Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 19 - Barbie Jacket
on
Need an economic adviser? Here are 5 ideas for finding the very best one -
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store.
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (111)
Tetris: Thanks for the business perspective on hydrogen. Here is a chemical perspective that I hope is equally valuable.
Energy is often stored by reducing materials with electrons. Photosynthesis reduces CO2 to carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are fuels used by all living things, they become become fossil fuels via geological processes and biofuels by fermentation. Electrolysis reduces water to hydrogen gas. Batteries store electrons in reduced metals (Li, Zn, Pb, etc).
For personal transportation, we need store electrons in our vehicle - in a battery or in chemical bonds. The big advantage of storing electrons in an H-H bond is that water is the only byproduct when energy is released. If we burn the hydrogen in an internal combustion engine, the high temperature also produces nitrogen oxide byproducts and waste heat. Fuel cells avoid these byproducts AND the thermodynamic limits of heat engines, so the future of hydrogen (if any) probably lies in using hydrogen to produce electricity, not burning it.
Today we store electrons in C-H and C-C bonds in hydrocarbon fuels. C-H bonds contain more energy than C-C bonds, so methane (CH4) stores more energy than liquid hydrocarbons and they store more energy than coal (which is mostly C-C bonds). H-H bonds have the most energy, but they are the hardest to store: lowest density and dangerous leaks.
Batteries store electrons on metal ions. If one wants to make an analogy to H-H, C-H, and C-C bonds, we can say the energy is stored in the bonds between reduced metal solid in the battery: Metallic Li-Li or Zn-Zn bonds. Batteries (especially lithium) are a fire hazard for the same reason that hydrocarbons and hydrogen are - a lot of energy is released when the electrons in them have a chance to react with oxygen. However, batteries aren't intended to irreversibly send their electrons to oxygen gas, and the "used" electrons don't leave as CO2 or H2O byproducts. Instead, the electrons leave behind Li+ or Zn++ ions and do work flowing to an anode. The gain and loss of electrons changes the preferred bond distances in the solid anode and cathode, introducing mechanical stress that eventually degrades the bulk material after enough charge/discharge cycles. (Those Li+ ions don't like being next to each other in a discharged lithium ion battery - they need space for some negatively charged counter-ion to screen them from each other.)
As long as we get most of our electricity from burning fossil fuels (without carbon capture), it appears to make little sense to store electrons in a vehicle battery. Tesla doesn't change anything at a fundamental level. The electrons in their batteries come from C-H and C-C bonds in fossil fuels and we already know how to store them in a vehicle. Changing them into H-H bonds doesn't accomplish anything either.
Thon Bracket,
If you are aware of a controllable turbine that can successfully use hydrogen/air I recommend you contact Siemens or GE immediately. Your financial future would be assured.
You also missed the Hydrogen storage step, rather expensive.
For those suggesting fuel cells, ever heard of the Ballard corporation?
The idea of producing hydrogen from water, by electrolysis, with electric power from wind turbines, is at first glance excellent.
But a chemical industry without reliable electric power is probably not viable.
Forget hydrogen! I have discovered a way in which solar power may be stored in whatever format you want, and is completely free for collection by those who wish to, and have the proper methods for collection. The real beauty of it is that the entire process is entirely natural, and the indications are that the results can be stored indefinitely, until required. The only drawback is that it is a slow process; there might be ways to accelerate it, but serious research has yet to be undertaken.
Do you think that there might be some grants available for me to pursue this further?
There's one very important point to be borne in mind whenever the usage of hydrogen is concerned and that is the fact that it makes brittle (and very easily broken) all metal parts with which it comes into contact.
"The embrittlement of of metal or alloy by atomic hydrogen involves the ingress of hydrogen into a component, an event that can seriously reduce the ductility and load-bearing capacity, cause cracking and catastrophic brittle failures at stresses below the yield stress of susceptible materials." ... is an extract from the following:-
http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Forms-HIC/embrittlement.htm
I think the suggestion is premature and irresponsible. (Disclosure: I'm an industrial chemist)
Concur with tetris, Pat Swords, Alan the Brit, & Allan M above.
