Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
A planning application has been lodged for the UK's first commercial hydrogen balancing plant - the latest innovation in renewable energy, described as “a potential holy grail” when combined with wind energy.
By increasing the surface area of conventional electrodes by more than 1,000 times, the company claims that electrolysis could soon be the least-expensive way to produce hydrogen for industrial and consumer applications. In addition, electrolysis creates no greenhouse gases, whereas making a pound of hydrogen from natural gas produces 4 pounds of greenhouse gases.
_________________
Quote:
"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
-- Sir Winston Leonard Spenser Churchill
Get your damn hands off me you dirty stinking hippy!
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: Re: Two big Hydrogen developments
TheAntiDoomer wrote:
Quote:
A planning application
and
Quote:
the company claims
I've trimmed it down to its essentials for you.
Why do these people post here?
Seriously. It's like a guy posting "beef is good for you" links on a vegan board.
Why, OP, do you care about all of us lost souls? _________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
Joined: Nov 08, 2005 Posts: 265 Location: The Maple State
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: Re: Two big Hydrogen developments
Quote:
electrolysis creates no greenhouse gases, whereas making a pound of hydrogen from natural gas produces 4 pounds of greenhouse gases.
I like the magical thinking that electricity just comes from a wire.
Burning natural gas to make electricity (on the average) to make hydrogen (by electrolysis) will be less efficient and thus create more greenhouse gas than making the same amount of hydrogen directly from natural gas.
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: Re: Two big Hydrogen developments
keehah wrote:
Quote:
electrolysis creates no greenhouse gases, whereas making a pound of hydrogen from natural gas produces 4 pounds of greenhouse gases.
I like the magical thinking that electricity just comes from a wire.
Burning natural gas to make electricity (on the average) to make hydrogen (by electrolysis) will be less efficient and thus create more greenhouse gas than making the same amount of hydrogen directly from natural gas.
I think you missed the point. I believe they were implying that making Hydrogen via renewables creates no greenhouse gases, whereas creating hydrogen from natural gas produces 4 pounds of greenhouse gases. _________________
Quote:
"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
-- Sir Winston Leonard Spenser Churchill
Get your damn hands off me you dirty stinking hippy!
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 3626 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: Two big Hydrogen developments
Article #2 fails Petroleum Geology 101:
Quote:
The biggest producers of hydrogen today are oil refineries, which use steam reformation to strip hydrogen atoms from natural gas molecules (CH4) and use them to upgrade oil--that is, add hydrogen atoms to today's thicker oil, making thinner, lightweight oil. Refineries require lightweight oil because they were designed years ago when the top layers of oil fields were being pumped. Today, crude oil is thicker because it is pumped from the bottom of the well, and therefore needs to be thinned by adding hydrogen.
Where are these turbines with hydrogen load balancing alluded to in Article #1, ANTDoom? I did find this: Experimental 'wind to hydrogen' system up and running. Pilot project. _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
C'mon man, who're you gonna believe?
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 4590 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: Re: Two big Hydrogen developments
I think the problem here is that there isn't much in the way of "excess" wind capacity, since wind generates far less than fossil fuel plants. So any load levelling during calm periods will come at the cost of shaving peak energy production off the top, and at the not so insignificant loss of efficiency of electrolysis -> hydrogen -> electricity. _________________ http://doomsteaddiary.blogspot.com/
The Nissan FCV (fuel cell vehicle) is on display at Imperial College London. The hydrogen-powered vehicle can drive up to 500km (300 miles) before refilling and has a maximum speed of 150 km/h (95 mph).
Joined: Sep 29, 2004 Posts: 2330 Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: Re: Two big Hydrogen developments
TheAntiDoomer wrote:
keehah wrote:
Quote:
electrolysis creates no greenhouse gases, whereas making a pound of hydrogen from natural gas produces 4 pounds of greenhouse gases.
I like the magical thinking that electricity just comes from a wire.
Burning natural gas to make electricity (on the average) to make hydrogen (by electrolysis) will be less efficient and thus create more greenhouse gas than making the same amount of hydrogen directly from natural gas.
I think you missed the point. I believe they were implying that making Hydrogen via renewable creates no greenhouse gases, whereas creating hydrogen from natural gas produces 4 pounds of greenhouse gases.
Actually, I believe it is you who missed the point. Electrolysis requires electricity. If the electricity comes from a coal or natural gas plant, then greenhouse gases are released creating the hydrogen. I typical coal fired plant is less than 50% efficient. By the time electricity reaches its destination at a factory or home, another 10 to 20% is lost. So you are liberating energy, losing about 70% of it, then generating hydrogen through electrolysis which is somewhere around 80% efficient and finally using the hydrogen in a fuel cell car, which is about 50% efficient. I'm skipping the energy cost of storing the hydrogen which is far higher than natural gas.
