|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:its requires vast amounts of energy to produce, therefore its pointless ^^^ This is what you said. I may be reading between the lines here, and correct me if I am, but I read that as because it takes vast amounts of energy to produce there's no point in pursuing it.Early computers took vast amounts of energy to produce. (Not to mention time, knowledge, materials, room etc.) The analogy holds. You're embarrassing yourself.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chillbilly
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.2K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:chillbilly wrote:ricecrackers wrote:its requires vast amounts of energy to produce, therefore its pointless
once again afrodope has no clue what he's on about. he probably read it in some blog about 'cool things' It is not pointless. Hydrogen is just a method of storing your energy. It is a far more viable way, in the long term, to run our transport than other methods. its pointless as an energy source which is what this is all about. only useful as 'a battery' For large scale electrical production yes, but for distributing stored energy in usable packets so that our community can continue to operate as it is used to with fossil fuels (i.e. Petrol) it is very useful. The general public don't care about how the energy gets to them so long as it is convenient for them to use and works when they want it. We lose a lot of the energy stored in fossil fuels to generate useful energy, we shouldn't think that it would be all that different converting renewable energy into a useful form.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:benelsmore wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:benelsmore wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:benelsmore wrote:afromanGT wrote:Quote:my position from the start has been that natural gas contributes to the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
that is, it creates more greenhouse gas than it would if it were left in the ground And in other breaking news sky is blue and water is wet. As for Natural Gas being a 'green' alternative to Coal, it's less about greenhouse emissions and more that Natural Gas wells generally disturb land less than coal and oil extraction, allowing land to be reclaimed more easily. :lol: tell that to people who want to stop fracking. According to those complete morons, fracking causes seismicity, poisons water etc etc. :lol: Fracking is bad for the environment, just like all the issues caused by other forms of mining that result in ground water leaching affects. -PB The most conclusive evidence against fracking is the amount of water required to create a well. I've drilled so f*cking deep holes in central QLD in the Surat Basin (coincidently they were pilot holes for exploration rigs) and you get perched water tables which are dependent on the density and defects within the rock strata. Out there you get the Surat Basin geology underlain by the older Bowen Basin. You get Jurassic age rocks overlying deep Carbonaceous age rocks. In that you can get perched (divided) water tables depending on the density of the rock. When drilling with a fracking rig, they case the entire length of the well with a steel pipe. As a result, the only 'contamination' of the groundwater prior to injection is drilling fluids which are bentonite polymers which are usually inert and completely safe (otherwise I would certainly be very sick by now). I'm very sceptical about this so called groundwater contamination. Weren't some of those chemicals just shown to be made with asbestos compounds lol? Contamination would be due to breaks in the piping etc, that's what I was referring too. Ofc the contamination is nowhere near as bad as say, tailings dams. -PB Yes in the same way that we're dangerous to ourselves because our bodies contain Phosphorus :lol: Breaks in the piping would be pretty rare. As a geotechnical engineer I've never seen casing burst. I've seen drill rods shear but that's before any chemicals other than the bentonite polymer drill fluids are in the hole. If anything the casing would leak. The sealer used to prevent leaks is usually applied quickly as the rods go down the hole. However, exploration rigs use wire line drilling so if it happens, someone isn't doing their job properly. Tailings dams are scary. If one of them fails its a catastrophe. Palmer's one up here @ Yabulu has gone very close to flowing over several times in the past few months just based off rainfall alone. Terrible management of that pond imo. -PB Touchwood an actual failure hasn't occurred in Australia yet. I attended a conference on tailings dams and there are severe geotechnical issues associated with designing them. Mainly due to scouring. If you google tailings dam failures the results of failings can ruin river systems indefinitely.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
chillbilly wrote:ricecrackers wrote:chillbilly wrote:ricecrackers wrote:its requires vast amounts of energy to produce, therefore its pointless
