Zaius Nation - Some Apes Are More Equal Than Others

Sunday, January 28, 2007

The lie of the "Hydrogen Economy"

5 Comments:

At Mon Jan 29, 07:47:00 AM, pj said...: A very clear explanation of what hydrogen can and cannot do, and why we cannot rely on nuclear. Solar energy can replace nuclear as a fuel source to produce electricity however.

There is a simple mature technology already in use for over 20 years in California that can produce huge amounts of clean energy, significantly reducing CO2, without the hazards od nuclear power. This is "Concentrating Solar Power" or CSP, the technique of using banks of concave mirrors in hot desert locations to concentrate sunlight by many hundreds of times to create steam and run conventional turbines and generators. Energy thus created can be stored in salts and continue to run the generators in cloudy conditions and by night. CSP plants are being planned and built in many parts of the world.

CSP works best in hot deserts, but power is transmitted over long distances by highly efficient HVDC power lines. It is estimated that CSP power from desert locations in North Africa and the Middle East will become the major source of electricity in Europe.

Further information is available from www.trecers.net and www.trec-uk.org

Peter Jones
At Sat Feb 10, 12:17:00 AM, Unknown said...: A few facts are in order:

* Hydrogen is not a fuel source. Hydrogen is at best an inefficient battery.
No. Hydrogen is itself. It can store energy for 1,000,000 years, something no battery can do. When oxidized it makes pure water, something no battery can do.

* Hydrogen is a highly reactive element and cannot be found in its pure form anywhere on the planet. Nobody mines for hydrogen.
Nobody mines for gasoline either. Gasoline does not exist anywhere in nature in it's pure form. It requires $100,000,000 to get the first gallon of gasoline out of a new refinery, but hydrogen can be gotten from water with solar panels and a few relatively inexpensive things.

* Hydrogen must be produced from an existing media such as water.
So. You make that sound like a bad thing. Fortunately 70% of the planet is covered with water, an inexhaustable supply. When you burn the hydrogen you get the water all back again. Isn't that wonderful?

* Hydrogen must be extracted from water with the use of energy.
Wireless fusion power is delivered free daily from the closest you ever want to be to a dirty nuclear reactor like the sun. One acre of PV is 13 times more efficient in converting sunlight to power than the best crop in the world. One acre of PV cell surfaces mines the energy equvalent to one ton of coal every 11.7 hours, or 26 tonnes of hydrogen by electrolysis every year. Compare that to cotton that makes $300 per acre out of 1,000,000 gallons of federally-subsidized vote-buying irrigation water.

* The amount of energy used to create hydrogen is always greater than the amount of energy that can be utilized from the hydrogen produced.
True of all energy. It takes one third of the barrel of oil to make the products extracted from the oil. You end up with less than you started with. Why did you think hydrogen would be different? Do you believe in energy fairies? Ever heard of the laws of thermodynamics?

* Because of this, hydrogen is actually what is called an “energy sink.”
It's only called that by OILY INC shills. Nobody else in the world uses that term. Honest people call it clean renewable energy that outputs no greenhouse gases and serves just fine for transportation and other essential purposes.

http://HydrogenTRUTH.info
At Tue Feb 13, 06:45:00 AM, Dr. Zaius said...: You are mistaken, sir. Your argument describes a perpetual motion machine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Hydrogen is not a fuel source. Hydrogen is at best an inefficient battery.
No. Hydrogen is itself. It can store energy for 1,000,000 years, something no battery can do. When oxidized it makes pure water, something no battery can do.

"Hydrogen is itself?" Hydrogen is an element. Your point is? As stated by the article, I define a fuel source as something where you get more energy out of a thing than you put into it production. Like wind power, solar power, etc.

Gasoline can store energy for millions of years. Honey can store it for thousands of years. So? Your point is as unclear as your agenda is transparent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Hydrogen is a highly reactive element and cannot be found in its pure form anywhere on the planet. Nobody mines for hydrogen.
Nobody mines for gasoline either. Gasoline does not exist anywhere in nature in it’s pure form. It requires $100,000,000 to get the first gallon of gasoline out of a new refinery, but hydrogen can be gotten from water with solar panels and a few relatively inexpensive things.

In the example that you provide, after the initial investment of energy, more energy is created than was used in the first place. Look at the math:

.3 barrels of oil = 1 barrel of oil - gain is .6
1.25 ergs of work = 1 erg of Hydrogen - loss is .25

The .3 barrels figure is your words. Look at the math. See?

