Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion...

"BMJ" wrote in message

> Thomas Bartkus wrote:
> > Changing the subject - but just a little
> >
> > Bush just put out another speech touting hydrogen fuel cell technology,
as a
> > means of getting us off our oil dependency.
>
> This is one method I'm sure will work, but not right away. There are
> too many issues that have to be dealt with before there will be
> widespread commercialization.
>
> And if I hear another person
> > talk about the billions of tons (of hydrogen) available from the ocean I
may
> > just have a stroke.
> >
> > There is no source of free hydrogen - free as in elemental hydrogen that
> > contains the chemical energy we seek.
>
> Ah, yes. It's available in the form of dihydrogen monoxide.

The H20 is there BUT the energy is *not* available!

The hydrogen is bound to the oxygen and the chemical energy is gone. No
fuel cell can run on your dihydrogen monoxide. You must first add all that
energy *back* to liberate the elemental hydrogen .

There is no conspiracy to suppress that pill that lets you fill your gas
tank with water.
Hydrogen aplenty but still no chemical energy available to run the engine!

> > IOW - We don't want the hydrogen, we want the chemical energy available
in
> > free hydrogen and there is no free hydrogen available (on this planet!)
..
>
> Actually, hydrogen would be a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline, as
> well as being less combustible, making it comparatively safer to store
> and handle.

Yes. The car would run clean.
BUT - how do you cleanly obtain the hydrogen that powers the fuel cell in
the first place?
And
How do you extract it from your dihydrogen monoxide without spending more
energy and creating more pollution than simply burning the hydrocarbon you
extract from the oil well?

> > We can only invest the energy we obtain from some other source (fossil
> > fuels? Nuclear? Solar) and liberate it from water or natural gas.
>
> Initially, yes, until the process becomes self-sustaining.

Self-sustaining? How so?
You are gauranteed to get back less energy from the hydrogen fuel than it
takes to produce the hydrogen. Not more!

> Whatever
> > advantages fuel cell technology may offer, hydrogen is not a *source* of
> > energy available to replace our dependency on fossil fuels!
> >
> > It ain't even "clean" if we need to use fossil fuels or nuclear energy
to
> > produce it!
> > Is this or is this not a total fraud?
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
>
> Hydrogen can be produced through electrolysis, so it would necessitate
> the presence of electrical power. Clean sources of electricity include
> hydroelectric stations, wind turbines, and photovoltaics or generators
> that are fuelled with methane produced from the decomposition of manure
> or plant waste.

Yes. It is a technologically feasable way to *store* the energy you must
*first* produce by those methods.
Now the problem is producing the vast quantities of energy (by those clean
methods!) to actually replace the fossil fuels we burn. A problem *not
solved* by any fuel cell technology.

> Where these power sources are located is another matter, but not an
> insurmountable problem.

That is the *only* problem.
And possibly insurmountable at that. ( maybe
Thomas Bartkus
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

BMJ wrote:

> Actually, hydrogen would be a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline, as
> well as being less combustible, making it comparatively safer to store
> and handle.

Uh, hello?

> Initially, yes, until the process becomes self-sustaining.

Perpetuum Mobile?

> Hydrogen can be produced through electrolysis, so it would necessitate
> the presence of electrical power. Clean sources of electricity include
> hydroelectric stations, wind turbines, and photovoltaics or generators
> that are fuelled with methane produced from the decomposition of manure
> or plant waste.

Electricity can also be produced from electrical power. If we did these
things, it would instantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. Since
we aren't investing in these processes on a large scale right now, it
seems unlikely that we will invest in the _less_efficient_ production
of hydrogen from the same energy sources.

If you want to know where the hydrogen will come from, look up "shift
reaction" and "steam reforming." Come on, you learned this stuff in
first year chemistry.

This newsgroup has taught me one thing, which is that scientists are no
more science literate, when it comes to discussing economics and
policy, than GW Bush. No wonder we are unemployable
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

Thomas Bartkus wrote:

<snip>

>>Ah, yes. It's available in the form of dihydrogen monoxide.
>
>
> The H20 is there BUT the energy is *not* available!
>
> The hydrogen is bound to the oxygen and the chemical energy is gone. No
> fuel cell can run on your dihydrogen monoxide. You must first add all that
> energy *back* to liberate the elemental hydrogen .

You may want to examine a typical combustion reaction to see what
actually is happening.

>
> There is no conspiracy to suppress that pill that lets you fill your gas
> tank with water.
> Hydrogen aplenty but still no chemical energy available to run the engine!

By your logic, all fuels would be incapable of doing that.

<snip>

>>Actually, hydrogen would be a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline, as
>>well as being less combustible, making it comparatively safer to store
>>and handle.
>
>
> Yes. The car would run clean.
> BUT - how do you cleanly obtain the hydrogen that powers the fuel cell in
> the first place?
> And
> How do you extract it from your dihydrogen monoxide without spending more
> energy and creating more pollution than simply burning the hydrocarbon you
> extract from the oil well?

How does one obtain thermal energy from any fuel?

<snip>

>>Initially, yes, until the process becomes self-sustaining.
>
>
> Self-sustaining? How so?
> You are gauranteed to get back less energy from the hydrogen fuel than it
> takes to produce the hydrogen. Not more!

You would require conventional fuels to run the process until there is
sufficient hydrogen available to replace it.

<snip>

>> > What am I missing?
>>
>>
>>Hydrogen can be produced through electrolysis, so it would necessitate
>>the presence of electrical power. Clean sources of electricity include
>>hydroelectric stations, wind turbines, and photovoltaics or generators
>>that are fuelled with methane produced from the decomposition of manure
>>or plant waste.
>
>
> Yes. It is a technologically feasable way to *store* the energy you must
> *first* produce by those methods.
> Now the problem is producing the vast quantities of energy (by those clean
> methods!) to actually replace the fossil fuels we burn. A problem *not
> solved* by any fuel cell technology.

Okay, since you don't like fuel cells, have you considered Seebeck
effect thermoelectric converters?

>
>
>>Where these power sources are located is another matter, but not an
>>insurmountable problem.
>
>
> That is the *only* problem.
> And possibly insurmountable at that. ( maybe

It's more a question of geography (availability of reservoirs for
hydropower or sufficient sunlight for PV) and the economic aspects of
transmitting the power that's produced to the hydrogen plants.

> Thomas Bartkus
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

Thomas Bartkus wrote:
> wrote in message
>
>
>>>Ah, yes. It's available in the form of dihydrogen monoxide.
>>
>>Which, in its dehydrated form, is extremely light weight and
>>an infinite amount can be stored in a vehicle's feul tank.
>
>
> In point of fact - on a per pound basis, it would yield less energy than
> gasoline.
>
> Okay - I will need to look that up

A reference text in mechanical engineering (such as Mark's) or chemical
engineering (Perry's) should give you that information.

>
> What I am sure of, however, is that there won't be a heck of a lot of
> difference. Burning a pound of free hydrogen won't yield much more energy
> than burning a pound of isooctane.

Again, consider what the actual combustion reaction would be. Remember
that the exact stochiometry seldom applies because of incomplete
combination of the air-fuel mixture prior to ignition. This can be
overcome by using excess air, but that'll mean that some of the energy
released through burning goes into heating it. The combustion will
likely be complete, but the now-hot excess air goes up the exhaust stack
and that's energy that's lost, reducing the thermal efficiency of the
engine.

In addition, if liquid fuel is used, the size of the droplets have to be
as small as possible to minimize the amount of energy required to ignite
it. If those droplets are too large, the fuel might not burn completely
before it's exhausted, resulting in burning fuel going up the stack and,
in addition to losing energy that might otherwise have been extracted,
will add to exhaust pollution.

>
> And it may quite possibly yield less.

You'd have to consider what the combustion reaction is and then check
the energy balance.

> Thomas Bartkus
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

"BMJ" wrote in message

> Thomas Bartkus wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Ah, yes. It's available in the form of dihydrogen monoxide.
> >
> >
> > The H20 is there BUT the energy is *not* available!
> >
> > The hydrogen is bound to the oxygen and the chemical energy is gone.
No
> > fuel cell can run on your dihydrogen monoxide. You must first add all
that
> > energy *back* to liberate the elemental hydrogen .
>
> You may want to examine a typical combustion reaction to see what
> actually is happening.

