The hydrogen economy

badboy2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
949
riven said:
e=mc2 relates to the energy in matter which can only be harvested by nuclear.
Not energy in matter, but the fact that matter is energy.

Energy and matter are the same thing.

All enegy from the sun is nuclear - don't tell George Bush or he will send the EPA on a site visit to the sun.
 


badboy2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
949
Auditor #9 said:
badboy2 said:
Actually to be scientifically correct, hydrogen is an energy source.

Why?

Because e=mc^2.
Thank you :D , a sensible non-semanticist.

Any reason why we don't go for an exygen-economy at the same time?
Do you mean an oxygen economy?
 

John_C

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
129
riven said:
John_C said:
riven said:
Except that current vacuum technologies are not up to the task. They could be 5-10 years though but it would be interesting to see
Current vacuum technology? Has the technology evolved beyond pumping the air out of a chamber?
:shock: :roll:

It is not as simple as putting a pump on a chamber and emptying the air. The only pumps that can get from near zero pressure (full vacuum) to atmosphere in one pump would not be able to produce enough vacuum.

The pumps that can do the vacuum cannot pump to atmosphere alone and need a train of backing pumps to get the gases there.

Why do we need to exhaust to atmosphere. Well if we dont there will be a build up of gases in the pump.

Further you have not considered the gases that evolve from the chamber walls. Also there will probably be a leak as it is not a sealed chamber as there will have to be some incoming line to feed the flywheel.
Thanks but I'm going to have to take that as a 'no'.
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,344
Then you do not understand the mechanics of what needs to be done
 

Ehhh

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
10
badboy2 said:
Actually to be scientifically correct, hydrogen is an energy source.

Why?

Because e=mc^2.
By which logic, sand is a source of energy. Not much good in practical terms.

The point I was originally making was that there's no big store house of ready-to-use hydrogen lying around like there has been with fossil fuels. It's not a source of energy in that to use it we first have to put energy in to create it (unlkike with fossil fuels where millions of years of sunshine did the work for us).
 

Auditor #9

Active member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
237
Website
www.*******.com
Ehhh said:
badboy2 said:
Actually to be scientifically correct, hydrogen is an energy source.

Why?

Because e=mc^2.
By which logic, sand is a source of energy. Not much good in practical terms.

The point I was originally making was that there's no big store house of ready-to-use hydrogen lying around like there has been with fossil fuels. It's not a source of energy in that to use it we first have to put energy in to create it (unlkike with fossil fuels where millions of years of sunshine did the work for us).
Sand could be used in same the way that pumped stored water is used in 'batteries'. Eventually we'll undoubtedly have to resort to releasing stored energy which requires more input than fossil fuels and I'm wondering what the most efficient (and cleanest) form would be. Hydrogen looks like a good candidate once oil goes.
 

badboy2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
949
Auditor #9 said:
badboy2 said:
[quote="Auditor #9":28l10e8h]
badboy2 said:
Actually to be scientifically correct, hydrogen is an energy source.

Why?

Because e=mc^2.
Thank you :D , a sensible non-semanticist.

Any reason why we don't go for an exygen-economy at the same time?
Do you mean an oxygen economy?
Yes.[/quote:28l10e8h]
Oxygen weighs way more than hydrogen for a start. Coming in at number 8 on the periodic table it would have a mass of about 16 times that of hydrogen.

However if my chemistry serves me correctly, oxygen does not burn as such, other things burn in oxygen - normally organic compounds containing carbon. So an oxygen economy would actually just be an ineffcient carbon economy.

Burning is by definition oxidation.

You burn Hydrogen in oxygen to get H2O. you burn carbon to get CO2.

As there doesn't seem to be a source of solid hydrogen that can be dug out of the ground......
 

badboy2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
949
Ehhh said:
badboy2 said:
Actually to be scientifically correct, hydrogen is an energy source.

Why?

Because e=mc^2.
By which logic, sand is a source of energy. Not much good in practical terms.

The point I was originally making was that there's no big store house of ready-to-use hydrogen lying around like there has been with fossil fuels. It's not a source of energy in that to use it we first have to put energy in to create it (unlkike with fossil fuels where millions of years of sunshine did the work for us).
Now I am going to pedantic. That's not logic, its fact. It mightn't be a useful fact, but its a fact.

However I understand what you are trying to say. I just don't really agree with it.

Imagine it was 1800 (the year). Imagine you had a water mill for spinning flax into linen cloth.

You have a problem. the local whig has agitated and you are only allowed work your staff 16 hours a day instead of 20. the water keeps pouring through the turbine but there is no point spinning the wheels because your workers are down the Nags Head. Now a local natual philsospher has invented a machine that will use your mill to create a gas that can be stored and burnt later. This gas can be used to light the mill at night and propel carts to the market. It costs nothing as it uses the mill race when the workers have gone home.

Imagine if that had happened. to you think the oil age would have existed?

Of course not.

The creation of the Carbon economy was a tragedy.

The hydrogen economy will allow each country to be self sufficient in energy.

Equatorial countries can use solar power. Northern ones can use wind and tide. The only rule is that ground water must not be used.

The whole concept of ethical consumption is nonsense for as long as we are dependent on Russian oligarchs, Saudi princes and Texan (insert word of choice)

The Hydrogen economy offers us an escape from this.
 

Auditor #9

Active member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
237
Website
www.*******.com
badboy2 said:
The hydrogen economy will allow each country to be self sufficient in energy.

Equatorial countries can use solar power. Northern ones can use wind and tide. The only rule is that ground water must not be used.

The whole concept of ethical consumption is nonsense for as long as we are dependent on Russian oligarchs, Saudi princes and Texan (insert word of choice)

The Hydrogen economy offers us an escape from this.
So you at least do feel that there is an end coming to the age of oil..? The hydrogen economy could be more distributed than the oil system as well - it could potentially be made anywhere there's water. Do you know if seawater presents a problem? We have enough rain anyway.

Do you know anything about the efficiency/viability of it? Researchers are saying that (energywise) for 3 units of wind you get 1 unit of hydrogen but this sounds like too high a loss. Assuming it's true then is there a chance of improving on it or does it matter? Perhaps coupled with higher efficiencies in engine/motor design as well as better home and building design we could get plenty out of the 1 unit of hydrogen per 3 of wind. It's obviously more efficient if the wind power just gets pumped straight to the consumer though. And that's not even mentioning tidal or wave - definitely tidal is very attractive.
 

badboy2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
949
The age of oil will last as long as we want it to.

With oil, gas, coal, turf and eventually gas hydrates, we can keep up the planetary suicide that is the carbon economy for centuries.

Peak oil is just an oil industry con to raise prices and boost share prices at regular intervals.

(I don't deny that oil isn't finite, but so is tin and copper and we don't hear about them running out.)

If you treat it as a thermodynamic equation oil may be more efficient, however if you bring in factors such as strategic interests, carbon footprints, sustainability and resources there is only one winner.

Salt water proposes no problem. In fact it should electrolyse even easier. However it is easy to purify water, if the machinery reacted badly to salt.

The Hydrogen economy would bring genuine democratisation. Local towns could decide how to generate their own fuel. (Solar/HEP/Wind/Tide). They wouldn't be beholden to national government.

This technology is in its infancy. I think in a few years time there will be a dot com style rush for hydrogen stocks. The difference being that they are producing a useful product.
 

Simon.D

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
797
Auditor #9 said:
Researchers are saying that (energywise) for 3 units of wind you get 1 unit of hydrogen but this sounds like too high a loss.
For 3 units of wind blowing about in the sky, you get 1 unit of stored hydrogen energy? How is that a loss? You can't lose what you don't have.. If I had 3 euro and gave you 1 euro, would you have lost out?

What you need to be looking at is the ratio between electrical energy generated by wind turbine, and hydrogen energy stored.. which is more in the region of 4:3, or a 25% loss.. Rather than the 67% you're suggesting.
 

Auditor #9

Active member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
237
Website
www.*******.com
Simon.D said:
For 3 units of wind blowing about in the sky, you get 1 unit of stored hydrogen energy? How is that a loss? You can't lose what you don't have.. If I had 3 euro and gave you 1 euro, would you have lost out?
Nope :D

Simon.D said:
What you need to be looking at is the ratio between electrical energy generated by wind turbine, and hydrogen energy stored.. which is more in the region of 4:3, or a 25% loss.. Rather than the 67% you're suggesting.
How do you know this? Do you have a link? because it sounds much better than the 3:1 ratio mentioned in this:
http://www.culturechange.org/alt_energy.htm
 

beardyboy

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
207
If this is correct then it can only be good - we can ditch dirty oil
 

Ehhh

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
10
Auditor #9 said:
Sand could be used in same the way that pumped stored water is used in 'batteries'. Eventually we'll undoubtedly have to resort to releasing stored energy which requires more input than fossil fuels and I'm wondering what the most efficient (and cleanest) form would be. Hydrogen looks like a good candidate once oil goes.
Which leaves the question of where the energy to create the hydrogen will come from. That's the elephant in the room with regard to 'the hydrogen economy'.
 

