| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » 12 million acre solar panel array
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:24 pm |
|
|
|
|
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR AMERICA
A twelve million acre solar panel array is proposed stretching 1,951
miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. It is some of the
sunniest lands in the US. It consists of a 10 mile wide swath. Using
16.4 billion panels and generating 8.8 trillion watts when the sun
shines, the system produces 1,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per day
with a heat value equivalent to 23.2 million barrels of oil.
Hydrogen is generated from water drawn from the Gulf of Mexico, the
RioGrande River, the Gulf of California, and the Pacific Ocean, along
with numerous rivers and streams, and water wells drilled in the
region.
Atmospheric nitrogen is used along with the solar hydrogen to create
5.7 million tons of ammonia and encapsulated hydrazine mix each day.
That ammonia goes to all of America's stationary power plants by
pipeline.
There a portion of the ammonia is decomposed into nitrogen and
hydrogen again, through an autocatalytic reaction sustained by the
decomposition of hydrazine in the line using a special mechanism that
ruptures the encapsulant with standing sound waves..
PORTABLE AND MOBILE POWER FROM THE SUN
A portion of the liquid ammonia and encapsulated hydrazine mix is used
to charge a patented polymeric boron film forming a polymeric borazane
film after reacting with the hydrogen. The hydrazine encapsulated in
the film is imbeded in the porous matrix. This film is rolled into
cannisters and used to power electric vehicles and in other portable
electric applications throughout America.
The film is unrolled through pinch rollers requiring little power,
release the hydrazine which heats the film to 170C. Hydrogen is
released from the film at that temperature as it passes between
electrodes that capture an electric current and form water from
hydrogen and atmospheric oxygen before the film is rolled to a takeup
reel. Water vapor is emitted from the electrodes which operate at
170C.
A 15 kg cannister 20 cm in diameter and 100 cm long produces 102 kWh
of electrical energy on demand in amounts ranging from 100 W to
100,000 W depending on roller speed and have an unlimited shelf life
after the date of manufacture. .
When the film is processed for its hydrogen the spent film is then
rewound into the cannister and then replaced with fresh film. The
spent film is sent to a processing center near the ammonia burning
power plant and it is unwound and cleaned. The spent film is then
heated to over 320C - where the nitrogen is evolved from boron laden
film. The spent film is then cooled and run thorugh a bath of ammonia
and hydrazine where it is chemically recharged for reuse. The
recharged film is then rolled again into a cannister and resold. The
process may be repeated over 10,000 times before the film is no longer
active.
Films range in size from 100 kW down to milliwatts - miniature film
transports that provide power to cell phones, and other portable
electronics reliably for years, and then are cheaply replaced. Smaller
devices may have disposable films which waste boron, but are still
less expensive than any existing form of battery, and have greater
power density and shelf life than any battery.
PERSONAL ENERGY FREEDOM
Eventually MEMs based microchannel chemical technology permits the
development of dispersed solar power systems based on the present
technology just described allowing it to be safely dispersed in a home
energy appliance.
Solar panels in individual homes operate small furnace sized chemical
plants that produce ammonia and hydrazine compounds from air and water
using sunlight. Operating in sealed containers for safety and
reliability.
The ammonia and hydrazine made here are used to recharge borazane
films using the technology just desribed. The furnace sized devices
house six cylinders and can recharge one every other day. 12
additional cylinders may be stored nearby, a total of 18 cylinders
provide a month's supply of energy for an independent home.
The cylinders power homes and vehicles, appliances and equipment.
A typical home would have 24 panels each 8' x 4' covering an area of
768 square feet of ground area - an area 32 feet by 24 feet.
Depending on location up to 81 kWh are produced each day from this
array in North America. This is enough to recharge a cannister just
described, every 2 days.
A single cannister drives an EV over 480 km, and powers a typical home
for more than 4 days.
The average American household in 2000AD drove 26,300 miles. That's
one cannister every 4 days as well - so a cannister produced every 2
days provides sufficient capacity to provide for all energy needs of a
typical American household with 2 automobiles. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fred Kasner |
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR AMERICA
A twelve million acre solar panel array is proposed stretching 1,951
miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. It is some of the
sunniest lands in the US. It consists of a 10 mile wide swath. Using
16.4 billion panels and generating 8.8 trillion watts when the sun
shines, the system produces 1,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per day
with a heat value equivalent to 23.2 million barrels of oil.
Hydrogen is generated from water drawn from the Gulf of Mexico, the
RioGrande River, the Gulf of California, and the Pacific Ocean, along
with numerous rivers and streams, and water wells drilled in the
region.
And where is all this hydrogen stored and then used for energy purposes?
But lets get to the real nonsense first.
What are you going to do with all that chlorine gas that is generated
when electrolying that sea water? I know we use it to kill all those
latinos trying to slip into the USA over the border.
FK |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:43 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 13, 6:49 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Quote: Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR AMERICA
A twelve million acre solar panel array is proposed stretching 1,951
miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. It is some of the
sunniest lands in the US. It consists of a 10 mile wide swath. Using
16.4 billion panels and generating 8.8 trillion watts when the sun
shines, the system produces 1,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per day
with a heat value equivalent to 23.2 million barrels of oil.
Hydrogen is generated from water drawn from the Gulf of Mexico, the
RioGrande River, the Gulf of California, and the Pacific Ocean, along
with numerous rivers and streams, and water wells drilled in the
region.
And where is all this hydrogen stored and then used for energy purposes?
Hydrogen gas is stored in geological formations - old gas wells
suitable for retrieval. Ammonia also provides a means to store it.
Quote:
But lets get to the real nonsense first.
What are you going to do with all that chlorine gas that is generated
when electrolying that sea water?
I take the seawater and desalinate it before attempting to electrolyze
it. It takes between 17 kWh and 22 kWh to remove the 35 kg of salt
from a ton of water. The chlorine stays nicely bound to the sodium
and is either discharged back into the ocean, or dried and sold to
defray costs.
Alternatively, a portion of the brine solution can be electrolyzed as
you suggest. But brine electrolysis turns it into bleach (sodium
hydroxied and hydrochloric acid solution). The salt itself can also
be reduced into chlorine gas (which has a value to a variety of
industrial processes) and sodium metal (which is used in Sodium sulfur
batteries)
Quote: I know we use it to kill all those
latinos trying to slip into the USA over the border.
FK
That's a nasty and racist thing to say and wholly untrue.
Getting control of our border is not equivalent to an attack on Mexico
or Mexicans in the USy. Trans border commerce will continue long
after we get control of our mutual border and that commerce will
benefit both countries. Trans border crime on the other hand costs
lives and money to both countries..
The real solution is improving the economies of both nations and
increasing incomes for everyone - low cost pollution free energy
achieve this. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eeyore |
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: Hydrogen gas is stored in geological formations
*IS* ???
No it *ISN'T* !
You have difficulties with discerning fact from fiction don't you ?
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Williamknowsbest |
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 13, 7:48 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hydrogen gas is stored in geological formations
*IS* ???
No it *ISN'T* !
You have difficulties with discerning fact from fiction don't you ?
Graham
You are a presumptuous little shit aren't you? haha..
Actually, for the record, I own 10 Clinton Sand wells near Cleveland
Ohio that were outfitted for Carbon Dioxide flooding.
Basically there are two sets of five wells each set up like this;
* *
*
* *
With the central well the injector well and the four surrounding wells
the lift wells.
Instead of injecting CO2 as an experiment I am flooding them with
hydrogen.
And do you know what happened? I restarted production of oil from
these wells. THis was expected anyway. CO2 can usually get another
18% or so of historic producdtion. But hydrogen has the poential to
be much more efficient than Co2.
Ever hear of the Van Deemter curve? Ever do HPLC?
Hydrogen mobilizes the oil. And this formation my geologist assures
me, will efficiently store hydrogen when the well is seasoned with
hydrogen.and I've recovered the oil remaining in the well.
Underground formations are not like big open tanks. They're more like
sponges. And when you squeeze a sponge, even though liquid runs out,
they're still moist. Material adheres to the surfaces.
Think of wet paint on the wall. If its applied too thickly it drips
and runs. If applied thinly it adheres without running - even though
its still liquid.
There is a mobile phase and a stationary phase.
In Clinton Sands only about 20% of the oil is mobile. 80% is
stationary. CO2 has the potential to mobiles another 4% or so.
Hydrogen should mobilize all of it. And it is the nature of this
particular formation - under a salt dome - that it will likely be an
efficient storage site when the well is surely and truly empty.
This is a new enhanced oil recovery technique - I'm working out the
details now - but it is rather exciting. Buying spent wells for
nothing and then increasing their value with an enhanced recovery
technique, and then taking select wells once seasoned with hydrogen
gas - to store and retrive hydrogen.
I've just returned from Texas looking at some ranches down there that
have a lot of old tired gas wells. I should be able to restart gas
production the same way - so, that's coming up soon.
But for the record, yeah, I'm injecting hydrogen in the ground and
getting some interesting commercial results. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eeyore |
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Williamknowsbest wrote:
Quote: Underground formations are not like big open tanks. They're more like
sponges.
Precisely.
So you'll never get as much hydrogen out as you put in will you ?
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Damon Hill |
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4670A7F2.D6F8173F@hotmail.com:
Quote: Williamknowsbest wrote:
Underground formations are not like big open tanks. They're more like
sponges.
So you'll never get as much hydrogen out as you put in will you ?
He intends to make up for his losses in sheer volume, I suppose.
What I'm wondering is how William manages to do all the things he
claims to do, and still has time to write numerous and lengthy
Usenet postings on a daily basis. Is he a bright but delusional
kook, or a contemporary Renaissance Man? Time will tell.
--Damon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Williamknowsbest |
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 13, 10:29 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: Williamknowsbest wrote:
Underground formations are not like big open tanks. They're more like
sponges.
Precisely.
So you'll never get as much hydrogen out as you put in will you ?
Graham
That's right. There is an irreducible amoiunt that will not return.
But in compensation, the hydrogen captured in this way releases and
mobilizes the oil and natural gas currently bound to the sand
partricles. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Williamknowsbest |
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 14, 12:07 am, Damon Hill <damon1S...@comcast.netnet> wrote:
Quote: Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:4670A7F2.D6F8173F@hotmail.com:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
Underground formations are not like big open tanks. They're more like
sponges.
So you'll never get as much hydrogen out as you put in will you ?
He intends to make up for his losses in sheer volume, I suppose.
Thinkabout it Damon, only a fixed amount of hydrogen will be lost this
way. Once the well has been seasoned with hydrogen - it becomes an
efficient hydrogen storage and retrieval system allowing the injection
and retrieval of mobile hydrogen.
No worries about the hydrogen loss though, because in capturing the
hydrogen additional natural gas and oil are mobilized and available
for production which more than offsets my costs at $170 per metric
ton.
Quote:
What I'm wondering is how William manages to do all the things he
claims to do, and still has time to write numerous and lengthy
Usenet postings on a daily basis.
Spoken as a true fool who can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
Quote: Is he a bright but delusional
And you are saying this because? lol.
Quote: kook, or a contemporary Renaissance Man? Time will tell.
haha.. sheer jealousy Damon, is that it? How about neither? But
one thing is certain, you won't tell, you haven't the capacity.
<shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Don Lancaster |
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fred Kasner wrote:
Quote: Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR AMERICA
A twelve million acre solar panel array is proposed stretching 1,951
miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. It is some of the
sunniest lands in the US. It consists of a 10 mile wide swath. Using
16.4 billion panels and generating 8.8 trillion watts when the sun
shines, the system produces 1,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per day
with a heat value equivalent to 23.2 million barrels of oil.
Hydrogen is generated from water drawn from the Gulf of Mexico, the
RioGrande River, the Gulf of California, and the Pacific Ocean, along
with numerous rivers and streams, and water wells drilled in the
region.
And where is all this hydrogen stored and then used for energy purposes?
But lets get to the real nonsense first.
What are you going to do with all that chlorine gas that is generated
when electrolying that sea water? I know we use it to kill all those
latinos trying to slip into the USA over the border.
FK
Most individuals obscenely underestimate the REAL land area needed for
large scale pv solar power.
The Springerville site 28 acres, it has a peak output of only 2.4 MW.
Thus 86 peak kilowatts per acre is the industry norm for its showcase site.
