Good analysis Russell. Comments below... On 7/8/2011 8:50 AM, RussellMc wrote: >> IMO hydrogen fuel is pointless unless you have a Fusion Power station to >> make if nearly for free from seawater. Otherwise converting coal to >> liquid fuel is more sensible. Or using shale gas. People doing it since >> 1940s and it's getting better. > IF you can electrolyse water with electricity at an "acceptable" cost > and % efficiency then a suitable storage medium (which this carbazole > process seems potentially as good as most) then you have gained the > ability to distribute liquid electricity. Economies are different > because eg transport costs and storage tanks are 6 x larger than with > petrol. So distribution costs assume a far larger % of the "pump > cost". Also, that assumes that the liquid is benign when transported. > ie how do you trigger the Hydrogen release. Does eg pouring it on the > ground do it, or shaking it in a tank, or heating it, or adding what > catalyst at what %? Could be fun but may not be fuel. > > Once you can distribute energy from electricity using Hydrogen you cut > added distribution CO2 emissions to about zero (and CO2 for generated > electricity depends on whether nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, > hydrocarbon (liquid o gas or solid) , ... Overall you may win. CO2 > emissions as a proxy for hydrocarbon burning need to be greatly > reduced regardless of what warming effects they may or may not have on > the planet. > > AND you can never have enough stored hydrocarbon. It is far too > valuable a feedstock resource to be pillaging the future's reserves > for to "just" burn it for its energy content. . > > >> I can see ZERO value in mainstream rechargeable cars electric cars >> either, especially if there was an ideal battery. You can only have >> "refills" at a sensible speed by battery swap, > That assumes no major battery gains. Some LiIon variants now charge in > under a minute (stand clear). > Vanadium redox batteries used a charged liquid "electrolyte" which > stores energy in the difference between a number of oxidation states. > "Energy" can be pumped in and old electrolyte for charging pumped out > in relatively small time. A list member is well experienced with > these. He may wish to stick his head up, or not. I predict battery gains also. I am suspicious of Lithium, but the Metal=20 Hydride types are not tapped out yet. Here in Tucson, the big college Pizza shop drives all-electric vehicles,=20 but they charge from PV arrays mounted on the roof. Seem to run well. >> and even then the entire >> Electricity Distribution grid would need upgraded. Dead right. The non-repair of the US power grid when money was being=20 thrown around by the Washington DC lunatics is a travesty. > And? > Everything costs money. I'm told that the US's infrastructure is > largely worn out, or far more so than was intended when it was built, > and that the repeatedly postponed day when major input is needed looms > near. (Bridges, roads, ...) I DO NO KNOW the truth of this, but > slipping a new power grid into the impossible bill may as well be done > :-). The sewers under Atlanta, GA were last repaired as Sherman marched out.=20 Bridges collapse regularly. Its my opinion that the US cannot recover from this=20 financial wound unless we (1) get rid of the Federal Reserve Bank, (2) dismantle the=20 Internal Revenue Service, and outlaw the Democrats & Republicans. > FWIW everywhere I have been in China they are undergoing massive > public works programs - roads, bridges, railways, ... on a scale > almost unimaginable. AND everywhere I go in China there are seriously > too-old factories littering the countryside - well past their 'use > by' date. Seems that they both know the lesson and have failed to > learn it. > >> I used to think bio-fuel was a good idea, but unless a digester is >> making it from the WASTE vegetable matter of food crops (i.e. stems of >> maize, rape, sunflower, banana etc) it only makes people starve and put >> up food prices. > Largely true. I have somewhere a stunningly sobering report that > analyses "spare" land capacity in all European countries, plus > efficiency of production of biofuels in each, and which then makes > predictions as to what could be achieved using ALL "spare" land. > Notionally it may achieve all energy needs in the medium term but the > scale is vast and one can be sure that real results would be inferior > to predicted. I agree. Somebody is making a lot of money somehow. > Some crops use seriously bad land to produce high energy density > crops that are inedible but that have almost all by products useful > for something. There is an Australian one (name somewhere) and there > is an Indian& African tree (Moringa oleifera ) that is very > widespread (no mistake) that has some food output but also is highly > useful for about everything. Even can be used as a high quality water > flocculant allowing "one or two 9's) water purification. > >> Obviously using up waste cooking oil etc in diesel >> engines or aircraft turbines is good, but it can only be a small >> percentage unless we eat a lot more deep fat fried food :( > Yes. Marginal value. > I know a man in Louisiana who seems competent and honest (and having > had a part in advising those planning the Bay of Pigs affair because > he was ordered to*, should not be held against him :-) ) who claims to > be able to convert almost any food waste into quality hydrocarbon > product at a viable price. Most such claimants are dreamers and/or > snake oil purveyors. He doesn't seem to be either). > * So older than young :-). Lotsa those on the WWW. Amazing. > Hydrogen as an energy transport medium and clean burning or conversion > energy releaser seems highly attractive, once you work out how to do > little things [tm] like transport IT economically. > ie carrying Protons with an electron attached is easier than carrying > just electrons, but not too much. I agree. Nice note, R!! > > > Russell --Bob A --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .