There are many advantages to using h2o2(hydrogen peroxide) instead of
LH2-->H2, plus even better results when combusting h2o2 along with a
little of whatever else is available, w/o creating those nasty
elements of NOx.
Of course, the Exxon/ENRON Zions don't like Willie.Moo one damn bit,
because H2/air does have it's place in eliminating CO2 (excluding the
somewhat spendy initial conversion, storage, specialized shipping and
distribution process).
-
Even Willie.Moo has to agree, that we could have nearly zero NOx with
h2o2+whatever, or else we could all die using h2+air that'll produce
all sorts of NOx contributions to our alreadly badly polluted
environment that's in the continuing process of going GW postal on us.
NOx/including nitric acids whenever h2o gets involved.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_oxide
Nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen(II) oxide "poisonous air pollutant"
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) "poison by inhalation"
Dinitrogen monoxide (N2O), nitrous oxide "laughing gas" or Nitrous
oxygen boost
(unlike other nitrogen oxides, nitrous oxide is a major
greenhouse gas)
Dinitrogen trioxide (N2O3), nitrogen (III) oxide "Highly toxic (T+)"
Dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) "highly toxic and corrosive"
Dinitrogen pentoxide (N2O5) "strong acid in contact with water"
"A mixture is often formed in chemical reactions that produce nitrogen
oxides, with the proportions depending on the specific reaction and
the conditions it is performed in. This is one reason why home
production of N2O is undesirable; the other two stable oxides - which
are extremely toxic - are liable to be produced."
Don Lancaster; "Liquid hydrogen almost certainly is a ~much~ worse NOx
toxic pollutant than JP4."
Because hydrogen/H2 is going to be combusted along with air that's
mostly N2, and because H2 is usually going to burn hotter than
conventional fossil fuel, is why there's going to be more NOx produced
per unit of energy or per unit of work. H2O2 entirely eliminates this
NOx factor, and h2o2 can be utilized along with most any fossil or bio
whatever fuel(s) in order to get the most combined bang per kg. Of
course, the likes of Don Lancaster and most other Zions refuses to
consider h2o2 usage under any conditions (it must be another
unfortunate Old Testament things, all because of their having profited
from having produced h2o2 for Hitler).
Of course, while on this disinformation highway of this mostly Zion
Usenet, you'll also get those spouting that the combustion of air/h2
at higher temperatures somehow creates less NOx, using the same hocus-
pocus physics logic that had TWA flight 800 exploding its fuel tank
because of insufficient O2 at 13,000' and otherwise having less than a
1:1 mixture.
In other words, if we converted every fossil fuel combustion over to
using hydrogen/air, we'd soon die off because of the excessive amounts
of various NOx factors, not to mention the raw energy taken in the
first place for having created, compressed into LH2, stored, shipped
and distributed LH2 or otherwise having piped plain old H2 instead of
natural gas. H2O2 usage puts NOx entirely out of the picture, even or
especially when combined with other fossil or bio fuels that'll give
us the most clean bang per kg w/o NOx unless there was Nitrogen in the
fossil or bio whatever fuel to begin with.
BTW Carbon based food of most any kind doesn't process NOx in any
meaningful way, whereas usually NOx is a contributing factor towards
the demise of many plants and more than a few other species of life as
we know it. The artificial burning of air which is nearly 80% N2
(especially via H2) is unavoidably causing various NOx factors to
exist at much greater levels than introduced by nature.
Willie.Moo:
I have developed a concentrating panel and variable electrolyzer
technology that makes hydrogen for $170 per metric ton. I can
transmit that hydrogen, produced on large tracts of land located
in America's West and Southwest, anywhere in the continental US,
and Canada and Mexico, for $100 per metric ton - delivering
hydrogen at my cost of $270 per metric ton.
At costs of $20 per kW of peak demand I have a simple variable load
electrolyzer that is 85% efficient and makes a ton of hydrogen for
every 50 MWh input into it. Connected with $70 per kW peak power
solar panels this system makes hydrogen for less than $170 per
metric ton in most sunny locations.
This is very good news about his 85% conversion efficiency, although
the combustion process is still representing a real killer of life as
we know it, as well as contributing towards some of the very worse
forms of global warming gas. Unfortunately, most of that electrical
energy demand for producing H2 is taken from various fossil fuels,
plus vast consumptions of fresh water and volumes of our polluted air
which is mostly nitrogen that's getting converted into CO2 plus nasty
butt loads of NOx.
Too bad that h2o2 is so taboo/nondisclosure rated. Must be because it
can be home brewed, just like those smart Jewish wizards having done
so for Hitler.
It seems controlling the past is the one and only alternative for the
likes of our MI/NSA~NASA. Therefore h2o2 is taboo/nondisclosure
rated, just the way those smart and tipically profitable Zions would
like their history of expertise related h2o2 to remain out of sight,
and thus out of mind.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth
On Jun 9, 8:07 am,
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have developed a concentrating panel and variable electrolyzer
technology that makes hydrogen for $170 per metric ton. I can
transmit that hydrogen, produced on large tracts of land located in
America's West and Southwest, anywhere in the continental US,and
Canada and Mexico, for $100 per metric ton - delivering hydrogen at my
cost of $270 per metric ton.
At costs of $20 per kW of peak demand I have a simple variable load
electrolyzer that is 85% efficient and makes a ton of hydrogen for
every 50 MWh input into it. Connected with $70 per kW peak power
solar panels this system makes hydrogen for less than $170 per metric
ton in most sunny locations.
High pressure hydrogen gas produced at these sunny locations can be
transmitted at greater than 1 GW power levels through quite modest
high pressure pipes anywhere in the continental US for less than $100
per metric ton wheeling costs.
A ton of hydrogen displaces 23.2 barrels of oil and avoids the release
of 9.9 tons of carbon dioxide. At $68 per barrel and $18 per ton of
avoided carbon dioxide a ton of hydrogen is worth over $1,900
A ton of hydrogen displaces 134 mcf of natural gas and avoids the
release of over 7 tons of CO2 when used in place of natural gas. At
$8 per mcf and $18 per avoided ton of CO2 - a ton of hydrogen is worth
over $1,200
A ton of hydrogen displaces 6.17 tons of coal and avoids the release
of over 22.6 tons of CO2 when used in place of coal. At $40 per ton
for coal and $18 per avoided ton of CO2 this hydrogen is worth over
$600
The stranded coal can be converted to 1,817 gallons of gasoline with
the addition of 772 kg of hydrogen. At $3 per gallon this is worth
$5,451. - making the hydrogen worth over $7,000 per ton of hydrogen -
in this application.
So, there is no reason with my technology that the United States
cannot come to dominate the energy supplies of the world by making a
commitment to hydrogen.
All users of coal and natural gas can easily use hydrogen produced at
low cost from sunlight
Stranded coal is easily converted to gasoline by adding more hydrogen
to it.
Surplus gasoline is shipped over seas along with liquified natural gas
unused here. Hydrogen ultimately will be liquified too and shipped to
users overseas replacing the older hydrocarbon fuels..
And this approach gives the United States time to take control of its
energy futureand keep it.
The US has 245 billion tons of easily recoverable coal reserves. This
is sufficient to provide 1,715 billion barrels of gasoline - more than
double the amount of hydrocarbons presently left in the world today -
and enough to supply the coming shortfall for over 50 years as older
oil fields
all enter secondary production.
The world presently consumes 82 million barrels per day of liquid
fuels. By 2025 demand will grow to 115 million barrels per day - if
supply is unconstrained. However experts say by that time the
world's major petroleum fields will have all entered secondary
production, and by that time they will be producing around 45 million
barrels per day.
Where will the 70 million barrels per day shortfall come from?
Chevron says it will come from alternatives and renewables (Scientific
American Page 1, June 2007) And those renewables are my hydrogen and
American Coal!!!
In 2025 that 70 million barrels of extra American oil per day means 10
million tons per day of American coal. And 1 million tons per day of
American hydrogen from 9 million tons of American water.
That will require 50 million MWh of solar electricity generated from
American sunlight. Which in turn requires the installation of 8.3
million million peak watts of solar panels at a cost of $750
billion. An additional $895 billion is required for coal processing
and handling to make the gasoline dieself fuel and jet fuel from coal
and hydrogen (no emissions).
Profits of $50 per barrel mean that $3.5 billion in profits each day
are earned. It also means that $1,278.3 billion in profits will be
earned EACH YEAR meaning each dollar invested in the equipment will
return over $17 !!! Clearly this is financially rewarding for
America. It amounts to over 10% of US GDP. Obviously making America
dominant in energy will strengthen out economy and give us direct
control of world affairs we need to maintain our security.
Does America have that kind of money? ABSOLUTELY. The US stock
market bubble of the 1990s burst in 2000 - and $3,000 BILLION
evaporated OVERNIGHT! And America was able to absorb that loss with
little effect. And in the past five years, America has earned all
that back and THEN SOME! So, clearly America has the capacity to
invest $750 billion over the next 15 years for something as important
and valuable as this - AND ELECTROLYZERS FORM A CRITICAL COMPONENT.
How long can America continue shipping oil at this rate? For over 50
years. But the other important thing to keep in mind, is that
despite the large-scale production of oil from coal and renewable
hydrogen (with zero emissions) - the renewable hydrogen can be used in
its own right.once people begin using it efficiently on a massive
scale.
Does American have enough land? Well, 8.3 million million watts of
electrical power using my low cost panels requires the installation of
12 million acres of solar panels. I am already organizing over 5
million acres in North America from private holders (all 3 of them!)
and looking for more. The US has over .6,000 million acres of land
and its deserts total more than 1,000 million acres.
Can we make that many panels? Sure, I'm organizing production now
that will generate over 200 million panels a year each 4' x 8 in
area. Even so, to cover 12 million acres in 7 years will require the
creation of 14 plants of this size - this is something that's
achievable over the next 7 years - allowing us to meet this production
target in 14 years from today - 2021.
We can do it America, dominate the world's energy supplies with US
water, coal and sunlight - and most importantly US technology. Doing
so will do little to undermine the value of present day oil companies
or their reserves, because they can't meet rising demand anyway and
everyone having enough actually promotes open markets,
transparency,and market sanity. Shortages and fear lead to
disruptions of supply and war. Its clear what must be done. And I
have the technology to do it.
And simple stainless steel electrolyzers are part of it along with
simple water filled lenses and CPV cells
Which is better for the environment: LH2/H2O2 ?
-
Brad Guth