Burning oil or burning gasoline are quite similar.
With gasoline you are breaking the bonds between hydrogen and carbon
(consuming a small amount of energy in the process, I believe) and
liberation the large energy potentials of binding Carbon with oxygen
producing C02 and hydrogen with oxygen (H20). Now you have C02 and H20 - 2
compounds which can't be used as fuel because the chemical energy is *gone*.

Burning free hydrogen in air breaks the (H2) bond - again consuming a minor
amount of energy - and producing H20. Again - the energy we are seeking has
been used up. There is no free hydrogen available in the water without
adding all that liberated energy back again.

> > There is no conspiracy to suppress that pill that lets you fill your gas
> > tank with water.
> > Hydrogen aplenty but still no chemical energy available to run the
engine!
>
> By your logic, all fuels would be incapable of doing that.

Doing what?

> >>Actually, hydrogen would be a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline, as
> >>well as being less combustible, making it comparatively safer to store
> >>and handle.
> >
> >
> > Yes. The car would run clean.
> > BUT - how do you cleanly obtain the hydrogen that powers the fuel cell
in
> > the first place?
> > And
> > How do you extract it from your dihydrogen monoxide without spending
more
> > energy and creating more pollution than simply burning the hydrocarbon
you
> > extract from the oil well?
>
> How does one obtain thermal energy from any fuel?

By liberating the energy stored in the fuel!

Water is not a fuel because that easy chemical energy is no longer there.
And you cannot extract hydrogen fuel from the water without putting all that
energy back - and then some!

> >>Initially, yes, until the process becomes self-sustaining.
> >
> >
> > Self-sustaining? How so?
> > You are gauranteed to get back less energy from the hydrogen fuel than
it
> > takes to produce the hydrogen. Not more!
>
> You would require conventional fuels to run the process until there is
> sufficient hydrogen available to replace it.

If you did that (and you can!), you would have substantially *less* energy
in the form of fuel than you began with.

Sorry to be the curmudgeon BUT
Hydrogen as a fuel is a (possibly useful!) energy *storage* technology. It
is certainly not an energy *producing* technology to replace our reliance on
fossil fuels.

Wish I were wrong.

>
> >> > What am I missing?
> >>
> >>
> >>Hydrogen can be produced through electrolysis, so it would necessitate
> >>the presence of electrical power. Clean sources of electricity include
> >>hydroelectric stations, wind turbines, and photovoltaics or generators
> >>that are fuelled with methane produced from the decomposition of manure
> >>or plant waste.
> >
> >
> > Yes. It is a technologically feasable way to *store* the energy you
must
> > *first* produce by those methods.
> > Now the problem is producing the vast quantities of energy (by those
clean
> > methods!) to actually replace the fossil fuels we burn. A problem *not
> > solved* by any fuel cell technology.
>
> Okay, since you don't like fuel cells, have you considered Seebeck
> effect thermoelectric converters?

Yes. For cooling my aquarium!
Simple mechanism. No moving parts. Lightweight.
Unfortunately, not much cooling capacity compared with compressors and
refrigerants.

And who says I don't like fuel cell technology?

There's just nothing in it to solve our energy problems.
Thomas Bartkus

> >>Where these power sources are located is another matter, but not an
> >>insurmountable problem.
> >
> >
> > That is the *only* problem.
> > And possibly insurmountable at that. ( maybe
>
> It's more a question of geography (availability of reservoirs for
> hydropower or sufficient sunlight for PV) and the economic aspects of
> transmitting the power that's produced to the hydrogen plants.
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Russell.Martin RemoveThis @wdn.com wrote:

> BMJ wrote:
>> Thomas Bartkus wrote:
>>> Changing the subject - but just a little
>>>
>>> Bush just put out another speech touting hydrogen fuel cell technology, as a
>>> means of getting us off our oil dependency.
>>
>> This is one method I'm sure will work, but not right away. There are
>> too many issues that have to be dealt with before there will be
>> widespread commercialization.
>>
>> And if I hear another person
>>> talk about the billions of tons (of hydrogen) available from the ocean I may
>>> just have a stroke.
>>>
>>> There is no source of free hydrogen - free as in elemental hydrogen that
>>> contains the chemical energy we seek.
>>
>> Ah, yes. It's available in the form of dihydrogen monoxide.
>
> Which, in its dehydrated form, is extremely light weight and
> an infinite amount can be stored in a vehicle's feul tank.

