|
|
William Mook wrote:
> Dangolum@rastafar.wein.net wrote:
on[color=darkred]
>
> http://www.hydrogennow.org/HNews/Pr...sAnnouncesLand=
fillH2.htm
>
> Shec's website doesn't give a mass-balance or energy balance about what
> its doing. So, its hard to tell exactly what's going on, lacking all
> technical information. They seem to be using sunlight, landfill gas
> and water.
>
> I do not know for certain, but landfill gas contains a goodly portion
> of methane (CH4) and that can be combined with water (H2O) and heat
> (sunlight) with catalysts to promote a water shift reaction;
>
> CH4 + 2H2O + HEAT --> CO2 + 4H2
>
> An inverse Sabatier reaction.
>
> This has been reported in the literature and is fairly efficient (but
> not 100% so)
>
> If this is what Shec is doing then they're taking 16 kg of methane and
> 36 kg of water along with an amount of heat from sunlight to drive the
> reaction and produce 44 kg of carbon-dioxide and 8 kg of hydrogen.
>
> Now, hydrogen released 142 MJ per kg - so, that's the energy equivalent
> of 1.2 gallons of gasoline per kg of hydrogen produced. And there are
> 8 kg of hydrogen for every 16 kg of methane processed. So, that's the
> equivalent of 10 gallons of gasoline in the form of hydrogen for each
> 16 kg of land-fil gas processed in this way.
>
> Since I couldn't find the heating requirements for the inverse Sabatier
> water-shift reaction, I can't tell you the minimum area of collectors
> needed to make Shec work, but it is likely quite small.
>
> Now Shec claims to avoid CO2 emissions, but this process releases CO2?
> What's up with that? Well when a gallon of gasoline is burned 8.6 kg
> of carbon-dioxide is produced. So, by avoiding the use of 10 gallons
> of gas for every 8 kg of hydrogen produced in this way 86 kg of
> carbon-dioxide is avoided. Subtract from this the 44 kg of
> carbon-dioxide produced and you end up with a net benefit of 42 kg of
> carbon-dioxide avoided.
>
> So, you can claim in a press-release you're avoiding CO2 emissions,
> even while producing them!
>
> lol.
>
> Also, the Shec process requires an input of natural gas as well as
> sunlight. But they seem well positioned and sized to take advantage of
> the large variety of government programs designed to make use of
> alternative energy. It produces a little hydrogen for limited use from
> sunlight and land-fill gas. But it produces a helluva tax writeoff for
> investors by leveraging several governemnt programs involving
> land-fills, solar energy, and hydrogen. Technology driven by tax law!
> haha.
>
> My process is somewhat different.
>
> I started first with technology and then tried to figure out what it
> was good for in today's economic environment, and leverage today's
> economic success to future development, transitioning to a non-oil
> economy ultimately.
>
> I use very low cost concentrating photo-voltaic systems to generate
> solar electricity at very low cost when the sun shines. I combine
> these with very low cost variable load electrolyzers that efficient
> produce hydrogen electrolytically from water even under changing
> lighting conditions.
>
> So, I efficiently produce electrons from sunlight. I efficiently
> produce protons from sunlight and water. No emissions whatever.
>
> Unfortunately, in the practical workaday world of business, there isn't
> a large demand for low voltage DC electrons only when the sun shines in
> a desert, and there isn't a large demand for low pressure hydrogen gas
> in very large quantities in the middle of deserts.
>
> So, business wise, this raw technical capacity is AT PRESENT, an
> economic non-starter.
>
> To make things economically interesting, requires the addition of other
> systems that process this raw capacity into something people might be
> willing to pay for. And those balance of systems costs, when combined
> with demand for products, yield a highest-best use in TODAY'S economy
> for the balance of system choice.
>
> In Indonesia I have looked at two distinct systems
>
> The first system involves converting coal to oil. The second system
> involves converting the Natuna gas field of Indonesia to methanol
> making use of all gases available there.
>
> The first system operates by the direct application of hydrogen made
> from sunlight frome water to coal at high pressure using the Bergius
> process. No burning. No shift reaction. Just carbon turning into
> hydro-carbon. With zero emissions.
>
> I make a barrel of light crude oil out of 162 kg of low rank coal and
> 14 kg of hydrogen. The hydrogen comes from 126 kg of water and the
> application of 6.3 MWh of solar electricity. The total cost is less
> than $20 per barrel. With a reserve of 900 million metric tons of coal
> available to me, I can create over 5.5 billion barrels of light crude
> at a cost of less than $50 billion. Since 5.5 billion barrels of oil
> in the ground has a well-established market value in excess of $150
> billion - the process is of considerable business value and capable of
> obtaining bank and other forms of financing today.
>
> The second system involves combining carbon-dioxide found in the Natuna
> gas well formation with methane and a little hydrogen from my solar
> arrays to make methanol of the entire output. This involves a pair of
> reactions
>
> First I apply the methane water shift reaction to get hydrogen and
> methanol
>
> 2 CH4 + 2 H2O --> 2 CH3OH + 2 H2
>
> With a little hydrogen left over. Then, I apply the Sabatier reaction
> to convert CO2 to CH4 (the inverse of the Shec reaction - heat is
> evolved here not absorbed!)
>
> CO2 + 4 H2 ---> CH4 + 2 H2O
>
> The H2O in the second reaction is fed into the first reaction, and the
> hydrogen in the first reaction is fed into the second one. Note, that
> there is a shortfall of hydrogen, and that is spplied by my solar
> hydrogen source.
>
> So, I can take a mix of 32 kg of methane and 44 kg of carbon-dioxide
> (just about the mix of gases by weight from Natuna) and convert the
> entire mix into 80 kg of methanol with the addition of 4 kg of hydrogen
> derived from my solar panels and 36 kg of water.
>
> This eliminates all the CO2 emissions from Natuna, and more than
> doubles the value of the reserve! Again, since the value of the
> reserve right now is well known, the value of the application of my
> technology in this instance is well defined.
>
> This is how I raised $13.6 billion to develop these two resources.
>
> Once the processes are established developing these reserves they will
> be expanded to efficiently 'produce' the reserves. That is, if it
> takes more than 20 years to convert a resource to a useful product,
> then the money made on that far off day adds very little to the value
> today. So, I want to make the facility big enough to get my money out
> quckly. But, if I make the facility too big, then I overpay for
> equipment, and that substracts from the value of the resource today.
> So, there is an optimal rate of production for both of these fields.
> And this is the size I will grow to in each case. And when that is all
> said and done, all within about 4 years, each asset will be worth
> several hundred billion dollars.
>
> The value of those assets, even before fully realized, can be leveraged
> to develop additional resources and technologies to increase the value
> of the underlying technology and sponsoring corporations.
>
> Additional projects on our horizon involve building coal conversion
> plants in the US, China, India, as well as building solar hydrogen
> production systems worldwide, building solar HVDC electricity
> distribution and storage systems in Chile, and the US and eventually
> worldwide, and building HVDC powered transit systems in Chile,
> Bangladesh, and the US, and worldwide.
So just where was this $13.6 billion raised and when does construction
start?
|
|