Because of uptime usage, that translates to something like 20 average
kilowats per acre.
A typical pv site needs far more land area than a coal plant AND its
mine combined.
Converting solar pv electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis, of course,
is fundamentally stupid because of the monumental and irretriveable loss
of exergy.
There ALWAYS will be more intelligent things to do with high value
electricity than instantly and irreversibly destroying most of its value.
Detailed analysis at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf and
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: don@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Williamknowsbest |
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 14, 12:36 pm, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
Quote: Fred Kasner wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR AMERICA
A twelve million acre solar panel array is proposed stretching 1,951
miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. It is some of the
sunniest lands in the US. It consists of a 10 mile wide swath. Using
16.4 billion panels and generating 8.8 trillion watts when the sun
shines, the system produces 1,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per day
with a heat value equivalent to 23.2 million barrels of oil.
Hydrogen is generated from water drawn from the Gulf of Mexico, the
RioGrande River, the Gulf of California, and the Pacific Ocean, along
with numerous rivers and streams, and water wells drilled in the
region.
And where is all this hydrogen stored and then used for energy purposes?
But lets get to the real nonsense first.
What are you going to do with all that chlorine gas that is generated
when electrolying that sea water? I know we use it to kill all those
latinos trying to slip into the USA over the border.
FK
Most individuals obscenely underestimate the REAL land area needed for
large scale pv solar power.
The Springerville site 28 acres, it has a peak output of only 2.4 MW.
Thus 86 peak kilowatts per acre is the industry norm for its showcase site.
Because of uptime usage, that translates to something like 20 average
kilowats per acre.
A typical pv site needs far more land area than a coal plant AND its
mine combined.
Converting solar pv electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis, of course,
is fundamentally stupid because of the monumental and irretriveable loss
of exergy.
There ALWAYS will be more intelligent things to do with high value
electricity than instantly and irreversibly destroying most of its value.
Detailed analysis athttp://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdfandhttp://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...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What motivated you to write this Don?
Are you saying 12 million acres isn't enough land to meet all of
America's energy needs? That's not true. I show below that 12
million acres is more than enough area to supply ALL of America's
energy needs. Its only 5 mile wide swath along the US Mexico border.
Check it out, each acre in this region is illuminated with 27,000 kWh
every day. That's 6 kWh per m2 per day. And at 18% conversion
efficiency that's 4,860 kWh ELECTRICAL generate per day per acre
usable electric power.
Now, here is where your exergy concerns don't make a helluva lot a
sense Don.
Sure, I AGREE WITH YOU that if you had a consumer who could take all
of the 58,320 million kWh produced each day from the 12 million acres
as DC electricity during the daylight hours and didn't need any
electricity at all when the sun went down, why heck yeah - they'd be
the perfect customer! haha..
But that customer doesn't exist. So, what to do?
Well, one answer is to store that energy you collect during the day in
some way to use it when you need it.
And here you start asking meaningful questions like, what's the lowest
balance of system COST - not what's the least exergy loss is - oh
exergy concerns are important, but secondary to total cycle cost -
especially once you realize that you need to have a balance of system
cost to make use of sunlight for more than a tiny fraction of your
total energy needs. I mean does anyone stop to ask what the exergy
of petroleum is burning in your engine? No. They just want to know
what it costs to take you a mile down the road. Same here
figuratively speaking.
Now, that we have put your exergy concerns to rest Don, lets look at
what we need to do to efficiently compete against oil.
One thing you can do is you can take 50,000 kWh of DC electricity
available when the sun is shining and at no other time, and create a
metric ton of hydrogen with it from 9 tons of water.
That metric ton of hydrogen has the same heating value as 6.17 metric
tons of coal, or 23.2 barrels of oil and so forth.
So, once you've fully saturated the market for DC electricity when the
sun is shining you can go and create a demand for DC electricity when
the sun is shining - yourself by making hydrogen from water and that
DC electricity when the sun is shining - provided you do so at a cost
less than the cost of coal and oil made at an equivalent heating
value.
Now, I've mentioned elsewhere I can make electricity for 1/3 cent per
kWh in the US Southwest. I have also mentioned that I can make
hydrogen for $170 per metric ton. These costs are less than the cost
of an equivalent amount of heat available from coal and oil and
natural gas. And this is all the market cares about. COST and
SUPPLY. I've got both..
