AuthorTopic: Renewable Energy Survey  (Read 13610 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 28529
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy Survey : RE - I need your Columbia Chemist Brain
« Reply #120 on: June 16, 2016, 03:18:55 AM »
Just for the purposes of discussion, I will go Elon Musk here.  :icon_mrgreen:

In THEORY, with nano-engineering similar to that used to create "Bucky-Balls" which are networked carbon atoms in various configurations, you might also be able to create H6 molecules, in a Hexagonal Planar ring configuration.   Nothing in the electron distribution around the Hydrogen atom prevents this, in fact it is condusive to it.  Such a molecule would have a much higher energy density than H2, and would liquify at a much higher temperature, although probably not at normal earth surface temps.  A WAG on this based on the properties of Benzene (a planar hexagonal carbon based molecule) and the molecular weight of Hydrogen is maybe -100 Kelvin.  Still quite cold, but the energy density might make keeping the phase to liquid worthwhile in net energy at earth temps.

The problems here are substantial though.  First off, H6 does not exist in Nature, and there is probably a good reason for that.  I would guess for some reason it is highly unstable, sort of like tri-nitro-toluene, aka TNT.  So a tank full of H6 is probably an explosion waiting to happen.

All of this does not make Hydrogen a bad store of energy though, it just will take up space.  Not good in density for carz generally speaking, but could work as a storage medium for large PV facilities

RE
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 03:23:15 AM by RE »
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: Renewable Energy Survey
« Reply #121 on: June 16, 2016, 06:48:03 AM »
Quote
AG: When hydrogen gas combusts with oxygen gas, we get water gas, which quickly turns into to liquid in a standard atmosphere.

When you are doing thermodynamics, phrases like "quickly turns into" have to be accounted for.  It takes energy to boil water, and you get that energy back when it "quickly turns into" liquid again.  If you choose not to capture that energy (perhaps in a condenser) it becomes waste heat and that's your fault, not Hess's fault.

To repeat the Methane burning calculation:
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: -74.81 + 0 = -393.5 + 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 393.5 + 2*241.8 - 74.81
X = 802.29 kJ/mol
A mol of Methane has a Mass of (12 + 4*1) = 16 grams
So Methane has an Energy Density of 50.143 kJ/gram

Now do the same calculation for Hydrogen gas burning:
2H2 + O2 => 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: 2*0 + 0 = 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 2*241.8
X = 483.6 kJ/mol
A mol of Hydrogen has a Mass of (2*1) = 2 grams
So Hydrogen has an Energy Density of 241.8 kJ/gram

Hydrogen gas certainly is a fuel, but since it doesn't exist freely in nature, it has to be made by the chemical reaction of something else.  That is why H2 is called an energy carrier.  H2 has the ability to leak out of taps and pipe joints much more than other gases have, so it is not an easy material to handle.

As RE points out, gases can be compressed (P*V = N*R*T), where N is the number of molecules in a mol and is equal to 6.022E+23 for ALL gases.  So while gases have an Energy Density in Volume terms as well as Mass terms, you have to be careful when considering pressurised gases.
The State is a body of armed men

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3169
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Renewable Energy Survey : RE - I need your Columbia Chemist Brain
« Reply #122 on: June 16, 2016, 08:20:49 AM »
All of this does not make Hydrogen a bad store of energy though, it just will take up space.  Not good in density for carz generally speaking, but could work as a storage medium for large PV facilities
Or, you could just combine 2 hydrogen molecules with a carbon monoxide molecule and get a rather dense, shelf-stable liquid product (methanol) that you can burn for energy or use directly in fuel cells.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 12205
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy Survey
« Reply #123 on: June 16, 2016, 08:49:11 AM »
Or you could just fuse two hydrogen nuclei into helium. 

That is said to produce a certain amount of energy.

What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 28529
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy Survey : RE - I need your Columbia Chemist Brain
« Reply #124 on: June 16, 2016, 09:41:14 AM »
All of this does not make Hydrogen a bad store of energy though, it just will take up space.  Not good in density for carz generally speaking, but could work as a storage medium for large PV facilities
Or, you could just combine 2 hydrogen molecules with a carbon monoxide molecule and get a rather dense, shelf-stable liquid product (methanol) that you can burn for energy or use directly in fuel cells.

Except then when you burn the methanol you get CO2 as one of the byproducts.  I believe the goal here is to eliminate carbon emissions.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3169
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Renewable Energy Survey : RE - I need your Columbia Chemist Brain
« Reply #125 on: June 16, 2016, 06:32:04 PM »
All of this does not make Hydrogen a bad store of energy though, it just will take up space.  Not good in density for carz generally speaking, but could work as a storage medium for large PV facilities
Or, you could just combine 2 hydrogen molecules with a carbon monoxide molecule and get a rather dense, shelf-stable liquid product (methanol) that you can burn for energy or use directly in fuel cells.
Except then when you burn the methanol you get CO2 as one of the byproducts.  I believe the goal here is to eliminate carbon emissions.
One carbon in, one carbon out, so, Net Zero.

Plus, ever wonder why methanol is called "wood alcohol"?  A popular source for the carbon monoxide is pyrolizing wood in a low-oxygen environment.  (Plus, if you can use the hydrogen right away, you've got "wood gas".)  And wood alcohol is a nineteenth-century technology, so it's got some collapse resistance.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10369
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Renewable Energy Survey
« Reply #126 on: June 16, 2016, 06:37:35 PM »
RE,
I am having some difficulties with Hess Law calculations. Even though I have performed them repeatedly, I get values that are inaccurate. Therefore, I must be doing something wrong. These calculations deal with the combustion of Hydrogen gas versus the combustion of the hydrocarbon methane. Since the water gas product, in a standard atmosphere, immediately goes to its lower energy state of a liquid, I am using the liquid water enthalpy value in both reactions.

I would appreciate the use of your Columbia University graduated Chemist brain.

This is what I have calculated:

Combusting the common hydrocarbon CH4 gas (methane), we get CO2 plus water. According to the Standard Enthalpy of Formation table, CH4 has a value of -74.81  kJ/mol, CO2 −393.509 kJ/mol and water (liquid) −285.8 kJ/mol.

CH4 + 2(O2) --> CO2 + 2(H2O) The enthalpy of the reactants is subtracted from the enthalpy of the products after accounting for the molar quantities.

The enthalpy of the reactants equals ONE mole of CH4 (ignoring the two moles of O2 gas because, according to Hess Law convention, elements in their standard state have an ARBITRARY VALUE OF ZERO) =  -74.81 kJ

The enthalpy of the products equals One mole of CO2 + TWO moles of H2O = 965.509 kJ.

−393.509 kJ + [2(-285.8 kJ) MINUS [(-74.81 kJ) + (2 (ZERO))] = -890.299 kJ/mole



That was pretty straightforward. :icon_sunny: Now for the combustion of hydrogen gas.

In the following reaction (Thermochemical Properties of selected substances at 298 degrees Kelvin and 1 atmosphere of pressure.), oxygen gas + hydrogen gas = water gas. WATER gas has an enthalpy of formation of −241.818 kJ/mol.

That means that an Exothemic (energy releasing reaction) sent out (a certain amount of) kJ/mole of ENERGY from two gases.

When hydrogen gas combusts with oxygen gas, we get water gas, which quickly turns into to liquid in a standard atmosphere.

2(H2) + O2 --> 2(H2O) The enthalpy of the reactants is subtracted from the enthalpy of the products after accounting for the molar quantities.

The total enthalpy of the reactants is, according to Hess's Law, ZERO.

The enthalpy of the products equals one mole of water (liquid) −285.8 kJ/mole.

-285kj - [(2 times ZERO) + ZERO] =  −285.8 kJ/mole

So, it appears that burning methane releases (890.299 kJ minus 285.8 kJ) 679.709 kJ/mole (about 76%) MORE ENERGY than burning hydrogen. This is inaccurate.  :(  :emthdown:

I did some checking and the more accurate figure for the energy given off by the combustion of one mole of methane is 802 kJ.

