On Jun 15, 3:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Jun 15, 10:29 am, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

Bradyou're a nutjob. Your belief in hydrogen peroxide is misplaced.
Hydrogen peroxide while useful in some specialty applications doesn't
contain enough energy to be of interest as a general fuel. Even so
hydrogen peroxide is highly explosive in high concentrations and a
powerful bleach. Anyone who has put a 3% solution of hydrogen peroxide
on a wound,knows how easily the stuff can decompose. Ammonia
solutions don't do that. And neither does gasoline.

Fact is one ton of hydrogen gas has a heating value equal to;

1 ton H2 = 3.2 tons crude oil
6.2 tons coal
6.5 tons ammonia
65.0 tons hydrogen peroxide
130.0 tons sodium sulfur batteries
1,300.0 tons lead acid batteries

Hydrogen peroxide is more in line with batteries than fuel. AND its
highly explosive.

Ammonia on the other hand has a lot going for it - and can be almost a
1 for 1 replacement for coal - while eliminating all the CO2 emissoins
as you siad.

NOx emissions are not an issue to a properly designed plant - any more
than rust is an issue to a properly maintained ship. Yeah you can get
it if you're not careful. But its not an issue to a well run plant.

I'm not talking about any stinking plant for creating H2, or that of
commercial sized fuel cells utilizing H2. I'm talking about us end-
users that'll burn that H2 getting to/from work and play, and/or for
whatever heating and cooking instead of natural gas that has it's
element of radium which contributes radon gas.

BTW; H2 fuel cells can also produce h2o2 as their byproduct, so not
all is lost in your having created all of that affordable H2 in the
first place.

You still haven't listed the side by side worth of those pro/con
issues of birth to grave (all-inclusive) factors. What are you afraid
of?

If Earth's atmosphere didn't have so much N2, as such we'd be good to
go with H2, even though it's taking more energy by at least 25% in
order to utilize H2 (actually by the time of taking in those all-
inclusive birth to grave factors into account, we'd be doing good at
H2 taking a 50/50 share (in other words equal parts) in order to
safely create, store, distribute and utilize.

BTW I've never stipulated that LH2 shouldn't be created from
whatever's of clean and renewable energy that's in surplus, just
insisting that a greater portion of that spare/surplus energy should
go into creating h2o2 that can be made as powerful as you'd like, or
all of it made into 3% mouth wash. Either way it's a win-win for
humanity and for our badly failing environment that doesn't exactly
have enough spare/surplus energy to go around, much less for the
making of H2 that's going to unavoidably create those nasty secondary
elements of NOx.

The last time I'd checked, mother Earth doesn't need any more NOx.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your comments are so wrong on so many levels I do not have time to
correct them all. The only thing I have to say is that you are a
first class nutjobBrad. Properly handled in the right kind of
appliances - hydrogen even when burned does not produce nitrogen
oxides. Hydrogen peroxide has so many problems, a few of which I've
already recounted,and which you blithely ignored, its a waste to
repeat yet again the difficulties the material faces if used as a
replacement for more reasonable fuels.

1 ton hydrogen = 3.2 tons crude oil
6.2 tons coal
6.5 tons ammonia
65.0 tons hydrogen peroxide
130.0 tons sodium sulfur batteries
1,300.0 tons lead acid batteries- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fact is one ton of hydrogen gas has a heating value equal to;

1 ton H2 = 3.2 tons crude oil
6.2 tons coal
6.5 tons ammonia
65.0 tons hydrogen peroxide
130.0 tons sodium sulfur batteries
1,300.0 tons lead acid batteries

Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

Well, he's right about the low density of hydrogen....

What I don't get about you. I went on a little job for the last week and
deleted some three hundred messages on this thread without reading. Yet
you claim a multy million dollar business and have all the time to post
here.

What is up????????????

Brad is notorious for unstable thinking. I'll assume he ran out of
action on the other groups and why he is here. He will soon be talking
about Venus.....

On Jun 15, 7:34 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:





Robert Adsett wrote:
In article <0LEci.10446$ya1.8...@news02.roc.ny>, Dan Bloomquist says...

Don Lancaster wrote:

BradGuth wrote:

Fact is one ton of hydrogen gas has a heating value equal to;

1 ton H2 = 3.2 tons crude oil

BradGuth

A totally worthless factoid.

Bradis notorious for unstable thinking. I'll assume he ran out of
action on the other groups and why he is here. He will soon be talking
about Venus.....

Wrong attribution, the quote is from William. I think Don got a little
over enthusiastic with his editing.

