Re: [Vo]:[VO}: Hydrogen as fuel
Why HVDC? I've been led to believe that the problems in efficient DC-DC conversion outweigh any advantages to DC distribution. (Granted, some computer power buses use single-voltage DC and downconvert at the board level, but that's all low-current stuff and efficiency isn't such a big deal in that case.) I should clarify that I was referring to long distance transmission lines required to go from the sun belt to the north, though I think the cost is dropping to the point smaller distances are economical. There are economical HVDC lines presently operating, some of which have operated long term. A couple of HVDC lines on the west coast are on the order of 1000 mi long if I recall correctly. Large reductions in cost and reliability of power thyristors have been occurring, so the price of the electronics has been steadily dropping, and would drop dramatically if wide spread use occurred. There are various advantages to DC power transmission. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC Also google HVDC power transmission. One of the major advantages is increased grid stability. I expect if research dollars were available the cost of such systems might be dropped significantly. I would expect the cost of power conversion could be limited to about twice that of a transformer station, so the economics can't be all that far out of reach for even converting existing transmission systems. If we're changing the grid, wouldn't it be more reasonable to switch to higher frequency AC, which would be easier to manage than 60 Hz (and maybe less dangerous)? Just wondering. I don't recall if it was Steinmetz or Tesla who first determined the optimum transmission frequency was about 57 Hz. The standard was then set at 60 Hz for timing purposes. There are significant inductive and capacitive losses in transmission lines themselves (in the form of induced ground currents) and in power conversion in transformers. One of the great prospects for HVDC transmission I think is the possibility of doing it in cables. It is not presently economical to transmit 60 Hz in insulated cables due to heat losses and to capacitive impedance. Underground and underwater AC transmission systems therefore require large gap gas insulation in the cables to reduce the capacitive linkage. When HVDC transmission is used the line capacitance can actually increase the stability of the system because it can be used in a manner similar to line pack in gas transmission systems. The line acts like a giant power storage device. Generating capacity can be reduced by managing line voltage and packing in energy prior to peak hour load. This would require a variable voltage system though. Managing natural gas transmission systems is a fairly complicated thing and requires accurate computer models of the system. Similar capabilities and requirements would be necessary for an HVDC power grid, and some research and engineering would likely be needed in that area. The obvious advantage to underground DC transmission is removing the blight on the countryside transmission systems represent, and the legal problems and adversity to building them. There would be a huge advantages to being able to use existing rail and pipeline and even possibly highway rights of way to install a new power grid. At some point I expect superconducting power transmission will be economically feasible. One source of loss in such a system would come from the tendency of surface voltage gradients on superconductors to cause them to radiate. There is a solution to this problem. That is to enclose the conductor in a thin nonsuperconducting metal jacket (typically done anyway) which is not used for power transmission, but rather simply kept at the transmission voltage in order to keep the SC from radiating. On major advantage to HVDC might be in the power gathering system for a large group of windmills. This would reduce generator cost and power management costs for each windmill. A power conditioning station could then be used to get the power to the grid. Making things happen to build a renewable energy power system will either take a concerted national effort or vertical integration by a huge monopolistic company with the lobbying budget sufficient to cut through all the regulatory barriers. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:[VO}: Hydrogen as fuel
DC circuit protection devices can be quite problematic. One advantage offered by alternating current is that it passes throught zero current 120 times per second. Once DC arcs in air, it burns away equipment until the air gap is sufficiently large to extinguish the arc. DC breakers even at the modest voltages used in the transit industry need special consideration. Terry
Re: [Vo]:[VO}: Hydrogen as fuel
On Dec 8, 2007, at 7:36 PM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Horace wrote.. Batteries and plug in hybrids, especially diesel hybrids that also run on biodiesel, seem to be the likely winners for the future I actually have a typo in the above. It should say Batteries and plug in hybrids, especially diesel hybrids that also run on biodiesel, seem to be the likely winners for the NEAR future - i.e. 10 years or more. I also forgot methane vehicles, which could catch on. Howdy Horace, Volkswagon seems to be focusing on diesel hybrids. Been watching for them to introduce such in the USA. Would love to get my hands on a 1/4 ton truck. Maybe they fear the intent of the Chinese that are vocal about introducing such here at under price of 12k. Why the big push in research in hydrogen if it's not going anywhere? Your argument has merit.. makes sense. A big research push is acceptable to the oil and coal industries, especially if the source of the hydrogen is natural gas or coal. Much better for them to dump government money into hydrogen stuff that won't have significant impact for years (especially *their* hydrogen stuff) rather than reduce the billions in incentives (now charity) to the oil industry