Re: Turning wind power into hydrogen
- From: "Jesse Spencer" <jess225107<DELETE>@yahoo.com>
- Date: 05 Jan 2007 19:34:35 GMT
Josh Hill wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:33:08 -0700, Don Lancaster <don@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Josh Hill wrote:wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:37:59 -0700, Don Lancaster <don@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Josh Hill wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:34:05 -0700, Don Lancaster
<don@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Josh Hill wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:02:10 +0800, "Pluto" <pluto7@xxxxxxxxxx>
message
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
else, >> because the sensible comparison is not with the grid powernews:4590F5FD.36686367@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Josh Hill wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Pluto wrote:
Turning wind power into hydrogen
That's about the most wasteful thing you could do
with it.
Why? Is there a shortage of wind?
There's often a shortage of good places to install
wind turbines and using the power to make hydrogen
electrolytically typically wastes 75-80% of the
energy generated.
There isn't going to be any 'hydrogen economy' any
more than perpetual motion machines are going to be
invented.
Graham
Maybe we got to see it from another point of view.
When there is a need for Hydrogen, why not use wind
power to make it, instead of using fossil.
Because making it from wind power is outrageously more
expensive. And always will be, due to the staggering loss
of exergy during electrolysis.
Agree with your first point -- as things now stand. Not your
second. The cost of wind power continues to drop, as does
the cost of electrolysis, and AFAIK we're about to hit
fundamental or practical limits, so there's no reason of
which I'm aware to think that hydrogen from wind won't become
competitive with current sources at some time in the future,
at least when indirect expenditures are taken into account.
And the world isn't making much by way of new supplies of
natural gas, while large-scale carbon sequestration,
necessary to the continued large-scale use of natural gas or
coal as feedstocks, may not prove practical.
The cost of electrolysis will NEVER drop to the point where its
staggering loss of exergy justifies the use of electricity to
generate hydrogen.
As ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED by thermodynamic fundamentals.
Absolutely FREE electrolysis is not nearly good enough.
It is not guaranteed by thermodynamic fundamentals or anything
used to >> produce the hydrogen, but with the gasoline that fuels
your car. And >> gasoline is an expensive fuel.
If gasoline was "expensive", why would anyone ever use it?
Because for the most part you can't, or wouldn't want to, use cheaper
fuels in a car: diesel oil has historically been smelly and clunky to
burn, natural gas has volumetric problems, stored grid power requires
batteries that haven't been developed yet, coal requires a shovel,
wood requires an axe, and a containment vessel won't fit in your
trunk.
Not to mention history -- gas won out over batteries on the basis of
performance and alcohol on the basis of price, but that was back when
oil was a plentiful commodity and neither global warming nor other
forms of auto-generated pollution were considered problems.
Diesel is in widespread use.
Other than that your post seems to verify Lancaster's point.
--
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Turning wind power into hydrogen
- From: Josh Hill
- Re: Turning wind power into hydrogen
- Prev by Date: Re: self-field theory
- Next by Date: Re: Turning wind power into hydrogen
- Previous by thread: Re: Turning wind power into hydrogen
- Next by thread: Re: Turning wind power into hydrogen
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
