From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 08:38:02 MST
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Kai Becker wrote:
> Am Freitag, 31. Januar 2003 17:54 schrieb Spudboy100@aol.com:
> > <<The "hydrogen economy" has been promoted for years by environmental
> > activists and alternative-energy gurus like Amory Lovins. But hydrogen
> > is not a source of energy, something which hydrogen advocates either
> > don't understand or refuse to acknowledge.
They, esp. Amory Lovins, are simply unrealistic -- he has proposed using
off-peak hydroelectric power to produce H2 -- that doesn't come anywhere
close to solving our energy supply problem.
> AFAIK, H2 is more promoted as the newe energy "currency" in a network of
> many differnt energy sources. The technology for storage and
> transportation is well-known, quite simple and relatively safe.
The problem is that transportation (by ground) is expensive.
It needs to be transported by pipeline. That requires an
entirely new pipeline system (comparable to the existing
natural gas pipeline systems in the U.S., Russian and Europe.
The existing pipeline system wasn't designed to transport H2.
One problem for example is that H2 gets absorbed by metals and
embrittles them.
The figure I've seen for duplicating the existing natural gas
pipeline system in the U.S. is circa $100 billion. One needs
a market for that before one would begin to contemplate building
the pipeline system. One can't create a market without having an
energy supply. Its a chicken and egg problem.
> Methane, produced from bio mass can, if not used directly, be
> catalytically cracked (Ni and steam) to H2 and CO (which can
> be burned to CO2).
This is the right approach -- to use methane (natural gas) as
the energy carrier in the existing pipeline systems.
> Since the CO2 from bio mass energy had been taken from
> the air by the plant before, this process is CO2-neutral to the
> environment.
Precisely. One could "reform" the mathane into H2 either at filling
stations or within automobiles themselves. Though the cars could
burn the methane directly with small adjustments. The only reason
to reform it might be to reduce NOx emissions.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 08:40:25 MST