Re: H2 burner


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.

Its not a trouble.

You throw away most of your energy in making the hydrogen.

So? The only thing that matters is the cost of capital and the cost
of the resulting fuel. I mean, far more energy is thrown away by
nature when it makes crude oil coal or natural gas from biomass. Of
course we don't pay for it when we discover reserves of these fuels.
So, we don't care. Same here.

As long as the cost is more affordable than existing fuels, it doesn't
really matter that 1,100 GJ of sunlight is needed to produce 54 GJ of
electricity in your home as long as you pay less for it.

As I mentioned before, $15 per square meter of silicon based solar
collector - converting 18% of incident energy to electricity -
produces 243 kWh per square meter in a year at Cleveland Ohio. This
produces 4.42 kg per year per square meter from solar sources.

With a 30 year life span,$15 per square meter costs $0.50 per year.
That' means 8.84 kg of hydrogen can be had for a dollar. A metric
ton for $113 - as I said,with the time value of money, and other
losses,$230 per metric ton easy.

I also mentioned $30 per square meter germanium/gallium-arsenide/
indium-phosphide - collectors - converting 55% of incident energy to
hydrogen - producing the equivalent of 742 kWh of useful energy - 13.5
kg per year per square meter from solar sources. With a 30 year life
span $30 per square meter costs $1.00 per year per square meter. That
means 13.5 kg of hydrogen can be had for a dollar. That's $74 per
metric ton - as I said with the time value of money and other losses
$150 per metric ton easy.

Now the heat value of a metric ton of hydorgen is 143 GJ. This is
equivalent to 6.2 tons of coal or 23.4 barrels of oil. A coal fired
generator is about 38% efficient. So, each ton of hydrogen generates
54 GJ of electricity from $230 worth of stuff. That's $4.25 per
GJ.that's 1.5 cents per kWh - half the price of coal in a coal fired
plant. So, we're golden.

143 GJ of chemical energy for $230. Made with a silicon panel it
required 1,100 GJ of sunlight to make.

So, you are saying that because 1,100 GJ of sunlight resulted in 54 GJ
of electricity in your home we shouldn't use solar power in this way
even if you pay half what you're paying now for coal? What rot..

That's as ridiculous as saying that it took1,100,000 GJ of sunlight to
produce a ton of coal, so we shouldn't burn coal that we can dig out
of the ground and burn for $40 per ton.

Same here.

Because I can deliver the heat equivalent of 6.2 tons of coal to a
coal fired and
trade it for the coal straight up for the coal it otherwise burns -
and
use an additoinal ton of hydrogen to make 45 barrels of oil worth over
$4,600 -
while spending less than $460 -

I am doing that - exactly that. And building up an alternative
energy infrastructure requiring no one to change anything at the
consumer level.
..
No one cares about the free sunlight that's wasted. All I gotta do is
cover stripped out surface mines with solar panels, take the water
draining off of the land convert that water to hydrogen and deliver it
to coal fired power plants. Burn the hydrogen in place of the coal at
these plants, and convert the coal to gasoline also at the plants -
operated as clean coal technology- then sell the gasoline for huge
profits.
.. .
The electricity from a purported highly efficient solar operation

You are confusing thermodynamic and economic efficiency.

Thermodynamically my silicon panels are 18% efficient, and the coal
fired power plants are 38% efficient - so overall we're converting
sunlight to baseload electricity at a rate of 6.84% efficiency.
We're not even using electricity sales to pay for the installation.

Economically, I'm trading $230 worth of hydrogen for coal straight up
on a heat value basis,regardless of the value of the coal. I'm
taking $230 more hydrogen to combine with the coal obtained to
produce $4,600 worth of gasoline - which is sold at $4,150 profit on
$460 cost of goods sold. A tremendous return on investment.

would
be worth so much more for use directly as energy to run electric motors
for other purposes.

Thermodynamic efficiency comes at a cost of reduced economic
efficiency. To drive motors directly with the output of my silicon
panel requires that the load and generation match. A load and
generator must match in order to operate efficiently. Too much
generation and not enough load, and you lose efficiency. Too little
generation and too much load, and likewise, you lose efficiency.
Things must be in balance. Loads must be managed to maintain
peakpower point of the solar panels. Since lighting conditions vary
throughout the day,this is a critical factor in solar panels that are
tied directly to loads. The addition of batteries capacitors and
swtiching equipment that maintains peak power conditions for the solar
panel,adds substantially to the cost - $3 to $4 per watt. So, my $15
silicon panel now costs $600 or more - and while it delivers more
power to a motor - it does so at a higher cost per watt - at a cost
that is not competitive.

So why do it? Just because its thermodynamically efficient? Far
better to have an inexpensive panel drive an inexpensive electrolysis
process that automatically changes rate of production to match
lighitng conditions without a lot of cost - and then use that hydrogen
to replace hydrocarbon fuels and then upgrade those fuels and sell
them for profit.

To convert it to hydrogen with no reliable process
for modest long term storage or transmission -

What nonsense. Hydrogen transmission and storage is a solved problem.

http://www.mac.doc.gov/China/Breakout%20D%20-%20Frikkin.pdf

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.

Not true.

http://www.praxair.com/praxair.nsf/d63afe71c771b0d785256519006c5ea1/2a5df393598d7f3b85256baf000827be?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,hydrogen

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.

This is an oft repeated canard that was outdated in 1959 following
NASA's development of teflon coatings for tanks and pipes to reliably
and safelly handle hydrogen as a rocket fuel. It was noted among
German engineers in the 1920s when they first started using hydrogen
to make fertilizer,that steel pipe would become brittle as the carbon
in the pipe reacted with hydrogen. This was noted as an aging FACTOR -
just like rust - that called for pipes to be replaced in time. It
never was a show stopper - and was fully resolved by 1959. In the
1980s specialty steels were developed that could dispense with the
teflon coatings developed by NASA that were totally impervious to
hydrogen and are reflected in the modern standards for hydrogen
infrastructure.


When you can solve these
problems you might come back with more realistic claims of hydrogen as a
energy carrier.

If you would actually care to understand a thing before offering
pronouncements about it, you wouldn't come off as such an ignorant
ass.

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.

*** you you ignorant fool.. How dare you call me a liar - when you
have said nothing that is even remotely true.

FK

.

Quantcast