Savonarola wrote:Darrel wrote:It seems to me that when we run out of oil and are looking for its substitute it is just as mistaken to say:
"Hey, there is lots of electricity in the universe so we can get our energy from electricity now."
As it is to say:
"Hey, there is lots of hydrogen in the universe so we can get our energy from hydrogen now."
And I won't argue with this.
Well in this thread, that would be a first. Let's see, you have referred to this article, and particular comments in it as: "extremely misleading statement. One that reeks of propaganda..." "An utter lie" "asinine" "severly misleading to the point of being dishonest". And that was in the first post. Later we get gobbledygook. And your arguments are so persuasive I have learned nothing and agree with none of it. What is going on here?
Make this a part of your argument instead of harping on "carrier" vs. "source."
I'll let Bill try to explain this to you. I completely disagree. I agree with the NAS statement. And yes, oil can be a carrier too. But we don't have to load the energy into it.
Darrel wrote:You haven't shown this [that the author was wrong regarding NOx production].
"Thermal NOx formation, which is highly temperature dependent, is recognized as the most relevant source when combusting natural gas."
I don't see how this shows this statement to be inaccurate: "When hydrogen is made from natural gas, however, nitrogen oxides are released, which are 58 times more effective in trapping heat than carbon dioxide."
Darrel wrote:If you want to charge the author with dishonesty...
But I said that I don't know whether the author was intentionally dishonest or just mistaken.
You gave three options. All included misleading.
1. ...misinformed and accidentally being misleading.
2. ...intentionally being misleading.
3. Why would he then do it if not to be misleading?
Not that it should matter. But thanks to your citation, I can show that either the author can't read or I've gone insane from my new job.
I am thinking the latter. You have said many things in this thread that make no sense to me. For instance:
"...electrolysis is terribly inefficient, I'll be one of the first to tell you that it works with any electricity source; that is, that input of energy need not come from fossil fuels. Use solar, and that hydrogen is essentially free."
Use solar and hydrogen is essentially free? The idea that the cost of solar apparatus should not be counted when calculating the cost of solar generated electricity, makes no sense.
To the comment in the article:
"No matter how it’s been made, hydrogen has no energy in it.... To put energy into hydrogen, it must be compressed or liquefied."
"An utter lie, both technically from a chemistry standpoint and from a functional standpoint."
But later said:
"Let's clarify: we have to expend energy to compress/liquefy hydrogen. One could view this as "putting energy into" the hydrogen."
So apparently it wasn't: "An utter lie, both technically from a chemistry standpoint and from a functional standpoint."
Gotta go soon, [snip...]
Darrel wrote:The electricity from the electric company has a cost as does the electricity from my solar panels. As I have shown, the electricity from the panels costs more.
Due to the cost of the panels, not the cost of the process. Can you at least acknowledge this fact, and we'll go from there?
How is "the cost of the process" relevant to anything? So no. Talking about solar being free by not including the cost of the solar equipment in the analysis strikes me as absurd. That would be misleading.
My little kit was about $5 a watt (without battery). The company that came out and give me a bid for a grid tie system wanted $12 a watt. Solar is not free. It's very expensive.
Darrel wrote:I have explained, in some careful detail how the electricity most certainly, "actively costs me" something to produce.
So, here's a new thought experiment to see my point: Suppose you give me your apparatus for free. Does it cost me anything to produce the electricity? No (not appreciably, anyway). The cost is in obtaining the apparatus.
When people starting giving out solar panels for free, I'll see your point. Just kidding. I still wouldn't see your point. Someone would still be paying. You are just transfering the cost.
If you are going to count this as part of the overall cost, then so be it; but you then need to count the cost of the acquisition of equipment needed for the alternatives for a valid comparison.
Oh, of course. But the alternatives aren't in any way free either.
Darrel wrote:Constructing a barrier between the cost of the panels and cost of the electricity produced is not an idea I can even take seriously. Talk about spurious!
Applying costs selectively in order to sell a point is not an idea I can support.
It's selective to consider the cost of a solar panel when calculating the cost of the electricity it produces?
It used to be that the problem of getting a battery that could take the place of gasoline was essentially hopeless. Some people argue that our battery technology still relatively sucks.
In comparison to gasoline todays batteries do suck. Gasoline kicks ass.
Darrel wrote:The unfortunate thing is that in this entire exchange I haven't learned anything. You say you see gobbledygook yet I have not seen you be able to demonstrate any gobbledygook.
But you've now caught up with Christian's posts regarding the artificial distinction between "carrier" and "source"?
It's a terminology thing. I'll let Dr. Bill explain it to you chemists. Neither of you answered my question. Was the NAS statement silly:
"Like electricity, hydrogen is not a primary energy source, although it is a high-quality energy carrier."
Whether these falsehoods were put into the article purposely or accidentally, the fact remains that they are in the article but shouldn't be. Perhaps this guy is just being careless.
Her name is Alice.
Darrel wrote:Question: Would such a distinction also be artificial with regard to electricity?
Not sure exactly what you're asking.
If you mean between electricity and something else, I'd have to know what else. But I'd guess the answer is no, and here's why: a given amount of electric energy by definition has a given amount of electric energy. Once the energy is to that form, does anything change based on how the energy got to that form? No.
Darrel wrote:Is it ever the case that we don't have to spend energy to make hydrogen? No.
It's never the case that we don't have to spend energy to get any usable fuel source. The efficiency is the important factor.
Right. There is a difference between paying four apples to get one apple (electrolysis), and expending the energy to reach over and plucking an apple off of a tree (like we do with oil). There are no hydrogen wells. I think you chemists don't realize that a lot of people probably think hydrogen can be mined, drilled for and/or held in your hand like oil/coal.
Is the NAS statement silly?
I am off to work.