Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hydrocarbon fuels are *very* lightweight and compact. A huge advantage.

But one that is disappearing, at least to the degree that it matters.

Josh Hill wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hydrocarbon fuels are *very* lightweight and compact. A huge advantage.

But one that is disappearing, at least to the degree that it matters.


Hydrocarbon biofuels will be available until the end of time itself.

Eeyore wrote:
Josh Hill wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hydrocarbon fuels are *very* lightweight and compact. A huge advantage.

But one that is disappearing, at least to the degree that it matters.

Hydrocarbon biofuels will be available until the end of time itself.

At 250 quads over the next twenty years???????

Mishagam wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


The simple fact of the matter is that gasoline and diesel engines
will continue to be
used for motive power for many hundreds of years.

They're simply unbeatably convenient to use in so many applications.
They will
increasingly be complemented by other methods of course.

Graham


When I was 20 years old I have seen small ICE for airplane models. Now
I very often hear about battery powered airlane models. The same or
something similar can happen with cars....

But with a 5% impact over twenty years, it will not have an effect.

Are you getting this??????????

No I don't understand what you mean at all. What 5%? what 20 years? what

Question: why do you persist in ignoring the reference I've posted
here many times, which says that cost-competitive hydrogen can be
produced from coal or natural gas? I haven't seen anyone come forward
with a reference or argument that contradicts it.

--
Josh

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Josh Hill wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hydrocarbon fuels are *very* lightweight and compact. A huge advantage.

But one that is disappearing, at least to the degree that it matters.

Hydrocarbon biofuels will be available until the end of time itself.

At 250 quads over the next twenty years???????

That's not what I said. The ICE is so useful though that it'll continue to be
used in many applications for a long long time.

Have you any better ideas for powering ships ?

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Josh Hill wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hydrocarbon fuels are *very* lightweight and compact. A huge advantage.

But one that is disappearing, at least to the degree that it matters.

Hydrocarbon biofuels will be available until the end of time itself.

At 250 quads over the next twenty years???????

That's not what I said. The ICE is so useful though that it'll continue to be
used in many applications for a long long time.

Have you any better ideas for powering ships ?

Havn't thought about it, but off the top of my head it sounds like a
good application for fuel cells with reformers.

Havn't thought about it, but off the top of my head it sounds like a
good application for fuel cells with reformers.


Does it really ?

Graham

On Jan 26, 5:28 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Question: why do you persist in ignoring the reference I've posted
here many times, which says that cost-competitive hydrogen can be
produced from coal or natural gas? I haven't seen anyone come forward
with a reference or argument that contradicts it.

--
Josh

Josh, you didn't cite it this thread. So, I don't know where you got
the reference. But, understand this: hydrogen is a major industrial
element used in the production of gasoline and other petro-chemicals.
Right now...*everywhere in the world* H2 is produced by natural gas.
Natural gas is *98 times more efficient* if used as a compressed
natural gas product in automobiles as opposed to H2, which is why they
are used in Argentina and Brazil and major fleets of utility trucks in
the US.

IF there was a cheaper way to manufacture H2 (which is what it is,
more a 'carrier of energy' not a source of energy) don't you think all
the major private and gov't owned H2 producers would be using it by
now?

AFAIK, you can't extrapolate costs directly from today's low-volume
hydrogen production. Larger-scale production would presumably allow
efficiencies of scale and the cost-effective development of
cost-lowering process improvements. The cost of shipment, to use one
obvious example, would decline dramatically if volume were sufficient
to build pipelines and localized plants.

Josh Hill wrote:

AFAIK, you can't extrapolate costs directly from today's low-volume
hydrogen production. Larger-scale production would presumably allow
efficiencies of scale and the cost-effective development of
cost-lowering process improvements. The cost of shipment, to use one
obvious example, would decline dramatically if volume were sufficient
to build pipelines and localized plants.

How do you stop the pielines getting embrittled ?

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Josh Hill wrote:

AFAIK, you can't extrapolate costs directly from today's low-volume
hydrogen production. Larger-scale production would presumably allow
efficiencies of scale and the cost-effective development of
cost-lowering process improvements. The cost of shipment, to use one
obvious example, would decline dramatically if volume were sufficient
to build pipelines and localized plants.

How do you stop the pielines getting embrittled ?

I thought someone asked me that just a few weeks ago. The work seems
to be focused on resistant coatings and alloys. It doesn't seem to be
a show stopper.

Josh Hill wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Josh Hill wrote:


AFAIK, you can't extrapolate costs directly from today's low-volume
hydrogen production. Larger-scale production would presumably allow
efficiencies of scale and the cost-effective development of
cost-lowering process improvements. The cost of shipment, to use one
obvious example, would decline dramatically if volume were sufficient
to build pipelines and localized plants.

How do you stop the pielines getting embrittled ?

I thought someone asked me that just a few weeks ago. The work seems
to be focused on resistant coatings and alloys. It doesn't seem to be
a show stopper.


Resistant coatings ? Hydrogen has such a small molecule it gets through just about
anything AFAIK.

Graham

The other point is that a hydrogen pipeline has to be MUCH BIGGER than a

Josh Hill wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Josh Hill wrote:

AFAIK, you can't extrapolate costs directly from today's low-volume
hydrogen production. Larger-scale production would presumably allow
efficiencies of scale and the cost-effective development of
cost-lowering process improvements. The cost of shipment, to use one
obvious example, would decline dramatically if volume were sufficient
to build pipelines and localized plants.

How do you stop the pielines getting embrittled ?

I thought someone asked me that just a few weeks ago. The work seems
to be focused on resistant coatings and alloys. It doesn't seem to be
a show stopper.

Resistant coatings ? Hydrogen has such a small molecule it gets through just about
anything AFAIK.

Eeyore wrote:

Josh Hill wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Josh Hill wrote:


AFAIK, you can't extrapolate costs directly from today's low-volume
hydrogen production. Larger-scale production would presumably allow
efficiencies of scale and the cost-effective development of
cost-lowering process improvements. The cost of shipment, to use one
obvious example, would decline dramatically if volume were sufficient
to build pipelines and localized plants.

How do you stop the pielines getting embrittled ?

I thought someone asked me that just a few weeks ago. The work seems
to be focused on resistant coatings and alloys. It doesn't seem to be
a show stopper.


Resistant coatings ? Hydrogen has such a small molecule it gets through just about
anything AFAIK.

Graham

The other point is that a hydrogen pipeline has to be MUCH BIGGER than a
regular one because of the transferred energy density. And thus will not
amortize.