once again afrodope has no clue what he's on about. he probably read it in some blog about 'cool things' It is not pointless. Hydrogen is just a method of storing your energy. It is a far more viable way, in the long term, to run our transport than other methods. its pointless as an energy source which is what this is all about. only useful as 'a battery' For large scale electrical production yes, but for distributing stored energy in usable packets so that our community can continue to operate as it is used to with fossil fuels (i.e. Petrol) it is very useful. The general public don't care about how the energy gets to them so long as it is convenient for them to use and works when they want it. We lose a lot of the energy stored in fossil fuels to generate useful energy, we shouldn't think that it would be all that different converting renewable energy into a useful form. large scale energy production is what this entire discussion is about . petrol doesnt require anything like the amount of energy it requires to produce hydrogen.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:its requires vast amounts of energy to produce, therefore its pointless ^^^ This is what you said. I may be reading between the lines here, and correct me if I am, but I read that as because it takes vast amounts of energy to produce there's no point in pursuing it.Early computers took vast amounts of energy to produce. (Not to mention time, knowledge, materials, room etc.) The analogy holds. You're embarrassing yourself. you're certifiably insane
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:benelsmore wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:benelsmore wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:benelsmore wrote:afromanGT wrote:Quote:my position from the start has been that natural gas contributes to the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
that is, it creates more greenhouse gas than it would if it were left in the ground And in other breaking news sky is blue and water is wet. As for Natural Gas being a 'green' alternative to Coal, it's less about greenhouse emissions and more that Natural Gas wells generally disturb land less than coal and oil extraction, allowing land to be reclaimed more easily. :lol: tell that to people who want to stop fracking. According to those complete morons, fracking causes seismicity, poisons water etc etc. :lol: Fracking is bad for the environment, just like all the issues caused by other forms of mining that result in ground water leaching affects. -PB The most conclusive evidence against fracking is the amount of water required to create a well. I've drilled so f*cking deep holes in central QLD in the Surat Basin (coincidently they were pilot holes for exploration rigs) and you get perched water tables which are dependent on the density and defects within the rock strata. Out there you get the Surat Basin geology underlain by the older Bowen Basin. You get Jurassic age rocks overlying deep Carbonaceous age rocks. In that you can get perched (divided) water tables depending on the density of the rock. When drilling with a fracking rig, they case the entire length of the well with a steel pipe. As a result, the only 'contamination' of the groundwater prior to injection is drilling fluids which are bentonite polymers which are usually inert and completely safe (otherwise I would certainly be very sick by now). I'm very sceptical about this so called groundwater contamination. Weren't some of those chemicals just shown to be made with asbestos compounds lol? Contamination would be due to breaks in the piping etc, that's what I was referring too. Ofc the contamination is nowhere near as bad as say, tailings dams. -PB Yes in the same way that we're dangerous to ourselves because our bodies contain Phosphorus :lol: Breaks in the piping would be pretty rare. As a geotechnical engineer I've never seen casing burst. I've seen drill rods shear but that's before any chemicals other than the bentonite polymer drill fluids are in the hole. If anything the casing would leak. The sealer used to prevent leaks is usually applied quickly as the rods go down the hole. However, exploration rigs use wire line drilling so if it happens, someone isn't doing their job properly. Tailings dams are scary. If one of them fails its a catastrophe. Palmer's one up here @ Yabulu has gone very close to flowing over several times in the past few months just based off rainfall alone. Terrible management of that pond imo. -PB Touchwood an actual failure hasn't occurred in Australia yet. I attended a conference on tailings dams and there are severe geotechnical issues associated with designing them. Mainly due to scouring. If you google tailings dam failures the results of failings can ruin river systems indefinitely. Yeah my fiance did that exact topic as her thesis (Environmental Engineering). Helped write a mathematical model for determining ground water leeching over time. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:its requires vast amounts of energy to produce, therefore its pointless ^^^ This is what you said. I may be reading between the lines here, and correct me if I am, but I read that as because it takes vast amounts of energy to produce there's no point in pursuing it.Early computers took vast amounts of energy to produce. (Not to mention time, knowledge, materials, room etc.) The analogy holds. You're embarrassing yourself. you're certifiably insane You ricecrackers me up. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:benelsmore wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:benelsmore wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:benelsmore wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:benelsmore wrote:afromanGT wrote:Quote:my position from the start has been that natural gas contributes to the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
