Re: Low Cost Hydrogen is here to stay

On Dec 8, 12:12 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I'm proposing that ALL carbon fuels be replaced with hydrogen.

Even wood ? Biofuels ?

You're a total crackpot.

No, Graham, you are the crackpot. Somone who is reduced to playing
word games because you have nothing of substance to say.

I clearly stated the three carbon fuels I am talking about. Crude
oil, coal and natural gas.

You clearly shouldn't have said ALL carbon fuels in that case should you ?

Obviously, in the context of our ongoing conversation I clearly stated
the three carbon fuels I'm talking about. Crude oil, coal and natural
gas. You are reduced to playing word games because you have nothing
of substance to add to this discussion.


I even mentioned that with the exception
of hydro power all renewable fuels totalled a vanishingly small amount
of the total - excluding them from discussion.

Renewabe fuel or renewable energy sources ?

Clearly, in the context of our ongoing conversation I have excluded
all renewable energy sources and renewable fuels that contribute a
'vanishingly small amount to the total supply.

There's an important point re biofuels however. Hubbert pointed this
out in his 1970s article in Scientific American entitled Power and
Energy. Where he clearly showed that even if all the biomass on the
planet were turned to industrial fuels, you wouldn't have enough to
meet our needs.

I'm aware of that.

So, we agree.

They can still play a useful role however in specific areas..

Plainly that depends on what our options are. Clearly money is in
limited supply. Obviously therefore money is best spent on its
highest best use which sadly precludes money spent on biofuels.

Now, according to the API the oil companies spent over $400 billion
last year on exploration to increase global reserves by 2%. These are
both record numbers. A record high for exploration budgets. A record
low for the increases. Obviously money spent on oil exploration is
no longer the highest best use of money spent to expand our energy
supply.

What should we be spending our money on?

Nuclear energy research and development, and deployment.
Solar energy research and development and deployment.

So, while biomass makes use of sunlight, and atmospheric carbon, it is
not efficient enough to make significant amounts of fuel when compared
to our total needs. That's because of the inefficient energetics of
photosynthesis.

Consider that a kg of sugar, or fat, or seed oil, or protien costs at
least 25 times as much as a kg of industrial crude oil or coal or
natural gas - and consider that this relationship has a fundamental
reason based in the inefficiency of organic processes relative to
industrial processes.

Errr.... well quite recently I came across surplus wheat being sold as furnace fuel for heating ! It was price
competitive with coal !

The key word here is surplus... and what was the nature of the
surplus?

Was it wheat or wheat chaff mixture? What quality was it? Was it
even edible?

Obviously when Pillsbury takes the sweepings from its bakery floor and
puts into a truck, its not fit for even pigs to eat. So, clearly,
such a mixture of dirt and soot and grime and wheat would be sold for
its highest best use, which the market says is burning as furnace
fuel.

Because it is so costly a source of burnable mateiral, they sold it
for the highest price they could get, which was the cost of coal on a
heat value basis since coal fired burners are very tolerant of grime
and dust and such.

Plainly you are attempting to misconstrue this transaction to mean
something it does not.

Even though it was overproduction, that means your 25 times figure is
hopelessly wrong.

No it doesn't.

For this reason, we make the highest best use of our ARABLE lands and
highest best use of our farming talents and capacities growing food
crops, not fuel crops.

But you don't need ARABLE land to grow many fuel crops.

Yes you do. Look up the definition of arable.

This is just an American obsession.

What is? You're really not making much sense. You've left the rails
of logical discourse. haha.


This is reflected in the fact that where fuel
crops compete with food crops, people are starving and oppose
expansion of the food crops;

Where are they competing ?

You elided my pointer to a news article - there's a reference there.

Graham

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is work? (was Re: Writing courses)
    ... without any specialization of crops at all. ... I was thinking of the effect on availability and prices if farmers can ... there are already subsidies for both farms and oil. ... If there's competing demand for crops for both food and fuel, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: What is the technical name for this kind of energy?
    ... An interesting way to turn a waste product into a limited resource. ... there isn't THAT much waste veggie oil to make a serious dent ... How can there be enough crops to produce ethanol as a fuel but not ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: What is work? (was Re: Writing courses)
    ... cooking oil recycled from the fryers at places like McDonalds. ... without any specialization of crops at all. ... good, inexpensive process for turning agricultural waste, such as corn ... need is a way of turning cellulose into fuel. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: What is the technical name for this kind of energy?
    ... An interesting way to turn a waste product into a limited resource. ... there isn't THAT much waste veggie oil to make a serious dent in our ... How can there be enough crops to produce ethanol as a fuel but not enough ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Holyrood and Westminster at war over oil and taxes (long, but important).
    ... SNP's flagship policy of local income tax. ... He also dismissed the SNP's call for oil tax ... to limit the rising price of fuel. ... Within half an hour, Mr Salmond was on his feet at Holyrood, telling ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)