[Geof]

And a point Mariss did not include in the Ethanol example is that more energy is consumed in the growth of the corn and all the subsequent processing steps than is produced in the resulting Ethanol. This has been and still is denied by the Ethanol advocates with the silliest argument I have seen so far being the statement that it is not correct to include the energy utilized to make pesticides and fertilizer used on the corn crop as an input energy.

And Mariss' bleak Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence. really is the bottom line. It is a long way off even at current levels of fossil fuel consumption because there are still immense quantities of coal, and, if a successful way of tapping them is developed, even vaster deposits of methane hydrates.

And I can hear you saying that these all release CO2 which is correct. If we want to continue with our energy profligate lifestyle there is no alternative. If all the predictions from the IPCC are correct our descendants have some serious problems to solve. I think that all the stuff about mass extinctions and greater weather extremes is nonsense. As I have mentioned previously there is no evidence that this has happened with earlier warm spells. And as Lomborg points out some of the changes such as agriculture being enhanced in northern regions actually are positive.

The really big problem certainly will be sea level rising; this is likely but may be overstated. The Antarctic continent is still going to remain frozen and already there are indications that some regions are experiencing increased precipitation which is going to increase the amount of water tied up in that ice mass. In addition while permanent sea ice cover in the Arctic will diminish it is possible that precipitation in the form of snow could be greatly increased on the land area surrounding the Arctic Ocean. This is something that does not seem to have been considered but fifty years ago the possibility of greatly increased snow fall arising from increased open Arctic waters was postulated. The context was not global warming but a proposal by the Soviets to increase the shipping season for their Arctic ports by spreading coal dust on the ice. The theory was that the black would absorb solar radiation better leading to an earlier and more extensive summer melt. This would lead to a delayed freeze up in the Fall giving the extended port accessibility. The plan was not put into practice because of the fear that the extra open water in late Fall and early Winter would create a moisture source for enhanced snow fall. The concern was not and is not without merit; the prevailing winds blow from the north, i.e. from the water, and greatly enhanced snow fall down wind of open water is well know. This is the 'lake effect' experienced down wind of the Great Lakes. It is too early to know for sure whether this has already started but definitely the freeze up in the Canadian Arctic is occurring later in the season; we know that from the hungry Polar Bears. I have seen reports that some areas in the north have had greater than average snowfalls for several years now but it is impossible to say whether this is just a weather cycle with a period of a decade or so or whether it is a permanent change; only time will tell. However, if this increased precipitation does occur it is possible that it could enhance the mass of the permanent land based snow and ice cover in the north including the Greenland Icecap. Combined with increased accummulation in the Antarctic the future may hold lower sea levels not higher.

[DR-Motion]

Nice post Mariss, My initial impression is that this type of analysis points at the most fundamental flaw in the discussion of GW or CC. While our modern culture has certainly increased our literacy, sadly our numeracy is pretty dismal.

</flame bait on> Our most vocal Greenies, spouting their rhetoric, inevitably are lacking in fundamental math skills. This is why they are so easily convinced of the security proffered by biofuels , solar power and (IMNSHO the biggest scam of all) hydrogen . </flame bait off>

As a reality check on your, "US per capita energy consumption is 4.5 X 10^11 Joules per year" I checked my electric utility bill and found my yearly consumption to be about 15,000 kWh per year for a family of 6. My gasoline consumption for 25,000 kM per year at 10 kM per litre is about 2500 litres . So while not accounting for my natural gas consumption ( 'cause I don't know how to relate it to the correct units) and not including all the energy used to fuel my "consumer" goods, I estimate my 6 person family usage to be less than the PER CAPITA US energy consumption... and we're not living a particularly "green" lifestyle.

Geof, ... "some regions are experiencing increased precipitation" ... yeah it was all in my driveway this morning... 6 inches of heavy wet snow with a three foot drift blocking the entrance to my shop. And inevitably as soon as I finished shoveling the driveway... the snowplow came by and buried me in again.LOL

You are absolutely correct in your consideration of energy consumption required in the growing or manufacturing of alternate energy sources, as any accountant will tell you. The same energy cost must be applied to manufacturing "greenie" technology such as modern batteries, fuel cells and solar panels; the amortisation of these costs reveals a large energy footprint.

" And Mariss' bleak Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence." Why so bleak?
Once you know what is real and what is imagined, you have the opportunity to move towards your clearly perceived goal. This is a positive thing.

[Geof]

I estimate my 6 person family usage to be less than the PER CAPITA US energy consumption... and we're not living a particularly "green" lifestyle....

" And Mariss' bleak Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence." Why so bleak?
Once you know what is real and what is imagined, you have the opportunity to move towards your clearly perceived goal. This is a positive thing.

Regarding your per capita consumption you admit you have not added in the natural gas; actually maybe you could check your gas bills and see if they quote consumption in joules, ours do. This omission accounts for some lower consumption but I think published figures are obtained by dividing total energy consumption by population so they include energy used on your behalf in making the products you buy. They also include energy used making products that may be exported and used by someone else and this makes them unreliable for country to country comparisons. Per capita consumption in Europe is certainly lower than here but if energy intensive products are made here and used there the energy consumption is assigned to Canada when really it should follow the product.

Bleak conclusion??? That is from my perspective and personal history. I grew up on a farm in New Zealand. We did not get electricity wired into our house until I was ten years of age. Life was a long way from being 'a primitive agrarian existence' but when I was old enough my day started by splitting wood for the stove so we could cook breakfast. We also did not have an automobile until I was around twelve and I had to leave at around 6:30am for a 1/2 mile walk to the road and then a 1-1/2 hour bus ride to get to school.

And actually the historical record shows that the primitive agrarian existence was bleak with chronic malnutrition, people were smaller then, repetitive strain injuries from constant heavy toil and a short life span.

[Mariss Freimanis]

1) I didn't include the energy necessary to produce ethanol only because the numbers are bad enough even were it 100% efficient. The second reason was to deflect any criticism the calculated costs are inaccurate or inflated.

2) Numerous published estimates of US per capita energy consumption is 8,000 kg of oil per year. A little math yields 4.5 X 10^11 Joules. I assume that number includes the energy required to produce all the goods and services we enjoy.

3) Year-averaged insolation is generally agreed as being 6kW-hrs/m^2/day here in Sunny Southern California where I live. In the US Northwest and the Northeast it is about half that value. A little calculator work gives 8 X 10^9 Joules per year for here.

4) Published data shows an acre of land gives 120 bushels of corn and a bushel gives 2.5 gallons of ethanol. The calculator says that's 7 X 10^7 Joules/m^2/yr.

5) The conclusion is only bleak if human wealth and ingenuity is directed in the wrong direction. Forget about "alternate energy sources", develop nuclear fusion. We are awash in literal oceans of energy; a liter of ocean water contains 2.7 X 10^11 Joules of energy in the form of eminently fusible deuterium. That's equivalent to 300 gallons of gasoline for every gallon of water.

Fossil and nuclear energy is potent only because it is stored energy that can be released quickly and on demand. You cannot flush a toilet a drop at a time. Anyone can check the numbers; I didn't know what they were either. All it took was a calculator, Google and 2 hours out of my fine Sunday morning.

Mariss

[Geof]

......

5) The conclusion is only bleak if human wealth and ingenuity is directed in the wrong direction. Forget about "alternate energy sources", develop nuclear fusion. We are awash in literal oceans of energy; a liter of ocean water contains 2.7 X 10^11 Joules of energy in the form of eminently fusible deuterium. That's equivalent to 300 gallons of gasoline for every gallon of water.....

Mariss

Yes bleak is much to gloomy a sentiment. Possibly influeneced by the view out the window of a grey sky and a white landscape with a prediction for gale force winds and heavy rain tomorrow.

Regarding fusion I don't hold to much hope. Fusion has been only ten years away for about 50 years . And even if net energy is eventually produced it is not as clean as many proponents make out. Lots of high energy neutrons are produced and eventually the materials of the structure become transmuted so radioactive waste is produced. There is also the not so
minor problem of the materials losing structural integrity because now they are something different, or at least part is.

In a perfect world I think the nuclear solution is fast breeders because this way you can have them eat their own waste. But it really does not matter what future energy sources are developed I think we will have to get by on a lot less than we do today.

[xyzdonna]

Why then isn't "easier" chosen if "laziness" is the reason? Sillier yet is comfortable "old ways" and learning "new stuff". Do brief review of the last 100 years.

Why not ask the question again but give it some thought before offering a reason. Maybe you'll find a problem with the question, perhaps the assumption it's "safer, cheaper and easier".

Non-renewable energy is fossil fuel and nuclear. Renewable energy is solar-cells, solar concentrators, biomass, ethanol, hydroelectric, windmills, wood-burning stoves, etc. All renewable energy is solar energy and that is a major problem. In fact it's a show-stopper for a technological civilization.

Solar energy is feeble. It is at best (noon, clear day, on the equator) 1kW per square meter. 10% of that is recoverable as usable energy so make it 100W per square meter.

Let's use it in a car. A car needs 75kW minimum at 100 kM/hr. To get that, 750 square meters of collector area is required. The collector diameter is 31 meters (about 100 feet) sitting atop your vehicle. OK, not practical.

Let's grow corn, convert it to ethanol and put it in the car. You drive 15,000 km a year, your car gets 10 km/l so you need 1,500 liters of ethanol a year. A square meter of land produces 0.3 liters of ethanol from corn a year. You need 5,000 square meters of farmland for your personal transportation needs.

That's 10,000 miles a year, 25 MPG, 400 gallons annually, 300 gallons ethanol per acre or 1.3 acres of corn. That's a lot of corn.

Solar energy conversion efficiency for ethanol is a not so hot 0.1%. A square meter receives 8 X 10^9 Joules of solar energy a year. A square meter produces 0.3 liters of ethanol a year whose energy content is 7 X 10^6 Joules.

The bigger picture. US per capita energy consumption is 4.5 X 10^11 Joules per year. Solar energy is 8 X 10^9 J / m^2 / yr. Assuming a very optimistic 5% conversion efficiency, every man, woman and child would need over 1000 square meters of solar "collector area". That's over a 1/4 acre per person of very expensive technology. Get it all from low-tech corn? Now you need 50 times more land; 50,000 m^2 or 12.5 acres per person.

Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence.

I did the math myself. I hope I didn't slip a decimal point somewhere.

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
The 400 gallons per year you mention. At 15 mpg that yields 6,000 miles. At 25 mpg that gives you 10,000 miles. Quite a saving, don't you think? It starts to make sense that greater efficiencies make solar more attractive. I agree it would take a lot of corn to do that. Not really practical as Geof pointed out. Biodiesel is a better and more efficient choice.

I quote: Does biodiesel take more energy to make than it gives back?
No. Biodiesel actually has the highest “energy balance” of any transportation fuel. The DOE/USDA lifecycle analysis shows for every unit of fossil energy it takes to make biodiesel, 3.2 units of energy are gained. This takes into account the planting, harvesting, fuel production and fuel transportation to the end user.
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/f...monlyAsked.PDF

I'm not sure how that corolates with your square meter analysis, I'm not sure how many acres per person would be required to produce fuel for that person. It does point out that increased efficiencies start producing results that make sense. I think that over the eons plants have developed amazing efficiencies in turning sunlight into fuel by photosynthesis. Ethanol is about a break even energy wise (takes about as much energy to produce as it provides). Biodiesel produces about 3 times as much energy as is required to make it and is much lower on pollution. When you are dealing with such small yields as we are talking about here ("a square meter of land produces 0.3 liters of ethanol from corn a year") slight increases in efficiency start producing profound results. If my logic is right then this is a three fold increase over your ethanol analysis. Again, I'm not sure just how many acres would be required to produce an amount of biodiesel that was equivalent to your ethanol.
Donna

[Mariss Freimanis]

Geof,

Why give human creativity such a short shrift? Look at what we have done and extrapolate what we can do. The advent of science coincided with the Renaissance 500 years ago. That marks the beginning of our understanding of the Universe in a manipulatable way.

250 years ago marks the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when theory gave birth to engineering. It set the foundation for all our technology we have today by marrying theory with its practical expression. The two have run in tandem harness ever since.

Less than 250 years ago modern representative democracy germinated and set root. It provided the benign environment needed for science, engineering and mercantilism to thrive. That enriched the lives of people universally unlike nothing else has in all of human history.

100 years ago we learned how to fly and communicate instantaneously around the world. That latter gift was electronics. 50 years ago we understood physics enough to manipulate nature's matter into fission, generate nuclear energy and, as a side note, create artificial elements that the earth hasn't ever seen since its creation 4.6 billion years ago.

25 years ago electronics gave us widespread use of computers, the harbinger of what will eventually be artificial intelligence. 10 years ago the internet was created which will eventually unite all the tribes of Man and it more than anything else ever done will lead to the death of war.

Pessimistically you can say the first part of this progress is due to Newton and the second part is due to Einstein and that is probably true. 300 hundred years separates them. If fusion and things more marvelous than we can imagine requires another genius of the first magnitude then expect it in 250 more years. Einstein died in 1956.

We have always been afflicted with Luddites. The current spoor are greens, environmentalists, progressives, whatever. What marks them is fear and self-loathing; we are bad, everything we do is bad. Every change is a disaster, nothing good can come of it, we must do something to return things to where they were. They are conservatives actually though ironically they call themselves otherwise. They have no regard for or even the comprehension of the majesty of the human spirit. They are indeed mud-people.

The first evidence of human spirit to me dates back 40,000 years to the cave paintings in France. We have come such a long way and so rapidly recently. In part that is my near physical revulsion for the mud-people. I'm sure their proud ancestry is replete with untold losing battles to stem progress and to stifle the full expression of the human spirit. They are the inevitable friction that tries to retard motion.

Life is good. There is much yet to be discovered. Being a human is good. You are a part of nature as is everything around you. There are no catastrophes looming around every corner, there are no bogymen. Keep a childlike sense of wonder about everything around you. Keep an open heart and an unafraid mind. Fear shackles, particularly the ones you put on yourself. Relish life.

Mariss

[Mariss Freimanis]

xyzdonna,

Biodiesel or ethanol, it makes no difference. It comes from plants whose first, second or 100th purpose for being does not include generating earth-friendly fuels for people to use. The energy still comes from the sun and it is a feeble source. Less than 0.1% of that gets converted into friendly fuels. Plants have other imperatives; generating oil or sugar is way down on their list of things to do.

Should you discover an absolutely altruistic plant that somehow converted 100% of incident radiation to gasoline and to the exclusion of everything else (like living), you'd still get only 50 gallons of gasoline a year per square meter. Tip-off: Look for an absolutely matte-black plant. It will reflect no light at all.:-)

Mariss

Mariss

[xyzdonna]

Nice post Mariss, My initial impression is that this type of analysis points at the most fundamental flaw in the discussion of GW or CC. While our modern culture has certainly increased our literacy, sadly our numeracy is pretty dismal.

</flame bait on> Our most vocal Greenies, spouting their rhetoric, inevitably are lacking in fundamental math skills. This is why they are so easily convinced of the security proffered by biofuels , solar power and (IMNSHO the biggest scam of all) hydrogen . </flame bait off>

Hi Dr. Motion,
Grrrrr, you mathematical types can be insufferable. Your brains are wired up differently. A confession, I had to repeat every course in calculus I took. But it did cement into my brain everything I learned about algebra and geometry. That I'm pretty good at. And you know what, I find you don't need calculus in everyday life. Even engineers rarely use it. Oh, maybe if your studying quantum mechanics or something.
I consider myself a greenie, and I think I can manage fundamental math skills as long as you don't try and run an integral equation past me. I won't flame you, although I'm tempted. BUT WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE AGAINST HYDROGEN!!!!!! HOW GOOD CAN IT GET???!!!!! YOU TAKE HYDROGEN AND WHAT COMES OUT? ELECTRICITY & WATER.
Donna

[307startup]

Hi Dr. Motion,
Grrrrr, you mathematical types can be insufferable. Your brains are wired up differently. A confession, I had to repeat every course in calculus I took. But it did cement into my brain everything I learned about algebra and geometry. That I'm pretty good at. And you know what, I find you don't need calculus in everyday life. Even engineers rarely use it. Oh, maybe if your studying quantum mechanics or something.
I consider myself a greenie, and I think I can manage fundamental math skills as long as you don't try and run an integral equation past me. I won't flame you, although I'm tempted. BUT WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE AGAINST HYDROGEN!!!!!! HOW GOOD CAN IT GET???!!!!! YOU TAKE HYDROGEN AND WHAT COMES OUT? ELECTRICITY & WATER.
Donna

xyzDonna...
It's not a net process Donna. You need electricity to perform hydrolysis to obtain the hydrogen anyway. Where does the electricity come from? The frustrating part is that such seemingly motivated & educated people (the greenies) can be so intentionally obtuse. And you have it backward...you take water & electricity to get hydrogen, to burn, to get water....

[Geof]

......BUT WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE AGAINST HYDROGEN!!!!!! HOW GOOD CAN IT GET???!!!!! YOU TAKE HYDROGEN AND WHAT COMES OUT? ELECTRICITY & WATER.
Donna

I am disappointed and feeling ignored. Go back to Post 199 and read it. You could have saved yourself the embarassment if this somewhat uninformed comment.

[xyzdonna]

xyzdonna,

Biodiesel or ethanol, it makes no difference. It comes from plants whose first, second or 100th purpose for being does not include generating earth-friendly fuels for people to use. The energy still comes from the sun and it is a feeble source. Less than 0.1% of that gets converted into friendly fuels. Plants have other imperatives; generating oil or sugar is way down on their list of things to do.

Should you discover an absolutely altruistic plant that somehow converted 100% of incident radiation to gasoline and to the exclusion of everything else (like living), you'd still get only 50 gallons of gasoline a year per square meter. Tip-off: Look for an absolutely matte-black plant. It will reflect no light at all.:-)

Mariss

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
Haven't seen a matte black plant, there might be some in the Amazon rain forest, if they haven't been clear cut by now. I appreciate the analysis you did on ethanol. I'll try and dig up some facts on biodiesel. It will be fun to compare the two.
Donna

[Mariss Freimanis]

Think electricity when you say hydrogen. Both are vehicles that transport energy from here to there.

1) Electricity: Good old coal or oil is burned in a boiler to produce steam. Steam spins a turbine, turbine spins a generator. The resulting electricity is sent by transmission cables atop towers to distant places where it is converted back to heat in microwave ovens, toasters, light bulbs and of course TVs, the idiot's delight. Some of it runs CNC machines.

2) Hydrogen. It does not occur naturally in molecular form as a gas. It is made from good old coal or oil directly or from electricity produced in (1). It is compressed or cryogenically liquefied (useful if you are launching the Space Shuttle) and transported by truck, rail or pipeline to distant places. It is then burned or run thru fuel cells to power a very few cars or Space Shuttles.

It is far more dangerous than electricity. Hydrogen is a metal (in some sense) and it readily alloys with steel, embrittling the tanks holding it. It is very light, even liquified, making it a miserable energy vehicle. It's energy density per volume is very low, meaning you have to have a very large volume to be useful. Kind of like burning styrofoam peanuts in your furnace for heat. Take into account its flammability, the danger of 5,000 PSI gas tanks and you have a cantankerous and unpleasant energy vehicle.

Yeah, hydrogen power is the future alright.:-)

Mariss

[xyzdonna]

Donna you are certainly a Pollyanna

Okay we all trade in our 20 mpg vehicles for 40 mpg and feel very virtuous.

But now we have created a huge CO2 pulse making those new vehicles so it is going to take more time before emission levels start declining.

All truck traffic is going to be transferred from highways to rail.

A very large proportion of long distance truck freight already goes by rail; that is what is meant by Intermodal. The bulk of the trucks you see on the highways are relatively short haul or final delivery and rail is not suitable for this. In addition according to the business magazines I read most rail systems are working close to capacity.

We should move toward a hydrogen rather than a carbon based economy.

This time I am going to be blunt: The hydrogen economy is nonsense.

Carbon containing fossil fuels are a source of energy which occur naturally. Free hydrogen does not occur naturally, hydrogen is not a source of energy. Hydrogen can be used as a fuel but first it has to be generated using an energy input. And a significant proportion of the input energy is lost during the generation of the hydrogen. One energy source that is used for the direction generation of hydrogen is natural gas but it is idiotic to use natural gas for this application because it can be used for almost all the applications the hydrogen can be used for. And natural gas consumes less energy for compressing and transporting because it is an easier gas to deal with. The other way to generate hydrogen is by electrolysis of water and this needs electricity so you are back to need greatly increased generating capacity. And in many cases it is probably more efficient to use the electrical energy directly.

it is possible to make concrete that incorporates significant amounts of recycled materials, such as slag and fly ash, reducing the amount of Portland cement that is needed. That is the kind of strategy that will help cut CO2 emissions in the future.

Quite correct. You have probably seen the concrete blocks with holes through them used for concrete wall building. In England they are called Cinder Blocks because they were a cheaper alternative to true concrete. Also a weaker alternative, much weaker. I don't think I want tall buildings, Nuclear reactors or big bridges made out of 'Cinder blocks'.

I could continue but I need my morning coffee.

Hi Geof,
Sorry, didn't mean to ignore your post. I did actually read it. Let me deal with what you said.

A very large proportion of long distance truck freight already goes by rail; that is what is meant by Intermodal. The bulk of the trucks you see on the highways are relatively short haul or final delivery and rail is not suitable for this. In addition according to the business magazines I read most rail systems are working close to capacity.
I think this is partially true, it's been a long time since I was involved with the trucking industry. I do have a friend who is a long haul trucker. He mostly goes from Chattanooga to the west coast and back. I really don't know why his company doesn't do the intermodal thing. It make sense, put a trailer on a flat bed and send it out. Let a local driver deliver it. I don't think it's used as much as it should be.

We should move toward a hydrogen rather than a carbon based economy.

This time I am going to be blunt: The hydrogen economy is nonsense.

Carbon containing fossil fuels are a source of energy which occur naturally. Free hydrogen does not occur naturally, hydrogen is not a source of energy. Hydrogen can be used as a fuel but first it has to be generated using an energy input. And a significant proportion of the input energy is lost during the generation of the hydrogen. One energy source that is used for the direction generation of hydrogen is natural gas but it is idiotic to use natural gas for this application because it can be used for almost all the applications the hydrogen can be used for. And natural gas consumes less energy for compressing and transporting because it is an easier gas to deal with. The other way to generate hydrogen is by electrolysis of water and this needs electricity so you are back to need greatly increased generating capacity. And in many cases it is probably more efficient to use the electrical energy directly.

A thought, CSP can be used to super heat water, is this not correct? At high temperatures you can more easily disassociate the water molecule. Maybe apply a little direct current to the process and viola, hydrogen and oxygen.
To quote Bob Dylan, "I think it can be easy done".

Quite correct. You have probably seen the concrete blocks with holes through them used for concrete wall building. In England they are called Cinder Blocks because they were a cheaper alternative to true concrete. Also a weaker alternative, much weaker. I don't think I want tall buildings, Nuclear reactors or big bridges made out of 'Cinder blocks'.

I agree, I'm getting ready to build a house and I won't use cinder blocks. This is because my foundation must be about 20 feet high. We're building on a very steep slope. Nope, its poured walls for us. Solid concrete 12 inches thick.
Donna

[xyzdonna]

Think electricity when you say hydrogen. Both are vehicles that transport energy from here to there.

1) Electricity: Good old coal or oil is burned in a boiler to produce steam. Steam spins a turbine, turbine spins a generator. The resulting electricity is sent by transmission cables atop towers to distant places where it is converted back to heat in microwave ovens, toasters, light bulbs and of course TVs, the idiot's delight. Some of it runs CNC machines.

2) Hydrogen. It does not occur naturally in molecular form as a gas. It is made from good old coal or oil directly or from electricity produced in (1). It is compressed or cryogenically liquefied (useful if you are launching the Space Shuttle) and transported by truck, rail or pipeline to distant places. It is then burned or run thru fuel cells to power a very few cars or Space Shuttles.

It is far more dangerous than electricity. Hydrogen is a metal (in some sense) and it readily alloys with steel, embrittling the tanks holding it. It is very light, even liquified, making it a miserable energy vehicle. It's energy density per volume is very low, meaning you have to have a very large volume to be useful. Kind of like burning styrofoam peanuts in your furnace for heat. Take into account its flammability, the danger of 5,000 PSI gas tanks and you have a cantankerous and unpleasant energy vehicle.

Yeah, hydrogen power is the future alright.:-)

Mariss

Hi Mariss,

Think electricity when you say hydrogen. Both are vehicles that transport energy from here to there.
Yes but electricity requires transmission lines, hydrogen allows a vehicle to not be tethered to an extension cord.

1) Electricity: Good old coal or oil is burned in a boiler to produce steam. Steam spins a turbine, turbine spins a generator. The resulting electricity is sent by transmission cables atop towers to distant places where it is converted back to heat in microwave ovens, toasters, light bulbs and of course TVs, the idiot's delight. Some of it runs CNC machines.

Yes, bad old coal or oil is burned and there's the rub. CSP should be used to make the electricity. Hydrogen is a way of storing energy. Once you make hydrogen you have effectively stored energy. That's a pretty awesome thing.

Donna

[Mariss Freimanis]

xyzdonna,

I have hope you can be persuaded away from the dark side. You still have an open mind.:-)

Most important principles of Nature: (1) There is no free lunch, or (2) You cannot break even; you're lucky if you come close. Nature is Las Vegas; you can't beat the house. You cannot "super-heat" this and "zap" it with that. The energy put in to break molecular bonds will always be more than what you get back when you burn it again and reform those bonds.

Look up the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

Mariss

[Mariss Freimanis]

What's with the acronyms? What is CSP, a new dietary supplement, a new psychological syndrome or a new disease I should be concerned about?

Mariss

[Geof]

.....A thought, CSP can be used to super heat water, is this not correct? At high temperatures you can more easily disassociate the water molecule. Maybe apply a little direct current to the process and viola, hydrogen and oxygen.
To quote Bob Dylan, "I think it can be easy done".....

No, no matter what you or Bob think you cannot get around the laws of thermodynamics. I have come across the misconception you have here many times. In a chemical reaction you are dealing with two separate properties; the rate of the reaction and the energetics of the reaction. They are connected but only in the sense that a reaction which releases a lot of energy will often proceed very fast; this is why some reactions are explosive or burn very fast. But the amount of energy involved in a reaction is not dependent on how fast it proceeds.

When electrolysing water to generate hydrogen and oxygen the rate of this energetically unfavorable reaction can be influenced by the electrode design, temperature, solute composition. So you can produce hydrogen faster or slower but the amount of energy going into breaking the hydrogen-oxygen bond is the same. All the energy that is released when the hydrogen reacts with oxygen has to be put into the system in the first place just to get the hydrogen.

And it is actually worse than that because during the electrolysis some of the electrical energy supplied to the electrolysis cell is wasted as heat so for every 100 units of electrical energy in you get fewer than 100 units of chemical potential energy out in the hydrogen. Then when you utilize the hydrogen in a fuel cell you lose more of the energy as heat. There is no way around it. The full cycle from electrical energy used for the electrolysis back to electrical energy has an overall efficiency of 50% or less for the polymer fuel cells proposed for the 'hydrogen economy'. So half the energy is lost even before the compression, storage and transport of the hydrogen is taken into account.

[Geof]

What's with the acronyms? What is CSP, a new dietary supplement, a new psychological syndrome or a new disease I should be concerned about?

Mariss

Concentrated Solar Power; aka focussing collectors. There is a setup in CA someplace that operates with a Stirling enegine and has an efficiency pretty close to 30%, I think. It was mentioned in a different thread some time ago.

[xyzdonna]

xyzdonna,

I have hope you can be persuaded away from the dark side. You still have an open mind.:-)

Most important principles of Nature: (1) There is no free lunch, or (2) You cannot break even; you're lucky if you come close. Nature is Las Vegas; you can't beat the house. You cannot "super-heat" this and "zap" it with that. The energy put in to break molecular bonds will always be more than what you get back when you burn it again and reform those bonds.

Look up the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

Mariss

Thanks Mariss,
Yes, I think I have an open mind.

Most important principles of Nature: (1) There is no free lunch, or (2) You cannot break even; you're lucky if you come close. Nature is Las Vegas; you can't beat the house. You cannot "super-heat" this and "zap" it with that. The energy put in to break molecular bonds will always be more than what you get back when you burn it again and reform those bonds.

I know this, it's not going to be 100% efficient. If we could get 15% conversion efficiency it might be worthwhile.

Look up the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

I'm afraid to, I think there might be calculus involved.
Donna