that is, it creates more greenhouse gas than it would if it were left in the ground And in other breaking news sky is blue and water is wet. As for Natural Gas being a 'green' alternative to Coal, it's less about greenhouse emissions and more that Natural Gas wells generally disturb land less than coal and oil extraction, allowing land to be reclaimed more easily. :lol: tell that to people who want to stop fracking. According to those complete morons, fracking causes seismicity, poisons water etc etc. :lol: Fracking is bad for the environment, just like all the issues caused by other forms of mining that result in ground water leaching affects. -PB The most conclusive evidence against fracking is the amount of water required to create a well. I've drilled so f*cking deep holes in central QLD in the Surat Basin (coincidently they were pilot holes for exploration rigs) and you get perched water tables which are dependent on the density and defects within the rock strata. Out there you get the Surat Basin geology underlain by the older Bowen Basin. You get Jurassic age rocks overlying deep Carbonaceous age rocks. In that you can get perched (divided) water tables depending on the density of the rock. When drilling with a fracking rig, they case the entire length of the well with a steel pipe. As a result, the only 'contamination' of the groundwater prior to injection is drilling fluids which are bentonite polymers which are usually inert and completely safe (otherwise I would certainly be very sick by now). I'm very sceptical about this so called groundwater contamination. Weren't some of those chemicals just shown to be made with asbestos compounds lol? Contamination would be due to breaks in the piping etc, that's what I was referring too. Ofc the contamination is nowhere near as bad as say, tailings dams. -PB Yes in the same way that we're dangerous to ourselves because our bodies contain Phosphorus :lol: Breaks in the piping would be pretty rare. As a geotechnical engineer I've never seen casing burst. I've seen drill rods shear but that's before any chemicals other than the bentonite polymer drill fluids are in the hole. If anything the casing would leak. The sealer used to prevent leaks is usually applied quickly as the rods go down the hole. However, exploration rigs use wire line drilling so if it happens, someone isn't doing their job properly. Tailings dams are scary. If one of them fails its a catastrophe. Palmer's one up here @ Yabulu has gone very close to flowing over several times in the past few months just based off rainfall alone. Terrible management of that pond imo. -PB Touchwood an actual failure hasn't occurred in Australia yet. I attended a conference on tailings dams and there are severe geotechnical issues associated with designing them. Mainly due to scouring. If you google tailings dam failures the results of failings can ruin river systems indefinitely. Yeah my fiance did that exact topic as her thesis (Environmental Engineering). Helped write a mathematical model for determining ground water leeching over time. -PB Oh ok that's interesting because that is a huge problem. Next week in fact i'm doing some in-situ testing to approximate groundwater leeching for a conventional dam (only a small one). We test it with a packer test which measures the leeching under a specified pressure. The problem with this testing is you have to assume a groundwater pressure. That's why dams fail, because people make assumptions without thinking it through.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Assumptions = ass of u and me haha. -PB Edited by paulbagzFC: 27/3/2014 11:12:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
chillbilly wrote:ricecrackers wrote:its requires vast amounts of energy to produce, therefore its pointless
once again afrodope has no clue what he's on about. he probably read it in some blog about 'cool things' It is not pointless. Hydrogen is just a method of storing your energy. It is a far more viable way, in the long term, to run our transport than other methods. Not to mention the more effort put into R&D and technological advances will make it both more practical and more financially viable. munrubenmuz makes a great point about computers. They used to be considered impractical but technological advances and R&D have made them a feature of almost every home. "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home." - Kenneth Olsen, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
and what technological advances pray-tell are going to make hydrogen suddenly appear out of nowhere?
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:and what technological advances pray-tell are going to make hydrogen suddenly appear out of nowhere? That's the stupidest question you could have possibly asked. If I knew the answer to that I'd be a rich man, wouldn't I? Because I'd invent the fucking thing you nitwit.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:and what technological advances pray-tell are going to make hydrogen suddenly appear out of nowhere? That's the stupidest question you could have possibly asked. If I knew the answer to that I'd be a rich man, wouldn't I? Because I'd invent the fucking thing you nitwit. then why did you suggest it as a solution to the world's energy needs ?
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:and what technological advances pray-tell are going to make hydrogen suddenly appear out of nowhere? That's the stupidest question you could have possibly asked. If I knew the answer to that I'd be a rich man, wouldn't I? Because I'd invent the fucking thing you nitwit. then why did you suggest it as a solution to the world's energy needs ? I know this is crazy, but probably because it's an actual means of energy production which industry experts are exploring the most feasible means of developing as a reliable and practical energy source? Common sense is a radical concept, I know.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:and what technological advances pray-tell are going to make hydrogen suddenly appear out of nowhere? That's the stupidest question you could have possibly asked. If I knew the answer to that I'd be a rich man, wouldn't I? Because I'd invent the fucking thing you nitwit. then why did you suggest it as a solution to the world's energy needs ? I know this is crazy, but probably because it's an actual means of energy production which industry experts are exploring the most feasible means of developing as a reliable and practical energy source? Common sense is a radical concept, I know. its not a means of energy production. its a means of energy transference. the gas needs to be manufactured, and that requires existing energy sources, you cant mine it from anywhere. i live in the real world, unlike your fantasy world of magical energy created out of nothing
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:and what technological advances pray-tell are going to make hydrogen suddenly appear out of nowhere? That's the stupidest question you could have possibly asked. If I knew the answer to that I'd be a rich man, wouldn't I? Because I'd invent the fucking thing you nitwit. then why did you suggest it as a solution to the world's energy needs ? I know this is crazy, but probably because it's an actual means of energy production which industry experts are exploring the most feasible means of developing as a reliable and practical energy source? Common sense is a radical concept, I know. its not a means of energy production. its a means of energy transference. the gas needs to be manufactured, and that requires existing energy sources, you cant mine it from anywhere. i live in the real world, unlike your fantasy world of magical energy created out of nothing Do some research before you run your mouth off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_productionCome back when you've read the article from top to bottom. Until you have I don't want to see another word in this thread from you.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:and what technological advances pray-tell are going to make hydrogen suddenly appear out of nowhere? That's the stupidest question you could have possibly asked. If I knew the answer to that I'd be a rich man, wouldn't I? Because I'd invent the fucking thing you nitwit. then why did you suggest it as a solution to the world's energy needs ? I know this is crazy, but probably because it's an actual means of energy production which industry experts are exploring the most feasible means of developing as a reliable and practical energy source? Common sense is a radical concept, I know. its not a means of energy production. its a means of energy transference. the gas needs to be manufactured, and that requires existing energy sources, you cant mine it from anywhere. i live in the real world, unlike your fantasy world of magical energy created out of nothing Do some research before you run your mouth off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_productionCome back when you've read the article from top to bottom. Until you have I don't want to see another word in this thread from you. who the hell do you think you are to dictate? do you even read your own links you complete moron? it clearly states that hydrogen is used as energy storage and requires energy to produce it
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:and what technological advances pray-tell are going to make hydrogen suddenly appear out of nowhere? That's the stupidest question you could have possibly asked. If I knew the answer to that I'd be a rich man, wouldn't I? Because I'd invent the fucking thing you nitwit. then why did you suggest it as a solution to the world's energy needs ? I know this is crazy, but probably because it's an actual means of energy production which industry experts are exploring the most feasible means of developing as a reliable and practical energy source? Common sense is a radical concept, I know. its not a means of energy production. its a means of energy transference. the gas needs to be manufactured, and that requires existing energy sources, you cant mine it from anywhere. i live in the real world, unlike your fantasy world of magical energy created out of nothing Do some research before you run your mouth off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_productionCome back when you've read the article from top to bottom. Until you have I don't want to see another word in this thread from you. Jesus Afro, not only did you ignore his point, you posted a blanket link with no actual reference to hydrogen as an energy source. Its much easier to take a person seriously who posts their own words, not someone else's. He's right, hydrogen energy for commercial production is a manufactured product requiring energy to extract, modify and store. Currently you can produce is as a bi-product of natural gas/coal/nuclear energy technology but 'green' hydrogen involves electrolysis, thermochemical conversion of biomass, photolytic and fermentative micro-organism systems or photoelectrochemical systems.