Re: Hydrogen Can Sub For Oil

Join Teachers.Net

Chatboards

Recent Groups

Current Events

MEMBERS

2 Members

+ Join Group

Pinned Posts

ALLAll Teachers

Teachers.Net LIVE CHAT Support group - Tues eve!

Featured Jobs

Full-timeMontessori Teacher

Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada

TemporaryTeachers, rural schools

Peace River North School District

Full-timeHead Teacher: 2nd/3rd Grades – Mills College Children’s School

Mills College

Teaching Jobs on Teachers.Net

Featured Job special only $39!

https://teachers.net/jobs

Become a Teachers.Net sponsor!

Current Events Chatboard

Re: Hydrogen Can Sub For Oil

by Stan

Jun 17, 2004

/blockquote>

I agree the Columbia River is a wonderful source of power
with their dams we have also made the Central Washington area
a growing agricultural base.
Too bad Senator Kerry and the Democrats want to tear down the
dams here.
Nice
Stan

On 6/17/04, Dan wrote:
> February 16, 2003
>
> Columbia's Power: The river contains the secret to drive a
> national energy revolution
>
>
> By Jack Robertson
>
> THE MIGHTY Columbia River's nighttime flow holds a
> remarkable secret. This secret can put the Northwest at the
> center of a global energy revolution, create thousands of
> new jobs and help end forever our dependence on Middle East
> oil.
>
> While you sleep, the power of the Columbia River can create
> a revolutionary new energy source - lighter than air,
> completely renewable, and yet with the highest energy
> content ...See More

Comment

(23)

report post

view previous comments

Dan /blockquote>

On 6/21/04, D. Ogenes wrote:
> On 6/21/04, Dan wrote:
>> On 6/21/04, the sheep look up wrote:
>>> Sir, I think you have allowed Dan to upset and confuse you. Perhaps you should change your
>>> name to Dr. Non Sequitur. if you've been seeking the serenity that accompanies mindless...See More

Jun 23, 2004

report post

Dean /blockquote>

Greetings again, King Dan!

Really Dan, in some ways I am flattered that you think so many postings under different names are
from me, but let me be blunt: When dealing with you, I have never felt it necessary to hide
behind differing pseudonyms. If I have something to communicate to you I have always in the...See More

Jun 23, 2004

report post

Shelly CArson /blockquote>

Tens of millions of dollars are being spent by battery companies
in order to discredit hydrogen because hydrogen works better than
batteries. A large number of “pundits” who act
as “writers”, “bloggers”, “authors” and “non-profit evangelist
group founders” are actually supported by financ...See More

Nov 23, 2007

report post

Larry Robinson Hydrogen can be made at home. Anybody who says it can’t is either > a shill, an idiot or completely out of touch with reality and > technology. You can make it for free, at home, all day long and > all night long.

It's not free. You have to pay the electric bill for ALL of the energy you put into the hydrogen. There is no energy...See More

Aug 11, 2008

report post

Debunker On 11/23/07, Shelly CArson wrote:

This article is so full of wishful thinking that it's hard to now where to start.

Battery shills? Come on, battery research is hardly the kind of enterprise which attracts the get rich quick crowd.

Remember, there are many electric vehicles and much experience. Forget Tesla, think golf...See MoreOn 11/23/07, Shelly CArson wrote:

This article is so full of wishful thinking that it's hard to now where to start.

Battery shills? Come on, battery research is hardly the kind of enterprise which attracts the get rich quick crowd.

Remember, there are many electric vehicles and much experience. Forget Tesla, think golf carts and fork lifts.

Hydrogen can be made at home? - Of course, no one says it can't. How much electricity does that take? Try it, run some experiments and get back to us on how you did.

Oh, and storage ... well, maybe you can do better than BMW and NASA, and JASA, but ... unlikely to be easy.

Fuel cells - sure they work. When you find one that makes more than 20 bhp for under $100,000, get back to us again.

Experiment, try the scientific method. If you have any success, people will beat a path to your door.

> Tens of millions of dollars are being spent by battery companies > in order to discredit hydrogen because hydrogen works better than > batteries. A large number of “pundits” who act > as “writers”, “bloggers”, “authors” and “non-profit evangelist > group founders” are actually supported by financial gain from > battery companies who are terrified of hydrogen displacing their > revenue streams. You will see a list of these people and their > backers online soon. The following facts are cut and pasted from > tens of thousands of validating scientific sources available > online and in libraries, federal studies and university research > papers. > > Hydrogen can be made at home. Anybody who says it can’t is either > a shill, an idiot or completely out of touch with reality and > technology. You can make it for free, at home, all day long and > all night long. Anybody who says it costs too much or that it has > some evil chain reaction of “negative karma” or “sour grid source” > or causes cancer because of something back in the energy chain is > almost always a shill because the energy chain is constantly > improving. Anybody who says the numbers say it is all wrong or bad > or evil or inefficient are also usually a shill who are quoting > numbers from six months or six years back (which is ancient > history in hydrogen timeframes). It now costs less to make > hydrogen from water than any known way to make gasoline and it > continues to get cheaper every month. The “battery shill” spin has > worn thin and has been supplanted by facts. Hydrogen is made from > WATER via solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio waves, > sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy. Hydrogen can > also be made from any organic garbage, waste, plants or ANYTHING > organic via lasers, plasma beams or dozens of other powered > exotics which can be run off of EITHER the grid or the free > hydrogen made from solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio > waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy OR the > grid. There is no oil that needs to be involved anywhere in the > production of hydrogen. These systems trickle charge hydrogen into > storage containers, either tanks or solid state cassettes, 24/7. > > Hydrogen processors now make hydrogen with 91% efficiency. > > NO INFRASTRUCTURE IS NEEDED!!! This is the biggest lie of all. A > large number of start-ups have solid state hydrogen solutions that > entirely use existing infrastructure. > > Battery Shills, backed by companies who are invested in batteries, > are the usual suspects in anti-hydrogen reporting. > > A “fuel cell car” and an “electric car” ARE THE SAME THING. The > shills want you to think otherwise. The only difference is where > the electricity is stored. You can pull the batteries out of every > Zenn, Tesla, Zap, EV1, Venture Vehicle, etc. and pop a fuel > cell/hydrogen pack in the same hole and go further, more > efficiently in EVERY SINGLE CASE. > > A modern fuel cell and hydrogen system beats batteries on every > front including > > FIRE- Batteries catch on fire constantly and have been the result > of massively more fires and explosions than hydrogen. > > Life Span- Hydrogen power systems run massively longer and provide > massively greater range per charge than batteries. > > Run Time – The run time of batteries constantly shortens while > hydrogen does not. > > Memory Effect- This effect is not present in hydrogen systems > > Recharge Time- modern hydrogen systems are instant recharge. > > Charge life- Modern hydrogen systems can recharge massively longer > than batteries before end of life. > > Nano powder batteries have cancer causing powder that falls into > the pores of the Chinese factory workers skin and gives them > potentially fatal diseases > > Cost- The cost per 300 mile range for a hydrogen car system is > massively lower than a battery system > > Energy from “sour-grid”- A modern hydrogen system can be charged > from a completely clean home energy system. > > Can’t make energy at home- Hydrogen can be made at home. Batteries > cannot. > > Storage Density – Modern hydrogen technology has a massively > higher storage density than batteries. > > Bulky Size- Hydrogen systems are dramatically less bulky than > batteries. > > High Weight- The weight of batteries is so great ir reduces the > reange of travel of a vehicle which causes the use of wasteful > energy just to haul the batteries along with the car. Hydrogen > energy systems weigh far less. > > Environmental soundness- The disposal of batteries after use > presents a deadly environmental issue. > > Self Discharge issues- Hydrogen does not self discharge like > batteries. > > > The charge-keeping capability of a typical lithium-ion battery > degrades steadily over time and with use. After only one or two > years of use, the runtime of a laptop or cell phone battery is > reduced to the point where the user experience is significantly > impacted. For example, the runtime of a typical 4-hour laptop > battery drops to only about 2.5 hours after 3,000 hours of use. By > contrast, the latest fuel cells continue to deliver nearly their > original levels of runtime well past the 2,000 and 3,000 hour > marks and are still going strong at 5,000+ hours > The electrical capacity of batteries has not kept up with the > increasing