From the Harvard Library: Hydrogen fuel production by wind energy conversion!!!!!

[NNadir]

Hydrogen fuel production by wind energy conversion

Gasoline? Who needs Gasoline?

The Entry from Harvard's Library:

Hydrogen fuel production by wind energy conversion
Ben-Dov, E. ; Naot, Y. ; Rudman, P. S.
Abstract
The economic feasibility of using wind energy conversion to produce hydrogen fuel by the electrolysis of water is considered. Wind energy production of hydrogen to replace gasoline can be achieved by feeding wind-generated electricity through a utility grid to an electrolysis facility or by means of an electrolysis unit at the wind turbine site and subsequent transmission of the hydrogen produced to points of use. On-site hydrogen production leads to a cost savings of 25% over that of utility-produced hydrogen, due to the use of a fixed pitch rotor in place of the variable pitch rotor necessary for stable frequency and voltage supply to a utility. It is concluded that hydrogen can be produced by on-site electrolysis at a cost less than the current price of gasoline in Europe at wind energy conversion sites with mean wind speeds exceeding only 4 m/sec.


Publication:
In: Alternative energy sources; Proceedings of the Miami International Conference, Miami Beach, Fla., December 5-7, 1977. Volume 8. (A79-34106 13-44) Washington, D.C., Hemisphere Publishing Corp. 1978, p. 3563-3576.

Pub Date: 1978
Bibcode: Keywords:

Economic Analysis; Electrolysis; Energy Conversion; Hydrogen Fuels; Water; Windpower Utilization; Electric Generators; Gasoline; Rotor Speed; Wind Velocity; Energy Production and Conversion

I added the bold.

Unfortunately only the abstract is available. Conference Proceedings from events held in 1977 are generally not digitalized.

We're saved.

[Ferrets are Cool]

1. Was the "we're saved" sarcasm?

[NNadir]

2. Yes. We're obviously not been saved by all this rhetoric year after year through the last...

...42+ years since this conference took place.

We're at 421 ppm concentrations of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere this week and still, 42 years later, talking about hydrogen from wind, now with swell You Tube videos, as if it were a new idea.

It's depressing.

It was probably reasonable to talk about this in December of 1977, before trillions of dollars were thrown at the wind industry for no result. In December of 1977, the concentrations of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere 333.20 ppm, for the week beginning December 5, 1977, when the conference was held.

I'm sorry if my sarcasm isn't clear, but I'm not an emoji kind of guy.

[Ferrets are Cool]

6. Thanks for clarifying

[Caribbeans]

3. Price of electrolyzers in 1977 ?

Compare to the price of electrolyzers today - if you can figure out how to find that figure.

Then, consider that the world's biggest nation that is known for mass production and lowering prices has made HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY a PRIORITY.

Read that AGAIN. THE CHINESE ARE ABOUT TO TAKE OVER THIS INDUSTRY and a bunch of silly Americans are regurgitating stories from 1977. It would be funny if it wasn't so GD sad.

It's like someone in 1902 saying flying won't ever be possible.

Then, if someone in 1907 said one day there will be jet engines, imagine how they would be laughed at by those who live in a world of pessimism.

FIRST FLIGHT: 1903

JET ENGINE INTRODUCED: 1941

1941 - 1903 = 38 years

The ENTIRE WORLD OF AVIATION WAS CHANGED in only 38 years.

2022 - 1977 = 45 years

Only the most pessimistic person would think that there could be no innovation in hydrogen technology for 45 years. It's almost as if lots of people are still stuck in the 70's.

Meanwhile, parts of the rest of the world aren't afraid to move tech forward. A lot can happen in 45 years.

Who can blame Americans- all they have heard about since 2001 is about war and how evil the rest of the world is.

Also, imagine if a few billion of the just approved FORTY BILLION DOLLARS that are being incinerated in E. Europe were spent on tech that actually benefited Americans.

Skepticism is great but living in 1980 - in 2022 - is a bit ...shortsighted.

Older "citizens" remember the time when the US could accomplish something besides bombing and invading foreign lands.

Listen again to John F. Kennedy:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

[NNadir]

5. I've been listening to how price bullshit would make the unsustainable sustainable and inevitable...

...for 50 years too.

We still hear over and over again how wind and solar are "cheap," with the important stuff left out, for instance that Germany and Denmark have the highest electricity prices in the OECD and the reason is that necessary redundant systems are not only expensive, but they are also environmentally destructive.

These are facts. Facts matter. Idiot marketing doesn't.

Solar and wind energy remain trivial forms of energy for a reason, and a lack of cheering for them isn't that reason.

I'm not the sort to be confused by specious associations. When I was a kid, people were talking how we'd been living on the moon in the year 2000.

And of course, when I got to be old enough to vote, bull shitters where talking about "the hydrogen economy." There are plenty more references besides the one in the Harvard Library. One can find thousands of them if one looks. They're mot about aircraft or rocket ships but about hydrogen.

I'm an old man now. I'm not some gullible kid.

I don't read comic books, watch cartoons, and my energy ideas don't come from either of them.

Electrolysis was invented in the 19th century. In the last 200 years it has failed to overthrow the laws of thermodynamics. Making hydrogen wastes energy. It wasted energy in 1800 when Nicolson discovered it and it wastes energy now. It will always waste energy because the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as well as the laws of electrodynamics are inviolable.

Sorry about that, but it's a fact. Facts matter.

Wishful thinking has results. Here they are:

May 19: 420.29 ppm
May 18: 420.16 ppm
May 17: 421.64 ppm
May 16: 421.72 ppm
May 15: 421.84 ppm
Last Updated: May 20, 2022

Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2

Fifteen or twenty years ago, there was a persistent air head in this forum who used to stupidly cut and paste shit from stupid websites as if this passed for thinking.

Twenty years ago, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were 376.2 ppm; fifteen years ago they were 396.4 ppm, both figures from the respective months of May.

I have no idea where the guy went; and I couldn't care less. I do know he was full of shit 20 years ago and 15 years ago because he confused slick web page marketing with reality. He was an idiot.

I always suggest reading - with critical thinking skills in place - the scientific literature and comparing what's in it with what one sees and what one knows if one has worked hard to understand how things work.

People seldom take my advice on this score. It shows.

I wish you a wonderful weekend.

[hunter]

4. Oh, fuck.

About six years later I was burning bridges made of hydrogen behind me.

But I was still an anti-nuclear activist.

It was my good fortune to be distracted by medicine and teaching.

I met my wife teaching.

Somehow medical lab work and teaching science makes shit real.