In reply to grok's message of Mon, 4 May 2009 10:58:25 -0700: Hi, [snip] >But, 'hydrino' tek aside: what would be the advantages of using hydrogen >vs. molten salts here..? [snip] I'm sure this list is by no means exhaustive:-
Molten salts are highly corrosive, thus containment and maintenance are likely to be an issue. Embrittlement is an issue with Hydrogen (both storage and transport). Molten salts can't be transported at all, which means that power needs to be transported electrically. Molten salts will also require excellent insulation to prevent energy loss, IOW the energy stored in them has a short "shelf life". If stored underground (good insulation), they may also be subject to ground water leaks. This is less of a problem with chemical storage. BTW Hydrogen is not the only possibility, e.g. 1) Hydrocarbons such as methane, ethane, the alcohols, and too many others to list. 2) Ammonia 3) Metal or Boron hydrides. Each comes with its own considerations, and some have the additional benefit that they may directly serve as substitute transport fuels. Full cycle conversion efficiencies would need to be studied for all methods - I don't know what they are off the top of my head. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
