Wind Lens 3 times more efficient than conventional turbines

[b101_uk 10]

Lol its nothing new, shrouds around propellers/fans have always been known to give more efficacy’s however the stated 2 or 3 time the efficacy is highly debatable in the real world.

Also look at the extra weight required for an effective shroud and the forces acting upon it which will mean that the towers they stand atop will have to be much much stronger in almost every way and it’s not something you could retrofit.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In Reply to PELHAM:

Yes Hydrogen like any other fuel contains energy and you have to be careful how you store it just the same as petrol or diesel or methane gas or any other chemically reactive agent.

EG:

The Buncefield Oil Depot fire in Hemel Hemstead that could be seen from London and from space.

From this site:

http://www.virginmedia.com/science-nature/technology/iconic-images-manmade-disasters.php?ssid=5

I could put the BP Gulf disaster, refinery fires and Fukushima and Chernobyl up there too and thousands more besides. And those are only the biggies I could also include: Ferraris catching fire, gas explosions in houses, people electrocuting them selves my miss wiring a plug and numpties making Molotov cocktails from petrol and on and on and on...

That is life; it is like that and there are going to numpties in a Hydrogen economy just the same as any other fuel economy.

We have been storing hydrogen for over century now and there are as you point out multiple storage methods available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage

As you can see multiple solutions exist

Will there be disasters at Hydrogen fuel storage just the same as any other fuel, I am 99% certain of it. Accidents do happen.

Also you seem to wrongly assume that you need to have more Hydrogen in storage on land than we do any other fuel. We do not. Most fuel is delivered just in time nowadays. So storage for Hydrogen on land would be minimal.

It will be as I said an open market with most fuel held off shore, same as we do with Oil now. Personally I think gas bags are the safest option as any leaks will float up from them and any explosion high in the sky over the sea while spectacular will be minimally dangerous and polluting, mostly from the gas bag, and dangers only of something hard falling from the sky.

Would you still have back up supplies of other fuels yes and maybe even some Nuclear power stations for research and old times sake.

But the future is Wind and Hydrogen that is why all the car companies are developing Hydrogen cars and why people like Warren Buffet are voting with their cash.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11845

It is as inevitable and as unstoppable as water running down hill.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 2, 2011 by walker

[PELHAM 10]

Cheers Walker, I appreciate the reply. I wasn't aware offshore-type windfarms weren't actually on the seabed.

They are on the sea bed. All the ones you see today are in water no more than 30m deep and are built on piles driven into the seabed.

To date there have only been 2 tethered floating wind turbine test rigs and they seem to have been successful. The Hywind off Norway was due to be decommissioned and examined last year. It cost $62 million to build and deploy the single turbine.

As yet no one has built or tested a free floating deep sea turbine.

If you look at post #20 I have written something about the problems of hydrogen storage and use that walker may not realise. We are a long way from replacing fossil fuels with it because the storage technology isn't good enough yet.

It may be possible to create hydrogen from deep sea windfarms and use it in a power station but that is science fiction for now. Don't expect to be filling up your car with hydrogen any time soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle#Hydrogen

In 2009 the U.S. Secretary of Energy, Stephen Chu, stated that fuel cell hydrogen vehicles "will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years". He cited difficulties in the development of the required infrastructure to distribute hydrogen as a justification for cutting research funds.[77] The National Hydrogen Association and other hydrogen groups criticized the decision.[78] Secretary Chu told MIT's Technology Review that he is skeptical about hydrogen's use in transportation because "the way we get hydrogen primarily is from reforming [natural] gas. ... You're giving away some of the energy content of natural gas. ... So that's one problem. ... [For] transportation, we don't have a good storage mechanism yet. ... The fuel cells aren't there yet, and the distribution infrastructure isn't there yet. ... In order to get significant deployment, you need four significant technological breakthroughs. ... If you need four miracles, that's unlikely: saints only need three miracles".[33] Congress reversed the funding cuts in its appropriations bill for 2010,[7] but the Department of Energy plans to decrease funding for Fuel Cell Vehicle development in its 2012 budget.[79]

In July 2011, the Chairman and CEO of General Motors, Daniel Akerson, stated that while the cost of hydrogen fuel cell cars is decreasing: "The car is still too expensive and probably won't be practical until the 2020-plus period, I don't know."

(Not sure why they are not considering using wind farms to create hydrogen instead of methane, possibly interference from the oil companies? But that would only solve 1 of the above problems.)

---------- Post added at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ----------

Walker you don't understand the science.

I'm not concerned about hydrogen explosions or safety, although that is one reason why they are actually slowly abandoning the idea of H2 fuelled cars. I was talking about the equivalent energy densities when you compare hydrogen with other fuels. Hydrogen has to be compressed or stored under cryogenic conditions to be useful.

E.g. there is actually about 64% more hydrogen in a litre of gasoline (116 grams hydrogen) than there is in a litre of pure liquid hydrogen (71 grams hydrogen). The carbon in the gasoline also contributes to the energy of combustion. Litre for litre you need far more hydrogen than gasoline......you get it now? You need an awfully big gas tank or you need to compress the hydrogen to store it in the same space. That liquid hydrogen needs to be kept at -235C to stop it boiling off. So the car could not be left parked for more than 3 days or the fuel would start to boil away.

That is why they are giving up on it as an everyday fuel. It's cannot be stored or transported in a convenient way. Can you imagine the problems of cars with cryogenic fuel tanks or compressed H2 at 10,000psi? You can't put things like that in the hands of ordinary people. Even a metal hydride tank is large, heavy and expensive, it's also takes 8 hours at 250psi to recharge one.

Gas bags??? Gas bags??? Are you aware that 1 gram of hydrogen at atmospheric pressure takes up 11 cubic litres of space? And you think the best solution is to tow it around in gas bags?

This car was converted during the war to use methane instead of petrol. That bag gave it a range of 50 miles. The equivalent hydrogen bag would be 4x - 6x as large. Do you get the problem now or do I have to draw more pictures?

Edited September 2, 2011 by PELHAM

[Daniel 0]

Thanks for the correction Mr PELHAM. So in that case, does fitting tidal generators between wind farm towers become viable again as a reliable addition? I understand you can't put tidal generators just anywhere for environmental reasons, I assume wind farm locations would already be picked to have minimal impact. Two birds with one stone perhaps.

[PELHAM 10]

Tidal power requires a location with a large change in tidal volume and fast flow. There are not many suitable sites that meet the criteria. I don't think any wind farms have been put in such places because the extra stress placed on the structures would not be desirable and the sea bed is usually rocky so you can't build into it. Remember there is a difference between tidal and wave power - different concepts, different machines.

It would be better to place strings of wave generators between the wind turbines but not sure if that ones feasible. They are a surface structure like strings of sausages and that would increase the navigation hazards of any wind farm considerably.

There is a picture of a combined wind / wave device on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power

Scotland's Pelamis wave power generator:

I can't think of a better ship / boat catcher lol.

Edited September 2, 2011 by PELHAM

[Daniel 0]

Nope, point taken!!

[stgn 39]

wat...

I read the paper. I would like to know. What part of the paper does not support the article?

[kavoven 4]

The energy solution of the future doesn't consist out of many large windfarms all over the world. Its much more about saving enery, using it more efficient and adapting the right solution for the right place (wind/sun/biogas/geothermal energy/water etc)

I traveled through London during the last week and I was shocked by all those houses that still had windows that looked like they were (or ARE) from the 19th century! I don't want to know how much energy is wasted due to no/very poor isolation!

So please, reduce your energy usage! And don't think of one single new energy being the solution for everything. And if you don't believe in global warming - fine. My point of few is "renewable energy -> less polution, less dependency on oil/gas exporting countries, cleaner air"

[walker 0]

Nice ad hominem to start with :rolleyes:

Second: Reading the paper, how does it not cast doubt about climate models accuracy and dependability, both the high sensitivity models and the low sensitivity models?

STGN

Hi STGN

First off; I am not making an ad homenim attack I am questioning the man's scientific credentials on the basis that he has abandoned scientific method in favour of magic and an imaginary friend who magically made the world in 6 days and who he claims magically ensures the weather is just right. He signed the statement.

Secondly; I was stating that the paper did not support the argument that the Blogger was making that a NASA survey showed Climate change was not happening. In point of fact no such survey was done by NASA. I was also pointing out that he was comparing only extreme data with his model as the Blogger admited at least three times in the article.

