Why not treat Hydrogen just like Natural Gas?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Sir Aristrotle, Sep 29, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,113
    Distribution is easy, I'd say the others would be hard. Like Sir Aristotle said, I don't think it would be difficult to modify natural gas systems to use it. The problem, like you said, is making it, and storing it unitl you can use it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    Is natural gas ported in liquid or gasous form? If it's liquid (as it is in propane tanks), the modifying the proccess to handle Hydrogen would be *very* difficult.

    Given the problems we already have w/ regaurds to carbon monoxide, would this process create more or less CO in volume than current methods?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,113
    I believe the stuff the furnace burns is gas. Running LNG through pipes miles long would be difficult. I should add that things like gaskets, expansion chambers, and such would need to be replaced, but the lines themselves shouldn't need many changes.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Ethanol and Methanol burn more efficiently then gasoline (octane ratings are 105 and 116 collectively) and would produce less CO.
     
  8. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    every time this topic comes up, you guys convinse me more and more that biofuels are the way to go. There was a website I ran into about bio-desil; converting waste deep-fry oil into desil fuel which can be used in common desil engines.
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    "you guys"??? You must mean just me?
     
  10. Sir Aristrotle The C.E.O. of Teen-Moods Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    152
    like I said before, I don't care what it we go with as long as it's doesn't pollute. I know I read on biodesil earlier, but never ran into the process on making that desil + desil engines are loulder than gasoline engines and I am not with that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671

    Ok, well yes, pretty much just you. Keep fighting, my man!
     
  12. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,113
    New mufflers have fixed that.

    Here's what I see: biofuels(biodiesel, methanol, etc.) for mobile systems(cars, etc.) For the main, fixed infrastructure, nuclear power, fission until(or if) we get fusion augmenting other sources of power(wind, hydro, etc.).
     
  13. Sir Aristrotle The C.E.O. of Teen-Moods Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    152
    nah, it's like the sound comes from the engine itself not from the exhaust sytem.. as I have detected...

    I wouldn't mind seeing one of vehicles systems that are quieter
     
  14. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    WCF - how can Ethanol have an octane rating if it doesn't contain any octane?
     
  15. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    "The octane rating of gasoline tells you how much the fuel can be compressed before it spontaneously ignites. When gas ignites by compression rather than because of the spark from the spark plug, it causes knocking in the engine. Knocking can damage an engine, so it is not something you want to have happening. Lower-octane gas (like "regular" 87-octane gasoline) can handle the least amount of compression before igniting."
    http://www.howstuffworks.com/question90.htm

    I don't know of a chemical called "octane", though given the name structure, I guess there could be. In either case, octane measurments don't involve a chemical called octane; it is a measurment of a property of the substance, which IIRC, is controlled more by the number of double carbon bonds in any given hyrdo-carbon molecule.


    edit:
    a more clear explination:
    http://www.pcf.ab.ca/quick_answers/gasoline_general/octane_rating.asp


    edit2: nope, not double bonding, but helical and branch structures, according to this:
    " * Gasolines are given an octane rating. The higher the octane rating, the less "knocking" as the fuel burns. Knocking occurs when some of the fuel explodes suddenly instead of evenly, causing the pistons in the engine to move out of sequence. High-octane gasolines contain more "ring" compounds and highly branched hydrocarbons than do low-octane gasolines. Normal heptane is assigned an octane rating of 0, and 2,3,4-trimethylpentane (an isomer of octane) is assigned an octane rating of 100. Gasolines are rated based on the blend of these two substances.

    Tetraethyl lead was the first substance used to increase the octane rating of gasoline. It was replaced because of dangerous levels of lead pollution in the atmosphere - giving rise to the term "unleaded gasoline". The major octane-enhancing additive used today is 2-methoxy-2-methylpropane. "
    from
    http://www.howe.k12.ok.us/~jimaskew/cketone.htm
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2003
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Ethanol and methanol octane ratings are estimated off their combustion chemistry because also how could Ethanol and methanol have octane rating above 100%! To put it clearly pure ethanol and methanol are more efficient burning then octane (that why there ratings are above 100).

    Here are some sites on Ethanol
    www.ethanol-crfa.ca/glossary.htm
    http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/...ch_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html
    http://depts.washington.edu/poeweb/gradprograms/envmgt/2003symposium/ethanol_presentation.pdf

    I see ethanol as the replacement for gasoline, Biodiesel as a replacement for diesel fuels, Hydrogen can replace oil in electricity production since hydrogen can store energy from solar and wind. If fusion ever comes around hydrogen could become competitively cheaper then biofuels.
     
  17. Sir Aristrotle The C.E.O. of Teen-Moods Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    152
    you actually gave Hydrogen a leg up

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Anyway FYI ,Octane is a measure of how well a fuel resists premature combustion. I don't think that was made clear in earlier posts...

    What is a consumer site on Methanol, where one could find out how to start using this Methanol, and possibly a bit of basic information about it.. ya know like smell, color, properties. density... I'd appreciate it.

    Also, somebody know why the government thinks Hydrogen is the future when I have people proving otherwise?
     
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Sir Aristrotle,

    Run a search on google "methanol fuel alternative"

    Methanol only has half the amount of energy per gram that gasoline has (ethanol 2/3 that of gasoline), methanol is also less efficient to make from biosource (most of the methane or organic material is burnt in the process, though this energy can go into producing electricity) Also Ethanol is common alcohol and is the lest poisonous liquid fuel in existence, if pure ethanol were available at the pump you know there would be a lot more moonshine parties! Methanol though is the stuff you hear about when some stupid dim wit takes a shot glass of it and goes blind or falls over dead on the spot. Methanol being smaller works into the neurons faster and is harder for you body to detoxify, as such it is much deadly then alcohol (Ethanol). Hobbies 2cycle mini-engines (for model airplanes, cars, ect) use methanol some even use Nitromethane (a fuel to volatile to ever see in common commercial use)

    Also if you want detail chemical safety and hazard information search for the chemical you want and is “MSDS”

    here a good site:
    http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_EH341#TABLE_1
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2003
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Why ethanol is not all the buzz:

    1. Studies done in the 80's showed Ethanol was energy negative to make, this harmed ethanol’s reputation from then on, later studies done on more modern and advance processes show energy positive production (More then 2:1 in some cases) but these generally fall on deaf ears.

    2. Ethanol produces CO2 and other pollutant when burn, most never take into account that all CO2 produced by Ethanol is re-absorbed by the biosytems it came from and no net increase in CO2 is done to the atmosphere as long as new fuel is grown. In this way biofuels are part of a giant recycling system unlike fossil fuel which pumps new CO2 into the atmosphere. Some studies showed ethanol producing equal amount of NOX without taking into account the higher efficiency engines can run at with ethanol (remember ethanol burns better but has less energy both feature counter each other) later studies show Ethanol produces one half or less the NOx per gallon that gasoline does. Also CO and O3 and CxHx pollutant levels are lower (virtually no CxHx). If you want to stop all pollution (zero emissions) Ethanol and methanol can react in fuel cells only producing H2O and CO2 which again are recycled in biosphere (look up DAFC).

    Hydrogen produces H2O in fuel cell which is also a green house gases (though spends most its time as water or ice) Hydrogen made from water would also be recyclative. Hydrogen made from oil or natural gas would not be recyclative but be the same problem as fossil fuels. Many oil companies advocate hydrogen so they can make oil into hydrogen and coal (does not require electricity, like making Hydrogen from water) Here is a good report to read: http://www.econogics.com/en/hydrogen.doc
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2003
  20. Sir Aristrotle The C.E.O. of Teen-Moods Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    152
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2003
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Removing the methane hydrate deposits could have harsher effects on the climate then burning fossil fuels.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2003
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    The ocean melts methane hydrate deposits when sea level goes down (usually a ice age) releasing methane when it is cold, warming the atmosphere in response. The ocean produces methane hydradate deposits when the sea level are high sucking the methane out of the atmosphere and making it cooler. Remove the methane hydradates will remove a buffer needed in controlling climate.

    Also why is it that some people don’t see depleting every natural resource until we don’t have enough as illogical? We need fuel that we can make that runs parallel to our growth and expansion and is recyclable so that we won’t ever run out, why is it that people think that they can put off a problem for the next generation to deal with “Oh we can burn up all the natural resources now, it their problem by the time it runs out.” why not fix the problem once and for all it would be better for us and better for the succeeding generations, but no people are to greedy and selfish “fuck the kids and grandkids!”.
     
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    My issue is not global warming its fuel supply and demand, what going to happen when we do not have enough oil being mined to supply demand??? I discuss alternative fuels that are potentially infinite and do not require mining or limited resources.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page