|
|
| Author |
Message |
tadchem
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1348
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:22 pm Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
Clemens W wrote:
| Quote: | Definitely. The dangers of dihydrogenmonoxide are numerous. It can also
cause severe tissue damage in solid or gaseous state. See www.dhmo.org
|
Good site. It shows how public 'perspective' is easily manipulated by
the propagandists (propagandist - a journalist with an agenda).
| Quote: | Thanks for pointing out the numbers. Burning fossil fuel is also
dangerous for a number of other reasons (CO2 leading to global warming,
sulfur in coal leading to acid rain, etc.). I'm not arguing about that.
|
I do. Global warming is inevitable. So is global cooling. They take
turns. We are not potent enough to cause OR to prevent either, and we
don't know enough yet to decide which (if either) is more advantageous
to us humans. Acid rain and global warming are also caused by sulfur
and phosphorous oxides and chlorine from volcanic emissions.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/SO2Aerosols.html
The smartest thing we can do is determine which way things are going
and adapt.
| Quote: | But the biggest problem is: All ressources of fossil energy are
limited.
|
*All* resources of energy are limited. The sun itself will die in a
few billion years. The question is whether or not the demands we place
upon these resources will deplete them in a time scale that will prove
inconvenient *for us*.
| Quote: | However, there's a limitless source of energy all around us: Sun, wind
and water. Right now we choose not to tap this source (at least not
large-scale), because costs are prohibitive.
|
...and because solar power *is* limited by the solar flux (about 1
kilowatt per square meter during cloudless days), and because the wind
is undependable and of limited efficiency, and because harnessing water
power requires hydroelectric dams which have generally adverse
environmental impacts and short-term benefits.
You can't ignore the cost factor, either.
| Quote: | If (or better: When) we decide to use this energy on a larger scale,
hydrogen has the potential to become a big energy transportation
device.
|
Thermodynamics insures that we cannot get more energy out of hydrogen
as a fuel than we invest to produce it. Why? Because there is no free
hydrogen gas just laying around like there is with other chemically
oxidizable fuels - hydrocarbons and carbon - we have to make *all* of
it that we wish to use. Which means that we will have to get the power
from somewhere else that we need to produce the hydrogen. It is not an
energy *source* per se, but simply an energy *storage* system.
| Quote: | Introducing radioactivity into an otherwise
environmental-neutral process would be, IMNSHO, just a plain stupid
idea, even it it would be feasible.
|
How environmentally neutral will the production of thousands of square
miles of solar photoelectric conversion cells be? Add to that the
necessary wires, electrolysis cells, storage cells for hydrogen gas,
leak-proof gas plumbing, hydrogen fuel cells, electric motors, safety
equipment, monitoring devices, and the bureaucratic administration to
make sure that all the proper environmental, safety, health, labor,
civil, and other regulations, laws, codes, and ordinances have been
complied with.
Opening up a new can of worms does not insure you will get *better*
worms. First you should learn to properly manage the worms you already
have. Until you can do that, there is no reasonable premise that you
will be able to manage the new batch of worms any better.
That's *my* point.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stone
science forum beginner
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:32 am Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) > wrote in message
<3HYqe.7050$7s.3921@fed1read01>...
| Quote: | Dear stone:
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:42ac1394_4@news1.uncensored-news.com...
...
Researching it I was wrong about the reaction. It is really
OH and OH combining to produce the hydrogen peroxide
H2O2. So you would get half the free hydrogen from the
radioactivity that I thought.
The reaction is produced by alpha radiation, which is
stopped by paper.
Hydrogen peroxide is also produced by beta and gamma radiation.
It is still not a workable idea.
David A. Smith
|
If alpha, beta and gamma all produce hydrogen peroxide it makes it a more
workable idea. It means more hydrogen peroxide would be produced.
The only thing that could make it not workable is too many neutrons hitting
the water, which would result in too much tritium being produced, but I
don't think this would happen. [There are ways to limit neutrons and control
them; old reactors used graphite control rods to limit neutrons.]