Some additional info:
> Hydrogen is perfectly safe in a well-designed and operated fixed facility; but
> Hydrogen needs only a weak (static?) spark to ignite; alternatively one of several catalytic metals.
> Leaks from pinholes etc burn with a tiny, hot, non-luminous flame - except when it heats surroundings to incandescence.
> Traditional high-pressure storage incurs large parasitic mass; modern lightweight composites might serve, after prolonged performance testing (say 10+ years?), as late failure is not an option (imagine the recalls).
> Storage as metal hydrides offers lower pressure, but gas mixed with igniter, so loss of primary containment must not happen. The result is (roughly) a metal fire (think incendiaries and thermite).
> A hydrogen leak can (paradoxically) cause some air to flow the other way, potentially forming an explosive mixture inside. This would normally be rare, but the public domain can't always be well-controlled...
> Widespread use will involve storage/transport of bulk quantities, which must not escape. A hydrogen plume from the termination of a rocket motor test (probably for the Shuttle) produced an unconfined vapour cloud explosion which shattered distant windows.
> Hydrogen via the traditional water-gas process produces (nominally) 22 parts of CO2 per part H2 (plus additional heating). Methane reforming is probably 2-3x better.
> The ICE isn't the best for hydrogen; fuel-cells might give 2x efficiency. However, methanol is eminently suitable for both. That has a variety of sources; from methane you might generate 11:1 CO2:H2 equivalent. You also have a fuel whose fire is extinguishable by plain water.
> Towns gas is (or was) mainly hydrogen, but always handled at very low pressure, with (almost) no trouble.
Some of the risks are small, but the consequences generally not.
"...[T]ry as a might, I can find no evidence for the existence of the hydrodildophone or the Merovingian bowel sock." --Allan M
Dildoclimatology, on the other hand, is a well-established and well-funded branch of modern pseudoscience.
One way to tell if you're in a facility that uses H2 gas: the roofs over some areas are built upside-down, with the eaves higher than the center, and no walls.
Hydrogen is, indeed, dangerous. If you're generating H2, you often have O2, as well, which in my mind is even more dangerous. Not counting poison gases, the only thing worse than H2 or O2 might be acetylene. As Pat pointed out, above, hydrogen has an explosive range from ~4% to ~75% in air. [volume %]. Acetylene's explosive limits are 2.5% to 100%. It is something completely different, with the ability to deflagrate or detonate.
One reason that gasoline is such a nifty fuel is that it's hard to set fire to it out in the open. It has a very narrow explosive range (1% to 7%). The vapor space in a gasoline container is well above the flammable limit. A gas (petrol) station owner used to keep a coffee can near the office and toss his lit cigarette therein before walking to the pumps. The can only caught fire once while my friend worked there. Don't try this at home.
I used to think that using solar and wind to produce hydrogen to either burn for electricity or transportation was a good idea. Of course, that was before I got a reasonable understanding of how diffuse the energy from wind and solar was and the actual environmental impacts such as land use and animal deaths.
The joy of places like this is how many people think that others who have years of thinking about a problem don't see the obvious. Hydrogen storage is important and interesting for many reasons, burning hydrogen in internal combustion engines and turbines is stupid and not being proposed except as strawbunnies to be slain with proud distain on blogs.
So what is out there?
1, Using hydrogen in fuel cells for power.
2. Storing hydrogen in metal or molecular sponges
1. We have pretty good hydrogen fuel cell designs, 2. is an area of promising research (search: hydrogen sponge) 2. is necessary for mobile use, but for stationary sources well, we have well over a century of experience of handling it as an industrial gas.
Electrolysis? Shurely not.
You'd just end up with bucketloads of spare Oxygen polluting the atmosphere.
Whereas power from nuclear fusion has always been fifty years in the future, hydrogen power has always been a mere twenty years in the future.
I am in agreement with Tom Gray on this:
Laissez Faire free markets built the industrialized western world in spite of governments and not because of them. Stop all incentives, punishing regulations, red tape, rule by bureaucracy, and Soviet style interventions a...... Apr 11, 2015 at 10:41 AM Mark Stoval
Sure, we have all been brought up believing this. I know I once thought this was THE answer.
But, who has been doing most of the talking? The laissez faire capitalists themselves, who are the ones benefiting the most. And the ones consolidating into gigantic multinational corporations, which are dictating to governments how international trade agreements should be set out.
Tom is quite correct in saying that the great advances were only made with government intent, and with laissez faire capitalists working hand in glove with government.
....Economist Mariana Mazzucato (in) her book The Entrepreneurial State, explains how most of what you think you know about innovation is wrong.
Innovation is not led by the private sector; it lacks the long term horizons and risk appetite to do so. Instead, the most innovative countries and regions have the state playing a very active role, not just in funding basic research or making sure markets work properly, as in limiting anti-competitive practices that can stymie new entrants.
Instead, the state plays an active role along the entire value chain. One result of the wide-spread misperception that the private sectors deserves most of the credit is that businesses are able to skim a disproportionate level of the returns for themselves. ........ Typically the private sector only finds the courage to invest in breakthrough technologies after a so-called “entrepreneurial state” has made the initial high-risk investments.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/10/government-private-sector-leads-innovation.html
Examples abound: US rail system, US river transport systems, airlines and shipping leaping forward upon great government funded innovations of wartime. All of our modern telecommunications systems, the underpinnings of the modern information technology ... etc etc.
And most of the underpinnings of technological advancement: financial stability, systems of law and property ownership which enable assets to be held, to be developed and wealth so generated, ONLY come from having a stable and functioning government, with all of its powers.
What a shame that Rabbit can't explain the obvious to us country bumpkins: why the Nissan Leaf isn't seen as economically viable. It's nothing to do with them being EVs, but 'Part of it could be that Nissan Leafs and Teslas simply aren't cheap for other reasons, and they need more development and more competition to knock down prices. ' . . . he claims.
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/
(has a 'perceptive comment from one William Connolley).
They wont let you take LPG cars through the Channel Tunnel
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=678780
Petrol and Diesel fuel tank will just burn and flare up, a flaming steel compressed gas Hydrogen fuel tank will take off like a rocket.
Markx
"Tom is quite correct in saying that the great advances were only made with government intent, and with laissez faire capitalists working hand in glove with government."
Like the UK wind industry, you mean . . .
Yes, I see your point.
The major consumer benefits in telecommunications (and consumer benefits are what is important for the bottom line) in the UK followed privatisation.
The initial impetus for satellite communication may well have come from the US Department of Defense but its subsequent development has been driven by the private sector. No government would have permitted the sort of unlimited freedom that has resulted from the use of satellite technology had they envisaged what has actually come to pass (and several governments around the world are still trying to shove that genie back in the bottle as far as their own people are concerned!).
Partnership between private industry and government is necessary to ensure on one side the regulation to safeguard the interests of the consumer and on the other to safeguard the interests of the producer but as a general rule the intellectual efforts that have made the technological advances possible have not come from government controlled research.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/drilling-for-hydrogen/
"So what’s wrong with this comparison, between hydrogen and other competitive fuel sources like propane and methane?
What’s wrong is that people misunderstand hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source. There are no hydrogen mines. You can’t go out and drill somewhere into a deposit of hydrogen and bring it back home to burn.
And why can’t we mine hydrogen and bring it home and burn it to power our cars?
The reason we can’t mine and burn hydrogen is simple … it’s all been burnt already. The nerve of nature! I mean, people are always warning that we’ll burn up all the fossil fuels, and now we find out that nature has already gone rogue on us and burned up all the hydrogen …"
AND MORE
Thon wrote:
No, not economically. The world is full of 'solutions' that 'work' You could for example fit large sails to a nuclear submarine and 'save uranium'.
Or equip cars with square wheels and compensating suspension.
That something could be made to work is not a valid criterion for adopting it. It has to be better in some way more than it is worse....
Renewable energy hydrogen and the like all fail that test: They are all overall worse than what they claim to replace, (but don't), and it is only the ramping up of the 'dangers of CO2' that actually gives them any justification at all. But even then, if you accept the 'dangers' of CO2, you are left with the overwhelming cost benefit analysis result that actually what is the cheapest and safest alternative is nuclear power.
As far as hydrogen as an intermediate storage medium goes, I am not convinced that it would in fact be cheaper than - say - synthetic diesel or gasoline to manufacture.
And we have a century of experience and a well developed infrastructure to act as a supply chain for hydrocarbon fuels for internal combustion engines that power nearly all of our 'off grid' machines.
All the science and engineering of fuels and energy and the like was done years ago: we have a selection of technologies to pick from, whose basic characteristics are all well known.
It would be faintly amusing to watch today's green enthusiasts discovering technologies that were rejected years ago on grounds that are still perfectly valid today, if it were not for the fact that governments are using the whole Green movement and the politicisation of energy to gain de facto and de jure control of the one thing modern societies depend on utterly: Energy.
All grist to the mills of the broad humanist left, who espouse another Great Lie. That government, especially monolithic World Government, is the best way to solve the presumed ills of society.
And therein lies the real motivation behind climate change-the-the-political-convenience and reneweable energy-so-called. It is the perfect excuse for a power grab by minorities against the majority, on the pretext, or genuinely held belief, that what the world needs is a single strong paternalistic (or maternalistic) world government that will somehow be free of the oppression and corruption that has characterised every strong over centralised monopolistic government since time and civilisation began.
There are also strong technical arguments for insisting that human society is far too complex a system to be managed that way as well, but that is another topic altogether.
Apr 12, 2015 at 9:46 AM | jamspid
Like the UK wind industry, you mean . . . Yes, I see your point.
Hi Jam,
I am not saying the government always gets it right, but sometimes (perhaps even accidently) it does get it right in a big way, and in my opinion a sensible government, and the structured society it has created, are essential in allowing private enterprise to develop things further.
The point of this is that Mark Stoval's original stated (and oft espoused) view that only private enterprise can make advancements and government is only a hindrance, is, in my opinion, flat out wrong.
I happen to further believe that completely unfettered capitalism (is that ever possible? Surely you need 'the rules' to operate by?) would be a complete disaster, and to some extent we have already headed partially down that path.
Apr 12, 2015 at 9:52 AM | Capell
The underpinnings maybe but not the technological advancement itself. ..... Partnership between private industry and government is necessary to ensure on one side the regulation to safeguard the interests of the consumer and on the other to safeguard the interests of the producer but as a general rule the intellectual efforts that have made the technological advances possible have not come from government controlled research.
Hi Capell,
Well, we are apparently in partial agreement, other than the last statement bolded. ('Have come from Government funded and supported research' may do it for me?)
There are plenty of instances where government has initiated and funded innovation and development, and continues to fund and perpetuate it.
Amazon has received 55 subsidies totaling $434,818,687.
Apple has received 6 subsidies totalling $446,485,233.
Facebook - a mere $3,000,000+ in subsidies.
Subsidy Tracker at http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/subsidy-tracker:
"…five companies were on all three of the top 50 federal subsidy recipients list, the top 50 bailout list, and the top 50 state & local subsidy list: Boeing, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, and JPMorgan Chase." Federal Subsidies at Subsidy Tracker 3.0 http://angrybearblog.com/2015/04/good-jobs-first-reveals-top-federal-subsidy-recipients-subsidy-tracker-3-0.html
Apr 12, 2015 at 11:09 AM Leo Smith said:
All grist to the mills of the broad humanist left, who espouse another Great Lie. That government, especially monolithic World Government, is the best way to solve the presumed ills of society.
Indeed an important point; This 'monolithic World Government' is the last thing we need , and cannot work. But strangely enough, proposed capitalist solutions to the 'climate problem' (ie, emissions trading schemes) take us partway down that path too. (UN. World Bank, a few gigantic financial multinationals).
Markx siad:
Typically the private sector only finds the courage to invest in breakthrough technologies after a so-called “entrepreneurial state” has made the initial high-risk investments.
There is a very simple reason for that. Public companies need to deliver profits to shareholders and private individuals are taxed into oblivion by increasingly socialist states. The only repository of serious (high) risk capital is now the state...and it deploys it with total disregard for its own stakeholders, the citizens, too.
When all of your competition is effectively massively subsidised, your only help is to jump on the same gravy train, because their ain't no other..
Apr 12, 2015 at 11:27 AM Leo Smith says:
Typically the private sector only finds the courage to invest in breakthrough technologies after a so-called “entrepreneurial state” has made the initial high-risk investments. ... There is a very simple reason for that. Public companies need to deliver profits to shareholders and private individuals..
I think that is the very point of the 'entrepreneurial state does it better' argument: Big business is generally much more short term in outlook because of this expectation of profits within a short time. (though perhaps driven to short termism more by how their executives are bonused rather than the outright generation of profit).
The entrepreneurial state should be able to make strategic decisions favoring several generations. (As a successful example, all politics aside: Singapore).
But the key word here is 'entrepreneurial'. If you simply have a two party system which bases decision making on soundbites, horse trading political deals, and policy contradicting the opposition party viewpoint, then you ain't got much.
However, I fear if that you put it all in the hands of big business to prioritize our future, you will be extremely disappointed at the outcome.
My guess is that the answer, as usual, lies somewhere in between.
Markx
If you think through many (if not most) of the innovations of the industrial revolution I see few that involved public investment. It's a long list:
Steam power generation
Canals
Machine tool making
Ship-building
Electricity generation and distribution
Gas production for heating and light
Turbine power
Coal mining
Iron, cast iron, wrought iron, steel production and fabrication
Railways
Aeroplanes
Cars
Radio
Cinema
Photography
All of these were privately funded. In a lot of cases rhe investors lost their money - especially true in the case of railways.
Public investment is largely a modern phenomena with a poor track record.
Leo Smith writes:
==================
When all of your competition is effectively massively subsidised, your only help is to jump on the same gravy train, because their ain't no other..
=================
One can look to the great trusts of the late 19th century to see that competition ism not the natural outcome of unfettered laissz faire capitalism. These trusts were able to to take monopoly returns from the public in the same way that too big to fail and too big to jail banks are doing it today.
Unfettered capitalism will always enable the production of goods at its most efficient possible, but that has zero impact of the cost of those goods to the consumer or the wages to the workers.
Cartels and other anti-competitive practices will arise if tight oversight is not maintained.
The state should maintain control of legal structures which encourage risk and development by private industry whilst keeping basic civic safety measures in place.
Its a hard balancing act but needs to be done.
Allow Eli to just point to two items in the list of things did not involve public investment that certainly were
Canals - Panama & more directly (Erie) others subsidized and via grants of rights of way
Aeroplanes - R&D subsidized by governments from for both civil and military (Airbus still bitches on the US military role). Governments also create/created significant markets for the industry both on the civil and military sides especially early on
A Bunny could go on to many other items in the list, but why be tedious
The entire industrial revolution was the work of private enterprise.
Including (Eli, please note) canals, railways, and the internal combustion engine.
Whether and to what extent government then capitalised on the ingenuity of 18th and 19th century engineers and inventors for (arguably) the greater public good or its own interests does not alter the substantive point.
Since governments (not private individuals) make war it is inevitably the government war machine which will be looking for ways to wage war more efficiently and effectively than the other side but developments have almost always been built on foundations initially laid down by private industry.
Another Ian writes-
"The reason we can’t mine and burn hydrogen is simple … it’s all been burnt already."
