OT Hydrogen economy, not?

[Jamie]

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.
Mike

Working for the oil companies?


http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[amdx]

Working for the oil companies?

No, they're working for me, I'm an owner. Well a part owner, oh, ok I own
some shares thru a mutual fund.
I'm not sure if your asking me or questioning B&E. I will add I wrote
what's above the url, everything else is the conclusion from the webpage.
Are there any facts on the page you can dispute? I've sent one minor
correction and a suggested addition to the page author.
Mike

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

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.

Methanol shows some promise for vehicle fuel, and can be made from waste
wood and other refuse. I think ethanol requires edible carbohydrates
(sugar), while methanol can be made from inedible cellulose. And methanol
is poisonous to humans, while ethanol has a long history of human
consumption. So it's a shame to waste foodstuffs such as corn to produce
another human consumable product, and then just burn it in an SUV that get
16 miles to a gallon, or two miles to the pint. Hell, I'd walk 2 miles for
a pint of high quality methanol!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol

Some other alternative motor fuels to consider are "woodgas"
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg72797.html

and possibly external combustion (steam) engines that could use anything
that burns well enough to boil water (although there may be emissions
problems). But possibly something like powdered coal could be burned in an
efficient manner, with pollution controls.

Also, what about Calcium Carbide, which produces acetylene when mixed with
water. It can be produced from coke (carbon) and lime (Calcium Oxide), and
the production of acetylene also yields Calcium Hydroxide (which would have
to be dealt with as a waste product). I don't know if an engine could be
made to burn acetylene, however, and the emissions would still include CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylene
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114187750/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6553855
http://www.afuelsllc.com/move.htm
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/s...y-sees-bright-future-its-acetylene-investmen/

The real solution is to reduce our untenably high per capita demand for
energy, and learn to live, work, and do business in the most economical way
possible. Living in the suburbs and commuting 2-3 hours a day in a 7
passenger vehicle stuck in traffic is not efficient or healthy. Moving
freight cross-country on public highways on huge trucks is not safe or
efficient, when trains can perform this function many times more
efficiently on roadways they maintain themselves with much lower
environmental impact.

Paul

 

[Calab]

|
|
| Calab wrote:
|
| > - Hydrogen is plentiful and found EVERYWHERE.
|
| Pardon ? Where are the hydrogen wells ?

You don't need wells... You need pumps. The oceans have a great deal of
hydrogen in them waiting to be "cracked".

| > - 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 ?

A plant producing hydrogen does not need to be large or complicated, so it
can be scaled down to match the size of the economy. For example... How much
gasoline is produced in Hawii? None. A hydrogen plant could easily be placed
there and meet the needs of the population. How much in transporation costs
would that save? Now consider that with the volcanic activity, they could
use thermal power to generate the electricity needed to crack the hydrogen
from sea water.

| > 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 !

???

Anyhow... I'm not saying that hydrogen is the answer. I'm just saying that
it is feasable.

What we're really shooting for is a portable source of power that can be
produced cleanly. Solar, thermal and hydro electric production is clean and
renewable. That energy, put into use to create hydrogen or charge batteries
or some other method of generating portable power is vastly better in the
long run than depending on oil and gasoline.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

I am no fan of hydrogen, but I doubt that hydrogen tankage in a vehicle
would prove to be any more dangerous than gasoline tankage. In fact,
there
would be far more energy in the same size tank of gasoline, so therefore
more
chance of mayhem when things go wrong.

Hydrogen forms an explosive mixture with air over a much wider range
of fuel concentrations, so you chances of get a fuel-air explosion are
correspondingly higher than with gasoline/petrol.

=====================================================================

However, the oxygen would have to get to the hydrogen, which would be
expanding very quickly if a rupture occured in a fuel tank. I have heard of
a test where cylinders of gasoline, propane, and hydrogen were put in a
firing range and armor-piercing tracer rounds were fired into each. The
gasoline tank burst into a huge fireball, the propane tank detonated, and
the hydrogen tank survived with a hole from which a hot bluish flame
appeared.

Paul

 

[James Arthur]

in message news:wovfk.391$kf4.365@trnddc03...


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

Agreed.

Cheers!
James Arthur

 

[Don Klipstein]

Also, what about Calcium Carbide, which produces acetylene when mixed with
water. It can be produced from coke (carbon) and lime (Calcium Oxide), and
the production of acetylene also yields Calcium Hydroxide (which would have
to be dealt with as a waste product). I don't know if an engine could be
made to burn acetylene, however, and the emissions would still include CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylene

<SNIP from here>

Acetylene is very detonation-prone, probably *the* most detonation-prone
of the "common" hydrocarbons. They even say the pure gas is supposed to
not be compressed beyond 15 PSI above normal-seal-level-atmospheric.
I even heard that most-concentrated practical storage is dissolving it
in acetone (very flammable liquid) rather than just compressing it.
Possibly not true nowadays, but one should get the idea...

Acetylene ignites at lower temperatures than the other common
hydrocarbons do. I suspect that an IC engine using it would have to be a
diesel variant or have compression ratio so low as to cause severe
disadvantage, possibly both, if tendency to detonate can be worked around
at all.

If workable in an internal combustion engine, acetylene's very high
flame temperature favors more production of nitrogen oxides.

On a more positive note, ease of igniting acetylene makes workable spark
plugs easier. Further in that area, diesel engines traditionally do not
have spark plugs but have compression that achieves temperature sufficient
for ignition.

Keep in mind that acetylene has spark energy requirements for ignition
so much lower than those of propane, methane or even hydrogen that
acetylene may deserve to be considered static-sensitive.
This means severe caution to anyone making explosive noisemakers based
on acetylene, especially detonatable balloons filled from oxyacetylene
torches, and balloons filled with a mixture of air and acetylene may not
be far behind. I have heard of such noisemaker toys, and I would prepare
them where they are intended to be detonated (while wearing hearing
protection), especially if any weather station in my county or any
adjacent county reports relative humidity less than 98% or my hair was
shampoo-ed in the last 42 hours or I showered in past 36 hours or since
last major bike ride or I am wearing exposed clothes that I have worn
either less than 18 hours or only after my last bike ride working up a
major sweat.

Moving freight cross-country on public highways on huge trucks is not
safe or efficient, when trains can perform this function many times more
efficiently on roadways they maintain themselves with much lower
environmental impact.

That part I agree with. One obstacle is distance of too many freight
origin points and destination points from freight railroad tracks.
A lesser but possibly significant consideration is cost of railroad
labor - my impression is that union work rules have a stronger presence
throughout railroads than throughout trucking.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Tim Williams]

If you compare to electricity, or a source that produces electricity
efficiently,

Can you name one? Electrochemical methods are a tantalizing thought and
should give excellent efficiency. Unfortunately, practical fuel cells have
a number of drawbacks and the overall system is about as efficient as an ICE
anyway.

Tim

 

[Tim Williams]

WHAT? Boy, I haven't been paying attention.

Calm down Tim, he was referring to production. And, as you thoroughly point
out (snipped), it becomes something of a /reductio ad absurdum/, proving
that we should just burn mined hydrocarbons in the first place.

Tim

 

[Tim Williams]

Leftists are sooo boring. All that brilliant intellectual capacity,
^^^^ but no real data to work on, so the best they can do is truly
uninspred personal abuse.

Notice my subtle rephrasing of your post (marked). Notice, also, that it
makes perfect sense, as if you were thinking of your own characteristics of
which to project onto your opponent. Uninspired, I'll have to agree!

Tim

 

[Tim Williams]

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.

Oh yeah, concrete surrounded by SALT -- that'll last a while! LOL!
Backfilling with, well, salt would work pretty well, I would think. And
there's no shortage of it around the mine site. Or sand, or dirt, or
whatever. If you still want to cap the last couple hundred feet with
concrete, that'd be fine too.

Tim

 

[Tim Williams]

Butane is a bastard gas[1]. ;-)

Butanol is an excellent gasoline-ish choice, but sucks to produce.
Apparently bugs don't like the way it tastes -- where ethanol can get up to
10-20% before killing the stuff that made it, butanol only gets to 1-2%
tops, so I've read. Needless to say, it's an even bigger pain in the ass to
distill out all that water, when it's almost all water. And it's too
soluble (a couple percent IIRC) to just skim off the top, at least until
some more tolerant bugs are introduced (if even possible).