Now, the proposed 12 million acres of solar collectors along the US
Mexico border captures 58,320 million kWh of solar DC electricity each
day. This is enough to make 1.17 milion metric tons of hydrogen each
day. This hydrogen has the same heating value as 7.2 million metric
tons of coal. But America uses only 3 million metric tons of coal
each year. So, that's only 488,000 metric tons of hydrogen. And to
convert that coal into 21 million barrels of liquid fuel (100% of
America's need btw) requires an additional 350,000 metric tons of
hydrogen. That's only 838,000 metric tons of hydrogen. So, this
leaves an additional 332,000 tons of hydrogen surplus. Which can be
converted to a variety of forms and exported for profit.
Who could take the equivlanet of 10% of America's oil demand?
MEXICO! Why not? Per capita energy use correlates with wealth.
Mexico is full of hardworking intelligent people. All they lack is
low cost energy. And guess what? We can provide it to them, with the
spare hydrogen we make - and create a wealthy unified vigorously
growing North America. After all, as WalMart has learned, a wealthy
Mexico buys lots and lots of American products - helping out us as we
help out them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| jerome balti |
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: That's right. There is an irreducible amoiunt that will not return.
But in compensation, the hydrogen captured in this way releases and
mobilizes the oil and natural gas currently bound to the sand
partricles.
hmmm
H2 tends to go up when CO2 stay down
then , H2 leaks through everything , through common steel too
so , maybe there 'd be problems anyway ...
--
chambres d'hôtes à Lafrançaise !
http://www.la-maison-du-saula.fr |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Williamknowsbest |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 14, 7:32 pm, jerome balti <baltibl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: That's right. There is an irreducible amoiunt that will not return.
But in compensation, the hydrogen captured in this way releases and
mobilizes the oil and natural gas currently bound to the sand
partricles.
hmmm
H2 tends to go up when CO2 stay down
Depends on the details. H2 is less dense than air. CO2 is more dense
than air. Since there is no air in these underground formations, that
doesn't really enter into it.
Quote: then , H2 leaks through everything ,
Depends again on the details. Generally speaking H2 is more
penetrating than any other gas. H2 is a much smaller molecule too.
This means it can get closer to sand particles even through a layer of
oily gunk - and attach with greater adhesion than anything else - and
release that oily gunk from its adhered state, mobilizing it. The
hydrogen, as Graham and others have pointed out, becomes immobile
itself - while the oily gunk mobilizes and freely moves out of the
well.
I mentioned the thought experiment with the paint running versus the
paint sticking - and showed how it was the thickness of the liquid
paint that determined whether the liquid was mobile or stationary.
This is what happens to the sand particles.
Now, lets do another thought experiment. Take a spoon and stick it in
a cup of coffee. Then pull it out and watch the coffee roll off the
spoon. There is a thin layer of coffee that sheets over the spoon.
Now take a snother spoon and stick it in a pot of honey. Then pull it
out and watch the honey roll off the spoon. There is a thick gob of
honey that sheets over the spoon.
A lot more honey sticks to the sppon than coffee.
Now, hydrogen is a lot more like coffee than honey.
Oil and even natural gas is a lot more like honey than coffee.
Got it?
According to my field trials, which mirror my lab bench results, every
ton of hydrogen that adheres to the sand particles releases several
tons
of oil - which more than pays for the hydrogen lost
Our next experiment is with tar sands - which is really just an
extreme version of Clinton Sands. Tar sands has oil 100% immobile.
But there's a lot of work to do before we do that.
Quote: through common steel too
Yes do you know why? First is that hydrogen is very penetrating like
I said. In this application that's agood thing. Second, and here's a
detail that counts - common steel has grains of carbon in it. Those
carbon grains react with hydrogen under high pressure producing
methane mostly.
This is actually a good thing in the context of our in-situ
experiements. And we're actually planning a series of experiements to
do insitu conversion of underground coal to hydrocarbons with injected
hydrogen. The US EPA is sort of funny about that, so we're looking to
some coal mines overseas to do these experiments early on.
Quote: so , maybe there 'd be problems anyway ...
Ever have a slow leak in a tire? You can't or shouldn't drive on flat
tires. But sometimes your tire develops a slow leak, and if you fill
it with air every time you fill your tank with gas, you're golden,
right? Until you can get to payday and a new tire. haha..
Same here. If there are any leaks at all, once adsorption is
complete, they will be slow leaks compared to our rate of use.
Batteries are useful even though they self discharge 10% per day or
so. And underground storage formations will be useful even if they
lose 1% per millenia or so, of their total capacity - all I'm looking
for is a cheap 100 day storage site for hydrogen near by ammonia
plants.
Jerome, your analysis is facile and flawed because your knowledge is
juvenile.. Hydrogen certainly has issues associated with its
commercial use. Those issues have largely been resolved.over the past
15 years. For example, teflon type coatings of pipes make them
largely impervious to embrittlement and penetration by hydrogen, just
as teflon stops eggs from sticking to a cast iron skillet..
That's because hydrogen is a molecule like any other, and hydrogen gas
easily bounces off of other hydrogen atoms even when they're strongly
bound to an underlying polymer that presents a closely packed sheet of
hydrogen to the gas - the way teflon does.
In the underground in-situ experiment case, we're seasoning a well
with hydrogen, and mobilizing all the hydrocarbons contained under a
salt dome. All the sites hydrocarbons have attached, we expect
hydrogen to attach. But because hydrocarbons are much more viscous
than hydrogen (honey vs coffee) - many hundreds times more mass of
hydrocarbons will be produced than hydrogen adsorbed. In the end, the
same physical underground features that contained natural gas and oil
for millions of years, will efficiently contain hydrogen for thousands
of years. And that suits us fine. The rates of loss will be low
enough to store a 100 day supply of hydrogen, and a network of wells
like this in strategic locations will be enough to support our
national hydrogen infrastructure which will displace oil - even while
we enhance oil recovery with hydrogen and make synthetic oil with
hydrogen - to help pay for it.
Quote: --
chambres d'hôtes à Lafrançaise !http://www.la-maison-du-saula.fr
Why haven't the oil companies done this? Because they know hydrogen
is competitive with oil. .Are they stupid? No. Clearly they haven't
done this because this is their plan B. After they get ALL of the
value out of the easily recoverable oil they can, they'll wait and see
what the price of oil gets too. Its like the last big increase in
sugar prices. There's a shortage, and the price of sugar goes up, and
then the shortage goes away, but the price never comes back down.
Their plan though is to use hydrogen made with Sulfur/Iodine reaction
using direct thermal processes in so called Gen IV reactors. These
are slated for 2030. Why 2030? Because that's when the oil companies
will need them, and they will be paid for by the taxpayers. Where did
this technology come from? From Brookhaven National Labs after Lyndon
Johnson directed them to find a cure for the looming oil shortages of
the 1970s. See, we knew America was going to run out of oil in 1970 -
way back in 1940 when we asked geologists to estimate oil supplies for
the US and Germany during WWII. So BNL came up with a solution. But
that solution was highly disruptive to big oil. So, they elected to
develop foreign sources of oil rather than domestic alternatives back
in the 1960s. The fact nuclear power plants were a bit more difficult
to manage safely was also a contributing factor.
This stuff isn't secret. It was revisted again under Jimmy Carter -
but before the former Navy Submarine nuclear engineer had a chance to
push forward with advanced nuclear power to make America independent
of foreign oil, in April 1979 we had three mile island America's worst
nuclear accident -, and so plans were shelved then. And in November
1979 - we had hostages taken in Tehran taken by a revolutionary
government that overthrew the Shah in December 1978. Then in April
1980 - reflecting in many ways the failures of an earlier Democratic
President John Kennedy's Bay of Pigs Invasion, a failed rescue attempt
made things worse for Carter.
I always wondered about that. haha.. Was the whole thing engineered
by big oil to derail Carter's plans to make this country less
dependent on the oil reserves they carefully amassed? haha..
Interesting conspiracy theory. But I have more important things to do
than spin conspiracy theories.
The big issue is getting a source of hydrogen cheaply enough to allow
these things to compete against the price of oil sometime before it
rises beyond $100 per barrel. And I think I've got it.