Yep. Gaia is drowning in oceans of hydrogen ash, uh, pollution.
:-)
My view is that hydrogen should be used in dirigibles instead of helium because hydrogen is cheaper and gives far better lift. The flammable risk can be engineered against.
Eli: in the US, canals were initially all funded privately. George Washington was a partner on one of them that lost money but many of them were very profitable. He also invested in draining the Great Dismal Swamp. While the gov granted land to the railroads, the railroads themselves were privately funded. JP Morgan and Edison privately put electricity into Manhattan. Crony capitalism of course has always been there but that does not mean it generates progress.
My list of capitalist ventures of the Industrial Revolution was implicitly British, the giveaway item being turbine power. Panama and Erie canals are not British, and the Bridgewater canal preceded them by over a hundred years. And another key point in my list was all of the industries I listed were all pioneered solely by private enterprise and the entry (if any) of public capital in the listed ventures only occurred when the disciplines were well established and often under the guise of political stress (e.g. the nationalisation of the UK railways at the start of WWI).
I should have added chemical engineering and water supplies to my list.
Perhaps Eli would care to list engineering or technical disciplines started and successfully established solely by public money?
Apr 12, 2015 at 1:16 PM Steve Richards says:
Unfettered capitalism will always enable the production of goods at its most efficient possible...
Hi Steve, I agree absolutely on all you said, except the above.
What happens with unfettered capitalism is the 'efficiency theories' work marvelously until one or two giants have out-competed, bought, absorbed and eliminated all competition, and subsequently control both retail price, and dictate what suppliers get paid. Then the customers are locked in.
In Australia Woolworths and Wesfarmers (Coles) between the two of them account for 82% of the food retailing sector. (and about the same in retail petrol and liquor)
The Australian 'big four' banks account for 97.17% of the Bank sector, 62.87% of the financial sector and 28.6% of the entire All Ordinaries index.
http://www.marcustoday.com.au/webpages/1332_free-advice.php?articleid=26282#content&utm_source=ex%20trialists%20database&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FROM%20MARCUS
Australia's big four banks are also ALL significantly owned by 4 major multinationals, Citigroup, HSBC, JP Morgan, and National Nominees, each holding fairly equal holdings in each of the 4 Australian banks; totaling about 45% of the shareholdings.
http://blog.creditcardcompare.com.au/big-four-ownership.php
The “proposed capitalist solutions” are, erm, not really capitalist as at all; they are “solutions” imposed by government that capitalists are trying to realise. One of the problems with socialism is the rather simplistic notion that capitalists are evil people whose sole desire is to make money, no matter what the costs. What is the rationale if your means of making money wipes out your customers? That might work for governments, but it does not work for corporations; remember, the most common mantra in most companies is “The customer is king!” Pretty pointless when your company has ensured that the customer is non-existent.
Let's try and stay on topic: hydrogen as a fuel
25 million cars on the Road in the UK .How many extra power station what be required if they were all suddenly electric.
Craig Loehle wrote:
========================
JP Morgan and Edison privately put electricity into Manhattan
========================
Roosevelt with the Rural Electrification Act (1935) spread electricity beyond the big cities. The FCC mandated universal service from the telephone companies and required them to extend the service beyond the cites. The same mandate is now being sued to force the needed universal broadband access. These were government actions that mandated needed changes in the economy beyond that that could be justified by short term profit.
Mick Jackson wrote:
============
internal combustion engine
============
The internal combustion engine would be a rich man's curiosity except fro the modern network of high speed roads created and paid for by government.
Craig Loehle wrote:
========================
JP Morgan and Edison privately put electricity into Manhattan
========================
Roosevelt with the Rural Electrification Act (1935) spread electricity beyond the big cities. The FCC mandated universal service from the telephone companies and required them to extend the service beyond the cites. The same mandate is now being sued to force the needed universal broadband access. These were government actions that mandated needed changes in the economy beyond that that could be justified by short term profit.
Mick Jackson wrote:
============
internal combustion engine
============
The internal combustion engine would be a rich man's curiosity except fro the modern network of high speed roads created and paid for by government.
@markx, at 9:25AM, Mariana Mazzucato's economic thoughts have been thoroughly debunked.
One example - http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/15/the-intellectual-hole-at-the-heart-of-mariana-mazzucatos-entrepreneurial-state/
@ Tom Gray. 7:48 pm "The internal combustion engine would be a rich man's curiosity except fro the modern network of high speed roads created and paid for by government."
The "modern network of high speed roads created and paid for by government" post-dated the internal combustion engine by the best part of a century. In fact, until the early decades of the 20th century, the nearest we had to a 'high speed roads network' in the UK were the privately funded turnpikes.
People were paving roads long before the car came along. The reason country roads mostly weren't was that most economies couldn't afford it. Those that could -- Romans, Chinese -- paved their highways.
The modern paved road is a symbol of our wealth, and related for our need to move about. That it is cars is more or less irrelevant, as they would also help horse transport too. In my childhood many roads, for cars, were still unpaved.
Not much to do with hydrogen - but I see that load dumping via hydrogen generation has popped up a bit...
fwiw
There are reputedly 26 million households in the UK
Most households have an immersion heater
Let's say loose about 30%
An immersion heater dissipates around 3kW
Connect 'em all up to secure mobile data enabled relays ((£25 each from China + say £50 quids to fit) and you would have a 50GW solar / wind dump - what's not to like? (OK... that solar and wind were competing on a rational basis is reasonable...) Has anybody ever seen smart meters that load dump .... ?
This was never about sensible / utility / engineered solutions - it's irrational, innumerate, control freak half wits or worse dictating energy policy advised by mendacious flim flam artists.
Mooloo;
Totally agree with you, my dad grew up in the Welsh Marches in the 20's-30's, most of the agricultural transport was horse-drawn up until after WWII, and, if you actually had a car, you were driving around on snow-chains for at least 2 months of the year.
@ Tom Gray. 7:48 pm "The internal combustion engine would be a rich man's curiosity except fro the modern network of high speed roads created and paid for by government."
That is a stretch. In fact it's simply not true. The ICE is over 150 years old. My uncles bought an ICE motorcycle almost exactly a hundred years ago; they were not rich. The nearest paved road was a long way from the farm, but the system of dirt roads (with stretches of crushed rock macadam, near major towns) was adequate for transportation at typical vehicle speeds of that day. Modern blacktop roads weren't developed until the 1920's. By then, ICE autos and motorcycles had been in production and use for over twenty years. Roads were built based on demand created by fully private development of motorized vehicles.
The first US transcontinental trip by auto was made by Horatio Nelson Jackson and Sewall Crocker in 1903. There were virtually no paved roads between San Francisco and Omaha at that time.
=============
The "modern network of high speed roads created and paid for by government" post-dated the internal combustion engine by the best part of a century. In fact, until the early decades of the 20th century, the nearest we had to a 'high speed roads network' in the UK were the privately funded turnpikes.
============
In the early 20th century long distance car travel across continents, even that of North America and Europe, was the stuff of adventurers. The automobile drove the need for paved roads and the automobile adapted as the roads provided for it improved.. Early automobiles had wagon-type wheels -broad and thin - to cope with the rutted bad roads. The broad car tire of today was made practical by the good roads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_Motor_Convoy
=============
The "modern network of high speed roads created and paid for by government" post-dated the internal combustion engine by the best part of a century. In fact, until the early decades of the 20th century, the nearest we had to a 'high speed roads network' in the UK were the privately funded turnpikes.
============
In the early 20th century long distance car travel across continents, even that of North America and Europe, was the stuff of adventurers. The automobile drove the need for paved roads and the automobile adapted as the roads provided for it improved.. Early automobiles had wagon-type wheels -broad and thin - to cope with the rutted bad roads. The broad car tire of today was made practical by the good roads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_Motor_Convoy
Hydrogen is not nice. We used it in the Flame Ionisation Detectors in the mud-logging units I used to work on.
