Remember me
▼ Content

"Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises" by Warren D Smith



Page 3 of 3<123
15-10-2021 19:38
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3804)
The point is that the whole concept is full of heavy losses. Windmills aren't cheap. You waste a lot of the electricity generated, by splitting seawater into H2. Miles of pipe and cables aren't 'free', even if the US government is 'paying' the bill, for all materials. All materials involved, are premium, corrosion resistant. You can't get away with cheap, Chinese, from recycled scrap. You don't want shot rusting, and falling apart. Before the project is even gets partially installed.

Of course, cost, and efficiency never matter, because it frees us from the 'Evil' CO2, and a scorched planet by 2050 (or did they move that back some more). Sure, wind, and seawater are 'free', but at what point is this project a cost effective means of converting to a usable product? No private company would ever consider getting pulled into s scheme. Extremely high costs to complete the project. Many years, before production can begin. No chance of recovering investment capital, in our lifetime.
15-10-2021 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
At the moment the efficiency of generating hydrogen and then converting it into water is about 42.5%. Once the efficiency is about 60% then such a system could start generating power.

I thought the plan was to generate electricity with ocean based wind farms then use the electricity to make hydrogen to run a power plant on land.Can you explain how making water from hydrogen creates electricity.



With what Warren suggested, generating AC current and then having transmission lines on the sea floor might be more efficient. This is one reason why with what I wrote I mentioned the efficiency of generating and converting hydrogen into clean energy.
To generate hydrogen, that efficiency is rated at about 75% while converting hydrogen into electricity is rated at about 60%. This is why I suggested onsite conversion might be preferable. A lot of loss in generating, transporting and converting would be removed from consideration.
And this would put the focus on improving the efficiency of generating hydrogen and then converting hydrogen into electricity. Then the water that is the waste generated would provide for hydroelectric power while providing material that can be converted back into hydrogen.
And this also means that it won't matter if the skies are overcast or if there is no wind today. A constant source of energy could be realized. This is why I asked him about making me a coauthor on his paper. If you consider the gigawatts of power that industrialized countries need, then basically the technology that can allow for such power plants IMO should be pursued.

Nope. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You will never get more energy out of hydrogen than it cost to make it. Every conversion wastes MORE energy. You are also ignoring the incredibly expensive transmissions lines required. You are also ignoring transmission line losses over such a long wire.

There are a lot cheaper ways to generate electrical power.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 15-10-2021 22:35
15-10-2021 22:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
James___ wrote:
This is why I tend to like science. For something like a better hydrogen generator, that can be done with a minimal investment. Some of it might go all the way back to basic principles in electrical fields. After all, Tesla realized the A.C. generator back in 1887.
And with converting hydrogen and oxygen back into water, I think this is something that I might see about building in the coming years. I'll need to pursue my atmospheric chemistry experiment first. It's with the PEM type cell they use, after all, Harvey as his electronic devices and this would be me with mine. This might actually be fun to play around with.


You deny science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
15-10-2021 23:29
James___
★★★★★
(5343)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
This is why I tend to like science. For something like a better hydrogen generator, that can be done with a minimal investment. Some of it might go all the way back to basic principles in electrical fields. After all, Tesla realized the A.C. generator back in 1887.
And with converting hydrogen and oxygen back into water, I think this is something that I might see about building in the coming years. I'll need to pursue my atmospheric chemistry experiment first. It's with the PEM type cell they use, after all, Harvey as his electronic devices and this would be me with mine. This might actually be fun to play around with.


You deny science.



I went to a seance once. It just wasn't for me. It was like going Into the Night.
It's just not a place that I think we're supposed to go. Might be why some of us live in the "light" or E = hv.
And from this we derive hv = hc/λ. v is the frequency while lamda (λ) is its wavelength. As Einstein realized, it's all relative.

p.s., with my previous post, Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) is used for the fusion process of generating electricity by creating water. With my atmospheric chemistry experiment, it's about whether or not astrophysics influences our atmosphere and allows for the natural occurrence of a different fusion process.
With the PEM, it might be interesting to try some different experiments with them. It is interesting to think that a small shop would be sufficient for such research. Realistically speaking, it will probably take a fusion process to provide the gigawatts of energy needed to allow for anything close to our way of life.
I do support slowing the economy but that would hurt profits.And this is in disagreement with capitalism which is not about sustainability or quality of life.
In a democracy, 2 out of 3 would win.
Edited on 15-10-2021 23:38
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate "Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises" by Warren D Smith:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
problem solution essays303-12-2021 03:38
Defeat Corona Virus COVID With The Help Of God & Religions By Unlock Sacred Scriptures030-11-2021 15:07
The Climate Change Crisis Is More About Human Development Problems & Low Level Mindset023-11-2021 11:24
The Savior Book: How To Unlock Human Body Secret, Live To Thousands Years & More [Limited Time]017-11-2021 12:24
The New Global Saving Storage Currency Project Seeking Investors & Update On The ICO Event005-11-2021 11:21
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact