Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 12:50 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 8 hrs 40 mins


% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Linn Energy, LLC (LINE) Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • sandonthebeach47 sandonthebeach47 Feb 1, 2013 5:17 PM Flag

    America Has 10 Billion Years of Fuel

    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

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • 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.

      • 4 Replies to lizahuang54321
      • You google it.

        I know how most of the hydrogen is made.

        I was not absent in chemistry class in in Jr High School, like you.

        If you had a little less arrogance and a better understanding of all those googles & cut & pastes, then maybe you might at least sound like you knew what you were talking about.

        And, to hear you mention the laws of thermodynamics or whatever you cut and pasted was really funny..

        .........please keep posting since we are very interested to hear you explain how you can make Hydrogen from burning natural gas as you mentioned....(since it makes co2 & water and not hydrogen).....this should be entertaining.

      • to be clear: the dummy comments are directed at norris and sand who posted a whole string of posts ridiculing others but in the process simply revealing their ignorance.
        yahoo's format sometimes makes it hard to figure out the sequence of the thread so want to make that clear.

      • You can guess all you usually guess wrong so this just adds another example to your long list of wrong guesses.

        You really are an idiot...what do you think the space shuttle uses as FUEL as you watch it on TV head into space? ....the fuel it burns is HYDROGEN.

        As far as where it comes from....not the air, most of itis easily made from water....magic.

        You can go make some in your kitchen with aluminum foil and an acid....try not to make too much at once since it burns as a FUEL.....remember the Hindenberg?

        All this other nonsense will not make you look less stupid:

        "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"

        In your spare time maybe you should retake a chemistry course in Jr H.S....where most teachers make hydrogen in class by the Hydrolysis of water....maybe you were absent that day.

      • Wrong.Burning natural gas completely gives off two molecules of water and one molecule of carbon dioxide for the dominant molecule,[ methane, in natural gas]. Zero free hydrogen survives that highly charged environment.
        combustion of two grams of hydrogen delivers 18 grams of water. Water is the form of fully oxidized hydrogen, just like carbon dioxide is the fully oxidized form of carbon. Both reactions give up energy. Any recombination of atoms resulting in a lower oxidation state gives off energy. That is how batteries work too. Iron can be a fuel in the right circumstances.
        Sorry Liz, but I do appreciate your input on the accounting side of things, if that is worth anything to you.

    • 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.

      • 3 Replies to lizahuang54321
      • Well, there are some who do think it's viable:

        (Forbes, 1/30/2013):
        Hydrogen cars–assuming the massive technological challenges regarding production, transportation and consumption of hydrogen and fuel cells can be overcome–may leave their well-earned place on the lunatic fringe in a few years.

        Earlier this month, Daimler, Ford and Nissan re-upped their commitment to the lead-off batter for the Periodic Table of the Elements by announcing a pact to develop a common fuel cell system that could lead to affordable fuel cell cars by 2017.

        It’s been a long tale of woe. Toyota, General Motors and others have invested billions of dollars in R&D to turn hydrogen into the fuel of the future. The three companies in the fuel cell collaborative said they have 60 years of cumulative experience in fuel cell cars and their prototypes have driven over 10 million miles. George Bush took a detour on the ill-fated hydrogen highway, which many believed caused U.S. automakers to cede their early lead in hybrids to the great financial benefit to Toyota.

        Still, the march goes on. What’s interesting to note is that this latest push on hydrogen cars, unlike the earlier U.S. mandate, isn’t driven by a specific government mandate to adopt the fuel. Governments around the world are raising mileage standards—the U.S. has set a goal of hitting an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025—but automakers can shoot for that goal by focusing on battery-powered cars or dropping weight. They are investing money because they believe hope exists.

        So why hydrogen? It represents a way to produce electric cars without the drawbacks. Electric cars are fantastic. They exhibit great acceleration. They emit fewer well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions than virtually any other vehicle other than bikes and skateboards. They are quiet. And they re-introduce a new generation of drivers to the thrill of motorized transportation. A test drive is all that it takes to become a fan of EVs.

        The problem lies in storing electricity on a car. Batteries are expensive. Additionally, batteries add heft and mass, which lowers the mileage. The weight of the battery pack of some of the early Tesla Roadsters came to 1,000 pounds. While chemical and electrical engineers continue to improve them, progress comes slowly. J.B. Straubel, the CTO of Tesla Motors, has said that batteries roughly double in performance every ten years, or about five times slower than Moore’s Law.

        Enter hydrogen. In a hydrogen fuel cell car, hydrogen gets drawn through a catalytic membrane: an electron gets stripped from the hydrogen to power the car. The waste product—water—goes out the tailpipe. The crucial component is a thin membrane laced with expensive elements that helps conduct the chemical reaction. The fuel cell stack, in theory, can weigh less than batteries. Filling fuel cell cars—assuming a refueling station is nearby—takes minutes, not the hours needed for a typical EV.

        Like all electrics, fuel cells cars are also efficient. Internal combustion engines are often 15 percent efficient. That heat coming off your car engine? It’s waste heat, fuel you bought but didn’t use productively. Fuel cells can be 50 percent plus efficient.

        When you think of all of those factors, you ultimately come to the conclusion that fuel cells are still in play because, well, it’s a cool idea. Harnessing energy through chemical reaction has been a dream since Sir William Grove invented the first fuel cell in 1839. (Note: some automakers like BMW have developed hydrogen cars that run on combustion, but we’re talking about hydrogen fuel cells here.) Fuel cells are arguably akin to nuclear power and geothermal. They really represent a whole new way of harvesting energy. With combustion, we’re really burning plant matter that baked for eons.

        Are there challenges? You bet. Chemical companies today create hydrogen by cracking methane, a process that results in a tremendous amount of greenhouse gases. Hydrogen is a notoriously challenging gas to deliver down pipelines. Catalytic membranes get fouled and fail.

        “The present hydrogen fuel cells are losers… Losers,” Nobel Laureate Burton Richter told me in 2009. “They have to go back to the R&D lab.”

        The cost of hydrogen fuel cell cars also remains astronomical. I drove a GM prototype in L.A. once. I asked how much it cost while driving down Sunset Boulevard. “About a million,” the GM spokesperson said.

        But how do they drive? Easily the best car I have ever driven was an F-Cell Mercedes.

        The road is hard, but fuel cells represent one of the few avenues where innovation can open the door to astounding changes. And at a minimum, it gives engineers something to shoot for.

      • you are out of your league here.
        Your point was that hydrogen was made from burning natural gas. Now backtrack and try to say you said something else. It will not work. stick to something on which you have knowledge and quit faking it.
        You can try to come back on me with your nonsense but you will be coming up against a chemist .

      • Before the dummies jump on this comment "It doesn't exist by itself naturally.", let me clarify that I am referring to on earth.
        Unless they think we should travel to the sun to get some hydrogen.

    • "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!

      • 1 Reply to norrishappy
      • Stunning and amusing that you didn't realize hydrogen doesn't exist by itself on earth and energy needs to be used to extract it from other compounds (water or more commonly from natural gas). And since energy is lost in that process, you end up with less energy than you put in. If you have to expend more energy than you get out, then you do not have a "fuel source". If you have to expend energy to make a 'fuel' that can be burned to create energy (but less than you used to create it in the first place), then you have an energy carrier (ie. you have converted energy from one form to another - at a cost) but not a fuel source.

        I guess not surprising that norris and sand have not heard of the second law of thermodynamics.

30.95-0.01(-0.03%)Jul 29 4:00 PMEDT

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.