|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Davis' Questions re Space Power Network
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Davis' Questions re Space Power Network
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
First computer network in space? | Matt | History | 6 | April 23rd 09 05:17 AM |
Deep Space Network shamrock? | Bill Higgins | History | 0 | December 26th 06 08:29 AM |
[CMB]Some questions about power spectrum | pihou | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 12th 06 09:01 AM |
BOINC : Deep Space Network @ Home | Max Power | SETI | 8 | February 7th 06 01:23 PM |
Orion SVP (CG5 etc) Power Question + Genereal Portable Power Questions | Craig Levine | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | January 2nd 04 12:16 AM |