• Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Hydrogen the worlds best criminal.

Status
Not open for further replies.

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Recently i had to use some hydrogen in the gas chromatograph, its used normally for the detector in a GC thats fitted with FID detector. But its also used (with a huge amount of care) as a carrier gas.

In the kind of GC/MS (mass spectrometry ) stuff i normally do, I use nitrogen as the carrier gas and Hydrogen is only used for the FID (flame ionization detector), this way your just burning a tiny amount of hydrogen in a little detector and there is little risk. But once in a while you need very fine accuracy, to put it in perspective look at it this way.

The three main carrier gasses used are Hydrogen,Helium and Nitrogen. To give you an idea of the differences compare them to a set of balances or multimeters.

Nitrogen would be your basic multimeter capable of measuring down to 1mV or a balance that has 3 DP and can measure roughly down to 1mg. Helium is like a half way decent meter that measure down to the 100's uV or 4DP on a balance. Hydrogen is your super duper bench meter that goes to 7 DP and if used as a balance can measure the change of air pressure by its mass!

So looking at that you would think Helium gives the best of all worlds and is the way to go, and it indeed is. But its got one awful set back, it's cost goes up and down more than gold or oil. Recently its been really expensive to buy analytical grade Helium, also science is trying to limit its use as much as it can to preserve stocks. The worry being we will run out of pure Helium, so with that in mind please do stop buying balloons filled with balloon gas! it contains some Helium and its a real waste of precious resource thats not easy to get hold of once we run out!

So most make do with Nitrogen, in all honesty its more than good enough in modern GC's anyway. Hydrogen you normally fit a sensor in the oven of the GC to detect leaks of it.
This is one reason i call it the worlds best criminal!! it gets out of almost anything!! If you think about party balloons and the fact they contain a proportion of Helium and bulked up with other gases, look at how quickly those metal film baloons go down! The helium molecules work there way through the metal film material and escape.

Hydrogen molecules are twice as small as Helium, so get through these films and just about everything else at twice the rate. Leave a hydrogen cylinder on and the torch off for a few months, come back and read the bottle gauge. 100% guarantee even the finest gas pipes will have slowly leaked the Hydrogen through there walls! Worse than that, when i first got hold of Hydrogen cylinders for the GC I got two of them.

The problem is here in the UK, analytical grade gas is very expensive, you cant just walk into shop and buy it. You need a supply contract from someone like BOC, these contracts are as bad as telephone landline contracts! Not only do you pay for the gas, but you pay for delivery and my pet peeve you RENT the bottle monthly!!

You cant buy a bottle outright (or at least i couldnt), so the cost breaks down like this. Gas price (last time i purchased some was 2017 Jan) Full sized cylinder and 3 9's grade (didnt need 4 9's as it was for the FID) was £198 + Vat for the gas, £57 deposit for the cylinder, £42 a MONTH bottle rental! and £41 delivery for 5 bottles of various gasses.

When i first got the Hydrogen they had a deal on, you could rent two cylinders for the price of one. So despite being advised not too i did this, turns out i made a mistake. The gauges i use are all certified and kept under certification, one reason they deliver the gas is so the driver can check you use the correct trolley to keep the cylinder on and/or the correct cage and location of storage.

They also check your gauges and pipes are in good condition. Using Hydrogen for a FID dosnt use much gas, in fact even using the GC every day for long periods uses a small amount, every day i would turn the cylinder off at the bottle with a bottle key and turn the gauges off. The second bottle had gauges fitted (i figured it was a safe place to store them) and was turned off at the bottle.

My bottles are kept on a trolley and in a secure cage inside a secure outbuilding, the pipework goes through the wall and terminates at the GC. After 8 months I was checking my gasses as the rep had called me asking why i hadnt ordered any gas for 8 months! Simple really as i hadnt used it all!

I do cheat a bit, some gasses if i need small amounts I make them, normally in a really old Kipps apparatus. But for things like system flushes with hydrogen I tend to make the gas and use that, it dosnt have to be ultra pure and is easy to make and dry the gas. So i tendto make my own CO2 when i can and the same with Hydrogen.
When I checked the unused Hydrogen cylinder i was shocked, it had lost around 12th of its starting volume!! I have a professional Hydrogen alarm in what i grandly call the gas room (stone shed slate roof and small :D), partly because H&S recommends this and partly because two full cylinders of hydrogen leaking out and going bang would ruin my year badly, Also the building they in isnt insured! Mainly because despite the gas being brought by a incorporated/ LTD company, and the building technically owned by a LTD company, i cant get it insured!!

