Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated...
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 21:34 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated... Assuredly. If we are proposed to have an honest-to-goodness *global* H2 economy, I'd like to satisfy myself that the reactions that will occurr will be sufficient to prevent a potentially damaging amount of H2 depletion. Thus far, I'm not even close to seeing any really in-depth studies of the matter which might satisfy my curiousity. I don't know if a study has been done, the upper middle layers of the atmosphere would be the hardest to study. The outer layers could be studied by satellite, the lower by aircraft, but for the middle, we just don't have anything (to my knowledge although a U-2 might get close ) that can sent enough time at the necessary altitude, to do anything meaningful. In the lower reaches of the atmosphere it is hard to find in it's natural form but it is around. I'd be interested to know more about this. Around in what sense? Around, and recently freed from its bonds on its way out of the atmosphere? Or around, and hanging out? To say it is going out of atmosphere is probably a little much we don't know enough to say for sure, on the other hand I would say it is on it's way to the upper reaches of the atmosphere. in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, there is a natural layer of it the lower portions of which mix with a layer of Helium. These two gasses ( along with others in limited quantity ) is part of what gives the auroras the colors they have. Well, taking your word for this apparently fixed natural layer, my next question would be how much global-H2-Economy-newly-freed H2 would become part of this layer, and how much would not stick with it. I'm not sure what you mean by how much would not stick with it. Would expansion of the layer have any effects, perceived ill or otherwise on present global conditions? The atmosphere expands and contracts on a irregular basis. If H2 would not all stick with this layer, but if some of it would escape, While H2 does not have much mass, it has enough to make escape very difficult, adding to the layer would not make this anymore likely, if you have a glass of oil and water and you add more of the same oil, the oil layer will just get thicker, it will not just up and leave the glass. H2 is much like that oil, unless somthing major disturbs the oil like a droping a rock into the glass ( like a major meteor into the atmpsphere ) not much is going to happen. Yes a few atoms of H2 will develope enough energy to over come gravity ( like steam leaving a pot of boiling water ) but this is some thing that has been happening for as long as the earth has had an atmosphere . then would this depletion be sufficient to warrant my concerns (i.e., for one thing, since depletion of that amount would amount to a gradual decrease in the Earth-System-Mass). By the time this happens (to any major extent), we should be starting to recover H2 from other places in the solar system. If we are on a H2 economy at all. While you've presented me with a better understanding of H2, I'm not sure you've shown that you've addressed yourself to the question of getting a handle on *new* calculations for H2 depletion, given the huge change in freely-floating H2 that would occurr in a global H2 economy. The old and the new caculations are basicly the same, the main differance is the rate that H2 becomes avalable. I wonder: a=f/m Where m is very small, it wouldn't take very much to make a very large. Increase the number of H2 molecules, increase the number of collisions, then I wonder how many would result in escape velocity being reached, via this scenario. Don't forget volume, if you increase the volume, you decrease the number of collisions for a given tempature. So if the H2 layer expands, then nothing happens except an increase in the atmosphere thickness (which might not be a totaly bad thing with the ozone whole thing). A balloon at room temp. has a few more molecule collisions than the in the room it is in, but if we were able to increase the volume of the balloon without increaseing the number of molacules then the number of molaculer collisions would decrease ( as well as the temp. ) to below the number in the room. I believe that the idea of a global H2 economy is a pipedream, in and of its self, I'm skeptical about the wisdom and-or viability of the global h2 economy, but I guess for different reasons. Your best bet, would be to ask a atmophysicist, you might be able to find one at your local university. Failing that someone at the university should be able point you to someone else who could answer your questions better than I. Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated...
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 20:07 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated... Another hydrogen problem I haven't heard discussed is that it contracts chemically 1/3 on burning according to H2 + 1/2 O2 [1.5 moles or voumes] === H2O [1 mole] by contrast, methane gets full value, since CH4 + 2 O2 [3 moles] === CO2 + 2 H2O [3moles] I did not understand this, nor why it is supposed to be a big problem. The typical car works with the expansion of gas, not the contraction which happens with H2. The H2 and the needed amount of O2 needed to burn the H2, take up more space than the H2O vapor. Try to develop a engine that runs by producing a vacuum. I didn't really find this piece, overall, to be as compelling an indictment of H2 as the author I guess intended. He did not mention what I have said before is my own top objection to H2 (the global H2 depletion argument... seldom mention or respected by anyone). While H2 depletion is an on going thing at an extremely slow rate ( at the very highest edges of the atmosphere ), I doubt that it is anything that needs to be worried about for several hundreds of thousands of years. The earths gravity will insure that it will be a slow process. If need be. we can use that time to learn how to mine the gas giants directly for H2, and the ort cloud for ice. Perhaps by then, we will have fusion or anti-matter. Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated...
- Original Message - From: Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 00:13 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated... - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 20:07 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated... Another hydrogen problem I haven't heard discussed is that it contracts chemically 1/3 on burning according to H2 + 1/2 O2 [1.5 moles or voumes] === H2O [1 mole] by contrast, methane gets full value, since CH4 + 2 O2 [3 moles] === CO2 + 2 H2O [3moles] I did not understand this, nor why it is supposed to be a big problem. The typical car works with the expansion of gas, not the contraction which happens with H2. The H2 and the needed amount of O2 needed to burn the H2, take up more space than the H2O vapor. Try to develop a engine that runs by producing a vacuum. Opps, I'm tired. Make that because of the lesser volume the expansion from the heat will be less. Less efficiency. Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated...
I didn't really find this piece, overall, to be as compelling an indictment of H2 as the author I guess intended. He did not mention what I have said before is my own top objection to H2 (the global H2 depletion argument... seldom mention or respected by anyone). While H2 depletion is an on going thing at an extremely slow rate ( at the very highest edges of the atmosphere ), I doubt that it is anything that needs to be worried about for several hundreds of thousands of years. The earths gravity will insure that it will be a slow process. Under circumstances of keeping the status quo, your calculatins would probably be somewhere close to correct. In fact, I doubt H2 depletion would have much meaning. However, under circumstances where we propose a worlwide shift in human behaviour and industry, costing trillions of dollars, that will involve permanently freeing up uncountable numbers of Hydrogen Atoms from their regular bonds every day on into the foreseeable future, a circumstance that would not ever apparently have occurred in nature up until now, then I doubt your equations apply. When one proposes a global permanent shift in industrial behaviour, performing an environmental impact assessment may involve taking into account that some chemical circumstances may change, on a global scale. To my knowledge (very hard to expand because this is not an oft-discussed topic), H2 does not occurr naturally, by itself, on Earth. Hydrogen seems to be almost always found bonded to other elements, and it is human industry over the last few hundred years that has caused it to be un-bonded on occassion for lengthier periods of time than might occurr during a normal chemical reaction. [I'm not sure, but I question, during a normal chemical reaction, how much H2 if any might be liable to end up not bonded to other elements.] When un-bonded in this non-natural way, that of it which escapes confinement (and some of it always does) tends to rise up and, (over what time period I'm not sure), escape the Earth's pull. This escape happens also with Helium, and I'm told this is why it is found only in pockets beneath the Earth's surface. Obviously, a massive increase in the amount of pure H2 confined in pipelines and other storage, such as one would find in a global H2 economy would also massively increase the amount of H2 escaping Earth's pull in this way. Whether the amounts would be sufficient to cause environmental impact concern is something that interests me. So far as I can see, the calculation you present briefly applies more to a pre-H2-economy situation, and not to H2-global-economy conditions. If need be. we can use that time to learn how to mine the gas giants directly for H2, and the ort cloud for ice. Perhaps by then, we will have fusion or anti-matter. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated...
snip Another hydrogen problem I haven't heard discussed is that it contracts chemically 1/3 on burning according to H2 + 1/2 O2 [1.5 moles or voumes] === H2O [1 mole] by contrast, methane gets full value, since CH4 + 2 O2 [3 moles] === CO2 + 2 H2O [3moles] snip Perhaps this could be so if the H2o existed as water vapour. I think it more likely that it would exist as steam. Steam occupies about 1000 x the volume of the water it is produced from. Regards, Paul Gobert. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated...
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 01:11 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated... However, under circumstances where we propose a worlwide shift in human behaviour and industry, costing trillions of dollars, that will involve permanently freeing up uncountable numbers of Hydrogen Atoms from their regular bonds every day on into the foreseeable future, Perhaps, but H2 will react with a lot of things if given a chance. And given the depth of the atmosphere, and all the chemicals in it, that is a lot of chances to react into something less light. a circumstance that would not ever apparently have occurred in nature up until now, then I doubt your equations apply. It does occur naturally, if water is hit with strong UV ( like it is in the atmosphere ), the H2O bonds will break. You can do the experiment your self with a aquarium UV sterilizer, turn it on and very slowly pump water thru it, and you will smell ozone, this is because the H2O is breaking up and the O is forming O3. The H2 is set free or it might bond with something else in the experiment, but in the atmosphere there is less chance to bond with anything. Another way H2 is formed is when lighting strikes, the water that the electricity went thru would undergo natural electrosis. When one proposes a global permanent shift in industrial behaviour, performing an environmental impact assessment may involve taking into account that some chemical circumstances may change, on a global scale. To my knowledge (very hard to expand because this is not an oft-discussed topic), H2 does not occurr naturally, by itself, on Earth. In the lower reaches of the atmosphere it is hard to find in it's natural form but it is around. in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, there is a natural layer of it the lower portions of which mix with a layer of Helium. These two gasses ( along with others in limited quantity ) is part of what gives the auroras the colors they have. Hydrogen seems to be almost always found bonded to other elements, and it is human industry over the last few hundred years that has caused it to be un-bonded on occassion for lengthier periods of time than might occurr during a normal chemical reaction. [I'm not sure, but I question, during a normal chemical reaction, how much H2 if any might be liable to end up not bonded to other elements.] See above. Again H2 would rather bond than not. When un-bonded in this non-natural way, that of it which escapes confinement (and some of it always does) tends to rise up and, (over what time period I'm not sure), escape the Earth's pull. A very long time. Too long for the likes of even our great, great, great, grandchildren to worry about. This escape happens also with Helium, and I'm told this is why it is found only in pockets beneath the Earth's surface. Even a longer time, if at all. Hydrogen floats on the Helium, which floats on the rest of the atmosphere. Perhaps any time something goes in or out of atmosphere it might create a 'splash' but if what I hear about micro meteorites made of ice is right, then we may not have anything to worry about as far as even the splash effect is concerned at all. Obviously, a massive increase in the amount of pure H2 confined in pipelines and other storage, such as one would find in a global H2 economy would also massively increase the amount of H2 escaping Earth's pull in this way. Whether the amounts would be sufficient to cause environmental impact concern is something that interests me. So far as I can see, the calculation you present briefly applies more to a pre-H2-economy situation, and not to H2-global-economy conditions. I believe that the idea of a global H2 economy is a pipedream, in and of its self, dreamed up by people that have no idea of how H2 behaves. Personally I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. These same people would better the world by figuring out how to make better use of the present H2 carriers that we have, that would not involve the use of H2 directly (example: a low cost Methanol or Ethanol SOFC with a efficiency of 45%+ before using the waste heat) . Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated...