THE ENERGY FACTS:

Quote
"Since there are 500 moles of hydrogen gas in a kilogram, this means that burning a kilogram of hydrogen gas releases 500 times as much energy, or 121 MJ (million joules), assuming that the water comes out as a gas, as is usually the case in a combustion process."

"The energy given off by the combustion of one mole of methane turns out to be 802 kJ. The combustion of one kilogram of methane releases 50 MJ. Heavier hydrocarbons generally yield more energy per mole, but approximately the same energy on a per-kilogram basis. Gasoline, a mixture of hexane, heptane, octane, and various other hydrocarbons, yields about 44 MJ per kilogram."

http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/eee/chapter4.pdf

NASA preferred Hydrogen over methane in their main space shuttle tank for a no bullshit thermodynamic higher energy release per unit mass reason. Yes, I know the fossil fuel industry peddles the "hydrogen is just an energy carrier, not a source" baloney 24/7. Bad mouthing Hydrogen as an energy source is right behind ethanol in the  fossil fuel propaganda fun and games.  :evil4:  But somehow they couldn't convince NASA of that  ;)

 
So, what am I doing wrong that I can't make Hess's Law math come out right for the chemical reaction of hydrogen gas with oxygen gas?


                   ???         
[/size].

For each bond you break through oxidation, burning H2 gas gives you more energy back than each bond you break in the oxidation of methane.  The bond energy for  H-H is 432 Kj/mole.  The bond energy for the C-H bond in Methane (and all the single bonded alkanes +/- a bit) is 410 Kj/mole.  So for an equal number of moles of H2, you have more energy stored in the Hydrogen than the methane.  However, in the Gas phase, methane is more energy dense than hydrogen, because each molecule has 4 C-H bonds to break, whereas each molecule of H2 only has one bond to break.  So it is almost 4X less efficient a store of energy in the gas phase, even though each individual bond holds greater energy.

This changes if you liquify the gas though.  In this case, an equal amount of liquid hydrogen to liquid methane would contain more energy and release it on oxidation.  For space applications, it is not that energy consumptive to keep these gases liquified, because space itself is so cold.  On earth, this is a much bigger problem.  So NASA for space uses Hydrogen, but on earth generally methane works better with a higher energy density in the gas phase.

Liquid Alkanes (basically pentane and up at normal earth temps) pack a lot more punch than both hydrogen and methane by volume, because they are liquid at normal earth temps.  To keep Hydrogen gas liquified at earth surface temps would itself expend tremendous energy, so it is not a practical alternative on earth.

You can't just apply Hess' Law without dealing with the Phase Change problems here between Liquids and Gases.

RE

Note: This assumes both Hydrogen Gas and Methane Gas operate according to the combined gas laws PV=nRT.  Both gases do operate very closely to that law except at very low temps or very high pressures.




Although a certain member of the peanut gallery will vociferously disagree (and hurl ridicule and ad hominem  arrogant insults along with bullshit about Hess Law "beauty") at what I am about to say, you have confirmed my view that Hess's Law belongs in the dust bin of thermodynamics history.

When Hess's Law was formulated, bond energies were not known. It was not until many, many years later that Linus Pauling's table of electronegativity was published. This aided in the knowledge of chemical reactions in regard to the positioning of molecular bonds between adjacent reactants and atomic orbitals in what physical chemistry now knows about the energy required to break bonds and the energy released (in exothermic reactions) when they are reformed.

As you pointed out in so many words, Bond energies, not Hess's Law, is the only accurate way, when gas phase changes are involved, to calculate energy density AND how much energy is released in a chemical reaction.

The following graphic illustrates the bond energy values, NOT AVAILABLE when using Hess's Law, whether phase changes are involved or not, that accurately reflect the high energy density of H2


Although you mentioned that in certain states, methane is more energy dense that hydrogen, as a rule, that's a technicality that doesn't justify methane over hydrogen. For example, a very long chained hydrocarbon is much more energy dense than a short chained one.


