Thu, Dec 18, 2014, 2:21 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 7 hrs 9 mins


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Linn Energy, LLC (LINE) Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • lizahuang54321 lizahuang54321 Feb 1, 2013 4:32 PM Flag

    America Has 10 Billion Years of Fuel

    Hydrogen is not a fuel source. It is simply an energy carrier.
    You still need to generate the energy to put in the fuel cell.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Hydrogen fuel is a zero-emission fuel which uses electrochemical cells, or combustion in internal engines, to power vehicles and electric devices.

      Hydrogen is considered an alternative fuel for two reasons: It is renewable, and it is the most abundant element on the earth. Hydrogen comprises more than 75 percent of the environment; so if it became a primary fuel, dependence on foreign sources of fuel would be eliminated.

      Daimler-Benz AG (now DaimlerChrysler), BMW, and Mazda have developed and tested ICE's fueled with hydrogen and have concluded that hydrogen can be used successfully as a vehicle fuel.

      Several types of fuel cells are being developed. The proton-exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell generally is considered the most promising fuel cell for automotive use, such as light trucks. The PEM fuel cell has a low operating temperature, which enables quick starts, and the amount of power it generates for its weight and size (power density) is high enough for light-duty trucks. Several experiments are being conducted in Germany using PEM-fuel-cell-powered buses. The fuel cells, coupled with electric drive motors, are able to move 18-metric-ton buses efficiently and reliably.

      • 1 Reply to rlp2451
      • "Several types of fuel cells are being developed. The proton-exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell generally is considered the most promising fuel cell for automotive use, such as light trucks. "

        Yes we were assured if we allowed the Progressive corn ethanol corruption we would be on cell technology by now too! Wind mills and solar panels will be economically viable if we just hand Obama $100,000,000,000 of our money to given to his campaign blunderers.

        That is the problem is no matter how insane you just keep going.

    • That is about the dumbest comment so far....maybe 1st year general chem was just too scary.
      "Hydrogen is not a fuel source. It is simply an energy carrier.
      You still need to generate the energy to put in the fuel cell."

      Hydrogen is a fuel.

      ....If you burn it in oxygen and you get only water as an endproduct.

      You can power the electrolisis to make the hydrogen by solar-elecric power or any other source of current.

      Did your JR HS science teacher not make hydrogen it in class by the electrolisis of water?

      if you still do not think these things exist and have been around for a long time then you might want to check with GE or search for their publication:

      "Electrolysis and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powered Car"
      Permission to Copy - This document may be reproduced for non-commercial educational purposes
      Copyright 2009 General Electric Company

      • 4 Replies to sandonthebeach47
      • I guess you think electricity is a fuel source too?

        Or perhaps where you live you can go out with your bucket and gather up some hydrogen lying around on the ground?

        Dummy, like electricity, we generate hydrogen mainly by burning natural gas.
        Some fuel source.
        In ridiculing others, these folks simply reveal their own ignorance.

      • The dummy is the person who missed the entire point.
        How do you get the hydrogen in the first place? It doesn't exist by itself naturally.
        You have to expend energy to liberate it from another compound.
        Thus you used energy to put it in a form which can be burned to create energy.
        And if the energy expended to create the hydrogen is less than the amount of energy created when you burn it then you have a net loss of energy.

        That is the point that the dummies here failed to understand in my comment.

      • "It's important to realize that hydrogen is not a fuel source; it's an energy carrier. Hydrogen does not exist freely in the universe; it's always bound to something else. So it takes an investment of energy to free hydrogen from its existing arrangement and make it available as a stored fuel.

        The hydrogen fuel cycle goes like this: hydrogen is liberated from some source, compressed or liquefied for storage and transport, then "burned" in a device called a fuel cell, in which energy is captured from the hydrogen as it combines with oxygen from the air to form water. The captured energy can be used to power electric motors and generators, and the only emissions are pure water.

