Na + H2O2 (50%) -> H2?

[Don Lancaster]

The reaction is highly exothermic isn't it? This would represent a
considerable loss. As it is, electrolyses of water is some 70%
efficient. The issue is that either way, the source of the energy is
electrical. As most of our electricity is produced with coal at 30%
efficiency, it means getting 5% of the heating value of that coal to the
wheels of a vehicle under the best conditions. A battery powered car
would be 2 to 3 times as efficient.


Talk is that Bo diesel can be produce with algae at 5 to 7 percent solar
efficiency. And these farms would use the COO waste stream from coal
fired plants. With HEET technology, a coal fired plant can get better
than 50% efficiency. This combination may be 'an' answer.

Best, Dan.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: [email protected]

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

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

...



Variations on a theme. Oil (and hydrogen) are made from raw energy sources.
Oil from crude oil, even oil sands, is just easier, cheaper, to make than
hydrogen. So what, of 'today's challenges', are addressed by hydrogen and
how about comparing these to the solution we have with oil?

Local pollution
H2 is way way way better than the lousy oil we burn. Big impact here, but
only with a major conversion of the whole transportation infrastructure..

Non fossil energy used to make hydrogen is not being used to displace
fossil energy. Putting the cart before the horse is not a solution.

The use of alternative energy sources (coal, nuclear, solar, etc)
H2 and fuel oils come out too close to call. For the pure thermal sources H2
might be slightly better.

If this is about CO2, producing hydrogen will only add to the burden
until we displace fossil sources of energy with nuclear and solar. If
this is about CO2, why take a step back instead of addressing the source
of energy first?

Manufacture of alternative fuels (alcohols and light oils, perhaps methane
or propane)
Crude oil is more expansive than coal, coal works but is rather polluting,
nuclear, solar PV and thermal all work but are more expensive than we would
like. The fuel oils are one of these alternative fuels, and not a source.
Hydrogen is the core of this entire industry, but is not a fuel produced by
the industry because there is little demand for it except as a chemical
feedstock for the fuels it produces.

All the hydrogen used to sweeten the oil comes from methane. May as well
use methane in automobiles with a combined SOFC plant and save the
burden of some three times the CO2 than if by way of the hydrogen vector.

Hydrogen may address some of today's challenges. I just wouldn't go so far
as to suggest it as a suitable candidate for the fuel of the future. It's
performance is just too poor. But Hydrogen is likely to continue to be what
we will make, and make in vast quantities, in order to make the fuels of the
future.

Yes, I completely agree. We have plenty of carbon. Thermo chemical
nuclear and thermo chemical solar as a source of hydrogen my not be far
off. It would go a long way at improving the CO2 load we put on the earth.

As long as the coal lasts, we do not need a new fossil fuel in the USA, in
Russia, perhaps in China. In France? There seem to me to be a lot of
countries where depending on oil, or coal, from some outside community is
economically and militarily dangerous.

Best, Dan.

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

....

infrastructure..

Non fossil energy used to make hydrogen is not being used to displace
fossil energy. Putting the cart before the horse is not a solution.

I think you are confusing CO, CXXX, and a bunch of other products locally
refered to as smog, a result of photochemical conversions on partly
pyrolized hydrocarbon chains, with CO2 pollution, which is an interesting
global issue. Smog is a serious killing problem now. If we cracked coal to
H2 as a fuel rather than making an oil, this would help to solve the smog
problem, as long, of course, as we did something to control emissions from
the coal plant.

....

If this is about CO2

? Only one of 5 major topics here deals with CO2. Smog, oil supply limits
cost/limits, manufactured fuels in general are also major issues, and a lot
more direct in their impact than CO2.

All the hydrogen used to sweeten the oil comes from methane. May as well
use methane in automobiles with a combined SOFC plant and save the
burden of some three times the CO2 than if by way of the hydrogen vector.

Sure. But it is a good thing to remember that we are now using that methane
to sweeten the oil, so some significant amount of this fuel is producing
hydrogen, with whatever loss involved, and that hydrogen is being used to
fuel cars, albiet rather indirectly.

 

[David Harper]

NASA's hydrogen comes from the energy source methane. Half the energy of
that perfectly good methane is lost in reformation. But if you think it
makes sense to convert one perfectly good fuel into another that is
harder to handle and loose half your energy in the process...

Ah, I see what you meant. My misunderstanding. Energy "currency"
then.

As long as you don't imply that it is a clean source of energy, no
problem.

It is not a clean source of energy by today's production methods.
Correct.

But it is neither clean nor a source. More than twice as much
CO2 is produced by using hydrogen rather than using methane directly.
Maybe more than three times as much if you consider the potential
mechanical net of using methane in a combined SOFC plant.

Again, by today's production methods. And yes, I'm on the same page
it not being a source.

Dave

 

[David Harper]

I said 'likely', i.e., my best guess. And yes, it may be economical
enough to do with solar and a thermo chemical process. We may have made
fusion work. But that's about it. But until you displace fossil as a
source of energy, it makes little sense to use hydrogen as a fuel.

Agreed. Hydrogen as a fuel wouldn't make sense unless it was produced
from a non-fossil source.

Compare the available waste biomass of the world to the 70 million
barrels of oil a day we use. It hardly makes an impact. And because
biomass is carbon cycle neutral, why not make a fuel that is easily
handled like alcohol?

I'll conceed that one. You would need a large biomass.

Probably science fiction for another 5 or 10 decades.

Probably, but possible. I just wanted to demonstrate it might be
possible to cleanly and cheaply produce hydrogen on a large scale to
supply the majority of vehicles on the road.

If you want to use solar, use it to start displacing coal on the grid.

Sure, if nanotech creation of hydrogen every became a reality, I'm
sure that would follow if coal was still around.

If you use it to make hydrogen for vehicles, it is equivalent to getting
about 5% of the heating value of that coal to the wheels of a car. Seems
like a terrible waste to me.

I'm not sure how you arrived at this calculation. This implies that
hydrogen energy liberated in a car is only 5% as efficient as it would
be in place of coal. You must have included the solar inefficiencies.
The solar conversion efficiency should be left out of the equation,
as you are making use of almost "free" energy in this scenario.
Sunlight's going to strike the surface whether we have a collection
device there or not. This is not the case with coal.

Dave

 

[David Harper]

Bingo! I believe that because there are always many alternatives to
hydrogen that do not carry the limitations, are cheaper, more convienient
and practical. That is true today and should continue to be true in the
future.

This statement is a prediction neglecting things yet to be discovered
and advances yet to be made. However, if you really CAN predict the
future and know what advances are coming, please give me some good
stock advice.

One has to ask: why hydrogen?

Easy: if it becomes cheaper and better mousetrap... i.e. if it ever
became possible to more cleanly and cheaply produce it over fossil
fuels.

The only answer is its percieved cleanliness and low polution

As mentioned before, by today's production methods it is not clean.
How can you say that statement will be true 30 years from now?

coupled with potential reduction of CO2
emissions. Of course, if it is made from a carbon source, coal, methane,
etc. the CO2 issue is a red herring. Furthermore low polution can be
obtained in other, more convienient ways. Biofuels will answer the CO2
question. All of the issues that make hydrogen attractive are and will
continue to be answered by more convenient, cheaper, safer alternatives.
Even in the case of fuel cells, methanol will most likely become the fuel of
choice. That's why hydrogen will always be "the fuel of the future."
Bob

You see only one path ahead, don't you? Don't you realize how much
can happen in the next few decades that can tip the balance and change
all the present limitations you cite? Sure, it might be methanol...
it might be hydrogen... it might be something we'd never expect.
However, stating something as fact based on unknowns (and advances yet
to be made) is closed-minded.

Dave

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

I'm not sure how you arrived at this calculation. This implies that
hydrogen energy liberated in a car is only 5% as efficient as it would
be in place of coal. You must have included the solar inefficiencies.
The solar conversion efficiency should be left out of the equation,
as you are making use of almost "free" energy in this scenario.
Sunlight's going to strike the surface whether we have a collection
device there or not. This is not the case with coal.

Most of our grid energy comes from coal at 30% efficiency. Electrolyses,
say 80%. Storage/handling of hydrogen cost 20%, net 80%. PEM fuelcells
with today's technology, maybe a 30% net hydrogen to wheels.