Tritium is produced by neutrons hitting the nuclei of deuterium (double wt.
hydrogen) producing a triple wt. hydrogen, tritium. Tritium decays
radioactivly to a weak bata particle. In ordinary water, about one drop in
every 6,600 drops is heavy water in which the hydrogen is deuterium (double
wt. ) hydrogen. Neutrons hitting those double wt. hydrogens become the
triple wt. hydrogen tritium which is mildly radioactive. Any hydrogen
peroxide made with triple wt. hydrogen would also be mildly radioactive, and
the hydrogen produced from it or the water steam produced from it would be
mildly radioactive.
Tritium is already produced in the air by cosmic rays hitting deuterium. The
beta that it decays with is weak, and should not really hurt anything. It
can't go through paper. Breathing someone's cigarette smoke would probably
hurt you more than breathing water vapor with tritium in it. The way tritium
is produce now is in the intense neutron radiation in a nuclear reactor.
Just having radioactive material in water is no where near that intense, and
the production of neutrons is far less.
I agree with Tadchem that the tritium problem is negligeable and would not
really hurt anything. Burning coal the way we are doing is putting more
radioactivity in the air than what would happen using hydrogen peroxide that
is produced using radioactivity.
Tadchem said:
There may
be some exposure to beta decay of tritium for lung tissue if the gas is
inhaled, but the radiations are *very* weak. I question whether the beta
radiation from tritium gas is even measurably mutagenic. It certainly is not
even in the same league as NORMs such as the naturally occurring carbon-14
in foods (about 1000x as mutagenic as dioxin) or the granite from which some
of our pieces monumental architecture (such as the Texas State Capitol
Building) are constructed.
"Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million
(ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of
thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of
uranium."
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Did you know that:
"total world consumption of coal in 2001, at 5.26 billion short tons"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/coal.pdf
Doing the math shows that between 5.26 thousand and 52.6 thousand *TONS* or
uranium were dumped into the environment in just that single YEAR, as
by-products of coal-burning. Multiply by 2.5 for thorium...
So, I would not worry about weak tritium emmissions....
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stone
science forum beginner
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:08 am Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
Clemens W wrote in message
<1118598178.671636.266350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
| Quote: | stone wrote:
The only danger of radiation from this would be the production of tritium
if
there were to be any.
Wrong for several reasons:
1. To produce enough H2O2 to make this reaction efficient, you would
need a strong alpha emitter, like Po-110 or Am-241. However, both
substances are highly toxic (not only due to radioactivity, but also
due to chemical toxity).
|
One of the posters on this thread, N:dlzc D:aol T:com { dl..., said that his
radioactive cobalt which is stored in water, produced hydrogen peroxide with
gamma and beta radiation. Evidently he is a doctor and maybe uses it to
sterilize his instruments.
So you don't really need the toxic alpha emitters you are talking about to
produce H2O2.
| Quote: | 2. The alpha emitter would have to be in direct contact with water.
However, not only is H2O2 corrosive, but the free radicals H+ and OH-
attack metals easily (Basic chemistry: H+ and OH- are the active
components of acids and bases, respectively).
3. Lithium, which is produced by the reaction of hydrogen and
alpha-particles, reacts strongly with water, producing even more
corrosive hydroxyl radicals.
|
I don't consider the corrosion of the nuclear waste to be a problem. The
H2O2 can be separated from all of this junk.
| Quote: |
So there's no way not to end up with certain amounts of very dangerous
substances dissolved in water, which will further contaminate your
production.
|
The only contaminate coming out with the hydrogen gas, produced by the
electrolysis, would be tritium, a weak beta emmitter, and probably only a
little of that.
The H2O2 is separated using distillation, like they do it now, and it can be
used for a fuel. The only contaminate involved with that is tritium also, a
weak beta emmitter.
At least the products would not seriously be contaminated.
Deal with the water contaminates, chemically to render them harmless, if
there are enough of them to worry about.
| Quote: | Or you could use control
rods, to catch the neutrons, and prevent them from going into the water.
