steve spence wrote:
> temn million windmills would make for mighty expensive hydrogen.....
>
> Steve Spence
Hello Steve and others!
Some of you are veterans of the endless "exergy" wars over at
sci.energy.hydrogen, and as I have been contributing to that forum for a number
of years, the arguments seldom change and I'm a bit weary of the battle! The
best argument in favor of electrolytic hydrogen goes something like this:
1. We have, with current technology, the ability to generate electricity
from solar thermal energy.
a) Aside from the objection concerning initial investment, no one
can successfully deny this is true.
2. Inexpensive electricity can be generated via point focus or trough
systems that are mass produced to
create economies of scale are otherwise unavailable in current
market conditions.
a) Mass production CAN profitably create point focus solar units
for less than the cost of an automobile.
b) Investment in such technology would be affordable for many
interested persons, and this makes a
great deal of economic sense, particularly in areas of high
solar insolation.
3. A significant portion of the available heat energy can be used for
processes on site, which reduces the
overall demand for electrical power.
4. Excess electricity production can be devoted to electrolysis for
hydrogen production, using some of the
generated thermal energy directly to increase the efficiency of
electrolysis.
5. This hydrogen can be used on site, or distributed via pipeline to other
locations.
a) High temperature processes generate hydrogen under pressure,
eliminating the need for on site
compressors.
b) Hydrogen under moderate pressures can be distributed through a
pipeline network without the risk
of embrittlement.
6. The investment in, and development of, such technology and
infrastructure would create domestic jobs.
7. The ensuing reduction of dependence on foreign energy supplies will
create more stable economic
development domestically.
8. Such a system will produce electricity and hydrogen as an energy carrier
that considerably reduces air
and water pollution.
9. Hydrogen can also be produced from garbage and biomass feed stocks that
are currently wasted,
increasing overall production and reducing landfill usage.
a) Biological production of H2 is no more difficult than
biological production of methane.
What we need is visionary energy policy. The United States could have made
the necessary investment to
begin building such an infrastructure for considerably less than we spent
dropping bombs on Iraq. Additionally, the 10 million windmills that Steve
mentioned and the electricity they would produce would also become less
expensive, due to economies of scale.
That is an outline of how hydrogen can become competitive with energy from
oil. Please feel free to disagree with any of the points I've mentioned (they
are not mine, I'm merely repeating what I have read and heard in over 30 years
of interest in hydrogen), but don't compare electrolytic hydrogen from coal or
oil fired powerplants (or worse, from photovoltaics!) with solar thermal
electrolytic hydrogen. The key to effective H2 production lies in using hot,
concentrated solar processes that thermodynamically favor electrolysis and
answer the exergy issue. We have the technology to do this right now--not in
thirty years.
Whenever I mention this over at sci.energy.hydrogen the silence from people
whose education and experience far exceeds my own simply astonishes me.
Now, can we return to talking about biofuels?
robert luis rabello
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MDsVHB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
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/