[1] Hank Hill. ;-)

Tim

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

OK, now include the batteries in your calculations.

In what way?
If you are thinking of the energy cost of producing batteries, they
are normaly recouped within 3-4 years. But then again, the battery
that are currently in use still have to low energy density.

My main point was that the ammount of energy a fuel contains may be
uninteresting if there are other energy sources/storage systems that
give more usable oooomp.

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

Can you name one? Electrochemical methods are a tantalizing thought and
should give excellent efficiency. Unfortunately, practical fuel cells have
a number of drawbacks and the overall system is about as efficient as an ICE
anyway.

At the moment hydrocarbons and battery-stored electricity are the main
possibilities. They both have their drawbacks, but when combined, you
get most of the best from both.

Fuel cells will hopefully become good enough, but it will still take
many years. But then again, if the cars of the future are serial
hybrids, you only need to change the petrol/diesel generator with a
fuelcell.

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

Hydrogen forms an explosive mixture with air over a much wider range
of fuel concentrations, so you chances of get a fuel-air explosion are
correspondingly higher than with gasoline/petrol.

It also raises at a speed of 22 m/s, instead of spreading along the
ground.

There are positive and negative sides with both gasoline and hydrogen,
but with hydrogen you have got the option of venting it away.

 

[[email protected]]

There's no need for any more research. There is a huge need to get out there
and "Git 'er done".

Exactly. 13 years ago I decided to "git 'er done", and have been
getting >95% of my home energy from sun and wind ever since. It wasn't
even much of a challenge or expense. So what's your holdup? Other than
spending so much time lecturing about what everyone else should do of
course...

Wayne

 

[[email protected]]

| 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.

If you are looking for ANY _ONE_ energy source to be the answer to energy
independence, then you are seriously misguided.

The answer is a _combination_ of both energy sources and energy management.

1. Expand usage of wind power, even if that means adding to the grid to
ship it out of the midwest (I suggest some DC transmission lines due
to the distance).

2. Expand on hydro power where the opportunities exist.

3. Expand on geothermal power in the few places that can be done.

4. Expand on solar power, especially in the southwest which can feed power
to places like Texas and California.

5. Use tidal and wave power where plausible.

6. Establish new strong rules for nuclear power safety and start bringing
more of this kind of power online. This is for YOU Mr. Obama!

7. Explore more efficient sugar based biofuel sources over corn based.

8. Encourage more home-based power supplement systems (solar and wind
being the most likely candidates).

9. Encourage businesses to shift from 8 hours 5 days to 10 hours 4 days
for working schedules, where feasible. Give tax breaks to those that
make this change as part of a coordinated plan that distributes the
new day-off evenly through the week to reduce demands on highways and
public transit.

10. Encourage businesses to permit more telecommuting.

11. Establish better standards for universal (and neutral) home data service
so people can easily shift communication based work from office to home.

12. Continue and expand research in various areas like improving battery
technology, solar cell technology, more efficient lighting, better home
insulation, underground heat exchange, etc.

No picking and choosing ... do it ALL.


| 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.

The term "hydrogen economy" suggests to me that someone thinks it is _the_
solution for all (or at least transportation) based fuel. It would not be
any such universal solution at all. BUT ... it could be a useful part of
an overall plan, used in the special cases where it can work out, such as
short-run commuting vehicles.


| 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 is a bad choice for expecting something to _entirely_ replace all carbon
based fuels. But it has its uses in some areas. It is _one_ way to convert
electricity (best if acquired by a non-polluting way) to a transportable
form for certain short-run commuter vehicles.

The biggest mistake we can make is assuming _ANY_ energy technology can be a
universal solution. NONE ever will be. We need to take _all_ approaches at
the same time and let each application use what serves it best within the
constraints of how much energy can be made available by that technology.

 

[[email protected]]

So, what's your average power consumption now?

We go as low as ~8kWh for a single day occasionally in winter when the
alternative is burning backup fuel, and as high as ~30kWh when we have
both wind and sun in abundance. I don't have any way to definitely
state an average, but I'd estimate it at about 14. It's varied over
the years as VCR gave way to PVR and then MCPC, CRTs to LCDs, radio
phone to radio DSL, etc.

Since I see that this is crossposted to s.e.d, I'll explain that the
variation isn't much of an issue beyond convenience. Things like water
pumping (to storage) are easily shiftable. Laundry, dishwashing and
shop consumption are shiftable if sometimes inconvenient, and heat/AC
is entirely optional in our climate. Our primary do-without item is
hot water, we don't have any real fuel-powered backup for that. So
after about 2 days without sun the water is lukewarm, and after 3 our
choice is to use cold water or a kettle. But if we were in a climate
where 3 days without sun was routine, then we'd add proper backup.

Most people who go wind/solar start by drastically reducing their
energy needs.

At our last on-grid place we averaged ~20kWh per day (also an
all-electric home, ground source heat-pump, mild climate). So it
wasn't very drastic to chop that with better insulation, lower energy
consumption fridge, etc. Our lifestyle has improved considerably since
then, much effective use of computers for example, yet we're doing it
on less. And there's even more that we *could* do if we wanted, such
as switching to laptops instead of desktops, or using smaller monitors
or smaller TV etc. But everyone has their own comfort level and we've
set up to supply ours.

Once they do that, it makes sense to stay on the grid.

That depends on your definition of "makes sense". If you really want
to "git 'er done", then staying on the grid is only a solution *if*
you're willing to invest in your own energy supply setup. But if you
do that, you're in effect paying twice. Most people don't have the
choice, but folks who are arrogant enough to lecture about what
everyone else should be doing, and who brag that they have the money
to do whatever they want, don't have any legitimate excuses for not
"gitten 'er done".

Wayne

 

[Calab]

|
|
| >The big things with hydrogen are:
| >
| >- The pollution is generated at the source (the power plant) instead of
| >where it's used (the car). This makes the pollution generated easier to
| >contain BEFORE it gets into the environment.
|
| No it isn't.

So you think it's easier to go install a pollution containment system all
ALL the engines out there (not just vehicles) instead of containing the
pollution at a single plant where the electricity is produced? Please
explain.

| >- Hydrogen is plentiful and found EVERYWHERE. No more group of countries
| >controlling the fuel economy.
|
| Really? Can you tell me where I might dig some up? Firewood has gotten
| expensive this year and I'd like to burn some hydrogen instead.

I guess that they also mine for corn, and hydroelectric power as well? Two
thirds of the planet is covered with H2O. That's more than 40% of the planet
covered in hydrogen. How much of our planet contains our current fuel
sources?

| >- 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.
|
| Is it now? Care to point to a plant that makes hydrogen from anything
other
| than natural gas, another limited resource? The electrolyzer that powers
my
| tiny little oxyhydrogen torch sure seems complicated and energy wasteful
for
| the amount of hydrogen it produces.

Well, you still purchased it, so it can't be THAT wasteful, can it?

| Please. Tell me you're a high school kid who's simply spouting what
you've
| been propagandized with. Surely you don't believe any of that stuff. Do
you?
| Really?

As I said in my second posting... I'm not idealizing hydrogen as THE
solution. I'm stating that it's a feasable alternative. Whether is be
batteries, hydrogen or ???, we need to find a better way of storing energy
than our current fossil fuels.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

Riiiiight. Hot fusion's just around the corner. Isn't that one of the
three
great lies, along with "the check's in the mail" and "I promise I won't
come
in your mouth".

I began hearing that lie long before I had any concept of what the other
two
meant.

Sure. And I was looking at ink printers when I started work in
industry, back in 1969. There was going to be one in every office and
every fax machine. Nobody believed it then, but eventually the
technology got to the point where it could deliver on the original
promise. Technological development takes time.

=========================================================================

And there were no competing technologies with the clout to undermine
research efforts, and the new technology was financially beneficial to all
players, as well as the consumer. Other alternative energy sources, such as
solar and wind, can be scaled down to the point that individuals can reap
benefits without much investment, but a practical fusion reactor must be
quite large to cross the break-even point, and such an undertaking requires
massive funding from the government or an industrial giant. Both of these
have been quite happy with the status quo of making profits from the same
old wasteful methods of using fossil fuels, and there has not been, until
recently, any major reason to pursue fusion power with a serious effort.

Paul