So, I'm doing things to gain practical experience with it going
forward.
So, I'm looking at geological storage in spent gas and oil wells as a
means to store copious quantities of hydrogen for up to 100 days with
less than 1 ppm loss. To pay for the hydrogen infrastructure that
will have utility long after the oil and gas are gone,
I will ehance oil and gas recovery from those formatoins. I even buy
spent tired old wells, use hydrogen to enhance recovery, and close
them down, when they're truly empty since I don't need them for
storage.
Hydrogen may be a dandy way to recover some sorts of tar sands in situ
- depending on the details of course.
Hydrogen may be used to convert certain types of coal and carbon
deposits in the ground to methane and liquid hydrocarbons through
insitu conversion very cheaply. It may also be a way to put out
underground coal fires while producing liquid and gaseous fuels while
reducing oxidation of the coal - fighting fire with fire , if the
liquid and gas discharges can be controlled safely..
Hydrogen can be used to upgrade low grade oils. Oil wells produce the
mobile phase of oil in the ground. In fact a major oil company has
taken its name from this fact - mobil. But the most mobile phases of
oil are produced first. Less mobile phases are produced last. So, as
the world enters secondary production, the quality of oil changes as
the oil becomes more viscous. And so you see major oil companies not
investing in new refining capacity - because why build refineries when
there isn't sufficient crude oil to supply them? Look at the crack
spread to see the real story about refineries. If there were a real
shortage you'd see crack spread skyrocket. It hasn't. The price of
CRUDE has skyrocketed,which tells you everything you need to know.
Theres a shortage of crude, not refineries. Anyway, oil companies
have invested in upgrading refineries to use lower grade less mobile
oils that are being produced presently. The availability of low cost
hydrogen allows the use of Shell's upgrade process universally to
improve the yields of lighter oil fractions (gasoline, diesel fuel,
jet fuel) from an increasingly more viscous crude.
Hydrogen can be used to synthesize hydrocarbons from coal in reactors
above ground - the Bergius process - to vastly extend our oil supplies
with zero emissions - provided the hydrogen is made from sunlight..
Hydrogen can be reacted with nitrogen in the air to produce ammonia at
low cost - a very energetic liquid - and the ammonia can be
autocatalyzed to release the hydrogen gas and nitrogen again - and the
hydrogen then burned - without using carbon at all. Perfect for
stationary power plants - of conventional design, and ultimately,
distributed stationary fuel cells in the home.
So this is my vision for America. Large solar collector fields
located in sunny regions of the nation sending gaseous hydrogen to
geological storage sites nearby. Gas is withdrawn and converted to
ammonia and distributed as liquid ammonia throughout the nation. At
power plants nationwide the ammonia is converted back to hydrogen and
nitrogen, and the hydrogen is burned in the power plants. Additional
hydrogen is used to convert coal delivered to these plants to
hydrocarbons, and the hydrocarbons sent to local refineries for
production into jet fuel diesel fuel and gasoline locally - and sold
locally.
As the coal contracts are no renewed, the spare hydrogen is
distributed by low pressure pipelines locally instead of natural gas,
and burned in homes to provide heating and cooking. Hydrogen fuel
cells that use this source of hydrogen begin to make an appearance.
By the time the major utility generators have reached the end of their
useful lives, distributed generation makes use of local gaseous
hydrogen distribution - rather than burn it at these generator sites.
The sites become basically points that convert national ammonia
transport into local gaseous hydrogen transport.
For portable applications a hydrogen storage medium is used. Hydrogen
is reacted in a boron rich polymer film - making up to 20% of the
film's weight. Hydrogen can then be released by gentle heating and
used directly in a fuel cell - where the film forms an ionomer
electrolyte as well as hydrogen source and transports the hydrogen
into the cell by moving through the cell mechanically. Spent film is
returned to be recharged with hydrogen. This allows the film to store
energy as densely as gasoline - and produce electricity directly,
while emitting only water vapor during its operation.
Enhanced oil recovery, continued oil production from our 23 billon
barrels of reserves, and synfuel production from coal and hydrogen
produce a surplus of oil in the United States since hydrogen is being
used directly. This gives the US an edge internationally, give the US
a commodity to export to help maintain its economic strength, and
gives the US some ability to control oil prices independently of
foreign suppliers. This also lowers the price of oil world wide and
spurs economic development in Mexco, China India and Indonesia
increasing demand for consumer goods - and largely benefitting US
owned businesses which either manfuacture or market consumer goods.
Rising living standards and increasing expectations lead to less
international turmoil and a growing influence of the US and increasing
regard for the US as a positive influence in international affairs.
That's the way I see it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fred Kasner |
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: On Jun 13, 6:49 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR AMERICA
A twelve million acre solar panel array is proposed stretching 1,951
miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. It is some of the
sunniest lands in the US. It consists of a 10 mile wide swath. Using
16.4 billion panels and generating 8.8 trillion watts when the sun
shines, the system produces 1,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per day
with a heat value equivalent to 23.2 million barrels of oil.
Hydrogen is generated from water drawn from the Gulf of Mexico, the
RioGrande River, the Gulf of California, and the Pacific Ocean, along
with numerous rivers and streams, and water wells drilled in the
region.
And where is all this hydrogen stored and then used for energy purposes?
Hydrogen gas is stored in geological formations - old gas wells
suitable for retrieval. Ammonia also provides a means to store it.
But lets get to the real nonsense first.
What are you going to do with all that chlorine gas that is generated
when electrolying that sea water?
I take the seawater and desalinate it before attempting to electrolyze
it. It takes between 17 kWh and 22 kWh to remove the 35 kg of salt
from a ton of water. The chlorine stays nicely bound to the sodium
and is either discharged back into the ocean, or dried and sold to
defray costs.
Alternatively, a portion of the brine solution can be electrolyzed as
you suggest. But brine electrolysis turns it into bleach (sodium
hydroxied and hydrochloric acid solution). The salt itself can also
be reduced into chlorine gas (which has a value to a variety of
industrial processes) and sodium metal (which is used in Sodium sulfur
batteries)
I know we use it to kill all those
latinos trying to slip into the USA over the border.
FK
That's a nasty and racist thing to say and wholly untrue.
Getting control of our border is not equivalent to an attack on Mexico
or Mexicans in the USy. Trans border commerce will continue long
after we get control of our mutual border and that commerce will
benefit both countries. Trans border crime on the other hand costs
lives and money to both countries..
The real solution is improving the economies of both nations and
increasing incomes for everyone - low cost pollution free energy
achieve this.
OK, so you didn't like my attempt at humor. But the facts of your
purported scientific system make me wonder if you have ever even taken
an introductory high school chemistry course. The fundamentals of
physics and chemistry seem to escape you totally.
FK |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fred Kasner |
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Williamknowsbest wrote:
Quote: On Jun 14, 12:07 am, Damon Hill <damon1S...@comcast.netnet> wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:4670A7F2.D6F8173F@hotmail.com:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
Underground formations are not like big open tanks. They're more like
sponges.
So you'll never get as much hydrogen out as you put in will you ?
He intends to make up for his losses in sheer volume, I suppose.
Thinkabout it Damon, only a fixed amount of hydrogen will be lost this
way. Once the well has been seasoned with hydrogen - it becomes an
efficient hydrogen storage and retrieval system allowing the injection
and retrieval of mobile hydrogen.
No worries about the hydrogen loss though, because in capturing the
hydrogen additional natural gas and oil are mobilized and available
for production which more than offsets my costs at $170 per metric
ton.
What I'm wondering is how William manages to do all the things he
claims to do, and still has time to write numerous and lengthy
Usenet postings on a daily basis.
Spoken as a true fool who can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
Is he a bright but delusional
And you are saying this because? lol.
kook, or a contemporary Renaissance Man? Time will tell.
haha.. sheer jealousy Damon, is that it? How about neither? But
one thing is certain, you won't tell, you haven't the capacity.
--Damon
shrug
nonsense! Once the "seasoning" has occured the adsorbtive properties of
the geological formation's have been totally use up. Now the rest of the
hydrogen you put in has no rock surfaces to adsorb on and so is similar
to any bulk container of hydrogen and any small crevices leading to the
surface will easily allow all of your precious hydrogen to leak away.
FK |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:30 am
|
|