Science and Technology news... :: View topic

pochas · Guest

In article <OZ3Ib.30$p_3.29699@news.abs.net>, "No One" <toomuch@spam.com> wrote:

[quote]For the specific case of transportation fuels the comparison might be

gasoline from power plant fuel: 93 percent
gasoline engine: 15 percent

overall gasoline fuel: .15 * .93 = .14 (14 percent)

electric power from nuclear steam: 40 percent
hydrogen from electric power: 80 percent
liquid hydrogen from hydrogen: 70 percent
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This number I don>t buy. It takes a LOT of energy to compress gas H2 into
liquid H2

[/quote]
see
http://www.matr.net/article-5364.html

[snip rest]

pochas · Guest

It is probable that we will first get hydrogen from reforming methane .
Also, using compressed hydrogen saves energy and is less complicated
and capital intensive than liquified hydrogen.

I calculate the HHV penalty factor going from methane to hydrogen as 0.6 -
calculations on demand.

Factors are now methane to hydrogen = 0.6; compress hydrogen 0.9;
fuel cell = 0.5; motor/mechanical losses = 0.9

..6 * .9 * .5 * .9 = .24 (24 percent)

This appears better than gasoline/IC engine at 14 percent, or an IC
engine burning any hydrocarbon including methane. It means
we would reduce our hydrocarbon burn, reduce CO2 generation,
and displace imported oil with domestic natural gas.

Don W. · Guest

"pochas" <pochas@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:pochas-3012030115220001@24.231.161.111.bay.mi.chartermi.net...
[quote]It is probable that we will first get hydrogen from reforming methane .
Also, using compressed hydrogen saves energy and is less complicated
and capital intensive than liquified hydrogen.

I calculate the HHV penalty factor going from methane to hydrogen as
0.6 -
calculations on demand.

Factors are now methane to hydrogen = 0.6; compress hydrogen 0.9;
fuel cell = 0.5; motor/mechanical losses = 0.9

.6 * .9 * .5 * .9 = .24 (24 percent)

This appears better than gasoline/IC engine at 14 percent, or an IC
engine burning any hydrocarbon including methane. It means
we would reduce our hydrocarbon burn, reduce CO2 generation,
and displace imported oil with domestic natural gas.
[/quote]
Why make the ICE look worse than reality and make the hydrogen/fuel cell
look way better than reality? Diesels routinely get better than 40%
efficiency and you completely ignored the 15% loss in the motor controller.
There is no such thing as a fuel cell suitable for use in vehicles that can
achieve anywhere near 50% efficiency under the varying loads of a vehicle
(25%-30% is a more realistic figure, although reliable information on
real-world performance is hard to find.) Not that any of that matters
though. The cost of everything related to hydrogen will assure it>s a
dream that will never be realized.

Don W.

Don W. · Guest

"No One" <toomuch@spam.com> wrote in message
news:SZ3Ib.31$p_3.29641@news.abs.net...
[quote]
"Bobster ." <bobster37@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:706-3FEA4B94-262@storefull-2312.public.lawson.webtv.net...
"We will NEVER run out of fossil based fuels. Ever. Some day humans may
find that it will not be necessary to burn it, but we will never run
out. If you have a date when they will run out then specify your
analysis."

Sure, "Hubbards peak", It>s pretty simple, we>re using oil and gas at
a
certain rate,andwe>re failing tofind new sources as fast as we>re using
it up. With the population expanding like it is,and with China wanting
to move into the industrial age, running out of fossil fuels is
certain.However,long beore we run out completely, governments will
certainly reserve it for their military, and driving around the
mountains for a sunday cruse will be a thing of the past. However,
those who have planned ahead, and have installed solar and wind on
their
property, have installed a hydrolyzer,and hydrid storage tanks, will
still be able to take that sunday cruise, while the rest of you stay
home. LOL

And where has the coal and nuke power gone in your world of the future?
Oh
yeah what about all the capped oil wells we have now that can be uncapped
when the price of oil goes up? There are a lot of oil out there that we
know of that we are not pumping because it isn>t worth it, well I hate to
use this word on you but, economically today.
[/quote]
'Bobster' has as much as said he is nothing more than a troll with no
intention of ever intalling solar, wind, 'hydrolyzer' or 'hydrid' storage
tanks, so I guess he plans to be one of the 'rest of you' who will stay
home. LOL

Don W.

G. R. L. Cowan · Guest

pochas included:
[quote]
It is probable that we will first get hydrogen from reforming methane .
Also, using compressed hydrogen saves energy and is less complicated
and capital intensive than liquified hydrogen.
[/quote]
But no-one would want a compressed hydrogen car.
There>s a chance some would want a liquid hydrogen one,
although the number of years in which they haven>t caught on
since the first such appeared
(http://tinyurl.com/ypk2 , http://tinyurl.com/rrqk )
is a bad sign.

--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions

Don Lancaster · Guest

"G. R. L. Cowan" wrote:
[quote]
pochas included:

It is probable that we will first get hydrogen from reforming methane .
Also, using compressed hydrogen saves energy and is less complicated
and capital intensive than liquified hydrogen.

But no-one would want a compressed hydrogen car.
There>s a chance some would want a liquid hydrogen one,
although the number of years in which they haven>t caught on
since the first such appeared
(http://tinyurl.com/ypk2 , http://tinyurl.com/rrqk )
is a bad sign.

--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
[/quote]
The energy density of hydrogen gas compressed to sane pressures is
around 400 watthours per liter and thus comparable to batteries.

By "sane" pressures, I mean the 150 Bar used today by fire services and
scuba under highly trained, exceptional care, and carefully certified
conditions. But ONLY by individuals that treat such pressures with
UTMOST respect.

Note that US hydrogen is ALWAYS liquified if it is to be transported
more than a hundred miles.

Higher pressure hydrogen gas proponents have clearly spent too many long
hours in the outhouse alone.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/h2gas01.asp
--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462

Please visit my GURU>s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Bobster . · Guest

Here>s a few:

Gaseous Distribution
Compared with the hundreds of thousands of miles of
existing natural gas network, the hydrogen pipeline system is very
small, totaling only about 460 miles. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,
has two gaseous hydrogen pipelines in the United States, one near
Houston and one in Louisiana. Their total length is approximately 110
miles, and they carry an average of 190,000 kilograms of hydrogen per
day to more than 20 customers at refineries and chemical plants. Air
Products also operates a 30-mile, 50,000-kg/day pipeline in the
Netherlands. Praxair, Inc. operates pipelines near Houston and in
Indiana, totaling 160 miles and delivering about 200,000 kg/day to
refineries, chemical plants, and steel manufacturers. Several other
shorter lines deliver "over the fence" to individual industrial
customers.

Bobster

pochas · Guest

In article <LPWcnVj0Nu-SrWyiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>, "Don W." <dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]"pochas" <pochas@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:pochas-3012030115220001@24.231.161.111.bay.mi.chartermi.net...
It is probable that we will first get hydrogen from reforming methane .
Also, using compressed hydrogen saves energy and is less complicated
and capital intensive than liquified hydrogen.

I calculate the HHV penalty factor going from methane to hydrogen as
0.6 -
calculations on demand.

Factors are now methane to hydrogen = 0.6; compress hydrogen 0.9;
fuel cell = 0.5; motor/mechanical losses = 0.9

.6 * .9 * .5 * .9 = .24 (24 percent)

This appears better than gasoline/IC engine at 14 percent, or an IC
engine burning any hydrocarbon including methane. It means
we would reduce our hydrocarbon burn, reduce CO2 generation,
and displace imported oil with domestic natural gas.

Why make the ICE look worse than reality and make the hydrogen/fuel cell
look way better than reality? Diesels routinely get better than 40%
efficiency
[/quote]
If people drove diesels we would need to use diesels as a comparison base.
They don>t. Anyway, from www.fueleconomy.gov a VW Jeta 1.9L diesel gets
49 mpg highway, and a VW Jetta 2.0L gasoline burner gets 31 mpg
highway. If we say a gas burner is 14% "efficient" that makes a diesel
24% "efficient". Perhaps your 50% refers to Carnot efficiency.

[quote]and you completely ignored the 15% loss in the motor controller.
[/quote]
reference? I say motor controllers/inverters are 90%+ efficient.

[quote]There is no such thing as a fuel cell suitable for use in vehicles that can
achieve anywhere near 50% efficiency under the varying loads of a vehicle
(25%-30% is a more realistic figure, although reliable information on
real-world performance is hard to find.) Not that any of that matters
though. The cost of everything related to hydrogen will assure it>s a
dream that will never be realized.
[/quote]
You seem to be quite an authority. Lets see some backup.
I say fuel cells should run at maximum efficiency at partial loads.