        It's an elegant vision, and has captured the imagination of such luminaries as Stan Ovshinsky, wunderkind founder of the advanced energy company Ovonics (Energy Conversion Devices, ticker symbol ENER). Proponents imagine a future wherein the original hydrogen is generated by the electrolysis of water, using electricity generated from renewable sources. Thus the hydrogen fuel cycle would begin and end with plain water, and would still offer portability, as well as a basis for a distributed clean, green energy cycle.

        They envision homeowners generating their own renewable power (using solar, geothermal, micro-hydro, or whatever they've got) and turning it into hydrogen that they can store on-site, then consume in their hydrogen-powered cars or in the fuel cell stack that powers their home.

        Unfortunately, the vision breaks down when we analyze the energy return on investment (EROI) of the process. According to the second law of thermodynamics, when energy is converted from one form into another, a little energy is lost in the process, usually as heat. Essentially, every time you convert energy, you pay a tax.

        Calculating the EROI of a hydrogen fuel cycle requires a good many assumptions about how it will be generated, transported, stored and consumed. So different sets of assumptions can produce quite different results. In the aforementioned example of home-based hydrogen generation, where the hydrogen is generated and consumed in a single site, losses along the way are low. But when it is used in a vehicle, losses are much higher.

        Let's explore a typical calculation of the EROI of the hydrogen fuel cycle for cars:

        Suppose we generate the hydrogen by the electrolysis of water. First we must "rectify" the grid's AC electricity into DC, at a cost of about 2% to 3% of the energy contained in the hydrogen.
        Now we can electrolyze the water, but that process is only about 70% efficient, so we lose another 30% there.
        Now we have hydrogen gas, but it takes up a lot of space. We could compress it to around 10,000 psi to make it fit in reasonably sized tank, which costs another 15%. But even then, it would only have about one-fifth of the energy density of gasoline, and the pressurized tank needed to store it is very heavy, large and expensive. So if we wanted to use it in a vehicle, we would have to liquefy the hydrogen by cooling it down to about -253°C and keep it in a pressurized, insulated container instead. This process would cost another 30% to 40% of the energy in the hydrogen.
        We lose some more during storage because hydrogen boils off above -253°C, so it's very difficult to keep it from escaping its container. In vehicles, about 3% to 4% of the hydrogen boils off every day. And at least 10% of the hydrogen will boil off during delivery and storage.
        Then we burn the hydrogen in a vehicle's fuel cell at an efficiency of about 50% (for a proton membrane fuel cell stack).
        And finally, we lose another 10% of the energy that makes it to the electric motors driving the wheels, because they are only about 90% efficient.

        In the end, about 80% of the original energy generated in order to produce the hydrogen is lost, for an EROI of 0.25. Since it doesn't pay to have an energy regime with an EROI of less than one, hydrogen cars seems a permanent improbability.

        There's another dirty little secret about hydrogen that is rarely mentioned by hydrogen hypers: the vast majority of hydrogen manufactured today is not made from the hydrolysis of water, because of the energy inputs needed. Instead, it's made from natural gas, because it's a ready and easily exploited feedstock for hydrogen production that can be transported more easily in liquid form. And that means that the hydrogen production does, in fact, produce carbon dioxide emissions, effectively nullifying the environmental benefits of fuel cells.

        When natural gas is the feedstock, as it is today, the hydrogen fuel cycle amounts to going around the block to get to the back door, for nothing.

        A final problem with the concept of a "hydrogen economy" is that we'd essentially need a whole new infrastructure for it, from "wells to wheels." Nothing in our current energy infrastructure is compatible with hydrogen.

        A major reason for that is that it's the smallest element, so it wants to escape from just about anything you use to contain it. Tanks, pipes, valves, and fittings all along the way leak, constantly. For another, it's highly reactive, and makes metal brittle and prone to leakage. The storage and transport losses can be considerably worse than in the above example."

        etc, etc, etc

      • Thank you Sand,

        That is right up there with back fitting equity returns is the way to invest.

        I know Americans with common sense understand just ignorant backfitting is. But yes occult investment theory is a crazy as this.

        "Hydrogen is not a fuel source. It is simply an energy carrier."

        Stunning and amusing!

        Thank you Sand!

13.54+1.00(+7.97%)Dec 17 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.