 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » Honda Fcx Clarity First Hydrogen Car... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| jenneylist... |
 Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam West... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hhc314... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hhc314... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam West... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Harry,
Sam here. A word of explanation.
Most hydrogen today is made by the shift reaction of a hydrocarbon
fuel. A source of carbon is partially burned to make carbon
monoxide. The heat released from the partial combustion is used to
make steam. The steam and carbon monoxide is passed over a catalyst
which promotes the shift reaction. This is where oxygen is shifted
from the water molecule to the carbon monoxide molecule to leave
hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This hydrogen is not carbon free.
In contrast, take sunlight and let it fall on a process that uses the
solar energy to break water down directly into hydrogen and oxygen.
This hydrogen is carbon free.
Mokenergy proposes making hydrogen from sunlight and water. So, its
carbon free hydrogen (CFH)
Carbon free hydrogen when burned instead of coal reduces carbon
emissions.
The stranded coal when combined with carbon free hydrogen makes
gasoline. Burning the gasoline adds those emissions back, but reduces
emissions by the amount of the conventional gasoline not burned.
Extra gasoline on the market at low price, lowers the price of all
gasoline. This decreases the recoverable supply of oil.
According to numbers I've seen, at $70 per barrel there are 900
billion barrels of recoverable oil available. At $30 per barrel there
are only 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The availability of
oil limits supply.
Where will the extra energy come from to keep prices low?
Carbon free hydrogen!
Where will the money come from to pay for this new source?
From the money that was ready to go into the development of high-
priced oil fields hoping oil will rise above $70 per barrel.
This is the genius of what Mook proposes, and why he is hated by the
oil companies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam West... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 2, 6:21 pm, hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:03d2206854]On Sep 29, 3:37 am, jenneylist <jenneyl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Honda Fcx Clarity First Hydrogen Carhttp://www.techespot.com/2009/09/honda-fcx-clarity-first-hydrogen.html
Lots of luck finding fuel for this boat anchor,
Harry C.
[/quote:03d2206854]
According to Mr. Mook's testimony to the Ohio House of Representatives
last year, the world consumes a certain amount of coal, oil, natural
gas. All of this is replaced by 3.3 billion tons of hydrogen made
from 8.2 trillion gallons of water and sunlight. Sunlight is captured
with thousands of square miles of solar panels made for less cost than
the cost of oil for two years. So, panels easily pay for
themselves.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20023580/Testimony |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam West... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 5, 1:22 pm, Don Lancaster <d... at (no spam) tinaja.com> wrote:
[quote:e3b1647746]Sam West wrote:
Mokenergy proposes makinghydrogenfrom sunlight and water. So, its
carbonfreehydrogen(CFH)
Not even wrong.
The pv step in the makinghydrogenfrom sunlight and water is currently
a net energy sink. And thus a net destroyer of gasoline and other
hydrocarbons.
There is presently an EXTREMEcarbontax to makinghydrogenfrom
sunlight and water. This tax will get worse before it gets better.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf
CFH remains an outright myth.
And likely always will. Unless a direct pond scum scheme can be come up
with that does NOT involve recoverable electricity as an intermediate step.
IF the pv step ever becomes a net energy source (possibly eight years
after the cost drops under a quarter per peak watt), the electricity
will then be far too valuable to makehydrogenwith. Because of the
staggering loss of exergy inherent in electrolysis.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d... at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
[/quote:e3b1647746]
Don,
You are wrong about the carbon footprint silicon imposes when making
solar panels.
I recall a paper I read by Mr. Mook that said there is a carbon
component to making a solar panel. Mr. Mook's CPV panels operate a
5,800x solar intensity. That means they avoid all the carbon it cost
making them in about a day.
Conventional solar panels take about 10 weeks to make enough energy to
cancel out their carbon costs.
Solar panels do have a carbon footpring. Silica, glass, is the
source of silicon. Carbon is used to absorb oxygen in molten silica
forming carbon dioxide leaving silicon behind. 4/10th ton of carbon
is used for every ton of silicon created. The energy to heat the
glass, and process it, also has a carbon cost as well as transporting
it and erecting it. Using coal fired electricity and gas powered
equipment another 6/10th ton of carbon is used to power the process of
making a solar panel.
When we have solar electricity and electric vehicles and a hydrogen
economy, these added costs will go away. Even reducing silica with
hydrogen instead of carbon is possible to eliminate all these carbon
aspects.
It takes 10 tons of silicon to plate over 1 acre using conventional
methods. So, 10 tons of carbon are released to cover each acre with
solar panels worst case. Mook's CPV panels use 2.5% of this total 550
pounds of carbon released per acre - worst case. Both have zero
carbon footprint once a solar/hydrogen economy has displaced coal and
oil.
In a year, in a place like Ohio, where I'm from, an acre of
conventional solar panels makes 1.2 million kilowatt-hours. Using
the same coal fired power plant, it takes 72 tons of carbon to make
that much electricity.
So, it takes less than 10 weeks to balance out all the carbon using
conventional panels. 1 day to avoid all the carbon costs of using CPV
panels like Mook's. Since both panel types last 20 years or more,
both types provide huge carbon savings even when using coal and oil to
obtain the silicon and process it into panels. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Lancaster... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sam West wrote:
[quote:69188b2b6f]On Oct 5, 1:22 pm, Don Lancaster <d... at (no spam) tinaja.com> wrote:
Sam West wrote:
Mokenergy proposes makinghydrogenfrom sunlight and water. So, its
carbonfreehydrogen(CFH)
Not even wrong.
The pv step in the makinghydrogenfrom sunlight and water is currently
a net energy sink. And thus a net destroyer of gasoline and other
hydrocarbons.
There is presently an EXTREMEcarbontax to makinghydrogenfrom
sunlight and water. This tax will get worse before it gets better.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf
CFH remains an outright myth.
And likely always will. Unless a direct pond scum scheme can be come up
with that does NOT involve recoverable electricity as an intermediate step.
IF the pv step ever becomes a net energy source (possibly eight years
after the cost drops under a quarter per peak watt), the electricity
will then be far too valuable to makehydrogenwith. Because of the
staggering loss of exergy inherent in electrolysis.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d... at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
Don,
at means they avoid all the carbon it cost
making them in about a day.
Conventional solar panels take about 10 weeks to make enough energy to
cancel out their carbon costs.
[/quote:69188b2b6f]
Total bullshit.
Also not even wrong.
The longer you run the panel, the more gasoline you destroy.
Each panel has a two position switch on it. In position "A", you destroy
a lot of gasoline and consume a lot of carbon. In position "B", you
destroy and consume even more.
<http://www.tinaja.com/glib/morenrgf.pdf>
It is the carbon in the amortization costs of running a net energy sink
that consumes huge amounts of carbon.
Absolute proof is that not one power utility anyplace ever is using pv
for routine peaking free of subsidies, r/d, or greenie pr.
Not one net watthour of pv electricity has EVER been produced.
pv panels today are in NO MANNER renewable nor sustainable.
They CERTAINLY have a very LARGE carbon footprint.
The big lie is that today's pv panels are green. They are black. Very black.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PV... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sam West <smantenna at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
[quote:9367b44e29]I recall a paper I read by Mr. Mook that said there is a carbon
component to making a solar panel. Mr. Mook's CPV panels operate a
5,800x solar intensity. That means they avoid all the carbon it cost
making them in about a day.
[/quote:9367b44e29]
What does solar magnification have to do with the energy and resources
needed to build a panel? *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Lancaster... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PV wrote:
[quote:4664f3ca34]Sam West <smantenna at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
I recall a paper I read by Mr. Mook that said there is a carbon
component to making a solar panel. Mr. Mook's CPV panels operate a
5,800x solar intensity. That means they avoid all the carbon it cost
making them in about a day.
What does solar magnification have to do with the energy and resources
needed to build a panel? *
[/quote:4664f3ca34]
One of the many, many unsolved problems with pv magnification is this:
If you turn off the output, the panel melts.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:07:50 -0700, Don Lancaster wrote:
[quote:9c86163b6a]PV wrote:
Sam West <smantenna at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
I recall a paper I read by Mr. Mook that said there is a carbon
component to making a solar panel. Mr. Mook's CPV panels operate a
5,800x solar intensity. That means they avoid all the carbon it cost
making them in about a day.