Don Lancaster · Guest

pochas wrote:
[quote]
I say motor controllers/inverters are 90%+ efficient.

[/quote]
That assumes carefully optimized continuous operation at a
nobody-goes-there data sheet sweet spot.

A much more realistic assumption is 90 percent motor efficiency, 85
percent controller efficiency, and 97 percent wiring efficiency for a
idealized total of 74.2 percent.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462

Please visit my GURU>s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

pochas · Guest

In article <3FF1704C.BFCA86A9@eagle.ca>, "G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote:

[quote]pochas included:

It is probable that we will first get hydrogen from reforming methane .
Also, using compressed hydrogen saves energy and is less complicated
and capital intensive than liquified hydrogen.

But no-one would want a compressed hydrogen car.
[/quote]
You won>t be the first customer, I gather.

[quote]There>s a chance some would want a liquid hydrogen one,
[/quote]
I think price differential will favor compressed gas, but that
isn>t the only factor, of course.

[quote]although the number of years in which they haven>t caught on
since the first such appeared
(http://tinyurl.com/ypk2 , http://tinyurl.com/rrqk )
is a bad sign.

[/quote]
Both of the above are internal combustion engines, not fuel cell engines.

Until an owner can expect to be able to refuel his car conveniently anywhere,
fuel cell cars will be a tough sell. Developing a hydrogen distribution infrastructure
will not happen overnight. The first users will be fleet vehicles. Whichever
auto manufacturer or energy company wants the inside track on hydrogen
will have to sponsor some natural gas reformers and filling stations.

And of course, hydrogen must prove economical, which is guaranteed to happen
if and when petrolium becomes a scarce resource.

pochas · Guest

In article <3FF1A2A9.12DED884@tinaja.com>, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote:

[quote]"G. R. L. Cowan" wrote:

pochas included:

It is probable that we will first get hydrogen from reforming methane .
Also, using compressed hydrogen saves energy and is less complicated
and capital intensive than liquified hydrogen.

But no-one would want a compressed hydrogen car.
There>s a chance some would want a liquid hydrogen one,
although the number of years in which they haven>t caught on
since the first such appeared
(http://tinyurl.com/ypk2 , http://tinyurl.com/rrqk )
is a bad sign.

--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions

The energy density of hydrogen gas compressed to sane pressures is
around 400 watthours per liter and thus comparable to batteries.

By "sane" pressures, I mean the 150 Bar used today by fire services and
scuba under highly trained, exceptional care, and carefully certified
conditions. But ONLY by individuals that treat such pressures with
UTMOST respect.

Note that US hydrogen is ALWAYS liquified if it is to be transported
more than a hundred miles.
[/quote]
except by pipeline.

[quote]
Higher pressure hydrogen gas proponents have clearly spent too many long
hours in the outhouse alone.

[/quote]
What>s in a number? Why is 400 scarier that 150? I gladly strap a 200 on my
back and jump in the ocean every chance I get. I drive to dive sites with
cylendars properly secured in the back of my SUV. Filling stations are required to insure
the tank has been visually inspected within 1 year and hydrostatically tested
within 5 years. Hydrogen cars will certainly operate under similar regs.

I would much rather have my fuel stored in a vessel tested to 600 bar every
5 years than your plain old gastank.

Don Lancaster · Guest

pochas wrote:
[quote]
In article <3FF1A2A9.12DED884@tinaja.com>, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote:

"G. R. L. Cowan" wrote:

pochas included:

It is probable that we will first get hydrogen from reforming methane .
Also, using compressed hydrogen saves energy and is less complicated
and capital intensive than liquified hydrogen.

But no-one would want a compressed hydrogen car.
There>s a chance some would want a liquid hydrogen one,
although the number of years in which they haven>t caught on
since the first such appeared
(http://tinyurl.com/ypk2 , http://tinyurl.com/rrqk )
is a bad sign.

--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions

The energy density of hydrogen gas compressed to sane pressures is
around 400 watthours per liter and thus comparable to batteries.

By "sane" pressures, I mean the 150 Bar used today by fire services and
scuba under highly trained, exceptional care, and carefully certified
conditions. But ONLY by individuals that treat such pressures with
UTMOST respect.

Note that US hydrogen is ALWAYS liquified if it is to be transported
more than a hundred miles.

except by pipeline.
[/quote]
Hydrogen is rarely moved via pipepline because of (A) the embrittlement
problems and (B) the low energy density making pipelines not in the
least cost effective.

