Re: H2 burner

Williamknowsbest wrote:
On May 18, 5:45 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
On May 17, 3:55 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
And you believe the laws of thermodynamics have been suspended
No, are you so stupid as to think this is a requirement for what I
have written?
since you
find them inconvenient?
I don't find them inconvenient. I find your comment idiotic given
that what you presume to be true is in fact not true.
Look Fred, you say I believe the laws of thermodynamics have been
suspended - why did you say that. WHAT SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU
REFERRING TO?
I allowed for a 40% loss per charge and discharge cycle - so what's
your freaking beef moron?
You don't have one that's why you just say dismissive things without
anything specific. If you had something specific you'd point it out
- but you don't. Idiot.
Look, fool
You're the fool. Calling me one doesn't change that fact.
, you can't get any more energy from a system such as
something that required hydrogen, than the amount you put in.
That is true. So, you are clearly the fool for thinking that is what
I have said, since I obviously didn't say that.
So the
limit of the energy you can store in hydrogen is the energy you expend
in producing the hydrogen.
This has no meaning as worst, is confusing at best. Perhaps this is
the source of your error. Lets try then to lead you slowly through
this, because my daddy taught me that even foolis like you can
eventually get it if you take it slow. So, the first step is to try
to make sense out of this statement. A sensible statement is
plainly
You cannot recover more energy from an energy storage system than you
put into it.
After that there are the considerable losses
in using the hydrogen.
There are considerable losses in using any system. Yet these are not
central. Plainly the central feature of any system is its marginal
utility. That is, what does it cost, and what does it produce. If
something produces more value than it costs to use, then it is likely
to be used.
The world presently spends $4 trillion per year on energy and
generates $66 trillion with it. So, every dollar spent on energy
produces a value of $16.50 - Obviously if we can produce greater
marginal value with hydorgen fuel hydrogen will displace hydrocarbon
fuels over time.
If you can't see that then you are totally
hopeless and witless to boot.
Surely, since you cannot see that you are wrong in your original
assertion about balance of energy, and that your comments about
efficiency without corresponding discussion of utility are
menaingless, you are the hopeless one at present.
Lets go over it more slowly shall we?
Basic facts;
A typical home uses power at a rate of 1.1 kilowatts.
A typical automobile uses 952 gallons of gasoline per year.
A typical home has 2 automobiles.
So, a typical home uses 34.7 GJ of electrical energy. Most power
generators are 38% efficient so this translates to 91.35 GJ of thermal
energy derived from burning fossil fuels. Typically coal. At 23 GJ
per ton this translates to 3.97 tonnes per year. At $30 per tonne,
that's $120 per year. The cost of equipment and whatnot, increase
cost 6.5x this figure to $770 per year.
A gallon of gasoline possesses 120 MJ of thermal energy. So, 952
gallons represent 114.2 GJ of thermal energy. Times two automobiles
this totals 228.4 GJ. At $3 per gallon this is $2,856 per vehicle,
$5,712 for two vehicles over the course of a year.
So, a typical home needs 319.75 gigajoules of thermal energy delivered
by a fuel that costs less than $6,482 over the course of a year.
Now, a ton of hydrogen contains 141.8 GJ of thermal energy when
burned. So, this is where we start in our analysis. This is 2.25
metric tons of hydrogen electrolytically produced from 20.25
kiloliters of DI water by the apploication of 123.75 megawatthours of
solar DC electricity derived from ultralowcost solar panels. This
energy cited takes into account the energy losses in using the
hydrogen as well as making the hydrogen. We just modify existing coal
fired generators to burn hydrogen and we modify existing automotive
engines to burn hydrogen, and modify existing fuel systems on
automobiles to carry hydrogen.
Now in a location like Cleveland Ohio where a square meter oriented
vertical - intercepts 1,350 kilowatt-hours per year - the installation
of a solar panel with 18% overall efficiency will capture 243 kWh per
year of DC solar electricity. Since we need 123.75 MWh of DC solar
electricity, its easy to see that in Cleveland Ohio each average
household requires 509.5 square meters of solar collector.
A solar panel that is 55% efficient will capture 742.5 kWh per year -
