OT Hydrogen economy, not?

[Don Klipstein]

John Larkin wrote:

Yes :-(

But nuclear has one huge problem, the final storage. Throwing it all
into some underground cavity ain't so cool.

The biggest obstance I have heard of to dumping it into a salt dome is
some requirement to monitor it. Probably required by antinuker
obstructionists who don't want the waste disposal issue solved.

Of course, if the waste was going someplace temporary, we need to
monitor it. But salt domes have an impressive rate of holding petroleum
for a couple hundred million years. Nuclear waste won't go much farther
if it's dry, and especially if it's vitrified.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Martin Griffith]

It's the pressure that's a concern. Way back when in the Netherlands I
drove a propane-powered car on occasion and there were places where
these were not allowed to pass through and places where you weren't
allowed to park it.



Yes :-(

But nuclear has one huge problem, the final storage. Throwing it all
into some underground cavity ain't so cool.

Some facts and figures here
http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/default.htm?TypeID=2&Item=15
look for Mar 04


martin

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me to
believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
Conclusion:
According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many of
the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of
hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.

It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
choice for carrying energy.

Hydrogen is a potential good way of transporting energy if a lot of
technical difficulties are solved first. It will take quite some time,
and by then we may have enough clean energy sources to make it viable.
It would enable us to use energy without thinking too much about
potential consequenses.

In the meantime, i think methane should be explored more. It is easy
to produce in large quantities, and it can be made from scrap. If you
take your average garden-cuttings and add a litle cow-manure, you got
the process running.

Methane can be made into methanol, with pretty much the same qualities
as ethanol. (Do not know if this is an energy intensive process
though.) or you may just compress it - add a litle prophane, and use
it in the same way as natural gas.

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

Not only that, the carbon itself can be used. So 100% utilization of
the atoms for energy, too. That beautifully summarizes the problem
posed in replacing liquid hydrocarbons for individual use. There is
nothing better by way of energy per unit volume, energy per unit mass,
demonstrated large-scale safety, easy delivery and convenience, etc

You are correct in that hydrocarbons contain a lot of energy compared
to volume/weight. But remember that ICE engines do not get to use all
that potential energy for movement.

If you compare to electricity, or a source that produces electricity
efficiently, you get a better deal with a energy to weight/volume of
1/3. You also get other advantages, like smaller engine size/weight
and very low transmission-loss that gives even better figures. etc.

In other words, it is not the potential energy density that is most
interesting, but the desity of "usable energy".

 

[Martin Griffith]

We still need to monitor it. Nuclear waste could some day become an item
that is very desired by the more shady elements of society.

He'll be out of office in November


martin

 

[Martin Griffith]

Says depending on the "carbon credits" nuclear may be free. I bet
that'll lead to some hissy fits among warmingists.

Carbon credits sound like a Big Monster (tm) Scam, full of truthyness
and dodgy dealing.

I bet a vitrifed haggis that less than 10% actually exist, and most
are just on paper, for bookeeping purposes and of course, for

<profit>




martin

 

[Don Klipstein]

We still need to monitor it. Nuclear waste could some day become an item
that is very desired by the more shady elements of society.

Once one is done adding waste to a particular salt dome, fill the mile
deep borehole into the salt dome with concrete. Once the concrete has
cured for a couple of days, it should be rather trivial to monitor for any
Bad Guys redrilling the the way into the salt dome.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[TheM]

No, hot. But cold doesn't work either.

Best regards,
James Arthur

Look at the sky, seems to work pretty well.
Can you show me example for cold?

M

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

You are correct in that hydrocarbons contain a lot of energy compared
to volume/weight. But remember that ICE engines do not get to use all
that potential energy for movement.

If you compare to electricity, or a source that produces electricity
efficiently, you get a better deal with a energy to weight/volume of
1/3. You also get other advantages, like smaller engine size/weight
and very low transmission-loss that gives even better figures. etc.

In other words, it is not the potential energy density that is most
interesting, but the desity of "usable energy".

Always good to keep in mind.

But it does nothing about the issue that fossil fuels are essentially
free to the producers who only have to spend a quart getting a gallon
out of the ground, refining it, and delivering it on-site.

It's an impossible economic target to beat.

Jon

 

[amdx]

As long as we are vetting all the various length hydrocarbon chains
for potential use as liquid or gaseous transportation fuel, we should
analyze/discuss butane and/or butanol, which is a room temperature
liquid like gasoline, and doesnt have to be compressed like propane.
Any reason you couldnt pump a tank full of butanol into an E85 flex
fule vehicle?

Yes Bob, butanol seems to have many advantages over the farm lobbies baby
ethanol. Ethanol production is a bad choice.
Seems like the best choice for a gasoline replacement.
Mike

 

[Eeyore]

I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me to
believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
Conclusion:
According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many of
the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of
hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.

All very true. Note especially hydrogen embrittlement.

It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
choice for carrying energy.

It's just a 'flavour of the month' thing.

Graham

 

[James Arthur]

Look at the sky, seems to work pretty well.
Can you show me example for cold?

M

The quote was about things we're spending billions
on that don't work. Don't, not can't.

By which Neon John could only have meant hot fusion,
not cold.

You erred in correcting him.

Speaking of 'don't,' have you a fusion reactor on
your keychain?

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Eeyore]

Of course all that is true. Hydrogen is a failure as an energy transport
medium. What it does extremely well is provide an excuse to pass out billions
in corporate and scientific welfare dollars, otherwise known as grants and
research contracts.

It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it just sounds
soooo sexy.

So True.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

But ITER is almost certainly going to be big enough to produce more
power than it consumes

http://www.iter.org/

and is intended to be a test-bed for the components of commercial
fusion power generators.

Will it work ?

Graham

 

[krw]

He'll be out of office in November

Leftist weenies are so cute. Stupid as bricks, but cute.

 

[krw]

Liberals and Puritanicals have a lot in common.

It's apparently just human nature to worry about the downside of anything good
or fun or useful... especially now that the true needs of food, shelter, and
clothing have long since been met.

Hey John... on your downstairs "liquids only" toilet... if one wants a
below-street-level toilet that accepts all, um, "deposits," essentially do you
just have to have a sump that's really a small septic tank and keep it filled
with bacteria to break down the solids and just pump out the liquids when
they're through? Or is it just untenable?

The local parks have "composting toilets". FWIG, they're only
emptied out ever few years and the results get spread as fertilizer
in the park. If the only problem is gravity, "grinder pumps" exist
for below grade bathrooms.

 

[James Arthur]

About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates
to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is
grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons of
ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of food.

John

Half a ton? Heck, that's burning chicken feed. No, really...it is
burning chicken feed.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Eeyore]

- Hydrogen is plentiful and found EVERYWHERE.

Pardon ? Where are the hydrogen wells ?

- Hydrogen is simple to produce. This means that you can have many more
smaller hydrogen plants spread out to where the demand is, instead of one
single gasoline plant. This saves on transportation costs, and helps with
local economies.

Uh ?

At this point, cars based on fuel produced by electricity are the future.
Whether the fuel is electricity in a battery; hydrogen in a tank to power
combustion or power a fuel cell; or something completely different, it all
means that the vehicles are no longer producing the pollution.

A whole flock of them flew over there !

Graham

 

[TheM]

The quote was about things we're spending billions
on that don't work. Don't, not can't.

By which Neon John could only have meant hot fusion,
not cold.

Read again (above as well)
"It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it just sounds..."

Never mind, we are nitpicking. Lets hear the OP.

M

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

Working for the oil companies?

Probably. They have all the easy-to-get hydrogen.

Jon