Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 521757
  • *Total Topics: 15549
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough  (Read 16313 times)

Offline Newton II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2014, 11:00:53 AM »

No, because they directly state that they are getting 1kg of hydrogen from one liter of water


That can happen only if  water is recycled.  Becuase when hydrogen burns with oxygen,  it again produces water. 


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2014, 11:00:53 AM »

Offline vineet_kiran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
« Reply #31 on: March 18, 2014, 10:27:55 AM »
That can happen only if  water is recycled.  Becuase when hydrogen burns with oxygen,  it again produces water.

It means that you are just breaking the chemical bonds between hydrogen and oxygen by supplying energy and getting that energy back by again making the bonds between H2 and O2.
 
I feel that the bonds between  molecules can be broken by using only force without energy.  By using only force if you break the bonds between H2 and O2 in water, you will get free energy when they again burn to form water by making bonds again. Will not it be a simple method of converting force into energy?
 

Offline Newton II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
« Reply #32 on: March 18, 2014, 12:34:17 PM »
Yes.. it is possible.  But mechanical force straightaway cannot be applied on water.  You can apply force on water only in terms of pressure (force per unit area).

Water vapourizes under low pressure and it also vapourizes under high pressure at some specific temperature.  when water in a container is subjected to pressure using hot air,  portion of water vapourizes.  Since vapourized water is gas, it further rises the pressure inside the container causing more water to vapourize.  This process continuse causing a kind of 'vapour chain reaction'  releasing more and more water vapours and rising the pressure to a great extent.

Since P*V  (pressure multiplied by volume under temperature)  is energy,  some of the water vapours absorb this energy and get split into Hydrogen and oxygen.  You have to collect these gases in two separate containers using Graham's law of diffusion or you can burn hydrogen with oxygen by passing them through a burner.  The energy required to keep the air hot inside the container is very less compared to energy released when hydrogen burns with oxygen.

The main problem here is at some point the 'vapour chain reaction'  becomes uncontrollable and hydrogen formed inside the container burns there itself causing an explosion.

This method was actually tried by somebody and it had worked. But it caused an explosion killing a person. So, the local police siezed it and I don't know what happened afterwards.

This is a long time back incident (25 years ago).  I am searching the websites for this information without success.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
« Reply #32 on: March 18, 2014, 12:34:17 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3740
Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
« Reply #33 on: March 22, 2014, 04:43:57 PM »
Here some oficial statements from the Solarhydrogentrends staff :


http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/135-Solar-Hydrogen-Trends-Inc-Claims-Breakthrough-Hydrogen-Production-System-COP-400/


Siccerely
              OCWL

Online ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7124
Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2014, 05:50:57 PM »
LancaIV

here is an entre' from your link     
 
 SolarHydrogenTrends4 days ago   
 
 Dear Colleagues,

I am closely following all the discussions on multiple forums.
I really like your judgments and their proximity to understanding
the processes that occur in reality in the hydrogen reactor "Symphony
7A".
Unfortunately, according to the existing ethics in the
scientific community, the authors are not encouraged to discuss about any research
results with the media before they are published in scientific journals.
However, in order for you to understand what a great discovery
GOD gave to us all please try to find answers
in the following questions:
1. If the working substance in the reactor is water, how
come the output is almost only hydrogen ?
2. After splitting water where do molecules of oxygen
disappear?
3. What role in stunning efficiency of "Symphony
7A" plays a collective excitation of nucleons in the nuclei of atoms of oxygen?
4. Is it possible at a rate of 0.5 kW energy hour and at
operating temperature 60 degrees centigrade, to have a nuclear fission and fusion?
5 . To produce 1kg of hydrogen it is necessary to split 9
liters of water, then how or in what way in this hydrogen reactor
"Symphony 7A", it takes only 1 liter?

Sincerely,
Konstantin Balakiryan
PhD, Professor

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2014, 05:50:57 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3740
Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
« Reply #35 on: April 17, 2014, 02:13:32 PM »
From Prof.Kanarev the "over"-in/out-unity factor :
http://www.pssurvival.com/ps/Electrolysis/Electrolisis_Of_Water_What_Voltage_2008.htm

Thus, the voltmeter shows a capacitor charge voltage value, and the oscillograph shows a value of its recharge, which characterizes the energy consumed by the cell from the line. It appears from this that in order to calculate energy consumed by the low current electrolyzer cell from the line it is necessary to use voltage, which is registered not by the voltmeter, but by the oscillograph. As a result, energy consumption for hydrogen production from water in case of low current electrolysis are reduced not 12fold, but almost 2000fold.

from www.aveuropa.net the HHO/Hydrogen/Browngas-2-electricity generator
http://www.vrenergie.com/index.php/wasserstoff-herstellung/hydrogen-energy-station-100-mw.html
 ( correction:100 generators á 100KW = 10MW : not 100MW )
 


from www.ecoglobalfuels.com the production costs compensation


COMPARISON and ECOGLOBAL SOLUTIONEGF process with Electricity @ $0.04 per kWh wholesale[/i]E.G.F. process costs 70 kWh per kg of Hydrogen.[/li]
[li]EGF also produced by-product 8 kg oxygen.[/li]
[li]Wholesale  electricity $0.04 per kWh.[/li]
[li]Hydrogen: $0.04 cents X 70 kWh = $2.80.[/li]
[li]Oxygen: 20 cents per kg (8 kg) wholesale = $1.60.[/li]
[li]E.G.F. process Carbon credits = $0.37 per kg Hydrogen[/li]
[li]FORMULA:Hydrogen $2.80 minus Oxygen $1.60 minus Carbon Credits 0.37[/li]
[li]EGF wholesale cost of making Hydrogen = $0.83 per kg Hydrogen[/li]
[li]MAKING this the cheapest hydrogen in the world[/li]

[li]           FORMULA with $   0,03
                                       $   0,02
                                       $   0,01  electricity KWh costs ?


                       : Hydrogen $  - Oxygen $ - Carbon credits $


and the Solarhydrogentrends-arguments will not be more fantastic !

                                Solarhydrogentrends
                        SHT-Reactor production costs:
               1,8US$/220KWh hydrogen = 0,0082 US$/ KWh hydrogen
                                  1 barrel ~ 1602 KWh
                                  $ 0,0082 X 1602 =

          $13,1  for 1 barrel hydrogen  Solarhydrogentrends
                                           versus


The cost of extracting shale gas with existing technology now stands at around $125 per thousand cubic metres (cbm), while the price of conventional gas in the US varies around $80 per 1,000cbm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Shale_gas

                                               but               


                   $  6,0   for 1 bbl     gasoline    David Judbarovski
            or    $ 40,5  for 1000cbm natural gas (10.800 KWh) energetic equivalent
     
5. Potassium cycle to produce hydrocarbons from air, water and sunshine(1) 3 * [4 * K + CO2 = 2 * K2O + C + 333 kJ] (potassium burning in carbon dioxide)(2) 3 * [C + O2 = CO + 110 kJ] (carbon burning in the air)(3) 2 * [CO + H2O = (at less 800 C) = CO2 + H2 - 3.0 kJ](4) CO + 2 * H2 = CH2 + H2O + 240 kJ (Fischer-Tropsch at ~ 400 C)(5) 3 * [2 * K2O = K2O2 + 2 * K = 4 * K + O2 – 726 kJ] (thermolysis at ~ 400 C) If utilizing the heat of the exothermic reactions, we use 3 * (726 – 333 – 110) + 2 * 3 - 240 = 615 kJ per 1 mol of CH4 and we use 1 mol of CO too and a capital expenditures being a lion share taken by Fischer-Tropsch process that isn’t needed in costly pre-cleaning, because CO2 can extract from the air. It is by USD 4.5 per a ton of pure CO2 by my technologies offered earlier (see Chapter 4). So supposing capital expenditures as USD 20.0 per a ton of CH4, and very few high temperature heat and USD 0.001 per kWh of the middle temperature heat (see Chapter 1), so 1.0 ton of CH4 would be (0.001 * 620,000,000/3600 + 1 * 4.5 * 44) / 16 + 20 = USD 43.1, or USD 43.1 * 0.159 * 0.9 * 12/16 + 20 % for others = USD 6.0/bbl of oil being a tremendous achievement.
                           from this here :

