It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Looking for smart folks to explore hydrogen as fuel again.
page: 2share:
a reply to: Lumenari
It actually appears to be a real thing. There must be some reason it's not mainstream yet; some kind of glitch in the process holding back investors. Looks like it is fairly new. I wonder if there are patent issues?
That would be a truly great thing if it is for real. Gallium and aluminum is not that expensive.
One to watch.
It actually appears to be a real thing. There must be some reason it's not mainstream yet; some kind of glitch in the process holding back investors. Looks like it is fairly new. I wonder if there are patent issues?
That would be a truly great thing if it is for real. Gallium and aluminum is not that expensive.
One to watch.
originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Lumenari
It actually appears to be a real thing. There must be some reason it's not mainstream yet; some kind of glitch in the process holding back investors. Looks like it is fairly new. I wonder if there are patent issues?
That would be a truly great thing if it is for real. Gallium and aluminum is not that expensive.
One to watch.
Oh, I'd be all over it so am researching it now.
Just seems that particular company is a little... shady if you dig into it so I'm looking for others.
ETA:.. I've got Woodall's basic premise here...
Woodall Process
I'm going to shop a few really good engineers from Conoco-Phillips tomorrow and see what they think.
I might have to start another business...
edit on 2-8-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Blaine91555
The issue is probably the hauling, replacing, and smelting of the aluminium ingots which all together probably still takes more energy than it puts out even if the thing works anywhere near as efficient as they advertise. For emergency power it might work, maybe not so much for longterm use.
There must be some reason it's not mainstream yet; some kind of glitch in the process holding back investors. Looks like it is fairly new. I wonder if there are patent issues?
The issue is probably the hauling, replacing, and smelting of the aluminium ingots which all together probably still takes more energy than it puts out even if the thing works anywhere near as efficient as they advertise. For emergency power it might work, maybe not so much for longterm use.
a reply to: network dude
It's alot easier and cheaper to just use fossil fuels, which we have in abundance. Carbon is not a pollutant.
It's alot easier and cheaper to just use fossil fuels, which we have in abundance. Carbon is not a pollutant.
originally posted by: MachineMan
a reply to: network dude
It's alot easier and cheaper to just use fossil fuels, which we have in abundance. Carbon is not a pollutant.
The winters here in North Dakota in the oilfields?
When it snows the next day the snow is covered in a fine layer of black soot from the oil well flares.
So I think you'd have to convince me a little more that burning hydrocarbons does not, in fact, cause air pollution.
a reply to: Lumenari
Alumina is quite costly to produce which would be a plus if this is viable.
I suspect companies that would have an interest know all about it, so there must be some issue here.
a reply to: ShakesPeers
The above could mean you are right in that.
Alumina is quite costly to produce which would be a plus if this is viable.
I suspect companies that would have an interest know all about it, so there must be some issue here.
a reply to: ShakesPeers
The above could mean you are right in that.
a reply to: Guyfriday
Several years ago I built 4 hydrogen generators for my truck using the alternator to run them. The point was to reduce fuel consumption which in fact worked. In the end, I wasn't able to produce enough - about a liter a minute needed - for my hemi engine, but in the city we're talking a huge increase in mileage, from 19 to 26 mpg. I did not strip out the oxygen.
Once I retire next year, project #1 is to build a generator and pressure tank system so that it'll work on the highway.
Lazar had a corvette that he ran on hydrogen years ago.
Several years ago I built 4 hydrogen generators for my truck using the alternator to run them. The point was to reduce fuel consumption which in fact worked. In the end, I wasn't able to produce enough - about a liter a minute needed - for my hemi engine, but in the city we're talking a huge increase in mileage, from 19 to 26 mpg. I did not strip out the oxygen.
Once I retire next year, project #1 is to build a generator and pressure tank system so that it'll work on the highway.
Lazar had a corvette that he ran on hydrogen years ago.
a reply to: Blaine91555
It has to be something but I'll ask the smart people tomorrow and see what they think.
I'll report back!
It has to be something but I'll ask the smart people tomorrow and see what they think.
I'll report back!
a reply to: Blue Shift
No, that is BACON!!!
And the caloric returns on electricity is inefficient... best to just eat it!
@OP, look at what is happening in Australia. They are looking at using renewables to make hydrogen which they will convert to ammonia. Then they can transport it around the region. CISRO has a membrane that can convert ammonia back to hydrogen and nitrogen. And they just announced that they are installing a hydrogen fuel station this year for the government’s fleet of HFC vehicles but will be open to the public as well.
Japan, SK, and the US have a pact signed from last year to build up the infrastructure. They all want “green” production of hydrogen because right now it is coming from fossil fuels.
Check out the conversation in my thread in Sci/Tech about the Australia breakthrough.
PS - Hydrogen is not burned but used to exchange electrons in a fuel cell that generates electricity. And if they figure out a cheap way to make it Musk is royally F#, because it is cheaper than stupid catch on fire batteries he is using.
No, that is BACON!!!
And the caloric returns on electricity is inefficient... best to just eat it!
@OP, look at what is happening in Australia. They are looking at using renewables to make hydrogen which they will convert to ammonia. Then they can transport it around the region. CISRO has a membrane that can convert ammonia back to hydrogen and nitrogen. And they just announced that they are installing a hydrogen fuel station this year for the government’s fleet of HFC vehicles but will be open to the public as well.
Japan, SK, and the US have a pact signed from last year to build up the infrastructure. They all want “green” production of hydrogen because right now it is coming from fossil fuels.
Check out the conversation in my thread in Sci/Tech about the Australia breakthrough.
PS - Hydrogen is not burned but used to exchange electrons in a fuel cell that generates electricity. And if they figure out a cheap way to make it Musk is royally F#, because it is cheaper than stupid catch on fire batteries he is using.
a reply to: network dude
This site all all the breaking alternative GREEN technologies:
Revolution Green Alternative Energy News
This site all all the breaking alternative GREEN technologies:
Revolution Green Alternative Energy News
People keep repeating the silly claims made by the Oil Industry.
To get at oil in the ocean, you need an exploration ship, then a drilling ship to make sure, followed by an oil platform.
A lot of the oil extracted is used to power the various ships needed, but let's hide that inefficiency.
Next you need a world wide fleet of oil tankers that also run on oil. Another hidden inefficiency.
But you still can't use the oil. Now you need an oil refinery. Guess what power the oil refinery uses for some of its processes, yes they burn more oil.
Now you need a great fleet of trucks to deliver fuel to the great number of gas stations.
On top of all that, you still need electricity to get the fuel from the tank at the gas station to your car and if the electricity is out you can't get at your precious fuel.
The oil industry is spending huge amounts of money to destroy anyone that threatens their industry.
Anyone that throws efficiency figures around in these debates is just following the mantra set up by the oil industry. Drones all.
P
To get at oil in the ocean, you need an exploration ship, then a drilling ship to make sure, followed by an oil platform.
A lot of the oil extracted is used to power the various ships needed, but let's hide that inefficiency.
Next you need a world wide fleet of oil tankers that also run on oil. Another hidden inefficiency.
But you still can't use the oil. Now you need an oil refinery. Guess what power the oil refinery uses for some of its processes, yes they burn more oil.
Now you need a great fleet of trucks to deliver fuel to the great number of gas stations.
On top of all that, you still need electricity to get the fuel from the tank at the gas station to your car and if the electricity is out you can't get at your precious fuel.
The oil industry is spending huge amounts of money to destroy anyone that threatens their industry.
Anyone that throws efficiency figures around in these debates is just following the mantra set up by the oil industry. Drones all.
P
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: network dude
This site all all the breaking alternative GREEN technologies:
Revolution Green Alternative Energy News
Hope those tech stay in civilian sector not hoarded in the military underground bunkers hiding from everyone else because God forbids America from hiding clean tech. We already have too much issues with polluted ocean and radioactive waste.
edit on 2-8-2019 by makemap because: (no reason
given)
a reply to: Thunderheart
You're using hydrogen and aluminum, and creating about as much CO2 as if you burned methane.
When you use the aluminum method to break down water, the chemical equation is 6H2O + 4Al -> 6H2 +2Al2O3. You then ship the aluminum back to be smelted using nice clean energy from hydroelectric, solar, nuclear, etc. But there's more to it. Carbon is used to smelt it, in the chemical equation 2Al2O3 + 3C -> 4Al + 3CO2. So the complete equation reduces to 6H20 + 3C -> 6H2 + 3CO2.
To compare, propane combustion is C3H8 + 5O2 -> 3CO2 + 4H2O. The one molecule of propane will produce a little more energy than 4 hydrogen molecules. So you are still producing 67% as much carbon dioxide as if you had burnt propane directly.