and you will need only 167 sq meters of the higher efficiency
panels.
At $15 per square meter for these ultra-low cost panels - the capital
cost $7,642 for the lower efficiency panels. At $30 per square meter
for the higher efficiency panels - the capital cost is $5,010 for the
higher efficiency panels. With a 30 year life cycle, and low capital
cost, the annual cost is far less than the electric bill alone - to
replace the hydrocarbons - so, we can see that this is both
technicallly nd economically workable.
Conventional panels cost over $700 per square meter, and require over
$400,000 per family. These too have a 30 year life, but cost more
than double current costs of hydrocarbon energy -so, doesn't meet the
marginal value requirement of a workable system. Obviously my ultra-
low-cost approach does.
Since the area of abandoned mines in the State of Ohio exceeds 1,000
sq m per person, its easy to see that by reclaiming abandoned mines
with my ultra-low cost solar panels, and then piping the hydrogen to
existing power plants - these savings can be realized as we eliminate
our dependence on foreign sources of oil.
On the transport side, the 4 tons of coal not burned for each family
to produce electricity for their homes is converted by the applicaiton
of 0.5 tons of hydrogen to 1,209.6 gallons of gasoline using the
Bergius process combined with the Mobil Gas Process.
Of course people use electricity at work too. And when they consume
metals like aluminum, that represents a certain amount of electricity
too. Actual electricity consumption is 3x higher than that shown
here. So, the average family uses 14 tons of coal per year. This
represents 4,233.6 gallons of gasoline - nearly double the consumption
of gasoline. Obviously, industry and businesses and government use
gasoline too.
Bottom line, we convert coal to liquid fuel using solar hydrogen, sell
the liquid fuel, and then use the revenue to expand the use of
hydrogen in the economy.
In Ohio there are 11.2 GW of coal fired electrical plants that burn 40
million tons of coal per year to keep them working. Ohio uses 253
million barrels of liquid fuels per year. Converting that State's
abandoned surface mines to solar collector fields and piping 6.5
million tons of hydrogen to all those coal fired power plants, not
only generates the same amount of electricity without carbon, but
converting the coal handling facility to a coal to liquids plant - to
288 million barrels of liquid fuels -turning Ohio into a fuel
exporter. Increasing hydrogen output by 10 million tons per year
eliminates the need to use coal and solar derived liquid fuels and
allows Ohio to replace liquid fuel with hydrogen fuel in its transport
system. This allows ALL the sunfuels to be exported earning over $30
billion for the State.
Throughout all of this more solar energy is being intercepted than is
being used. So, no thermodynamic rules are violated. Lets look at
1,000 joules as it passes through the system;
On the generator side
1,000 joules sunlight
550 joules hydrogen
209 joules AC electricity
On the hydrogen vehicle side
1,000 joules sunlight
550 joules hydrogen
110 joules mechanical energy
On the sunfuel side
1,000 joules sunlight
500 joules hydrogen
380 joules hydrogne component of gasoline
Now, lets look at the efficiency of gasoline drawn from an oil well.
To understand the efficiencies we have to understand the process by
which oil comes to be in the first place. Millions of years ago
ancient biomass intercepted sunlight. That sunlight energized the
life processes that created biomass. A small portion of that biomass
was captured by the environment without decaying. The biomass over
time converted into liquid fuels. Humans came along and withdrew a
portion of those liquids - the mobile portion - the stationary portion
stays in the ground.
So, conventional fuels;
1,000 joules sunlight intercepted
30 joules of biomass
0.3 joules captured by geological processes
0.1 joules recoverable reserves
0.03 joules actually recovered
0.02 joules available after processing and delivery
finally
0.007 joules - AC electricity (oil fired generator)
or
0.004 joules - mechanical energy (automobile engine)
Clearly the efficiencies are so low in this process, we cannot rely on
them today to provide fuels for us today. That's why these fuels are
called non-renewable. They renew at impractically small rates
Despite these fantastically low efficiencies, humans have come to use
these fuels. Why? High marginal value! We shouldn't worry
ourselves about chasing the absolute highest efficiencies - rather we
should keep a close eye on capital costs and marginal cost verus
marginal value - in any system we contemplate.
Pure bafflegab!

