Jim Davis' Questions re Space Power Network

On Jun 20, 8:56*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:18*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jun 20, 1:14*pm, William Mook wrote:

Hydrogen peroxide is manufactured using the anthraquinone process.
This process is a cyclic operation where the alkyl anthraquinone is
reused.

The Synthesis Loop consists of sequential

(1) hydrogenation,
(2) filtration,
(3) oxidation and
(4) extraction stages

plus a number of ancillary processes.

Since hydrogen peroxide production requires hydrogen and oxygen to
start out with, the cost of hydrogen peroxide will always be higher
than the cost of hydrogen on a weight basis.

Furthermore, since hydrogen peroxide has less energy than hydrogen on
a weight basis, the cost of energy from hydrogen peroxide energy will
always be less than the cost of hydrogen energy.

The cost of hydrogen peroxide *is about $1.50 per kg and a kg of
hydrogen peroxide has 2.7 MJ of energy.

A new high-productivity/high-yield process, based on an optimized
distribution of isomers of 2-amyl anthraquinone, has been developed by
Solvay.

In July 2008, this process allowed the construction of a "mega-scale"
single-train plant in Zandvliet (Belgium). The plant has an annual
production capacity more than twice that of the world's next-largest
single-train plant.

An even-larger plant is scheduled to come onstream at Map Ta Phut
(Thailand) in 2011.

http://www.solvaysemiconductor.com/a...,,14470-2-0,00....

With my ultra-low cost hydrogen, costs for hydrogen will come down
further.

A ton of hydrogen is needed to make 17 tons of hydrogen peroxide.

* H2 + O2 -- *H2O2
* *2 * * 32 * * * * * 34

Oxygen comes from air, so cost of hydrogen dominates.

A ton of hydrogen contains 143 Giga-Joules of energy.

A ton of hydrogen peroxide contains 2.7 Giga-Joules of energy at 100%
concentration.

Using a ton of hydrogen to make 17 tons of hydrogen peroxide leaves
you with 45.9 giga-joules of energy after starting out with 143 giga-
joules of energy. * If we make hydrogen by electrolyzing water, we
start with 220 giga-joules of energy.

Today hydrogen costs $2,500 per metric ton when made from Natural
Gas. *I sell it for less than $800 per metric ton made from sunlight
and water. * So, costs will be 1/3 as much as they are today once I
have low cost hydrogen available on a large scale.

System * * * * * * * * Cost * * * * * * * Energy Density

NiMH Battery * * * * $10.00/kg * * *0.4 Mega-Joules/kg

Hydrogen-peroxide $1.50 / kg * * 2.7 Mega-Joules/kg
($0.50/kg with low cost hydrogen)

Gallon of Gasoline *$3.00/ gal * *125 Mega-Joules/gal (46.4 MJ/kg)

Hydrogen * * * * * * * *$2.50/ kg * * *143 Mega-Joules/kg
($0.60/kg with low cost hydrogen)

You can see that hydrogen is a better value than gasoline as an energy
source. *You can also see that hydrogen peroxide is a better value as
an energy source than batteries.

Hydrogen peroxide is not a better energy source than hydrogen or
gasoline.

Even so, a hydrogen peroxide automobile can be made and it makes more
sense than a battery powered automobile.

A hybrid whose generator is run with a steam turbine powered by
hydrogen peroxide is perfectly doable. *It can be re filled with
hydrogen peroxide made in the home from air and water - using
electricity from the grid.

A 72 mpg gasoline hybrid engine would be replaced with a 6 mpg
hydrogen peroxide steam turbine engine. * *A 300 mile range requires a
50 gallon capacity.

Each gallon of hydrogen peroxide constains 10.8 mega-joules of
energy. *This requires 8 ounces of hydrogen made from a half gallon of
water using 14.4 kWh of electricity. *At $0.10 per kWh this is $1.44
per gallon of hydrogen peroxide. *Over 20 cents per mile fuel costs..

Refilling every 6 days on average (18,000 miles per year driving)
means 1 gallon must be made every 2.8 hours. *This is 5.2 kW - 6x what
a typical home uses.

This is far less costly than a Tesla, more costly than a Toyota.

The world as is needs a cheaper and better volume resource of 100e6
tonnes worth of HTP, and that's because of its daily consumption and
multiple uses as is that need to be expanded from 10e6 tonnes/year
100e6 tonnes/year. *Is there something about this fundamental global
need for h2o2 that you still do not understand?

