Hydrogen Generator

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by beau

Didn't anyone read my post.

You don't need to store hydrogen, for this application, you just make it as you need it.

It is well known than aluminium and sodium hydroxide with water produce hydrogen.(lots of it)
If your source of aluminium is cheap, recycled or from discarded soft drink cans.
That is CHEAP energy.
It is relatively easy to make a gasoline engine run on hydrogen (it has been done many times.

Look we are not trying to save the planet here.
We are looking at a cheaper source of powering a boat, not cars or aircraft, simply boats.

Why can't it be done.?

Please comment on the concept i am presenting.

The OP was interested in becoming independent from outside resources. Since neither aluminum nor sodium hydroxide can be made on board this hardly qualifies as independence. Tremendous amounts of energy are required to make and transport aluminum. While most of the sodium hydroxide may be able to be recovered there will inevitably be some lost with the waste products since no recovery process is 100% effective. Want a cheap way of powering a boat, put up a sail. Want a power solution that can be run on a cheap, readily available natural product with no net carbon footprint, put in a steam engine that burns wood. You can also put in a barbeque grill and burn wood. I spent a week on a schooner about 6 years ago where all of the food was cooked on a wood stove, that also heated the hot water. Burnable wood can be found on most beaches and I've seen plenty of wooden debris floating by that could be retrieved and dried out. Most steam engines can use virtually any burnable material one can find. One can even throw waste aluminum cans in the burner to supplement the wood fire without further processing.

[Whimsy]

The stated goal is to head in the direction of "energy independence" but the talk indicates the interest is more like a hobby, meaning it doesn't really have to "pay". If someone wants to make a hobby of hydrogen production, well, people should do whatever they want...

The knowledge this group has shared has indicated to me that hydrogen production as an economic and environmentally-friendly fuel will likely not be practical in my lifetime, especially not on a small scale nor on a boat.

Here's an interesting, informative and somewhat in-depth article regarding the so-called "hydrogen economy" entitled "The Hydrogen Hoax". Its written by "Robert Zubrin, an aerospace engineer, ...president of Pioneer Astronautics, a research and development firm" and outlines and analyzes the various factors.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax

EXCERPT:
The New Energy Charlatans
The idea of hydrogen as the fuel of the future dates back to Jules Verne, and by the 1930s was a staple of science fiction. With the advent of nuclear energy after World War II, technologists expected that atomic power would provide electricity “too cheap to meter”—electricity that could be used to produce pure hydrogen at low cost, which could then be used as a fuel. By the 1970s, however, it was apparent that nuclear energy, while potentially competitive with conventional power, did not usher in a new golden age of cheap electricity. Still, researchers devoted to the idea of the “hydrogen economy” soldiered on, and with increased public concern about carbon dioxide emissions in the 1990s and about America’s dependence on foreign oil after 9/11, the pro-hydrogen crowd seized a new opportunity to make their pitch. Incredibly, the Bush administration swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker. As a result, over the past six years, billions of dollars have been dished out to national labs, auto companies, fuel-cell firms, and other beneficiaries of government largesse on hydrogen show projects that have no practical application.

[atoll]

i want a small portable nuclear fusion generator for my yacht,plenty of cooling water,only need to top up the fuel every ten years or so
,no nasty fumes
, quite in anchorages..........

[daddle]

How many empty aluminum beer cans do I need to produce to get enough H2 to bake the pizza?

[Whimsy]

Originally Posted by atoll

i want a small portable nuclear fusion generator for my yacht,..........

Great Scott!!

[Noname1]

eventually someone will find a catalytic assist to crack water with a solar panel then you would need only storage or a days worth of cooking gas.

MIT researchers split water to store solar energy | Green Tech - CNET News

[Whimsy]

Originally Posted by michaeldsusa

eventually someone will find a catalytic assist to crack water with a solar panel then you would need only storage or a days worth of cooking gas.

MIT researchers split water to store solar energy | Green Tech - CNET News

Sounds great! So did this:

"With the advent of nuclear energy after World War II, technologists expected that atomic power would provide electricity “too cheap to meter”—electricity that could be used to produce pure hydrogen at low cost, which could then be used as a fuel. By the 1970s, however, it was apparent that nuclear energy..."