..30 * .80 * .80 * .30 = 6% of the heating value of that coal gets to the
wheels.

So take that solar or nuclear and displace coal. Because if you use it
to produce transportation hydrogen, you are not displacing coal. The net
result is the above.

Of coarse, we could do what ifs, like all our coal was utilized in
combined plants that operate at 55%. Then you would be getting 10% of
the heating value to the wheels. This would compare with
thermal/chemical production of hydrogen from coal.

In today's world, the most cost effective and quickly implemented
improvement we could make would be to get an efficient fleet of
automobiles on the road. Instead, we have a government that offers SUV
tax credits. Go figure.

Dave

Best, Dan.

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

This statement is a prediction neglecting things yet to be discovered
and advances yet to be made...

Full circle. This is the theme that brought me into this thread. All we
have essentially done since the Copenhagen Interpretation is refine our
ability to apply technology. A new discovery in physics is rather
unlikely and if/when it happens, it won't just make hydrogen practical.
As far as advancements go, they have been very predictable. Look at
Moore's Law for an example. Other than the likes of high temperature
superconductors, there have been no surprises for going on a century.

Sure, there are maybes. But today, if we have work to do, hydrogen
doesn't afford us a leg up. It will only get in the way.

Dave

Best, Dan.

 

[Jed Checketts]

I was basing it off the statement made by Bob. I assumed his statement was correct.

Lithium Aluminum Hydride stores more energy by mass than gasoline.

Lithium Aluminum Hydride or Sodium Aluminum Hydride can produce
hydrogen upon demand via reaction with water.

I prefer Sodium Aluminum Hydride.

Hydrogen by mass is roughly 3 times the energy as gasoline. Hence,
its use in the Space Shuttle.

HYDROGEN WILL ALWAYS CONTAIN MORE ENERGY BY MASS THAN GASOLINE.
PERIOD. THIS IS SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Jed Checketts
Searles Lake, CA
626-581-7119

 

[Jed Checketts]

(SNIP)

Yes, and when he creates 200 ft^3 of hydrogen, how do you think he'll
store it? In a big balloon? Unless he plans on only using small
portions at a time and using it immediately, a compressed cylinder
affords small volume and no potentially dangerous processing (and
hardware to capture the gas) needed. And if he doesn't need 200 ft^3,
he can just get a smaller cylinder for less.

The option for producing hydrogen upon demand is just that...an
option. It doesn't mean that there aren't applications for compressed
hydrogen cylinders. But the option of producing hydrogen upon demand
via pellets of something like lithium aluminum hydride or sodium
aluminum hydride give you lots of energy density and no pressure. It
is an on demand based option. This means that the hydrogen is
produced on demand (when you need it). Storage (except for the very
small amount of hydrogen used by the system within a few second time
interval) is not needed.

On a side note, I don't know where you got that 100$ estimate from.
Sure, maybe if you buy it instead of rent it. 50$ is a very
conservative over-estimate. One place quoted me 27$ + 10$ for the
regulator, but I ended up opting for helium instead (60$ per 200 ft^3
cylinder) due to additional safety.

Nobody quoted you $10.00 for a regulator which will safely take
hydrogen from a pressure of 3000 psi down to a usable pressure. You
may have selective memory loss or you are looking at the reciept from
a recent trip to Taco Bell and NOT a reciept for a high pressure
hydrogen regulator. Pressure regulators are expensive. Compressed
hydrogen tanks are expensive. There are many many locations and
methods of shipping which cannot and will never be acceptable for
compressed hydrogen. Hydrogen compressors are also very very
expensive (thousands of dollars). These are simple facts easy for all
to see by a simple call to Air Liquide, Praxair, Air Products, MG
Industries, or Jack B Kelly Trucking.

Powerball Fuel Pellets are a good way to store hydrogen without
pressure:

NaAlH4
NaH
NaBH4
CaH2
LiH
LiAlH
LiBH4

7 compounds which all store hydrogen at room temperature and room
pressure without the need for pressurized storage of hydrogen.

Hydrides. No pressure.

Jed Checketts
Searles Lake, CA
626-581-7119

 

[Don Lancaster]

Hydrogen by mass is roughly 3 times the energy as gasoline. Hence,
its use in the Space Shuttle.