If you were in charge, would you outlaw the use of h2o2? (or somehow
replace it with your LH2/H2?)

Your green hydrogen that's 100% solar produced and thus relatively
renewable and dirt cheap is a terrific energy substance for some
future date, however as is it's nearly worthless because of its
complex and bulky storage requirements, plus similar or worse
transporting and/or distribution considerations, and its end-usage is
simply so limited to zelch, other than for underground mining, spendy
fuel cells and rocket fuel. Unlike HTP, there's almost no existing
commercial and consumer needs or the necessary logistics
infrastructure for accommodating your LH2 or H2. *No doubt 50 years
from now when you're in charge because most everyone else is near
death and/or broke from hydrocarbon wars, whereas that LH2 and H2
logistics and all of its usage infrastructure will certainly exist for
those of that next generation w/o affordable hydrocarbons or Mook.

Do you have some secret plans for immortality, that'll keep your body
and mind going strong, long enough after Big Energy has imploded?

At least HTP can be reasonably stored for multiple long-term on-demand
usages as is, and there's already dozens of existing and essential
applications besides rocket fuel.

btw; *why do you always methodically exclude HTP w/hydrocarbons, as
energy applications that'll always deliver the most clean bang per kg,
as well as per given volume or density, and without converting
atmosphere in NOx?

Here I thought you were the smart one.

*~ BG

The world uses energy at a 17 trillion watt rate. *This consists
primarily of *28.8 billion barrels of oil, 5.5 billion tons of coal,
and 1.1 billion tons of natural gas providing the bulk of this
energy.

Hydrogen peroxide has relatively strong oxidizing property, so it is
widely used in papermaking, and also in chemical industries such as
textiles, pesticides, medicines, as well as washing. Although hydrogen
peroxide is fairly stable in an acid environment, it is not suitable
for long-distance transport due to its corrosive nature.

At present, the global production capacity of hydrogen peroxide is
highly concentrated and mainly controlled by seven large-scale
enterprises, among which Solvay, Evonik Degussa and Arkema are the top
three.

There are 45 companies including many key and niche players worldwide.

Total market size for hydrogen peroxide is 5 million tons. * *To
supply energy at a 17 trillion watt rate from hydrogen peroxide which
onlly contains 2.7 Giga-Joules per ton requires the production of
198.7 billion tons of hydrogen peroxide. *An increase of 39,740x

Can we do it?

Not with conventional sources of energy.

Hydrogen peroxide is made by combining hydrogen and oxygen

* H2 + O2 -- *H2O2
* *2 * * *32 * * * * *34

So, each ton of hydrogen peroxide requires 1/17th ton of hydrogen.
This is obtained from the shift reaction of methane (natural gas);

* *CH4 + *2 H2O -- * 4 H2 + CO2
* * 16 * * * * *36 * * * * * * * 8 * * * 44

So, each ton of hydrogen peroxide requires 2/17th ton of natural gas
and produces 11/34th ton of CO2.

Since we only produce 1.1 billion tons of natural gas each year, at
most humanity can produce 9.35 billion tons of hydrogen peroxide. *We
need 21.25x more. * *And the shift reaction produces CO2 every bit as
much as natural gas. *Also, since 6.54 MJ of natural gas are consumes
for every 2.7 MJ of hydrogen peroxide produced, this is a waste of
over half the energy contained in the gas - doubling CO2 footprint for
a given energy usage.

We could produce hydrogen using solar energy and water on a massive
scale, and then use that hydrogen to make hydrogen peroxide, but since
1/17th ton of hydrogen contains 8.4 Giga-Joules of energy while the 1
ton of hydrogen peroxide it can make only contains 2.7 giga-joules of
energy, it makes more sense to use the hydrogen directly since we get
nearly 3x as much energy out of it that way.

At the present time the quickest way to reduce emissions while
building a substantial market for hyrogen infrastructure, is to burn
hydrogen in stationary applications, with gaseous hydrogen delivered
to these stationary locations via hydrogen pipeline, and then improve
the low-rank fuels stranded by this process with more hydrogen,
producing higher rank hydro-carbon fuels in the process. *This lets us
reduce the cost of oil, which take wells out of production, and then,
we can reduce low rank fuel production as we increase hydrogen
production.

The 5.5 billion tons of coal is therefore easily replaced 897 million
tons of hydrogen made from sunlight and water. * The 1.1 billion tons
of natural gas is replaced by 431 million tons of hydrogen. *In the
process 23.2 billion tons of CO2 are avoided. *An additional 458
million tons of hydrogen is combined with the stranded coal to produce
34.1 billion barrels of synfuels using the Bergius Process. *The
natural gas is converted to 7 billion barrels of synfuels using the
Mobil Process. *The low-rank crude oil is converted to *12 billion
barrels of synfuels using the Shell process. *A total of 53.1 billion
barrels of liquid fuels fully displaces our current usage of 28.8
billion barrels of oil annually, and puts the oil companies out of
business - and gives us control of the coal and natural gas markets as
well while capturing all the profits of the energy companies.

To summarize;

*1,400 million tons of solar hydrogen displaces all primary fuels
while reducing costs of those fuels and capturing a multi-trillion
dollar energy market.

11,690 million tons of solar hydrogen creates 198,700 million tons of
hydrogen peroxide to replace all energy forms with this caustic
liquid, requiring the conversion of all energy using equipment to the
use of this liquid.

Hydrogen peroxide can be used with MEMS and minature easily
constructed turbines to generate electricity on demand very
compactly. *Since its energy density is 8x that of batteries and its
price is 1/10th the price of batteries, replacement of batteries with
hydrogen peroxide is compelling. *The use of hydrogen peroxide on a
larger scale is not quite as compelling for the reasons stated.

Batteries are a $50 billion market. *Secondary (rechargable) batteries
are a $7 billion market.

The largest uses of batteries are;

* 1,000 million cells - cell phones
* * *600 million cells - Power Tools
* * *400 million cells - PC
* * *300 million cells - cordless phones

A MEMS based 'charger' that plugs into the wall to produce hydrogen
peroxide from air and water is possible - making a long life MEMs
power unit possible.

The battery for my laptop is;

Chemistry: Li-ion
Volt: 10.8V
Capacity: *6600mAh
Net Weight: 533.00 g
Dimension: 167.10 x 120.70 x 14.05 mm

This stores 256.6 kilojoules of energy.

A liter of hydrogen peroxide contains 2,900 kilojoules of energy.
Converted with 40% efficiency to electricity in a steam turbine
produces 1,160 kilojoules of electrical energy. * So, 221.2 cc of
hydrogen peroxide are needed to equal the performance of the battery
described above.

14.05 x 120.70 x 130.44 mm tank contains 221.2 cc of H2O2. *This
leaves 14.05 x 120.70 x 36.66 mm volume for the MEMS turbine generator
and other machinery. *The resulting device will likely weigh 40% less
as well.

At $1.50 per kg - $0.35 per charge - by replacing the tank every 4
hours.

Tanks may be purchased pre-filled, or placed in a charging station to
be refilled as described with power from the grid.

Your persistent obfuscation or systematic exclusion of using
hydrocarbons along with HTP is noted. That's like ordering TN without
the extra T, and expecting to get similar results, or perhaps almost
as bad as trying to use H2 w/o O2.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to replace 100% of global hydrocarbon
energy consumption with only HTP, because that's almost as pathetic as
making everything run entirely on H2+ atmosphere. Bedsides terrific
battery capacity and thus terrific energy density that's safely usable
on-demand, there's a hundred other existing uses for h2o2 that all
need to be affordably expanded upon (including water purification).
The fact that h2o2 plus natural or synfuels of hydrocarbons will kick
serious energy butt as well as offering terrific energy density, seems
to remain as a total mystery to you.

Using HTP as a steam generator that drives a radial turbine is kinda
SpongeBob limited if that's your one and only best idea.

~ BG

We must end our reliance on depleting fossil fuels. One way to do
this is to make hydrogen very cheaply with sunlight and water. The
water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is released
to the atmosphere. The hydrogen is piped to depleted gas wells and
stored for up to 90 days. The hydrogen is collected and piped to
stationary uses wherever fossil fuels are used today replacing coal,
crude, and natural gas in all stationary applications. Additional
hydrogen is used to upgrade low rank carbon into high rank hydrocarbon
fuel. Initially as we displace stationary fossil fuel use we use the
stranded fossil fuels. Over time we reduce the output of fossil fuels
and to the degree we need liquid hydrocarbon fuels for transport use,
we draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and reduce it to methanol
and water.

CO2 + 3 H2 → CH3OH + H2O

Then methanol can be formed into any variety of hydrocarbons by
further chemical processing.

This allows us to reverse the flow of CO2 even reducing the CO2 back
to carbon black and burying it in the ground.

With lower cost hydrogen available year by year, in larger and larger
quantities, we have transition to hydrogen fuels for transport.

Then with the placement of power satellites on orbit around Earth we
beam energy to wherever its needed.


Alkanes --- Protons --- Photons
Carbon / CO2 H2 hv




Your persistent obfuscation or systematic exclusion of using
hydrocarbons along with HTP is noted. Â*That's like ordering TN without
the extra T, and expecting to get similar results, or perhaps almost
as bad as trying to use H2 w/o O2.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to replace 100% of global hydrocarbon
energy consumption with only HTP, because that's almost as pathetic as
making everything run entirely on H2+ atmosphere. Â*Bedsides terrific
battery capacity and thus terrific energy density that's safely usable
on-demand, there's a hundred other existing uses for h2o2 that all
need to be affordably expanded upon (including water purification).
The fact that h2o2 plus natural or synfuels of hydrocarbons will kick
serious energy butt as well as offering terrific energy density, seems
to remain as a total mystery to you.

Using HTP as a steam generator that drives a radial turbine is kinda
SpongeBob limited if that's your one and only best idea.

Â*~ BG

On Jun 22, 8:39Â*am, William Mook wrote:
We must end our reliance on depleting fossil fuels.
I'll buy into 100% of that, but only because that's what I've been
saying all along, that hydrocarbons are best utilized for other than
whatever raw energy that's derived by also mass consumptions of our
mostly nitrogen atmosphere.

Â*One way to do
this is to make hydrogen very cheaply with sunlight and water. Â*The
water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen. Â*The oxygen is released
to the atmosphere. Â*The hydrogen is piped to depleted gas wells and
stored for up to 90 days. Â*The hydrogen is collected and piped to
stationary uses wherever fossil fuels are used today replacing coal,
crude, and natural gas in all stationary applications. Â*Additional
hydrogen is used to upgrade low rank carbon into high rank hydrocarbon
fuel. Â*Initially as we displace stationary fossil fuel use we use the
stranded fossil fuels. Â*Over time we reduce the output of fossil fuels
and to the degree we need liquid hydrocarbon fuels for transport use,
we draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and reduce it to methanol
and water.

Â* CO2 + 3 H2 → CH3OH + H2O

Then methanol can be formed into any variety of hydrocarbons by
further chemical processing.

This allows us to reverse the flow of CO2 even reducing the CO2 back
to carbon black and burying it in the ground.

With lower cost hydrogen available year by year, in larger and larger
quantities, we have transition to hydrogen fuels for transport.

Then with the placement of power satellites on orbit around Earth we
beam energy to wherever its needed.

Â* Â* Alkanes Â*--- Â*Protons Â* --- Â*Photons
Â*Carbon / CO2 Â* Â* Â* H2 Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* hv

Once again, there's nothing stopping your methods but yourself,
because I'm all for creating as much cheap and clean renewable energy
as possible, including on behalf of making that initial 100e6 tonne/
year production of HTP that has all sorts of existing global uses plus
loads of even better environment friendly energy on-demand
applications as I've explained and you've systematically ignored
dozens of times. This HTP insistence was never intended to exclude or
banish your global hydrogen economy, but instead it was intended for
improving the quality of life as is, right here and now that badly
needs a suitably high density alternative, as opposed to otherwise
burning of bulk hydrocarbons and our atmosphere as though there's no
end in sight nor subsequent pollution or GW consequences to fret over.


Your persistent obfuscation or systematic exclusion of using a few
hydrocarbons along with HTP is noted. Â*That's like ordering TN without
the extra T, and expecting to get similar results, or perhaps almost
as bad as trying to use H2 w/o O2.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to replace 100% of global hydrocarbon
energy consumption with only HTP, because that's almost as pathetic as
making everything run entirely on H2+ atmosphere. Â*Bedsides terrific
battery capacity and thus terrific energy density that's safely usable
on-demand, there's a hundred other existing uses for h2o2 that all
need to be affordably expanded upon (including water purification).
The fact that h2o2 plus natural or synfuels of hydrocarbons will kick
serious energy butt as well as offering terrific energy density, seems
to remain as a total mystery to you.

Using HTP as a steam generator that drives a radial turbine is kinda
SpongeBob limited if that's your one and only best idea.

Â*~ BG

So, why isn't William Mook in charge of our national technology and
energy agencies (including DARPA) instead of Steven Chu and other
mainstream status-quo whimps and brown-nosed minions for Big Energy,
that are so deathly afraid of their own shadow that they do nothing
that might upset those hydrocarbon financed Rothschilds?

~ BG