0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
But could a station that burns gas also be designed to burn Hydrogen?
renewables, of course
You can pass steam through hot charcoal to get hydrogen, but it's not practical
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 15:22:08You can pass steam through hot charcoal to get hydrogen, but it's not practical Indeed, so impractical that it provided the main source of fixed domestic and light industrial power including street lighting, in the western world for about 150 years.
Manufacturers of gas engines include Hyundai Heavy Industries, Rolls-Royce with the Bergen-Engines AS, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Liebherr, MTU Friedrichshafen, GE Jenbacher, Caterpillar Inc., Perkins Engines, MWM, Cummins, Wärtsilä, GE Energy Waukesha, Guascor Power, Deutz, MTU, MAN, Fairbanks-Morse, Doosan, and Yanmar.
Coke is not much different from charcoal.
Either way you produce lots of carbon dioxide, which is a mortal sin.
just stop trying to pretend that you screwed up on the relevant issue of "renewable ness".
You missed the point. The process is entirely practical, whether you use charcoal (made by distilling all the pollutants from fresh biological material) or coke (ditto, fossil material) but not particularly efficient if you are going to use the hydrogen to generate electricity. Either way you produce lots of carbon dioxide, which is a mortal sin. Only problem with burning charcoal directly in a power station is that the energy required to harvest, transport and reduce fresh biowaste to carbon is currently more than the electrical energy it generates!
No.In one approach you return CO2 to the atmosphere which was there recently, and in the other you dump ancient carbon into the atmosphere.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 22/05/2021 17:09:27No.In one approach you return CO2 to the atmosphere which was there recently, and in the other you dump ancient carbon into the atmosphere.Blasphemy! Apostasy!If the carbon was once there, the planet must have survived its presence. So putting it back won't do any serious harm.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 23:21:34just stop trying to pretend that you screwed up on the relevant issue of "renewable ness".
It wasn't all there at the same time.
It was surely (nearly) all there when the first carbon-sequestering organisms evolved,
it wasn't all there when there were humans
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:09:27Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 23:21:34just stop trying to pretend that you screwed up on the relevant issue of "renewable ness".
I repeat, the planet has survived much higher CO2 concentrations, up to 6000 ppm.
The presence of humans is fairly irrelevant to the ultimate fate of the planet,
Getting excited about a whiff of CO2 isn't going to solve the human problems caused by overpopulation and a reliance on climate stability.