HYDROGEN WILL ALWAYS CONTAIN MORE ENERGY BY MASS THAN GASOLINE.
PERIOD. THIS IS SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Jed Checketts
Searles Lake, CA
626-581-7119

CONTAINED TERESTRIAL HYDROGEN HAS MUCH --->LESS<--- ENERGY BY MASS THAN
CONTAINED GASOLINE!

This is simple engineering fact.

In a typical personal vehicle ap, you are extremely unlikely to be able
to contain 13 pounds of hydrogen in a 26 pound container. Typical
current practice vehicular hydrogen containers outweigh the hydrogen by
25:1 to 150:1.

Breakeven for gasoline parity is around 3:1.

Only in mid space apps does the amount of hydrogen stored approach a
remotely reasonable containment weight. Even then, not one of the major
X-prize competitors is even considering hydrogen.

Further, such a gravimetric advantage is utterly negligible even if you
ignore the crucial containment.

Should gasoline suddenly be improved to 39,000 watthours per kilogram
from its present 13,000 watthours per kilogram, the probable result
would be a vehicular weight savings of a fantastic, staggering,
mind-blowing 26 pounds.

Gravimetric energy density is an utterly useless measure for personal
terrestral transprtation apps.
Volumetric totally dominates. At which hydrogen is less than an outright
joke.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.



--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: [email protected]

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

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

....

Agreed. Hydrogen as a fuel wouldn't make sense unless it was produced
from a non-fossil source.

I think that this is the same thing as saying that any manufactured fuel
makes no sense unless produced from non-fossil sources. Since this is not
true (and the proof is gasoline and coal oil), I think your
conclusion/statement is in error.

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

....

This statement is a prediction neglecting things yet to be discovered
and advances yet to be made. However, if you really CAN predict the
future and know what advances are coming, please give me some good
stock advice.

Here is a good prediction. In about 20 years, plus or minus around 10, I
assume fusion will not become a solution. I assume fission will provide
electric power primarily, but will not likely be used for most fuel
manufacture. The source I expect will be coal. In the manufacture of coal
derived fuels the first and thus cheapest fuel will be hydrogen. If you can
use it cheaper than the fuel oil it makes to drive that 10 miles to work,
you may have a hydrogen economy, if you can get the huge plant to sell you
hydrogen rather than using it to make oil at a better price.

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

Jed Checketts wrote: .... ....
CONTAINED TERESTRIAL HYDROGEN HAS MUCH --->LESS<--- ENERGY BY MASS THAN
CONTAINED GASOLINE!

This is simple engineering fact.

Pay attention Don. He proposed storing the hydrogen in Sodium Aluminum
Hydride. The design of such a system may need work, but it is not the same
as storing the gas. In principle, I expect it is possible to argue that
NaAlH (and water) could be stored in thin walled tanks, and that the
converter and NaALOHx storage would not require that much additional weight.
Not sure I believe that but it should be discussed and you didn't do that.

 

[Don Lancaster]

Pay attention Don. He proposed storing the hydrogen in Sodium Aluminum
Hydride. The design of such a system may need work, but it is not the same
as storing the gas. In principle, I expect it is possible to argue that
NaAlH (and water) could be stored in thin walled tanks, and that the
converter and NaALOHx storage would not require that much additional weight.
Not sure I believe that but it should be discussed and you didn't do that.

It gets much worse when you throw heavy sodium and heavy aluminum into
the tank, of course.

No personal vehicle compatible method of containing hydrogen is known
that even remotely approaches the energy density by weight of contained
gasoline.

Claiming that hydrogen is better is ludicrous.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: [email protected]

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

 

[David Harper]

Full circle. This is the theme that brought me into this thread. All we
have essentially done since the Copenhagen Interpretation is refine our
ability to apply technology.

A new discovery in physics is rather unlikely and if/when it happens,
it won't just make hydrogen practical.

It'd probably be more driven by advances in technology rather than
physics.

As far as advancements go, they have been very predictable. Look at
Moore's Law for an example. Other than the likes of high temperature
superconductors, there have been no surprises for going on a century.

No surprises for a century? I think you're missing the forest for the
trees.

