The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 3 Oct 2007 17:11 On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:29:09 -0000, Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com wrote: > >THE ANSWER - LOW COST HYDROGEN FROM SUNLIGHT > >One simple solution I have is to reduce the cost of photovoltaics to >less than 7 cents a peak watt - and use that DC power to produce >hydrogen from DI water at very los cost. Then store that hydrogen in >empty oil wells - about 100 day supply is needed for a stable national >hydrogen supply system.. > 7 cents a watt would be wonderful, but it's about 30:1 away from what anybody is doing, even at the research level. And if we had such power, the first rational use is to dump it into the grid, not convert it to hydrogen at absurd net efficiency. Low cost solar would be great, but there's no particular link to hydrogen. Too many "advanced" energy concepts are predicated on ultra-cheap solar power, cheap enough to waste prodigiously. That ain't gonna happen. John
From: me on 3 Oct 2007 18:01 Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com wrote in news:1191443349.557862.97250(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >On Oct 3, 12:45 pm, j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: >> snip > >The hydrogen is sent through teflon coated pipelines at high presure >to underground strorage in old oil wells. The US has over 1 million >of them. A 100 day supply is retained for system stability. Oil is >produced from these wells and separated in traps and the hydrogen is >purified with molecular sieves (ceramic filters with tiny pores that >allow hydrogen to pass and no other gases to pass) > 1 million? So we have drilled 20 per day for the last 136.986 years (roughly) ? rubbish! I'll leave the rest of the idiocy for others.... ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: jimp on 3 Oct 2007 18:15 In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:45:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:39:36 -0700, bill wrote: > [about LOX, H2O2, etc.] > ... > >> > I don't know if such a thing would really work, or what its > >> > effects on an engine would be, but its a kinda cool idea. I might > >> > make tinkering with it a winter project. > > > >> You'll never get back the energy it took to liquefy the O2. > > > > Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what the intake > > and compression strokes are for. > Filling a TDC cylinder with liquid fuel and liquid O2, I bet they'd > ignite real good, if the LOX doesn't freeze the fuel; you might need > a lot of energy to make a spark through it, however. Liquids don't ignite. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: BradGuth on 3 Oct 2007 18:20 On Oct 3, 2:11 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:29:09 -0000, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > >THE ANSWER - LOW COST HYDROGEN FROM SUNLIGHT > > >One simple solution I have is to reduce the cost of photovoltaics to > >less than 7 cents a peak watt - and use that DC power to produce > >hydrogen from DI water at very los cost. Then store that hydrogen in > >empty oil wells - about 100 day supply is needed for a stable national > >hydrogen supply system.. > > 7 cents a watt would be wonderful, but it's about 30:1 away from what > anybody is doing, even at the research level. And if we had such > power, the first rational use is to dump it into the grid, not convert > it to hydrogen at absurd net efficiency. > > Low cost solar would be great, but there's no particular link to > hydrogen. Too many "advanced" energy concepts are predicated on > ultra-cheap solar power, cheap enough to waste prodigiously. That > ain't gonna happen. > > John And your plan of action for the wasting of such spare/surplus clean energy is ???? - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 3 Oct 2007 18:46
On Oct 3, 3:01 pm, me <m...(a)here.net> wrote: > Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote innews:1191443349.557862.97250(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > > >On Oct 3, 12:45 pm, j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > > snip > > > > >The hydrogen is sent through teflon coated pipelines at high presure > >to underground strorage in old oil wells. The US has over 1 million > >of them. A 100 day supply is retained for system stability. Oil is > >produced from these wells and separated in traps and the hydrogen is > >purified with molecular sieves (ceramic filters with tiny pores that > >allow hydrogen to pass and no other gases to pass) > > 1 million? So we have drilled 20 per day for the last 136.986 years (roughly) ? > > rubbish! Rubbish is in the eye of the beholder, and I do not behold rubbish. William Mook's perfectly good idea should buy us a few spare decades worth of spendy access to our very own raw fossil fuel (though a shame to waste all of that nifty H2). However, I was thinking of more like setting up 100 of my 4+MW tower units per day, if necessary we'd also import those required 10,000 assembly/installation workers at far less than $.10/dollar, especially since it's all way too complicated for the naysay likes of yourself, and besides by then our dollar may not even be worth $.50 anyway. - Brad Guth - |