Re: H2 burner

On Jun 7, 1:32 am, DB <a...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
On Jun 6, 10:20 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
Harry
While we agree on the importance of marginal value we disagree on the
marginal value of hydrogen and its aafety.  Hydrogen is perfectly safe
as a fuel if handled properly.   Hydrogen using a sufficiently low
cost solar power system may be made available at costs competitive
with existing fuels.
A ton of hydrogen has the same heat value of 6.2 tons of coal.
And the volume of these at STP is ?

Graham

That is a singularly dumbass question.

<snip lecture>

Interesting that you snip all the relevant data and then make an
irrelevant statement. Also interesting that you are not even
responding to the original question about volumetric efficiency of
hydrogen. Fact is, slush hydrogen has a higher volumetric energy
density than methanol. Fact is, ASME has established standards for a
hydrogen energy economy. The only issue facing us now are reasonable
low cost sources of hydrogen. These are solar and nuclear.


You see dummy rabbit friend,

You're the dumbass - since you snipped all the relevant data and than
make abusive comments around irrelevant data you trot out for no damn
good reason.


when you parrot Lancaster?

I don't know what this means - its irrelevant.

Simple retort is, 'Where does the energy come from?'

In the case of ultra-low-cost solar panels - solar energy. In the
case of high temperature nuclear reactors - fissile materials.

The sun shines on solar panels. These consist of two sheets of hot
press molded PET filled with water as they are joined in a water bath
to form an array of low cost water filled lenses. The resulting
array of water filled lenses focus light INSIDE the lens to a tiny PV/
Thermal dot mounted on the base *** after forming. Light arrives
at 2,400x solar intensity. The dot - which is also immersed in the
water reacts with the water to form streams of water containing
hydrogen bubbles and oxygen bubbles.

The water and plastic costs $0.30 (thirty cents) per square meter -
and the PV/thermal dot costs $5 per square inch (0.775 cents per dot -
1/2 mm x 1/2 mm in area) - at a cost of $12.01 per square meter.

The lens array consists of a 4ft by 8ft *** with 48 x 96 lenses -
and 4,608 dots. The entire system costs less than $37 complete and
produces the equivalent of 1,500 watts peak output - in the form of
hydrogen.

Other models also exist - one does produce DC current - but that's an
older model.

more at http://www.usoal.com

The new model uses Germanium/Gallium Arsenide and Indium Phoshide PV
device converts 30% of the incident solar energy to electrical
current. The remaining 70% thermal energy is redirected by a
dichroic cover to heat a thermal sink. MEMs based channels within
the thermal sink allow the integrated device to operate as a high
temperature electrolysis unit. The thermal *** icontains a sulfur
based system that implements the following process in the moving
stream;

water and sulfides form sulfuric acid and a hydrogen ion in
solution

sulfuric acid and hydrogen is reduced to sulfate through heating
and electrolysis removing the hydrogen

further heading reduces the sulfate to sulfide removing the
oxygen

the process it then repeated within the dot. Hydrogen and oxygen
bubbles are colloidally suspending in water streams which move to a
central collection point where the bubbles are mechanically removed
and the de gassed water is recycled in the system.

Overall efficiency is 55% - so a 4ft x 8ft panel under full
illumination produces 30 grams of hydrogen and 240 grams of oxygen
from 270 grams of water each hour of illumination. An 1,100 panel
string produce 33 kg of hydrogen for each hour of illumination and
nearly 66 tons per year in most sunny locations.

Willie will claim he has it.

Please visit my website, fill out the contact information ***, and I
will send you whatever you wish.

No cites, no pictures of his grand
industry, just a lot of claims.

This is a different sort of question than the one above.

Obviously one can in theory collect solar energy cheaply and cheaply
produce hydrogen from water using solar energy at low cost.

1,100 panel strings installed in 8ft x 4,400 ft strips are installed
for less than $50,000 - last 25 years and produce 60 tons of hydrogen
and 480 tons of oxygen from 540 kiloliters of DI water each year.

The cost - with a reasonable discount rate is $110 per metric ton of
hydrogen - which comports with the data you elided from your
response.

Have I really done it? That's a different question from can it be
done. The answer?

Yes.

Do I have data to support it?

Yes.

Am I doing it on a larger scale?

Yes.

What evidence do I have?

Visit http://www.usoal.com

fill out the contact information, and request whatever evidence you
think you need, and I will arrange to send you that information.

Willie is just another usenet looser,

No I'm not.

much like you......

You seem focused on making negative judgments about what I'm doing.
Why is that? What is your motivaion?

Get your head out of your ass

You are directing that statement to yourself right?

and face the real world.

Yes.

We are pretty
much screwed

The oil companies want us to think this. This is not the case. We
have two sources of low cost hydrogen avaialble to us - both made from
water;

high temperature nuclear reactors that produce hydrogen and oxygen
from water by direct thermolytic decomosition - which can produce
hydrogen at about $500 per metric ton.

ultra-low-cost concentrated photovoltaic systems that produce hydrogen
and oxygen from water via high temperature electroloysis - at a cost
of $110 per metric ton.

A ton of hydrogen can fossil fuels directly since hydrogen burns under
the same conditions as all fossil fuelsl - and has the same heating
value as

24.8 barrels of crude
6.2 tons of coal
2.5 tons of natural gas

and need to deal with that.

We need to replace our fossil fuels over the next 25 years with
hydrogen. To do that we need to understand where we are. Today we
use the following amounts of primary energy

28.3 billion bbls of oil
5.5 biillion tons of coal
1.1 billion tons of natural gas

This can all be replaced directly with

3.34 billion tons of hydrogen

made from 30 billion tons of water - and 56.6 million strings of the
type described above made at a cost of $2.7 trillion.

In the interim we can use 887 million tons of hydrogen to replace the
coal and 400 million tons of hydrogen to replace the natural gas. We
can then use an additional 600 million tons of hydrogen to convert the
5.5 billion tons of stranded coal into 40 billion barrels of liquid
fuels, and use an additional 400 million tons of oxygen to partially
oxidize the methane into methanol, and dehydrate that to form 4.7
billion barrels of octane which when added to the coal made
fuelsyeild 44.7 billion barrels of liquid fuels.

I gave detailed charts - which you elided - that showed how we could
reduce our carbon footprint gradually over 20 years - to sustainable
levels (nature can handle up to a certain amount of carbon each year-
but no more) and grow our energy use by sustituting hydrogen gradually
over time - to account for over 50% of our energy budget within that
20 year time frame - reducing at a rate of 1.1% per year and afterward
eliminate 99% of our current carbon based fuels in 100 years
following by reducing use at a rate of 3.8% per year thereafter.

All the while, using technical innovation to reduce the cost of
generating hydrogen from sunlight (and nuclear if competitive and
safe) by 3% per year - to provide the basis fo strong economic growth
and global social development.

I have 8 projects I am sponsoring around the world. I will grow these
to 42 projects worldwide. All over the next 12 years. I will then
build on this as described, and ultimately, end the age of fossil
fuels within 50 years all while containing energy costs and putting
energy costs on a downward trend.

.


.