Yep. Don has done that many times, this isn't the first. Often enough
that it may be purposeful. Then again, he may be using an adobe
newsreader...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, he's right about the low density of hydrogen. A cubic meter of
oil masses between 862 kg and 788 kg depending on 'weight' - A barrel
is 0.15899 cubic meters. So a ton is between 7.30 and 7.98 barrels
of crude oil - depending on weight of oil.

A cubic meter of liquid hydrogen is 70 kg. - less than 1/10th the
density of oil. Hydrogen has a lot more energy per unit weight about
3.2x as much energy per unit weight - but on a volume basis it
contains only 26% of the energy of oil per cubic meter. That is it
takes 3.85 cubic meters of liquid hydrogen to carry the same energy as
a cubic meter of crude oil.

Coal weighs between 1,350 kg/m3 and 1,500 kg/m3 and has up to 23.5 GJ/
tonne.

Liquified Natural Gas masses 410 kg/m3 and 500 kg/m3 so it can have 21
GJ/tonne

Natural Gas at 1 bar
0.035 GJ/m3
Hydrogen Gas at 6 bar
0.038 GJ/m3

Hydrogen at 340 bar has 15 kg of gas per cubic meter - 2.17 GJ/m3
Hydrogen at 680 bar has 30 kg of gas per cubic meter - 4.34 GJ/m3
Liquid hydrogen as 70 kg of hydrogen per cubic meter 9.93 GJ/m3

Ammonia masses 681.9 kg per cubic meter - 15.34 GJ/m3
LNG masses 410 kg/m3 to 500 kg/m3 21.00 GJ/m3
Borazane 156 kg per m3 hydrogen 22.12 GJ/m3

Coal contains 1,350 to 1,500 kg per cubic meter 35.25 GJ/m3
Oil contans on average 6.29 bbls per cubic meter 38.37 GJ/m3

Low density of natural gas doesn't seem to bet a killer for statioanry
applications. After all 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas - a volume of
178 barrels - contains only 1/6th the energy of a single barrel of
oil.

So, while much is made of the volumetric energy density of hydrogen as
a practical matter it doesn't seem to be that big of a problem. And
there are hydrogen carriers like ammonia and borazane that are as easy
to handle as LNG in one case, and coal in the other - and have
reasonable volumetric energy densities.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, he's right about the low density of hydrogen. A cubic meter of
oil masses between 862 kg and 788 kg depending on 'weight' - A barrel
is 0.15899 cubic meters. So a ton is between 7.30 and 7.98 barrels
of crude oil - depending on weight of oil.

A cubic meter of liquid hydrogen is 70 kg. - less than 1/10th the
density of oil. Hydrogen has a lot more energy per unit weight about
3.2x as much energy per unit weight - but on a volume basis it
contains only 26% of the energy of oil per cubic meter. That is it
takes 3.85 cubic meters of liquid hydrogen to carry the same energy as
a cubic meter of crude oil.

Coal weighs between 1,350 kg/m3 and 1,500 kg/m3 and has up to 23.5 GJ/
tonne.

Liquified Natural Gas masses 410 kg/m3 and 500 kg/m3 so it can have 21
GJ/tonne

Natural Gas at 1 bar 0.035 GJ/m3
Hydrogen Gas at 6 bar 0.038 GJ/m3

Hydrogen at 340 bar has 15 kg of gas per cubic meter - 2.17 GJ/m3
Hydrogen at 680 bar has 30 kg of gas per cubic meter - 4.34 GJ/m3
Liquid hydrogen as 70 kg of hydrogen per cubic meter - 9.93 GJ/m3

Ammonia masses 681.9 kg per cubic meter - 15.34 GJ/m3
LNG masses 410 kg/m3 to 500 kg/m3 21.00 GJ/m3
Borazane 156 kg per m3 hydrogen 22.12 GJ/m3

Coal contains 1,350 to 1,500 kg per cubic meter 35.25 GJ/m3
Oil contans on average 6.29 bbls per cubic meter 38.37 GJ/m3

Low density of natural gas doesn't seem to bet a killer for statioanry
applications. After all 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas - a volume of
178 barrels - contains only 1/6th the energy of a single barrel of
oil.

So, while much is made of the volumetric energy density of hydrogen as
a practical matter it doesn't seem to be that big of a problem. And
there are hydrogen carriers like ammonia and borazane that are as easy
to handle as LNG in one case, and coal in the other - and have
reasonable volumetric energy densities.
-

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