What does solar magnification have to do with the energy and resources
needed to build a panel? *
One of the many, many unsolved problems with pv magnification is this:
If you turn off the output, the panel melts.
[/quote:9c86163b6a]
First, there has to be a panel. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DanB... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bill Ward wrote:
[quote:119f9698ab]On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:07:50 -0700, Don Lancaster wrote:
PV wrote:
Sam West <smantenna at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
I recall a paper I read by Mr. Mook that said there is a carbon
component to making a solar panel. Mr. Mook's CPV panels operate a
5,800x solar intensity. That means they avoid all the carbon it cost
making them in about a day.
What does solar magnification have to do with the energy and resources
needed to build a panel? *
One of the many, many unsolved problems with pv magnification is this:
If you turn off the output, the panel melts.
First, there has to be a panel.
Here, here! There are 'said' to be billions worth in? Well, what ever[/quote:119f9698ab]
country 'Sam', aka Mook, was spouting some year ago........
Burma?
I'm sure Sam, aka Mook will chime in....
Mok industries, Mok energy, bahhahahahahahahahahah. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam West... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Don,
I feel I must sort out your disinformation here. So, lets start with
a few clear facts.
According to Mr. Mook's testimony to the Ohio House of Representatives
last year,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20023580/Testimony
we humans generate 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year by
burning 11 billion tons of carbon to release heat at a rate of 17
trillion watts on average to power industry. According to Mook this
may all be replaced by burning 3.3 billion tons of hydrogen. He says
this hydrogen comes from breaking down 8.1 trillion gallons of
desalinated seawater into hydrogen and oxygen. This requires a carbon
free power source be built to provide the energy to break down water
like this. Mr. Mook proposes using the sun as that power source.
Back in the day (1954) people like Hubbert and Straus proposed high-
temperature nuclear reactors to do the job. In 1961 JFK tasked
Brookhaven National Labs with the job of coming up with commercial
high-temp reactors to drive purification and thermolysis of seawater
at low cost. By 1963 they had finished their study. It was ignored
by LBJ after JFK's death. But that BNL study called for the creation
of large nuclear power plants that broke down water into hydrogen and
oxygen at very low cost. The hydrogen made in this way is piped to
stationary power plants around the country. Additional hydrogen is
combined with low-rank carbon fuels to create what they called liquid
transportation fuels - I'd say gasoline from coal and hydrogen at a
cost of $3 per barrel. Oil in that day was selling for $2 per
barrel. Hydrogen would be sold for $50 a ton the equivalent of $2 per
barrel price. So, hydrogen eventually comes to dominate and the coal,
gas and oil fields eventually shut down as hydrogen fuel displaces
carbon fuels. This was dusted off and submitted to Congress by Mr.
Carter in the 70s. Then, TMI, Karen Silkwood and China Syndrome
killed it. Mr. Mook looked at this study and asked what price must he
make solar panels for to replace the low priced nuclear power in this
BNL study? If he could do that, then we could implement a hydrogen
economy with solar energy instead of nuclear energy. That's what he
did. According to Mook there are two factors. The first is
efficiency. People need about 35 trillion watts of nuclear thermal
energy to make 3.3 billion tons of hydrogen from 8.1 trillion gallons
of water each year. Multiply by 5 to account for the lack of
availablity of sunlight 165 trillion watts of solar panels to do the
same job.
Hydrogen made at less than $700 per ton gets us this energy at $30 per
barrel oil equivalent price and makes $50 per barrel oil from coal. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam West... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The carbon footprint comes from the mass of silicon used. A ton of
silicon consumes a ton of carbon. Reduce the area and the mass of
silicon is reduced. Reduce the mass of silicon and carbon mass is
reduced. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam West... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Don,
More malicious lies. Mr. Mook's water filled lens system combined
with his optical bandpass filter - a subject of his patents -
automatically cools hotspots |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:44 am
|
|