4. Non-sequitur: How can control rods be used to seperate the alpha
emitter from water, when - as stated above - water must come in direct
contact with the emitter? Any material that is thick enough to shield
neutrons will invariably inhibit all alpha particles, too.
|
As stated above, it was found that cobalt produces H2O2 also, and it is a
beta gamma emmitter. You could shield neutrons and allow beta and gamma to
get through.
| Quote: |
It would need to be ingested or inhaled to do any damage at all.
5. By using hydrogen as replacement for fossil fuel (e.g. in cars), the
resulting water vapor would be set free, so that radioactive
contaminations can easily be inhaled or ingested.
|
The only radioactive contaminate in the hydrogen would be tritium, a weak
beta emmitter and nothing to worry about.
Like tadchem said, just burning coal is putting thousands of tons of highly
radioactive uranium and Thorium in the air every year. That is already being
done and it is far worse than any tritium radiation from hydrogen. [Coal
burning which is worse than any hydrogen contaminant, had been going on for
hundreds of years.]
Tadchem said:
There may
be some exposure to beta decay of tritium for lung tissue if the gas is
inhaled, but the radiations are *very* weak. I question whether the beta
radiation from tritium gas is even measurably mutagenic. It certainly is not
even in the same league as NORMs such as the naturally occurring carbon-14
in foods (about 1000x as mutagenic as dioxin) or the granite from which some
of our pieces monumental architecture (such as the Texas State Capitol
Building) are constructed.
"Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million
(ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of
thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of
uranium."
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Did you know that:
"total world consumption of coal in 2001, at 5.26 billion short tons"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/coal.pdf
Doing the math shows that between 5.26 thousand and 52.6 thousand *TONS* or
uranium were dumped into the environment in just that single YEAR, as
by-products of coal-burning. Multiply by 2.5 for thorium...
So, I would not worry about weak tritium emmissions....
| Quote: |
Why don't you go for something easier and less dangerous, like using
sun power?
Sun power is not economically practical to compete with fossil fuels. |
Cheap hydrogen peroxide and cheap hydrogen would be economically practicle
to compete with fossil fuels.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:19 am Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
Dear stone:
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:42ae746f_7@news1.uncensored-news.com...
....
| Quote: | One of the posters on this thread, N:dlzc D:aol T:com { dl...,
said that his radioactive cobalt which is
|
....was...
| Quote: | stored in water, produced hydrogen peroxide with
gamma and beta radiation.
|
The plant was closed, and "my" cobalt was moved to Sri Lanka. To
do the same job in the land of "$30 per month labor, fully
absorbed".
| Quote: | Evidently he is a doctor
|
I was the Plant Manager, and Radiation Safety Officer.
| Quote: | and maybe uses it to
sterilize his instruments.
|
I was sterilizing latex surgical gloves, and a few loads of
syringes (when this manufacturer's e-beam sterilizer went down).
| Quote: | So you don't really need the toxic alpha emitters
you are talking about to produce H2O2.
|
Keep in mind that:
1) the radioactive waste produces a lot of gasses, which will
have to be separated from the hydrogen emitted when hydrogen
peroxide is formed.
2) the hydrogen peroxide is the *waste product*, which can be
catalytically converted to oxygen and water... not as easily to
hydrogen and oxygen (and not economically).
3) hydrogen peroxide decays on the "shelf", releasing oxygen.
Temperature and time are enemies.
4) Normal metal containers (such as fuel tanks, fuel lines) can
act as catalysts to its decay.
5) There is not enough nuclear material to power even a small
cities cars, based on its ability to make hydrogen peroxide.
This is a non-starter. You are wasting your breath.
If you want a challenge, figure out how to process nuclear waste,
to get usable materials. For example, the Canadians (Nordion,
formerly) make cobalt-59 control rods for CANDU reactors, so that
after 2 or so years of service, they have cobalt-60 for sale to
gamma sterilizers.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:08 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Mortgages | Advertising | Neopets Cheats, Games and Neopoints | Loans | Mortgages
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
