Re: Hydrogen for less than gas



On 5/18/2010 7:16 AM, Bob Eld wrote:
"poopy"<kevchanwow@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:253a7763-be82-4a3d-a4f4-8dc3415744d6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bob (and others), you say:

Nonsense. It makes little difference, even at 100% efficiency which is
not
possible, catalysts do NOT provide energy. They only help with
electrolysis.
Input energy (electricity) is still required and no fancy dancy mechanism
or
chemistry can change that, period.

this article, if you would read it before commenting, is that highly
efficient and high rate
hydrogen generation can be coupled with other forms of alternative
energy (ie wind or solar) and be used as a storage device which when
taken to scale could be less than the alternatives.

Just another BS site with wild Hydrogen claims as if we haven't seen
enough
of these over the past 15 years.There must be a new crop of ingénues and
naive high schoolers who have no clue about energy, how it works, where
it
comes from or what it costs.

I find it strange that on a forum about hydrogen energy people would
have such negative attitudes.
Personally, hydrogen as a storage medium for energy generated by other
sources is increadibly useful.
It can be stored in a fuel cell to power a home at night or when it is
cloudy, or is could actually be used as fuel for an vehicle.

Snip the rest of the rant......

If you think it is so useful, then do it, nobody is stopping you. However, a
little study on your part plus an understanding of the chemistry, volumes,
energy density and exergy will bring you to an understanding of why this has
been talked about ad nauseum for 20 years yet there are NO such commercial
systems available. Simply put, it does NOT pencil out and cannot compete
with other energy handling schemes.

For example, everything you claim of hydrogen can be more effectively and
cheaply done with natural gas. In fact, commercial hydrogen is made from
natural gas, not electrolysis. Why do you suppose that is? Furthermore,
given newly found gas sources plus the vast methane hydrate beds in the
worlds oceans, natural gas is the fuel of the future not hydrogen.

There are many negatives for hydrogen here's just one: A given volume of
hydrogen contains two atoms of hydrogen while the SAME volume of natural gas
contains FOUR atoms of hydrogen and one atom of carbon. That's twice as much
hydrogen as hydrogen itself contains! This is important in transportation
because it more than doubles the energy available.




The key arguments against the ludicrous hydrogen economy appear at <http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp>

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@xxxxxxxxxx

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
.