Science and Technology news... :: View topic

pochas · Guest

In article <slrnbv3q86.39j.The-Central-Scrutinizer@c-24-8-35-132.client.comcast.net>, TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:

[quote]On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:24:53 -0500, pochas <pochas@chartermi.net> 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.

Please tell us about these hydrogen pipelines in the US, all over 100 miles.

all zero of them.
[/quote]
Air Products has 350 miles of them.
http://www.cleanair.org/Energy/Venki_Raman.pdf
http://www.wvenergyroadmapworkshops.org/presentations/03Nov_Hy_Miller.pdf

There>s a hydrogen industry out there, guys!

Don W. · Guest

"pochas" <pochas@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:pochas-3012031444560001@24.231.161.111.bay.mi.chartermi.net...
[quote]In article <LPWcnVj0Nu-SrWyiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>, "Don W."
dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com> wrote:

"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

If people drove diesels we would need to use diesels as a comparison
base.
They don>t.
[/quote]
Would you care to rethink that statement? The fact is that a lot of people
DO drive diesel vehicles. A LOT more than drive fuel cell vehicles!

[quote]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]
I never said that a gas burner is 14% "efficient". I said that you>re
obviously understating the efficiency of ICE vehicles and overstating the
efficiency of fuel cell vehicles. No matter how you try to change reality,
MONEY MATTERS! No point in using unrealistic numbers pulled from thin air
because even if your numbers were real, people wouldn>t be flocking to buy
hydrogen vehicles.

[quote]
and you completely ignored the 15% loss in the motor controller.

reference? I say motor controllers/inverters are 90%+ efficient.
[/quote]
In your insanely optimistic calculation you didn>t factor in * 0.9 for
controller efficiency. I drive an electric vehicle and I really love it.
It certainly doesn>t create the heat of an ICE vehicle, but it DOES have a
radiator to keep the transaxle motor cool. It also has fans and heat sinks
on the electronics and they do get hot. You>re the one making the
outrageous claims, let>s see YOUR reference!

[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.

You seem to be quite an authority. Lets see some backup.
I say fuel cells should run at maximum efficiency at partial loads.
[/quote]
YOU>RE the one making outrageous efficiency claims -- let>s see YOU back
them up!

Don W. · Guest

"pochas" <pochas@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:pochas-3012031524530001@24.231.161.111.bay.mi.chartermi.net...
[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]
Where in the US can I see this 100 + mile hydrogen pipeline??

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

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.[/quote]

Where do you fill your tanks to 400 Bar? What sort of certifications are
required for you to handle, refill and use a 400 Bar tank? Where do you
have such tanks hydrostatically tested? Would you want your grandmother to
be filling a tank to 400 Bar hydrogen? How about MILLIONS of grandmothers?

[quote]
I would much rather have my fuel stored in a vessel tested to 600 bar
every
5 years than your plain old gastank.
[/quote]
Thanks, but I prefer not to deal with that sort of expense or hassle --
even once every five years. I also prefer knowing there is no 600 bar
hydrogen tank speeding down the opposite side of the freeway (or millions
of such tanks!)

Don W.

Don W. · Guest

"pochas" <pochas@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:pochas-3012032213180001@24.231.161.111.bay.mi.chartermi.net...
[quote]In article
slrnbv3q86.39j.The-Central-Scrutinizer@c-24-8-35-132.client.comcast.net>,[/quote]
TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
[quote]
snip
Note that US hydrogen is ALWAYS liquified if it is to be transported
more than a hundred miles.

except by pipeline.

Please tell us about these hydrogen pipelines in the US, all over 100
miles.

all zero of them.

Air Products has 350 miles of them.
http://www.cleanair.org/Energy/Venki_Raman.pdf
http://www.wvenergyroadmapworkshops.org/presentations/03Nov_Hy_Miller.pdf

There>s a hydrogen industry out there, guys!
[/quote]
So you were unable to reference even one hydrogen pipeline in the US more
than 100 miles long. Instead you weasel-word your reply. I presume you
got the 350 mile reference from the statement:
"7 H2 pipeline systems around the world (over 350 miles)"

Of course this is not referring to seven different 350 mile pipelines!
It>s referring to 7 pipeline systems consisting of a total of 350 miles of
pipes. It wouldn>t surprise me if there are more than 100 miles of pipes
carrying hydrogen in the refinery less than 30 miles from where I live. It
WOULD surprise me if you could reference just ONE hydrogen pipeline more
than 100 miles long!

