Jones wrote: > Pyrolysis (thermal decomposition) of water normally requires lots of > high temperature thermal energy, plus a means to avoid immediate > recombination - but what about catalytic pyrolysis?
There's no theoretical reason why catalytic pyrolysis couldn't work, and at much lower temperatures than some of the recent work has indicated. >A new technique using carbon nanotube technology is said to > require half the energy of normal pyrolysis - and at only 1000 C, plus > the carbon is not consumed AND recombination can be more > easily engineered into the system. I guess I am left wondering why the nanotubes won't be oxidized in this reaction. They are, after all, carbon. > This lower-temperature requirement would seem to be doable, > even with Michael Foster's cheap Fresnel Lens, no? > There is also something in the wind (not the Santa Ana's we should > hope), related to thermal water decomposition over in > Westwood,Michael, but it is still in the conceptual stage apparently. > http://www.research.ucla.edu/tech/ucla05-332.htm Even a relatively small, say one square meter, at about F1, is easily capable of heating its target to a temperature high enough for even non-catalytic pyrolysis of water. But, that is inefficient and you have to figure out how to keep the hydrogen and oxygen from recombining. I'm sure those guys at UCLA have an interesting process, but academics tend to make things too complicated. What really needs to take place is an all-out effort to find a really good catalyst. But that, unfortunately, just requires trying out a lot of different materials. You just can't just sit down at your computer and come up with one. Catalysis is, to this day, not well understood. Finding a good one take a lot of knowledge, experience, and plain intuition. Think of the Haber process, high temp, high pressure, and a uranium-osmium catalyst. Now that's not a combination that pops right into your head, is it? The original catalyst has been replaced now, but can you imagine how many combinations were tried? > The BEST use, however, for the new catalytic decomposition may be > found in producing cheap hydrogen from ultra safe nuclear - where you > also can engineer in the benefits of gamma decomposition of water. I have to agree with you about that, although I am sentimentally attached to the idea of everyone having a hydrogen generator in his back yard, the energy being provided by one or more of my el cheapo fresnels, natch. > If we had this design with the catalytic crackers in place now, H2 could be > produced for about the gasoline equivalent of 75 cents a gallon plus > taxes and markup - but don't think that our government will allow the lower > pricing possibility. And a few of these rail-mounted 400 MWth units - with > catalytic decomposition - could replace a small refinery - with significant > net ecological benefit. The rampant technophobia that has gripped the industrialized world, parading as environmentalism, would, I believe, be a larger obstruction than supposed government intervention on behalf of "big oil". Just my opinion, we're all after the same thing here. Oil companies and environmentalists be damned. Jones _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