??? You are indeed an idiot if you thinkthe efficiencies of
conventional fuel production are high enough to call them anything but
non-renewable.

The circumstance is that you spend x dollars (euros,
pounds, etc.) to produce a certain amount of hydrogen.

Yes. The cost of the collectors is the important thing.
Absolutely. At least you got that. Or rather, you got it partly
since you obviously think my ultra-low-cost collectors are
expensive. Check it out. My system costs $15 per square meter for
the low price low efficiency silicon based system, and $30 per square
meter for the high priced high efficiency germanium/gallium arsenide/
indium phosphide system. One is 18% efficient, and the other is 55%
efficient. So, a square meter under full illumination produces 180
watts for $15, and 550 watts for $30 - that's $0.08 per peak watt and
$0.06 per peak watt respectively.

Now in Cleveland Ohio a square meter intercepts 1350 kilowatt-hours of
sunlight per year. That's $15 for the low priced systema nd $30 for
thei high priced system. At 18% that's 243 kWh per year. With a 30
year life span that's 7,290 kWh. The higher priced spread is 55%
efficient, so that's 742 kWh. A 30 year life span again produces
22,275 kWh. Now it takes 55 kWh of energy to produce a kg of
hydrogen and 8 kg of oxygen from 9 kg of water.

In Cleveland

1 sq m $15 Si 7,290 kWh 132 kg
$113 per metric ton hydrogen
1 sq m $30 Ge/GaAs/InPh 22,275 kWh 405 kg $074 per
metric ton hydrogen

Accounting for losses due to storage, transmission, compression,
liquefaction,conversion, and the time value of money, these figures
are doubled in the real world. $230 for the Silicon based system,
and $150 for the Germanium substrate system for a ton of hydrogen.

Since a metric ton of hydrogen possesses 141.3 GJ - we can compare it
to other fuels

1 ton hydrogen = 6.2 tons coal --> $37 to $24 per metric
ton of coal
1 ton hydrogen = 23.2 bbls crude oil --> $9.91 to $6.46
per barrel of crude oil
1 ton hydrogen = 153.6 mcf natural gas ---> $1.49 to $0.97
per thousand cubic feet

Clearly replacing natural gas and coal in stationary power plants is
profitable if done at competitive rates. Obviously this eliminates
carbon-dioxide emissions altogether. Plainly this can be done for
profit at these prices for hydrogen. My company proposes a fuel
trading program exchanging hydrogen for other fuels. I then convert
those other fuels to liquid fuels to earn income.

A metric ton of natural gas is partially oxidized to form methanol

2 CH4. + O2 ---> 2 CH3OH

methanol is then dehydrated in the Mobil Gas process to produce iso-
octane. In this way a tonne of hydrogen is exchanged for 2.6 tonnes
of methane which is converted into 33.2 barrels of liquid fuels.
Dividing this yeild by the number of barrels of liquid fuels obtains
$6.92 to $4.51 per barrel of liquid fuel.

A metric ton of coal is converted by direct hydrogenation into 7.2
barrels of liquid fuels by adding another 150 kg of hydrogen to it.
In this way 518 kg of hydrogen is exchanged for 3.2 tonnes of coal to
which an additional 482 kg of hydrogen is added to create 23.1
barrels of liquid fuels. Dividing this yeild by the number of barrels
of liquid fuels obtains . $9.96 to $6.49 per barrel of liquid fuel.

Each tonne of hydrogen burned in place of natural gas avoids 7.15
tonnes of carbon dioxide production. Valued at $5 per avoided tonne,
this is worth $35.75 for each tonne of hydrogen used this way.

Each tonne of hydrogen burned in place of coal avoids 22.73 tonnes of
carbon dioxide production. Valued at $5 per avoided tonne,this is
worth $113.67 for each tonne of hydrogen used in this way.

At $125 per barrel of liquid fuel,each tonne of hydrogen used to power
a natural gas power plant - taking methane in exchange for hydrogen,
and using oxygen to make liquid fuels from the methane - produces
$4,185.75 for each tonne of hydrogen produced at a cost ranging from
$230 to $150 per metric tonne.

At $125 per barrel of liquid fuel each tonne of hydrogen used to power
a coal fired power plant - taking the coal in exhcange for hydrogen
and using oxygen and additional hydrogen to make liquid fuels from the
coal - produces $3,001.17 for each tonne of hydrogen produced at a
cost ranginf from $230 to $150 per metric tonne.

Each tonne of hydrogen burned in an oil fired power plant replaces
23.2 barrels of residual oil. That oil is upgraded through hydro-
cracking - producing $2,900 per metric ton of hydrogen used this way.

Direct replacement of gasoline - which contains 120 MJ per gallon -
means that burning a tonne of hydrogen is equal to burning 1,183
gallons of gasoline. At $3.50 per gallon this produces $4,135 from
each $230 to $150 spent to produce that metric ton with the technology
described here;

http://www.usoal.com

However the
energy you can get from the hydrogen by combustion (followed by some use
of the combustion products to produce energy) or by producing very
expensive electricity in a fuel cell is worth less than x dollars (etc.)
when you resell that energy.

Replace the x with real figures and you have a point. Otherwise you're
just spouting blather.