Don W.

Don W. · Guest

"pochas" <pochas@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:pochas-3012031503320001@24.231.161.111.bay.mi.chartermi.net...
<snip>
[quote]And of course, hydrogen must prove economical, which is guaranteed to
happen
if and when petrolium becomes a scarce resource.
[/quote]
Is this a written guarantee? May I see the full text of that guarantee?
You do realize that "if and when petroium [sic] becomes a scarce resource"
that all energy resources will become more precious, right? From where do
you think hydrogen comes?

Don W.

Jeff · Guest

[quote]
Which is why electricity costs ten cents a kilowatt hour and gasoline
only three.

[/quote]
Not around here it doesn>t.
1 kWh = 3600 kj
1 L of gasoline contains 38,000 kj, therefore just under 0.1 litres gives
about 1 kWh worth of gas.

This would cost about 7.5 cents here (about 75 to 80 cents a litre here).
Electricity here is about 10 cents taxes in. I suppose if you are lucky
enough to live somewhere where gasoline is still under $2 a gallon, then
that would be true.

Don W. · Guest

"Jeff" <levy_jeff@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6StIb.22215$IF6.990085@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
[quote]

Which is why electricity costs ten cents a kilowatt hour and gasoline
only three.

Not around here it doesn>t.
1 kWh = 3600 kj
1 L of gasoline contains 38,000 kj, therefore just under 0.1 litres gives
about 1 kWh worth of gas.

This would cost about 7.5 cents here (about 75 to 80 cents a litre here).
Electricity here is about 10 cents taxes in. I suppose if you are lucky
enough to live somewhere where gasoline is still under $2 a gallon, then
that would be true.

[/quote]
You>re paying less than $2.00 a gallon for your gas. It just SEEMS like a
lot more because of the taxes you pay at the same time you buy your gas.

Don W.

Jeff · Guest

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

Please STAY FAR AWAY from me with a large tank, especially filled with
hydrogen at 600 BAR. Get into an accident, and the resulting force from the
tank blowing up will rip vehicles to shreds, then the hydrogen would catch
on fire from the slightest static discharge causing another possibly larger
explosion.

Here>s what happened when a small much lower pressure bottle containing 15
lbs of non flammable nitrous oxide blew up in the back of someone>s car. Now
imagine what would happen with a much larger tank pumped up to almost 9000
PSI, and now containing extremely flammable gas got blown up. Again, keep it
FAR, FAR away from me.
http://www.healthyhome.net/explosionPic1.jpg
http://www.healthyhome.net/pict1277.jpg

pochas · Guest

In article <szuIb.22221$IF6.990540@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, "Jeff" <levy_jeff@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

Please STAY FAR AWAY from me with a large tank, especially filled with
hydrogen at 600 BAR. Get into an accident, and the resulting force from the
tank blowing up will rip vehicles to shreds, then the hydrogen would catch
on fire from the slightest static discharge causing another possibly larger
explosion.

Here>s what happened when a small much lower pressure bottle containing 15
lbs of non flammable nitrous oxide blew up in the back of someone>s car. Now
imagine what would happen with a much larger tank pumped up to almost 9000
PSI, and now containing extremely flammable gas got blown up. Again, keep it
FAR, FAR away from me.
http://www.healthyhome.net/explosionPic1.jpg
http://www.healthyhome.net/pict1277.jpg
[/quote]
High pressure storage is an issue. Any vehicle that uses it would have to be extensively
crash-tested and then it probably would remain an issue for many, even if the tests
demonstrate the tanks would remain intact during any survivable crash.

pochas · Guest

In article <M4CdnaWUg5MFwW-iXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>, "Don W." <dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]"pochas" <pochas@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:pochas-3012031444560001@24.231.161.111.bay.mi.chartermi.net...
In article <LPWcnVj0Nu-SrWyiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>, "Don W."
dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com> wrote:

"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

If people drove diesels we would need to use diesels as a comparison
base.
They don>t.

Would you care to rethink that statement? The fact is that a lot of people
DO drive diesel vehicles. A LOT more than drive fuel cell vehicles!

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.

I never said that a gas burner is 14% "efficient". I said that you>re
obviously understating the efficiency of ICE vehicles and overstating the
efficiency of fuel cell vehicles. No matter how you try to change reality,
MONEY MATTERS! No point in using unrealistic numbers pulled from thin air
because even if your numbers were real, people wouldn>t be flocking to buy
hydrogen vehicles.

and you completely ignored the 15% loss in the motor controller.

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

In your insanely optimistic calculation you didn>t factor in * 0.9 for
controller efficiency. I drive an electric vehicle and I really love it.
It certainly doesn>t create the heat of an ICE vehicle, but it DOES have a
radiator to keep the transaxle motor cool. It also has fans and heat sinks
on the electronics and they do get hot. You>re the one making the
outrageous claims, let>s see YOUR reference!

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.

You seem to be quite an authority. Lets see some backup.
I say fuel cells should run at maximum efficiency at partial loads.

YOU>RE the one making outrageous efficiency claims -- let>s see YOU back
them up!
[/quote]
Don, you seem to think I>m selling hydrogen. I>m not.

Don Lancaster · Guest

pochas wrote:
[quote]
In article <slrnbv3q86.39j.The-Central-Scrutinizer@c-24-8-35-132.client.comcast.net>, TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:24:53 -0500, pochas <pochas@chartermi.net> 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.

Please tell us about these hydrogen pipelines in the US, all over 100 miles.

all zero of them.

Air Products has 350 miles of them.
http://www.cleanair.org/Energy/Venki_Raman.pdf
http://www.wvenergyroadmapworkshops.org/presentations/03Nov_Hy_Miller.pdf

There>s a hydrogen industry out there, guys!
[/quote]
An industry that delivers ON-DEMAND hydrogen ONLY and SPECIFICALLY when
the intended use value of the hydrogen GREATLY EXCEEDS its meager energy
content.

--
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

Don Lancaster · Guest

Jeff wrote:
[quote]

Which is why electricity costs ten cents a kilowatt hour and gasoline
only three.

Not around here it doesn>t.
1 kWh = 3600 kj
1 L of gasoline contains 38,000 kj, therefore just under 0.1 litres gives
about 1 kWh worth of gas.

This would cost about 7.5 cents here (about 75 to 80 cents a litre here).
Electricity here is about 10 cents taxes in. I suppose if you are lucky
enough to live somewhere where gasoline is still under $2 a gallon, then
that would be true.
[/quote]
The key point remains that electricity is three times more valuable than
gasoline because it has three times the exergy. Local distortions may
vary.

--
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

No One · Guest

[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.
[/quote]
A couple of things. First, have you ever seen what happens when a scuba
tanks fails? I had a link to a site trying to get a type of tank recalled
because of their high failure rate (I lost it when my main HD crashed) it
had some 'nice' pics on it. One of which, IIRC, showed the body parts
scattered around the room after a failure.

Second, remember what you had to go through to get that little piece of
paper the guy who fills your tanks wants to see BEFORE he fills them?

Third, have you watch them filling your tank? Takes them a while and they
take a lot of safety precautions.

Most divers I know aren>t that casual around tanks. Thing tend to get quite
lively if someone drops one.

[quote]I would much rather have my fuel stored in a vessel tested to 600 bar
every
5 years than your plain old gastank.
[/quote]
Not me. I>ve seen compressed tanks pop, although never a scuba tank and I
really don>t want see one of those go.

G. R. L. Cowan · Guest

pochas wrote:
[quote]
High pressure storage is an issue.
Any vehicle that uses it would have to be extensively
crash-tested and then it probably would remain an issue for many,
even if the tests demonstrate the tanks would remain intact
during any survivable crash.
[/quote]
Crash test dummies can no doubt be found for those tests.
In addition, Quantum Technologies Inc. has had some,
although in its chief>s opinion not enough,
success in finding cheque-writing dummies
willing to pay many thousands of dollars for a ten-gallon tank,
capable of energetically exploding when full,
that holds hydrogen equivalent to 0.7 to 1.1 gallons of gasoline.
Also see the thread "Superpressure Hypertanks need Ultrafunding".

--- 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]

Crash test dummies can no doubt be found for those tests.

--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
[/quote]
Starting with congress and the house of representatives.

--
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


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 5 of 6