05:42 pm March 9th, 2014 (http://l-Era of Renewables – 3, 2013yr.-Updated

David Judbarovski, pensioner, Israel
judbarovski@gmail.com, http://judbarovski.livejournal.com

Introduction

Energy and production have to be and are ready to be green & cheap & abundant & inexhaustible, while all materials and parts of equipments for that purpose can be recyclable.
Here below I intend to show it.
It is based on
(1) solar energy concentrator especially invented for producing of breakthrough cheap heat energy up to about 600 Centigrade and down to USD 0.001/kWh (see:http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/89510.html );
(2) new type of electrochemical generators (ECG) invented for producing of breakthrough cheap electricity down to USD 0.0012/kWh using the above-mentioned extremely cheap heat energy for the said ECG recycling, can be without any interruption of the said ECG work (see:http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/84244.html );
(3) method to produce very cheap high temperature energy down to USD 0.0015/kWh by using the said extremely cheap electricity (see: http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/84535.html );
(4) technology to extract carbon dioxide from the air by breakthrough USD 2.0/ton CO2 if its 90% concentration, and the said CO2 further purification down to USD 4.5 per a ton of pure CO2 using the said extremely cheap high temperature energy (see: (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/84925.html );
(5) potassium cycle process invented to produce extremely cheap hydrocarbons down to USD 6.0 /bbl o.e. (barrel of oil equivalent) using the said cheap heat energy and the said extremely cheap carbon dioxide, and water (see: http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/85188.html );
(6) universal water purification/desalination technology as incredibly cheap as USD 0.05/m3 for green & cheap & abundant & inexhaustible fresh clean water supply can be delivered to any point of Earth cheaply by extremely cheap energy (see: http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/86261.html );
(7) plants’ farming using the said cheap concentrated carbon dioxide for the plants feeding that can sufficiently increase and cheapen the plants yield (see:http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/85523.html );
( 8) microbiological technology using the said extremely cheap artificial hydrocarbons, e.g. methane, as raw material to produce industrially green & cheap & abundant & inexhaustible meat products down to USD 0.02/kg from air, water and sunshine (see:http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/85815.html );
All cost estimations were made by world market prices of 2013 yr. of materials and if used own mass industrial production of all equipments used for mass end product by them. The said equipments are especially designed to be not sophisticated, even very simple ones for all above-mentioned technologies disclosed here below.
In any case all that can be considered as “a roadmap” for skeptics.

1. Energy concentrator (SEC)
When investigating a preferable method by economics point of view, to transform solar energy into consume heat over 100 Centigrade or into electricity, every normal engineer can answer that it must be based on reflecting mirrors, not on photoelectric receiver. For non-normal people I can underline, that conclusion ensues from a cost of sq. meter of such mirrors being from some tens cents up to a few dollars, while for such cost we can buy some sq. centimeter of photovoltaic, i.e. it is some thousands more expensive. And it is principle proportion, not historical one.
I heart two contrary arguments.
The first was following: we are scientists, and cost matter is very vulgar for our subtle nature and for high science.
Another argument was, that solar energy is a very subtle nature for consume applying, because it is very unpredictable, and all science results in the field was obtained in conditions of “to catch the sun”, being a professional common term of people involved in the business.
But if
(1) solar concentrator being about 1 sq. meter,
(2) its focus being motionless,
(3) a distance from the focus to a collector of heat carrier being less 1 meter,
so being summarized, a cost of thermal insulation can be negligible share of a cost of consumed solar energy, and such system would be independent of variable solar irradiation, if being supported by heat storage supported by storage in a form of chemical energy for a case of long sunless weather.
Here just below I disclose such solar concentrating system, further accompanied with direct calculation of its cost and consume economics.
The said concentrator is quite small, e. g for 1 m2 of solar flux, and consists of a pair of mirrors. One of them serves to redirect solar beams to another being a Fresnel concentrator. Each of them is a cocoon made of foils of PET at its front side and Al-foils at its other sides and serve to protect its reflector placed inside the cocoon against degradation, dirties, air precipitation and wind load.
The first reflector is planar, is stretched on a steel frame, and comprises a thin PET sheet laminated by very thin reflecting cover.
The Fresnel reflector is more sophisticated device. It is reflective concentric blunted cones of revolution, and is made of aluminum foil of 40 microns thickness by simple punching and then that flat pieces are rolled to form such cones. The smaller base of each cone is saw-shape, and it allows such cones to be fixed to an aluminum thin flat base of 40 micron thickness by bending, inserting and slightly pressing by fingers. The said flat base is placed vertically and it is motionless when operate, because the said Fresnel concentrator is motionless too. Small flections of the said base being induced by a very small weight of the said fixed cones, is compensated by stretching the said base on steel frame.
Both the planar reflector and the Fresnel reflector divide their cocoons into two cameras being pneumatically jointed each other by peripheral holes.
Each of the said mirrors has a pedestal, and the said planar mirror is moved around a ball and socket joint fixed to the middle of the said planar reflector and by a short console to the pedestal too, and controlled by a system of thin wires, rollers for them and micro-motors. The said planar mirror position can be precisely controlled by an optical sensor and a microcontroller, and the both can be extremely cheap, small and simple, because the said Fresnel concentrator and its focus are motionless.
The said SEC of 1.0 m2 of solar flux, is made of
(a) PET foils (1.25 * 1.25 m2 + 1.4 m2 * 2) * 20 micron * 1.4) of 153 gram by USD 0.77 totally;
(b) Aluminum foils (2 * 1.25 * 1.25 m2 * 40 micron + (4 * 1.4 * 0.2 m2 + 4 * 1.25 * 0.2 + 1.4 * 1.4 + 1.25 * 1.25) *10 micron) * 2.7) of 490 gram by USD 1.47 totally;
(c) two pedestals of steel tubes (d=2.8 cm, thickness = 0.28 cm) by USD 1.6 totally;
(d) cocoons’ frames of 16 steel bars of 160 gram each and USD 1.5 totally;
(e) control system: sensor plus microcontroller by about USD 0.5 + micro-motors by USD 1.5 + thin wires by USD 0.8 + rollers by USD 0.4 + ball and socket joint by USD 0.5, and by USD 3.7 totally.
So the said SEC is USD 9.0 + ~ 20% = ~ USD 10.0 per 1 m2 of direct solar flux being about 2000 kWh for southern regions.
All material and parts of the SEC can serve 5-10 years and are recyclable.
So our SEC can produce heat energy up to about 600 Centigrade (see {93}-p.121) by
USD 10.0/ (2000 kWh* 5 -10 yrs.) = USD 0.0005-0.001/kWh and even less (QED!).
For moderate climate regions it would be about 25% more expensive.

2. New type of electrochemical generator (ECG)

ABSTRACT
Metal-hydrogen electrochemical generators (ECG) and nitrogen ones (e.g. Li-N, Zn-H etc.) can be promising in terms of possibility to be thermal recycled, and of some other surprises. The hydride/nitride if having a density, sufficiently differs from electrolyte density, and if not being adhesive to cathode or to a special cover on the cathode, by gravitational force the said hydride/nitride pops-up above the electrolyte or settles to the bottom, and then goes for recycling. So we haven’t to care to have very porous structure of cathode to increase a power density, and we weaken a terrible problem of collection of non-conductive product on the cathode and inside its pores. So we can create a device with very high energy effectiveness of ECG-s, but with very high energy- and power density of heat engine, but consuming any combustible or another heat as energy source.

I can suppose some metal-hydrogen electrochemical generators (ECG) and metal-nitrogen ones can be promising in terms of possibility to be thermal recycled, and of some other surprises. It can be Li-N or Zn-H and they are far not only variants. That idea goes back to my potassium-oxygen ECG, when oxidation process and recycling go at quite suitable temperatures. Now it is a metal oxidation by hydrogen or by nitrogen followed by parallel recycling by thermolysis of hydride/nitride inside separate vessel, while the thermolysis products being the metal and hydrogen/nitrogen are returned in anode and to cathode correspondingly.
By that trick we can create a device with very high energy effectiveness of ECG-s, but being extremely small and cheap and being able to consume any combustible or another heat as energy source.
My concept can allow the anode to be with relatively high melting point too vs. melting points of its hydride/nitride and electrolyte. Really, we can melt the metal after recycling in separate vessel and then to pump it to anode and to be crystallized on it from its end to compensate consume of it when it operates.
My ECG conception vs. rechargeable battery has very unexpected advantage can
open new class of electrochemical generators, including new interpretation of well known ones!!! Really, in my case the hydride/nitride if having a density sufficiently differ from electrolyte density, and if not being adhesive to cathode or to a special cover on the cathode, by gravitational force the said hydride/nitride is pops-up above the electrolyte or settles to the bottom and then goes for recycler. So being not adhesive to the cathode, we haven’t to care to have very porous structure of cathode to increase a power density, and we weaken a terrible problem of collection of non-conductive product on the cathode and inside its pores.
I can renounce of necessity of a product of electrochemistry to be melted at a fuel cell temperature, or to be dissolved in the electrolyte.
For example, the solid LiH pops-up on the electrolyte operates at room temperature but under a pressing. Then LiH can be simply and continuously pumped out for following thermolysis into the Li and hydrogen, when the Li can be return into anode. The said hydrogen goes to a storage vessel and further goes to cathode. It can be quite small vessel. Moreover it eliminates a heavy problem of constant and precise drying, cleaning and expensive production of the said hydrogen.
For Li-H ECG, theoretically by Faraday’s law the energy density is 11.64 kWh/kg Li being more than 3.85 kWh/kg, follows from thermodynamics, and if we suppose 10 minutes cycle for our non-stop process, it is 3.85 * 60’/10’ = 23 kW/kg Li, or 162 kW/kg H independent of mileage, so if a electric motor of 190 kW, so we can use 190/23 = 8.26 kg Li and 1180 g H to satisfy the engine power.
So it is normal 22.4 * 1180/2 = 13.2 n. cubic meter H, or 200 liter at 66 bar, and for pressing we have to consume about 13.2 * 100 * ln 66 / 600 sec = 9.2 kW, or about 5 % of the electric car’s power.
We can consider some other reasonable candidates to be used as an anode, e.g. potassium, sodium, calcium, iron, zinc, strontium, magnesium, but I can think the lithium is best of them. Now it can be looked as: Na-H, K-H, Li-H, Li-N, Sr-H, Ca-H, Mg-H, Fe-H, Zn-H, Z-N, or zinc (H, N), litheum (H, N), magnesium (H), iron (H), strontium (H), calcium (H), sodium (H), potassium (H), see detailed survey in http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/67094.html
For many cases of them and taken in mind their high energy efficiency up to more then 90%, and the reachable cost of heat energy shown in Chapter 1, we can produce electricity down to USD 0.0005-0.001/0.8 = USD 0.0006-0.0012/kWh (QED!!!)
For moderate climate regions it would be about 25% more expensive.

3. Method to produce very cheap high temperature energy

Reachable very cheap cost of electricity shown in chapter 2, gives a possibility to produce very cheap high temperature energy if using transformers of the said electricity into head. It can be very energy effective and quite reliable and durable and not expensive transformers, e. g magnetrons with effectiveness up to 80% and cost down to about USD 50.0 per kW.

4. Breakthrough cheap carbon dioxide extracted from air

If being maximally cheapened, the carbon dioxide extracted from air would be a key element of industrial green & cheap & abundant & inexhaustible production.
Below I intend to show a technology looked me very promising for it by its cost & simplicity points of view.
At first, the air is bubbled through a optimal chosen liquid hydrocarbons’ solvent, and the air’s carbon dioxide is dissolved in it up to quite high concentration, even if normal pressure and temperature, while air’s nitrogen and oxygen being extremely poorly soluble in it, so in such solution we can obtain a content’s ratio of carbon dioxide to nitrogen/oxygen more than 10 to 1. After that we can heat a little such solution, so we can obtain high concentrated gaseous carbon dioxide, and then the said solvent can be condensed and cooled by ambient air to be ready to repeat such procedure. For example, if such solution was heated from 22 Centigrade to 60 C, so consume of the heat would be approximately 2.22 * (60-22) * 1000 /3600 = 23.5 kWh of heat to produce about 6.0 m3 of CO2, or 12 kg per 1 m3 of the solvent. So carbon dioxide cost can be estimated taking in mind chapter 1, to be 0.001 USD/ kWh * 2,000 kWh = US$ 2.0 per a ton of CO2 of quite high concentration, and if needed it can be cheaply converted in pure CO2 chemically by reaction with aqueous solution of Ca(OH)2, then can be thermally split into CaO and CO2.
If supposed breakthrough cheap cost of high temperature heat energy (see Chapter 3), for reaction temperature heated up to 900 C it consumes with 90 % heat recuperation 0.1 * 900 * 81 = 7 kJ/mol of CO2, and for chemistry 177 kJ/mol, so in sum it is 184 * 10 ^6/44/3600 = 1160 kWh/ton of CO2 = 1160 * 0.001/0.8/0.8 USD/kWh = US$ 1.8/ton
Totally, the carbon dioxide would be (2.0 + 1. 8) + 10% = US$ 4.5/ton

5. Potassium cycle to produce hydrocarbons from air, water and sunshine

(1) 3 * [4 * K + CO2 = 2 * K2O + C + 333 kJ] (potassium burning in carbon dioxide)
(2) 3 * [C + O2 = CO + 110 kJ] (carbon burning in the air)
(3) 2 * [CO + H2O = (at less 800 C) = CO2 + H2 - 3.0 kJ]
(4) CO + 2 * H2 = CH2 + H2O + 240 kJ (Fischer-Tropsch at ~ 400 C)
(5) 3 * [2 * K2O = K2O2 + 2 * K = 4 * K + O2 – 726 kJ] (thermolysis at ~ 400 C)
If utilizing the heat of the exothermic reactions, we use 3 * (726 – 333 – 110) + 2 * 3 - 240 = 615 kJ per 1 mol of CH4 and we use 1 mol of CO too and a capital expenditures being a lion share taken by Fischer-Tropsch process that isn’t needed in costly pre-cleaning, because CO2 can extract from the air. It is by USD 4.5 per a ton of pure CO2 by my technologies offered earlier (see Chapter 4). So supposing capital expenditures as USD 20.0 per a ton of CH4, and very few high temperature heat and USD 0.001 per kWh of the middle temperature heat (see Chapter 1), so 1.0 ton of CH4 would be (0.001 * 620,000,000/3600 + 1 * 4.5 * 44) / 16 + 20 = USD 43.1, or USD 43.1 * 0.159 * 0.9 * 12/16 + 20 % for others = USD 6.0/bbl of oil being a tremendous achievement.

6. Universal water purification & transportation technology

ABSTRACT
Cost of water supply consists of the water cost plus a transportation of the water. Oceans/seas water is abundant & inexhaustible source for its treatment into fresh clean water.
My water purification technology can be applied for avoiding all dissolved solids, solid and semi-solid impurities from the water treated.
Wholesale cost of our water treated & transported up to 1500 km would be less than USD 0.20/m3 being comparable with countries that rich of natural clean fresh water sources, so the water consume can be unlimited and cheap practically for any point of Earth, now suffering of lack of fresh clean water, moreover we can restore most of water reservoirs now dirtied and poisoned, and make it by very cheap and quick way.

They are known numerous quite cheap and energy effective systems of thermal water purification being evaporation cameras (EC) and condensation cameras (CC) are jointed each other by thermal conductive walls in counter-flow mode. The main disadvantage of most of them is its operating pressure being sufficiently not the normal one. It sufficiently increases a weight and capital cost of such equipments.
Here the water purification is carried out at normal pressure, because the said cameras have much bigger cross-section and have much bigger heat transfer area at their hot end than at their cold end, and the fresh portions of the treated water are sprayed into drops by split up feeding mode controlled to keep the said normal pressure and to control heat flow through the walls. Such pairs of EC & CC are jointed in series each other with thin thermal conductive walls shared.
Heat flow through the said system is supported by temperature differential on each of the said walls. A heat released by condensation practically fully transferred to an EC of a neighboring pair of EC & CC. The hot water condensate after each pair of EC & CC can be used for pre-heating of the water that goes for the evaporation.
The EC of first pair of the EC & CC is heated by initial heat can be the heat of condensation of water vapor too.
I have supposed a payback period being 5 years, the initial vapor in its input end is 200.0 C, each temperature differential is 2.0 C, each cold end of CC-s and EC-s is 100.0 C, and 20 stages (i.e. a number of pairs of EC & CC) of our multistage process, supposing a coefficient of convective heat transfer to be 10.000 for drops evaporation/condensation, vapor flow velocity at the said hot ends to be 2.0 m/s for the water purification system consists of 2 subsystem, each of 30 million ton per a year, and my results were following ({98}-(10)), while my calculation weren’t optimized and for simplicity were quite approximate.
The water treatment plant is 400 m length, 70 m width, 20 m height, when at hot ends vapor was saturated at the said normal pressure.
Because of normal operational pressure, the said heat transfer walls can be maid of Al-foil of very small thickness of 20 micron (US cent 2.5/m2), and their total share in a cost of end product would be negligible.
A share of thermal insulation of outer walls of the said plant in a cost of the end product would be negligible too (about US cent 0.03/ton).
Share of fans and pumping and their energy is extremely negligible.
If initial heat is very cheap (USD 0.001/kWh – see Chapter 1), it is only sufficient share in a cost and is USD 0.04 per 1.0 ton of purified water as the end product.
The only problem could be looked, it is to convert cheaply unpredictable solar energy of such low cost into uninterrupted power source. It isn’t serious problem in a light of technology disclosed in Chapter 2, because we can convert effectively the heat energy into cheap chemical energy storage being by all points of view much better than thermal energy storage, and cost of it had been pre-assumed by adding of 20%.

If 1500 km transportation of 10 m3/s of water through tubes of 2 m diameter (320 million ton annually per a tube), it would be needed about 250,000 kW for pumping, or about 2.5 milliard kWh per a year, by 0.12 cent/kWh if using my thermally recyclable fuel cells invented (see Chapter 2), so USD 2,750,000/320 million ton = 0.94 cent/m3 for energy.
Such tube cost would be about USD 250 million, or USD 0.75/m3, or if 6 years payback, it is 12.5 cent/m3.
Totally it is 0.94(energy) + 12.5(tube) + 5.0 (water purification) = 18.5 cent/m3 + 15% = ~ 20 cent/m3, while its waste water can be purified by about the same 5.0 cents/m3 saving the said long transportation expenditures, so our water cost would be comparable with countries that rich of natural clean fresh water sources.
Really, our water consume can be unlimited and cheap practically for any point of Earth, now suffering of lack of fresh clean water, moreover we can restore water reservoirs now dirtied and poisoned by very cheap and quick way. QED!

7. Method to increase and to cheapen of plants’ productivity

Feeding of plants by breakthrough cheap carbon dioxide concentrated from the air.

Only the enough cheap carbon dioxide for additional feeding of plants can be profitable farm technology. My method (see Chapter 4) to concentrate the carbon dioxide up to 90% from the air is about USD 2.0/ton of CO2. The criteria of profitability in that case is y*Y*c > eq/t,
here y – yield increasing, Y-ordinary yield (kg/m2), c-cost of the farm production (USD/kg), eq-capital cost of the feeding equipments, t-the said equipments durability.
For majority of plants and farm sites it can be very profitable business.

8. Meat produced from Air, Water and Sunshine

Present scientists and process engineers are concerned by a problem of eco-friendly & not expensive and satisfactory alternative to fossil hydrocarbons being now as a blood for our life and economics. Huge mass of agriculture products is devoured as a biomass for the alternative fuels production, and this entails serious rise of food prices, foods’ deficit in the world, and soil depletion.
Here I intend to look at the problem from reverse side, and to prove that present science and technologies are ready, without any detriment to the fuels supply for energy needs, to use hydrocarbons as nutrition for chemotrophic bacteria as a producer of biomass then can be remade in eco-friendly & extremely cheap & high-quality meat products in abundant & inexhaustible quantities.
It isn’t a wishful thinking, but based on following premises. I’ll comment a list of them shortly.
(1) Methane can be both energy and nutrition sole source for the so-called Methanotrophs, and a dry biomass of the said bacteria typically comprises 60-80% by the weight crude protein, 5-20% - crude fat, 3-15% nucleic acids (RNA and DNA), 2-10% ash, and plenty share of phosphorus, iron and cupper. Preferably, the biomass will comprise ~ 70% crude protein, ~10% -crude fat, ~10% nucleic acids, ~7% - ash, and P, Fe, Cu. It is very promising by its food quality vs. consume meats, e.g. beef is 60% -protein, 35%-fat, bacon is 35% -protein, 62% -fat, veal is 90% - protein, 5.5% -fat, all those if excluding their water (up to 78% depended on kind of meat).
(2) Methane is very excellent in the terms of its chemical potential and its microbiological industry perspective in terms of carbon & hydrogen contents’ compactness as both energy and nutrient sources, and of high yield.
(3) Synthetic methane can be competitively produced from air and water and sunshine, and it isn’t a joke, but quite safety estimated business based on conventional technologies and apparatus. The technology was developed by British company of Air Fuel Synthesis. See also a report of Department of Energy (USA) DOE-Energy Innovation Hub-Fuel from Sunshine (DE-FOA-0000214) named “Closing the Carbon Cycle: Liquid Fuels from Air, Water and Sunshine”, Claus S. Lackner et al. (Columbia University et al.).
(4) Such technology was sufficiently upgraded by me, and the said methane can be about US$ 6.0/barrel oil equivalent (see Chapter 5), or can be US$ 55.0/ton at world prices conjuncture of 2013 yr., and using 40,000 sq. km of arid lands for all present mankind’s fuel consume.
(5) 1.0 ton of the methane is enough to produce industrially about 1.0 ton of the said Methanotrophs dry biomass by conventional and very cheap apparatus, so if adding 20% to its cost and water it would be about US$ 20.0 per a ton of consume meat well imitated, or 2.0 cents/kg !!!).
In summary, by the way we can supply meat of natural quality for all mankind now living on the Earth (200 kg per capita annually) by 2.0 cent/kg from air, water and sunshine, i.e. unlimited resources, by eco-friendly manner, consuming for the meat production 1500 sq. km of arid lands, or each sq. meter of production area can create more than 1000 kg/year of the meat products.[/color][/color][/size]
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 04:48:04 PM by lancaIV »

 

OneLink