(whispering) Shhh the reason you smell ozone is because the Oxygen in the air is being molecularly changed into ozone. O2 - O3 Curtis --- Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can do the experiment your self with a aquarium UV sterilizer, turn it on and very slowly pump water thru it, and you will smell ozone, this is because the H2O is breaking up and the O is forming O3. = Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated...
- Original Message - From: Curtis Sakima [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 13:50 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated... (whispering) Shhh the reason you smell ozone is because the Oxygen in the air is being molecularly changed into ozone. O2 - O3 Can you explain how the Oxygen in the air is supposted to be molecularly changed into ozone when the only the water is being exposed to the UV? Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated...
Even a longer time, if at all. Hydrogen floats on the Helium, which floats on the rest of the atmosphere. thx for the various pieces of information as to formation, atmospheric presence, etc. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fwd: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated...
Another hydrogen problem I haven't heard discussed is that it contracts chemically 1/3 on burning according to H2 + 1/2 O2 [1.5 moles or voumes] === H2O [1 mole] by contrast, methane gets full value, since CH4 + 2 O2 [3 moles] === CO2 + 2 H2O [3moles] I did not understand this, nor why it is supposed to be a big problem. Electrolysis of water to make hydrogen is only 72% efficient (due to high overvoltage), This would be an interesting objection, but I'm not sure the author is claiming that production of H2 via electrolysis is *necessarily* limiteed to 72% efficiency. For example, I think a big argument vs. Internal combustion is that it is, apparently, *necessarily* limited to low (below 50%) efficiencies because of Carnot Cycle issues. I do not believe that electrolysis necessarily faces this problem, although the claim made by the person here raises that question. and conversion of heat to electricity is typically 30% efficient, so electrolysis is 18% base efficiency. I think that while primary energy sourcing efficiency may be worth noting, it should not be used to make such a statement about the conversion process efficiency, IMO. I guess he's covering himself with his base efficiency terminology, but I don't look at things the same way as this person, I guess. [Just a moment while I get up to turn off Millionaire from my Tv which I now find to be sufficiently impairing that I cannot write with it on.] We have since become disenchanted with the nuclear energy side of this argument, but dreamers still talk of hydrogen combustion being non polluting and therefore the ultimate fuel. I guess I'm ever on the fence when it comes to Nuclear Energy. I favor more research, at least. On the downside, I think many of the proponents of nuclear energy gloss over its drawbacks so aggressively that I have found it difficult to form a good opinion. Today's cars are amazingly clean compared to those of the smoggy ''70s, so they are relatively non polluting in the atmospheric sense. However our current fossil fuels do increase atmospheric CO2 levels so can be considered polluting from a global warming perspective. Don't worry, the oil will be gone soon at the present rate of usage/wastage. I didn't really find this piece, overall, to be as compelling an indictment of H2 as the author I guess intended. He did not mention what I have said before is my own top objection to H2 (the global H2 depletion argument... seldom mention or respected by anyone). For a REALISTIC view on hydrogen, check out.. http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/hotline/pdf/hydrogen_economy.pdf Your Skeptical Fuel Scientist,TOM REED BEF GASWORKS The link provided did not seem to work tonight. I'll try looking over that site some other day I guess. Despite the author's collection of somewhat trite and perhaps over-simple arguments, I do think the case for being skeptical about the coming H2 economy has some merit, not to dismiss it out of hand, but to understand better what the pros and cons are. The arguments are not just technological but political-economic and time-dependent. We live in a certain age with certain challenges and techno abilities. Anyhoo, I continue to value the idea that an intermediary fuel-standard, such as a simple hydrocarbon or alcohol or whatever, will be a direction that we might try, for standardized use in fuel cells, engines, etc. It's a pity we don't hear more on this topic, so even though I'm not sure the author made his case, I think he and I are of somewhat like mind as to the importance of non-pure-H2-fuels. MM Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