Thirdly, I point out that the peer reviewed pubication has appologised for allowing the article to be published as if it was a scholarly article that had been adequately reviewed by peers, when inpoint of fact the authors had sneaked an article about climate into a publication about satellite sensing so as to prevent adequate peer review and that the publication's editor has resigned in embarrassment as a result.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/

You can read more here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

Kind regards walker

Edited September 5, 2011 by walker

[dmarkwick 261]

The Buncefield Oil Depot fire in Hemel Hemstead that could be seen from London and from space.

One plus for hydrogen: it doesn't make all that pollution, either during use or misuse.

[Janxy 10]

One plus for hydrogen: it doesn't make all that pollution, either during use or misuse.

Indeed, Hydrogen burned in Oxygen produces Heat + Water. Though as well as the significant problems in production, transport and storage which PELHAM has quite correctly stated, there are several others to take into consideration.

Hydrogen burns ( mostly ) with an ultraviolet flame, which would make the detection of burning leaks a major problem without specialised equipment and training.

Also the enthalpy of combustion of Hydrogen is much less than the Hydrocarbons in use today.

If we take natural gas ( Methane, one of the simplest "anes" ) as an example, it has approx 3 times the enthalpy of combustion than Hydrogen does.

In a nutshell it would take 3 times the amount of Hydrogen than Methane ( by molecular weight ) to produce the same amount of energy. As you go up the "ane" chain the difference is much greater.

Our future energy security will be a mixture of renewable, fossil, nuclear and microgeneration ( solar pv, solar thermal, ground/air source heat pumps etc ) which will help mitigate the amount of energy needed to be generated from production nodes and transported.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Janxy
added a bit for clarity

[dmarkwick 261]

I guess, pragmatically, that transport of hydrogen can be minimised by local production, meaning that the transport is changed from hydrogen to water transport. As we already do this, we'd just need to step up the same process. So maybe the future of power generation is about local production & water management?

[PELHAM 10]

I guess, pragmatically, that transport of hydrogen can be minimised by local production, meaning that the transport is changed from hydrogen to water transport. As we already do this, we'd just need to step up the same process. So maybe the future of power generation is about local production & water management?

Is hydrogen a good energy store in the first place? "The AC-to-AC efficiency of hydrogen storage has been shown to be in the range of 20-25% [16], rendering hydrogen storage unsuitable for anything but special (mobile) applications."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage

Are any of those storage methods really feasible. Grand ideas but do they work on the scale of a nation state?

The wiki page seems to suggest that underground storage in caves / oil wells is the best solution so you would need local items like that as well. In fact the main problem is storage.

a). because it's very costly in terms of energy to compress, liquefy and store hydrogen.

b). typically 1% will be lost each day to evaporation from cryogenic tanks

c). because of the poor energy density by volume.

I don't think it would be worth the effort, the return in energy is very small and no one is going to make any money out of it, so it isn't going to happen.

Edited September 5, 2011 by PELHAM

[dmarkwick 261]

Is hydrogen a good energy store in the first place?

When the fuel is as plentiful as hydrogen, that might be moot :)

I don't think it would be worth the effort, the return in energy is very small and no one is going to make any money out of it, so it isn't going to happen.

That's just because we're not geared for it, not much research (relatively) has been put into it, and no-one is yet very interested in making money from it. When all that changes, it all changes :) Will only be a matter of time before existing energy costs and future energy costs meet in the middle.

[walker 0]

Hi all

As I keep pointing out:

I would see an open Hydrogen market as no different than a fossil fuel market where storage is no longer much of an issue as the fuel is delivered just in time.

While the grid storage methods you describe in particular the move to Hydrogen storage descibed in this section of the page you linked above are interesting, they are just diversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage#Hydrogen

I personaly think they are needlessly complex, expensive and pointless.

We do not need massive stores of fuel on land hence we do not have them. So your point is moot PELHAM. For Hydrogen you just store it in cheap reusable gas bags way up in the sky and out at sea, cheap and no risk, even if they catch fire you just replace them. You can tow them to where they are needed at least as fast as an oil tanker does in a Just in Time market, probably quicker if you used UAV methods.

