-
Yes most (>95%) hydrogen produced today is from fossil fuels:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/fcto_hydrogen_production_fs.pdf
Not sure how cheap it is, from what I can tell it cost about $10/kg to refuel fuel cell EVs in California. The actual production costs are probably lower though.
Hydrogen is normally nonmetalic, but at extreme pressures it's theorised it can exist in a liquid metal phase, inside a gas gigants for example.
In the comments in the "Truth About Hydrogen Cars" a hydrogen car owner says it costs him about the same dollar amount to fill the car with hydrogen as it would with gasoline. His other complaint was how long it takes to fill his car, 20 minutes.
There are lots of theories out there which is why we have science. At this time is it fair to say hydrogen is a non-metal but has been theorized to be a metal under extreme conditions?
-
There are lots of theories out there which is why we have science. At this time is it fair to say hydrogen is a non-metal but has been theorized to be a metal under extreme conditions?
I would say it's likely true, but I don't think it has ever been confirmed experimentally. -
There are lots of theories out there which is why we have science. At this time is it fair to say hydrogen is a non-metal but has been theorized to be a metal under extreme conditions?
I would say it's likely true, but I don't think it has ever been confirmed experimentally.
That's why we call it a theory. Might be true; but then again might not or we might find something else unexpected. -
I will stand corrected on Hydrogen.
The point is that Sodium's position as the cheapest metal by volume is as much due to it's relatively low density as it is due to it's low cost. Aluminum competes well there also, while Iron and Lead (other cheap metals) do poorly.
Or really the point is that these simple evaluations (cost of element per unit, relative abundance and so on) are not terrible as indicators of where to look, but will often require modification, sometimes significant as the whole picture and the details are examined.
A recurring mantra of process controllers, particularly for fuzzy and/or poorly understood processes like personnel management is "Be careful what you measure, because you will get it." Whether it is what you want or not.
A classic example is an attempt to measure clerical staff productivity by reams of paper consumed. Seems to make sense at first glance since there should be some sort of connection between the work done and paper used. But it leads to all sorts of undesired behaviors like inventing forms for everything and discarding any piece of paper that isn't perfect. -
That's why we call it a theory. Might be true; but then again might not or we might find something else unexpected.
btw, which of these molten salts is your favourite to become widescale commercial and why?
Excellent question, I have no idea. I stumbled across Sadoway's presentation about a week ago. I had never heard of him or liquid metal batteries. If you've taken a chemistry class and learned about half cells everything Sadoway is saying makes perfect sense. (But it's only a theory.) Now it's like Sadoway is some backyard home schooled chemist, he's not. He's a professor of chemistry at MIT and has published a number of papers in prestige peer review publications. Like any researcher it sounds like his has had successes and failures and he and his students figure out what works and what doesn't. It's not easy. But it sure sounds like his team of students have working prototypes.
If this were easy, someone else would have figured this out at some point in the last 200 years. From what he's been saying it sounds like they will have something next year. This is an experiment in progress, we well see.
-
Yes, but it's not black and white either. For example, I am very confident that if if I throw a rock a few meters on the moon (i.e. in a vacuum) it will approximately follow a parabolic path, even though I never have tried doing that. But that is what established theory predicts. So basically we can have more confidence in what an established and well tested theory predicts.
That's why we call it a theory. Might be true; but then again might not or we might find something else unexpected.There are lots of theories out there which is why we have science. At this time is it fair to say hydrogen is a non-metal but has been theorized to be a metal under extreme conditions?
I would say it's likely true, but I don't think it has ever been confirmed experimentally. -
Ackshually:
A guess, an assertion, a suspicion -- a colloquial "theory" without proof -- is an hypothesis.
A proven hypothesis, is a theory.
In mathematics, a theory is an absolute, a necessity, given the premises. A theory exists within a set of postulates. If you change the postulates you're operating under, the theories under that system also change. (The most famous case, historically, being Euclid's five geometric postulates, the last one (parallel lines postulate) of which is the least justified, and which was later developed into noneuclidian geometry where different theorems -- those relating to this postulate -- apply.)
In experimental science, there is no such thing as absolute certainty. We do things a bit more carefully. All knowledge is understood to have an uncertainty attached to it.
Any experimental number that is simply given, with no error, is as useless as the bits it's made of.
Which you'll notice, occurs very often, in articles about science, in discussion, even here, even by such people as myself.
Which should tell you something about the worth of those numbers you see!
Suffice it to say, very confident bits of scientific theory, are as good as mathematical theory for practical purposes. A confidence level with a one-in-a-trillion error is something you'll very likely to never see a failure of, for any person on the face of the planet, within their lifetimes. That's something you can very confidently stake your life on!
And that's why Australians don't actually wear seatbelts on a day-to-day basis.