Compare that to mining natural gas, which comes out of the ground under its own pressure, putting it into pipes and making hydrogen out of it using reformation. Why not skip the reformation and just burn the NG in a automobile engine? It's a hell of a lot easier to store than hydrogen and its supply line is far more efficient with much less production of greenhouse gases. _________________ "That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money
Joined: Oct 18, 2004 Posts: 2130 Location: kiwibush
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:23 am Post subject: Re: Two big Hydrogen developments
TheAntiDoomer wrote:
keehah wrote:
Quote:
electrolysis creates no greenhouse gases, whereas making a pound of hydrogen from natural gas produces 4 pounds of greenhouse gases.
I like the magical thinking that electricity just comes from a wire.
Burning natural gas to make electricity (on the average) to make hydrogen (by electrolysis) will be less efficient and thus create more greenhouse gas than making the same amount of hydrogen directly from natural gas.
I think you missed the point. I believe they were implying that making Hydrogen via renewables creates no greenhouse gases, whereas creating hydrogen from natural gas produces 4 pounds of greenhouse gases.
Would the "renewables" generating devices such as the solar panels prove to be drain on our resource base were they to be manufactured in numbers sufficient to meet the needs of a 6.5 billion strong global cornucopian civilisation? _________________ Bugger me, I hear oil's runnin out mate!
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:45 am Post subject: Re: Two big Hydrogen developments
HEADER_RACK wrote:
Cashmere wrote:
Why do these people post here?
Seriously. It's like a guy posting "beef is good for you" links on a vegan board.
Why, OP, do you care about all of us lost souls?
Yeah I never understood that either
Gotta say, I've pondered that one on occasion also. If you're convinced that everything is sweet, tech will save the day etc, what do you care that a bunch of online nervous nellies are worrying about some kind of ludicrous energy doomsday? It's all good, so what do you care?
I have come to the conclusion that the motivation must lie in a deeply buried fear that actually there is a problem. Otherwise, you'd just get on with the good life and wait for those investments in hydrogen cars, cold fusion, algae oil etc to pay off, wouldn't you? Not hang around here, surely.
Joined: Dec 16, 2004 Posts: 706 Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: Re: Two big Hydrogen developments
TheAntiDoomer wrote:
I think you missed the point. I believe they were implying that making Hydrogen via renewables creates no greenhouse gases, whereas creating hydrogen from natural gas produces 4 pounds of greenhouse gases.
Here is where the cornucopian refuses to recognize scale. Non-hydro renewables are all but a tiny sliver of our overall energy pie. Cars are the biggest single customer of that pie. The mismatch is enormous. And to think we can scale up renewable energy in any short time frame is grossly overoptimistic. Unrealistic.
Perhaps we should see if should scale up renewable energy to power all our microwave ovens and electric can openers before even considering the idea that there could be a day when live in H2 auto heaven.
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: Re: Two big Hydrogen developments
Cashmere wrote:
TheAntiDoomer wrote:
Quote:
A planning application
and
Quote:
the company claims
I've trimmed it down to its essentials for you.
Shouldn't the essentials include "Been there, done that." Granted, using the latest and greatest isn't exactly cost effective, but for the DIY'er, as long as they settle in an area that has a decent amount of sun and wind speeds of ~8-10mph on average, there's nothing preventing them from putting together a renewable system that uses hydrogen for energy storage. The only downside would be that the generator would need overhaul every ~20 years or so assuming 4 hours on every night, but at least the owner wouldn't have to sink thousands into batteries every ~5-10 years. The cost of the first battery bank alone would probably be enough to buy the ultracap module and enough engines/components to last a couple hundred years, provided of course the owner isn't brain dead and can rebuild an engine. _________________
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:39 am Post subject: Re: Two big Hydrogen developments
Kingcoal wrote:
TheAntiDoomer wrote:
I think you missed the point. I believe they were implying that making Hydrogen via renewable creates no greenhouse gases, whereas creating hydrogen from natural gas produces 4 pounds of greenhouse gases.
Actually, I believe it is you who missed the point. Electrolysis requires electricity. If the electricity comes from a coal or natural gas plant, then greenhouse gases are released creating the hydrogen.
The point isn't to store fossil fuel energy for later use, it's already stable and we can crank it up and down as needed. The point is to store renewable energy for later use, so that we don't have problems with it's intermittent behavior and the operators get more usable electricity out of it.
Kingcoal wrote:
Compare that to mining natural gas, which comes out of the ground under its own pressure, putting it into pipes and making hydrogen out of it using reformation. Why not skip the reformation and just burn the NG in a automobile engine? It's a hell of a lot easier to store than hydrogen and its supply line is far more efficient with much less production of greenhouse gases.
Natural gas has a GWP of 35 over it's first 20 years, so every molecule of NG is equivalent to 35 of CO2. That's why NG that's escaping into the atmosphere is flared. Better to burn it and get one molecule of CO2 than leave it alone for the equivalent of 35 molecules of CO2. This also means that if just one or two percent of NG escapes during extraction, the global warming impact of it as a power source will increase by ~35-70% over the next couple decades. At least hydrogen, in this context, from renewables, won't do that. And it ain't like we haven't run ICE's offa hydrogen just like NG. The only downside being range, not that most people need more than ~30 miles/day. _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
