer-reviewed white paper offers both lay and
> technical readers,
> particularly in the United States, a documented primer on basic hydrogen
> facts, weighs competing
> opinions, and corrects twenty widespread misconceptions. It explains why the
> rapidly growing
> engagement of business, civil society, and government in devising and
> achieving a transition
> to a hydrogen economy is warranted and, if properly done, could yield
> important national and
> global benefits."
> http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-20HydrogenMyths.pdf
These scan pretty good to me.
>Myth #3. Making hydrogen uses more energy than it yields, so it's
>prohibitively inefficient.
Unless someone has managed to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics this
is correct. If you attempt to use H2O as your hydrogen source and then
combine the Hydrogen with Oxygen, you lose. If you use hydrocarbons for
your hydrogen source you defeat the purpose of the exercise.
> Myth #5. Hydrogen can't be distributed in existing pipelines, requiring
> costly new ones.
Show me an existing line that will carry hydrogen at energy densities
anywhere near those currently used for natural gas or oil. Not just
that will carry hydrogen, but an equal amount of energy per time.
> Myth #6. We don't have practical ways to run cars on gaseous hydrogen, so
> cars must continue to use liquid fuels.
Try talking to Mazda about the power loss, weight and storage required
to run an ICE on hydrogen. They've been working on this for over a
decade and it's sure not practical now.
>Myth #9. Hydrogen is too expensive to compete with gasoline.
Citations to the contrary? Last breakdown I saw was 10x the price of
gasoline per BTU.
> Myth #11. Manufacturing enough hydrogen to run a car fleet is a gargantuan
> and hugely expensive task.
> Myth #15. There are more attractive ways to provide sustainable mobility
> than adopting hydrogen.
> Myth #16. Because the U.S. car fleet takes roughly 14 years to turn over,
> little can be done to change car technology in the short term.
Yep. Care to back up your assertions?
Bill
daestrom
"Eric Jacobsen" <nikn...@SPAMxmission.com> wrote in message
news:bj399d$ok7$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
> Twenty Hydrogen Myths - 12 July 2003
> AMORY B. LOVINS
> Rocky Mountain Institute
>
> prohibitively inefficient.
Whether its 'prohibitively inefficient' is open to debate. The fact that
generation takes more energy than returned in subsequent use is not a myth.
> Myth #5. Hydrogen can't be distributed in existing pipelines, requiring
> costly new ones.
Existing steel pipelines would readily be embrittled by hydrogen, severly
shortening their life.
> Myth #7. We lack a safe and affordable way to store hydrogen in cars.
Pressurized gas would be difficult/dangerous. Chemical binding to carbon
can work, but you loose a lot of the benefits (i.e. man-made 'fossil' fuels
also pollute)
> Myth #9. Hydrogen is too expensive to compete with gasoline.
Given the current prices, how can anyone disagree that gasoline is cheaper
on a per kWhr basis? Someone that hasn't priced the two??
> Myth #13. Incumbent industries (e.g., oil and car companies) actually
oppose
> hydrogen as a competitive threat, so their hydrogen development efforts
are
> mere window-dressing.
Considering the total effort in making a car/suv, and the fact that the
power plant is only one part of that, incumbent car companies would love to
build more cars. Powered by rubber bands if they thought the public would
buy them. The choice of fuels is merely one of being able to sell enough to
recover the R&D costs.
> Myth #19. A crash program to switch to hydrogen is the only realistic way
to
> get off oil.
Well, that one may very well be a myth.
daestrom
Eric Jacobsen
Sorry, maybe you didn't see the link to the 49 page document. The list of
myths is from the table of contents.
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-20HydrogenMyths.pdf
I thought it was an interesting read. If you're not interested in slogging
through it I understand.
Eric Jacobsen
> > prohibitively inefficient.
>
> Whether its 'prohibitively inefficient' is open to debate. The fact that
> generation takes more energy than returned in subsequent use is not a
myth.
I agree that this is very poorly phrased as a summary to the report. His
point here is that the fact that some energy is lost in the back and forth
conversion process should not be used as an argument to discount the use of
hydrogen.
He gives numbers for well-to-wheels efficiency of three types of cars:
crude oil (88%)-> gasoline (16%)-> wheels of typical gasoline car = 14%
crude oil (88%)-> gasoline (30%)-> wheels of Toyota Prius hybrid = 26%
natural gas (70%)-> compressed H2 in car (60%)-> wheels of efficient fuel
cell car = 42%
So even though the natural gas to compressed H2 stage is less efficient than
refining gasoline, you more than make up for that in converting the energy
in H2 to work.
He also gives scenarios where it may make economic sense to convert
electricity to H2 and back (i.e. for peak electric usage).
Steve Spence
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Eric Jacobsen" <nikn...@SPAMxmission.com> wrote in message
news:bj399d$ok7$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
Steve Spence
Many experts end up thinking their word is gospel.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Eric Jacobsen" <nikn...@SPAMxmission.com> wrote in message
news:bj3f1i$r4n$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
Nick Pine
Detroit loves the concept of hydrogen cars," with a quote from an H2 scientist
describing his demo machine... "We turn this on when we want more money."
Nick
Bill Bradley
I did dig into it and find that many of his assumptions are weak. 5
pages of footnotes including mostly magazine and newspaper articles does
not inspire confidence [admittedly he's giving the sources for the
"myths" he's attacking, but some supporting evidence would be nice too.]
Playing with the numbers shows that the heat energy in your bathwater
could be used to put a small projectile into low orbit if only someone
could come up with a device to convert it to kinetic energy efficiently,
but it doesn't make it a good plan.
His increases in efficiency for his 5-eta vehicle could just as easily
be applied to a conventional or hybrid vehicle at a much lower price
(and has been in some cases) yet he compares his design to vehicles not
using the same level of technology...a strawman. There is little or no
demand for high efficiency vehicles available now, his would be many
times more expensive. How this makes it more attractive I don't know.
He throws around a lot of numbers for the Revolution concept, but cost
isn't one of them.
Lovins also completely fails to address the cost of the fuel cells
themselves [Arguing that $30-60/kW is "comparable" to $20/kW (pg. 15) is
a bad joke. 50-200% more expensive is "comparable"? What color is the
sky on his planet?] or the strategic resources [where are the tons of
platinum and/or palladium coming from?] required for large scale
deployment. He "plans" quite a number of technological innovations
which may or may not happen [e.g. better membranes for the fuel cells,
designs more tolerant of contamination yet maintaining high efficiency
and suitable for mass production... quite a wish list!]. People who
count on other's innovations are often disappointed.
Myth #5 that "Hydrogen can't be distributed in existing pipelines,
requiring costly new ones" he actually supports. He acts like a
retrofit and changing the compressors isn't comparable to replacement,
and admits to lower capacity. If retrofits and loss of 25% of capacity
doesn't require additional construction I'd love to hear how.
His proposed market manipulations ("Freebates," scrapping for credit,
etc.) are hardly likely in a political climate that refuses to raise
CAFE standards and has presided over an actual decline in fuel efficiency.
I think the obvious flaws are shown by the target (consumer vehicles).
If a fuel cell system were actually able to beat a Hybrid electric
system diesel-electric trains would be the immediate logical choice as
an application. Minimal redesign (already electric), retrofit possible,
easier to convert infrastructure, and even a small percentage savings
would have huge consequences. Funny that no one is rushing to roll out
fuel cell locomotives, isn't it?
Bill
Richard Bell
Eric Jacobsen <nikn...@SPAMxmission.com> wrote:
>> > Myth #3. Making hydrogen uses more energy than it yields, so it's
>> > prohibitively inefficient.
>>
>> Whether its 'prohibitively inefficient' is open to debate. The fact that
>> generation takes more energy than returned in subsequent use is not a
>myth.
>
>I agree that this is very poorly phrased as a summary to the report. His
>point here is that the fact that some energy is lost in the back and forth
>conversion process should not be used as an argument to discount the use of
>hydrogen.
>
>He gives numbers for well-to-wheels efficiency of three types of cars:
>
>crude oil (88%)-> gasoline (16%)-> wheels of typical gasoline car = 14%
>crude oil (88%)-> gasoline (30%)-> wheels of Toyota Prius hybrid = 26%
>natural gas (70%)-> compressed H2 in car (60%)-> wheels of efficient fuel
>cell car = 42%
Here we strike the rock of availability. Producing H2 from natural gas
competes with home heating and electricity production, which will drive
up the prices of all three, and require the construction of new gas pipelines,
just to distribute the natural gas (assuming additional supplies are there).
>
>So even though the natural gas to compressed H2 stage is less efficient than
>refining gasoline, you more than make up for that in converting the energy
>in H2 to work.
>
>He also gives scenarios where it may make economic sense to convert
>electricity to H2 and back (i.e. for peak electric usage).
This makes no sense whatsoever. What does make sense is to produce
hydrogen by electrolysis, instead of lowering the output of a baseload
plant (NG, coal, nuclear), assuming there is a market for the H2. If
the demand rises above the plant's capacity, fire up the NG gas turbine
(which is alot more efficient than a fuel cell powered by electrolysed H2).
Minor sidenote: This factor is one of the things that the proponents of
wind and solar tend to ignore, anything that makes their choice of
intermittent reliable allows a baseload, central station to run flat out.
The resultant drop in electricity prices drive the intermittents off of
the grid.
>
>
>
>
Don Lancaster
>
> In article <bj3fp8$rjv$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>,
> Eric Jacobsen <nikn...@SPAMxmission.com> wrote:
>
> > What does make sense is to produce
> hydrogen by electrolysis, instead of lowering the output of a baseload
> plant (NG, coal, nuclear), assuming there is a market for the H2.
