|
|
| Author |
Message |
stone
science forum beginner
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 42
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:18 am Post subject:
Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
I thought of a way to produce hydrogen much cheaper using less electrical
energy.
Practical Hydrogen production:
Use radioactivity to change water into hydrogen peroxide [H2O2], then use
electrolysis to change the hydrogen peroxide into hydrogen and oxygen. It
should take less electrical energy to change H2O2 into hydrogen and oxygen
than it does to change H2O into hydrogen and oxygen. Nuclear waste could be
used to provide the radioactive material to do this. The hydrogen and oxygen
separation facility could be placed close to a nuclear power plant. The
cooling water that is used to cool down the atomic pile is subjected to high
levels of radiation, and some of that must be changed into hydrogen
peroxide. Run the cooling water from the nuclear power plant to the hydrogen
and oxygen separation facility. Separate the hydrogen peroxide from the
water (if you can economically do that), and use electolysis sending
electrical energy into the hydrogen peroxide and separate that into hydrogen
and oxygen. If you can't sepearate the H2O2 from the H2O, then use the
electrolysis on the mixture; it would still take less electricity for
separtation because some of the electrical energy is going to go into H2O2
molecules.
Without using a nuclear facility you could just put radioactive waste into a
large pool of water. Allow the radioactivity to change the water into
hydrogen peroxide, and then separate the water from the hydrogen peroxide,
and do the electrolysis on the hydrogen peroxide, separating it into
hydrogen and oxygen. This should make hydrogen a practical fuel to use in
engines world wide, making both hydrogen and oxygen much cheaper to produce.
[As far as energy is conscerned, H2O2 is like an intermediate energy stage
before you get to water. It should take much less electrical energy to
convert that to hydrogen and oxygen. The energy from the radioactive waste
is totally free, provided by the nuclear decay of the radioactive material.]
You can simply place the electrodes, that are used for the electrolysis,
close to the radioactive material where the concentration of the hydrogen
peroxide should be highest. This would eliminate the need to separate the
H2O2 from the H2O.
Mechanism of H2O to H2O2:
Radiation can directly interact with a molecule and damage it directly.
Because of the abundance of water in the body, radiation is more likely to
interact with water. When radiation interacts with water, it produces labile
chemical species (free radicals) such as hydronium (H.) and hydroyxls (.OH).
Free radicals can produce compounds such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) which
subsequently exert chemical toxicity.
http://radiologyresearch.org/radiat...t_chapter_2.htm
Radiation is alpha (2 protons and 2 neutrons), beta (fast electron), gamma
(electromagnetic radiation)
It looks like an alpha particle, knocks a hydrogen atom (which is a proton
with an electron orbiting it) off of the H2O molecule, changing it to an OH
and an H. These free radicals (highly interactive) react with H2O molecules,
changing them to H2O2. That seems to be the mechanism based on what I read
from that article.
A long time ago I heard that hydrogen peroxide poisoning is a part of
radiation sickness.
If OH interacts with H2O, to form an H and H2O2, then you would get 2
hydrogen atoms released every time an H2O2 molecule is produced, without
using any electricity. The first when the H is knocked off the H2O, and the
second when the OH and another H2O combine to produce an H and H2O2. So just
by having the radioactivity acting on the water it should produce Hydrogen
automatically, without needing any electrolysis.
The energy from the radiation is free energy. It is supplied by the
conversion of mass to energy as the radioactive waste decays. What you would
be doing is using the energy from the radioactive decay to assist in the
splitting of the hydrogen and oxygen. You might consider this a
fundamentally new way of using nuclear energy. Instead of using the heat it
produces, you would be using its energy to produce a hydrogen/oxygen fuel.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tadchem
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1348
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:05 pm Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
"Dave" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:tMudnfbUMfF-VDffRVn-tA@crocker.com...
| Quote: | so actually every spent fuel storage pool is a source of free hydrogen!
now
why hadn't anyone taken advantage of that in the past??
|
Because you *will* pay for it in other ways. Shielding against the
radiation of spent fuel rods suddenly makes the proposition *prohibitively*
expensive.
| Quote: | it would seem to be
a great free source of revenue for any company storing spent fuel rods.
|
Until the US Congress approves a storage site or reclamation site for spent
fuels rods, the US nuclear power industry is forced to store all spent fuel
rods on-site. After, why risk having such material transported briefly
along our network of highways when we can leave it all semi-permanently at
sites scattered all around the country near urban centers in facilities that
are impossible to properly protect against modern sabotage/terrorist
activities?
| Quote: | maybe there are a few bad side effects of the radiation, like production
of
dueterium
|
....non-radioactive, harmless...
| Quote: | and tritium that makes some of the hydrogen a bit more dangerous
than normal.
|
The radiation hazard of tritium is minimal. The beta particles are weak
enough to be stopped be a single layer of paper. Even if ingested(!)
tritium can be flushed out of the human body in a matter of days with a
regimen of high fluid consumption.
| Quote: | and maybe it is a relatively infrequent reaction, after all
when you see pictures of spent fuels pools, or even have stood on top of a
reactor in an open pool as i have, you don't see great bubbles of hydrogen
rising out of them. nor does there seem to be a need to remove extra
hydrogen out of reactor cooling water, at least not in the reactors i
trained on or operated some years ago.
|
Chernobyl was precipitated by an explosion of hydrogen gas. The US does not
use that type of reactor, though.
| Quote: | "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:42aa8232_5@news1.uncensored-news.com...
I thought of a way to produce hydrogen much cheaper using less electrical
energy.
Practical Hydrogen production:
Use radioactivity to change water into hydrogen peroxide [H2O2], then
use
electrolysis to change the hydrogen peroxide into hydrogen and oxygen.
|
Who taught this moron chemistry?
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:32 pm Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
Dear Dave:
"Dave" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:tMudnfbUMfF-VDffRVn-tA@crocker.com...
| Quote: | so actually every spent fuel storage pool is a source
of free hydrogen! now why hadn't anyone taken
advantage of that in the past??
|
Nuclear waste is pretty diffuse, so you would have to process it
to get containable concentrations. Then you'd have to "sort out"
the radon and other gaseous components you don't want. You'd
also get direct hydrogen production from the spontaneous decay of
neutrons.
There is a large amount of nuclear material. There still isn't
enough "production capacity" in the USA to power the cars in a
small city. We still don't have a way to refuel hydrogen cars
quickly. "Accidental" production is not helpful.
David A. Smtih |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clemens W
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 8:29 am Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
tadchem wrote:
| Quote: | of
dueterium
...non-radioactive, harmless...
|
but toxic. OK, not _very_ toxic, but I wouldn't call it healthy,
either.
| Quote: |
and tritium that makes some of the hydrogen a bit more dangerous
than normal.
The radiation hazard of tritium is minimal. The beta particles are weak
enough to be stopped be a single layer of paper. Even if ingested(!)
tritium can be flushed out of the human body in a matter of days with a
regimen of high fluid consumption.
|
What about inhalation? Hydrogen fuel is mainly used for cars as
replacement for fossil fuels. So the exhaust pipe of every car running
on hydrogen would probably expell millions of Bequerel per hour. Into
the same air we breathe.
Nah, if this idea ever gets realized, I'll book a flight to another
planet. One with a species that plans to survice, actually.
| Quote: | Chernobyl was precipitated by an explosion of hydrogen gas. The US does not
use that type of reactor, though.
|
At Chernobyl, the reactor core overheated to 3.000 °C. At these
temperatures, water will pyrolize into hydrogen and oxygen. An
effective, but not very energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen...
| Quote: | Who taught this moron chemistry?
|
Wasn't me  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stone
science forum beginner
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 8:51 am Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
Dave wrote in message ...
| Quote: | so actually every spent fuel storage pool is a source of free hydrogen!
now
why hadn't anyone taken advantage of that in the past?? it would seem to
be
a great free source of revenue for any company storing spent fuel rods.
maybe there are a few bad side effects of the radiation, like production of
dueterium and tritium that makes some of the hydrogen a bit more dangerous
than normal. and maybe it is a relatively infrequent reaction, after all
when you see pictures of spent fuels pools, or even have stood on top of a
reactor in an open pool as i have, you don't see great bubbles of hydrogen
rising out of them. nor does there seem to be a need to remove extra
hydrogen out of reactor cooling water, at least not in the reactors i
trained on or operated some years ago.
|
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. No
alpha radiation is entering the water in the spent fuels pools or the
reactor pools. It would be stopped by any containers.
To make this work you would probably need a high alpha source, and it must
be in direct contact with the water and not in any container. There would be
some hydrogen produced by the radioactivity alone as H2O is broken into H
and OH. Two H combine to produce hydrogen gas, and two OH combine to produce
H2O2. [Alpha radiation travels 1mm in water.] The electrodes to do
electrolysis on the H2O2 would need to be placed close to the radiation
source, where the H2O2 is more concentrated.
