Free energy VS Fossil Fuel

[ttystikk]

RTFT

In other words, you don't have one. Thanks for admitting that.

 

[Fubard]

In other words, you don't have one. Thanks for admitting that.

No, it's already been said (even though electrolysis is NOT the way most hydrogen is produced, thanks for showing you know even less than I thought).

And thanks for admitting you don't remember something rather recent which I think you even commented on. Or that you have no interest in actually reading what has been posted and only wish to behave like a child.

It's one of the two anyway.

 

[ttystikk]

No, it's already been said (even though electrolysis is NOT the way most hydrogen is produced, thanks for showing you know even less than I thought).

And thanks for admitting you don't remember something rather recent which I think you even commented on. Or that you have no interest in actually reading what has been posted and only wish to behave like a child.

It's one of the two anyway.

Derp.

 

[ttystikk]

A process has recently been developed that splits water by electrolysis but keeps the resulting hydrogen and oxygen separate, significantly simplifying things. One step closer to practicality.

They're building hydrogen fueling stations in southern California that use onsite solar panels to generate fuel. This isn't going to power a large number of vehicles as currently designed but it is a start.

 

[Fubard]

Derp.

Well, that makes it clear which one you are.

 

[ttystikk]

Well, that makes it clear which one you are.

I just give your attitude back to you, with interest.

Maybe if you quit being a dick you'd get a better response.

 

[Fubard]

I just give your attitude back to you, with interest.

Maybe if you quit being a dick you'd get a better response.

Coming from one who can't even follow a thread properly...

 

[ttystikk]

Coming from one who can't even follow a thread properly...

Organize your thoughts.
Make persuasive points.
Respect the dignity of your debating partners.
Use logic instead of personal attacks.

These are the tools that gain you converts and credibility.

It is true that many others here can't use these points in their arguments, either, but that doesn't mean they aren't necessary.

 

[choomer]

I'm just trying to keep up and respond to one subject at a time and not miss so much, ya freakin' manic lol

Dirigibles are anything but a replacement for heavy rail freight service. Just for openers, 'wind' and other weather. Rail is frankly far more efficient than air travel even under ideal conditions, gas bags notwithstanding.

Dedicated power generation plants are almost always far more efficient than small power plants in moving vehicles. Load balancing is easier, too. Electric trains deliver the energy of braking and downgrades back into the grid. Insane it might seem, diesel locomotives also convert momentum into electricity- but then send it to giant heating coils on the roof of the unit where fans blow the heat out into the atmosphere. Gigawatts of electric power wasted every year, every time a train stops.

Solar panels replace other generation. It's a snowball effect and we should keep rolling that snowball bigger and bigger. Wind will help. Geothermal can be throttled and therefore used for load balancing. Fuel cells are an additional option, especially once more of the the necessary methane feedstock can be sourced from organic materials.

Better batteries are on the way. Stationary installations don't need to be compact; they need to be efficient and have high cycle lives. Capacitor tech is also advancing, these have the potential to accept a large charge quickly, reducing wait times and effectively extending practical range.

To be honest, I'd really rather not utilize nuclear power in any form; unless the processes involved leave no radioactive fractions with half lives longer than a few years or so, the price is just too high. Saddling dozens of generations yet unborn with massive amounts of nuclear waste is a cost we humans cannot equitably calculate, nevermind repay.

Stirling engine based solar power has real promise and I'd like to see how this technology matures.

Combined cycle technologies also have enormous potential. One of my favorite examples is the use of stationary natural gas or propane electrical generation onsite at a greenhouse facility; the power can be used onsite for lighting, HVAC, controls, etc, the heat can keep the facility warm in winter and has other uses, and even the CO² generated can be delivered to the plants, nullifying emissions issues even while improving growth! The Dutch are already well ahead of us in developing this approach.

Just keeping you on your toes.