We are lucky as we own where we live outright, we cant remortgage it or take loans out on it but we do own every last inch of it. So we dont have to have building insurance, but i would like it. Because of what we do and the gas we keep, we cant get the insurance. Dosnt help that we also live on the same plot of land as the lab, but we can get house insurance.

Anyway back on topic.....

Solid steel cylinder and in good condition, purchased from one of the worlds best suppliers, no alarms have gone off but gas has obviously slowly got out some how. So in a bit of a panic i ordered a small Argon bottle to be delivered, when the driver turns up i ask him about the loss of hydrogen. He checks everything and gives it the thumbs up, so i ask where has my overpriced precious Hydrogen gone?

Apparently most people who buy the gas use it before they notice what i noticed, but he admitted that as far as he was aware there is no way to keep every hydrogen molecule locked up. Apparently the size of the molecule is such that it diffuses through most things, i asked if that included the thick steel cylinders, and he assured me no it dosnt get out that way, but it does slowly seep through the valves assembly where you attach the gauges.

Apparently taking the gauges off dosnt help, as i had turned off the actual cylinder so no gas was in the gauges. So the real point of the thread?

Well there is alot of talk about ion transfer bridges, salt bridges, PTM's (Proton transfer membranes). These are used alot in chemistry, especially electro chemistry and things like AD systems and Microbial fuel cells. The idea of them is pretty simple, you need something to make separate chambers for the Anode and Cathode, but you also need it to be easy for electrons to pass from one side to the other easily.

There are loads of designs and materials used for various purposes and reasons, they go from simple flower pot types made from terracotta, these are often soaked in a salt and used to separate the chamber/process. All the way up to special Proton transfer membranes, those things are great but there is the small issue of cost.

What i am looking for is something specifically to allow the transfer of electrons from H+ ions to go from the Anode to be oxidized at the Cathode and produce a charge. One side of the cell is mesophilic anaerobic (Anode side) and the other is highly aerobic thermophilic Cathode side. Now the PTM stuff is roughly £210 per sq cm!! So i have been looking at other materials, all have downsides and most would slowly poison the Cathode or Anode and kill off the cell.

THEN i got to thinking..... All i am doing is moving H+ over to a cathode cell to be oxidized at the cathode and produce a charge, the main loss in these systems is internal resistance, if you cut that then you up the efficiency of the cell, do that enough and you start to get a extremely attractive alternative green energy source with a massive benefit.

My sister had a friends party last week, she brought a party balloon home and today while reading emails i noticed it on the back of the sofa..... It isnt floating now, and its the foil type.... So no idea if this will work, but i might just have found a great material to use as a bridge that will certainly let H+ ions through it :D, its also cheap and while it does have a foil in it, it also has some kind of plastic membrane, its this membrane i am going to look at.

So Hydrogen the greatest escape artist of all time 'might' have provided me with a simple solution :D. The criminal part is the price and the fact its a mare to handle safely and really dosnt play nice with oxygen!!
 

nsaspook

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
We use large amounts of semi-grade 99.9999% helium so I'm up to speed with the 'stop buying balloons' story. The 'shortage' was mainly your typical media craze.
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/dire-helium-shortage-vastly-inflated/
Increased prices usually mean lower supply, but that’s not true for this gas. “There is actually so much helium that’s flooding the market that it’s not in short supply at all,” Burton says.
...
But next time you see someone with helium balloons, don’t berate them. Enjoy the party instead.

Your problems with hydrogen show why it's unlikely to be a good energy storage (it's not a fuel) media.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
We use large amounts of semi-grade 99.9999% helium so I'm up to speed with the 'stop buying balloons' story. The 'shortage' was mainly your typical media craze.
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/dire-helium-shortage-vastly-inflated/


Your problems with hydrogen show why it's unlikely to be a good energy storage (it's not a fuel) media.
That dosnt make much sense, seeing as we dont make Helium anymore and rely on what has been stored, also it dosnt make sense for many universities like Nottingham, spending vast amounts of money to recycle the Helium they use.

Hydrogen as a fuel i am undecided on, i prefer it reacted with CO2 :D, i dont think hydrogen cells will take off the way people think, having been to that conference last week i personally think Hydrogen cells, are going to turn out to be the 'betamax' of the alternative energy industry.

I now routinely flush AD systems with Hydrogen instead of Nitrogen, small scale is ok but larger scale certainly makes you focused :D.
 

nsaspook

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
We shouldn't waste it but there's just not a real shortage from it being unobtainable in the next 100 years. We've researched for manufacturing and have a semi-truck load of helium in a private stockpile for insurance. What you see are market pricing factors from suppliers, not real shortages. Before the US government was selling a seemingly unlimited supply (the billion cubic meters of the gas) off at bargain prices, that stopped a few years ago.

https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i12/Helium-supplies-tightening-again.html
 
Last edited:

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
We shouldn't waste it but there's just not a real shortage from it being unobtainable in the next 100 years. We've researched for manufacturing and have a semi-truck load of helium in a private stockpile for insurance. What you see are market pricing factors from suppliers, not real shortages. Before the US government was selling a seemingly unlimited supply (the billion cubic meters of the gas) off at bargain prices, that stopped a few years ago.
I think that sounds 100% credible, to me however it equals the same result.....outrageous prices for the pure stuff to do serious research but i can throw a party cheaply with the crap stuff! I have got used to Nitrogen but given a choice I would use Helium if I could afford it.

Not sure what a full cylinder costs at the moment, but I know in December it was nearly £600 a cylinder and yet in the Jan before it was £280, thats without the Tax added!
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Also the Uni i associate with is complaining alot about the cost of Helium use, we are asked to use Hydrogen or Nitrogen instead. My uni dosnt have fancy recycle equipment, but then again mine hasnt just spent god knows how much on a brand new green chemistry center!! I have visited the new center and it is something else, i would love to go there except the use of DCM is frowned upon and they tend to use 'greener solvents instead like ethyl acetate.

Personally i like DCM, nothing gets the goods out of an extraction like good old DCM, also i like the smell alot :oops:
 

nsaspook

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Hydrogen economy? IMO it will never work as a practical fuel or efficient energy carrier. The production wastes energy from every possible process from nuclear fusion to electrical cracking of water. It's more efficient to just store the electrical energy in a battery or other efficient electrical media.

https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Hydrogen economy? IMO it will never work as a practical fuel or efficient energy carrier. The production wastes energy from every possible process from nuclear fusion to electrical cracking of water. It's more efficient to just store the electrical energy in a battery or other efficient electrical media.

https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html
I agree in general, with the exception newer ways to crack it from better are coming along, as a pure fuel i think your spot on, but Hydrogen and CO2 gives you ethane which when used gives you water, so its got a place, but as you point out its use of as a fuel on its own isnt practical and its likely to stay that way.

People focus on the danger, but in reality just keeping it i9n one place is hard enough :D. I do like hydrogen fuel cells though, but thats just a fascination with the technology rather than a serious belief things will move that way.
 

nsaspook

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
I agree in general, with the exception newer ways to crack it from better are coming along, as a pure fuel i think your spot on, but Hydrogen and CO2 gives you ethane which when used gives you water, so its got a place, but as you point out its use of as a fuel on its own isnt practical and its likely to stay that way.

People focus on the danger, but in reality just keeping it i9n one place is hard enough :D. I do like hydrogen fuel cells though, but thats just a fascination with the technology rather than a serious belief things will move that way.
Cracking water by any process will always be a uphill process with a net energy loss (no violation of thermodynamics) from using the resulting hydrogen for work instead of the original energy source for work. You need an acid or base for conductivity and reaction catalysts surfaces usually of a noble (lots of research into to non-noble-metal catalysts that might one day be practical) on at least one side (precious anode) of the equation for ionic charge movement in a practical system.

There are other methods like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_electrolyte_membrane_electrolysis
that might be 80% in a working application but most batteries are much better with Li-ion up to 99 percent charge efficiency.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.673.5912&rep=rep1&type=pdf
At STP the thermodynamic decomposition voltage of water in theoretical condition is 1.23V and the current efficiency is 100%. Therefore, the theoretical consumption of energy (Etheo) for producing 1m3 of H2 is 2.94 kWh/m3H2. However, for gas evolution the voltages need 1.65–1.7V. Therefore in industries the voltage of about 1.8–2.6 V use. Hence the practical energy consumption is nearly 1.5 to 2.2 times more than the theoretical energy consumption. Hence the actual efficiency is between 48% and 70% [16].
 
Last edited:

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Cracking water by any process will always be a uphill process with a net energy loss (no violation of thermodynamics) from using the resulting hydrogen for work instead of the original energy source for work. You need an acid or base for conductivity and reaction catalysts surfaces usually of a noble (lots of research into to non-noble-metal catalysts that might one day be practical) on at least one side (precious anode) of the equation for ionic charge movement in a practical system.

There are other methods like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_electrolyte_membrane_electrolysis
that might be 80% in a working application but most batteries are much better with Li-ion up to 99 percent charge efficiency.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.673.5912&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I posted about some old HDD plates being used along with Sodium Hydroxide, not all HDD wor, but i did find some that worked much better than normal, admittedly better than normal is not a quantity and i didnt measure! But i was nicely surprised how it worked, for me it was a separated cell system as i wanted the Hydrogen for flushing and wanted to try it out, worked really well for me. In a praticle sense its main use at the moment seems to be about what to do with energy from wind farms, something we have a large amount of where i live.

On the flushing side it did save having to scrub and contamination from the chems i normally use to make hydrogen for small system flushing. So its got a niche use i guess, the HDD plate i posted the paper somewhere on the forum, they contain mainly Nickel and have some platinum in, the down side being its only on one side of one plate in each HDD, so i took two apart and sealed them together for the Anode.

The journal was the journal of chemical education, it was in the demonstration section but i cant remember the issue or volume, i do have the paper still and will dig it out. For small amounts of energy microbial cells are really interesting, they wont solve the energy problem, but they serve several functions and one of them is worth alot of money.....

Again i have recently posted a video on it, it kind of glosses over the bit that caught my interest. But microbial cells are something i am looking really closely at to solve some side issues with AD systems.
 

gophert

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Hydrogen economy? IMO it will never work as a practical fuel or efficient energy carrier. The production wastes energy from every possible process from nuclear fusion to electrical cracking of water. It's more efficient to just store the electrical energy in a battery or other efficient electrical media.

https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html
Your link shows the effective net energy available to a consumer is 25% after compression and delivery - petroleum isnt too far from the same after (extraction, transportation, refining, transportation, use in internal combustion engine..).

For example, 0.2MJ of energy are used to create steam to soften and make the crude oil more pumpable in the well per MJ extracted in many wells.
 
Last edited:

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
Your link shows the effective net energy available to a consumer is 25% after compression and delivery - petroleum isnt too far from the same after (extraction, transportation, refining, transportation, use in internal combustion engine..).

For example, 0.2MJ of energy are used to create steam to soften and make the crude oil more pumpable in the well per MJ extracted in many wells.
One of the things so few want to acknowledge in these all of the energy technologies and general life processes is the financial factor to make it possible. Simply put not all units of energy or power are equal in fair market value let alone specific application value.

Because of that that's why every method of energy extractions, production, storage and use has a limited area and range of funtion before it becomes non cost effective compared to some other.

For example, heating my house with electricity is 100% efficient yet on the financial value factor is dismal in comparison to burning wood or oil I get for near free or very cheap coal I can get locally. So much so that even at a dismal <20% effective heating efficiency wood, oil and coal absolutely dominate electricity on cost practicality for heating purposes for me. Even more so if and when that electricity was produced from a coal or oil fired power plant some place to begin with.

But on the reverse in other applications in my life, electricity to do some functions absolutely dominates due to its ease and practicality of use and transportation via simple wires or batteries.

I for one do not see any single energy form being the one and only for all purposes any more than I see one vehicle or machine being the one and only for all mobile transport and work applications either.

Simply put one has to look at what factor/s is/are relevant to the applications at hand. Does raw energy production/conversion/storage efficiency matter most or does financial/workload to implement value matter most and where does each individual applications (and everything required to support it) fall between the two.

If making something work requires passing the financial losses of making ti competitive with an other off on someone else, who does not necessarily want to be stuck with them, then the actual application is not being handled in a truly honest, equal and fair manner and thusly doesn't count as being truly viable in a self sustaining way.

Same with not using the energy of some fuel or process as efficiently as is practically possible just to say it's not a valid player in some application just the same.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
For example, heating my house with electricity is 100% efficient

Ignoring the losses to produce and distribute and the losses involved in whatever fuel was used to produce the electric. All sources are 100% efficient if you limit your range of what is included in calculating efficiency.

These days Carbon foot prints and other factors are taken into account, oil is near free for you but that dosnt wipe the cost of production or how it got there, nor does it take any footprint into account. When applying for certain research and other grants, there is a huge form to fill in. These days you normally have to log into a system that works out efficiency, the maths behind all this is incredibly complex. Here in Scotland they have a zero waste policy and strategy, in principle the idea is very good but at the moment at many local levels it can be badly executed, a recent conference on energy Scotland acknowledge the importance of closed loop systems and LA's taking the view that waste is not waste but instead valuable resource.

In many ways this is very true but way under utilized currently. Looking at efficiency solely from an end user perspective is too narrow a focus for a accurate figure to be made. Apart from the electrification rampage up here, some of the energy policies are starting to address many of the problems. remains to be seen if they are followed up on though.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
These days Carbon foot prints and other factors are taken into account, oil is near free for you but that dosnt wipe the cost of production or how it got there, nor does it take any footprint into account. When applying for certain research and other grants, there is a huge form to fill in. These days you normally have to log into a system that works out efficiency, the maths behind all this is incredibly complex.
Exactly. If bureaucratic overhead puts something out of reasonable socio economic/personal financial/ease of access and use competitiveness it will still fail to go anywhere even if it's the best thing for the people and the environment and or any other comparative units of measure to other options good or bad. :(

Unfortunately the vast majority of us who have to watch our spending have to be aware of the bottom dollar and not just pass the buck to somebody else because we can't actually afford our idealisms on our own personal bill. I don't like getting stuck with other bills for things I do not agree with (nobody does) so I do my best to not stick others with anything I wouldn't be willing to pay for myself and most self sufficient people feel similar.

Pretty much all of us want better things personally and environmentally but when getting them requires unreasonable bureaucracy and or forces others who do not agree with how they are implemented to pay for them, things fall apart for everyone fast and too often we all get stuck with the worst option available to all.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
When it comes to energy idealism is seldom a factor, its not always done correctly (feed in tariff system as an example), but matters of the environment should take precedence over what people feel or think is fair. The world is global and isolationist views are outdated, past events and weak wills have lead to a situation where the cost is higher but more urgent.

Or as they say.....suck it up because the bigger picture matters more than the individual. There has certainly been mistakes such as wind farm feed in tariffs as mentioned, but the recent adjustments to the UK's future energy plan is in MHO much more on tract, gone are is the food chain isolated mentality and a much more realistic food web type approach is being taken. My own Local Authority was/is stuck in a PPI Type contract for waste handling, both sides are unhappy and its been announced they are to end it 15 years early.

Having had some input into our LA's waste planning for the next 5 years, i can see a large shift in approach. Until fairly recently the approach has been dig a hole and bury it, now after much consultation with research groups and waste companies, the new approach treats waste as a valuable resource. Including some fairly clever and excellent use of waste. In my area we now have a group called the furniture project, slightly misleading as furniture is likely around 4% of what they handle!

This group has 5 local waste centers under its control, they are allowed to take things like TV's, Bikes, lawn mowers etc etc from the waste stream. They are set up as a charity and they train people to repair them where possible, the repaired items are sold cheaply to those on benefits in the local area. Anything that can not be repaired is stripped right back and as much material as possible reclaimed and sold on, this is thr project where we had input on how to extract precious metals from E waste using Green chemical processes, or what we call the fish and chip process.

Bikes for example are very commonly thrown away almost brand new, until a year ago there would be put in a skip and sold by weight as scrap metal, it cost more for the skip than the money gained from selling. Now the bikes are checked and repaired if needed and sold at a fraction of the new cost, they are sold to those in need. The difference is significant as now they maybe get £15-£20 per bike instead of £40 per skip of bikes. Setting up the project put an extra £0.17p on everyones council tax bill for the first year, but no one complained and now instead of wasted energy processing perfectly god bikes as metal waste, the bikes are put to use and make money to keep the project running.

They have also started to train youngsters in repair etc and taken people on full time, so sometimes taking the wider view instead of a personal whats best for me approach, makes a real difference to everyone. Bottom line that many now start to see is this, it took everyone to get into this mess, so its right and just that everyone plays a part in getting out of the mess. Far from being idealistic this kind of approach is actually a pragmatic approach to a growing problem.

This year things are going further, when recovering say copper from E waste, the copper is kept in solution as say Copper II Chloride (depends on process used), so if copper prices are low it stays like that as a highly concentrated solution or copper II chloride crystals. the advantage being that when Copper is lower and Tax time is near, you declare the value of the Chloride (very low). Then when copper prices spike you simply insert IRON bars into the solution and pure Copper powder precipitates out.

Whats really clever is the fine copper powder is sold as is because the fine powder is mainly 4 9's pure and highly sort after, it dosnt take any maching or ball milling to make the powder so energy is saved. Its then sold like this when copper prices spike. This is something being done by the group, the group was set up in conjunction with the local authority, the LA now takes a cut of the profits which helps keep the council tax low.

The same authority has teamed up with the Borders LA in its energy and waste policy, they are looking at AD systems and other ways to actively turn waste into money. They are forward looking and keen to work with small companies like ours, the main criteria being the system should be as closed as possible with maximum benefit. So currently yes I make soap but our other company could well hit a profit end of the year or maybe next year.

Ever noticed fatbergs? a big big problem in the UK, the main issue with them is the FOG's (fats,oils and grease) they are made from go rock hard because they actually saponify, or in other words make **** soap literally. So being in both the bio diesel and soap game we were asked if this stuff could be made into a usable fuel, if you look closely at most fuels made from this they are very very dark, modern cars and viechles have sensors that detect this and wont run. The problem is the normal process to turn saponified FOGS into fuel uses Conc Sulphuric acid.

This breaks the bonds but also gives you alot of ultra fine carbon, i posted a article on here a few months back for Pommie, it details a process from a journal, we use this process to turn the black fuel into a near clear fuel easily and cheaply. The waste carbon is simply bound into boiler pellets for CHAP boilers. Most other companies just take the black fuel and burn it as is in modified oil boilers, this creaates alot more pollution than what we do with it, it also has less value as a heating oil.

Just a couple of examples of why different thinking to what is best for one person or the easiest way to do something, is not always the best approach.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
When it comes to energy idealism is seldom a factor, its not always done correctly (feed in tariff system as an example), but matters of the environment should take precedence over what people feel or think is fair. The world is global and isolationist views are outdated, past events and weak wills have lead to a situation where the cost is higher but more urgent.

Or as they say.....suck it up because the bigger picture matters more than the individual.

Just a couple of examples of why different thinking to what is best for one person or the easiest way to do something, is not always the best approach.
And that's where dangerously contradictory and conflicting socio economic problems based on extremely narrow minded and bad thinking (fascism/totalitarianism idealisms) come into play when trying to force an unrealistic idealistic views and wants on the mass population simply because you feel it's justifiable by your reasonings and that all others and their views do not matter.

If your willing to kill one group to have your way while forcing another to pay for your wants and neither of those groups has any reason to agree with your views and actions and what role they have to play, then you will have a double ended fight on your hands you won't win.

Those told that they have to die because they are not worth the environments value (based on your judgment) and that their only options out are beyond their grasp tend feel that your values are less than humane and realistic.

Same with forcing those who have more to pay for those who don't have any (because you made them and kept that way and can not cover for them yourself). They too quickly tire of that game as well and then you have both ends of the social spectrum gunning for you.

One has nothing to lose and the other has way more resources than you have (if you had more than them you'd be paying for your own projects yourself and not forcing them to do it for you) and both likely think that anybody (besides you) having to die for your ideologies is bad, so you're screwed whether you think your views are idealistic or not.

So put yourself in both of their positions and the walk their prospective walks for a while and see what they have to deal with under your rule. Either you have to kill yourself to take your burden off the environment or you have to find a way to pay for your wants yourself or give them up to compromise you can manage to handle yourself. There are no other options that don't make you look like the bad guy with a insane agenda in mind.

BTW, Nazi Germany never thought their end goal was idealistic or bad either since they felt who they had to kill and who they were going to make pay for it didn't matter in the long run either, but everyone else rather disagreed....... There's a reason they're at the top end of the list for the worlds socio cultural standards of evil. :(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism

Its and ideology that's right up there on the far Alt-Right fascist/totalitarian supremacy extremist groups everyone has come to have every justified reason to hate and defy no matter the costs. If you want to save the world totalitarian rule fascism ain't the road you travel to get there. :mad:
 

nsaspook

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Your link shows the effective net energy available to a consumer is 25% after compression and delivery - petroleum isnt too far from the same after (extraction, transportation, refining, transportation, use in internal combustion engine..).

For example, 0.2MJ of energy are used to create steam to soften and make the crude oil more pumpable in the well per MJ extracted in many wells.
A good link but it tickled one of my pet peeves about electrons being energy carriers in wires.:(
Also, hydrogen is not a source of energy, but only a carrier of energy. As a carrier, it plays a role similar to that of water in a hydraulic heating system or electrons in a copper wire. When delivering hydrogen, whether by truck or pipeline, the energy costs are several times that for established energy carriers like natural gas or gasoline. Even the most efficient fuel cells cannot recover these losses, Bossel found. For comparison, the "wind-to-wheel" efficiency is at least three times greater for electric cars than for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
How are my views contradictory? I have a couple of wind turbines but mine are not grid tied and therefore dont get a tariff. I do however pay for those that have grid tied turbines, everyone connected to the grid pays extra to cover the cost of those who have grid tied turbines. My view is, if turbines need a tariff for a decent take up then there is no real business case for them. However i pay the extra because while i dont think wind power is the best answer by a long way, i feel its at least an attempt to begin getting away from fossil fuel only energy.

So yes i pay for other to use a technology i dont think is the answer, but i prefer that t them using fossil fuel.

when trying to force an unrealistic idealistic views and wants on the mass population simply because you feel it's justifiable by your reasonings and that all others and their views do not matter.
I havnt forced any view on anyone, i do put forward the view that clean and green power from a completely waste product is a good idea, especially as it also stacks up on a business level. Bio methane for example has huge potential and solves more than one problem, if the reactor is designed correctly then it also has a extremely short pay back period. VERY RECENT research by a world respected group has also thrown up a potential goldmine from adding microbe cells as desludge units, literally a gold mine.

The only other examples i gave are current projects i have been or i am involved with in my area, i fail to see where those are forced views? I also fail to see what is idealistic about imp-roving the use of what is normally thrown away to make decent money, while also helping those with little money.

If your willing to kill one group to have your way while forcing another to pay for your wants and neither of those groups has any reason to agree with your views and actions and what role they have to play, then you will have a double ended fight on your hands you won't win.
Erm steady on, i dont think i have advocated anyone being harmed in any manner, far from it. I have repeatedly said i prefer to try and educate people or leave them to it (within the law), and try and find ways to mitigate there selfish actions, i might also point out i do this with my money and no one else. Until very recently all the research we do was done at our expense or with money made from building and/or running the systems, recently we have been put forward as a company to receive a grant to look into the next generation of digester.

Its probally worth adding we had to write a stringent business plan as part of this, and show a very strong business case. Contrary to popular belief this kind of grant scheme is extremely hard to get, its likely we will get the funding and if we do the funding body gets a % of money made over a 25 year period, so we more than pay it back as well as help cut emission targets etc.

Those told that they have to die because they are not worth the environments value (based on your judgment) and that their only options out are beyond their grasp tend feel that your values are less than humane and realistic.
That is highly offensive and a direct attack, find anywhere in the forum where i even hint people should die because i judge them worth less than the environments! or kindly rescind the statement. Its extremely aggressive and unwarranted, while the thread has wondered a little, as far as i can see all i have done is post information and some views on environmental issues or processes i have studied and believe would help the energy crisis, whatever your view it is widely accepted we do indeed have a crisis. Ok its mainly academics and those that study these issues who have put forward the idea of a crisis, but not many people argue with a doctor when he looks at your xray and tells you your leg is broken. In other words they are doing there job, most of them highly skilled and well positioned to make that call.

Same with forcing those who have more to pay for those who don't have any (because you made them and kept that way and can not cover for them yourself). They too quickly tire of that game as well and then you have both ends of the social spectrum gunning for you

Again i can not see what you have based this on. I did mention feed in tariffs, these are nothing to do with me at all and i also pay them, i do not receive any and i certainly dont have the power to force anyone.

I also mentioned the LA put up a tax for one year to cover a project, i also paid that, those who cant afford it dont pay the full tax anyway, people like myself and my mum who work, pay extra so those who cant afford it are covered, so once again an apology for an incorrect accusation would be appreciated.


One has nothing to lose and the other has way more resources than you have (if you had more than them you'd be paying for your own projects yourself and not forcing them to do it for you) and both likely think that anybody (besides you) having to die for your ideologies is bad, so you're screwed whether you think your views are idealistic or not.
Sorry but alot of that reads a bit gibberish to me so if i have got it wrong i apologize, however as written it reads to me like this...

One has nothing to loose and someone has more resources than me?? Someone is paying for my projects because i cant afford to?? I have forced them to do this (WTF).

Ok lets take that part first, i think your referring to the grant. As stated these are given out o a case by case basis, they dont cover the full cost. The idea is you put forward a strong business case for something that saves the LA or government alot of money (way more than the grant), or helps them reach a legal requirement on something like emission targets, again that saves them money from being in breach. In my own case the funding is to help design then get a AD plant built.

The grant is not massive, however it will bring employment to the area. It will go a long way in helping the Gov reach there zero waste strategy, it will massively reduce nitrates in what is classed as a nitrate sensitive area. And finally it will produce both Heat and energy in a green sustainable AND cheap way. These system are called chaps systems, Combined Heat and Power. In other words the project will generate far more money for them than they are investing, while simultaneously help them achieve several EU legal obligations.

How is this a bad thing in anyway shape or form? If it helps you sleep easy, the money comes from the EU, it is taken out of a pot of money the UK pays into the EU. The EU then tells the Gov what to spend the money on, in my case the funding is from the renewable energy and sustainability fund. It has to spent no matter what and is paid regardless of what is done with it, in this instance we went up against some stiff competition to get the funding, ours being the only project to meet both targets, give employment and generate a profit for the local area. I fail to see how you see that as bad in some way.

As for this bit
"both likely think that anybody (besides you) having to die for your ideologies is bad, so you're screwed whether you think your views are idealistic or not."

Would you mind rewriting that in some form that makes sense, although i am equally happy for you to explain which part of my previous writing makes you think i want people dead. I think it reasonable to point out that again that is both uncalled for and plainly wrong. Accusations of that nature should carry at the very least some reasonable proof, most people take very unkindly to being accused of things like that or for example child molestation without at least some evidence of it having even being hinted at.

The rest of your post is a rewritten repetition mostly of the all the above, i feel it has been reasonably answered in a manner easy to understand.

Kindly stop trying to get my threads closed with unfounded accusations and ranting, the mods do close good threads because of this behavior at it is somewhat unfair, some of us are having a chat about things as we see them, we are doing this is a reasonable manner. You are welcome to take part but kindly stop posting incorrect information and accusations, by all means ask for clarification on anything that you dont understand, i am always happy to try and make something more understandable, but i dislike threads being closed simply because you want to rant.

Maybe its worth considering if you are able to take part in these kinds of discussions in a reasonable way? From here i can only see one person having a rant and the rest simply discussing something they have an interest in. I cant even find anything controversial in it, or remotely offensive, except perhaps you could argue i have been unfair on Hydrogen and my frustration to get it to stay in a bottle, if that is the case then i apologize you didnt see it as a joke, as i have just explained the origanal post was about my frustration at this escape artist.
 

gophert

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Please note that there is a viable hydrogen fuel cell used by the original Honda Clarity (not the new plug-in electric Clarity) and the new company supplying heavy trucks - Nikola. Nikola, believe it or not, is filing lawsuit with Tesla who they claim has poached a key engineer who subsequently supplied Tesla with design features that were critical for the design of an electric "tractor" for a tractor-trailer rig.
https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix...a-have-a-chance-in-its-2-billion-lawsuit.html


And, a busy week for Nikola,
Nikola signed a contract with Anheuser Busch to sell 800 hydrogen fuel cell trucks to deliver beer.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/03/technology/anheuser-busch-nikola-trucks/index.html

Also, the old calculations on hydrogen storage in vehicles were mostly done with steel pressure vessels. The new carbon fiber pressure vessels are significantly lighter and can hold about the same amount of hydrogen.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
A good link but it tickled one of my pet peeves about electrons being energy carriers in wires.:(
LOL at the recent conference there was a debate on this..... I am an offender for this at times depending on the context, also chemists and physicists disagree on some levels with it. Some will give the atom splitting as an example, so i try and fudge over the detail and prefer to simply it as an energy source :D, yes a cop out where i can
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading
Top