Got this off the web:
Secondary reactions occur after free radicals have been produced in the
irradiated water. The free radicals want to combine with other free radicals
to become more chemically stable. There are three possible combinations: 1.
A hydrogen free radical combines with another hydrogen free radical to
produce hydrogen gas. Cells already have a measureable amount of dissolved
hydrogen gas present so this reaction has little impact. 2. A hydrogen free
radical combines with a hydroxyl free radical to produce water. As we know,
the introduction of another water molecule is not a problem. 3. A hydoxyl
free radical combines with another hydroxyl free radical to produce hydrogen
peroxide. If you think this sounds harmful to the cell you are right! The
hydrogen peroxide is poisonous to the cell as well as the peroxide radicals
that can be formed which in turn attack other bio-organic molecules to form
stable organic peroxides. The organic molecule that was attacked may have
been imperitive to the cell's cycle and is no longer available for
utilization, eventually causing the cell's death.* *Source: Basic Radiation
Protection Technology, 1994.
The only danger of radiation from this would be the production of tritium if
there were to be any. However, there is nothing to indicate that tritium
would be produced in any dangerous quantity by having radioactive material
in water, if you take precautions to minimize the amount of neutrons
entering the water. It would require neutron bombardment of Li or heavy
water in a reactor to produce alot of tritium. The percentage of heavy water
occuring naturally in water is very small.
You could use a radioactive source that produces high alpha and very little
neutrons, to make sure it does not produce tritium. Or you could use control
rods, to catch the neutrons, and prevent them from going into the water.
What did they use years ago; graphite control rods? Minimize the amount of
neutrons entering the water, and there will be no production of radioactive
hydrogen, tritium.
Also, tritium is not very dangerous, when it decays it produces a weak beta
particle. It would need to be ingested or inhaled to do any damage at all.
Tritium occurs naturally already in the air by cosmic rays acting on
deuterium.
Radioactive oxygen is not problem at all. It is only produced in a
cyclotron.
| Quote: | "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:42aa8232_5@news1.uncensored-news.com...
I thought of a way to produce hydrogen much cheaper using less electrical
energy.
Practical Hydrogen production:
Use radioactivity to change water into hydrogen peroxide [H2O2], then use
electrolysis to change the hydrogen peroxide into hydrogen and oxygen. It
should take less electrical energy to change H2O2 into hydrogen and
oxygen
than it does to change H2O into hydrogen and oxygen. Nuclear waste could
be
used to provide the radioactive material to do this. The hydrogen and
oxygen
separation facility could be placed close to a nuclear power plant. The
cooling water that is used to cool down the atomic pile is subjected to
high
levels of radiation, and some of that must be changed into hydrogen
peroxide. Run the cooling water from the nuclear power plant to the
hydrogen
and oxygen separation facility. Separate the hydrogen peroxide from the
water (if you can economically do that), and use electolysis sending
electrical energy into the hydrogen peroxide and separate that into
hydrogen
and oxygen. If you can't sepearate the H2O2 from the H2O, then use the
electrolysis on the mixture; it would still take less electricity for
separtation because some of the electrical energy is going to go into
H2O2
molecules.
Without using a nuclear facility you could just put radioactive waste
into
a
large pool of water. Allow the radioactivity to change the water into
hydrogen peroxide, and then separate the water from the hydrogen
peroxide,
and do the electrolysis on the hydrogen peroxide, separating it into
hydrogen and oxygen. This should make hydrogen a practical fuel to use in
engines world wide, making both hydrogen and oxygen much cheaper to
produce.
[As far as energy is conscerned, H2O2 is like an intermediate energy
stage
before you get to water. It should take much less electrical energy to
convert that to hydrogen and oxygen. The energy from the radioactive
waste
is totally free, provided by the nuclear decay of the radioactive
material.]
You can simply place the electrodes, that are used for the electrolysis,
close to the radioactive material where the concentration of the hydrogen
peroxide should be highest. This would eliminate the need to separate the
H2O2 from the H2O.
Mechanism of H2O to H2O2:
Radiation can directly interact with a molecule and damage it directly.
Because of the abundance of water in the body, radiation is more likely
to
interact with water. When radiation interacts with water, it produces
labile
chemical species (free radicals) such as hydronium (H.) and hydroyxls
(.OH).
Free radicals can produce compounds such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)
which
subsequently exert chemical toxicity.
http://radiologyresearch.org/radiat...t_chapter_2.htm
Radiation is alpha (2 protons and 2 neutrons), beta (fast electron),
gamma
(electromagnetic radiation)
It looks like an alpha particle, knocks a hydrogen atom (which is a
proton
with an electron orbiting it) off of the H2O molecule, changing it to an
OH
and an H. These free radicals (highly interactive) react with H2O
molecules,
changing them to H2O2. That seems to be the mechanism based on what I
read
from that article.
A long time ago I heard that hydrogen peroxide poisoning is a part of
radiation sickness.
If OH interacts with H2O, to form an H and H2O2, then you would get 2
hydrogen atoms released every time an H2O2 molecule is produced, without
using any electricity. The first when the H is knocked off the H2O, and
the
second when the OH and another H2O combine to produce an H and H2O2. So
just
by having the radioactivity acting on the water it should produce
Hydrogen
automatically, without needing any electrolysis.
The energy from the radiation is free energy. It is supplied by the
conversion of mass to energy as the radioactive waste decays. What you
would
be doing is using the energy from the radioactive decay to assist in the
splitting of the hydrogen and oxygen. You might consider this a
fundamentally new way of using nuclear energy. Instead of using the heat
it
produces, you would be using its energy to produce a hydrogen/oxygen
fuel.
____________________________________________________________________________ |
___
_______________________________________________________________________________
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: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:09 am Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) > wrote in message ...
| Quote: | Dear Dave:
"Dave" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:tMudnfbUMfF-VDffRVn-tA@crocker.com...
so actually every spent fuel storage pool is a source
of free hydrogen! now why hadn't anyone taken
advantage of that in the past??
Nuclear waste is pretty diffuse, so you would have to process it
to get containable concentrations. Then you'd have to "sort out"
the radon and other gaseous components you don't want. You'd
also get direct hydrogen production from the spontaneous decay of
neutrons.
There is a large amount of nuclear material. There still isn't
enough "production capacity" in the USA to power the cars in a
small city. We still don't have a way to refuel hydrogen cars
quickly. "Accidental" production is not helpful.
David A. Smtih
|
Hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen are produced by the action of radioactivity
on water.
I think it is the alpha radiation that causes this by knocking an hydrogen
atom off of the water molecules. Two H combine to produce hydrogen. Two OH
combine to produce H2O2. (hydrogen peroxide) I was considering doing
electrolysis on the H2O2 which should take less electrical energy to split
into hydrogen and oxygen than water does. Free energy from the radioactivity
would produce the H2O2, then less electricity is needed to split that into
hydrogen and oxygen. That is the cheaper production I was referring to.
People kept telling me it takes too much electrical energy right now to
produce hydrogen and oxygen from water to make hydrogen fuel practical. So,
I considered producing it with less electrical energy from hydrogen
peroxide, which could be produced relatively freely using radioactivity
acting on water to produce the hydrogen peroxide.
That would not be accidental production.
Got this from the web:
Secondary reactions occur after free radicals have been produced in the
irradiated water. The free radicals want to combine with other free radicals
to become more chemically stable. There are three possible combinations: 1.
A hydrogen free radical combines with another hydrogen free radical to
produce hydrogen gas. Cells already have a measureable amount of dissolved
hydrogen gas present so this reaction has little impact. 2. A hydrogen free
radical combines with a hydroxyl free radical to produce water. As we know,
the introduction of another water molecule is not a problem. 3. A hydoxyl
free radical combines with another hydroxyl free radical to produce hydrogen
peroxide. If you think this sounds harmful to the cell you are right! The
hydrogen peroxide is poisonous to the cell as well as the peroxide radicals
that can be formed which in turn attack other bio-organic molecules to form
stable organic peroxides. The organic molecule that was attacked may have
been imperitive to the cell's cycle and is no longer available for
utilization, eventually causing the cell's death.* *Source: Basic Radiation
Protection Technology, 1994.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tadchem
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1348
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:38 pm Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
"Clemens W" <a.friend@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1118572175.059661.199510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
tadchem wrote:
| Quote: | of
dueterium
...non-radioactive, harmless...
|
=but toxic. OK, not _very_ toxic, but I wouldn't call it healthy,
=either.
http://www.iupac.org/reports/1998/7001rosman/iso.pdf
0.0184% of the hydrogen in fresh water is deuterium
That's about 2 grams of deuterium per liter.