Dirigibles do have a place if you abandon the "gas bag" design and incorporate the advantages and technology of aeronautics that have been discovered since the Hindenburg. Why not design a "flat" rigid infrastructure dirigible that would be much more able to navigate wind instead of being at it's mercy?
Regular avionics have conquered wind to a point but if the weather is extreme enough airports still shut down.

Dedicated energy production may be more efficient than on demand in production but still suffers the waste of overproduction to meet demand and transmission that on demand does not have to do.
Regenerative braking is realized in the train industry but the reason the rheostaic braking is a realization of this is the weight of storage for storage of the generated electricity is much more massive than the equal amount of energy represented by diesel.

Solar cells and wind do have a place, but we seem to realize them in the most inefficient way possible.
Bladed HAWT needs energy to "spin up" to the speed needed to actually start harvesting energy and also needs energy to be positioned to face into the wind but does have a better conversion factor of wind when those prior costs are not factored in.
Look at the comparison chart here.
Better solar tech would utilize much more of light spectrum than the small portion of visible light it does currently. When that becomes available then solar starts eating at conventional energy sources due to cost/benefit.

The methane argument is very tempting except that the bacteria needed to create the methane is very fickle and needs a very narrow area of optimal circumstances to create methane that will burn. Couple that with the fact that methane becomes crystalline during compression which makes it very expensive to compress as the process "eats" the impeller that compresses it.
I was a BIG fan of methane cropping compact pork production farming until I talked w/ a energy efficiency professional over beers and learned these facts.

Better batteries have been prophesized for quite a while, but compactness IS a very big part of it. Would your cell phone be as convenient as it is if it were powered by a lead/acid battery? Weight and size will always have a place in better battery tech.
Better battery tech is absolutely vital to combat wind/solar feast/famine aspect and decentralization of generation.
Oil rules because of the density of energy vs. weight/volume it has.

Nuclear is still cleaner than conventional energy sources in the the necessary degradation of the environment to harvest said conventional energy sources.

Combined tech IS the best way to utilize energy completely. Unfortunately the cost to fully utilize that combination is many factors greater unless it is taken into account from the initial planning of ANYTHING and human foresight has failed at that consistently.

 

[choomer]

The "test run" of them is in my area, all urban with lots of slow twisty bits and not just nice straight runs on open roads so they get the punishment, and a company called Solvay has a fuel station just for H2 fuel cell vehicles, anyone can use it with there being, I think, a few H² trucks in and around the Antwerp harbour.

Obviously that's the biggest difference, this was always planned as a "long term" test involving more than just a fleet of buses as some sort of promotional thing, so there was more thinking done on the supply, etc, front. Another huge difference is that Antwerp has one of the biggest harbours in Europe, so there's obviously easier importation IF the supply is not made by someone like Solvay in the Antwerp harbour industrial complex, plus the ability to use the hydrogen currently treated as a "waste product" of some of the chemical processes in said industrial complex. That bit of forethought and thinking, plus at least some of the supply potentially being there anyway, and the ability to expand as necessary if necessary, puts this one near me in a whole different ball park to the penis-waving which was the Vancouver escapade.

There's a lot of interest here, especially on the public transport and freight side of things as there's a lot of buses that need replaced and a hell of a lot of trucks which do nothing but shuffle around the harbour. That's why there's the H² projects, with viable infrastructure for them, CNG stations for trucks so more can be changed from oil burner to something cleaner, and so on, as there's a hell of an amount of pollution that can be wiped off the map in various places that are high pollution areas thanks to them being large cities which are also transportation/freight hubs due to things like major airports and/or harbours. Start developing the tech for there, get your infrastructure sorted out in these places then you have a "road map" for the real world, THEN move it out into the big bad world instead of the current stupidity of trying to make all cars electric when nobody is telling us when the massive building of power stations is to start because we can't even THINK about being able to charge up more than a small minority of all motor vehicles out there NOW, never mind in 20 years.

A lot of time and money has been wasted over the last couple of decades, especially on a dead end like EV's. They have a niche place, sure, but as a full replacement for the ICE? Don't make me laugh. If only all that time and money had been spent on something truly viable instead of something which has created a time bomb, for nobody's figured out how to recycle the batteries without further cost to the "environment" either..

