Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nonsapient]

link to google maps

Nasty,  but not really that big of a deal.  we had a much bigger one last year in Carthage Texas

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I still think hydrogen is the way to go.
Think about it.
You take water and break it apart into hydrogen and oxygen.
Burn the hydrogen and what do you get?
More water.

And a net loss of energy. Especially since you get back only a very small percentage of the energy put into it in the first place, in the most efficient fuel cells (and even less just burning it in an internal combustion engine...). You also can't store it in useful quantities in anything that's meant to move around... Hydrogen's a terrible option, when it comes down to it.

[Nonsapient]

I still think hydrogen is the way to go.
Think about it.
You take water and break it apart into hydrogen and oxygen.
Burn the hydrogen and what do you get?
More water.

And a net loss of energy. Especially since you get back only a very small percentage of the energy put into it in the first place, in the most efficient fuel cells (and even less just burning it in an internal combustion engine...). You also can't store it in useful quantities in anything that's meant to move around... Hydrogen's a terrible option, when it comes down to it.

Actually, if you burn the oxygen you split off with the hydrogen, you can approach a theoretical thermal efficiency of 70%;  in contrast, my company is currently achieving thermal efficiencies of 38% with natural gas alone.

 edit: which is considered really good.

h20 is a great battery, if you can overcome the H2 loss and keep it from exploding.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Wait, you're getting a decent amount of energy per unit of mass, with zero emissions and complete renewability and... you're complaining of a net loss of energy? Once there's a safe way to lug hydrogen around, just hook up the plant producing it to a hydroelectric powerplant. Voila, no more need for fuel. Hydroelectricity is only a bad option because it can't be deployed everywhere. With hydrogen as a medium (reiteration: once it's safe to use), you can stick HEPPs onto every major river and waterfall, and have very cheap reusable fuel. Also, geothermal. Though I doubt the sanity in the decision to put a hydrogen processing facility anywhere near a geothermally active zone, it's also a valid option.

[Nonsapient]

on topic: another pic.

Edit:  I don't see the remains of a rig there.  i think it was probably a compressor that exploded.

[alway]

According to msnbc its a nat. gas pipeline explosion. Struck by a digging machine. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37560174/ns/us_news-life/

[Nonsapient]

According to msnbc its a nat. gas pipeline explosion.

yeah.  Compressors are what feed the pipelines.

With that said, it was the option I mentioned earlier- they were digging and bit into the line.
local newspaper

[smjjames]

Figures.

No idea how much it would affect peoples opionions combined with the Oil spill. Given that it was the result of human error, probably not.

[ein]

Though I doubt the sanity in the decision to put a hydrogen processing facility anywhere near a geothermally active zone, it's also a valid option.

Let's just hope our infrastructure isn't built by dwarves...

[Zangi]

Eh, more oil/gas news.  People out there will find a way to 'connect the dots'.  One way or another...

[Muz]

I watched some documentary last year about an inspector who was practically tortured for whistleblowing on poor workmanship with some oil companies. Moral of the story was to never whistleblow.

But it just goes to show that it's common for these companies to do shoddy workmanship and the contractors stealing the extra money. I mean, hell, living in a third world country, I see all kinds of budget cuts where the building materials are below specifications because it's cheaper. And they'll keep cutting down on the quality of their work until something actually breaks.

I'm not surprised that stuff like this keeps happening, thanks to corruption. Oil companies are rich enough to do it right, but hey, they've proven to be quite corrupt in the past.

[Virex]

Wait, you're getting a decent amount of energy per unit of mass, with zero emissions and complete renewability and... you're complaining of a net loss of energy? Once there's a safe way to lug hydrogen around, just hook up the plant producing it to a hydroelectric powerplant. Voila, no more need for fuel. Hydroelectricity is only a bad option because it can't be deployed everywhere. With hydrogen as a medium (reiteration: once it's safe to use), you can stick HEPPs onto every major river and waterfall, and have very cheap reusable fuel. Also, geothermal. Though I doubt the sanity in the decision to put a hydrogen processing facility anywhere near a geothermally active zone, it's also a valid option.

Fuel is not a problem for a hydrogen production cycle. The real problems are:
a.) Getting the energy. You don't only need to put in a load of energy to split the water apart, but you also need to compress the resulting hydrogen and pump the water and also heat it, to speed up the process and improve yields.
b.) Storage. Hydrogen has a huge energy density per mass unit. It also has a really low specific density. To get a decent energy density per volume unit, you need to compress it quite a bit. This first of all costs energy, but secondly, it also greatly complicates the design of hydrogen storage tanks and fuel cells, because they too need to cope with such high pressures.
c.) Transport. Hydrogen pipe lines would probably need to operate at high pressure to get a reasonable mass throughput, which means they're essentially kilometer-long bombs. Tanker cars and ships filled with hydrogen are also quite explosive, again due to the high pressure. Unlike oil, which will burn slowly if at all, a broken hydrogen pipeline has a big chance of becoming an instant inferno.
d.) Cars themselves. Again the fuel tanks need to be designed so that they don't rupture in a crash. Any car manufacturer trying to push the prices could make the next Pinto.

[sneakey pete]

c.) Transport. Hydrogen pipe lines would probably need to operate at high pressure to get a reasonable mass throughput, which means they're essentially kilometer-long bombs.

See thread topic

[Sean Mirrsen]

I thought the point wasn't to get hydrogen across. I mean seriously, a hydrogen pipeline is a ridiculous waste of money. You can set up a massive power line for the same money, and have hydrogen processors installed right at the refuel stations. Getting power can be solved by non-fuel methods that are location-based, like HEPPs and windtraps. And those massive solar power stations, which will require water to be delivered to them, since they can handle the heating at much less expense than any other powerplant.

Getting hydrogen to a decent density is also the key to getting it to be safe. There was some research on solidifying it somewhere, but I can't remember where it was or what it involved. Ideally, you'll be carrying it around liquid or solid, in some sort of a supersponge that will keep it contained, but release it when "squeezed". And hydrogen-fueled cars won't be any more dangerous than cars on natural gas, that share a lot of the same problems with safety. Except containment, of course.

[Heron TSG]

this just marks the further loss of America's superpower status, and the rise of China

China produces ~3,750,000 bbl/day compared to the U.S.A.'s 8,400,000 bbl/day. Or is there something I'm not seeing?