I know of no hydrogen pipeline more than a few dozen feet long.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462

Please visit my GURU>s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

TCS · Guest

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:24:53 -0500, pochas <pochas@chartermi.net> wrote:
[quote]In article <3FF1A2A9.12DED884@tinaja.com>, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote:

"G. R. L. Cowan" wrote:

pochas included:

It is probable that we will first get hydrogen from reforming methane .
Also, using compressed hydrogen saves energy and is less complicated
and capital intensive than liquified hydrogen.

But no-one would want a compressed hydrogen car.
There>s a chance some would want a liquid hydrogen one,
although the number of years in which they haven>t caught on
since the first such appeared
(http://tinyurl.com/ypk2 , http://tinyurl.com/rrqk )
is a bad sign.

--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions

The energy density of hydrogen gas compressed to sane pressures is
around 400 watthours per liter and thus comparable to batteries.

By "sane" pressures, I mean the 150 Bar used today by fire services and
scuba under highly trained, exceptional care, and carefully certified
conditions. But ONLY by individuals that treat such pressures with
UTMOST respect.

Note that US hydrogen is ALWAYS liquified if it is to be transported
more than a hundred miles.

except by pipeline.
[/quote]
Please tell us about these hydrogen pipelines in the US, all over 100 miles.

all zero of them.

william mook · Guest

Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:<3FF1D6EA.A99696A1@tinaja.com>...
[quote]pochas wrote:

I say motor controllers/inverters are 90%+ efficient.

That assumes carefully optimized continuous operation at a
nobody-goes-there data sheet sweet spot.

A much more realistic assumption is 90 percent motor efficiency, 85
percent controller efficiency, and 97 percent wiring efficiency for a
idealized total of 74.2 percent.
[/quote]
COST EFFICIENCY OF PRODUCING HYDROGEN GAS:

We are doing a little better than 50 kWh solar electrical output for
each kg of hydrogen being produced from a wet water chemistry system.
Stainless steel electrodes, plastic film 'bottles' a simple peak power
matching circuit.

Energy efficiency is an important cost drive, but bottom line, cost
per watt is what counts for solar applications. We produce hydrogen
for less than $1 per kg.

USES FOR HYDROGEN GAS:

Is this a good value? For energy?

MAKE OIL FROM COAL:

Obviously yes. Consider that when we add a ton of coal to 90 worth of
hydrogen at this price we can produce five barrels equivalent of
synthetic oil. At $30 per barrel, that>s $150 worth of product at a
cost of $100 - enough to make a reasonable profit from a product
there>s a very large demand for.

Since no one has to change the way they use energy to make use of our
solar derived hydrogen, marketing isn>t really an issue.

DIRECT USE OF HYDROGEN OVER TIME:

Of course, having a large supply of hydrogen at very low cost will
spur the use of hydrogen directly as a fuel. But its not a
requirement for our business plan to work.

Consider too what we can do with CO2 as a carbon source.

USE HYDROGEN TO ABSORB ATMOSPHERIC CO2:

We can use hydrogen to absorb CO2 and produce methane and water.

So, by distilling water vapor out of the air with solar powered
refrigerators, and using wet chemistry electrolysis to break down H2O
into its component parts, we can make use of the H2 produced in this
way to absorb atmospheric CO2 and produce CH4 with the reaction;

CO2 + 4H2 --> CH4 + 2H2O

The water of course can be recycled and reused to reduce the need for
primary water by half.

The CH4 can be run through a zeolite material to produce liquid fuels
like octane directly. This strips some of the hydrogen off the CH4,
and this hydrogen is recycled in the first reaction to reduce primary
hydrogen input.

Anyway, in the end, we absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and produce
synthetic natural gas and synthetic liquid transportation fuels.

REVERSING THE GREENHOUSE:

Now, pre-industrial Earth had CO2 levels in the 310 ppm range. Today
CO2 is rising past 360 ppm. Some experts say that without any change
in humanity>s behavior, we will surpass 500 ppm by mid 21st century.
Humanity is currently pumping 6e+12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere each
year.

The total mass of the Earth>s atmosphere is 5.1e+18 kg. This means
that the mass of all the CO2 in the Earth>s atmosphere today amounts
to 1.8e+15 kg. To reduce this concentration to pre-industrial levels
- that is lowering it 50 ppm - requires that we offset the 6 trillion
kg of CO2 produced each year and remove a total of 2.6e+14 kg (260
trillion kg) of CO2 already present.

If we are to remove this amount over a 10 year period, we must remove
a total of 3.2e+13 kg - or 32 trillion kg per year, plus any increase
in fossil fuel use over this period.

Since most oil companies have projected a decrease in global
production of oil over the next ten to twenty years, we are unlikely
to need to remove more than 33 trillion kg of CO2 per year from the
atmosphere.

To achieve this end requires the production of 6 trillion kg of H2.

At 50 kWh per kg this requires the production of 300 trillion kWh of
solar electricity per year.

THE COST OF DOING REVERSAL

Solar collectors intercept on average 1,500 hours of sunlight per year
so we must have 200 trillion watts installed worldwide. That>s 1
million sq km of collectors (385,000 sq miles)

At an ultimate cost of 4.5 cents per watt (in these quantities) that>s
a total investment of $9 trillion. An amount of money as large as the
stock market crash of 1999.

Is there any way this may be achieved?

Sure.

through the operation of the energy markets.

EXPLOITING MARKETS TO DO SOMETHING USEFUL

Here>s how.

Unconstrained by energy shortages, the world economy in good times is
capable of growing in energy usage and per capita income by 4% per
year. This means the global economy could produce US per capita
incomes for a world of 10 billion people within 55 years.

By 2058.

This implies a global product of about $360 trillion compared to
today>s $40 trillion. If energy usage per unit income is on the same
order as today this implies a global energy market of $5 trillion
instead of $550 billion. And a global energy consumption of 225
billion barrels equivalent instead of 26 billion barrels as it is
today.

To make 225 billion barrels synthetically will require something like
30 trillion kg of CH4, which will require something like 15 trillion
kg of H2 be produced each year. A total of 750 trillion watts.

If the carbon source of the hydrocarbons is atmospheric CO2 this will
require 82.4 trillion kg of CO2 be removed from the atmosphere.

Well, going back to our removal scenario, 6 trillion kg per year of H2
using 300 trillion watts of solar collectors lets us combine the H2
with 33 trillion kg of CO2 to produce 12 trillion kg of CH4.

This CH4 can be converted to 89 billion barrels equivalent of
synthetic fuels.

So, by overproducing hydrocarbons by around 50% and storing them in
spent wells we return the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels by 2068.

That>s a total installed base of 1.05 quadrillion watts of solar
collectors. A collector area of 3.5 million sq km (1.35 million sq
miles)

Now this is a lot of area, but its about the same as the amount of
land that is currently irrigated in the world. About 1/10th of all
the desert areas of the world covered with solar collectors would
intercept enough sunlight to produce sufficient quantities of hydrogen
to bring about the changes noted here which include;

(1) reversal of CO2 levels to preindustrial levels
(2) expansion of global economy to 9x its current level

Since population growth rate is inversely proportional to living
standards above $10,000 per person per year - economic activity on
this scale will result in a general decline of human numbers due to
socioeconomic changes wrought by these underlying economic changes,
moderating further expansion beyond 2068.

pochas · Guest

In article <3FF1E845.CE586B15@tinaja.com>, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote:

[quote]pochas wrote:

In article <3FF1A2A9.12DED884@tinaja.com>, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote:

"G. R. L. Cowan" wrote:

pochas included:

It is probable that we will first get hydrogen from reforming methane .
Also, using compressed hydrogen saves energy and is less complicated
and capital intensive than liquified hydrogen.

But no-one would want a compressed hydrogen car.
There>s a chance some would want a liquid hydrogen one,
although the number of years in which they haven>t caught on
since the first such appeared
(http://tinyurl.com/ypk2 , http://tinyurl.com/rrqk )
is a bad sign.

--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions

The energy density of hydrogen gas compressed to sane pressures is
around 400 watthours per liter and thus comparable to batteries.

By "sane" pressures, I mean the 150 Bar used today by fire services and
scuba under highly trained, exceptional care, and carefully certified
conditions. But ONLY by individuals that treat such pressures with
UTMOST respect.

Note that US hydrogen is ALWAYS liquified if it is to be transported
more than a hundred miles.

except by pipeline.

Hydrogen is rarely moved via pipepline because of (A) the embrittlement
problems and (B) the low energy density making pipelines not in the
least cost effective.

I know of no hydrogen pipeline more than a few dozen feet long.

[/quote]
Please google "Air Products hydrogen pipeline"


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Energy - Hydrogen Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 4 of 6