Re: Hydrogen economy will never exist

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

  • Next message: Angelo Campanella: "Re: Global Warming NOW -- Deep Suffocation and Climate Change" 
    Date: 13 Jul 2004 16:17:22 -0700

    "Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com> wrote in message news:<I0sz4r.1J8@news.boeing.com>...
    > "Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
    > news:40F41838.B6E6FA2C@tinaja.com...
    > ...
    > > Exergy is the thermodynamically reversibly recoverable energy fraction.
    >
    > This is a bit left handed Don. Thermodynamics, reversability, entropy,
    > recoverable energy, all usefull issues to understand. What is not at all
    > easy is dealing with a combustion process and a single part of a dual fuel
    > as if it were no more than hot water.
    >
    > > It is the centralmost key to understanding which energy technologies are
    > > viable and which are not.
    >
    > So, of course, is entropy. The problem is not that the available energy,
    > paraphrased as exergy to seperate it from the heat energy which is not
    > really available, is not central, but that misusing the process is so easy,
    > it is probably best to stick with entropy.
    >
    > >
    > > And clearly shows us why hydrogen from electrolysis flat out ain't gonna
    > > happen.
    >
    > And again, the conclusion implies the misuse of the very idea. Gasoline, as
    > we have already discussed, has so much less exergy than the oil and natural
    > gas used to produce it, on top of the huge losses in the IC engine, that it
    > equally "flat out ain't gonna happen". Since this inimitable logic fails so
    > miserably for gasoline, I would suggest a more careful look at how the
    > argument works for H2. (Not that I would want to suggest H2 in any
    > unmodified form as a fuel for anything except rockets and scramjets.)

    The power available to every person in a society in general is a
    function of the cost of power. The sun deposits energy at something
    like 171,500 terawatts of power. Humanity uses about 5 terawatts of
    power in the form of oil. Humanity spends around $600 billion per
    year on this energy.

    Spending substantially more than this will reduce the utilization of
    industrial energy by humanity with resulting reversals in living
    standards and all that implies. Spending substantially less than this
    will increase the utilization of industrial energy by humanity with
    resulting improvements in living standards and all that implies.

    Right now the cost of energy is largley dominated by discovery risks
    and discovery rates of hydrocarbons. Since the sun reliably shines
    for a known number of hours each year at any location on Earth, these
    risks are non-existant for solar systems. The costs of solar are
    dominated by their capital costs.

    Given the low utilization of solar power equipment due to the lack of
    adequate sunlight most times, replacing the 5 trillion watts of human
    usage with solar implies the construction of 25 trillion watts of
    solar collectors, along with adequate energy storage and conversion
    utilities. Dividing costs in half, and applying an 8% discount rate,
    and a 15 year lifespan for equipment, we can see that $600 billion per
    year yeilds a capital investment of $5.13 trillion.

    SO, if half the cost is chemical processing costs, and half the costs
    are solar panel costs we need to achieve $0.10 per watt to displace
    oil in a way that positively impacts the economy of Earth. We also
    need to process 28 billion barrels of synthetic crude from atmospheric
    CO2 and water at a capital cost of about $10 fixed capital cost per
    barrel per year capacity.

    Both these numbers are achievable and will provide an alternative to
    natural oil extracted from fixed reserves while closing the presently
    open ended carbon cycle that drives our industrial economy.

    25 trillion watts, at 40% efficiency implies 100,000 square kiometers
    of desert lands are converted to solar collectors. Can we control this
    much land?

    Sure!

    Mok Industries already has control of this much land - and has
    prospects of gaining control of more land.

    http://www.mokindustries.com

  • Next message: Angelo Campanella: "Re: Global Warming NOW -- Deep Suffocation and Climate Change"

    Relevant Pages

    • EERE Network News
      ... international energy efficiency and renewable energy news and events, ... California Approves Legislation for Million Solar Roofs Plan ... First Geothermal Plant in Alaska Starts Power Production ...
      (misc.invest.stocks)
    • Re: We can meet all our needs through space development
      ... expectations of 13% efficiency not 40% as you appear to assume with ... "A Solar Grand Plan ... By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash ... by 2050 we will probably be ready to expand solar energy production ...
      (sci.space.policy)
    • FIGHTING FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
      ... Fighting for America's Energy Independence ... The so-called wind production tax credit Dorgan was ... with power capacity equivalent to that of roughly six ... Costs and True Costs ...
      (sci.physics)
    • FIGHTING FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
      ... Fighting for America's Energy Independence ... The so-called wind production tax credit Dorgan was ... with power capacity equivalent to that of roughly six ... Costs and True Costs ...
      (sci.energy)
    • Re: Solar powered lasers in space
      ... question to me is why not have solar power in the desrt and be done ... in the desert using the energy that comes from the Sun anyway. ... The laser energy is converted by the silicon ...
      (sci.space.policy)