power consumption of electronic devices. Features such > as W-LAN, higher CPU speed, "always-on", large and bright displays > and many others are important for the user but severely limited by > today`s battery life. Lithium ion batteries, and lithium-polymer > batteries have almost reached fundamental limits. A laptop playing > a DVD today has a runtime of just above one hour on one battery > pack, which is clearly not acceptable. > Such limitations have led to an enormous interest in alternative > power sources, of which the fuel cell is the most promising > candidate. Storage density, i.e. the electrical capacity available > per unit mass of energy storage means, is one of the most > important parameters. > > > So you have battery evangelists who are anti-hydrogen sheep: > Ulf Bossel of the European Fuel Cell Forum, Alec Brooks, EV > World Sam Thurber, Cal Cars and others. > > Yet for every manipulated argument they come up with, they are > shot down by hundreds of sites with facts. > > > The interventions of these 'doubters' fall into a number of clear > categories which I'll summarise as: > > 1 "You can't succeed because no-one has ever succeeded at this > (sports car making / battery-power / taking on the majors, etc > etc) before". - May I commend to everyone Dava Sobel's wonderful > (and short!) book, "Longitude", which offers a perfect map of the > tendency of government and the scientific establishment collude to > reject true innovation. This effect can only be overcome when a > tipping-point of perceived popular utility is reached, at which > point the establishment suddenly has a bout of collective amnesia > about their earlier denials. (Same story many times over, > historically, of course - from Gallileo onwards.) > > 2 "It's inefficient to carry around". Rather as it's inefficient > to carry around a full tank of gas, perhaps? Or to carry around a > SUV chassis which itself weighs a ton or more? (Come on, Detroit, > you can find a better argument than that, surely?) > > 3 "This technology is not a solution and never will be." This very > much reminds me of the IBM's famously short-sighted take on the > prospect of home computing, back in the 70s. The language of these > contributions, let alone their content, points to a thought- > process rooted in volume-producers' > vested interests. Consider the successes of some other new-tech > challengers of vested interests: Dyson taking on Hoover with a > bagless vacuum-cleaner; Bayliss bringing clockwork (i.e. battery- > less) radios and laptops to the third world; thin-film solar > panels (sorry, can't remember who, but you know who I mean). On > this point, it was deeply depressing, at a high-level > environmental science conference of the UK Government last year, > for me to witness a "leading and respected" Professor of Transport > rejecting electric traction out-of-hand with the words "it will > never be more than just power storage on a trolley". Given that > this "expert" was advising ministers of state setting future > national policy on alternative transport, my immediate thought > was "Who pays this man's research grant?" > > So let's be vigilant for any who claim, in a smooth way, that > invention can't possibly have the answers. From a position of some > expertise in this field, may I remind readers that the "you-don't- > understand-how-our-industry-works" argument has been the policy > instrument of choice for numerous corporate fraudsters and > protectionists down the ages (Enron, anyone?). New York's > energetic DA, Mr Spitzer, has made a fine career out of > challenging such thinking in the finance sector (with the simple > rejoinder: "WHY does your industry work like that? Against > customer choice?"). And then of course there's the entire consumer > movement (remember Flaming Fords? remember "Unsafe at Any > Speed"?). We can and should ask the same questions of the > conventional auto industry. > > The good news is that genuine innovation will out - as long as > ordinary consumers are able to find it and buy it. One of the > early lessons of the twentyfirst century, thank goodness, is that > the old-school, browbeating style of corporate communication - > terrorising one's customers into rejecting alternatives - > increasingly fails as people wise up to making decisions based on > their own independently-gathered information about benefits and > risks. (Interestingly, a popular reaction against "selling by > fear" is also now happening in the political field. Now why might > that be?) As a consumer, one doesn't have to agree with the in-ya- > face techniques of anticorporate critics like Michael Moore and > Morgan Spurlock to still subscribe to the view that we can buy > what we want to buy. We no longer want to be told by old-tech that > new-tech is inherently suspect. Isn't it old-tech that brought us > dependency on oil, climate change, wars over energy sources? > > So c'mon people, how about a reward system for "spot the spoiler"? > I'm all for free debate on the issues, but some of these blogs > smell rather like the work of paid old-tech corporatists trying to > sabotage your success. > Challenge such interventions with the greatest possible vigour, > and let consumers decide for themselves! > > 1.) Battery companies are spending millions of dollars to knock > H2 > because it works longer, better, faster and cheaper than > batteries! Most of the people writing these screaming anti-H2 > articles are battery company shills or have investments there. H2 > does beat batteries on every front so the should be SCARED! > > > > 2.) The steel unions hate H2 because H2 cars don't use steel. > Steel is > too hard to afford any more so nobody will use it in any case. > > > > 3.) Activists hate H2 because they think it can only be made by > the oil > companies and they hate the oil companies. This is a falsehood > created by the battery and steel guys. > > > > 4.) Oil companies hate H2 because it is so much better than oil > but they > only get to hate it unto 2030 when the affordable oil runs out. > Then they know they must love it because H2 energy will be all > that is left. The Oil industry is dismayed that H2 is coming on so > fast and they are trying to slow it down even more. > > > > 5.) Other alternative energy interests hate it because it is > getting all > of the funding because the polita-nomics are better with H2 than > ANYTHING ELSE ON EARTH. > > > If the gasoline in your car blows up it will do a VAST AMOUNT more > death and damage than H2 ever will. > You are driving a MOLOTOV COCKTAIL. In 2030 oil is GONE and there > is NO OTHER OPTION that can be delivered world-wide in time but H2! > > If I am a shill who could I possible be working for? I say it is > all free and you don’t need an oil company or energy company > anywhere in the loop. > > > > > On 6/18/04, Dr Fred Mbogo wrote: >> Sir: >> >> 'Green energy' is a bunch of crap. This concept will never put a >> dent in our growing dependency on fossil fuels. Extracting energy >> from Windmill farms and making energy from compost pits is never >> going to replace fossil fules. >> >> Check out the site below to read about the "great hydrogen energy >> scam!!" >> >> >> On 6/18/04, Dan wrote: >>> On 6/18/04, Dr Fred Mbogo wrote: >>>> Sir: >>>> >>>> There is NO excess hydroelectric power in the Columbia River >>>> Basin or anywhere in this country. That power is ALREADY BEING >>>> USED to generate electricity. What is not being immediately >>>> used to generate electricity is being stored in dams behind >>>> the hydro generation plant for future use. Electricity that is >>>> produced by hydroelectric generators (or any other electric >>>> generating means) can be used for any purpose, including >>>> separating free hydrogen from water molecules by electrolysis. >>>> But the laws of physics ("conservation of energy," et al) say >>>> that whatever electrical energy is used for separating >>>> hydrogen CANNOT be used for any other purpose. Once that >>>> hydrogen atom is separated, the energy that was needed to >>>> accomplish that is now in the hydrogen atom as 'chemical >>>> potential energy' or whatever, it ain't still available to run >>>> your damn microwave like it otherwise could have. The sad fact >>>> is that extracting hydrogen from water CONSUMES ENERGY. >>> >>> They've been working on co-energy projects for years. >>> >>> BTW, I did not write the article. Tell it to the researchers. >>> >>> June 26, 2003 >>> Low Cost Biomass Hydrogen Catalyst Discovered >>> Researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison have >>> discovered a much lower cost catalyst for producing hydrogen >>> from organic matter. >>> >>> MADISON – It is thousands of times less expensive than platinum >>> and works nearly as well. >>> >>> Writing this week in the journal Science (June 27) University >>> of Wisconsin-Madison chemical and biological engineers report >>> the discovery of a nickel-tin catalyst that can replace the >>> precious metal platinum in a new, environmentally sustainable, >>> greenhouse-gas-neutral, low-temperature process for making >>> hydrogen fuel from plants. >>> >>> The new catalyst, together with a second innovation that >>> purifies hydrogen for use in hydrogen fuel cells, offers new >>> opportunities toward the transition of a world economy based on >>> fossil fuels to one based on hydrogen produced from renewable >>> resources. >>> >>> James Dumesic, a professor of chemical and biological >>> engineering, and graduate students George Huber and John >>> Shabaker describe testing more than 300 materials to find a >>> nickel-tin-aluminum combination that reacts with biomass- >>> derived oxygenated hydrocarbons to produce hydrogen and carbon >>> dioxide without producing large amounts of unwanted methane. >>> >>> "Platinum is very effective but it's also very expensive," says >>> Dumesic. "It's also problematic for large-scale power >>> production because platinum is already in demand for use as >>> anode and cathode materials in hydrogen fuel cells. We knew >>> nickel was very active, but it allowed reaction to continue >>> beyond hydrogen producing methane. We found that adding tin to >>> what's known as a Raney-Nickel catalyst decreased the rate of >>> methane formation without compromising the rate of hydrogen >>> production." >>> >>> Dumesic, research scientist Randy Cortright (now at Virent >>> Energy Systems) and graduate student Rupali Davda first >>> reported the catalytic reforming process for hydrogen >>> production in the Aug. 29, 2002 issue of the journal Nature. >>> >>> The simple, single-step process employs temperature, pressure >>> and a catalyst to convert hydrocarbons such as glucose, the >>> same energy source used by most plants and animals, into >>> hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and gaseous alkanes with hydrogen >>> constituting 50 percent of the products. More refined molecules >>> such as ethylene glycol and methanol are almost completely >>> converted to hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Because plants grown >>> as fuel crops absorb the carbon dioxide released by the system, >>> the process is greenhouse-gas neutral. >>> >>> Platinum is too expensive. >>> >>> The precious metal platinum (Pt) is well known to be an >>> excellent catalyst in a number of chemical reactions. It is one >>> component in a car's catalytic converter, for example, that >>> helps remove toxins from automobile exhaust. Yet, platinum is >>> rare and very expensive, costing more than $17 per gram (about >>> $8,000 per pound). >>> >>> Catalytic platinum (Pt) and nickel (Ni) stand out from other >>> metals (such as copper or iron) because they process reaction >>> molecules much faster. But pure nickel, unlike platinum, >>> recombines the hydrogen product with carbon atoms to make >>> methane, a common greenhouse gas. Dumesic and his colleagues >>> tested over 300 catalysts to find one that could compete with >>> platinum and perform in the APR process. Using a specially >>> designed reactor that can test 48 samples at one time, the team >>> finally found a match in a modified version of what researchers >>> call a Raneynickel catalyst, named after Murray Raney, who >>> first patented the alloy in 1927. >>> >>> Raney-nickel is a porous catalyst made of about 90 percent >>> nickel (Ni) and 10 percent aluminum (Al). While Raney-nickel >>> proved somewhat effective at separating hydrogen from biomass- >>> derived molecules, the researchers improved the material's >>> effectiveness by adding more tin (Sn), which stops the >>> production of methane and instead generates more hydrogen. >>> Relative to other catalysts, the Raney-NiSn can perform for >>> long time periods (at least 48 hours) and at lower temperatures >>> (roughly 225 degrees Celsius). >>> >>> According to Dumesic, a substitute for platinum catalysts is >>> essential for the success of hydrogen technology. "We had to >>> find a substitute for platinum in our APR process for >>> production of hydrogen, since platinum is rare and also >>> employed in the anode and cathode materials of hydrogen fuel >>> cells to be used in products such as cars or portable >>> computers," he said. >>> >>> While this is an important advance by itself it does not make >>> biomass a viable major energy source. The problem with growing >>> crops for biomass is that it takes energy to make and transport >>> the fertilizer, run tractors, run irrigation equipment, >>> harvest, transport, and so on. It remains to be seen whether >>> there is a crop that will yield enough biomass energy to make >>> it worthwhile. >>> >>> This catalyst may be useful on smaller scales in places where >>> there is already a great amount of biomass waste being >>> produced. For instance, the processing of existing crops >>> produces biomass waste. Equipment to convert that biomass waste >>> into useful hydrogen energy could be installed next to >>> agricultural product processing facilities if this new catalyst >>> turns out to work well in industrial use. Still, all the >>> existing biomass waste is not sufficient as an energy source to >>> replace much of the currently consumed fossil fuels. >>> >>> Other enabling technologies such as fuel cells need to mature >>> ot make hydrogen a more useful energy source once it has been >>> produced. Those advances will come with time. What strikes me >>> as less certain is whether biomass will ever become a major >>> energy source for producing hydrogen. Plants have to be >>> planted, tended, harvested, and processed. They are vulnerable >>> to insects and droughts. They do not convert most of the light >>> that hits them into stored chemical energy. >>> >>> There are competing approaches that may be cheaper in the >>> longer run. Advances in nanotechnology will eventually yield >>> photovoltaic materials that will be cheap to produce. Then the >>> electricity from the photovoltaics will could be used to run >>> hydrolysis reactions to produce hydrogen from water. Also, some >>> materials may be found that can absorb light to drive a direct >>> catalysis reaction to produce hydrogen from water without first >>> producing electricity. Such materials would probably be more >>> efficient than plants at converting sunlight to energy and >>> would even be able to do so all year around (albeit at lower >>> rates during the shorter days of the year). >>> >>> Update: Some Tufts researchers have also recently discovered a >>> way to reduce the amount of precious metals used as catalysts >>> to make hydrogen. >>> >>> "A lot of people have spent a lot of time studying the >>> properties of gold and platinum nanoparticles that are used to >>> catalyze the reaction of carbon monoxide with water to make >>> hydrogen and carbon dioxide," said Maria Flytzani- >>> Stephanopoulos, professor of chemical and biological >>> engineering at Tufts and the lead researcher of the >>> project. "We find that for this reaction over a cerium oxide >>> catalyst carrying the gold or ...[Message truncated]

Aug 28, 2008

report post