It NEVER makes sense to produce hydrogen for bulk energy needs by
electrolysis owing to the staggering loss of exergy.
Not now, not ever.
The process is pretty much the same as 1:1 converting US dollars into
Mexican pesos.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.
Eric Jacobsen
> >> > prohibitively inefficient.
> >>
> >> Whether its 'prohibitively inefficient' is open to debate. The fact
that
> >> generation takes more energy than returned in subsequent use is not a
> >myth.
> >
> >I agree that this is very poorly phrased as a summary to the report. His
> >point here is that the fact that some energy is lost in the back and
forth
> >conversion process should not be used as an argument to discount the use
of
> >hydrogen.
> >
> >He gives numbers for well-to-wheels efficiency of three types of cars:
> >
> >crude oil (88%)-> gasoline (16%)-> wheels of typical gasoline car = 14%
> >crude oil (88%)-> gasoline (30%)-> wheels of Toyota Prius hybrid = 26%
> >natural gas (70%)-> compressed H2 in car (60%)-> wheels of efficient fuel
> >cell car = 42%
>
> Here we strike the rock of availability. Producing H2 from natural gas
> competes with home heating and electricity production, which will drive
> up the prices of all three, and require the construction of new gas
pipelines,
> just to distribute the natural gas (assuming additional supplies are
there).
I think Lovins is hoping/assuming that reforming natural gas to hydrogen
would be a transitory thing while we transitioned to using more renewable
resources via electrolysis more economically.
> >So even though the natural gas to compressed H2 stage is less efficient
than
> >refining gasoline, you more than make up for that in converting the
energy
> >in H2 to work.
> >
> >He also gives scenarios where it may make economic sense to convert
> >electricity to H2 and back (i.e. for peak electric usage).
>
> This makes no sense whatsoever. What does make sense is to produce
> hydrogen by electrolysis, instead of lowering the output of a baseload
> plant (NG, coal, nuclear), assuming there is a market for the H2.
I think this could go either way. We're both arguing that it _could_ make
economic sense to use off-peak (baseline) power plant capacity to make
hydrogen. You're saying that it would make more sense to then use that
hydrogen for something else rather than converting it back to electricity
via fuel cells? He's saying that it _could_ make sense to do so. From page
11: "When the cost of peak power for the top 50–150 hours a year is
$600–900/MWh, typically 30–40 times the cost of baseload power (~$20/MWh),
the economics of storage become quite interesting." (Not sure where those
numbers come from :)
> If the demand rises above the plant's capacity, fire up the NG gas turbine
> (which is alot more efficient than a fuel cell powered by electrolysed
H2).
Again, something that could go either way, depending on the details. from
the same page: "True, the overall round-trip efficiency of using electricity
to split water, making hydrogen, storing it, and then converting it back
into electricity in a fuel cell is relatively low at about 45% (after 25%
electrolyzer losses and 40% fuel-cell losses) plus any byproduct heat
recaptured from both units for space-conditioning or water heating. But this
can still be worthwhile because it uses power from an efficient baseload
plant (perhaps even a combined cycle plant converting 50–60% of its fuel to
electricity) to displace a very inefficient peaking power plant (a
simple-cycle gas turbine or engine-generator, often only 15–20%efficient)."
> Minor sidenote: This factor is one of the things that the proponents of
> wind and solar tend to ignore, anything that makes their choice of
> intermittent reliable allows a baseload, central station to run flat out.
> The resultant drop in electricity prices drive the intermittents off of
> the grid.
Good point, but I don't really see this as a big worry. Either the
intermittent power sources help the grid or they don't. If peak-hour
electricity is really more expensive than off-peak (by definition it is),
then wind/solar should be able to compete economically for those peak-hours,
as long as they are more expensive than your baseline power plant at the
same ratio of peak to non-peak prices. If prices go down because the
overall market is getting more efficient, that's a good thing, and the
wind/solar providers will have to get correspondingly more competetive to
compete. If there is such a massive price swing that all the wind/solar
providers get driven away (which wouldn't really happen for a massively
distributed arrangement), then the main power plants will be right back
where they are now.
(I guess my assumption here is that alternative sources are going to come
online gradually and distributed over many small locations, rather than say,
replacing a coal plant with a giant solar farm...another benefit of hydrogen
in the long term, is that it would give us a way to store up energy from
intermittent sources so that eventually we wouldn't need to rely on the big
coal plants for baseline usage.)
Don Lancaster
> I think Lovins is hoping/assuming that reforming natural gas to hydrogen
> would be a transitory thing while we transitioned to using more renewable
> resources via electrolysis more economically.
>
Electrolysis will NEVER get more economical because of the staggering
loss of exergy involved.
From a thermodynamic standpoint, electrolysis for bulk energy is
monumentally stupid.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/enerfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.
Charles Edmondson
Yeah, note the straw man usage of SUV (Hummer, maybe?) for gasoline,
Prius for hybrid, with rather low conversion listed, and then his
mythical Revolution with all the bugs worked out for the fuel cell car.
Why not just use batteries in the mythical car (Or EEG... 8-) and draw
that conclusion!
Charlie
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems
Fred B. McGalliard
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3F5620BF...@tinaja.com...
...
> It NEVER makes sense to produce hydrogen for bulk energy needs by
> electrolysis owing to the staggering loss of exergy.
>
> Not now, not ever.
>
> The process is pretty much the same as 1:1 converting US dollars into
> Mexican pesos.
Don, I love you man, but you just gotta drop the polemics. If you want to
argue exergy with the experts, you have to know what you are doing. You
don't and your falling back on the polemic "staggering" shows it too well.
Exergy applies to available energy. By conservation of energy, if you do a
100% efficient electrolysis, then reverse the process in an efficient fuel
cell, the process makes an efficient and flexible battery. No exergy loss.
The thermodynamics is fascinating. The electrolysis can actually produce
more exergy than is consumed from the electric source, because it is
endothermic you add some energy from the environment. You have to accept pay
back at the fuel cell with an exothermic stage where the heat comes back
out, but if you conduct both at the same temperature it should come out even
and you have no loss (or gain) of exergy. So nothing is ever this good. A
typical electrolytic cell apparently runs around 50-60%, throwing the rest
into heat, most of which is wasted (although some may go into the
endothermic electrolysis process). Of course really expensive units may do
around 80%, and the theoretical limit is around 110% as I recall. A typical
motor could just run on hydrogen, at perhaps 20-30%, or a fuel cell at
40-60%. So as a battery, we get a staggering loss of around 52% for a very
good system. And about 85% loss for a pretty typical system without the fuel
cell. Since the staggering loss of exergy in a car burning gasoline is
around 80%, this doesn't look so bad, so I wonder what Don is on about?
And the conversion of dollars into pesos? If you need a peso to get into the
toilet in an emergency, and all you have on you is a dollar, that trade is a
no-brainer. It would be a lot more fun listening to Don's diatribes if he
just changed his tune once in a while. I know I shouldn't bother the man.
G. R. L. Cowan
Eric Jacobsen included:
>
>
> ... from the same page: "True, the overall round-trip efficiency of using electricity
> to split water, making hydrogen, storing it, and then converting it back
> into electricity in a fuel cell is relatively low at about 45% (after 25%
> electrolyzer losses and 40% fuel-cell losses) ...
40 percent fuel-cell losses?
This cell loses 61 percent of LHV:
http://www.ballard.com/pdfs/power%20gen/NEXASPECSHEET-FINAL-APR5_6.1.1.PDF
-- at sea level, at beginning of life, which is claimed to be 1,500
hours.
(Higher altitude would mean greater frictional loss
in pumping the same mass, greater volume, of gaseous reagents. )
What is the name, what are the specs, who is the maker
of the air-breathing fuel cell whose losses
in the single, DC production step
do not exceed the alleged total losses for both steps?
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
how cars gain nuclear cachet
Dan Bloomquist
Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>
>
> I think this could go either way. We're both arguing that it _could_ make
> economic sense to use off-peak (baseline) power plant capacity to make
> hydrogen. You're saying that it would make more sense to then use that
> hydrogen for something else rather than converting it back to electricity
> via fuel cells? He's saying that it _could_ make sense to do so. From page
> 11: "When the cost of peak power for the top 50–150 hours a year is
> $600–900/MWh, typically 30–40 times the cost of baseload power (~$20/MWh),
> the economics of storage become quite interesting." (Not sure where those
> numbers come from :)
>
The thing is, we have a perfectly cheap and rather efficient means of
storing electrical energy with pumped storage.
By the time you get done with all the losses, you may get 25%-30% with
hydrogen. Pumped storage is 70%.
The equipment will cost you several dollars a watt. Pumped storage is
cheap. Here is a project that was completed at 50 cents a watt.
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/tianhuangping/
Why would a utility invest in hydrogen when there is a much better way?
Eric Jacobsen
> loss of exergy involved.
Now this is a bit of exaggeration eh? A more reasonable statement might be:
"Electrolysis will continue to get more economical as the technology
improves and the production volume increases. However, in the near future
it will not become cheap enough to replace gasoline/natural gas as the
standard energy storage medium."
Now there's something we could have a debate about.
> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/enerfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.
Your section on "Hydrogen Realities" is a good pessimistic counterpoint to
the optimistic tone of Lovin's "20 Myths". I guess time will tell whose
predictions will be correct. I wonder about some of your assumptions
however:
"As we've seen, retail electricity is worth about ten cents
per kilowatt hour. Lower exergy gasoline is worth three
cents per kilowatt hour. Your value of raw unprocessed
hydrogen is not well established, but we do know it will
certainly be a lot less than gasoline today. Because it has
not yet impacted gasoline in any significant way. I feel 0.8
cents per raw hydrogen kilowatt hour can be a reasonable
ballpark estimate." (p. 71.5)
To me it seems that hydrogen can have quite a bit more exergy than gasoline
because it can be converted back to electricity. How efficiently this can
be done remains to be seen, but it _will_ improve with time. How did you
come up with your $0.008/kwh figure?
Your dollars=gasoline analogy is useful up to a point, but I think you
stretch it too far. Remember that economics isn't based in physics like
power and energy are. Who would have predicted in 1970 that the cost per
byte of computer storage, or the cost per cycle of computing power would
have dropped by so many orders of magnitude so fast? I'm not saying the
analogy is exact, but economics and technology can do some funny things.
Eric Jacobsen
Convenience? Smaller unit sizes? I guess I'm imagining a fuel cell in
every house or building, not necessarily a huge unit as back up as a power
plant.
Dan Bloomquist
Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>>Why would a utility invest in hydrogen when there is a much better way?
>
>
> Convenience?
What is convenient about a capital cost of several dollars a watt and a
loss four times?
> I guess I'm imagining a fuel cell in
> every house or building, not necessarily a huge unit as back up as a power
> plant.
>
The economy of cost savings scales up, not down. Why would I want to
store energy at a capital cost of several dollars a watt and a loss four
times? Especially while there is an almost perfectly good grid out there?
If I want a contingency for the couple of hours a year the grid fails
me, I'll buy a Honda generator. Much, much cheaper.
That $600–900/MWh was a political debacle, hydrogen wouldn't have
changed a thing.
Eric Jacobsen
> > every house or building, not necessarily a huge unit as back up as a
power
> > plant.
> >
>
> The economy of cost savings scales up, not down. Why would I want to
> store energy at a capital cost of several dollars a watt and a loss four
> times? Especially while there is an almost perfectly good grid out there?
>
> If I want a contingency for the couple of hours a year the grid fails
> me, I'll buy a Honda generator. Much, much cheaper.
I'm not sure I buy (or have even read) all of Lovins' arguments, but he
would argue that smaller units can be even cheaper than larger, for various
reasons (207):
http://www.smallisprofitable.org/
You definitely have to give him credit for getting some new ideas out
there...
Don Lancaster
Pumped storage for automobiles would have problems with bridges and
overpasses.
Don Lancaster
>
> > Electrolysis will NEVER get more economical because of the staggering
> > loss of exergy involved.
>
> Now this is a bit of exaggeration eh? A more reasonable statement might be:
>
> "Electrolysis will continue to get more economical as the technology
> improves and the production volume increases. However, in the near future
> it will not become cheap enough to replace gasoline/natural gas as the
> standard energy storage medium."
>
> Now there's something we could have a debate about.
>
The laws of thermodynamics are not debatable.
Roland Paterson-Jones
> > Eric Jacobsen <nikn...@SPAMxmission.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What does make sense is to produce
> > hydrogen by electrolysis, instead of lowering the output of a baseload
> > plant (NG, coal, nuclear), assuming there is a market for the H2.
>
> It NEVER makes sense to produce hydrogen for bulk energy needs by
> electrolysis owing to the staggering loss of exergy.
Don, we've been through this so many times. Exergy loss through electrolysis
is small. I have to assume that you still, after so many years, have but a
fuzzy notion of what exergy is.
In simple terms, exergy is the potential to produce work in a given
environment. On the other hand, energy (measurement) is an exchange protocol
between its various forms. Exergy is calculated from a combination of energy
and enthropy. It's not a state function, since it presupposes an
environment. However, it's very useful to those of us who live in a fairly
fixed environment.
There is no 'staggering' loss of exergy in electrolysis.
Find another term (perhaps 'effiacy'?)
Roland
--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
Anthony Matonak
> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>
>>>Electrolysis will NEVER get more economical because of the staggering
>>>loss of exergy involved.
>>
>>Now this is a bit of exaggeration eh? A more reasonable statement might be:
>>
>>"Electrolysis will continue to get more economical as the technology
>>improves and the production volume increases. However, in the near future
>>it will not become cheap enough to replace gasoline/natural gas as the
>>standard energy storage medium."
>>
>>Now there's something we could have a debate about.
>
> The laws of thermodynamics are not debatable.
You are not debating thermodynamics, you are debating economics.
Money and energy are not the same thing.
Anthony
Roland Paterson-Jones
> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>
> > I think Lovins is hoping/assuming that reforming natural gas to hydrogen
> > would be a transitory thing while we transitioned to using more
renewable
> > resources via electrolysis more economically.
> >
>
> Electrolysis will NEVER get more economical because of the staggering
> loss of exergy involved.
> From a thermodynamic standpoint, electrolysis for bulk energy is
> monumentally stupid.
Don, we've been through this so many times. Exergy loss through electrolysis
daestrom
"Eric Jacobsen" <nikn...@SPAMxmission.com> wrote in message
> > > Myth #3. Making hydrogen uses more energy than it yields, so it's
>
>
> crude oil (88%)-> gasoline (16%)-> wheels of typical gasoline car = 14%
> crude oil (88%)-> gasoline (30%)-> wheels of Toyota Prius hybrid = 26%
> natural gas (70%)-> compressed H2 in car (60%)-> wheels of efficient fuel
> cell car = 42%
>
Hmmmm .... So if ng->compressedH2 is 70%, and any electric motor is 90%,
than that compressedH2-> wheels of 60% is probably made up of 90%
motor/controlls (optomistic to have solid-state controls that efficient),
and a H2 fuel cell that is at least 66% efficient.
Where are there any such fuel cells? I haven't seen any that perform at
such levels.
> So even though the natural gas to compressed H2 stage is less efficient
than
> refining gasoline, you more than make up for that in converting the energy
> in H2 to work.
Of course, getting H2 from NG is not reducing CO2 emissions much. So much
for the 'pollution-free' aspect of the hydrogen economy.
>
> He also gives scenarios where it may make economic sense to convert
> electricity to H2 and back (i.e. for peak electric usage).
>
And the overall efficiency of....
Coal => Electricity 25% => H2 30% =>wheels 60% (although I'm suspicious of
that last number). This is overall fossil fuel to wheels 4.5%. Quite a
bit *worse* than burning gasoline. With correspondingly more CO2 (and other
pollutants).
Proponents tend to focus only on the car's tailpipe emissions, claiming it
has a zero impact on the environment. When will people learn... sigh...
daestrom
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:3f53f...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> some of those myths are truths.
Apart from top-posting, that is sooo weak. Take issue with what you think is
invalid. This is just a waste of time and bandwidth.
You should know better.
Roland
--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
>
daestrom
> Richard Bell wrote:
>
> It NEVER makes sense to produce hydrogen for bulk energy needs by
> electrolysis owing to the staggering loss of exergy.
>
> Not now, not ever.
>
> The process is pretty much the same as 1:1 converting US dollars into
> Mexican pesos.
>
Come now Don, do you convert kWhr to ergs the same way? If you convert USD
to Pesos at the current exchange rate, you only loose whatever commission
the bank took. Pesos can be readily converted back to USD with only another
commission as a loss.
To suggest that the conversion is 1:1 is like trying to suggest you convert
any measurement to other units by simply changing the name, not multiplying
by a conversion factor. You of all people know you can't change kWhr to
ergs at 1:1, why on earth do you suggest changing currency that way.
Its a ridiculous statement.
daestrom
daestrom
> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>
> > I think Lovins is hoping/assuming that reforming natural gas to hydrogen
> > would be a transitory thing while we transitioned to using more
renewable
> > resources via electrolysis more economically.
> >
>
> Electrolysis will NEVER get more economical because of the staggering
> loss of exergy involved.
> From a thermodynamic standpoint, electrolysis for bulk energy is
> monumentally stupid.
>
> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/enerfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.
>
Using yourself as a reference to back up your own exaggerations is silly.
Why don't you do a detailed exergy analysis and post the *real* facts.
daestrom
Roland Paterson-Jones
I have read the document, and I agree with it 100%, apart from the assertion
that electrolysis is the most expensive way to make H2.
Most analyses of this kind assume grid electricity at its most expensive
(daily) rate, or subsidised rate according to the polemic of the Don.
Any electric to static energy (e.g. hydrogen, pumped storage) enables both
transient sources (solar, wind etc.) and an increase of base-load efficient
supply. Conversion consumers (electrolysis etc.) are quite happy to receive
their electric energy at 3a.m., when no-one else is buying. They are also
happy to do so whenever the sun is shining, or the wind is blowing,
regardless of the consumer demand on the grid.
Unfortunately for the oil industry, they are working with fixed cost per
power (regardless of fixed resources or supply chains, Iraq?)
Alternative sources will emergy commercially in our lifetimes. You can quote
me on this in 20 year's time.
Roland
--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
"Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:3f53f...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:vlam2ig...@corp.supernews.com...
> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> >
> > http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-20HydrogenMyths.pdf
> >
> > I thought it was an interesting read. If you're not interested in
slogging
> > through it I understand.
> Playing with the numbers shows that the heat energy in your bathwater
> could be used to put a small projectile into low orbit if only someone
> could come up with a device to convert it to kinetic energy efficiently,
> but it doesn't make it a good plan.