If we look at methane, the equation is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O. A molecule of methane produces a little more energy than two molecules of hydrogen, meaning you will actually produce slightly less carbon dioxide by burning methane instead of using aluminum to reduce water. And that is assuming a completely carbon-neutral method of providing the energy for the smelting process.
Carbon dioxide is just one of those things we are not going to be able to control on this planet. It is too common and too easily made in all manner of different ways. Burning hydrocarbons produces it; respiration produces it; many reduction processes produce it; digestion produces it. That's why these great new energy ideas never take off. They often work, but the overall process does nothing to address the claimed issues and the technology is more expensive.
TheRedneck
You're using hydrogen and aluminum, and creating about as much CO2 as if you burned methane.
When you use the aluminum method to break down water, the chemical equation is 6H2O + 4Al -> 6H2 +2Al2O3. You then ship the aluminum back to be smelted using nice clean energy from hydroelectric, solar, nuclear, etc. But there's more to it. Carbon is used to smelt it, in the chemical equation 2Al2O3 + 3C -> 4Al + 3CO2. So the complete equation reduces to 6H20 + 3C -> 6H2 + 3CO2.
To compare, propane combustion is C3H8 + 5O2 -> 3CO2 + 4H2O. The one molecule of propane will produce a little more energy than 4 hydrogen molecules. So you are still producing 67% as much carbon dioxide as if you had burnt propane directly.
If we look at methane, the equation is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O. A molecule of methane produces a little more energy than two molecules of hydrogen, meaning you will actually produce slightly less carbon dioxide by burning methane instead of using aluminum to reduce water. And that is assuming a completely carbon-neutral method of providing the energy for the smelting process.
Carbon dioxide is just one of those things we are not going to be able to control on this planet. It is too common and too easily made in all manner of different ways. Burning hydrocarbons produces it; respiration produces it; many reduction processes produce it; digestion produces it. That's why these great new energy ideas never take off. They often work, but the overall process does nothing to address the claimed issues and the technology is more expensive.
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
Both respiration and digestion release carbon which originated from the atmosphere. Neither provides a net increase in carbon but methane (produced mostly by ruminants and vegans) is a more potent (though shorter lived) greenhouse gas than CO2
I think that hydrogen power should be seen as more of a (not highly efficient, at this point) energy storage system than an energy production system. But if you're using a renewable, carbon free resource (sunlight) to produce it, the efficiency becomes less of a concern.
Both respiration and digestion release carbon which originated from the atmosphere. Neither provides a net increase in carbon but methane (produced mostly by ruminants and vegans) is a more potent (though shorter lived) greenhouse gas than CO2
I think that hydrogen power should be seen as more of a (not highly efficient, at this point) energy storage system than an energy production system. But if you're using a renewable, carbon free resource (sunlight) to produce it, the efficiency becomes less of a concern.
edit on 8/2/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Blaine91555
Alumina is quite easy to produce from processed aluminum metal. It is only difficult and expensive to produce from bauxite. As a matter of fact, I would bet that you have never in your life touched a piece of aluminum metal. You may have thought you did, but what you were actually touching was the thin layer of alumina that immediately forms on aluminum metal when it contacts air (oxygen).
That's why it is safe to drink from aluminum cans. Aluminum is highly reactive and highly toxic, but the liquid in the cans never makes contact with aluminum... it contacts the outer alumina layer, which is corrosion-resistant, hard, and inert.
How hard? How inert? Alumina is the primary component of many precious gems. The color is due to impurities in the alumina.
I can make you all the alumina you want from processed aluminum. It is a byproduct of thermite. Grind the aluminum into powder, mix with red rust, figure out how to ignite it, and you get iron and alumina out... both molten, as you also get a LOT of heat! Do NOT try this at home!
TheRedneck
Alumina is quite easy to produce from processed aluminum metal. It is only difficult and expensive to produce from bauxite. As a matter of fact, I would bet that you have never in your life touched a piece of aluminum metal. You may have thought you did, but what you were actually touching was the thin layer of alumina that immediately forms on aluminum metal when it contacts air (oxygen).
That's why it is safe to drink from aluminum cans. Aluminum is highly reactive and highly toxic, but the liquid in the cans never makes contact with aluminum... it contacts the outer alumina layer, which is corrosion-resistant, hard, and inert.
How hard? How inert? Alumina is the primary component of many precious gems. The color is due to impurities in the alumina.
I can make you all the alumina you want from processed aluminum. It is a byproduct of thermite. Grind the aluminum into powder, mix with red rust, figure out how to ignite it, and you get iron and alumina out... both molten, as you also get a LOT of heat! Do NOT try this at home!
TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage
It doesn't matter where the carbon comes from... it's the same thing. You know that.
Hydrogen power is seen as an energy storage medium, Phage.
As to efficiency, there are some serious hurdles yet to overcome. In case of a leak, hydrogen (which is a gas instead of a liquid at STP) is highly, highly explosive when mixed with air. Therefore, safety dictates that hydrogen be produced on demand to be used in locations which are subject to unexpected damage and are in close proximity to populations... vehicles fit both of those conditions. On-demand creation is not conducive to an energy storage mechanism; it is the opposite.
Add in the density required to maintain hydrogen under pressure (due to the small size of the molecules; they can literally squeeze between the molecules of their container), and you have extra weight to contain the hydrogen, decreasing the efficiency in vehicular applications.
TheRedneck
It doesn't matter where the carbon comes from... it's the same thing. You know that.
Hydrogen power is seen as an energy storage medium, Phage.
As to efficiency, there are some serious hurdles yet to overcome. In case of a leak, hydrogen (which is a gas instead of a liquid at STP) is highly, highly explosive when mixed with air. Therefore, safety dictates that hydrogen be produced on demand to be used in locations which are subject to unexpected damage and are in close proximity to populations... vehicles fit both of those conditions. On-demand creation is not conducive to an energy storage mechanism; it is the opposite.
Add in the density required to maintain hydrogen under pressure (due to the small size of the molecules; they can literally squeeze between the molecules of their container), and you have extra weight to contain the hydrogen, decreasing the efficiency in vehicular applications.
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
No, no, mon ami.
Carbon which has been underground for millions of years matters far more than carbon which goes in and out of the atmosphere in a cycle.
The former increases atmospheric concentrations, the latter does not.
Thanks for the refresher course on the problems with H2.
It doesn't matter where the carbon comes from... it's the same thing. You know that.
No, no, mon ami.
Carbon which has been underground for millions of years matters far more than carbon which goes in and out of the atmosphere in a cycle.
The former increases atmospheric concentrations, the latter does not.
Thanks for the refresher course on the problems with H2.
edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Phage
Si, si, senor.
Tell me again how chemical reactions differentiate between carbon dioxide molecules based on the origin of the carbon atom? Are you claiming chemical reactions are racist now?
Besides... Phage says carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global temperatures.
TheRedneck
No, no, mon ami.
Si, si, senor.
Tell me again how chemical reactions differentiate between carbon dioxide molecules based on the origin of the carbon atom? Are you claiming chemical reactions are racist now?
Besides... Phage says carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global temperatures.
TheRedneck
new topics
-
Mike Pinder The Moody Blues R.I.P.
Music: 2 minutes ago -
Putin, Russia and the Great Architects of the Universe
ATS Skunk Works: 3 hours ago -
A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed
New World Order: 7 hours ago
top topics
-
President BIDEN's FBI Raided Donald Trump's Florida Home for OBAMA-NORTH KOREA Documents.
Political Conspiracies: 13 hours ago, 31 flags -
A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed
New World Order: 7 hours ago, 13 flags -
Is AI Better Than the Hollywood Elite?
Movies: 15 hours ago, 4 flags -
Maestro Benedetto
Literature: 14 hours ago, 1 flags -
Putin, Russia and the Great Architects of the Universe
ATS Skunk Works: 3 hours ago, 1 flags -
Mike Pinder The Moody Blues R.I.P.
Music: 2 minutes ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed
New World Order • 17 • : TzarChasm -
Mike Pinder The Moody Blues R.I.P.
Music • 0 • : alldaylong -
Gaza Terrorists Attack US Humanitarian Pier During Construction
Middle East Issues • 51 • : FlyersFan -
Nearly 70% Of Americans Want Talks To End War In Ukraine
Political Issues • 97 • : SchrodingersRat -
Putin, Russia and the Great Architects of the Universe
ATS Skunk Works • 8 • : BrotherKinsMan -
Chris Christie Wishes Death Upon Trump and Ramaswamy
Politicians & People • 26 • : FlyersFan -
Sol Et Luna - TIME2024
Short Stories • 11 • : Encia22 -
Any one suspicious of fever promotions events, major investor Goldman Sachs card only.
The Gray Area • 11 • : mysterioustranger -
Ode to Artemis
General Chit Chat • 1 • : Encia22 -
Skinwalker Ranch and the Mystery 1.6GHz Signal
Aliens and UFOs • 145 • : Ophiuchus1