established when oil was under $20 a barrel, and channel it into solar incentives. This kind of hydrogen planning and research is being done now even though it should be obvious to a child it is way more efficient to burn coal directly, or burn natural gas directly in a car, and the infrastructure and proven technology is in place to start doing this almost immediately. This would only be a temporary and partial measure though, because there is not enough natural gas to go around for this, and fossil fuel consumption has to be reduced anyway. If sufficient money were put into building a solar infrastructure and HVDC power transmission system, a 1960's style moon shot sized effort, we could have a new day in the USA in 5 years. That will probably happen anyway with much delay, but we are going to lag way behind Europe and others due to a lack of foresight or will in the US Senate. The best strategy for oil and coal is to jack the financial incentives and economic and legal conditions around so as many renewable companies go out of business as possible - let them build up and then pull the rug out from under them, one area at a time if necessary. The problem with this strategy is many free world governments have cleaned house politically, and the incumbents now know the name of the game. The conversion from fossil fuel is well underway in places like Germany, which is employing solar even though solar conditions there are as bad as here in southern Alaska. Alaska is currently cleaning house (actually House and Senate) by convicting politicians and oil industry lobbyists of bribery. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some action of that kind on a national level at some point. A lot of the current financial problems that prevent the US from affording a major energy effort right now are at least partially due to excessive financial industry lobbyist exposure, be it legal or not. In my opinion we are probably headed for stagflation again, and the only way out of that is increasing productivity. The computer revolution has already happened so what's the next big opportunity for productivity increase? Energy of course. Hopefully it won't take politicians and voters 10 years to figure that out. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:[VO}: Hydrogen as fuel
R.C.Macaulay wrote: Why the big push in research in hydrogen if it's not going anywhere? Hi Richard, More Oil Gang disinformation. When I watched Bush promote hydrogen in his State of the Union speech, I knew it was just another lie offered up to Moloch (the owl god, father of lies, hungry for the sacrifice of children -- I've read that the Bush's have had a cabin at Bohemian Grove for over a hundred years.) It's got so that one can't tell a Satanist from a Fundementalist, whether Christian, Muslim or whatever. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]:[VO}: Hydrogen as fuel
Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 8, 2007, at 7:36 PM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Horace wrote.. Batteries and plug in hybrids, especially diesel hybrids that also run on biodiesel, seem to be the likely winners for the future I actually have a typo in the above. It should say Batteries and plug in hybrids, especially diesel hybrids that also run on biodiesel, seem to be the likely winners for the NEAR future - i.e. 10 years or more. I also forgot methane vehicles, which could catch on. Howdy Horace, Volkswagon seems to be focusing on diesel hybrids. Been watching for them to introduce such in the USA. Would love to get my hands on a 1/4 ton truck. Maybe they fear the intent of the Chinese that are vocal about introducing such here at under price of 12k. Why the big push in research in hydrogen if it's not going anywhere? Your argument has merit.. makes sense. A big research push is acceptable to the oil and coal industries, especially if the source of the hydrogen is natural gas or coal. Much better for them to dump government money into hydrogen stuff that won't have significant impact for years (especially *their* hydrogen stuff) rather than reduce the billions in incentives (now charity) to the oil industry established when oil was under $20 a barrel, and channel it into solar incentives. This kind of hydrogen planning and research is being done now even though it should be obvious to a child it is way more efficient to burn coal directly, or burn natural gas directly in a car, and the infrastructure and proven technology is in place to start doing this almost immediately. This would only be a temporary and partial measure though, because there is not enough natural gas to go around for this, and fossil fuel consumption has to be reduced anyway. If sufficient money were put into building a solar infrastructure and HVDC power transmission system, Why HVDC? I've been led to believe that the problems in efficient DC-DC conversion outweigh any advantages to DC distribution. (Granted, some computer power buses use single-voltage DC and downconvert at the board level, but that's all low-current stuff and efficiency isn't such a big deal in that case.) If we're changing the grid, wouldn't it be more reasonable to switch to higher frequency AC, which would be easier to manage than 60 Hz (and maybe less dangerous)? Just wondering. a 1960's style moon shot sized effort, we could have a new day in the USA in 5 years. That will probably happen anyway with much delay, but we are going to lag way behind Europe and others due to a lack of foresight or will in the US Senate. The best strategy for oil and coal is to jack the financial incentives and economic and legal conditions around so as many renewable companies go out of business as possible - let them build up and then pull the rug out from under them, one area at a time if necessary. The problem with this strategy is many free world governments have cleaned house politically, and the incumbents now know the name of the game. The conversion from fossil fuel is well underway in places like Germany, which is employing solar even though solar conditions there are as bad as here in southern Alaska. Alaska is currently cleaning house (actually House and Senate) by convicting politicians and oil industry lobbyists of bribery. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some action of that kind on a national level at some point. A lot of the current financial problems that prevent the US from affording a major energy effort right now are at least partially due to excessive financial industry lobbyist exposure, be it legal or not. In my opinion we are probably headed for stagflation again, and the only way out of that is increasing productivity. The computer revolution has already happened so what's the next big opportunity for productivity increase? Energy of course. Hopefully it won't take politicians and voters 10 years to figure that out. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:[VO}: Hydrogen as fuel
Stephen Lawrence wrote.. AFAIK nobody's demonstrated more energy out than energy in splitting water. (It would be major news if they did, needless to say -- perpetual motion of the first time.) Howdy Stephen, There are several UTube posts showing generation of hydrogen gas using a small amount of electric power.. or so they claim. Increased activity is being reported across the world that suggests the technology is being unlocked. Hydrogen powered cars, on the other hand, require at least one significant piece of research to be completed, maybe more (practical storage, and either an effective affordable hydrogen fuel cell or a long-wearing ICE that can eat pure hydrogen without eventually falling apart as a result). If hydrogen does move forward as a viable fuel, the need would exist for a new type engine. If an engine does not exist at present, does this inhibit the search for developing the gas as a fuel ? Richard
Re: [Vo]:[VO}: Hydrogen as fuel
The subject has been around for some time as has research in hydrogen http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Classic-Papers-Menu.html http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/whatis2.html Richard
Re: [Vo]:[VO}: Hydrogen as fuel
Horace wrote.. Batteries and plug in hybrids, especially diesel hybrids that also run on biodiesel, seem to be the likely winners for the future Howdy Horace, Volkswagon seems to be focusing on diesel hybrids. Been watching for them to introduce such in the USA. Would love to get my hands on a 1/4 ton truck. Maybe they fear the intent of the Chinese that are vocal about introducing such here at under price of 12k. Why the big push in research in hydrogen if it's not going anywhere? Your argument has merit.. makes sense. Richard
[Vo]:[VO}: Hydrogen as fuel
BlankHowdy Vorts, With the acceleration of research worldwide, is this telling us that hydrogen is being given serious consideration as a replacement fuel for gasoline and diesel? Claims are rampant that the gas can be generated by electric power at a fraction of the input vs output energy. It is true that an electric motor can pump crude oil at a fraction of the input/output energy... but.. crude oil production via electric motoer driven pumps is not considered OU. If hydrogen can be produced in a like manner it begs the question..is there any work being done in engine design specifically for the use of hydrogen or more far out.. Brown's gas ? Something on the order of a closed cycle combo ICE turbine ? Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif
Re: [Vo]:[VO}: Hydrogen as fuel
R.C.Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, With the acceleration of research worldwide, is this telling us that hydrogen is being given serious consideration as a replacement fuel for gasoline and diesel? Claims are rampant that the gas can be generated by electric power at a fraction of the input vs output energy. It is true that an electric motor can pump crude oil at a fraction of the input/output energy... but.. crude oil production via electric motoer driven pumps is not considered OU. Right. AFAIK nobody's demonstrated more energy out than energy in splitting water. (It would be major news if they did, needless to say -- perpetual motion of the first time.) Lots of processes split at greater than 100% of the coulomb efficiency but that just means there's some pyrolytic splitting going on; it doesn't have anything to do with the overall energy balance. If the hydrogen comes from electrolysis, then a hydrogen-powered car is just another way to build an electric car. Whether the vehicle uses a fuel cell or an internal combustion engine -- or an external combustion engine, for that matter (i.e., a steam turbine) -- it's all the basically the same thing: we've replaced wires, a battery, and an electric motor with electrolysis, tank trucks, onboard hydrogen storage, and a hydrogen engine. Whether it's clean or not depends entirely on how clean the original electricity generation plant was. As far as I know methods for storing large amounts of hydrogen within the vehicle remain somewhat speculative which means the whole hydrogen thing may never actually materialize. At this stage, I think it's fair to say plug-in hybrids are already here, and practical pure electric cars can be made with nothing but engineering effort. Hydrogen powered cars, on the other hand, require at least one significant piece of research to be completed, maybe more (practical storage, and either an effective affordable hydrogen fuel cell or a long-wearing ICE that can eat pure hydrogen without eventually falling apart as a result). Personally I remain unconvinced that there's more to the hydrogen powered car than somebody's vision of a way to make money, and some politician's idea of a good campaign speech. If hydrogen can be produced in a like manner it begs the question..is there any work being done in engine design specifically for the use of hydrogen or more far out.. Brown's gas ? Something on the order of a closed cycle combo ICE turbine ? Richard