Even given Carnot (2nd thermo law) limitations?
> His proposed market manipulations ("Freebates," scrapping for credit,
> etc.) are hardly likely in a political climate that refuses to raise
> CAFE standards and has presided over an actual decline in fuel efficiency.
The US has skipped the Kyoto Protocol, but such schemes are the aim of the
latter. The idea is that only positive commercial incentives will encourage
the free market to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, G. Dubbaya
decided this was entirely uninteresting.
> I think the obvious flaws are shown by the target (consumer vehicles).
> If a fuel cell system were actually able to beat a Hybrid electric
> system diesel-electric trains would be the immediate logical choice as
> an application. Minimal redesign (already electric), retrofit possible,
> easier to convert infrastructure, and even a small percentage savings
> would have huge consequences. Funny that no one is rushing to roll out
> fuel cell locomotives, isn't it?
This is a new one to me. Why do electric trains need diesel?
Roland Paterson-Jones
> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> >
> > > Electrolysis will NEVER get more economical because of the staggering
> > > loss of exergy involved.
> >
> > Now this is a bit of exaggeration eh? A more reasonable statement might
be:
> >
> > "Electrolysis will continue to get more economical as the technology
> > improves and the production volume increases. However, in the near
future
> > it will not become cheap enough to replace gasoline/natural gas as the
> > standard energy storage medium."
> >
> > Now there's something we could have a debate about.
> >
>
> The laws of thermodynamics are not debatable.
I guess you're refering to the 'staggering loss of exergy' involved in
electrolysis. You're wrong, thermodynamically.
Roland
p.s. Don, even your assertion that 'The laws of thermodynamics are not
debatable' is wrong. Current physics is the best way we can predict our
world. Scientific endeavour is an iterative process of positing and
measuring. Accurate posits are all we have. There is no guarantee these same
posits will apply universally.
Don Lancaster
> Money and energy are not the same thing.
>
> Anthony
Total hogwash.
There's a big sign outside that says UNLEADED $1.64
You voted for this last week when you made a withdrawal from the ATM
pump at your local Texaco bank.
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:3F563A99...@eagle.ca...
>
> Eric Jacobsen included:
> > ... from the same page: "True, the overall round-trip efficiency of
using electricity
> > to split water, making hydrogen, storing it, and then converting it back
> > into electricity in a fuel cell is relatively low at about 45% (after
25%
> > electrolyzer losses and 40% fuel-cell losses) ...
>
> 40 percent fuel-cell losses?
>
> This cell loses 61 percent of LHV:
> http://www.ballard.com/pdfs/power%20gen/NEXASPECSHEET-FINAL-APR5_6.1.1.PDF
On the other hand, http://www.iit.edu/~smart/garrear/fuelcells.htm describes
a number of H2 fuel cell technologies with efficiencies varying from 40% to
80%, i.e. loss of 20% to 40%.
> What is the name, what are the specs, who is the maker
> of the air-breathing fuel cell whose losses
> in the single, DC production step
> do not exceed the alleged total losses for both steps?
Even your air-breathing fuel cell is efficient for driving a car (petrol
efficiency being about 10% in the urban cycle).
However, the O2 from the electrolysis is a valuable by-product. Perhaps not
for direct use in a chemical recombination with H2, but for Boron ignition
;), or more efficient fossil-fuel plants.
Roland
Roland Paterson-Jones
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
> > Money and energy are not the same thing.
> >
> > Anthony
>
> Total hogwash.
> There's a big sign outside that says UNLEADED $1.64
>
> You voted for this last week when you made a withdrawal from the ATM
> pump at your local Texaco bank.
No, you voted for it when you invaded Iraq a short while back.
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:eut5b.33103$yG2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> ... Electricity [...] => H2 30%
Daestrom, you're way off there. Current commercial electrolysis is 75%+,
leading edge is 90%+ and theoretical is >100% (by heating value).
Cosmopolite
Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:
To generate electricity
Bill Bradley
> Even given Carnot (2nd thermo law) limitations?
Depends on your Sink :^) It's a case of the energy is there but it's
not practical to use, just like the much of the hydrogen idea requires a
cheap, durable, mass producible fuel cell, and an infrastructure of course.
> The US has skipped the Kyoto Protocol, but such schemes are the aim of the
> latter. The idea is that only positive commercial incentives will encourage
> the free market to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, G. Dubbaya
> decided this was entirely uninteresting.
Why use free market when you can ignore the problem completely? Seems
to be the Bush plan.
>>I think the obvious flaws are shown by the target (consumer vehicles).
>> If a fuel cell system were actually able to beat a Hybrid electric
>>system diesel-electric trains would be the immediate logical choice as
>>an application. Minimal redesign (already electric), retrofit possible,
>>easier to convert infrastructure, and even a small percentage savings
>>would have huge consequences. Funny that no one is rushing to roll out
>>fuel cell locomotives, isn't it?
>
> This is a new one to me. Why do electric trains need diesel?
>
The big trains don't run on batteries, they use diesel generators to
drive electric motors. If there were reasonable gains to be made with
fuel cells, I'd suspect that GM Electromotive Division would be playing
with them instead of the passenger division. Take a look at
http://www.gmemd.com/en/locomotive/innovations/engine/Hengine/index.htm
They're touting "reliability, fuel efficiency, emission control and ease
of maintenance." You're already taking losses for running the diesel,
generating electricity then running the motors, sounds perfect for a
fuel cell, doesn't it?
Bill
G. R. L. Cowan
Roland Paterson-Jones included:
>
> "G. R. L. Cowan" <gco...@eagle.ca> wrote in message
> news:3F563A99...@eagle.ca...
> >
> > Eric Jacobsen included:
> > > ... from the same page: "True, the overall round-trip efficiency of
> using electricity
> > > to split water, making hydrogen, storing it, and then converting it back
> > > into electricity in a fuel cell is relatively low at about 45% (after
> 25%
> > > electrolyzer losses and 40% fuel-cell losses) ...
> >
> > 40 percent fuel-cell losses?
> >
> > This cell loses 61 percent of LHV:
> > http://www.ballard.com/pdfs/power%20gen/NEXASPECSHEET-FINAL-APR5_6.1.1.PDF
>
> On the other hand, http://www.iit.edu/~smart/garrear/fuelcells.htm describes
> a number of H2 fuel cell technologies with efficiencies varying from 40% to
> 80%, i.e. loss of 20% to 40%.
20 to 60 percent. The first equation on that page shows
electrons being created. Oh, the cosmicity.
G. R. L. Cowan
Bill Bradley included:
>
> Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:
>
> > Even given Carnot (2nd thermo law) limitations?
>
> Depends on your Sink :^) It's a case of the energy is there but it's
> not practical to use, just like the much of the hydrogen idea requires a
> cheap, durable, mass producible fuel cell,
If that were all the problem,
hydrogen-burning IC motors have long been researched,
and work just fine.
> and an infrastructure of course.
How many lH2 tankers are on the roads right now?
Enough that if there were as many hydrogen vehicles
as there are EVs, a few percent less slack in the tankers'
schedule would accommodate them.
Roland Paterson-Jones
> Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:
> > This is a new one to me. Why do electric trains need diesel?
> >
>
> The big trains don't run on batteries, they use diesel generators to
> drive electric motors. If there were reasonable gains to be made with
> fuel cells, I'd suspect that GM Electromotive Division would be playing
> with them instead of the passenger division. Take a look at
> http://www.gmemd.com/en/locomotive/innovations/engine/Hengine/index.htm
> They're touting "reliability, fuel efficiency, emission control and ease
> of maintenance." You're already taking losses for running the diesel,
> generating electricity then running the motors, sounds perfect for a
> fuel cell, doesn't it?
I thought electric trains ran off the grid, but I suppose this is only true
in urban areas. It it really that expensive to provide electricity to the
rail network?
On the other hand, the fact that they use diesel to generate electricity in
the first place is an admission that oil engines are only efficient at very
specific regimes.
Bill Bradley
> I thought electric trains ran off the grid, but I suppose this is only true
> in urban areas. It it really that expensive to provide electricity to the
> rail network?
When you're talking about individual freight trains drawing as much as
a small town (several MW), yes. Diesel-electric are also more weather
resistant.
> On the other hand, the fact that they use diesel to generate electricity in
> the first place is an admission that oil engines are only efficient at very
> specific regimes.
To maximize efficiency, yes. The transportation business is all about
maximizing efficiency (and therefor profit). If fuel cells were
durable and even a few percent more efficient that the diesel electric
system (enough to have a reasonable break even point) you'd think they
would be all over them. Oddly enough they aren't. This leads me to
suspect that either 1) they aren't considered durable enough to replace
the diesels and/or 2) they aren't that much more efficient than a hybrid
system.
Bill
Steve Spence
come back and we will discuss his points. I'm not a tosser ( a "polite" term
for one who plays with his own dick?), I'm a realist. Amory is less of a
realist. The hydrogen economy is a myth. The practical application of
hydrogen for transportation is a myth.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Roland Paterson-Jones" <rol...@rolandpj.com> wrote in message
news:3f5667e8$0$64...@hades.is.co.za...
Steve Spence
either on board diesel generators, or from overhead catenaries. In this
country overhead catenaries are rare, and usually fed by nuclear, oil, and
coal.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Roland Paterson-Jones" <rol...@rolandpj.com> wrote in message
news:3f566999$0$64...@hades.is.co.za...
Tony Wesley
> Who would have predicted in 1970 that the cost per
> byte of computer storage, or the cost per cycle of computing power would
> have dropped by so many orders of magnitude so fast?
Gordon Moore. Except he predicted it in 1965.
Steve Spence
think it's correct. Makes you a poser. Top posting is more convenient for
me. Live with it.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Roland Paterson-Jones" <rol...@rolandpj.com> wrote in message
news:3f56641f$0$64...@hades.is.co.za...
fkasner
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>
>>>Electrolysis will NEVER get more economical because of the staggering
>>>loss of exergy involved.
>>
>>Now this is a bit of exaggeration eh? A more reasonable statement might be:
>>
>>"Electrolysis will continue to get more economical as the technology
>>improves and the production volume increases. However, in the near future
>>it will not become cheap enough to replace gasoline/natural gas as the
>>standard energy storage medium."
>>
>>Now there's something we could have a debate about.
>>
>
>
> The laws of thermodynamics are not debatable.
>
Sure they are, Don. We've seen them debated by fools repeatedly on this
usenet group. What you mean is that they can't be rationally debated.
FK
Al Smith
> prohibitively inefficient.
> Myth #4. Delivering hydrogen to users would consume most of the energy it
> contains.
> Myth #5. Hydrogen can't be distributed in existing pipelines, requiring
> costly new ones.
All of the above was written by someone who is stupid or very good at
feigning stupidity.
Unless one has electricity that would otherwise go to waste, it is foolish
to "make" hydrogen.
Hydrogen is, for the most part, only of use if it is processed through a
fuel
cell. And hydrogen can be obtained from fossil fuels. What makes this all
rational is that a fuel cell is so much more efficient in converting the
energy
bound up in oil, gas, etc. into electricity than is combustion.
Although hydrogen may not be distributable in existing pipelines, natural
gas, oil,
and its derivatives are.
Duke McMullan N5GAX
> The laws of thermodynamics are not debatable.
Well . . . they are, but ONLY by the person who can show REPRODUCIBLE
experimental evidence that the laws of thermo are other than as advertised.
I've yet to meet that person.
d
--
Marijuana: It's a special kind of stupid.
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 mtm...@qwest.net
Dan Bloomquist
Duke McMullan N5GAX wrote:
> "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> news:3F5657B2...@tinaja.com...
>
>
>>The laws of thermodynamics are not debatable.
>
>
> Well . . . they are, but ONLY by the person who can show REPRODUCIBLE
> experimental evidence that the laws of thermo are other than as advertised.
>
> I've yet to meet that person.
>
Yep, yep.
Good to see you bakc.
You auta egg me on to fire up on 40 meters.
Best, Dan.
--
if( this == NULL )
return that;
Anthony Matonak
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>>Money and energy are not the same thing.
>
> There's a big sign outside that says UNLEADED $1.64
We've gone around this block before. Clearly you refuse to accept
common definitions and mix money and energy together freely in your
head in ways that make no sense. I can't keep you from trolling these
and other obvious falsehoods on the newsgroups but I can, occasionally,
point out how incredibly untrue they are.
Just to repeat myself (as I've said this before in response to your
argument that money=gas) if gas costs $1.64 where you are and it costs
$2.10 where I am, is there a different amount of energy in that gas?
There is certainly a different amount of money. If money=gas then it
MUST be the same amount of energy for the same amount of money. Since
this is so clearly NOT the case, your argument is hogwash.
Anthony
Chris Torek
daestrom <daes...@twcny.rr.com> writes:
>... [implying] a H2 fuel cell that is at least 66% efficient.
>
>Where are there any such fuel cells? I haven't seen any that perform at
>such levels.
Some solid-oxide fuel cells, combined with microturbines, can beat
the 60% heat-to-electricity barrier. But they burn CH4 (not H2)
and are way too large, heavy, and expensive for use in automobiles.
For stationary applications, microturbines combined with hot-water
or chilled-water delivery (or any other process heating needs) can
be 80 percent efficient, and have just crossed over to positive
ROIs in places (capital cost for the turbines themselves is still
$800 to $1000 per kW, and installation adds a lot, but the prices
are coming down now). (The microturbine generator turns 25 to 33
percent of the fuel's heating value into electricity, and the
remaining energy goes into the heat-recovery system, which of course
loses some through its heat exchanger.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems (BSD engineering)
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://67.40.109.61/torek/index.html (for the moment)
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
Tequila
and the Econazis are trying to stop production of electricity.
(except electricity that THEY consider green enough,
green-enough being a moving goal that THEY define)
Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> Twenty Hydrogen Myths - 12 July 2003
> AMORY B. LOVINS
> Rocky Mountain Institute
>
> "Recent public interest in hydrogen has elicited a great deal of
> conflicting, confusing, and often
> ill-informed commentary. This peer-reviewed white paper offers both lay and
> technical readers,
> particularly in the United States, a documented primer on basic hydrogen
> facts, weighs competing
> opinions, and corrects twenty widespread misconceptions. It explains why the
> rapidly growing
> engagement of business, civil society, and government in devising and
> achieving a transition
> to a hydrogen economy is warranted and, if properly done, could yield
> important national and
> global benefits."
>
> Myth #1. A whole hydrogen industry would need to be developed from scratch.
> Myth #2. Hydrogen is too dangerous, explosive, or "volatile" for common use
> as a fuel.
> Myth #3. Making hydrogen uses more energy than it yields, so it's
> prohibitively inefficient.
> Myth #4. Delivering hydrogen to users would consume most of the energy it
> contains.
> Myth #5. Hydrogen can't be distributed in existing pipelines, requiring
> costly new ones.
Steve Spence
hence hydrogen is not the clean, green pollution free fuel the oil
companies/government would like us to believe.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Tequila" <teq...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3F56F65F...@nowhere.com...
Don Lancaster
They are the same person who is developing synthetic spent carbide.
Don Lancaster
> Just to repeat myself (as I've said this before in response to your
> argument that money=gas) if gas costs $1.64 where you are and it costs
> $2.10 where I am, is there a different amount of energy in that gas?
>
> Anthony
Of course.
That is what exergy is all about.
Al Smith
Hydrogen can be obtained from any hydrocarbon.
"Tequila" <teq...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3F56F65F...@nowhere.com...
Fred B. McGalliard
"Dan Bloomquist" <lak...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F563B70...@citlink.net...
...
> Why would a utility invest in hydrogen when there is a much better way?
Nearest mountain over 500 miles away?
Mean neighbors own the mountain?
Fred B. McGalliard
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3F5657B2...@tinaja.com...
...
> The laws of thermodynamics are not debatable.
The laws, the assumptions under them, the logic used to compose them, and
their expression in practical applications and hypothetical designs can and
are debated to a fair-thee-well. Really, Don, haven't you ever been in a
physics class? I told you that you should be more careful in your attempting
to use real physics in your polemics. Thermodynamics is hard enough for the
professionals. Doing it for real applications such as electrochemistry is
very challenging. Besides, as you pointed out quite correctly, the awful
efficiency of a typical commercial electrolysis system (50-60%, and I
disremember if this is exergy in to exergy out or not) is so abysmal that
thermodynamics never even enters the picture as a limiting factor.
Fred B. McGalliard
> Just as valid as posting his table of contents without addressing why you
> think it's correct. Makes you a poser. Top posting is more convenient for
> me. Live with it.
Yeah. Us top posters gotta stick together. (oops, I bottomed this one. Me
Bad!)
Fred B. McGalliard
causing the doubling being greater than the physical problems presented.
This has remained true to today, but it, as well as the economic structure
pushing it, appear to be under a lot of stress. I wouldn't want to project
this process very much further.
"Tony Wesley" <tonyn...@tonywesley.com> wrote in message
news:FBGdnbZ5qqk...@wideopenwest.com...
Fred B. McGalliard
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
> > Money and energy are not the same thing.
> >
>
> Total hogwash.
> There's a big sign outside that says UNLEADED $1.64
The Don Lancaster Bot has struck again.
What does the price of hogwash have to do with exergy?
Does inflation mean that we get more or less energy per liter of hydrogen?
Fred B. McGalliard
"Anthony Matonak" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3F56C915...@verizon.net...
...
> Just to repeat myself (as I've said this before in response to your
> argument that money=gas) if gas costs $1.64 where you are and it costs
> $2.10 where I am, is there a different amount of energy in that gas?
> There is certainly a different amount of money. If money=gas then it
> MUST be the same amount of energy for the same amount of money. Since
> this is so clearly NOT the case, your argument is hogwash.
Thanks Anthony. Nice logical presentation.
Fred B. McGalliard
> Here's something for you. Go generate your own hydrogen and use it, then
> come back and we will discuss his points. I'm not a tosser ( a "polite"
term
> for one who plays with his own dick?), I'm a realist. Amory is less of a
> realist. The hydrogen economy is a myth. The practical application of
> hydrogen for transportation is a myth.
I have to take exception. Were we forced to (by pollution, war, or act of
congress) do without our vast resources of oil, or even to do with much less
of it, alternative fuels could be extremely valuable. The most interesting
liquid fuels are all made with hydrogen, implying that we will have a
hydrogen economy, even if the source is coal. "the hydrogen economy" is not
so much a myth as a misnomer. We will very likely be using a lot more
hydrogen in our future economy, although initially the major source of that
will be natural gas, followed by coal. Not the hydrogen economy imagined
I'll warrant. And the practical application of hydrogen for transportation
is just that of a source material for fuel synthesis.
Fred B. McGalliard
> electricity is not the major component of today's hydrogen, natural gas
is.
>
> hence hydrogen is not the clean, green pollution free fuel the oil
> companies/government would like us to believe.
Sure it is. Just as clean as electricity, which is produced by burning a lot
of natural gas in the west.
Chris1
Maybe it's 3) a 5000HP fuel cell wouldn't fit on a locomotive frame.
Chris
Don Lancaster
The fuel certainly would not.
Bill Bradley
>> To maximize efficiency, yes. The transportation business is all about
>>maximizing efficiency (and therefor profit). If fuel cells were
>>durable and even a few percent more efficient that the diesel electric
>>system (enough to have a reasonable break even point) you'd think they
>>would be all over them. Oddly enough they aren't. This leads me to
>>suspect that either 1) they aren't considered durable enough to replace
>>the diesels and/or 2) they aren't that much more efficient than a hybrid
>>system.
>
> Maybe it's 3) a 5000HP fuel cell wouldn't fit on a locomotive frame.
It's not like length is a limiting factor with a freight locomotive so
a series of connected standard length cars would solve that problem.
Ditto the fuel issue. It's still a reliability/efficiency problem. If
there were gains to be had with current technology they would be going
for it. In a $36B/yr [US, 2000] industry even fractions of a percentage
are serious money.
Bill
Chris1
That's true. I suppose if the fuel savings were there, they could just
string 5 x 1000HP fuel cell engines like they did with diesels in the old
days. I was at the Illinois Railway Museum a few weekends ago, and they
have an interesting old locomotive on display. It looked like a typical old
2-unit diesel locomotive, until I read the sign in front of it. The first
unit was a smallish 850HP diesel, and the second was a 10,000HP gas
turbine! The diesel engine was used for starting the turbine. I can't even
imagine the noise that thing must have made. It was built in 1948, which
seems pretty early for a gas turbine anything. It was also a real gas-hog.
Chris
Tequila
Hydrogen can be obtained from any hydrocarbon.
and steam.
These methods also release carbon dioxide.
Previous comment written in the context of...
no carbon dioxide.
Kimmo Klemola
sense we understand it today.
Kimmo
Steve Spence
point it's silly to call it a hydrogen economy. It's really a hydrocarbon
economy.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Kimmo Klemola" <kkle...@lut.fi> wrote in message
news:3F5846B1...@lut.fi...
Richard Bell
Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>Richard Bell wrote:
>>
>> In article <bj3fp8$rjv$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>,
>> Eric Jacobsen <nikn...@SPAMxmission.com> wrote:
>>
>> > What does make sense is to produce
>> hydrogen by electrolysis, instead of lowering the output of a baseload
>> plant (NG, coal, nuclear), assuming there is a market for the H2.
>
>It NEVER makes sense to produce hydrogen for bulk energy needs by
>electrolysis owing to the staggering loss of exergy.
>
>Not now, not ever.
Perhaps I should have said "makes more sense". One of the problems that
faced Ontario in the recent blackout was the fact that while a candu reactor
is amenable to being refuelled while running at max rated load, its large
size makes it difficult to restart quickly (I believe that it ramps at
1% per hour, to make sure that the whole core comes up together).
This quirk was not enough by itself, but combined with the blackout lasting
long enough to allow xenon poisoning meant that it was over a week before
things got back to normal. Although I would be happy to be wrong (and Ontario
Power Generation, too, most likely), I suspect that the only way to prevent
xenon poisoning is to run the reactor at a level high enough to prevent it
from accumulating. In the absence of loads on the grid, this implies a large
resistor bank (if pumped storage is not colocated with the plant). If you
have to waste the energy otherwise, producing hydrogen is not so bad an idea.
>
>The process is pretty much the same as 1:1 converting US dollars into
>Mexican pesos.
>
If your choice is to convert US dollars to pesos, or switching off your
printer, it all depends on whether printing costs more than the pesos and
if stopping your press will cause you to lose potential sales in the future.
In the scenario of electrolysing H2 at a nuclear plant (you are probably
correct that no other facility could do this) to level loads, the choices
are to produce fewer dollars when the load decreases, or produce fewer
dollars and also produce some pesos. As a nuclear plant's operating costs
do not vary that much with output, a large proportion of 1:1 conversion
of dollars to pesos can be made before it makes more sense to just shut down.
Electrolysing H2 also gives a nuclear plant a way to avoid xenon poisoning
in the event of a grid failure.
daestrom
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
> > Just to repeat myself (as I've said this before in response to your
> > argument that money=gas) if gas costs $1.64 where you are and it costs
> > $2.10 where I am, is there a different amount of energy in that gas?
>
> >
> > Anthony
>
> Of course.
> That is what exergy is all about.
>
BZZZZT, We're sorry, that's not correct. But thanks for playing....
How many BTU's difference is there between a gallon of unleaded regular (87
octane) gasoline in NY at $1.79 and PA at $1.59??? Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
And where, in your great money=energy fantasy, does the difference in state
and local taxes fit in?? Sales tax here in the city limits is different
than in the rural area. If money==energy, I should be able to get more mpg.
daestrom
Richard Bell
Eric Jacobsen <nikn...@SPAMxmission.com> wrote:
>> >> > Myth #3. Making hydrogen uses more energy than it yields, so it's
>> >> > prohibitively inefficient.
>> >>
>that
>> >> generation takes more energy than returned in subsequent use is not a
>> >myth.
>> >
>> >I agree that this is very poorly phrased as a summary to the report. His
>> >point here is that the fact that some energy is lost in the back and
>forth
>> >conversion process should not be used as an argument to discount the use
>of
>> >hydrogen.
>> >
>> >He gives numbers for well-to-wheels efficiency of three types of cars:
>> >
>> >crude oil (88%)-> gasoline (16%)-> wheels of typical gasoline car = 14%
>> >crude oil (88%)-> gasoline (30%)-> wheels of Toyota Prius hybrid = 26%
>> >natural gas (70%)-> compressed H2 in car (60%)-> wheels of efficient fuel
>> >cell car = 42%
>>
>> Here we strike the rock of availability. Producing H2 from natural gas
>> competes with home heating and electricity production, which will drive
>> up the prices of all three, and require the construction of new gas
>pipelines,
>> just to distribute the natural gas (assuming additional supplies are
>there).
>
>I think Lovins is hoping/assuming that reforming natural gas to hydrogen
>would be a transitory thing while we transitioned to using more renewable
>resources via electrolysis more economically.
>
For H2 to replace gasoline, you are looking at expanding the network of
central generating stations. While a windfarm may take less time to set
up than a nuclear plant, if you need to expand by multiple gigawatts, nuclear
takes both less time and less money, not to mention less land.
>
>> >So even though the natural gas to compressed H2 stage is less efficient
>than
>> >refining gasoline, you more than make up for that in converting the
>energy
>> >in H2 to work.
>> >
>> >He also gives scenarios where it may make economic sense to convert
>> >electricity to H2 and back (i.e. for peak electric usage).
>>
>> This makes no sense whatsoever. What does make sense is to produce
>> hydrogen by electrolysis, instead of lowering the output of a baseload
>> plant (NG, coal, nuclear), assuming there is a market for the H2.
>
>economic sense to use off-peak (baseline) power plant capacity to make
>hydrogen. You're saying that it would make more sense to then use that
>hydrogen for something else rather than converting it back to electricity
>via fuel cells? He's saying that it _could_ make sense to do so. From page
>11: "When the cost of peak power for the top 50–150 hours a year is
>$600–900/MWh, typically 30–40 times the cost of baseload power (~$20/MWh),
>the economics of storage become quite interesting." (Not sure where those
>numbers come from :)
There is a short term where this may be true, but once a hydrogen economy
takes off, converting H2 back to electricity costs more than base load
electricity and peaking loads are met by reducing the production of H2.
There will be no peaking costs, as there will be no peaking generators.
His numbers could be spot on, but once electrolysed H2 can be sold, the
numbers all change, against his assumptions of the viability of converting
H2 back to electricity.
>
>
>> If the demand rises above the plant's capacity, fire up the NG gas turbine
>> (which is alot more efficient than a fuel cell powered by electrolysed
>H2).
>
>Again, something that could go either way, depending on the details. from
>the same page: "True, the overall round-trip efficiency of using electricity
>to split water, making hydrogen, storing it, and then converting it back
>into electricity in a fuel cell is relatively low at about 45% (after 25%
>electrolyzer losses and 40% fuel-cell losses) plus any byproduct heat
>recaptured from both units for space-conditioning or water heating. But this
>can still be worthwhile because it uses power from an efficient baseload
>plant (perhaps even a combined cycle plant converting 50–60% of its fuel to
>electricity) to displace a very inefficient peaking power plant (a
>simple-cycle gas turbine or engine-generator, often only 15–20%efficient)."
The problem here is that the efficiency of a simple cycle gas turbine is not
15 to 20 percent, but 25 to 40 percent. The reason is market pressures. The
more efficient your gas turbine peaking station, the sooner you can start to
sell power adn the more power you can sell. High efficiency is not as hard as
some people think. In the fifties, the Napier Nomad (a bizarre mating of a
gas turbine and diesel engine) achieved a peak efficiency of 45%.
>
>
>> Minor sidenote: This factor is one of the things that the proponents of
>> wind and solar tend to ignore, anything that makes their choice of
>> intermittent reliable allows a baseload, central station to run flat out.
>> The resultant drop in electricity prices drive the intermittents off of
>> the grid.
>
>Good point, but I don't really see this as a big worry. Either the
>intermittent power sources help the grid or they don't. If peak-hour
>electricity is really more expensive than off-peak (by definition it is),
>then wind/solar should be able to compete economically for those peak-hours,
>as long as they are more expensive than your baseline power plant at the
>same ratio of peak to non-peak prices.
That is just it. By allowing the central stations to fill in the
valleys between load peaks by producing H2, the solar and wind producers
must compete directly against the nuclear and NG combined cycle plants.
The intermittents (except for hydro, which comes with its own handy storage,
that is so good that nobody complains that hydro only produces power when it
rains), cannot compete. The reason that peak generators survive is that
you can call them and have power in minutes, or even before you hang up.
In the hydrogen economy, there are NO peaking generators and all power is
sold at ther base load rate. The only time when H2 might be converted
back to electricity is if there is an unforeseen drop in H2 demand that is
coincident spike in electricity demand that is beyond the installed
capacity of the grid to handle.
>
>(I guess my assumption here is that alternative sources are going to come
>online gradually and distributed over many small locations, rather than say,
>replacing a coal plant with a giant solar farm...another benefit of hydrogen
>in the long term, is that it would give us a way to store up energy from
>intermittent sources so that eventually we wouldn't need to rely on the big
>coal plants for baseline usage.)
>
>
Alternative sources are only competitive if you are at a location off of the
grid. Grid connections are about ten thousand (CAN) per kilometer, so if
you are building your dream home in the woods, alternatives save you a lot
of money, but if your home already has a grid connection, the alternatives
make much less sense, economically.
Don Lancaster
>
> For H2 to replace gasoline, you are looking at expanding the network of
> central generating stations. While a windfarm may take less time to set
> up than a nuclear plant, if you need to expand by multiple gigawatts, nuclear
> takes both less time and less money, not to mention less land.
> >
Power plants have nothing whatsoever to do with hydrogen generation.
Electrolysis is wildly and laughingly unsuitable for bulk hydrogen
energy because of its staggering exergy loss. Thermodynamic fundamentals
guarantee this.
For H2 to replace gasoline, you'll need a lot more methane to reform.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/enregfun.pdf
Don Lancaster
The point is that you cannot consider energy alone. You have to
simultaneously consider energy, exergy, and entropy.
An ice cube has the same energy in Nome as Yuma. Its exergy is far lower
in Nome.
The exergy of gasoline varies with its price.
While there may be short term variations such as taxes or subsidies,
long term thermodynamics ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES that an economy HAS to be
energy driven. Thus any exchange vouchers (such as money) MUST
ultimately be energy based. No energy = no economy.
Tony Wesley
> Moore observed.
He both observed the trend and predicted it would continue.
Until at least 1975.
> I think what he observed was a result of the economic forces
> causing the doubling being greater than the physical problems presented.
> This has remained true to today, but it, as well as the economic structure
> pushing it, appear to be under a lot of stress. I wouldn't want to project
> this process very much further.
Well, it's gone on about 3 decades longer than he originally stated. You're
right, it may be reaching its end.
Chris1
Wow, I can't believe Don L actually wrote that. Now I know he's not dealing
with a full deck. Must be pretty desolate out there in Bufu, AZ.
Chris
Fred B. McGalliard
"Richard Bell" <rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:bja50t$cg3$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca...
...
> That is just it. By allowing the central stations to fill in the
> valleys between load peaks by producing H2, the solar and wind producers
> must compete directly against the nuclear and NG combined cycle plants.
> The intermittents (except for hydro, which comes with its own handy
storage,
> that is so good that nobody complains that hydro only produces power when
it
> rains), cannot compete. The reason that peak generators survive is that
> you can call them and have power in minutes, or even before you hang up.
> In the hydrogen economy, there are NO peaking generators and all power is
> sold at ther base load rate. The only time when H2 might be converted
> back to electricity is if there is an unforeseen drop in H2 demand that is
> coincident spike in electricity demand that is beyond the installed
> capacity of the grid to handle.
Interesting point. The very to super very expensive peaking plants can be
trashed, replaced by several large base load plants, and the base load is
dumped into H2 to keep from making the plant managers crazy. This makes the
H2 almost free, certainly not a direct relationship to our electric power
charges. Your last sentence however is in error. The back conversion is used
to run a peaking generator that is otherwise unfueled, example a coal plant
after the neighbors get it turned off due to acid rain. Using this reduces
the size of your baseload plants and may make the system a bit more robust,
like when a long range line drops out you can snap the plant into operation
and folks won't complain too much about the steam output. The overall design
still needs peak plants to fill in while new baseload is built, and during
down times, just the fuel is basically free, (or perhaps just inexpensive in
this sort of trade). This has nothing to do with the cost of the hydrogen
when you need more than the baseload can make as waste load leveling.
Fred B. McGalliard
...
> An ice cube has the same energy in Nome as Yuma. Its exergy is far lower
> in Nome.
> The exergy of gasoline varies with its price.
Are you trying to be funny? Exergy is a quantity from physics, unless you
have secretly redefined it. I can measure it in the lab, and I assure you
that my measurements would not include a phone call to the local gas station
asking after the price.
Eric Jacobsen
Fred, what is your definition of exergy? I have already seen Don's...
Roland Paterson-Jones
> daestrom wrote:
> > How many BTU's difference is there between a gallon of unleaded regular
(87
> > octane) gasoline in NY at $1.79 and PA at $1.59??? Zero. Zip. Nada.
Zilch.
> >
> > And where, in your great money=energy fantasy, does the difference in
state
> > and local taxes fit in?? Sales tax here in the city limits is different
> > than in the rural area. If money==energy, I should be able to get more
mpg.
>
> The point is that you cannot consider energy alone. You have to
> simultaneously consider energy, exergy, and entropy.
Exergy will suffice in this limited example. I'll remind you again, exergy
is the available work in a given environment.
> An ice cube has the same energy in Nome as Yuma. Its exergy is far lower
> in Nome.
> The exergy of gasoline varies with its price.
No it doesn't. If this were true, then petrol prices in Texas would be
permanently higher than New Hampshire.
> While there may be short term variations such as taxes or subsidies,
> long term thermodynamics ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES that an economy HAS to be
> energy driven.
Ummm, no, trade and industry have been rife through the history of mankind.
> Thus any exchange vouchers (such as money) MUST
> ultimately be energy based. No energy = no economy.
What absolute twaddle, trade and industry have been rife through the history
of mankind. Countries had an economic system well before the current oil
age. What are you talking about, dude?
Roland
--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
Roland Paterson-Jones
This is Don's definition:
"This Thermodynamic Economics
and other websites tell us that exergy
has a precise definition. With liquid
fuels, exergy is related to a property
called the Gibbs Free Energy.
But real-world economics can give
you a somewhat looser definition of
exergy. Just by asking "how much is
this stuff worth?" "
In other words, baseball has the same exergy as 20 gallons of gasoline.
The real definition of exergy is 'available work in the ambient
environment'. 'Work' in the scientific sense, i.e. mechanical energy.
A given block of ice has more exergy in a 50C environment than a 0C one.
Fred B. McGalliard
"Eric Jacobsen" <nikn...@SPAMxmission.com> wrote in message
news:bjaumr$14s$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
Don's is inconsistent as he applies it. "mine" is just what you will find in
any thermodynamics text. I certainly wouldn't want to stand on anything
else, and you are perfectly welcome to find any fault in my grasp of the
definition. If I recall correctly, and about half my texts don't even
mention the term, it is used to clarify the separation of heat energy from
available energy (that is the amount of work you can get the heat to do), so
that the same amount of heat energy with a higher temperature difference
between the source and sink implies a higher exergy (or ability to do work),
even though the heat energy is the same. It is an obscure usage because by
the time you actually do all the entropy calculations and such, it is
generally unnecessary. Physicists like parsimony usually and don't like
inventing a new term when an old one, energy, is perfectly good if you do
the physics right. In a few situations the term is helpful in simplifying
the evaluation of simple heat engine stuff so it is not out of place in
Don't evaluation, he just doesn't do it right.
Don Lancaster
>
> "Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote in message
> news:HKrDM...@news.boeing.com...
> >
>
Not even wrong.
Exergy is an ENVIRONMENTALLY DEPENDENT quantity from physics.
It is a measure of the reversibly recoverable remaining energy.
This depends first upon the surrounding Delta-T temperature and secondly
upon the energy/dollars/amortization required for transfer.
Exergy changes dramatically depending upon where the ice cube is.
1000 watts of resistance heat in an electric kiln has much, much higher
exergy than 1000 watts of resistance heat in a heating pad.
Which is why economics is inherently a subset of thermodynamics.
Tony Wesley
> The point is that you cannot consider energy alone. You have to
> simultaneously consider energy, exergy, and entropy.
>
> An ice cube has the same energy in Nome as Yuma. Its exergy is far lower
> in Nome.
> The exergy of gasoline varies with its price.
Amazing. Then there is a 10% difference in gasoline exergy along
Michigan Avenue in the western suburbs of Detroit.
daestrom
> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>
> Not even wrong.
>
> Exergy is an ENVIRONMENTALLY DEPENDENT quantity from physics.
> It is a measure of the reversibly recoverable remaining energy.
>
> This depends first upon the surrounding Delta-T temperature and secondly
> upon the energy/dollars/amortization required for transfer.
>
> Exergy changes dramatically depending upon where the ice cube is.
>
> 1000 watts of resistance heat in an electric kiln has much, much higher
> exergy than 1000 watts of resistance heat in a heating pad.
>
> Which is why economics is inherently a subset of thermodynamics.
>
BZZZT. Thanks again for playing, but you mixed up your terminology, and we
like accurate terminology.
Now, if you had said, "1000 watt-hours of energy in an electric kiln has
higher exergy than 1000 watt-hours of energy in a heating pad", the judges
might have let it slide.
A watt is a measure of power, not energy. I *thought* you knew at least
that much.
But it is true that exergy is dependent on what you chose for 'the
environment'. So are you saying the environment in NY is so different than
in PA, that a gallon of gasoline in NY has ($1.54/$1.79) the exergy in NY?
What parameter of the environment causes this difference. Certainly not
temperature, as the weather report for today shows NY will be about the same
as PA.
Your arguments about energy==money does have some *limited* application, but
it is vague and cannot be used as some great 'law'. There are too many
exceptions and special cases. Admittedly a kWhr of electricity is more
useful than a kWhr of gasoline in many situations, and it cost more because
of the 'usefulness' added by the power plant (they did afterall, have to
burn more than a kWhr of coal). But that depends on what you want the
energy for, how you want to use it, and how much capital equipment is needed
to use the particular form of energy. And public demand for a particular
form of energy has a great deal to do with its price.
The current rise in NG prices has little to do with its energy content
changing, nor the environment in which it's used. But changes in demand
that occur faster than the supply can accomodate have a lot to do with the
price increases. This is yet another 'exception' to your 'energy==money'
formula.
daestrom
Steve Spence
"Exergy is a term used in connection with the Second Law of Thermodynamics
to describe the irreversible losses that occurs within any thermal or power
cycle. Inevitably, when heat is transferred from a high temperature source
to a lower one, some Exergy is destroyed.
Exergy is defined as the availability to perform useful work from a given
energy source, and can be expressed in mathematical terms as the product of
energy (or enthalpy) of the primary energy source and the ideal thermal (or
power) conversion process. "
No mention of money or capital at all.......
also see:
http://www.exergie.nl/whatis.html
http://www.vtt.fi/rte/projects/annex37/presentation_of_annex37.htm
http://www.holon.se/folke/kurs/Ecologicaldevelopment/Termodyn_en.shtml
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Eric Jacobsen" <nikn...@SPAMxmission.com> wrote in message
news:bjaumr$14s$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
>
Don Lancaster
Correct.
That is why exergy is such an economically useful (and profoundly
fundamental) concept.
Don Lancaster
>
> My text says:
>
> "Exergy is a term used in connection with the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> to describe the irreversible losses that occurs within any thermal or power
> cycle. Inevitably, when heat is transferred from a high temperature source
> to a lower one, some Exergy is destroyed.
>
> Exergy is defined as the availability to perform useful work from a given
> energy source, and can be expressed in mathematical terms as the product of
> energy (or enthalpy) of the primary energy source and the ideal thermal (or
> power) conversion process. "
>
> No mention of money or capital at all.......
>
> also see:
>
> http://www.exergie.nl/whatis.html
> http://www.vtt.fi/rte/projects/annex37/presentation_of_annex37.htm
> http://www.holon.se/folke/kurs/Ecologicaldevelopment/Termodyn_en.shtml
> --
> Steve Spence
The above not only mentions money and capital but it clearly defines it.
"ability to perform useful work from a given energy source" must, of
course, include all external energy costs of performing that useful
work.
Jed Checketts
> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> > Twenty Hydrogen Myths - 12 July 2003
> > AMORY B. LOVINS
> > Rocky Mountain Institute
> >
> >
> > "Recent public interest in hydrogen has elicited a great deal of
> > conflicting, confusing, and often
> > ill-informed commentary. This peer-reviewed white paper offers both lay and
> > technical readers,
> > particularly in the United States, a documented primer on basic hydrogen
> > facts, weighs competing
> > opinions, and corrects twenty widespread misconceptions. It explains why the
> > rapidly growing
> > engagement of business, civil society, and government in devising and
> > achieving a transition
> > to a hydrogen economy is warranted and, if properly done, could yield
> > important national and
> > global benefits."
> > http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-20HydrogenMyths.pdf
>
> These scan pretty good to me.
> >Myth #3. Making hydrogen uses more energy than it yields, so it's
> >prohibitively inefficient.
>
> is correct. If you attempt to use H2O as your hydrogen source and then
> combine the Hydrogen with Oxygen, you lose. If you use hydrocarbons for
> your hydrogen source you defeat the purpose of the exercise.
If you produce hydride using normally flared natural gas, the hydride
can be transported by ship, rail, or truck. The hydride can produce
hydrogen upon demand. The "efficiency" of flaring natural gas into
the atmosphere is 0%. Doing something WITH the normally wasted
resource is considerably MORE efficient than this.
>
> > Myth #5. Hydrogen can't be distributed in existing pipelines, requiring
> > costly new ones.
>
> Show me an existing line that will carry hydrogen at energy densities
> anywhere near those currently used for natural gas or oil. Not just
> that will carry hydrogen, but an equal amount of energy per time.
A slurry of plastic coated hydride pellets in water can deliver FAR
more energy per time with a given size pipeline than natural gas.
>
> > Myth #6. We don't have practical ways to run cars on gaseous hydrogen, so
> > cars must continue to use liquid fuels.
>
> Try talking to Mazda about the power loss, weight and storage required
> to run an ICE on hydrogen. They've been working on this for over a
> decade and it's sure not practical now.
Mazda's work has been with ABSORPTION type hydrides which are
notoriously cumbersome. Newer more technologically advanced hydrides
are now available such as pelletized lithium or sodium hydride. I
believe that hydrides will give liquid hydrocarbon fuels a very
serious challenge.
>
> >Myth #9. Hydrogen is too expensive to compete with gasoline.
>
> Citations to the contrary? Last breakdown I saw was 10x the price of
> gasoline per BTU.
>
> > Myth #11. Manufacturing enough hydrogen to run a car fleet is a gargantuan
> > and hugely expensive task.
> > Myth #15. There are more attractive ways to provide sustainable mobility
> > than adopting hydrogen.
> > Myth #16. Because the U.S. car fleet takes roughly 14 years to turn over,
> > little can be done to change car technology in the short term.
>
> Yep. Care to back up your assertions?
>
> Bill
I have spoken to Amory a few times. He does appear to be stuck on a
wonderful fantasyland hydrogen infrastructure involving pipelines
crisscrossing the country. I believe this dream would have been
easier to implement if it were built BEFORE all the schools, shopping
centers, parks, houses, and other components of cities were in place.
I believe that a good interim compromise would be to produce chemical
hydrides such as lithium or sodium hydride. These hydrides could be
produced using energy from wind, solar, biomass, or normally flared
sources of "stranded" natural gas. Hydrides can be easily transported
at room temperature and room pressure by trucks, boats, or trains to
anywhere hydrogen is needed using existing infrastructure.
Remember, the cost of fuel which is normally flared is essentially
$0.00 per btu. According to the energy information administration
(eia.doe.gov), there is enough vented or flared natural gas in the
United States alone to fuel every vehicle in the State of California.
Jed Checketts
West Covina, CA
626-915-5006
Dan Bloomquist
Chris1 wrote:
>
>
> Maybe it's 3) a 5000HP fuel cell wouldn't fit on a locomotive frame.
>
> Chris
It's been over a year ago I read they were pushing on 2kw a liter with
SOFC. That's less than 2 cubic meters.
Best, Dan.
--
if( this == NULL )
return that;
daestrom
"Dan Bloomquist" <lak...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F5A90F8...@citlink.net...
>
>
> Chris1 wrote:
> >
> >
> > Maybe it's 3) a 5000HP fuel cell wouldn't fit on a locomotive frame.
> >
> > Chris
>
> It's been over a year ago I read they were pushing on 2kw a liter with
> SOFC. That's less than 2 cubic meters.
>
From memory, a railroad diesel engine can measure about 8m long, 2m wide and
3m tall and develop 5000 hp. 5000hp/48m^3 works out to about 77kW/m^3.
daestrom
Cosmopolite
daestrom wrote:
If I'm reading this debate correctly, and I may not be, it has something to do
with the total energy in a system. The point would be; how much total energy
does it take to earn $1.79 in NY versus $1.59 in PA ?
Roland Paterson-Jones
> Steve Spence wrote:
> >
> > Exergy is defined as the availability to perform useful work from a
given
> > energy source, and can be expressed in mathematical terms as the product
of
> > energy (or enthalpy) of the primary energy source and the ideal thermal
(or
> > power) conversion process. "
The more general statement is that exergy is the maximum available work
(mechanical energy) from a given closed system, in a given environment.
Your above statement in terms of enthalpy is broken, for example, by osmotic
potential energy.
> The above not only mentions money and capital but it clearly defines it.
>
> "ability to perform useful work from a given energy source" must, of
> course, include all external energy costs of performing that useful
> work.
If your notion of 'exergy' is purely economic, then you must find a new
name. Caviar is very expensive, and takes much energy and exergy to put on
your table. Gold is dug from way down in the earth, and purified into
ingots.
Neither caviar, nor gold, holds any exergy (well, caviar holds a little!).
Michael Daly
> trade and industry have been rife through the history
> of mankind. Countries had an economic system well before the current oil
> age. What are you talking about, dude?
Why do you assume that oil is the only form of energy? When i studied
econominc history oh-so-long ago, it was all about energy - vegetable
matter, animal dung or oils, coal, oil... All economies are driven by energy
and the ability to use it effectively. Britain's industrial revolution was driven
by coal-fired steam engines.
On this, I'd have to agree with Don.
Mike