My dad used to use it to fill the Met baloons when he worked on weatherships.
In both cases the cylinders were stored on the open deck, for good reason.
I saw that reason demonstrated by my Chemistry teacher (one Mr. Oliver, who was also church elder!) when I was about 13 years old at school in Edinburgh.
First, he did the 'Hindenburg' experiment, which was a polythene bag filled with with pure hydrogen.
Shove a burning taper into the side of the bag, and you get a lovely orange-yellow 'whump' as the gas ignites and burns relatively slowly.
Then repeat, but wth a 50/50 Hydrogen/Oxygen mix.
Safety screens up, and the boys moved to the back of the classroom, and the lit taper at the end of a very long stick.
The bang was terrific, and the screens were blown over to a great cheer from the class.
I don't think any of those boys could ever forget that lesson, or would volunteer to drive around in a car with a tank of hydrogen in it.
I'll stick with diesel, thanks.
A great, relatively safe way to store hydrogen for use as an energy source is to combine it with ... carbon.
MikeA @ various:
Forget hydrogen as a mobile energy source; too light (or less energy dense if you prefer), and too difficult and dangerous to handle.
Regarding hydrolysis: The high pressure process uses potassium hydroxide to enhance conductivity. With continuous electricity supply it can run around 82% efficiency. The 100% figure you quote is for the electricity and ignores the necessary heat input.
When you go to a low pressure intermittent process, which is what the wind turbines will be, then the efficiency drops. 45% quoted above is a maximum. There are other problems, pumping the sea water to the hydrolysis cells will use electricity, and pumping the hydrogen to storage also. And is it to be stored at a practically useless atmospheric pressure? Your overall efficiency will be in the low 30 percents at best.
Contrast this with pumped storage. It doesn't need continuous power and it returns 70-75% of the energy input. Certainly you would need vast storage volumes, which rules out wind as a viable method, which it is anyway.
Electric cars have one advantage in that they can recover some energy using regenerative braking, but limited by the battery chemistry. If I were building a car I would look at lighter weight, powered by a combination of flywheel and stirling engine along the lines of the Chevrolet Volt. More regenerative energy recovered, lower emissions and less noise (if those damned boom boxes were illegal) and less weight as the fuel would supply the range that normally requires a huge weight of batteries.
Apr 12, 2015 at 5:32 PM Radical Rodent says:
One of the problems with socialism is the rather simplistic notion that capitalists are evil people whose sole desire is to make money, no matter what the costs.
Hi RR,
May I make the point that advocating against the concept of 'unfettered capitalism' and the ideas that unfettered capitalism is the answer to all things does not automatically make one a socialist.
Note that in Singapore, Temasak Holdings has always operated as normally structured company with a board, CEO, etc etc, albeit with that board and the upper echelons of the company seemingly populated mostly by governmetn connected/related individuals, ex military, and ex government. Temasak is fully government owned, and has (perhaps until recently) held at least 52 - 55% of power generation, water supply, Singapore Ports, Singapore Airport and Singapore Airlines, telecommunications, public transport, Singapore Foods ... etc etc.
I don't think you can realistically classify Singapore as a socialist state.
Interestingly, they are now seemingly in the process of selling off their power generation businesses to private enterprise. Perhaps changing leadership and changing times means they now also hold to the credo that 'private business does it better'.
I wonder if that will prove to be correct.
Apr 12, 2015 at 8:13 PM SadButMadLad said:
Mariana Mazzucato's economic thoughts have been thoroughly debunked.
One example - http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/15/the-intellectual-hole-at-the-heart-of-mariana-mazzucatos-entrepreneurial-state/
Thanks SBML, that is interesting.
But I am not sure the disagreement over definitions of 'public goods' thoroughly debunks her ideas.
If you simply replace 'public goods' with 'major national infrastructure', her ideas are still interesting. To me at least.