Stupid World

[Fergus]

You still don't get it

@) Generating hydrogen from unclean water to collect clean water at the other end via some form of condenser giving people cleaner drinking water where an electrical supply may not be readily available and not to end up burning your next door neighbours tent to boil your water is a good thing in my eyes, irrespective of its efficiency.

if there is no electrical supply Where will the energy to generate the H2 come from?

Compare:
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen from dirty water) -> heat nrg (combustion).
Electrolysis dirty water to hydrogen, burn hydrogen, condense clean water from combustion gases.

with

Electrical nrg -> heat nrg (resistive heating) (Electric heating is 100% efficient...)
boil dirty water, condense clean steam.



one is unnecessarily complex, one is simple.
one involves explosive gas, one does not.
One makes sense, one is illogical.
For a given energy input, one will create 11 litres of clean water, the other 1 litre.

Why not use that energy more directly to clean the water via regular distillation? What advantage does your method have over distillation?

not to end up burning your next door neighbours tent to boil your water is a good thing in my eyes, irrespective of its efficiency.

Obviously there is energy available (to create the h2 you so desperately want to) so why would anyone burn tents? If anything, wasteful use of the available energy, such as making h2, would lead to shortages which could lead to......the need to burn tents.

but you'd rather not waste the energy on producing water, but would rather it powered offices.

WTF? I'd rather not waste energy at all, that is why I'm here arguing for a more efficient method.
You on the other hand, seem hell bent on purifying water by making hydrogen, what I would bet money is the most inefficient method ever devised

There are so many holes in your logic, it's amazing.

[bogan]

You still don't get it

At this point I think its either deliberate, or an impossible task.

[Ocean1]

When I asked for "I'm still waiting for the answer in regards to which uses more energy, the getting the oil (including every single component required for the operation, donkey's, rigs, drills, transporation etc...) out of the ground v's splitting hydrogen from water. :" I meant everything. EROI seems to be the term I was looking for.

And I answered you. Again: the recovery and refining of crude oil, including every single component required for the operation, donkey's, rigs, drills, transportation etc consumes less than 5% of the energy available from that oil. And yet again: 95% of the energy represented by crude oil is converted to commercially available fuels. As a stand-alone process it's 95% energy efficient.

The manufacture of hydrogen from water produces no energy, it consumes it. The production of hydrogen by simple electrolysis costs more than twice as much energy as is then available from that hydrogen as fuel. As a stand alone rocess it has an efficiency of -50%.

There are so many holes in your logic, it's amazing.

So many in fact that it's very difficult to believe that anyone intelligent enough to remember to breath couldn't work it out. I reckon he's taking the piss.

[mashman]

You still don't get it

And you have serious memory loss. Remember the bit about the dynamo, solar cell, wind etc...? I'm guessing you don't.

As I said before, it'll produce water, end of.

Obviously there is energy available (to create the h2 you so desperately want to) so why would anyone burn tents? If anything, wasteful use of the available energy, such as making h2, would lead to shortages which could lead to......the need to burn tents.

Burning the tents to heat the water because it's more efficient than generating H2.

WTF? I'd rather not waste energy at all, that is why I'm here arguing for a more efficient method.
You on the other hand, seem hell bent on purifying water by making hydrogen, what I would bet money is the most inefficient method ever devised

There are so many holes in your logic, it's amazing.

In general I wish we didn't waste energy too, but we do on a massive basis day in day out on useless shit... arguing that you'd prefer to save energy over human life is an interesting stand point. One i don't agree with. Yes there are other methods available, but if push came to shove given availability of resources etc... I'd happily waste the energy doing producing water in an inefficient manner. Do you know what the EROI for turning oil into petrol is?

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaa... I'm not trying to put forwards logic it's only you and the moron cohort who are viewing my posts from that perspective. Tis mightily entertaining though.

[bogan]

And you have serious memory loss. Remember the bit about the dynamo, solar cell, wind etc...? I'm guessing you don't.

As I said before, it'll produce water, end of.

So I can pedal a dyno for 1 hour and get 1 cup of clean water using the hydrogen method.
Or pedal for 1 hour and get 10 litres using a traditional method.

Do you get it yet?

[mashman]

At this point I think its either deliberate, or an impossible task.

Or you're fixated on something that I'm not

And I answered you. Again: the recovery and refining of crude oil, including every single component required for the operation, donkey's, rigs, drills, transportation etc consumes less than 5% of the energy available from that oil. And yet again: 95% of the energy represented by crude oil is converted to commercially available fuels. As a stand-alone process it's 95% energy efficient.

The manufacture of hydrogen from water produces no energy, it consumes it. The production of hydrogen by simple electrolysis costs more than twice as much energy as is then available from that hydrogen as fuel. As a stand alone rocess it has an efficiency of -50%.

I still get it, I haven't forgotten. It was when you said "I haven't menttioned economic factors" that I thought you maybe hadn't taken transport, steel production, plastics creation etc... energy's into account, you're saying you have, groovy, gotcha, hopefully we're singing from the same hymn sheet. It gets confusing when reading and seeing graphs that say it's much less efficient than you say. Yes I realise that hydrogen would be on the other side of the Y axis.

So many in fact that it's very difficult to believe that anyone intelligent enough to remember to breath couldn't work it out. I reckon he's taking the piss.

We're talking at crossed purposes as I'm not talking about powering a car, where you guys think I am. The only reference there was to a vehicle was when I asked the question (note asked the question) in regards to EROI of splitting v's petrol. You might note, if it suits of course, that I didn't try to defend the position that you're inferring that I had taken, primarily because I didn't take that position, you guys did for me. C'est la vie.

[mashman]

So I can pedal a dyno for 1 hour and get 1 cup of clean water using the hydrogen method.
Or pedal for 1 hour and get 10 litres using a traditional method.

Do you get it yet?

Yes I get it. I got it the first time you said. Like I said, it's just another thing to have in the armory. I can't make it any plainer than that and you still don't get it get it yet?

[bogan]

Yes I get it. I got it the first time you said. Like I said, it's just another thing to have in the armory. I can't make it any plainer than that and you still don't get it get it yet?

So, in your mind, something that is extremely wasteful compared to something else that does exactly the same thing, is a good thing to have in the disaster recover armory? I'd rather they just had twice as many of the efficient ones, as would all the disaster victims too I'd be willing to bet.

[Fergus]

arguing that you'd prefer to save energy over human life is an interesting stand point. One i don't agree with.

That is, in effect, what you are arguing, and I am arguing against

To purify water by your method would produce one eleventh of the clean water that the traditional method would, For a given amount of energy.

Your method would provide clean water for a single person for every eleven people the traditional method provides for.

it appears you want to kill 10 of every 11 survivors, by wasting all available energy making hydrogen

[mashman]

So, in your mind, something that is extremely wasteful compared to something else that does exactly the same thing, is a good thing to have in the disaster recover armory? I'd rather they just had twice as many of the efficient ones, as would all the disaster victims too I'd be willing to bet.

I agree, in an ideal world they'd have sorted the electricity quickly, would have rebuilt the houses, would have clean water, would have put up them giant windmilly things/installed solar arrays to generate power etc... but that hasn't happened in Haiti. So if all that was available was the inefficient one, then I'd take it.

[mashman]

That is, in effect, what you are arguing, and I am arguing against

To purify water by your method would produce one eleventh of the clean water that the traditional method would, For a given amount of energy.

Your method would provide clean water for a single person for every eleven people the traditional method provides for.

it appears you want to kill 10 of every 11 survivors, by wasting all available energy making hydrogen

I take your point as I did earlier . It'll produce water, end of.

[bogan]

I agree, in an ideal world they'd have sorted the electricity quickly, would have rebuilt the houses, would have clean water, would have put up them giant windmilly things/installed solar arrays to generate power etc... but that hasn't happened in Haiti. So if all that was available was the inefficient one, then I'd take it.

I'm beginning to find the thread title very ironic...

[mashman]

I'm beginning to find the thread title very ironic...

Welcome to my world. It is possible to build the required facility's for regions hit by disaster, windymills, power stations, photovoltaics etc... are all available and the need is most definitely there, yet they don't have any money so they can't have what they need. Money being the infinite resource that it is, after all they were talking about minting a $1 trillion platinum coin to pay off some of the US debt, but they refuse to make the money available to help people who need it. It doesn't get much more stupid than that... and so we quibble over the efficiency of a mechanism for generating water and even that isn't afforded to those people.

Share your irony, it'll be amusing for the others if nothing else ... I may even smile myself

[Ocean1]

It gets confusing when reading and seeing graphs that say it's much less efficient than you say

when oil was originally discovered, it took on average one barrel of oil to find, extract, and process about 100 barrels of oil. That ratio has declined steadily over the last century to about three barrels gained for one barrel used up in the U.S.

Oil energy density hasn't changed that much. I'd say what's happened over that time is that associated parasitic costs like marketing, compliance and tax costs have been added to the cost of investment. Even so it's difficult to believe that in spite of significant improvements in cracking technology and transport costs it's now costing 30 times as much to produce than the 1% it originally did.

I'm inclined to stick with the industry advice I originally quoted of 5%.

[mashman]

Oil energy density hasn't changed that much. I'd say what's happened over that time is that associated parasitic costs like marketing, compliance and tax costs have been added to the cost of investment. Even so it's difficult to believe that in spite of significant improvements in cracking technology and transport costs it's now costing 30 times as much to produce than the 1% it originally did.

I'm inclined to stick with the industry advice I originally quoted of 5%.

Are you saying that the title of the graph is incorrect? as there is no mention of the associated costs having been taken into account. I would assume one of the main reasons for the drop in "efficiency" is that the oil being harder to find and get at?

Fair enough.