QuizMaster

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
3,193
Website
www.quizmatic.com
Ehhh said:
Which leaves the question of where the energy to create the hydrogen will come from. That's the elephant in the room with regard to 'the hydrogen economy'.
(1) Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, we don't need to "create" it. Indeed we don't create elements in general.
(2) Wind, wave, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro, biomass. You name it: we got it.
(3) All these arguments about hydrogen being a storage medium rather than a source of energy: so are all fuels. All energy is from the sun, stored in various ways. Best do it by renewable ways.
 

Ehhh

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
10
QuizMaster said:
Ehhh said:
Which leaves the question of where the energy to create the hydrogen will come from. That's the elephant in the room with regard to 'the hydrogen economy'.
(1) Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, we don't need to "create" it. Indeed we don't create elements in general.
(2) Wind, wave, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro, biomass. You name it: we got it.
(3) All these arguments about hydrogen being a storage medium rather than a source of energy: so are all fuels. All energy is from the sun, stored in various ways. Best do it by renewable ways.
Oh dear, oh dear.
(1) Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe but perhaps you could point me to where an abundance of it can be found in its natural state. It's generally 'created' by seperating it out from water.
(2) Perhaps you can do the maths on this and work out if there is enough of these to power everything currently running on electricity and also to go into the 'creation' of hydrogen to run all the transport on the planet.
(3)Correct but putting the energy into the storage medium in the case of fossil fuels was done for us, by the sun, over millions of years (which I already said). We don't have that luxury with hydrogen. We can't just dig a well and suck it up. The energy we get out of it will be no more than the energy we put into it. The energy we put into it will still have to come from somewhere.
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,344
badboy2 said:
Oxygen weighs way more than hydrogen for a start. Coming in at number 8 on the periodic table it would have a mass of about 16 times that of hydrogen.

.........
Burning is by definition oxidation.

You burn Hydrogen in oxygen to get H2O. you burn carbon to get CO2.
But also consider that nearly everything burns/explodes in oxygen so it is not an easy gas to process. While there are ambient processes for generating say nitrogen oxygen has remained cryogenic partly because of the safety issues
 

Ehhh

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
10
badboy2 said:
Ehhh said:
badboy2 said:
Actually to be scientifically correct, hydrogen is an energy source.

Why?

Because e=mc^2.
By which logic, sand is a source of energy. Not much good in practical terms.

The point I was originally making was that there's no big store house of ready-to-use hydrogen lying around like there has been with fossil fuels. It's not a source of energy in that to use it we first have to put energy in to create it (unlkike with fossil fuels where millions of years of sunshine did the work for us).
Now I am going to pedantic. That's not logic, its fact. It mightn't be a useful fact, but its a fact.

However I understand what you are trying to say. I just don't really agree with it.

Imagine it was 1800 (the year). Imagine you had a water mill for spinning flax into linen cloth.

You have a problem. the local whig has agitated and you are only allowed work your staff 16 hours a day instead of 20. the water keeps pouring through the turbine but there is no point spinning the wheels because your workers are down the Nags Head. Now a local natual philsospher has invented a machine that will use your mill to create a gas that can be stored and burnt later. This gas can be used to light the mill at night and propel carts to the market. It costs nothing as it uses the mill race when the workers have gone home.

Imagine if that had happened. to you think the oil age would have existed?

Of course not.

The creation of the Carbon economy was a tragedy.

The hydrogen economy will allow each country to be self sufficient in energy.

Equatorial countries can use solar power. Northern ones can use wind and tide. The only rule is that ground water must not be used.

The whole concept of ethical consumption is nonsense for as long as we are dependent on Russian oligarchs, Saudi princes and Texan (insert word of choice)

The Hydrogen economy offers us an escape from this.
Babboy2, perhaps if you are going to qoute me, you should read what I wrote.
 


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top