There was a huge loss of energy when the source for gasoline was created, the difference is that the loss of energy took place millions of years ago.

You can't make hydrogen for less energy than you put into it's production. Look it up. You can't make something for nothing. Even in Iceland where they produce Hydrogen from a Geothermal energy source, there is a loss of energy in the production process.

As stated by the article, I define a fuel source as something where you get more energy out of a thing than you put into its production. Explain how the production of Hydrogen produces more energy than is used to make it. Your argument describes a perpetual motion machine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Hydrogen must be produced from an existing media such as water.
So. You make that sound like a bad thing. Fortunately 70% of the planet is covered with water, an inexhaustable supply. When you burn the hydrogen you get the water all back again. Isn’t that wonderful?

I made something "sound bad?" I like Hydrogen for what is, not what I imagine it is. That aside, you can't make hydrogen for less energy than you put into it's production. Look it up. You can't make something for nothing. It is impossible. You completely disregard the laws of thermodynamics.

You state, "When you burn the hydrogen you get the water all back again. Isn’t that wonderful?" What you describe is impossible. That is by definition a perpetual motion machine.

As stated by the article, I define a fuel source as something where you get more energy out of a thing than you put into its production. Explain how the production of Hydrogen produces more energy than is used to make it. Your argument describes a perpetual motion machine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Hydrogen must be extracted from water with the use of energy.
Wireless fusion power is delivered free daily from the closest you ever want to be to a dirty nuclear reactor like the sun. One acre of PV is 13 times more efficient in converting sunlight to power than the best crop in the world. One acre of PV cell surfaces mines the energy equvalent to one ton of coal every 11.7 hours, or 26 tonnes of hydrogen by electrolysis every year. Compare that to cotton that makes $300 per acre out of 1,000,000 gallons of federally-subsidized vote-buying irrigation water.

If you take the energy created form one acre of PV cell and turn it into Hydrogen, there will a loss of energy in the process. Hydrogen is not a fuel source. You can't make hydrogen for less energy than you put into it's production. Look it up. You can't make something for nothing. It is impossible. You completely disregard the laws of thermodynamics.

As stated by the article, I define a fuel source as something where you get more energy out of a thing than you put into its production. Explain how the production of Hydrogen produces more energy than is used to make it. Your argument describes a perpetual motion machine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* The amount of energy used to create hydrogen is always greater than the amount of energy that can be utilized from the hydrogen produced.
True of all energy. It takes one third of the barrel of oil to make the products extracted from the oil. You end up with less than you started with. Why did you think hydrogen would be different? Do you believe in energy fairies? Ever heard of the laws of thermodynamics?

"True of all energy?" Are you mental? Look at the math:

.3 barrels of oil = 1 barrel of oil - gain is .6
1.25 ergs of work = 1 erg of Hydrogen - loss is .25

Being insulting does not make your assertion correct.

As stated by the article, I define a fuel source as something where you get more energy out of a thing than you put into its production. Explain how the production of Hydrogen produces more energy than is used to make it. Your argument describes a perpetual motion machine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Because of this, hydrogen is actually what is called an "energy sink."
It’s only called that by OILY INC shills. Nobody else in the world uses that term. Honest people call it clean renewable energy that outputs no greenhouse gases and serves just fine for transportation and other essential purposes.

Now you are arguing from an ideological standpoint. I hate oil companies, as my website will attest. My feeling towards big corporations does alter the facts. You have not thought through what you are saying, please attempt to get your fact straight before you spam my article any further. The facts are right in front of you. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. You are going to have to actually listen before you knee jerk your into a conclusion.

As stated by the article, I define a fuel source as something where you get more energy out of a thing than you put into its production. Explain how the production of Hydrogen produces more energy than is used to make it. Your argument describes a perpetual motion machine. Do you get it now?
At Tue May 08, 08:10:00 AM, splord said...: I agree with all you say in this post, Dr Zaius. I believe that any solution to the energy needs of the planet will involve many diverse aspects - I am still trying to figure out what my 'position' is regarding the various forms (solar, wind, microhydro, geothermal, etc.). My thoughts are dynamic, not static.
At Tue May 08, 01:52:00 PM, Dr. Zaius said...: Thanks, Phydeaux Speaks! Just like an IP address, dynamic is the only way to go.