Think what would happen if you:

Told someone in 1950 that we'd be on the moon in 20 years.
Told someone in 1920 they could watch a ballgame from 500 miles away
in 35 years?
Told someone in 1930 that we'd tap nuclear power in 15 years.
Told someone in 1960 that in 25 years, you could have a faulty heart
or kidney replaced?
Told someone in 1970 that an 300+ passenger commercial airplane would
be designed solely on computers in 30 years.
Told someone in 1980 that you could send a message to a friend in
China from your home computer in 15 years.
Told someone in 1985 we'd create anti-matter in 10 years.
Told someone in 1990 that private spacecraft will become reality in 14
years with a budget of only 20 million.

In all these cases, many small advances in many fields had to occur to
make these statements true. And in all these cases, people couldn't
foresee what technological advances would occur in order to make these
statements a reality. Take the last example: In 1990, the materials,
computer modeling, and experience with hybrid rocket engines did not
exist that made it practical for Scaled Composites to do it.

Likewise, what makes you know what the advances will and won't happen
that may, or may not, make hydrogen practical?

Dave

 

[Bob Morrison]

To All:

I have a favor to ask.

Would all who are responding to posts on this subject please remove
sci.engr.civil from the newsgroups you are replying to.

 

[Ken Weitzel]

Told someone in 1950 that we'd be on the moon in 20 years.
Told someone in 1920 they could watch a ballgame from 500 miles away
in 35 years?
Told someone in 1930 that we'd tap nuclear power in 15 years.
Told someone in 1960 that in 25 years, you could have a faulty heart
or kidney replaced?
Told someone in 1970 that an 300+ passenger commercial airplane would
be designed solely on computers in 30 years.
Told someone in 1980 that you could send a message to a friend in
China from your home computer in 15 years.
Told someone in 1985 we'd create anti-matter in 10 years.
Told someone in 1990 that private spacecraft will become reality in 14
years with a budget of only 20 million.

In all these cases, many small advances in many fields had to occur to

Hi...

You forgot one...

Told someone in the (when that the advent of the
computer would give us all incredible amounts of
leisure and personal time...

Two day workweeks, job sharing so there'd be work for
everyone, full retirement at 40...

Ken

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

....

It gets much worse when you throw heavy sodium and heavy aluminum into
the tank, of course.

Thanks. Yes. I failed to even notice the sodium and aluminum weight in this
equation. Ha Ha!

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

....

No surprises for a century? I think you're missing the forest for the

trees.

Yes he is, but...

Think what would happen if you:

Told someone in 1950 that we'd be on the moon in 20 years.

Or told someone in 1980 that we would not be back to the moon in the next
30, that our mighty shuttle would still be our sole and failing manned space
vehicle, or that we would finally build a small space station and be unable
to keep it buisy or staff it.

Told someone in 1920 they could watch a ballgame from 500 miles away in 35

years?

Or that they would find kids who have never read a news story and think the
news is a 10 second byte with no references that go back beyond the film
archives.

Told someone in 1930 that we'd tap nuclear power in 15 years.

or told someone in 1950 that we would spend billions and still be 20 years
away from a fusion power source after 50 years of research.

Told someone in 1960 that in 25 years, you could have a faulty heart or

kidney replaced?

or told them that the typical uninsured worker could not afford to have any
of these wonderful miracles performed, or if he did he would be more likely
to die of a careless error and his heirs collect pennies because the
government of the USA has stepped in to protect, not him, but the huge
careless health industry.

Told someone in 1970 that an 300+ passenger commercial airplane would
be designed solely on computers in 30 years.

Or that computer viruses and data hacks steal billions from us, bring
business to a halt, and the problem is growing every day.

Told someone in 1980 that you could send a message to a friend in
China from your home computer in 15 years.

Or that the person recieving the message could go to jail for sending you
back a greeting without getting permission from the government. (Wait, isn't
that OUR homeland security's recommendation?)

Note that our historic self would be very impressed that we would have
supercomputers on every desk top and in most homes, even available in most
third world countries, but they would expect robots that would embody AI and
do most dangerous labors. They would be shocked because they had no idea
that a semi-intelligent autonomous machine was so difficult to develop.