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:and what technological advances pray-tell are going to make hydrogen suddenly appear out of nowhere? That's the stupidest question you could have possibly asked. If I knew the answer to that I'd be a rich man, wouldn't I? Because I'd invent the fucking thing you nitwit. then why did you suggest it as a solution to the world's energy needs ? I know this is crazy, but probably because it's an actual means of energy production which industry experts are exploring the most feasible means of developing as a reliable and practical energy source? Common sense is a radical concept, I know. its not a means of energy production. its a means of energy transference. the gas needs to be manufactured, and that requires existing energy sources, you cant mine it from anywhere. i live in the real world, unlike your fantasy world of magical energy created out of nothing Do some research before you run your mouth off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_productionCome back when you've read the article from top to bottom. Until you have I don't want to see another word in this thread from you. Jesus Afro, not only did you ignore his point, you posted a blanket link with no actual reference to hydrogen as an energy source. Its much easier to take a person seriously who posts their own words, not someone else's. He's right, hydrogen energy for commercial production is a manufactured product requiring energy to extract, modify and store. Currently you can produce is as a bi-product of natural gas/coal/nuclear energy technology but 'green' hydrogen involves electrolysis, thermochemical conversion of biomass, photolytic and fermentative micro-organism systems or photoelectrochemical systems. Deuterium, a hydrogen isotope is being used in research for a fusion powered reactor. Some scientists believe they're around 15 years away from developing a viable fusion reactor. The main issue is the potentially inhibitive costs, but they believe that ITER will be operational in 2027. As for Hydrogen fuel specifically, solar-powered hydrogen electrolysis is being prototyped as the most feasible means of both improving the efficiency of solar power but also the most reliable and practical way of producing hydrogen fuel. It's plausible that it becomes a very realistic and wide-spread option for companies over the next decade or two.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:benelsmore wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:and what technological advances pray-tell are going to make hydrogen suddenly appear out of nowhere? That's the stupidest question you could have possibly asked. If I knew the answer to that I'd be a rich man, wouldn't I? Because I'd invent the fucking thing you nitwit. then why did you suggest it as a solution to the world's energy needs ? I know this is crazy, but probably because it's an actual means of energy production which industry experts are exploring the most feasible means of developing as a reliable and practical energy source? Common sense is a radical concept, I know. its not a means of energy production. its a means of energy transference. the gas needs to be manufactured, and that requires existing energy sources, you cant mine it from anywhere. i live in the real world, unlike your fantasy world of magical energy created out of nothing Do some research before you run your mouth off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_productionCome back when you've read the article from top to bottom. Until you have I don't want to see another word in this thread from you. Jesus Afro, not only did you ignore his point, you posted a blanket link with no actual reference to hydrogen as an energy source. Its much easier to take a person seriously who posts their own words, not someone else's. He's right, hydrogen energy for commercial production is a manufactured product requiring energy to extract, modify and store. Currently you can produce is as a bi-product of natural gas/coal/nuclear energy technology but 'green' hydrogen involves electrolysis, thermochemical conversion of biomass, photolytic and fermentative micro-organism systems or photoelectrochemical systems. Deuterium, a hydrogen isotope is being used in research for a fusion powered reactor. Some scientists believe they're around 15 years away from developing a viable fusion reactor. The main issue is the potentially inhibitive costs, but they believe that ITER will be operational in 2027. As for Hydrogen fuel specifically, solar-powered hydrogen electrolysis is being prototyped as the most feasible means of both improving the efficiency of solar power but also the most reliable and practical way of producing hydrogen fuel. It's plausible that it becomes a very realistic and wide-spread option for companies over the next decade or two. you weren't even talking about deuterium in the first instance you liar this is what shits me with you, whenever you're found out you try weasel your way out by diffusing the subject nice job of cutting and pasting two paragraphs from wikipedia. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:benelsmore wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:and what technological advances pray-tell are going to make hydrogen suddenly appear out of nowhere? That's the stupidest question you could have possibly asked. If I knew the answer to that I'd be a rich man, wouldn't I? Because I'd invent the fucking thing you nitwit. then why did you suggest it as a solution to the world's energy needs ? I know this is crazy, but probably because it's an actual means of energy production which industry experts are exploring the most feasible means of developing as a reliable and practical energy source? Common sense is a radical concept, I know. its not a means of energy production. its a means of energy transference. the gas needs to be manufactured, and that requires existing energy sources, you cant mine it from anywhere. i live in the real world, unlike your fantasy world of magical energy created out of nothing Do some research before you run your mouth off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_productionCome back when you've read the article from top to bottom. Until you have I don't want to see another word in this thread from you. Jesus Afro, not only did you ignore his point, you posted a blanket link with no actual reference to hydrogen as an energy source. Its much easier to take a person seriously who posts their own words, not someone else's. He's right, hydrogen energy for commercial production is a manufactured product requiring energy to extract, modify and store. Currently you can produce is as a bi-product of natural gas/coal/nuclear energy technology but 'green' hydrogen involves electrolysis, thermochemical conversion of biomass, photolytic and fermentative micro-organism systems or photoelectrochemical systems. Deuterium, a hydrogen isotope is being used in research for a fusion powered reactor. Some scientists believe they're around 15 years away from developing a viable fusion reactor. The main issue is the potentially inhibitive costs, but they believe that ITER will be operational in 2027. As for Hydrogen fuel specifically, solar-powered hydrogen electrolysis is being prototyped as the most feasible means of both improving the efficiency of solar power but also the most reliable and practical way of producing hydrogen fuel. It's plausible that it becomes a very realistic and wide-spread option for companies over the next decade or two. Given recent history in nuclear power, i'm not sure how fond countries like Australia will be with embracing a few new fusion reactors. Nuclear energy is reliable but when it screws up, it's catastrophic. High risk for high return. In saying that, Australia is less prone to seismicity than many countries with fusion reactors. Hydrogen via Electrolysis is what i understand they use in those hydrogen prototype cars. It remains to be seen whether fit is economically viable and able to be mass produced to a commercial scale. I also understand that electrolysis itself is an energy intensive process.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:Given recent history in nuclear power, i'm not sure how fond countries like Australia will be with embracing a few new fusion reactors. Nuclear energy is reliable but when it screws up, it's catastrophic. High risk for high return. In saying that, Australia is less prone to seismicity than many countries with fusion reactors.
Hydrogen via Electrolysis is what i understand they use in those hydrogen prototype cars. It remains to be seen whether fit is economically viable and able to be mass produced to a commercial scale. I also understand that electrolysis itself is an energy intensive process. The aftermath of Hydrogen fusion is more stable than something like Uranium or Plutonium powered fusion. Hydrogen via Electrolysis is an energy intensive process but practicality is feasible through a solar powered process. It's one of the primary reasons for the large strides forward in solar powered technology over the last 5 or so years and as technology advances it will become increasingly viable, contrary to what ricecrackers may believe. Quote:nice job of cutting and pasting two paragraphs from wikipedia. Do you want to provide links to the articles I pulled them from? With specific sub-headings for where in the article I allegedly plagiarised. Don't accuse me of being a liar and then blatantly lie the very next sentence. Edited by afromanGT: 27/3/2014 11:16:08 PM
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:benelsmore wrote:afromanGT wrote:Given recent history in nuclear power, i'm not sure how fond countries like Australia will be with embracing a few new fusion reactors. Nuclear energy is reliable but when it screws up, it's catastrophic. High risk for high return. In saying that, Australia is less prone to seismicity than many countries with fusion reactors.