[Noname1]

I would guess there are several orders of magnitude of complexity between a solar assisted water cracking plant and that of a nuclear power plant but hey that's just me and they said man could never travel faster than 20mph in an newfangled "automobile" because you couldn't breath at such "breathtaking" speeds

[Whimsy]

Originally Posted by michaeldsusa

I would guess there are several orders of magnitude of complexity between a solar assisted water cracking plant and that of a nuclear power plant but hey that's just me and they said man could never travel faster than 20mph in an newfangled "automobile" because you couldn't breath at such "breathtaking" speeds

I do believe that human ingenuity will continue to come up with some amazing, practical and profitable solutions to our problems - as has been happening since the beginning of our history.

Its just that history shows that out of so many thousands of things that sound so good, are so enthusiastically promoted by their fans, and seem to hold so much promise, only a very few turn out the be actual, factual "magic bullets".

And it really does only take one major breakthrough to completely change the way we do things in a particular area - maybe solar assisted water cracking IS that magic bullet. Just as it only takes winning one huge lottery to make an average worker financially independent for life...

The flip side is that it only takes one relatively unforeseeable hiccup to turn what seemed like reality into fantasy. I think a 'Mr. Fusion' unit in each home is a great idea! Oh, wait, there is the minor problem that they haven’t been invented, yet...

As for solar assisted water cracking, _maybe_ what _might_ work on a miniature scale in a lab, _might_ really work as a fully-developed, industrial-sized application, _maybe_ with none of the thousands of hurdles between the two proving insurmountable, or even merely inefficiency-causing speed bumps as made complete bunk of the predictions of nuclear electricity "to cheap to meter".

In that vein, this small excerpt may be the most significant part of the article cited:
"But he said that a number of improvements still need to be made before realizing the "hydrogen economy." Right now, systems to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water would require huge amounts of land and materials to make catalysts."

Uh oh...

Of course, we could simply use a matter-antimatter reaction in the warp core to power the replicators to produce all the resources needed... Oh, wait...

But besides the reality vs fantasy aspect, there is the political aspect of energy production.

About 70% of electricity in the US is generated by coal or natural gas, both fossil fuels. Only ~20% from nuclear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.p ng

But in France, ~80% is from nuclear and only ~10% from fossil fuel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_Electricity_in_France_in_2006.PNG

Nuclear is the ONLY realistic, currently-available, PROVEN choice when considering capability to construct and produce facilities that can reasonably replace fossil fuels for electrical generation. No other options even come close.

The trillion dollars of taxpayer money recently "invested" by big government on so-called "economic stimulus" in the US (which turned out to be nothing more or less than the largest funneling of tax dollars to political special interests in US history) was enough to build enough maybe 143 nuclear power plants (@ $7 billion each) in the US which would:

- free up HUGE amounts of fossil fuel into the world market, increasing supply, and so reducing demand and beating the world price of oil down in a BIG way
- reduced world oil prices which would in turn defund dangerous, radical, hard-core tyrants as now control Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico and so on.
- reduce the burning of fossil fuels by a HUGE amount and so significantly reduce the problems thus created (and I do not count man-made global cooling or warming here)
- create enough jobs to completely eliminate unemployment for anyone who wants to legally work in the US
- with everyone back to work, the economy would again zoom ahead, the good economic times would then resume across the (free) world and billions of 'poor' people around the world would be better off as a result.

But that didn't happen, for political reasons. And now it is widely understood that we will see NO long term advantage for the ~$16,400 of average debt coercively forced on each of the ~61,000 tax-paying workers in this country by this administration.

I'd rather that money just be left in the hands of those that earned it - that would be the quickest, surest, most moral and most Liberty-concious way to overall national economic recovery. But if those funds are to be hijacked by big gov, its clear to me we would have been much better off building the 143 new nuclear power plants with all the advantages listed above than what actually happened.

[SV Demeter]

Originally Posted by TheWatchman

I want to thank all of you for taking this seriously and constructively.

After reading many of the posts, it does sound very risky.

The point of the project is complete freedom from external fuel supply. I can visualize a very difficult time ahead and do not want to depend on anybody to provide my basic life sustenance. Yes, today supply is cheap and readily available! Can you count on tomorrow?

I will tinker and if I can demonstrate a viable system, I will gladly share. This summer I will try to give a report.

Why dont you buy a sailboat that uses the wind and rely on solar and wind power to charge batteries for luxuries like cabin lights and an internet connection? Eat raw food (probably morehealthy anyway), throw out your diesle engine( makes more room to store beer) and catch rain water when you want a bath or are thirsty? Sounds more like cruising to me and less like a very expensive science project.

That being the case I will continue to follow your endeavors and wish you luck, uh from a safe distance of course...

[SV Demeter]

Originally Posted by daddle

How many empty aluminum beer cans do I need to produce to get enough H2 to bake the pizza?

Ok I just fell off my chair and am still having a hard time typing that was so funny.

[SV Demeter]

Originally Posted by Whimsy

I do believe that human ingenuity will continue to come up with some amazing, practical and profitable solutions to our problems - as has been happening since the beginning of our history.

Its just that history shows that out of so many thousands of things that sound so good, are so enthusiastically promoted by their fans, and seem to hold so much promise, only a very few turn out the be actual, factual "magic bullets".

And it really does only take one major breakthrough to completely change the way we do things in a particular area - maybe solar assisted water cracking IS that magic bullet. Just as it only takes winning one huge lottery to make an average worker financially independent for life...

The flip side is that it only takes one relatively unforeseeable hiccup to turn what seemed like reality into fantasy. I think a 'Mr. Fusion' unit in each home is a great idea! Oh, wait, there is the minor problem that they haven’t been invented, yet...

As for solar assisted water cracking, _maybe_ what _might_ work on a miniature scale in a lab, _might_ really work as a fully-developed, industrial-sized application, _maybe_ with none of the thousands of hurdles between the two proving insurmountable, or even merely inefficiency-causing speed bumps as made complete bunk of the predictions of nuclear electricity "to cheap to meter".

In that vein, this small excerpt may be the most significant part of the article cited:
"But he said that a number of improvements still need to be made before realizing the "hydrogen economy." Right now, systems to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water would require huge amounts of land and materials to make catalysts."

Uh oh...

Of course, we could simply use a matter-antimatter reaction in the warp core to power the replicators to produce all the resources needed... Oh, wait...

But besides the reality vs fantasy aspect, there is the political aspect of energy production.

About 70% of electricity in the US is generated by coal or natural gas, both fossil fuels. Only ~20% from nuclear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.p ng

But in France, ~80% is from nuclear and only ~10% from fossil fuel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_Electricity_in_France_in_2006.PNG

Nuclear is the ONLY realistic, currently-available, PROVEN choice when considering capability to construct and produce facilities that can reasonably replace fossil fuels for electrical generation. No other options even come close.

The trillion dollars of taxpayer money recently "invested" by big government on so-called "economic stimulus" in the US (which turned out to be nothing more or less than the largest funneling of tax dollars to political special interests in US history) was enough to build enough maybe 143 nuclear power plants (@ $7 billion each) in the US which would:

- free up HUGE amounts of fossil fuel into the world market, increasing supply, and so reducing demand and beating the world price of oil down in a BIG way
- reduced world oil prices which would in turn defund dangerous, radical, hard-core tyrants as now control Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico and so on.
- reduce the burning of fossil fuels by a HUGE amount and so significantly reduce the problems thus created (and I do not count man-made global cooling or warming here)
- create enough jobs to completely eliminate unemployment for anyone who wants to legally work in the US
- with everyone back to work, the economy would again zoom ahead, the good economic times would then resume across the (free) world and billions of 'poor' people around the world would be better off as a result.

But that didn't happen, for political reasons. And now it is widely understood that we will see NO long term advantage for the ~$16,400 of average debt coercively forced on each of the ~61,000 tax-paying workers in this country by this administration.

I'd rather that money just be left in the hands of those that earned it - that would be the quickest, surest, most moral and most Liberty-concious way to overall national economic recovery. But if those funds are to be hijacked by big gov, its clear to me we would have been much better off building the 143 new nuclear power plants with all the advantages listed above than what actually happened.

While I agree with you here the later part of htis post is taking us just abit off topic and likely to spark irrellevant politcal debate, can we get back to how many beer cans I will need to bake that pizza?

[Whimsy]

Originally Posted by SV Escape Plan

... can we get back to how many beer cans I will need to bake that pizza?

47 per pizza. I know 47 sounds like a lot, but look a the up side - you won't starve while accumulating the aluminum.

Do you have a good start on that yet? Need any help?

[SV Demeter]

Whimsy that depends on whether they are tall boys or regular 12oz cans. See I'm partial to Dales pale ale in the winter time and they only come in the 12oz variety far as I know.

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by SV Escape Plan

While I agree with you here the later part of htis post is taking us just abit off topic and likely to spark irrellevant politcal debate, can we get back to how many beer cans I will need to bake that pizza?

You only need 1 about to be emptied can to prod the pizza tray into the oven and hit the gas valve with... . The other 46 can be used as a ever shrinking seat while you wait for the pizza to cook!