The point is sir that hydrogen burns under the same condition all
other fuels burn. So, hydrogen is immediately useable in nearly all
heat engines with very minor changes in burner and carbereutor and
injector design. Stationary gas fired oil fired and coal fired plants
are easily converted to hydrogen - provided a low cost source of
renewable hydrogen is available. Your point that before my technology
there was no such source is well taken. Now there is however. High
temperature reactors, if they are ever developed, would also formthe
basis of a viable hydrogen economy - if the reactors can be made for
sufficiently low cost..

That is a nondebatable fact.

Right - if something costs more than than something else then the
something else will dominate in the market all things being equal. Non
debatable. The fact that you think that is what we are debating
obviously marks you off as the greater fool.


Any claim that
you make that you can get more dollars (euros, pounds, etc.) from a
given amount of hydrogen than the cost in dollars (euros, pounds, etc.)
than it cost to produce that hydrogen means that some fraction of your
hydrogen is free of cost.

I'm not making such a claim. Clearly your inability to see that makes
you a monumental ***.

In that case you have found a way to to get
more money for sytnetic gold than gold costs to purchase on the market
at present.

This is utter nonsense in the context of what I have said.

This is utter nonsense.

I just said that.

You may act the utter fools

Obviously you are just such a fool.

by
hurling invective

You're the one calling names and waving your arms with overly general
statements and illogical arguments.

in order to discredit my assertion.

Plainy, you discredit yourself. I have little to do with it,since you
are the one who makes illogical assertions backed by no real numbers
or facts whatever.

But no rational
human would support you in such idiocy.

Make a square meter of solar collector for $30 that produces hydrogen
from sunlight with 55% efficiency, and you produce hydrogen for $150
per metric tonne at a rate of 405 kg per square meter per year in
Cleveland Ohio. The value of that tonne of hydrogen is worth between
$2,000 and $4,600 depending on how its used in today's economy.

Hydrogen is a fool's purported
fuel.

Depends on the details.

There is no free hydrogen

No, but given a low cost source of energy, like sunlight, or high
temperature nuclear reactors, and hydrogen can be made from water
using those sources of energy cost competitively if attention is paid
to generator costs.

or hydrogen that can be "mined" for less
money than you can sell that hydrogen for in the rational market.

Hydrogen using my system is made for between $150 and $230 per metric
ton. This hydrogen when used rationally produces between $2,000 and
$4,600 in value when used as described.

If you
don't know this then you are headed for economic disaster when you
invest your own money or money of cozzened investors.

You are the one who is avoiding talking about details that impact
cost. Sunlight is available, water is available, the only factor is
the cost of the solar generation. Systems that cost more than $0.60
per peak watt are not economic. Those that cost substantially less
than $0.60 per peak watt -as my system does- are highly economic. The
only way your arguments make sense is by demonstrating that it is
impossible to achieve a price of less than $0.60 per peak watt for
solar collectors, or $4.80 per peakwatt for high temperature nuclear
reactors (each watt of a nuclear reactor produces 8x the energy in a
year than a solar collector in Cleveland Ohio produces.)

You have failed to demonstrate this - in fact - you have failed to
demonstrate that you even understand what I'm talking about - so, you
clearly have demonstrated for us all that you are the greater fool.

My father was clearly more intelligent than your father and my genes are
clearly worth more than yours.

I am absolutely certain that this makes you feel better about
yourself. I am equally certain that this demonstrates to anyone
reading this that you are the greater fool.

FK

Please read over carefully what I have written. There is enough there
for even someone such as yourself to finally get what I'm talking
about. Maybe it will clear things up for you.

cheers

Your trouble lies in wildly and incredibly large estimates of the available hydrogen you will have in a modest time after producing it by electrolysis. You throw away most of your energy in making the hydrogen. The electricity from a purported highly efficient solar operation would be worth so much more for use directly as energy to run electric motors for other purposes. To convert it to hydrogen with no reliable process for modest long term storage or transmission - almost all hydrogen used in the USA if not generated locally is transported by cylinders on trucks and is not stored for long time as too much H2 can leak from the cylinders. Given the embrittlement properties of hydrogen in base metal cylinders or in pipelines the whole process fails for lack of even a modestly reliable technological structure. When you can solve these problems you might come back with more realistic claims of hydrogen as a energy carrier. Until such time you really should keep your pie-in-the-sky schemes to yourself lest you be labeled a scammer by the more rational but less patient among those who have seen such schemes again and again posited on this NG.
FK
.

Quantcast