Hydrogen via Electrolysis is what i understand they use in those hydrogen prototype cars. It remains to be seen whether fit is economically viable and able to be mass produced to a commercial scale. I also understand that electrolysis itself is an energy intensive process. The aftermath of Hydrogen fusion is more stable than something like Uranium or Plutonium powered fusion. Hydrogen via Electrolysis is an energy intensive process but practicality is feasible through a solar powered process. It's one of the primary reasons for the large strides forward in solar powered technology over the last 5 or so years and as technology advances it will become increasingly viable, contrary to what ricecrackers may believe. [quote]nice job of cutting and pasting two paragraphs from wikipedia. Do you want to provide links to the articles I pulled them from? With specific sub-headings for where in the article I allegedly plagiarised. Don't accuse me of being a liar and then blatantly lie the very next sentence. ha, you dont even know who you're quoting now :lol: you paraphrased the two paragraphs from wikipedia, tantamount to copying. you really dont understand what you're talking about here and whenever found out you look to google to bail you out. you and i both know you were not talking about deuterium when you first mentioned hydrogen as an energy source. i know you're lying, you know you're lying (which includes lying to yourself). others can decide for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Fiction
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
First I 'cut and pasted', now I've 'paraphrased'...after you accuse me of moving the goalposts (based off nothing more than your own very selective interpretation of what I've said) and you've done so yourself. You still can't tell me where those pieces allegedly came from and haven't produced a single piece of evidence to support a single claim you've made on this or any other topic in the last fortnight. Quote:you and i both know you were not talking about deuterium when you first mentioned hydrogen as an energy source. If you can tell me the thought process you used to determine exactly which means of energy production my use of the phrase "hydrogen as an energy source" pertains to I'm more than happy to hear it. But at no point did I specify a preference for any single individual method of Hydrogen sourced energy production.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:First I 'cut and pasted', now I've 'paraphrased'...after you accuse me of moving the goalposts (based off nothing more than your own very selective interpretation of what I've said) and you've done so yourself. You still can't tell me where those pieces allegedly came from and haven't produced a single piece of evidence to support a single claim you've made on this or any other topic in the last fortnight. Quote:you and i both know you were not talking about deuterium when you first mentioned hydrogen as an energy source. If you can tell me the thought process you used to determine exactly which means of energy production my use of the phrase "hydrogen as an energy source" pertains to I'm more than happy to hear it. But at no point did I specify a preference for any single individual method of Hydrogen sourced energy production. just STFU about the hydrogen. you know you're lying, please stop it. if you had any idea what you were talking about in the first place you would've been quite specific. your two pieces came from the wikipedia article. i did a search on "hydrogen" just like you did. one step ahead of you.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Hydrogen power is such a broad spectrum of potential energy sources it's impossible to be specific in a single post without writing a thesis, and if you'd done even half the amount of reading you claim to have, you would know that. I simply stated that Hydrogen powered energy sources was the way forward, a statement which you took significant umbrage to for no reason other than the fact that you don't believe that one specific element of one specific hydrogen energy source is ever going to be practical.
From what wikipedia article? What part? You're talking shit. If you're going to accuse me of cutting and pasting you'd better have proof.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Hydrogen power is such a broad spectrum of potential energy sources it's impossible to be specific in a single post without writing a thesis, and if you'd done even half the amount of reading you claim to have, you would know that. I simply stated that Hydrogen powered energy sources was the way forward, a statement which you took significant umbrage to for no reason other than the fact that you don't believe that one specific element of one specific hydrogen energy source is ever going to be practical.
From what wikipedia article? What part? You're talking shit. If you're going to accuse me of cutting and pasting you'd better have proof. the one you posted #-o
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:Hydrogen power is such a broad spectrum of potential energy sources it's impossible to be specific in a single post without writing a thesis, and if you'd done even half the amount of reading you claim to have, you would know that. I simply stated that Hydrogen powered energy sources was the way forward, a statement which you took significant umbrage to for no reason other than the fact that you don't believe that one specific element of one specific hydrogen energy source is ever going to be practical.
From what wikipedia article? What part? You're talking shit. If you're going to accuse me of cutting and pasting you'd better have proof. the one you posted #-o Ah...yup...ok...That's a pretty big article, are you going to tell me where I 'cut and pasted' from? Or are you going to admit that you were wrong?
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:Hydrogen power is such a broad spectrum of potential energy sources it's impossible to be specific in a single post without writing a thesis, and if you'd done even half the amount of reading you claim to have, you would know that. I simply stated that Hydrogen powered energy sources was the way forward, a statement which you took significant umbrage to for no reason other than the fact that you don't believe that one specific element of one specific hydrogen energy source is ever going to be practical.
From what wikipedia article? What part? You're talking shit. If you're going to accuse me of cutting and pasting you'd better have proof. the one you posted #-o Ah...yup...ok...That's a pretty big article, are you going to tell me where I 'cut and pasted' from? Or are you going to admit that you were wrong? now you're pretending you didnt even read the article that you linked. the lies keep flowing from you
|
|
|
|