Re: Hydrogen economy will never exist

From: william mook (william.mook_at_mokindustries.com)
Date: 07/13/04 

Date: 13 Jul 2004 06:25:40 -0700

Fred Kasner <fkasner@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message news:<ccv183$8ii$4@chessie.cirr.com>...
> In sci.energy.hydrogen william mook <william.mook@mokindustries.com> wrote:
> > Fred,
>
> > Your objections are utter rot designed to let you make dismissive
> > statements with no real analysis whatever.
>
> > Check it out.
>
> ... snip ...
>
> >> >>
> >> >> daestrom
> >>
> >> Common error is to assume the feed water for a heating system is what you
> >> claimed as 22 deg C.
>
> > Its only an error if its wrong. In cases where the inlet temperature
> > is 22 C - its not wrong. In cases where the inlet temperature is
> > different, my method of calculation is shown, and easily adjusted to
> > account for it.
>
> Then adjust it and stop generalizing so broadly.
> FK

Are you talking to me or daestrom? I agree if you're talking to
daestrom - since that's exactly what I've said above.

>
> >> Not likely
>
> > An error usually requires that something be wrong, not unlikely.
> > example, are precisely 22C - so if you're using surface water from
> > Lake Erie in the summer - very likely.
>
> Three of the Great Lakes are fairly deep and much colder even at the
> surface than Erie and Ontario.

So?

> Those three constitute the very much
> bigger Great Lakes as well.
> FK

And that pertains to this discussion how? You said everything above -
the 10C difference in temperature does not substantially change the
point I was making about the cost of storing energy in the form of
heat. This cost, combined with the low quality of the energy (hot
water) make it not worth storing, except in highly unusual cases. I
gave the example of Raytheon Polar Services needing hot water and
paying $16 per gallon of diesel at McMurdo Station as just such an
example.

> >> where most water comes from wells or springs and is much colder.
>
> > Where it does not it does not. And you didn't qualify 'much colder' -
> > Even so, you avoid giving any real data. What does much colder mean?
> > Clearly it would be simplicity itself to say something like 12 C - but
> > I suspect you'll leave that up to me, make some more offensive
> > statements about me and just let me twist in the breeze - all for your
> > amusement.
>
> No insult was profered was any intended.

I wasn't insulted, I was offended. Daestrom did wrongly say I was
wrong.

> You must be very cold in winter
> with such a thin skin.
> FK

Nonsense.

> > But here's a reference for ground water temps.
>
> > http://www.pnl.gov/fta/2_ground.htm
>
>
> >> In the states adjacent to the Great Lakes the surface water is cold until
> >> well into the summer. So winter water is nowhere near 22 deg C.
>
> > And when we don't use great lakes water? What great lake exactly?
> > And are these surface water or deeper waters?
>
> All waters taken from the lakes are from not very great depths as that would
> require an intake many miles from shore.

This is not the point of the discussion - why do you behave like it
is? Clearly is there's a 60 degree difference or a 50 degree
difference doesn't make much difference to the total energy picture
for a tank of hot water and the cost per kWh is still about 1/4 the
cost of batteries - which are both very high when compared to fuels.

> But certainly not near the bottoms
> the big lakes which are several hundreds of feet deep.
> FK

Again this is beside the point per your first comment. If you're
planning on using water taken from the Great Lakes, run it through my
solar power system collect the heat from the water and store it in a
tank - you can add 10 degrees C to the temperature difference and
calculate how much energy you're storing. You'll still get something
close to 1/4 the cost of batteries on a kWh basis. So, all this
discussion is pointless relative to my original comment that the cost
of storing heat energy in a tank makes it not very useful except in
unusual conditions, like the South Pole.

> >> You need some clearer arguments.
>
> > Bull***. Coming from someone who provided no analysis or data
> > whatever - ocoming from someone who didn't do an impact analysis (the
> > difference of 22C and 12C water in this instance is small) - your
> > comment is laughable. Clearly, you need a life.
>
>
> Specious analysis by a not very scientific argument is to respond to a fact
> error by dismissing it as not important.

Meaningless bull***. You are saying that a difference of opinion
about what inlet temperature to use is an error in fact and avoiding
altogether that there was no error whatever. Clearly a temperature
difference multiplied by a specific heat and a mass of material gives
total energy. This is what I've done - correctly. If you or daestom
wish to use different temperature differences you are free to do so.
Your attempt to characterize such minor differences as error is itself
wrong. One can only guess at you or daestrom's motivation in this
matter. Especially since such differences change the conclusion (the
cost of storing heat energy is 1/4 the cost of batteries) not at all.

> Also reversion to gutter language

Bull*** is not gutter language. Perhaps you should get a sweater in
winter?

> is usually a sure tipoff of the intellectual character of the user.
> FK

Meaningless rot - pontificating on my intellectual character without
once addressing the substantive information I've provided in any
meaningful way tells us volumes about your motivation in this matter.

Plainly capturing a 50C (or 60C according to daestrom) temperature
difference is not cost effective given the low-quality of the energy
and the costs of retaining it - unless of course you need hot water
anyway, as in the case I've already cited several times.

Quantcast