• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheap hydrogen production.

Lord of Planar said:
Would ammonia as fuel ever be allowed with all these worries about terrorists?

There is a way of storing energy as fuel. We simply make synthetic fuels with CO2 and Water. This then becomes a carbon neutral process.

I did a quick search to give you an idea of what we have spoke of in past threads:

What a gas: Using water and air to run a car
Click to expand...

Burning liquid hydrocarbon fuels hurts the ozone layer & we all suffer. And ammonia is much safer than hydrogen.
 
JacksinPA said:
Liquid hydrocarbon fuels create CO2 that hurts the planet.
Click to expand...
Only hydrocarbon fuels derived from fossil oil may hurt the planet (Big MAY).
If you make the hydrocarbon fuel from CO2 pulled from the air, no CO2 is added to the air when it is burned.
 
JacksinPA said:
Burning liquid hydrocarbon fuels hurts the ozone layer & we all suffer. And ammonia is much safer than hydrogen.
Click to expand...
Ammonia has it's merits, but it may not be safer than hydrogen.
Ammonia is very toxic to fish, and not that safe for land animals.
 
JacksinPA said:
Ammonia can work today with minimal R&D, mainly in adapting automobile fuel systems to utilize it instead of liquid hydrocarbons. It is made on a huge scale industrially. There would be some need for capital investment for distribution infrastructure such as pipelines & service stations. But its use would create no pollution.

Most of the schemes you listed above are long-range, R&D & capital intensive programs. We'll see which one takes the lead in the future.
Click to expand...

At what cost?

How much would it cost to make enough ammonium in quantities large enough to run fleets on? Do you have any idea what is involved?

Using Ammonia would be more expensive than using hydrogen, and hydrogen can be used to power electric drive trains in cars and truck. Ammonia would still rely on an internal combustion engine. A quick check shows Ammonium at $5 to $10 per kg. That probably places it around $30/gallon equivalent for gasoline. Hydrogen is at least under $20/gallon equivalent.

I would be curious as to what blogger is selling the ammonium line.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Actually, that flame you see in the newsreels is almost all a result of the aluminum doping on the covering. The hydrogen itself was completely dissipated in seconds.
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
Yes, it was a thermitic reaction.
Click to expand...

LOL... I was just thinking and laughed about the CT nuts...

Since thermite was used to take the Hindenburg down, why are the 911 truthers on this?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, that is what the propaganda says.

Can you prove it?
Click to expand...

Do you want me to draw you a diagram? Have you ever taken a science or chemistry course? This is junior high school material.
 
JacksinPA said:
Do you want me to draw you a diagram? Have you ever taken a science or chemistry course? This is junior high school material.
Click to expand...

No- you don’t understand.

He’s told us he’s an auto-didactic, and can pick things up instantly that most people don’t understand.

Plus, his high school education was as good as today’s college education. Seriously. Just ask him.
 
JacksinPA said:
Do you want me to draw you a diagram? Have you ever taken a science or chemistry course? This is junior high school material.
Click to expand...

I am well beyond that level of science. Yes, burning fossil fuels release stored energy, and CO2 is produced. So is water.

Can you prove CO2 harms the earth?

How many papers have you read? How many explicitly show CO2 does harm to the planet? All I see is healthier plants.

Can you cite any paper that explicitly shows such science, or are you letting a pundit blow hot air up your skirt?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I am well beyond that level of science. Yes, burning fossil fuels release stored energy, and CO2 is produced. So is water.

Can you prove CO2 harms the earth?

How many papers have you read? How many explicitly show CO2 does harm to the planet? All I see is healthier plants.

Can you cite any paper that explicitly shows such science, or are you letting a pundit blow hot air up your skirt?
Click to expand...

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

It’s pretty much all there, especially for someone who is ‘well beyond that level of science’
 
JacksinPA said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Click to expand...

Do you think anyone here is not aware of such ideas, and the lies of the severity of CO2?

I's like you to examine that graphic in the top right, and compare it to this edited version I made many years ago:

Untitled.jpg

The feedback from solar radiation stay near linear. The average of solar studies has the sun increasing by the time of this graph by over 0.2%, and that's from 1750 to 2004. Because of lag, the earlier solar levels before 1713 should be used instead of 1750. I think we can count on the a realistic TSI increase of 0.24% or more during the timeframe the IPCC AR4 was covering. I used 0.18% on that graph to be conservative.

My 0.93 W/m^2 is about 58% the warming claimed by the IPCC during that time. That 0.24% would be 78% of the warming.

The greenhouse gas effect is real, and nobody here disputes that. We just dispute the alarming numbers assigned to it.
 
RAMOSS said:
Now, one of the potential 'alternative energy' solutions is moving to a hydrogen economy. I don't know if solid state batteries would be better, but the potential for having fuel cell cars would be an interesting alternative. Cheap hydrogen coudl also replace natural gas, oil and methane for heating.. the trick is trying to produce it economically enough.

The commercialization of making cheap hydrogen from water is getting closer. A company that is trying to make hydrogen production from solar cells has adopted new catalyist technology in their efforts .. to replace platinum as a catalyst with common elements that are 20 times cheaper.

I don't know if they will be successful in the long run (until the products are actually sold, who knows).

But, here is the article about it.

http://www.hypersolar.com/news_detail.php?id=88
Click to expand...

Solid State batteries as a concept are nothing new. You can pick up a pack of AAA solid state batteries at your local drugstore for about 4 bucks

Breakthroughs in energy production aren't going to come from batteries, sad to say
We've hit the limits of what Battery power can do

Ive always thought hydrogen fuel cell technology holds great promise though
 
Fenton said:
Solid State batteries as a concept are nothing new. You can pick up a pack of AAA solid state batteries at your local drugstore for about 4 bucks

Breakthroughs in energy production aren't going to come from batteries, sad to say
We've hit the limits of what Battery power can do

Ive always thought hydrogen fuel cell technology holds great promise though
Click to expand...

No, we haven't hit the limits of battery storage potential. Batteries however are the key to making renewable energy viable, as the can store the excess energy and supply power when the wind isn't blowing, or the sun isn't shining.

I like the idea of hydrogen storage and fuel cells for home solar storage, or large scale power storage. I just don't want them moving at freeway speeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom