Riversimple and Fuel Cell Discussions

[PV1]

Plenty of new houses built every day. Make this the standard new homes are built to, well insulated and self-sufficient. We'll have better luck at that than forcing the replacement or retrofit of millions of appliances and an entire infrastructure to switch from CH4 to H2.

[Phximiev]

Plenty of new houses built every day. Make this the standard new homes are built to, well insulated and self-sufficient. We'll have better luck at that than forcing the replacement or retrofit of millions of appliances and an entire infrastructure to switch from CH4 to H2.

Ideally, yes; but that's not reality as the natural gas market continues to grow: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_num_dcu_nus_a.htm

The fact is that millions of consumers burn natural gas. This leads directly to the CO2 statistics identified in the DOE link above. Switching how they use it would be a lot easier than removing it from them, which is also politically infeasible. Altering it, far more doable.

In any event, its a tough problem.

Perhaps, piggybacking for a start: https://networks.online/gphsn/comment/1 ... astructure

[JoeS]

Built my all-electric home in the mid-70's - even have a useless 'award' certificate for its energy-efficiency. Haven't run the resistive central heating since the mid-80's, as one very efficient wood fireplace insert kept the whole house toasty warm, until I realized how bad burning wood is for the environment (even with the built-in catalytic converter). Now, I just use scattered electric space heaters as needed. Had a quote to convert the central heating to a heat pump unit for $15K, but continue to procrastinate but might go for it as global warming continues and the summers get hotter. Added ground-mounted 6.6kW solar 12 years ago and expanded with another 4.4kW rooftop solar in 2015. Adding electric cars into the equation, the solar amortized many years ago.

Back on topic, I still don't understand fuel cell vehicles from an overall energy-efficiency standpoint. Incidentally, it's my understanding that fuel cells require an extremely pure form of hydrogen.

Followed a Toyota Mirai down the freeway a few days ago, and its continuously dribbling water sprayed my freshly-cleaned windshield.

[Phximiev]

. . .Back on topic, I still don't understand fuel cell vehicles from an overall energy-efficiency standpoint. Incidentally, it's my understanding that fuel cells require an extremely pure form of hydrogen.. . .

To me, if the gas network were used for hydrogen distribution, which is probably feasible over the long term, the fact that it may help fuel cell vehicles is secondary. The first issue is stopping the natural gas burn.

If we manage to convert all cars to electric ( a maybe) and convert all coal burning power plants (another maybe), we'd still have global warming because of the burning of natural gas.

[PV1]

My issue with Hydrogen is, that even with Hazer's solution, it doesn't address the consumption of natural gas in the first place. Given that I live right in the middle of the Marcellus shale madness, putting wells in and fracking causes a great deal of emissions before any gas even comes out of the ground. As an alternative, electrolysis puts an enormous amount of pressure on our water supplies.

The problem needs tackled at the source. We need to obtain energy without going underground to get it. Whether we use Hydrogen through current methods or by using Hazer's methods, we're still extracting fossil fuels.

[Phximiev]

My issue with Hydrogen is, that even with Hazer's solution, it doesn't address the consumption of natural gas in the first place. Given that I live right in the middle of the Marcellus shale madness, putting wells in and fracking causes a great deal of emissions before any gas even comes out of the ground. As an alternative, electrolysis puts an enormous amount of pressure on our water supplies.

The problem needs tackled at the source. We need to obtain energy without going underground to get it. Whether we use Hydrogen through current methods or by using Hazer's methods, we're still extracting fossil fuels.

I couldn't agree more, but tell that to the millions that want it and Pruitt.

[Aerowhatt]

My issue with Hydrogen is, that even with Hazer's solution, it doesn't address the consumption of natural gas in the first place. Given that I live right in the middle of the Marcellus shale madness, putting wells in and fracking causes a great deal of emissions before any gas even comes out of the ground. As an alternative, electrolysis puts an enormous amount of pressure on our water supplies.

The problem needs tackled at the source. We need to obtain energy without going underground to get it. Whether we use Hydrogen through current methods or by using Hazer's methods, we're still extracting fossil fuels.

I couldn't agree more, but tell that to the millions that want it and Pruitt.

I have to agree with Phximiev on this one. Not because it makes the most sense or is most efficient. But because the majority of humankind will not even think about CO2 or climate change until it turns their personal world upside down. As we know it's past way too late then. So we have to do what can be done which keeps the cash flowing to the fossil fuel corporations which own public policy for the most part. The natural gas will flow and be burned anyway better that some of it have the carbon pealed off and sequestered into other products. That said, there are problems with using the existing infrastructure. Current Natural gas distribution networks leak like a sieve. Hydrogen molecules are smaller than methane by quite a bit = faster leakage.

It's nice to think that the majority of mankind will do the right thing and shift gears. But it's not realistic looking at history. We have been damaging our environment since we figured out how to harness fire. In all likelihood the irreversible tipping point for climate change has been crossed, or will be long before these emissions are eliminated entirely. And lets be realistic eliminated entirely is what it will take to put the brakes on. To get the planet back to the ideal balance we found it in will take far more. Using solar and wind to power pulling carbon out of the atmosphere and oceans and locking it away again on a massive scale will be required. Everyone who has a clue needs to do everything they can on every possible front to move in the right direction. Go Hazer's solution go!

Aerowhatt

[Phximiev]

My issue with Hydrogen is, that even with Hazer's solution, it doesn't address the consumption of natural gas in the first place. Given that I live right in the middle of the Marcellus shale madness, putting wells in and fracking causes a great deal of emissions before any gas even comes out of the ground. As an alternative, electrolysis puts an enormous amount of pressure on our water supplies.

The problem needs tackled at the source. We need to obtain energy without going underground to get it. Whether we use Hydrogen through current methods or by using Hazer's methods, we're still extracting fossil fuels.

I couldn't agree more, but tell that to the millions that want it and Pruitt.

. . . Current Natural gas distribution networks leak like a sieve. Hydrogen molecules are smaller than methane by quite a bit = faster leakage. . .

. . .Go Hazer's solution go!

Aerowhatt

That leakage is measurable? Causation? Are there published statistics on it? That's something that I wasn't aware of.

[Aerowhatt]

I couldn't agree more, but tell that to the millions that want it and Pruitt.

. . . Current Natural gas distribution networks leak like a sieve. Hydrogen molecules are smaller than methane by quite a bit = faster leakage. . .

. . .Go Hazer's solution go!

Aerowhatt

That leakage is measurable? Causation? Are there published statistics on it? That's something that I wasn't aware of.

A couple of interesting links below. It's an interesting topic and one that is pretty unquantified. In the US, Gas companies self report One imagines how accurate that is since a-lot of leakage in reports is not in their best interest. Personal experience in the construction industry tells me it's worse than reported. For the most part, gas distribution systems are policed by bystander reports of leaks. To be noticed a gas leak generally has to be about the flow rate equal to when a domestic water heater is heating water. Methane rises pretty fast in air so it takes a pretty good leak to be visible (blowing soil or bubbling through standing water), or smelled and reported. Gas companies as a practice do not use leak detection equipment on their distribution system unless a possible leak is reported or sometimes when construction is done in the area.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 159090060H

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... gas-leaks/

I think fuel cell automobiles will be obsolete before they blossom. Fuel cells do make some sense as fixed units. Backing utility grids and storing excess solar energy. Especially where water purification, as a side benefit, could be attractive where clean water is in short supply.

Aerowhatt

[Phximiev]

. . . Current Natural gas distribution networks leak like a sieve. Hydrogen molecules are smaller than methane by quite a bit = faster leakage. . .

. . .Go Hazer's solution go!

Aerowhatt

That leakage is measurable? Causation? Are there published statistics on it? That's something that I wasn't aware of.

. . .

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 159090060H

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... gas-leaks/

That's beyond huge, its a disaster.

Maybe a lot more of this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 220050.htm

and this: https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2015 ... ine-leaks/