PELHAM you seem to be stuck in old thinking. Your power efficiency argument is irrelavent, you use the resource that is available, at sea the resources are wind and water; taking extra tech there is more inneficient, all your old fashioned complex tech is not needed, just use a simple basic tech solution. If the wind is blowing out at sea you just split hydrogen off from sea water, stick it in bags and tow it to where it is needed.

The cost of production is staff, probably a lot lower than for oil rigs and tankers; plus equipment, your turbines and their platforms; transportation for crews and towing Hydrogen bags; and then maintenance costs which for a turbine is one moving part, though there would be ancillary costs for living accomodation and access; no fees for tapping the resource unlike fossil fuels. And by placing them out at deep sea it removes your business from all taxes; on that alone it makes it more profitable than land and continental shelf bound business.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 5, 2011 by walker

[b101_uk 10]

One of the main fundamental problems with Hydrogen regardless of how you wish to implement is outside of an internal combustion engine i.e. in transport, is that there just isn’t anything like the required amount of preciouses/semi-preciouses metals required on this earth to replace the vehicles we have now even if we forsake currant performance for lesser performance, which means when it comes to lorry’s or other commercial load carrying transport you will need more of them to move the same amount of goods.

If you switch to centralised recharging via the electric grid you run into the problem of battery life expectance in only having a finite amount of charges before they degrade and need replacement at high cost and that’s without accounting for the permanently high weight so they are permanently affecting efficacy (they don’t get lighter as they discharge and weigh many times more than liquid fuels which will travel many time further for equivalent weigh/recharge range)

Can you imagine the implications if HP Hydrogen storage operated by the mass public in the order of >700bar (>10152psig) plus pressure which is a meaningless figure to most people, if you take your normal butane/propane gas bottle that you may use for camping or in a caravan or room heater that when charged will be <250psig, if you do scuba diving then you bottles will be ~200bar (~2900psig) which is about the same pressure as the hydraulic system on an agricultural tractor or digger and plant or what industrial gas bottles are stored at which are pressures that gasses and liquids can easily sever arms and legs or to put it another way a UHP water jet at >20000psig will cut through thick steel as found on water jet cutting tables. :eek:

[Janxy 10]

We do not need massive stores of fuel on land hence we do not have them. So your point is moot PELHAM. For Hydrogen you just store it in cheap reusable gas bags way up in the sky and out at sea, cheap and no risk, even if they catch fire you just replace them. You can tow them to where they are needed at least as fast as an oil tanker does in a Just in Time market, probably quicker if you used UAV methods.

I don't think that idea would float ( groan ) given that the enthalpy of combustion for hydrogen is −286 kJ/mol.

Avogadro's law says, a mol of any gas occupies 22.4 liters.

Approx Energy to boil a kettle = 378 kJ ( 1 liter (roughly 1 kilogram, 2.2 lbs) of cold water at about 10°C (50°F) raised 90°C to its boiling point (100°C or 212°F). The amount of energy = 4.2 × 1000 grams × 90 degrees = 378,000 joules or 378 kJ. )

Therefore assuming 100% efficiency: mols of hydrogen burnt to boil one kettle = 1.32 mols

= 29.56 liters

According to the UK Tea Council, as a nation we guzzle 165m cups of tea and 70m cups of coffee each day so say 200m cups at 1/3 of a liter each or assuming one kettle to 3 cups = 29.56 x 66,67000 = 197076520 litres or approx 197million liters of hydrogen per day, just to keep Britain in brews.

That's one hell of a gas bag ( insert wife joke here ).

Edited September 5, 2011 by Janxy
correctid sum spoling

[stgn 39]

Sory for any gramma mistakes I might have made, I hope its readable.

Hi STGN

First off; I am not making an ad homenim attack I am questioning the man's scientific credentials on the basis that he has abandoned scientific method in favour of magic and an imaginary friend who magically made the world in 6 days and who he claims magically ensures the weather is just right. He signed the statement.

Secondly; I was stating that the paper did not support the argument that the Blogger was making that a NASA survey showed Climate change was not happening. In point of fact no such survey was done by NASA. I was also pointing out that he was comparing only extreme data with his model as the Blogger admited at least three times in the article.

Thirdly, I point out that the peer reviewed pubication has appologised for allowing the article to be published as if it was a scholarly article that had been adequately reviewed by peers, when inpoint of fact the authors had sneaked an article about climate into a publication about satellite sensing so as to prevent adequate peer review and that the publication's editor has resigned in embarrassment as a result.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/

You can read more here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

Kind regards walker

First yes you are: from WIKI

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man", "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it

Now I do not believe in a god either but believing that the universe was created by a god and not by quantum fluctuation or whatever has no bearing on how the world works. Where did he abandoned the scientific method of investigating the world, thats right he doesn't, he just think that its created by god and he also believes that its is not a super fragile environment. Do you have to think the sky is falling to be permitted to do climate science? His credentials despite being a Christian seem rather good: NASA aqua satellite team

Second, I don't know if the article was edited but it does not say that it was a NASA survey it says NASA DATA so you are entirely right NASA did no such survey but the article doesn't claim so. I assume you are saying that "alarmist computer models" means only the most extreme models right? well the article starts of with saying that IPCC computer models have been unable to predict accurately how much heat is trapped by CO2 so I guess that means all models, like the paper shows. Then he uses "alarmist computer models" for the rest of the blog, this could mean that he think all IPCC models are made by alarmist, don't know but where does the blogger actually say that its only compared to the most extreme models?

Third, the editor changed his mind after he was criticized, but the paper was not retracted.

Kind Regards STGN

[walker 0]

Hi all

Janxy I do not know where you got your information but Hydrogen produces more energy than Methane which we use to boil kettles and pans in my house.

I refer you to these Heat of combustion tables:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion#Heat_of_combustion_tables

By all measures Hydrogen is a far better chemical fuel storage medium than any other.

You seem to be assuming I am suggesting the gas is used straight from the gas bags, which is incorrect. You are aware that the gas bag storage I am suggesting is for raw storage? In other words the Gas Bags are a modern day equivalent of crude oil tankers in a Hydrogen Supply model. Once the fuel is required and bought in the open market, one would move it to an offshore plant and process it as one does with crude oil, converting it into a useful form, by say using it in an offshore electricity generation plant or by compression or other means for transhipment through normal gas supply methods as we do with methane propane etc. eg. pipes and bottles but also the other methods mentioned in the earlier link I posted on hydrogen storage methods. Whatever works, it is an open market.

In Reply to STGN

On Point One what Spencer signed up to was the following:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

As always follow the link to the original article in full

He therefor states that he believes his imaginary friend invented the ecosystem and designed so that it will self correct. I also note he is a satellite sensing scientist not a climatologist which is probably why he has never read anything recent about how dynamic systems work. If he had then he would know it is a chaotic system and when you go poking it with a stick, to whit excessive amounts of greenhouse gasses, cannot be relied upon to be "...self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing..."

It takes not the blindest bit of notice of what humans will flourish in, and has in the past existed in states not conducive to human flourishing and thus can throw us into ice ages or millennial droughts and can as easily spiral down to the state of Venus or Mars, as chaos dictates taking no notice what so ever of whether humans flourish or not and whether some of the humans imaginary friend is supposed to be looking after it or not.

On Point Two Hans Ludwig posted this:

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

"The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted."

and I was refuting both the inferred Head-lie that it was NASA who was saying this, and that the paper the Blogger was using had anything at all valid to say about climate.

On Point Three I would rather take what the editor wrote in his resignation letter as the reason he resigned. Refer everyone to it. He makes clear it was not any criticism about the publications acceptance of the paper that made him resign, he accepts that it has validity of expressing a minority view, he was far more upset by Forbes and Fox wrongly suggesting a NASA Survey had contradicted the scientifically accepted Global Warming theory. The reason he resigned was neither of those though, as he makes clear in his resignation letter it was that Spencer and Braswell had succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of the publications Peer Review methods:

In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

As always follow the link to the original article in full

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 5, 2011 by walker

[b101_uk 10]

Hi all

Janxy I do not know where you got your information but Hydrogen produces more energy than Methane which we use to boil kettles and pans in my house.

I refer you to these Heat of combustion tables:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion#Heat_of_combustion_tables

if you go by weight then any figure will favour a light element, however if you go by a fixed volume of liquid like 1L then liquid Hydrogen falls well short,

1m3 of diesel = ~830kg @ 44.80MJ/kg

1m3 of liquid Methane = ~416kg @ 55.50MJ/kg

1m3 of liquid Hydrogen = ~70.8kg @ 141.80MJ/kg

1m3 of water = ~1000kg

Thus:

Liquid Hydrogen @ 141.80MJ/kg = ~14.124L

Liquid Methane @ 55.50MJ/kg = ~2.403L

Diesel @ 44.80MJ/kg = ~1.204L

Real value's:

Liquid Hydrogen @ 10.0396MJ/L

Liquid Methane @ 23.0961MJ/L

Diesel @ 37.2093MJ/L

;)

[walker 0]

Hi all

Why would you want it as a Liquid? It only marginaly decreases volume over highly compressed gas. This is a red herring argument.

Better to use it as a lightly compressed gas at 10-20 bar shipped down a gas transport pipeline to homes or local generating plants and convert it back into electrical energy; as already happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_pipeline_transport

At the most you would compress it to a maximum of 700bar though and transport it in bottles as compressed gas as it is now for cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_hydrogen

I personaly would prefer the Hydrogen fuel cell or crystaline metal hydride Hydrogen tank, options. The latter is probably going to fight it out with Nano tubes as the vehicular storage medium.

One has to consider full measure of a fuel in the form of its total energy density:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 5, 2011 by walker

[b101_uk 10]

One has to consider full measure of a fuel in the form of its total energy density:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Kind Regards walker

Because however you try to cut the argument storage has to come into it somewhere, storage is based on the merits of volume NOT weight.

Read:

“Energy density is a term used for the amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volumeâ€

Volume is NOT weight, you have fallen for the red herring argument of using weight for one of the lightest elements! if you don’t want to use liquid but use 700bar then you just get a very low ~5.6MJ/L vs. Diesel @ ~37.2093MJ/L or Liquid Methane @ ~23.0961MJ/L.

At 700bar you will need ~6.6445L of Hydrogen to get the same energy as 1L of diesel, liquefied Hydrogen it’s just ~3.7L

;)

[walker 0]

Hi all.

In reply to b101_uk

And yet Hydrogen Gas powered cars wonder around quite happily:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

On a personal note I much prefer public transport.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 5, 2011 by walker

[PELHAM 10]

While the grid storage methods you describe in particular the move to Hydrogen storage descibed in this section of the page you linked above are interesting, they are just diversion.

That page, for your info, is a list of plausible methods of storing excess energy from wind farms. That is precisely what you wanted to do?

Your whole point was to use hydrogen as an energy store for periods of calm weather when the turbines were not working? You therefore have to have it stored near power generating machinery in a form that can be used to generate power quickly. Floating in giant gas bags "way up in the sky" isn't good enough. It would have to be stored under high pressure or liquefied to be be usable in generating equipment. It gets worse, the best gas turbine is only 60% efficient so you lose 40% more energy there.

We have already shown that "The AC-to-AC efficiency of hydrogen storage has been shown to be in the range of 20-25%". As you don't seem to understand basic arithmetic I will explain just what that means. It means that this is a ridiculously bad and inefficient way of storing energy. You are losing more than 3/4 of the energy you wanted to store. That means you would need 80% more wind turbines than you started out with - that's a very big number. So you have a very expensive and resource hungry energy store that does not really store energy? What's the point of it all?

We do not need massive stores of fuel on land hence we do not have them. So your point is moot PELHAM.

Oh yes you do, when the wind stops blowing you need to spin up mechanical generation and fast - within seconds or the power grid fails. You clearly have no understanding of the simple mechanical engineering involved or the nature of electrical energy supply.

For Hydrogen you just store it in cheap reusable gas bags way up in the sky and out at sea, cheap and no risk, even if they catch fire you just replace them.

Can I ask how these giant gas bags and cables will respond to bad weather? You are already aware that hydrogen at atmospheric pressure occupies 11 cubic litres per gram? That should have allowed you to do a calculation.

The Hindenburg had a capacity of 18.18 metric tonnes of hydrogen.

That would keep a power station burning for about 1/2 hour. You would need 336 bags that big to supply 1 power station for a week.

You can tow them to where they are needed at least as fast as an oil tanker does in a Just in Time market, probably quicker if you used UAV methods.

Obviously not a student of aerodynamics or physics either? Could we have some dimensions for your gas bags? Also please could you calculate the wind resistance? A large bag full of H2 would also be able to generate a considerable amount of lift . 18.18 tonnes of H2 will generate 224 tonnes of lift at STP, add in the weight of the bag ~ 50 tonnes and you are still left with 174 tonnes to restrain, how would you anchor them and get the hydrogen in and out with all those forces at work?(Imagine yourself in a boat attached to several large balloons in a strong wind, don't imagine a UAV, that's just silly)

PELHAM you seem to be stuck in old thinking. Your power efficiency argument is irrelavent, ............. If the wind is blowing out at sea you just split hydrogen off from sea water, stick it in bags and tow it to where it is needed.

That's right, I'm thinking. You are letting your imagination run away with itself.

The cost of production is staff, probably a lot lower than for oil rigs and tankers; plus equipment, your turbines and their platforms; transportation for crews and towing Hydrogen bags; and then maintenance costs which for a turbine is one moving part, though there would be ancillary costs for living accomodation and access; no fees for tapping the resource unlike fossil fuels. And by placing them out at deep sea it removes your business from all taxes;

It recently cost the Norwegian government $62 million for 1 deep sea turbine. Your scheme will require millions of them. You will need 1500 of the largest turbines to replace just 1 average gas fired power station, plus another 1200 to generate hydrogen for your energy store = 2700 turbines.

Lets quarter the cost through savings of mass production:

2700 x 15.5 million = $41.8 billion to replace just 1 power station.

Also you seem to think a deep sea wind turbine contains 1 moving part which is nonsense?

Can I ask what will keep your floating platforms in place? If they aren't tethered to the sea bed (That requires deep diving installation and maintenance which costs millions BTW) They will need thrusters operating 24hrs to keep them in position?

None of it adds up or makes much sense does it Walker.

---------- Post added at 02:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 AM ----------

[/color]

Hi all.

In reply to b101_uk

And yet Hydrogen Gas powered cars wonder around quite happily:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

On a personal note I much prefer public transport.

Kind Regards walker

There are only around 40 H2 cars on lease to the public. It's the Honda FCX. The fuel tank is at 700bars, should be interesting when one crashes or sets on fire.

The criticism of H2 further down in that article shows a general trend towards electric cars. Governments and manufacturers are losing interest.

In all of these articles the subject of 700bar+ fuel tanks, H2 infrastructure and storage etc are carefully avoided. It's not really there yet.

Edited September 6, 2011 by PELHAM

[Janxy 10]

Hi all

Janxy I do not know where you got your information but Hydrogen produces more energy than Methane which we use to boil kettles and pans in my house.

I refer you to these Heat of combustion tables:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion#Heat_of_combustion_tables

Those tables show the same info I posted. I think you may be getting weight mixed up with molecular weight, which is a much better unit of equivalence. Hydrogen has a lower energy content per unit volume than the "anes".

By all measures Hydrogen is a far better chemical fuel storage medium than any other.

You seem to be assuming I am suggesting the gas is used straight from the gas bags, which is incorrect. You are aware that the gas bag storage I am suggesting is for raw storage?

Nope, I understood what you meant. I was wondering just how big those gasbags would have to be to provide a sustainable supply from storage to end use.

Hydrogen seems like a good solution at face value, but once some thought is applied to the problem of production right through to power generation and end use it's quite clear it's a very inefficient fuel.

Don't get me wrong, i'm all for alternative forms of energy as it's very clear our continued reliance on fossil fuels is a path leading to disaster. Climate change is real, man made or not. There is plenty of information and studies available that support it, despite what the climate sceptics and religious loonies think.

DMarkwick has the most sensible and probably most efficient idea of localised hydrogen generation. Storage is still a major issue though. Hydrogen forms an explosive mix with air from concentrations of about 4% to 75(ish)% and it goes off with a hell of a bang.

There are only around 40 H2 cars on lease to the public. It's the Honda FCX. The fuel tank is at 700bars, should be interesting when one crashes or sets on fire.

I expect the result will be loud and quite catastrophic.

I wonder if anyone out there in Arma land knows how fast it combusts with resultant shockwave speed etc?

Edited September 6, 2011 by Janxy