Very funny--haha--- dihydrogen monoxide. With a boiling point of 100 oC,
and is the endproduct of the combustion of (usually gaseous) H and
(usually gaseous) O.

And, of course, in photosynthesis, H2O gets broken down into--guess
what--O2 and two protons and the electrons that came off the hydrogens get
passed along the co-factor pathways (NAD, NADP) to what are called
"electron acceptors"

> snip
>
> Cheers,
> Russell
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Thomas Bartkus wrote:

>
> "BMJ" wrote in message
>
>> Thomas Bartkus wrote:
>>> Changing the subject - but just a little
>>>
>>> Bush just put out another speech touting hydrogen fuel cell technology,
> as a
>>> means of getting us off our oil dependency.
>>
>> This is one method I'm sure will work, but not right away. There are
>> too many issues that have to be dealt with before there will be
>> widespread commercialization.
>>
>> And if I hear another person
>>> talk about the billions of tons (of hydrogen) available from the ocean I
> may
>>> just have a stroke.
>>>
>>> There is no source of free hydrogen - free as in elemental hydrogen that
>>> contains the chemical energy we seek.
>>
>> Ah, yes. It's available in the form of dihydrogen monoxide.
>
> The H20 is there BUT the energy is *not* available!
>
> The hydrogen is bound to the oxygen and the chemical energy is gone. No
> fuel cell can run on your dihydrogen monoxide. You must first add all that
> energy *back* to liberate the elemental hydrogen .
>
> There is no conspiracy to suppress that pill that lets you fill your gas
> tank with water.
> Hydrogen aplenty but still no chemical energy available to run the engine!
>
>>> IOW - We don't want the hydrogen, we want the chemical energy available
> in
>>> free hydrogen and there is no free hydrogen available (on this planet!)
> .
>>
>> Actually, hydrogen would be a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline, as
>> well as being less combustible, making it comparatively safer to store
>> and handle.
>
> Yes. The car would run clean.
> BUT - how do you cleanly obtain the hydrogen that powers the fuel cell in
> the first place?

There is actually a very weird low efficiency photoelectrochemical process
that yields hydrogen. Saw an article on this decades ago. I have no idea
where its at now. But some damned oil company has probably filed a patent
on it.


===== no change to below, included for reference and context =====

> And
> How do you extract it from your dihydrogen monoxide without spending more
> energy and creating more pollution than simply burning the hydrocarbon you
> extract from the oil well?
>
>>> We can only invest the energy we obtain from some other source (fossil
>>> fuels? Nuclear? Solar) and liberate it from water or natural gas.
>>
>> Initially, yes, until the process becomes self-sustaining.
>
> Self-sustaining? How so?
> You are gauranteed to get back less energy from the hydrogen fuel than it
> takes to produce the hydrogen. Not more!
>
>> Whatever
>>> advantages fuel cell technology may offer, hydrogen is not a *source* of
>>> energy available to replace our dependency on fossil fuels!
>>>
>>> It ain't even "clean" if we need to use fossil fuels or nuclear energy
> to
>>> produce it!
>>> Is this or is this not a total fraud?
>> >
>> > What am I missing?
>>
>>
>> Hydrogen can be produced through electrolysis, so it would necessitate
>> the presence of electrical power. Clean sources of electricity include
>> hydroelectric stations, wind turbines, and photovoltaics or generators
>> that are fuelled with methane produced from the decomposition of manure
>> or plant waste.
>
> Yes. It is a technologically feasable way to *store* the energy you must
> *first* produce by those methods.
> Now the problem is producing the vast quantities of energy (by those clean
> methods!) to actually replace the fossil fuels we burn. A problem *not
> solved* by any fuel cell technology.
>
>> Where these power sources are located is another matter, but not an
>> insurmountable problem.
>
> That is the *only* problem.
> And possibly insurmountable at that. ( maybe
> Thomas Bartkus
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, wrote:

> BMJ wrote:
>
>> Actually, hydrogen would be a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline, as
>> well as being less combustible, making it comparatively safer to store
>> and handle.
>
> Uh, hello?
>
>> Initially, yes, until the process becomes self-sustaining.
>
> Perpetuum Mobile?
>
>> Hydrogen can be produced through electrolysis, so it would necessitate
>> the presence of electrical power. Clean sources of electricity include
>> hydroelectric stations, wind turbines, and photovoltaics or generators
>> that are fuelled with methane produced from the decomposition of manure
>> or plant waste.
>
> Electricity can also be produced from electrical power.

Sounds kinda "circular" to me. Like, you can produce money if you have
money to start, right?

If we did these
> things, it would instantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. Since
> we aren't investing in these processes on a large scale right now, it
> seems unlikely that we will invest in the _less_efficient_ production
> of hydrogen from the same energy sources.
>
> If you want to know where the hydrogen will come from, look up "shift
> reaction" and "steam reforming." Come on, you learned this stuff in
> first year chemistry.

Electrolysis is my favorite phenomenon, but fancy would be bioengineered
bacteria that could consume oil and spit out H2 and carbon (how about
diamonds?).

> This newsgroup has taught me one thing, which is that scientists are no
> more science literate,

Got anyone in mind?

when it comes to discussing economics and
> policy, than GW Bush. No wonder we are unemployable


>
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

Okay. Here are a few numbers, rudely and crudely googled, to start playing
with. Someone please shout out if this doesn't look right.

A gallon of gasoline, when burned efficiently, yields about 5 kilowatt-hours
of energy.

The amount of sunlight striking the earths surface is about 4.2
kilowatt-hours per square meter per day. I believe that to be an average
over the whole surface counting day/night summer/winter cloudy/sunny
NorthPole/Equator.

That's actually a lot higher than I thought it would be!

Assuming 100% conversion efficiency, that would mean that less than 2 square
meter could be used to produce gasoline at a rate of 1 gallon/day. Or the
equivalent as elemental hydrogen fuel if you wish. I would expect 5
kilowatt-hours of electricity would produce enough elemental hydrogen that,
when burned back to water, would yield something close to the original 5
kilowatt-hours input. I *think* electrolysis is very efficient. Does
anyone know?

Now, what is the conversion efficiency of solar cells?
Or
The tall fescue on my front lawn - what is the solar energy -> hydrocarbon
production efficiency look like.

If I could power my pickup with grass, I wouldn't need to buy gasoline in
the summer
Thomas Bartkus
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

"Thomas Bartkus" wrote in message

> Okay. Here are a few numbers, rudely and crudely googled, to start
playing
> with. Someone please shout out if this doesn't look right.
>
> A gallon of gasoline, when burned efficiently, yields about 5
kilowatt-hours
> of energy.

Whoops! My original google source was wrong!
That should have been a whopping 33.5 kilowatt-hours in a single gallon of
gasoline.
Burning a single gallon of gasoline yields a *heck of a lot* of energy!

Going back to solar at 4.2 kilowatt-hours/day on a typical square meter.
You would need to convert 100% of the solar energy falling on 8 square
meters on an average day to produce 1 gallon of fuel as gasoline.

Make that 192 square meters if you want to produce 1 gallon per hour.

Assuming, of course, that you could capture 100% of the sunlight with
perfect conversion efficiency.

And it only takes 0.16 lbs of raw hydrogen (H2) to match the combustion
energy in 1 single lb of fuel so hydrogen gas really is energy dense when
compared to gasoline. With gasoline at about 6.5 lbs/gal, he trick is to
carry 12 * 6.5 *.0.16 = 12.48 lbs of hydrogen to match the energy content of
a modest 12 gallon gas tank.

It's been a slow day
Thomas Bartkus
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion...