Re: Low cost hydrogen today



On Jan 2, 8:14 am, william.m...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 28 2008, 9:22 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Dec 18, 5:58 pm, william.m...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml

Gasoline contains 12.7 kWh/kg and 8.76 kWh/L (not including the tank)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Liquid hydrogen  143 MJ/kg (41.1 kWh/kg and 10.1 MJ/L (2.80 kWh/L)
(not including the tank)

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iiia1_sirosh.pdf

Gaseous hydrogen in a tank 1.9 kWh/kg and 1.3 kWh/L (including the
tank)

All these fellows are saying is that hydrogen fueled vehicles will
have their fuel storage systems weigh more than gasoline fueled
systems.  In this they are true.

Where we differ is their mis-guided conclusion that these minor
differences in fuel system fractions are show stoppers.  They are
not!

http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/hydrogen/roush_hev_fact.pdf

This stems from the fact that fuel systems in ground vehicles,
regardless of the large energy density differences, are only a very
small fraction of total weight

http://www.chevrolet.com/m/06/quickfacts/09_Silverado_combined.pdf

With 26 gallons on board the Silverado, and 2.84 kg per gallon -
that's a total weight of 73.86 pounds.  This is 1.2% of the total
vehicle weight.  Now, replacing this with even gaseous hydrogen,
increases the weight of the fuel system to 6.7x the weight raising it
to 8% of total vehicle weight.

Can we build a vehicle - obviously we can.  Is such a vehicle
practical?  Obviously it is.  Is hydrogen in even its least
'contained' form impossible to use?  Obviously not - hydrogen is
easily usable.

DO THE MAJOR OIL COMPANIES BENEFIT FROM DISINFORMATION RE HYDROGEN
BEING ACCEPTED UNCRITICALLY?  *OBVIOUSLY THEY DO!!*

Don Lancaster gets indirectly paid by Arabs and ExxonMobil, so what do
you expect?

Change his name to Dick Cheney, Kissinger or Madoff, and you'll get a
whole lot better appreciation for his mindset and actions.

BTW,  when it comes down to portable liquid fuel density, h2o2+synfuel
still kicks hydrogen butt.  That h2o2 and synfuel could also be via
renewable Mök Energy.

Give us an affordable terawatt of clean renewable “Mök Energy”, we’ll
worship and follow you anywhere.

 ~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hydrogen peroxide is expensive to make and has very low energy density
and is unstable in high concentrations. We have gone over all this
before Brad. You seem incapable of understanding the basics here.
haha - although I will grant that hydrogen peroxide - even dilute
forms that are not explosion risks - are more energy dense than
batteries. H2O2 is also less costly than batteries.

You are missing the finer if not the vast bulk of worthy points,
weather it's purely by accident or bipolar intention doesn't really
matter. You simply can not do everything with hydrogen alone, and
hydrogen doesn’t exactly store or otherwise keep well.


So, as a battery replacement they're ideal and convenient - providing
you can get MEMs based steam turbines to use H2O2 efficiently in a
small format device.

I agree, that an h2o2 battery is one of several terrific applications.

Are you suggesting there’s no other significant terrestrial need for
volumes and tonnes of h2o2?


H2O2 may also form the basis of a type of inkjet print cartridge where
the ink itself powers the printer operation. This would allow portable
computers to have built in printers.

I have shared these ideas with you and they're worth billions.

So, you don't have to promote the obviously flawed concepts of H2O2
powered cars and so forth - which can never compete with H2 or
gasoline.

Mook h2o2+synfuel isn't such a dismal worth of energy density,
especially once everything is taken into account.

Your H2+atmosphere is perfectly OK too, though just not for each and
every application under the sun.

btw, what sort of competition are you talking about? Isn’t your
hydrogen getting made from terawatts of green and fully renewable
solar energy?

How else by 2010 are we supposed to globally create well over ten
million commercial green tonnes of 35%<70+% HTP/year (easily and
safely diluted down to 3.5% for home personal use, or evaporated/
distilled up to 99%), if not via Mook PV derived energy.

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/nano/p2docs/casestudy1_zhou.pdf

~ BG
.