Re: Best Books on Hydrogen Future Possibilities

On Jan 8, 4:23 pm, "Don W" <dNOSPAMwidd...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Don Lancaster <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There are certainly places where electrolysis is practical and cost
effective.

Agreed.

These are ALL characterized by (A) the value of the generated
hydrogen vastly exceeding its pitiful energy content, and

This is a biased statement.  I agree with the value of generated
hydrogen exceeding its cost of production.  You err in assuming that
hydrogen has pitiful energy storage capacity.  Look at the Centaur
upper stage on a Delta or Atlas rocket.  Its hydrogen and oxygen
powered.  That has HUGE energy enough to blast things off the planet.
Obviously, there is lots of energy in hydrogen fuel.  The only thing
you need to do to correct your mistatement done is to retract the
idiot portion that assumes hydrogen cannot be cost-effective energy
source.

...yet you cite an example where hydrogen was chosen for its contribution to
high Isp (due to low mass), not because it's cost effective.

Isp is a measure of exhaust velocity, which is a measure of
temperature, which is a measure of energy content. The statement I
was responding to was lancasters characterization of hydrogen as
"woefully lacking in energy." Obviously this is a
mischaracterization given the fact that hydrogen is the MOST energetic
of fuels.

 In this rare
case, the low mass characteristic of hydrogen makes it a logical fuel choice

Yes, as it does in others. The insensitivity to cost is one reason
NASA was an early adopter of hydrogen fuels. This is typical of any
technology. The early adopters pay more. Whether its a mainframe
computer used by a bank in 1968 that has 16 k ram and cost $1 million
- or whether its me buying a digital watch for $2,300 in that same
year! lol. Just because something starts out high priced doesn't
mean it stays there. To figure out why, we have to engage in
fundamental analysis.

(not an economical energy source.)  

Its the most economical for that application you just said. You have
done zero analysis of cost to make this statement for OTHER
applications. I have shown with quite detailed calculations that I
can manufacture hydrogen from sunlight and water for $200 in the
field, and deliver anywhere in the US for $270. I have also shown
that on a heat value basis, it competes with all fossil fuels at a
retail price of $800 per metric ton.

And by the way, what percentage of the
hydrogen used in space craft do you suppose is electrolytically extracted
from water?  NONE!  0%  

What is the point of your statement? Just because hydrogen is
produced by the shift reaction between water and coal, or water and
methane, doesn't mean water wasn't a source, or that hydrogen was the
best choice for that application.

Your example in no way contradicts the statement
that dissociation of water by electrolysis is not a practical means of
storing large quantities of energy.  

The amount of energy in a ton of hydrogen is the same no matter how
its produced. My example puts a lie to the statement that Lancaster
said hydrogen was woefully lacking in energy. It is the highest
energy fuel known. PERIOD. THat's all that meant. You are seeing
umbras and penumbras around what I said because you are bound and
determined to say dismissive things regardless of whether its the
right and logical thing or not.

Chill dude. Hydrogen has more energy per unit weight than any other
commonly available chemical fuel, bar none. 143 GJ per ton. Natural
gas 55 GJ per ton. Crude oil 44 GJ per ton. High rank coal 23 GJ per
ton. Live with it.

As Don stated, electrolysis is only
used to produce hydrogen in situations where the value of having hydrogen on
hand without having to store hydrogen outweighs the capital cost of the
electrolyzer and the energy cost to produce the hydrogen.

That's not true. I gave a report from Teledyne of several industrial
electrolytic applications. You have chosen to ignore reality to
persist in your false statements.

 (I would add to
that a few pathetic demos where government subsidies the capital cost of the
electrolyzer and the energy cost to produce hydrogen or some entity's desire
to make the impractical appear practical outweighs...)

You are repeating Lancaster's lies. The Teledyne presentation of
which I gave you the power point for, discussed a wide number of
commercial industrial applications where electrolytic production of
both hydrogen and oxygen made sense. While less mature than shift
reaction technology, the ultimate price point and fundamental path of
growth is clear. You choose to ignore this to persist in your
pointlessly dismissive comments.

The question we have, that any industry has, is to figure out what's
going to happen tomorrow? TO answer this question correctly requires
a knowledgeable analysis of the current state of technology, a deep
understanding of fundamental limitations, and a clear vision of where
technology is going. Mature shift reaction based production that
relies on diminishing supplies of increasing valuable hydrocarbons has
little to know potential for growth or change. New electrolytic
thermolytic and photlytic production technologies that have
significant potential for growth and change that relies on reserves of
hydrogen and energy that are hundreds of thousands of times greater
than the supplies of hydrocarbon OBVIOUSLY are the basis of continuing
growth in the energy sector.

(B) immediate nonstored
use, and

This is one way to use hydrogen, certainly, but not the only one.  For
example, with modern hydrogen storage and distribution technology, its
possible to have regenerative fuel cells, and a variety of gaseous and
stored hydrogen system that deliver energy at any time its needed, any
place its needed.

Isn't it interesting that while we all know these things are possible they
are still not practical and likely never will be?  

Isn't it interesting you speak this way ever after ASME published
(finally - after years of delay caused by the oil industry) standards
for hydrogen storage and distribution. You can know go out to any ISO
certified fabricator and have an industrial hydrogen storage system
quoted, specified and built - and pay no more on either a CAPEX basis
or a recurring cost basis per delivered GJ than one pays for any other
industrial energy source.

Years ago I had a
conversation with Fred Mitlitsky who told me he had worked with an associate
who developed a fairly promising unitized regenerative fuel cell, but it
wasn't a hydrogen fuel cell and involved some chemistry more toxic than
hydrogen and oxygen.

You speak as if closed cycle regenerative hydrogen oxygen fuel cells
haven't been built. Dude, Helios was built in the 1990s - Boeing is
flying a manned electric aircraft powered by regenerative fuel cell.
Where the hell have you been?

 In a closed system I hardly see how that matters, but
still no URFC at Home Depot.  

What does this have to do with anything? Systems are flying,
processes are under development. I have quoted paper after paper,
system after system. How long should switching to a new system
take? How long did it take to switch from steam to internal
combustion engines on the railroad? Ford introduced the motorcar
before the turn of the century. The last steam engine has yet to
retire from service, but the last major commercial carrier retired
their steam engines in favor of diesel electric engines by the
1950s.

NASA flew the first solar powered regenerative fueled aircraft less
than 10 years ago. Boeing is now flying a manned regenerative fuel
aircraft. Assuming rates of development are double what they were in
1900 - we'll see a major shift in aircraft by 2040.

Like I said elsewhere, you apply a different standard to the oil
comapnies. There's still no significant production out of Sakhalin
Island after 12 years and billions of dollars of investment either.
Does that mean there's no recoverable natural gas there? That the oil
companies are wasting their time? Obviously not. Same here.


I used to use NiMH batteries (kind of like a
URFC), but now I'm sticking with Li batteries.  Still having trouble finding
one good terrestrial example of electrolysis used to produce large scale
hydrogen for massive energy storage?

Jesus Don W, I gave a power point from a report by Teledyne that had
27 pages that went into every gory detail and nuance of electrolytic
hydrogen and oxygen production - in a wide range of industrail
applications. Did you miss that? Sheez.

Don W.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages
Loading