HOWEVER, the refining process, using a massive amount of heat, probably a greater amount than that required to keep hydrogen cool prior to combustion, produces short chains and VOCs at the top of the cracking tower.

BEFORE you get to the point where those short chains are massaged chemically and thermally to get long chains so your internal combustion engine will actually run, you have gone through one hell of a lot of energy per unit mass. This makes the CH4 (and every other hydrocarbon liquid or gas) perceived advantage in energy density at certain gaseous states as insufficient to prefer it to Hydrogen gas as an energy source, regardless of the energy required to keep hydrogen gas at a low temperature.

Hess's Law confuses this issue, not just in regard to gases involving phase changes, but in arbitrarily assigning ZERO enthalpy of formation values to ALL elements in their ground state, be they gas or liquid. This fails to account for, among other things, catalytic energy of activation lowering action based on element or compound electronegativity differences, to the unwarranted perceived advantage of fossil fuels.


We KNOW the bond energies. We DON'T NEED Hess's Law any more to estimate energy density. As you pointed out, energy density varies by temperature and pressure. As I point out very often, the fossil fuel industry people peddle the energy density data according to Hess's Law without absolutely any regard for the vast amount of energy they expend to package their product. They will ENDLESSLY go into detail about all the energy difficulties of packaging hydrogen for combustion, but are silent as DEATH about the much greater energy expended to prepare gasoline or methane for the market.

I know you and I disagree on this. You often mention the high energy density of fossil fuels as the reason we still use them instead of a hydrogen plus solar plus wind EV run world. I simply ask you to remember the energy cost of packaging fossil fuels in addition to the energy cost of cleaning up after the pollution they expel. Hydrogen has always been more efficient in energy and cheaper in dollars, if fossil fuels were not subsidized.

One more thing that Hess's Law does not account for, but bond energies (with some detailed internal combustion physical chemistry) do account for, is the energy density of oxygen carrying fuels like ethanol. Measurements based on external combustion ignore some thermodynamic realities that molecular electronegativity evidence. When you are oxidizing a substance through combustion, the efficiency of that reaction is contingent on the availability of oxygen. Nobody wants to talk about that elephant in the fossil fuel energy density room (except for maybe Palloy with a thumb down following ridicule and huffing and puffing  ;)).

There is simply NO WAY for a hydrocarbon to combust as efficiently and cleanly as an oxygen carrying fuel like ethanol in an atmosphere of 21 to 23% oxygen. As you know, the formation of incomplete combustion products in a combustion chamber is caused by the lack of sufficient oxygen reactant.

Gasoline never even releases, in the time it has to combust in the chamber, all of its energy density that SHOULD BE USEFUL ENERGY, never mind the waste heat, because of the lack of oxygen. Incomplete combustion is the NORM in gasoline. YET, Charles Hall deliberately ignored that in his ERoEI calculations with his erroneous assumption of complete combustion. Simply put, that was thermodynamic mendacity to make gasoline look better than ethanol.   

That is one of the reasons that it is CRAP compared with ethanol. The other reason is that ethanol complete combustion reduces waste heat and engine friction. 

Although I have never been able to convince you of the superiority of ethanol over gasoline or diesel, I hope that you consider agreeing with me that bond energy math is preferable to Hess's Law in computing energy density in elements and chemical compounds in a standard atmosphere, as well as the only truly accurate way to measure energy release in exothermic reactions and energy absorption in endothermic reactions.       


Bond Enthalpies, NOT Hess's Law, should be the gold standard used to base ALL assumptions about energy density in chemical compounds and elements:



If you don't agree, that's okay. Thanks again for the info.  :icon_sunny:
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 06:50:15 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 28529
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy Survey : RE - I need your Columbia Chemist Brain
« Reply #127 on: June 16, 2016, 07:13:18 PM »
All of this does not make Hydrogen a bad store of energy though, it just will take up space.  Not good in density for carz generally speaking, but could work as a storage medium for large PV facilities
Or, you could just combine 2 hydrogen molecules with a carbon monoxide molecule and get a rather dense, shelf-stable liquid product (methanol) that you can burn for energy or use directly in fuel cells.
Except then when you burn the methanol you get CO2 as one of the byproducts.  I believe the goal here is to eliminate carbon emissions.
One carbon in, one carbon out, so, Net Zero.

Plus, ever wonder why methanol is called "wood alcohol"?  A popular source for the carbon monoxide is pyrolizing wood in a low-oxygen environment.  (Plus, if you can use the hydrogen right away, you've got "wood gas".)  And wood alcohol is a nineteenth-century technology, so it's got some collapse resistance.

Net 0 yes, except we want to do better than net 0 so that we can begiin the process of sequestering the carbon already released.  So perfectly clean burning hydrogen is ideal for this purpose.

The problem with energy density really only comes in vehicular applications.  For stationary solar PV or wind power plants, you could build as many tanks as big as you need for the storage.  On bright sunny days or windy days, you use surplus power to electrolyze water and store the hydrogen gas.  At night or windless days you run the other way using the hydrogen in fuel cells to produce electricity and water.  This is as clean a system as you could possibly get.

As for what the loss rate would be in the conversions back and forth, this I have no idea on.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: Renewable Energy Survey
« Reply #128 on: June 16, 2016, 09:39:23 PM »
Quote
AG: Although a certain member of the peanut gallery will vociferously disagree ... Hess's Law belongs in the dust bin of thermodynamics history.

Yes, I disagree.
You do know, don't you, that all bond energies can be calculated from ∆Hs?  They are EXACTLY the same thing, just looked at from different viewpoints.  If it were not so, then Thermodynamics wouldn't work.

Quote
The Standard Molar Enthalpy of Formation, ∆H, of a substance is the amount of heat absorbed in a reaction in which one mole of the substance in a specified state is formed from it elements in their standard states.

As is made clear in the definition, both methods have to allow for phase changes.  With ∆Hs this is simply
∆H(H2O gas) - ∆H(H2O liquid). 

Since it is only the ∆ (i.e. change) in energy we are looking for, it doesn't matter what the zero of the scale is. The zero is taken to be the H2 molecule, and since that can't be turned into any other element via chemical reactions, all other elemental molecules are going to be zero too.

But by all means keep on making a complete fool of yourself.   :icon_sunny:
« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 12:50:38 AM by Palloy »
The State is a body of armed men

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: Renewable Energy Survey
« Reply #129 on: June 06, 2017, 01:53:10 AM »
Quote
AG: When hydrogen gas combusts with oxygen gas, we get water gas, which quickly turns into to liquid in a standard atmosphere.

When you are doing thermodynamics, phrases like "quickly turns into" have to be accounted for.  It takes energy to boil water, and you get that energy back when it "quickly turns into" liquid again.  If you choose not to capture that energy (perhaps in a condenser) that's your fault, not Hess's fault.

To repeat the Methane burning calculation:
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: -74.81 + 0 = -393.5 + 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 393.5 + 2*241.8 - 74.81
X = 802.29 kJ/mol
A mol of Methane has a Mass of (12 + 4*1) = 16 grams
So Methane has an Energy Density of 50.143 kJ/gram

Now do the same calculation for Hydrogen gas burning:
2H2 + O2 => 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: 2*0 + 0 = 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 2*241.8
X = 483.6 kJ/mol
A mol of Hydrogen has a Mass of (2*1) = 2 grams
So Hydrogen has an Energy Density of 241.8 kJ/gram

As RE points out, gases can be compressed (P*V = N*R*T), where N is the number of molecules in a mol = 6.022E+23 for ALL gases.  So while gases have an Energy Density in Volume terms as well as Mass terms, you have to be careful when considering pressurised gases, because a gas at above Standard Pressure has had Energy used to compress it, and
The State is a body of armed men

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
1484 Views
Last post August 15, 2013, 11:53:16 AM
by agelbert
42 Replies
8907 Views
Last post September 05, 2014, 05:46:08 AM
by Golden Oxen
0 Replies
212 Views
Last post May 28, 2016, 08:57:29 PM
by RE