Re: Renewable hydrogen is possible today

On Jun 15, 3:34 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 15, 3:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 15, 10:29 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Bradyou're a nutjob. Your belief in hydrogen peroxide is misplaced.
Hydrogen peroxide while useful in some specialty applications doesn't
contain enough energy to be of interest as a general fuel. Even so
hydrogen peroxide is highly explosive in high concentrations and a
powerful bleach. Anyone who has put a 3% solution of hydrogen peroxide
on a wound,knows how easily the stuff can decompose. Ammonia
solutions don't do that. And neither does gasoline.

Fact is one ton of hydrogen gas has a heating value equal to;

1 ton H2 = 3.2 tons crude oil
6.2 tons coal
6.5 tons ammonia
65.0 tons hydrogen peroxide
130.0 tons sodium sulfur batteries
1,300.0 tons lead acid batteries

Hydrogen peroxide is more in line with batteries than fuel. AND its
highly explosive.

Ammonia on the other hand has a lot going for it - and can be almost a
1 for 1 replacement for coal - while eliminating all the CO2 emissoins
as you siad.

NOx emissions are not an issue to a properly designed plant - any more
than rust is an issue to a properly maintained ship. Yeah you can get
it if you're not careful. But its not an issue to a well run plant.

I'm not talking about any stinking plant for creating H2, or that of
commercial sized fuel cells utilizing H2. I'm talking about us end-
users that'll burn that H2 getting to/from work and play, and/or for
whatever heating and cooking instead of natural gas that has it's
element of radium which contributes radon gas.

BTW; H2 fuel cells can also produce h2o2 as their byproduct, so not
all is lost in your having created all of that affordable H2 in the
first place.

You still haven't listed the side by side worth of those pro/con
issues of birth to grave (all-inclusive) factors. What are you afraid
of?

If Earth's atmosphere didn't have so much N2, as such we'd be good to
go with H2, even though it's taking more energy by at least 25% in
order to utilize H2 (actually by the time of taking in those all-
inclusive birth to grave factors into account, we'd be doing good at
H2 taking a 50/50 share (in other words equal parts) in order to
safely create, store, distribute and utilize.

BTW I've never stipulated that LH2 shouldn't be created from
whatever's of clean and renewable energy that's in surplus, just
insisting that a greater portion of that spare/surplus energy should
go into creating h2o2 that can be made as powerful as you'd like, or
all of it made into 3% mouth wash. Either way it's a win-win for
humanity and for our badly failing environment that doesn't exactly
have enough spare/surplus energy to go around, much less for the
making of H2 that's going to unavoidably create those nasty secondary
elements of NOx.

The last time I'd checked, mother Earth doesn't need any more NOx.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your comments are so wrong on so many levels I do not have time to
correct them all. The only thing I have to say is that you are a
first class nutjobBrad. Properly handled in the right kind of
appliances - hydrogen even when burned does not produce nitrogen
oxides. Hydrogen peroxide has so many problems, a few of which I've
already recounted,and which you blithely ignored, its a waste to
repeat yet again the difficulties the material faces if used as a
replacement for more reasonable fuels.

1 ton hydrogen = 3.2 tons crude oil
6.2 tons coal
6.5 tons ammonia
65.0 tons hydrogen peroxide
130.0 tons sodium sulfur batteries
1,300.0 tons lead acid batteries- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is not a Guth naysay on H2 usage. Instead it's a relatively open
thought as to the amount of atmosphere required in order to best
utilize H2, in other than H2 rich mixture applications. Of course the
Zions of this anti-think-tank Usenet from their Old Testament hell on
Earth will argue against the best available science, objecting to the
regular laws of physics and otherwise stipulating that I'm always dead
wrong.

Fact is one ton of hydrogen gas has a heating value equal to;

1 ton H2 = 3.2 tons crude oil
6.2 tons coal
6.5 tons ammonia
65.0 tons hydrogen peroxide
130.0 tons sodium sulfur batteries
1,300.0 tons lead acid batteries

Fact is that your numbers are skewed, much like those numbers in
arguments on behalf of our going all out via nuclear energy are so
often badly skewed, and especially skewed about the full potential of
h2o2 at 98%+whatever, or even as an h2o2+aluminum battery
applications.

BTW your energy-->LH2-->H2 tonne may need to consume more of our
badly polluted atmosphere than we can afford, especially if our entire
fossil fuel usage were diverted and/or replaced with H2 is where
mother Earth could be at risk of going NOx postal as Exxon and ENRON
types get extra wealthy. Air consumption per given fuel rich ratio of
33:1 seems to be the suggested amount of what the typical automotive
combustion engine is going to utilize unless the cost and usable
mileage per given mass of H2 isn't a factor.

Fortunately, in many ways H2 as a fuel is a whole lot safer than
gasoline, therefore ultimately fewer lives will be damaged or
terminated by the usage of H2, and there should also be less physical
collateral damage as caused by whatever mistakes or accidents occur.

Typically LH2 rich Rocket fuel mixtures of 6.3~7.6 (lean mixtures of
as great as 10:1 being possible though extremely hot) are the norm.
Lets say the consumer usage of H2 being at 8 parts O2 to 1 part H2
will demand consuming roughly 40 tonnes of atmosphere for each tonne
of H2, and that's unavoidably processing nearly 32 tonnes of N2 into
becoming various forms of NOx. NOx can be minimized by way of burning
H2 rich, by which sort of makes your end-user of H2 as energy simply
too freaking spendy, not to mention rather piss poor mileage per each
spendy fill up.

At 10:1 is where that atmospheric consumption goes up to 50 tonnes per
tonne of H2. Sorry about that.

Burning H2/air at reasonably lean mixtures is going to demand special
alloys and/or ceramics in order to deal with the heat, not to mention
a few other pesky issues that'll likely remain spendy. Residential
usage of H2 seems to be asking for loads of other spendy and perhaps
somewhat lethal trouble that's similar to various natural gas fiascos,
though commercial usage of H2+air seems perfectly doable.

What I'm suggesting is that H2 may need to become a composite of a
fuel mixture along with at least one other liquid form of fuel (the
higher the fluid density the better), especially if the intent is to
continually consume our NOx and CO2 polluted atmosphere like there's
no tomorrow, not to mention having diverted most all other available
energy into producing your spendy H2 in the first place.

Hopefully not more than 5% of our global energy consumption will be
via hydrogen, as I don't believe our badly failing environment and
rapidly falling reserves of fossil fuels can hardly accommodate the
demand as is. Diverting new and/or spare energy into producing H2 for
the function of merely mass consuming atmosphere in the process of
burning H2 is simply not the holy grail that's going to save us from
ourselves.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

.

Relevant Pages

  • Willie Mook is trying to sell you his Expansive Solar Panel...Heehee... Beware.
    ... use is growing as the cost of these forms of energy drop due to ... Where 3 tons of carbon plus 9 tons of water produce 11 tons of carbon ... and in fuel cells. ... What matters is the cost of the fuel and the cost of using it. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Renewable hydrogen is possible today
    ... Hydrogen peroxide while useful in some specialty applications doesn't ... contain enough energy to be of interest as a general fuel. ... tons ammonia ... Hydrogen peroxide is more in line with batteries than fuel. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Renewable hydrogen is possible today
    ... Hydrogen peroxide while useful in some specialty applications doesn't ... contain enough energy to be of interest as a general fuel. ... tons ammonia ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: 911 video, proof for controled demolation
    ... Which has more potential energy pound for pound; TNT or jet fuel? ... Now divide by 4,184,000,000 to get the equivalent in tons of TNT and you'll find the initial explosion was equal to roughly 103 tons of TNT. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • space the final frontier
    ... "If we do not develop the resources of our frontier, ... the engine has a maximum thrust at lift off of 1,450 tons. ... carrying 25 tons of useful payload and returns it safely to Earth. ... satellite is 2.4 km in diameter and generates 2.175 GW of laser energy ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading