Re: Low Cost Hydrogen is here to stay

On Dec 7, 2:40 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I see that your 100% hydrogen fortified future of clean and affordable
energy is still getting Usenet traumatized to death.

In your mind it must be that flak from all of those pretend atheists
that were actually smart Muslims, that used to be the real brains
within Hitler's Third Reich (because those Zionists and of their
Jewish minions were simply all too poor and stupid at the time)
- Brad Guth



Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
The world each year presently produces and consumes by burning 28.3
billion barrels of oil along with 5.2 billion tonnes of coal, and 2.2
billion tonnes of natural gas. This produces 33.6 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide along with energy at an average rate of 15 trillion
watts thermal. For this the world pays $4 trillion a year out of its
$66 trillion a year annual production for this oil. This is a recent
rise from $2 trillion per year.

Since hydrogen's upper and lower explosive limits, and other burning
characteristics largely match those of all carbon based fuels,
hydrogen is easily substituted as a heat source in all these uses. In
fact 3.34 billion tons of hydrogen would displace ALL OTHER FUELS.

At present the lowest cost way of making hydrogen is the shift
reaction. This is where carbon plus water are reacted so that the
oxygen is scavanged off the water and leave the hydrogen. So, 3 tons
of carbon plus 9 tons of water are used to make 11 tons of carbon-
dioxide and 1 ton of hydrogen. So, to make 3.34 billion tons of
hydrogen from the shift reaction requires 10 billion tons of carbon
and creates 36.7 billion tons of carbon-dioxide. This increases
carbon dioxide output, but centralizes its production which means that
it could be sequestered somehow from these central production points.

Another highly speculative way of making this much hydrogen is through
direct photolytic decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen
inside a nuclear reactor. This is about 60% efficient, and so 25 TW
of nuclear power plants Today there are 439 commercial nuclear power
plants operating in 30 countries throughout the world with 0.372 TW
total capacity. 56 countries operate 284 research reactors. There
are 220 reactors on ships and submarines operated by four countries.
All nuclear programs in all nations total $5 trillion. The cost of
disposal of nuclear wast from our current reactors remains an
unresolved problem.

To meet our hydrogen needs with nuclear energy requires a 120,000 fold
increase in the amount of nuclear fuels being used in the world's
economy, and a low-cost resolution of the long term disposal of this
much nucler waste. Assuming the cost of new reactors is 1% the cost
of all previous reactors on a per watt basis, this totals $600
trillion. At 4% per year the cost of capital alone is $24 trillion -
6x today's HIGH fuel costs.

Further, in the first half century of of operating less than 1 TW of
nuclear plants serious accidents occurred and the background radiation
of the planet doubled. On April 26, 1986, the Number Four RBMK
reactor at the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl, Ukraine, went out of
control during a test at low-power, leading to an explosion and fire
that demolished the reactor building and released large amounts of
radiation into the atmosphere. As a result a permanent exlcusion zone
totalling 53,000 sq km was established where humans will not be able
to live for a large number of years.

Assuming safety is 150x in future reactors than at RBMK, we can expect
when operating 25 TW of reactors to create hydrogen through direct
photolytic reduction, to exclude for a period of 10,000 years on
average 1,000 sq km per year would be added to this exclusion area,
and the world would live with a naturally rising level of background
radiation over time, just as it now lives with a naturally rising
carbon dioxide level over time. Over 10,000 years 10 million sq km of
land would be excluded from human habitation.

This is a steady state result. Since the world's economic activity is
closely tied to energy costs, we can expect per capita use to rise
exponentially doubling every 7 to 10 years. So, over even a 30 year
period, total energy use may rise to well over 10x today's rates. So,
total area excluded is a function of total energy use, and so its 10x
larger in 30 years - growing on average at 10,000 sq km per year, and
peaking at 100 million sq km of land in 10,000 years. In 70 years
total energy use would rise to over 100x what it is today - equivalent
on a per capita basis of what a typical millionaire uses (think
private jet, multiple homes, yacht, etc.) - well within possibility -
and then, the exclusion zone of a nuclear powered hydrogen economy
grows at 100,000 sq km per year, and the exclusion zone covers the
entire Earth before it peaks.

Clearly not a viable solution to answer our problems with carbon.

And we haven't even touched on the problems with loose nukes, terror
nukes, and so forth.

Another way to produce 3.36 billion tons of hydrogen per year to
replace our use of carbon is to capture sunlight with solar panels to
produce DC electricity when the sun shines and then use that DC
electricity to make hydrogen from water by electrolytic reduction.
Using alkaline electrolyzers with stainless steel electrodes, this
process can produce 1 metric ton of hydrogen from 9 metric tons of
water with the application of 50 MWh of DC electricity. To produce
3.36 billion tons of hydrogen therefore requires the application of
98.8 TW of solar panels if the panels are located in a region that hs
1,700 hours of insolation per year. With 180 MW per sq km, this
implies an area of 549,000 sq km of solar panels are needed to achieve
this end. Since there are about 16,000,000 sq km of deserts that
have high levels of solar insolation, this involves only covering 3.4%
of the world's deserts.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/what/world.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deserts_by_area

The amount of land needed is less than that controlled by the two
largest surface mine operators in the world. This is also an amount
of land that is less than the area of the world's 32,345,165 km of
roadways.

So, despite the immense area called for, it seems like an area that is
easily doable.

I have developed an ultra-low-cost CPV system that costs less than
$0.07 per peak watt. I have a factory under construction that will
produce 1 sq km of panels per day. This implies a total cost of
panels of less than $7 trillion. Valuing the hydrogen at $800 per
ton this means this asset produces $2.68 trillion per year in
revenues. The remaining $1.32 trillion in market value is realized as
cost savings to the consumer, or as profits to distributors and re-
marketers. In any case at these prices, the solar power system is
easily installable on well defined lands with well defined access and
support infrastructure.

The $2 billion factory produces 1 sq km per day. To produce ALL the
hydrogen needed in 5,500 days 15 years - requires the production of
100 factories at a cost of $200 billion. By comparison there are over
600 wafer fabs operated throughout the world by 220 companies that
produce ALL the worlds consumer electronics - which cost 6x as much to
build to service a market 1/10th as large.

With a lifespan of 30 to 40 years, the panels will need replaced, but
with industrial growth rates of 7% to 10% per year - power needs will
have grown 10x over that period. This can be supplied by a straight
line increase of panel area, or by being a little more clever.

If we decide to go on the pathway toward massive use of solar energy
we can continue on this pathway by creating powersats that beam energy
from space to the terrestrial solar collectors. That is, well before
the terrestrial panels exceed 1 million sq km, we can put collectors
in space to power solar pumped IR lasers that beam energy to the then
pre-existing solar panels. In this way, existing solar panel output
may be increased 10x today's levels. Then, 30 years after that, laser
energies may be increased, along with improved beam steering to
provide direct from space to end user power links - to create a
seamless powernet - similar to the coming global hotspot - or to
todays global GPS - without any massive ground equipment or shipping
of fuels. In that far off day within the next 60 years - every man
woman and child will have low-cost access to VTOL ballistic transport
and interplanetary space travel will as common as air travel or sea
travel is today all powered by powerful solar pumped lasers.

This is a future that is doable, and one that is appealing to many and
one that we could achieve in short order.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brad, I don't know what you mean by most of what you say, and what I
seem to understand of what you say I usually disagree with. I have
two coal to liquid projects in Indonesia, and one oil upgrade project
in UAE. After talking to folks in Australia about converting their
48,000 MW of coal fired plants to hydrogen, and talking to some of the
folks there about converting all their autos and trucks to
regenerative fuel cells or hydrogen fueled ICEs - I think I'm
convinced that the instead of spending $60 billion on capital that
converts all the stranded coal to petrol, Australia would be better
off spending $50 billion on converting 10 million motorcars to
hydrogen and electricity (and creat a lot of jobs in the land of Oz
and a huge export market that would exceed petrol exports) and I'd
spend an added $10 billion on making the extra hydrogen needed.

Check it out. 48,000 MW needs 173 milion tons of coal each year.
That is replaced by 28 million tons of hydrogen. Now, to make that in
Oz requires 823,500 MW of solar panels. At $0.07 per peak watt thats
$58.6 billion. At $0.03 per peak watt that's $26.7 billion. The
final number will be somewhere between these two figures - due to
learning curve effect. To convert the stranded coal to 1.2 billion
barrels of petrol each year will require $60 billion firm - since this
is not new technology, not much anyway. Oz imports 335,000 bbls/day,
and burns 965,000 bbls/day - so, with this infrastructure they can
begin exporting something like 1.8 million bbls/day. That's $10 per
day for each Aussie. Sweet. But 965,000 bbls/day can be displaced by
42,000 tons of hydrogen each day. That's a 54% increase over the
original figure, which means another $15 to $30 billion - more likely
the lower figure.

In short, I can grow faster as an ALL HYDROGEN process than I can as a
hydro-carbon process. At least on paper. But that's why I've added
that to my game plan. In Indonesia and UAE I'll stick with
hydrocarbons, and leverage those to acquire a re-marketer in the USA
and make it an integrated oil company using these solar 'sunfuels' as
a resource. But in Oz I'll stick with an all hydrogen solution, and
add that to my product mix in the USA at the retail level and see how
they battle it out.

There are a lot of opportunities. As I mentioned before there are 159
coal fired power plants in the USA that are stalled because of carbon
concerns. Converting these 79,000 MW to hydrogen ends that concern
and adds value besides. So, I either sign fuel supply deals totalling
something like $9 billion per GW, or buy the power plants themselves
on the cheap, and realize a quick profit when I get them approved -
which creates more than $9 billion per GW in value. Building the
roughly 2 TW of panels and national hydrogen pipeline to service them
automatically puts into place the infrastructure needed to create a
hydrogen and electricity infrastructure to challenge the dominance of
oil in ground transportation.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Space-based power makes CNN.com - comments may be entertaining
    ... Once again the true birth to grave cost of your spaced ... based energy is only off by way of ten fold under what it'll actually ... Space solar power had certain advantages and disadvantages. ... billion and produces 425 million tons of hydrogen per year. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Practical space travel and unlimited growth
    ... that flow is given by the cost of imparting that momentum. ... World shipping today is approximately 6.5 billion tons loaded each ... Obviously, beamed energy from ... solar sources in space to any user throughout the solar system ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Low Cost Hydrogen is here to stay
    ... energy is still getting Usenet traumatized to death. ... fact 3.34 billion tons of hydrogen would displace ALL OTHER FUELS. ... At present the lowest cost way of making hydrogen is the shift ... TW of solar panels if the panels are located in a region that hs ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Question for William Mook
    ... any connection to AC power whatsoever, so I am not sure where a pulse ... Sold at a cost of $0.04 per kWh over 20 years - the face ... tons of coal per year. ... requires the installation of 32.6 GW of solar panels covering 69.7 sq ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Best Books on Hydrogen Future Possibilities
    ... fraction of that captured biomass was converted to hydrocarbon fuels, ... 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 ... What matters is the cost of the fuel and the cost of using it. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
Quantcast