Re: [Amc-list] Hydrogen Power (was Holley Carb Questions .... )

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
" 
" The real, underlying fundamental problem is that our entire world is built 
" upon "fuel" as in sticks gathered in the forest that fell there without any 
" investment of energy or work on our part some time in the past -- in the form 
" of fossil fuel. It's like spending a non-growth inheritance, or next month's 
" rent money.

a hunter-gatherer fuel economy

" Every single other source of energy requires converting an existing source 
" (sun, plants, whatever) into a transmissible or storable form.

a fuel farming economy

" There's no way around the no-free-lunch thing. Period. None.

yupper!  you cannot negotiate with the universe about the laws of
physics.

" Corn-based alcohol is a scam for politicians and oil companies. If every 
" square hectare of fertile soil in the US was converted to corn production, 
" the resulting alcohol would meet no more than 15% of US energy needs. 

i'm not sure this is right - but there -is- a fundamental flaw in
using near-food-grade produce as fuel.  adm [broker for 9/10 of the
crop] has to be snickering all the way to the bank.

research is only just beginning on fuel crops.  more is needed.  and
the issue of competition for food acreage could indeed be a serious
problem.

" Corn-based alcohol is a storage method for solar energy plus the energy it 
" takes to produce all the components, which it turns out, is very high.

see the food reference above.  goals are different; quality and safety
are paramount for food; efficiency is not.

" Hydrogen bonds very tightly to many elements. It's extremely hard to break a 
" chemical molecular bond. It takes a fixed and finite amount of energy, 
" period. It's not reducable. Many cracking systems have other inefficiencies, 
" and these can be improved, but it will always take more energy to split 
" water -- or any other H2 compound -- than it produces. It's inarguable 
" physics.

this is true of -every- compound.  it's called entropy.

" Draw your own conclusions. Mine are, reduction of unbelievably stupid energy 
" consumption in the first place. We're incredibly stupid and wasteful as a 
" race/culture (the overall human one). People have been tricked into 
" thinking "conservation" means "giving up" but that's pure politics. 
" Energy-neutrality would certainly mean a wholesale revolution in literally 
" everyone's world.
" 
" I don't have much hope for this being fixed. There's too much stuff with a 
" stake in the current infrastructure.

i sadly agree.  human nature is selfish and short-sighted, most
especially as community sizes increase and it becomes easier and
easier to leave the larger issues to 'someone else' - there are plenty
of someone elses, right?

" On Friday 07 September 2007 20:15:07 Frank Swygert wrote:
" > Using hydrogen in a fuel cell to create electricity is supposed to be much
" > more efficient than burning the gas directly. That's why the fuel cell cars
" > from GM.

so far, so good.  fuel cells can turn h2 into electricity extremely
efficiently, as much as 80% or better.

only the h2 can be so used though - fuel cells that run on alcohol,
natural gas, etc just throw the carbon and its energy away.  so do the
refuelling stations that generate h2 from natural gas.  this is
efficient?  non polluting?  energy reducing?

" > It would be easy to convert gas stations that way too -- just pump
" > the chemical(s) instead of gasoline. So the existing infrastructure could
" > be used, lessening costs impact.

this is snake oil, on someone's part.  you can't just pump h2 through
gas pipelines.
1. the molecule is so small it'll whiz through cracks ch4 [natural
   gas, mostly] won't even see.
2. h2 is absorbed directly into the steel, producing a metallurgical
   phenomenon called 'hydrogen embrittlement'.  this is not a good
   thing for pipelines.

you could pump water or something else and electrical power, and make
the h2 at the refuelling station, but that's a loss; natural gas can
transmit energy over long distance more efficiently than high tension
power lines.  you'd be better off making the h2 [from water, not
natural gas!] at the minehead and gasifying the coal or tar sands and
pumping that.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list