PS. Forgot to add, as already mentioned there are nanomaterials being developed which are extremely efficient at cracking sea water. Sure, they're "in development" but I reckon they're closer to reality than this "super battery" tech we've been promised for 3 decades.

You are correct that H² is cleaner TO BURN but have not proven it's cheaper (in energy needed to realize and money) to produce compared the cost of conventional energy production.
If you have evidence to refute that I welcome it but I would like hard evidence that can be referenced.

 

[choomer]

Given how many attempts there has been to relaunch the blimp, why do you think none have been able to become viable?
I mean, they're hardly "point to point" as the bigger the load the bigger the "landing area" needed before local distribution and we have that already, they're called airports, harbours, road/rail freight hubs, and so on.
Sorry, but the idea is like trying to fit a square peg into a hole that hasn't been cut out yet.

Could you detail these "many attempts"?

Do any of them incorporate new tech like carbon nanotubes or graphene that bring new low weight/high tensile strength materials into the equation? I'm not aware of any attempt since the Hindenburg that was not militarily pursued and we all know the oxymoronic tendency of "military intelligence".

Dirigibles don't need to "land" any more than a ocean going freighter needs to traverse land, but do need to be moored to become stationary for loading/unloading. If a "flat" model is used for dirigibles they have an enormous amount of area that can crop solar energy to be used for H² production or motive power and has much less wind resistance and reactivity although does need a light compact storage area (battery) for that solar energy.

 

[ttystikk]

Could you detail these "many attempts"?

Do any of them incorporate new tech like carbon nanotubes or graphene that bring new low weight/high tensile strength materials into the equation? I'm not aware of any attempt since the Hindenburg that was not militarily pursued and we all know the oxymoronic tendency of "military intelligence".

Dirigibles don't need to "land" any more than a ocean going freighter needs to traverse land, but do need to be moored to become stationary for loading/unloading. If a "flat" model is used for dirigibles they have an enormous amount of area that can crop solar energy to be used for H² production or motive power and has much less wind resistance and reactivity although does need a light compact storage area (battery) for that solar energy.

Solar panels are heavy, which makes them impressive for lighter than air vehicles.

Not all batteries need to be compact and energy dense; those for stationary storage applications just need to be able to hold a lot of juice and handle lots of charging cycles. They don't need to be small.

Good conversation!

Cogeneration can be a huge step forward with only a little planning. I think miniaturization will help the practicality aspects and multiply potential applications.

 

[choomer]

Solar panels are heavy, which makes them impressive for lighter than air vehicles.
Not all batteries need to be compact and energy dense; those for stationary storage applications just need to be able to hold a lot of juice and handle lots of charging cycles. They don't need to be small.
Good conversation!
Cogeneration can be a huge step forward with only a little planning. I think miniaturization will help the practicality aspects and multiply potential applications.

Back from erratically enforced vacation.

Solar is making great strides in size, weight, and energy conversion due to graphene.

Batteries (like any other energy source) will always benefit from reduction in size/weight.
Energy density, ease of transport and movement, and smallest storage space are the reasons that oil rules.
This is why electrolysized water for H² production is a "holy grail" since if it would take less energy to realize than it provides it would beat oil all to pieces for energy density.

Any time we get a chance to educate each other it's a good thing!

Miniaturization is exactly what I am a staunch advocate of except that I'm for both the miniaturization of energy production and storage for decentralization and independence.
You ever thought about an occupation in Energy Efficiency architecture design?
I think that's a field of occupation that is only going to become more necessary and desired.

Seems @Fubard had his sacred cow gored which is unfortunate.
I'd like his input on how his project is more efficient/cheaper while being cleaner (which is not in dispute).

 

[ttystikk]

You ever thought about an occupation in Energy Efficiency architecture design?

This is my current gig.

 

[Fubard]

Back from erratically enforced vacation.

Solar is making great strides in size, weight, and energy conversion due to graphene.

Batteries (like any other energy source) will always benefit from reduction in size/weight.
Energy density, ease of transport and movement, and smallest storage space are the reasons that oil rules.
This is why electrolysized water for H² production is a "holy grail" since if it would take less energy to realize than it provides it would beat oil all to pieces for energy density.

Any time we get a chance to educate each other it's a good thing!

Miniaturization is exactly what I am a staunch advocate of except that I'm for both the miniaturization of energy production and storage for decentralization and independence.
You ever thought about an occupation in Energy Efficiency architecture design?
I think that's a field of occupation that is only going to become more necessary and desired.

Seems @Fubard had his sacred cow gored which is unfortunate.
I'd like his input on how his project is more efficient/cheaper while being cleaner (which is not in dispute).

When these things are mainstream, inexpensive and do not need subsidies, plus the problem of how the likes of solar is not a permanent and stable generation supply, you'll have a point.

At this time, you don't as all you have are "ifs", "maybes", "when" and so on. I'm a realist, I know snake oil when I see it, and if the money had been spent differently then we would have real advances instead of dead-end tech.

Oh, and do remember I've suggested plenty uses for EV as well as pointed out how they're running H2 buses here (not today, buggers are on strike again). There are things that can and should be being done NOW but are not, and because of all the above then the only way anything has been "gored" is in another one of your unrealistic utopian delusions where you actually believe the BS I've been hearing for 3 decades...

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

solar can be considered a stable energy source, because of the battery storage. if you have an extended period where there isn't enough sun to keep the system charged, you might want to look into other choices, or augmenting with wind or geothermal

 

[Fubard]

solar can be considered a stable energy source, because of the battery storage. if you have an extended period where there isn't enough sun to keep the system charged, you might want to look into other choices, or augmenting with wind or geothermal

To get the required stability you are going to need some very substantial battery packs. There may be relatively small scale schemes in operation but there's now way it's fully viable now.

Wind is also unstable, which us why I suggest wind to crack seawater for H2. But as a replacement for "conventional" it isn't there.

Geothermal, that's different, that is stable. But we're looking scale here, that's a lot of holes to drill. Tidal is another pretty stable supply, but wind was quicker and cheaper to get on the market whereas, like with the drive to unleaded gasoline and catalytic converters, more research into something more stable and efficient may have been a better direction to take.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

tidal has a shit load of problems, the set up is insanely expensive, and sea water is corrosive, so up keep is a bitch

 

[Fubard]

tidal has a shit load of problems, the set up is insanely expensive, and sea water is corrosive, so up keep is a bitch

That's some of the issues, but it is one of the few "natural" forms of generation that can be counted upon to provide a guaranteed and stable 24/7 supply, like geothermal.

And that's why the "quick fix" of wind and solar has a major flaw, you need a kW of backup with "conventional" or nuclear ready at a moment's notice because storage is nowhere near viable. Same goes with EV's, they have a place but are no replacement for the ICE, even if everyone was putting the necessary infrastructure in place now.

As usual, the problem lies with successive governments in various countries, there's no joined up thinking, and we know what the chances of that is...

 

[ttystikk]

To get the required stability you are going to need some very substantial battery packs. There may be relatively small scale schemes in operation but there's now way it's fully viable now.

Wind is also unstable, which us why I suggest wind to crack seawater for H2. But as a replacement for "conventional" it isn't there.

Geothermal, that's different, that is stable. But we're looking scale here, that's a lot of holes to drill. Tidal is another pretty stable supply, but wind was quicker and cheaper to get on the market whereas, like with the drive to unleaded gasoline and catalytic converters, more research into something more stable and efficient may have been a better direction to take.

We still lots of holes for oil and gas, drilling more for geothermal is not going to be a problem.

Geothermal energy is accessible with current technology and is not a source of CO². The generation plants can be throttled up and down on short notice to work with variable output from wind, solar and tidal generation. Geothermal is basically limitless.