The same amount of NaCl taken at once could cause a toxic reaction, although
it probably wouldn't be fatal. You *certainly* would know you have done
something baaad.
| Quote: | The radiation hazard of tritium is minimal. The beta particles are weak
enough to be stopped be a single layer of paper. Even if ingested(!)
tritium can be flushed out of the human body in a matter of days with a
regimen of high fluid consumption.
|
=What about inhalation? Hydrogen fuel is mainly used for cars as
=replacement for fossil fuels. So the exhaust pipe of every car running
=on hydrogen would probably expell millions of Bequerel per hour. Into
=the same air we breathe.
The human body is not designed to absorb hydrogen from the air. If you get a
whiff of helium, for example, the gas mostly (50-90%, depending on how you
breathe) comes out the next time you exhale. It doesn't take many breaths
before the gas concentration has fallen to undetectable levels. 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.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:39 pm Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
Dear stone:
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:42ac1394_4@news1.uncensored-news.com...
....
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clemens W
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:42 pm Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
stone wrote:
| Quote: | 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).
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.
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.
| 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.
| 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.
Why don't you go for something easier and less dangerous, like using
sun power?
Good luck,
A. Friend |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clemens W
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:25 pm Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
tadchem wrote:
| Quote: | The human body is not designed to absorb hydrogen from the air.
|
I wasn't talking about hydrogen itself, but the result of the chemical
reaction: Water. And the human body is definitely designed to absorb
that - by inhalation or ingestion.
| Quote: | 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.
|
Arguably not, but what would happen if millions of hydrogen-powered
cars (think of California in the near future) start to contaminate the
environment by using slightly radioactive fuel (H3 being far more
active than C14 due to shorter halflife)?
Good luck,
A. Friend |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morituri-|-Max
science forum Guru
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
"Clemens W" <a.friend@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1118598178.671636.266350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Why don't you go for something easier and less dangerous, like using
sun power?
Good luck,
|
Or controlled teeny-tiny atomic explosions to propel the vehicle forward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tadchem
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1348
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:30 pm Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
"Clemens W" <a.friend@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1118600710.299882.210190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | tadchem wrote:
The human body is not designed to absorb hydrogen from the air.
I wasn't talking about hydrogen itself, but the result of the chemical
reaction: Water. And the human body is definitely designed to absorb
that - by inhalation or ingestion.
|
Human breath, when *exhaled*, is generally much more humid than the air
inhaled - there is a net *loss* of water in respiration. There is more
water vapor going out than going in.
As to the inhalation of liquid water, that has its *own * problem -
drowning. More people (hundreds of thousands!) die in any given year from
the toxic effects of inhaling liquid water than from the effects of all
other chemicals combined, making it the most toxic substance on earth.
| Quote: | 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.
Arguably not, but what would happen if millions of hydrogen-powered
cars (think of California in the near future) start to contaminate the
environment by using slightly radioactive fuel (H3 being far more
active than C14 due to shorter halflife)?
|
I would be more worried about the particulate pollution produced by the wear
of their rubber tires, or by the coal-fired power plants needed to
electrolyze the water to produce the hydrogen in the first place.
Did you know that:
"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...
Worry about weak tritium emissions if you want to...
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clemens W
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
tadchem wrote:
| Quote: | As to the inhalation of liquid water, that has its *own * problem -
drowning. More people (hundreds of thousands!) die in any given year from
the toxic effects of inhaling liquid water than from the effects of all
other chemicals combined, making it the most toxic substance on earth.
|
Definitely. The dangers of dihydrogenmonoxide are numerous. It can also
cause severe tissue damage in solid or gaseous state. See www.dhmo.org
;-)
| Quote: | I would be more worried about the particulate pollution produced by the wear
of their rubber tires, or by the coal-fired power plants needed to
electrolyze the water to produce the hydrogen in the first place.
Did you know that:
"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...
Worry about weak tritium emissions if you want to...
|
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.
But the biggest problem is: All ressources of fossil energy are
limited.
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.
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. Introducing radioactivity into an otherwise
environmental-neutral process would be, IMNSHO, just a plain stupid
idea, even it it would be feasible.
That's my whole point.
Good luck,
A. Friend |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stone
science forum beginner
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:30 am Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
tadchem wrote in message ...
| Quote: |
"Clemens W" <a.friend@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1118572175.059661.199510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
tadchem wrote:
of
dueterium
...non-radioactive, harmless...
=but toxic. OK, not _very_ toxic, but I wouldn't call it healthy,
=either.
http://www.iupac.org/reports/1998/7001rosman/iso.pdf
0.0184% of the hydrogen in fresh water is deuterium
That's about 2 grams of deuterium per liter.
The same amount of NaCl taken at once could cause a toxic reaction,
although
it probably wouldn't be fatal. You *certainly* would know you have done
something baaad.
The radiation hazard of tritium is minimal. The beta particles are weak
enough to be stopped be a single layer of paper. Even if ingested(!)
tritium can be flushed out of the human body in a matter of days with a
regimen of high fluid consumption.
=What about inhalation? Hydrogen fuel is mainly used for cars as
=replacement for fossil fuels. So the exhaust pipe of every car running
=on hydrogen would probably expell millions of Bequerel per hour. Into
=the same air we breathe.
The human body is not designed to absorb hydrogen from the air. If you get
a
whiff of helium, for example, the gas mostly (50-90%, depending on how you
breathe) comes out the next time you exhale. It doesn't take many breaths
before the gas concentration has fallen to undetectable levels. 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.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
|
I agree with you that the tritium problem should not be a problem. The
amount of tritium produced would be negligible. One drop out of every 6,600
drops has deuterium in that. Neutrons would have to hit the nuclei dead on
to produce tritium. There would not be that many neutrons produced by just
having the radiation source in water. [It is nowhere near as intense as in a
reactor core.] There is a large amount of space between the electron shells
and the nuclei; not easy to hit the nuclei straight on with uncharged
neutrons.
My original idea was
I decided, use the free energy from radioactive decay to change the water to
hydrogen peroxide and then use less electrical energy to split that into
hydrogen and oxygen. That is the original idea. This would make the hydrogen
fuel practical, whereas now it is not practical.[Water is a highly stable
molecule; hydrogen peroxide is not. Less electricity should rip it apart.]
Whatever they use for increasing the conductivity for water electrolysis
would probably also work with H2O2 electrolysis.
The idea is that you are using some free energy from nuclear decay to assist
in the tearing apart of the water molecule. So you need less electrical
energy to do it. This makes hydrogen fuel really practicle.
However, I have been made aware that H2O2 hydrogen peroxide is a suitable
fuel for engines and can maybe run engines better than hydrogen. So there is
no need to do the electrolysis on the H2O2. Simply use the H2O2 as the
engine fuel.
The fact that H2O2 can be used as a fuel, has been known for at least 100
years.
http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Hellmuth_Walter H2O2 fuels a turbine
engine:
H2O2 is forced past a catalyst like silver or permanganate, and it
decomposes into heat, steam and oxygen, a high pressure expanding mixture.
Another fuel that burns can be added to use the oxygen and increase
pressure, but the other fuel is not necessary. This pressure is used in the
combustion chamber of a turbine engine.
http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/techtransfer/whitpaps/hydperox.htm
cars that runs on hydrogen peroxide Turbine engines
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1004/181374.html
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Hydrogen_20Peroxide_20Car_20Motor
http://members.aol.com/KingstonChas/TheBlueFlame.html
So the idea is simple. Use nuclear energy from the radioactive decay of high
alpha source nuclear waste, to change water to hydrogen peroxide. Then use
the hydrogen peroxide to fuel turbine engines, in cars, industry electrical
power production. The exhaust is steam and oxygen, non polluting. This would
help stop global warming by decreasing the use of fossil fuel emmissions.
This production of H2O2 should be much cheaper than the production methods
that are used now, which require electrolysis and hydrogen.
[I was thinking the radioactive waste must be in contact with the water, and
maybe could be shaped to have greater surface area contact with the water.]
Alpha radiation only goes 1mm in water.
The H2O2 would be separated from the water the way that it is now.
_______________________________________________________________________________
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: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:06 am Post subject:
Re: Cheap Hydrogen Fuel
|
|
|
Dear stone:
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:42ad7c7a_7@news1.uncensored-news.com...
....
| Quote: | So the idea is simple. Use nuclear energy from the
radioactive decay of high alpha source nuclear waste,
to change water to hydrogen peroxide.
|
Hydrogen peroxide is produced with nearly any energy level of all
nuclear radiation. Beta and gamma as well. My Co-60 source,
about a million curies worth, produced hydrogen peroxide in the
pool the source was stored in when not sterilizing disposable
medical product.
Don't limit yourself to thinking that only alpha emitters are
necessary.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:02 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Beat the Credit Crunch | Balance Transfer Credit Card | Guitar Lessons | Bad Credit Mortgages | Drug Rehab
|
|
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