Tim -
Yes, but it's not black and white either. For example, I am very confident that if if I throw a rock a few meters on the moon (i.e. in a vacuum) it will approximately follow a parabolic path, even though I never have tried doing that. But that is what established theory predicts. So basically we can have more confidence in what an established and well tested theory predicts.
That's why we call it a theory. Might be true; but then again might not or we might find something else unexpected.There are lots of theories out there which is why we have science. At this time is it fair to say hydrogen is a non-metal but has been theorized to be a metal under extreme conditions?
I would say it's likely true, but I don't think it has ever been confirmed experimentally.
Yes and no. Wouldn't the trajectory of the rock all depend on your frame of reference. If observed by someone standing on the moon I would agree. But if observed by someone on Earth, or Sun the trajectory would be that of a complex spiral. -
In this case the standard model predicts that there is a metallic phase of hydrogen which could exist inside of Jupiter. That means more than if the prediction was based on string theory (it should really be called string hypothesis then, shouldn't it
). So, it's not black and white; just because we haven't seen metallic hydrogen in a lab, it's still more likely that it exists than it does not I would say. (Although I really have no idea what the confidence level for it to exist would be).
-
In this case the standard model predicts that there is a metallic phase of hydrogen which could exist inside of Jupiter. That means more than if the prediction was based on string theory (it should really be called string hypothesis then, shouldn't it
). So, it's not black and white; just because we haven't seen metallic hydrogen in a lab, it's still more likely that it exists than it does not I would say. (Although I really have no idea what the confidence level for it to exist would be).
This is what's great about this forum is we learn from each other. I for one needed a review on the difference between a hypothesis, theory and law in terms of science.
I agree hydrogen metal and string theory should be called a hypothesis at this time. I have no idea on the confidence level but string theory sounds a bit crazy. But then who would have thought the electron entanglement experiment would have "worked". Or that quantum computers would be possible?
-
string theory sounds a bit crazy. But then who would have thought the electron entanglement experiment would have "worked". Or that quantum computers would be possible?
String theory can't be tested at the moment so it should be put in the hypothesis category.
Quantum entanglement and quantum computers are predicted by quantum physics (very solid and thoroughly tested theory) and thus were expected to be true by most physicists. If you can make a practically useful quantum computer is still an open question though. -
string theory sounds a bit crazy. But then who would have thought the electron entanglement experiment would have "worked". Or that quantum computers would be possible?
String theory can't be tested at the moment so it should be put in the hypothesis category.
Quantum entanglement and quantum computers are predicted by quantum physics (very solid and thoroughly tested theory) and thus were expected to be true by most physicists. If you can make a practically useful quantum computer is still an open question though.
Would it be fair to say quantum computers are sill in that early theory (as in they work) and hypothesis phase?
If you are interested you can write and run programs on one of IBM's quantum computers.
One has to love IBM's bullshit marketing on quantum computers.
"IBM Q is an industry first initiative to build universal quantum computers for business and science. "
What is an industry first initiative? I think quantum computers are just a few years away just like self driving cars have been for the past 50 years.
https://www.research.ibm.com/ibm-q/
-
Bill Gates. Grid thief. GMO profiteer. Enviro-vandal. Vaccine vandal. Population-reducer (less-polite term: murderer)
Chevron. Enviro-vandal.
+
A professor who talks grid, grid, grid and downplays off-grid.
= your grid slavery.
Do not hold your breath.
Batteries....the ones we have NOW...and having half a clue about efficiency and self-sufficiency ...can do wonders for anyone intent on freeing themselves from the Slave Networks. These guys obviously have the intent to make grid electricity cheaper to produce and store and distribute to the Home Slave while the Home Slave pays through the nose for the privilege....just like they have implemented in all countries where solar is popular: the highest cost of electricity on the planet....with Slave daily service charges guaranteeing record profits even if you don't turn a thing on.
They are intent on keeping the Little Guy outregulated so as to not set foot on their turf. Guaranteed returns for them.
And what's that about not using any precious metals, then later on in the video mentioning one? -
That all seems a bit harsh.
In particular...Population-reducer (less-polite term: murderer)
I would say if we don't reduce global population now, we are murdering future generations. -
Do not hold your breath.
Batteries....the ones we have NOW...and having half a clue about efficiency and self-sufficiency ...can do wonders for anyone intent on freeing themselves from the Slave Networks. These guys obviously have the intent to make grid electricity cheaper to produce and store and distribute to the Home Slave while the Home Slave pays through the nose for the privilege....just like they have implemented in all countries where solar is popular: the highest cost of electricity on the planet....with Slave daily service charges guaranteeing record profits even if you don't turn a thing on.
They are intent on keeping the Little Guy outregulated so as to not set foot on their turf. Guaranteed returns for them.
PERFECTLY said and demonstrably factual.
Are you a skip? Sounds like you are familiar with the current power situation in Oz.
They keep ramming this " cheap. clean. renewable power " crap down our throats while power prices have become the highest in the world..... and our grid fast becoming some of the least reliable.
The power co's here are predicting a $2.7Bn combined profit this year. So much for cheap power.
I am planning and working towards going off grid on my little 1 acre block. I have over 20Kw of solar now, in the process of setting up a 12 Kw generator and oil powered heater and intend when I make the jump, to use good old fashioned lead acid batteries.
They can be made very low maintence with automatic watering systems as used for decades. The weight and size is inconsequential to me especially when taking into account the capacity and price which leaves commercial home batteries for dead and the things are worth significant money at end of life just as scrap.
Of course the life expectancy is every bit as good and better than the trendy Lipos and nickels atm.
My initial thoughts behind going off grid were cost and I expected that to be a ways off but wanted to start preparing and learning ahead of time not leave it till the last minute. The way our grid is going and with ludicrous RE energy targets being promised if the opposition get in at the next soon to he held election, the cost concern will be well outweighed by just having the ability to have the lights and TV on at night and the food cold in the fridge. -
That all seems a bit harsh.
In particular...Population-reducer (less-polite term: murderer)
I would say if we don't reduce global population now, we are murdering future generations.
Yes, I'm totally with Albert Bartlett in that regard. See "Arithmetic, Population and Energy"
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Albert+Bartlett&iax=videos&ia=videos -
They keep ramming this " cheap. clean. renewable power " crap down our throats while power prices have become the highest in the world..... and our grid fast becoming some of the least reliable.
Hasn't quite got to the stage of unreliability here, but electricity costs four or five times as much as gas. I pity those who have to heat with it. Thing I don't understand is, can our politicians not do basic arithmetic? If so, why have they not looked at the cost vs returns figures for wind and solar over the world, and realised that this is going nowhere except to financial ruin? They seem to fall for any flashy advertising by the wind and solar cartels with the naivety of a child being promised a visit by Santa Claus.
I now have a wind turbine visible from my workshop window. Fortunately far enough away to not be a nuisance, but to me this is ominously like spotting the tanks of the 7th Panzer Division on the horizon. Stand by to be invaded. Resistance is futile.
-
Hasn't quite got to the stage of unreliability here, but electricity costs four or five times as much as gas.
You are then Lucky.
gas used to be the cheap energy source here and like coal, we have or at least had, many lifetimes supply. now gas is more expensive than electricity and in many parts bottled gas is cheaper than natural gas. Work that out!
I'm not sure what happened to all our gas, if we sold it all to china for .1C litre or if the gas fields that were supposed to last forever ran out of they haven't bothered setting up more wells. Only few years back there was a big push for that fracking crap. Despite the problems all around the world they said it wouldn't happen here because they were going to do it differently. The only Difference a bit of research showed was more in the name they gave it rather than any procedural differences.
You don't have to be a geologist to see that smashing the earths crust into little pieces can't be a good thing. Practice proved that and thankfully it was banned.
Give that one to the greens or whomever had the Common sense to kill if before it killed off everything we have.
QuoteThing I don't understand is, can our politicians not do basic arithmetic? If so, why have they not looked at the cost vs returns figures for wind and solar over the world, and realised that this is going nowhere except to financial ruin?
I believe the thing you don't understand is they are not there to serve the interests of the people as they say ( lie) but rather the interests of their business that give them election funds and support in exchange for policy's favorable to their bottom line.
They can add up and calculate real well..... where the most donations are going to come from, who'd going to pay them the most when they get out of politics, how their buddies in big biz are going to make the most money that if they don't get kickbacks they or their families have financial interest.
It's all about the elite lining their own pockets and it's got so blatant now people just accept it which is the real start of the downfall of society.
I used to say that one of the things Australia did best was take every failed policy and ideal from around the world and improve in it. To make it a bigger failure and waste of money etc. I now realise that's not true, lots of countries seem to do that better than anything else.
Right now there is this greenwashed mental ality that Oz HAS to lead and show the world the way forward with Renewables. Where the fk did this come from and why? Our chief gubbermint greenwash scientist already said if Oz cut all emissions it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the world Climate so anyone with a modicum of intelligence would ask why we want to sacrifice our national economy and way of living for an ideal?
Of course the answer is because there is a buck in it for Gubbermint and their big biz puppet masters.
If it were about the environment, it' wouldn't be about building new solar and wind farms, first thing you'd do is stick solar on all the existing free space right where the power was needed.... on home rooftops. But No, they are limiting that more and more at the same time they are telling us they need more PV farms taking up land hundred's of KM from where the power is needed.
Seems Illogical till you re think and realism that allowing people to have their own PV COSTS them revenue and takes away control where building solar farms to appease the hopeful that need a crutch to believe in allows them to keep the people dependent on them and therefor not only gives them revenue but what they really want, CONTROL.QuoteI now have a wind turbine visible from my workshop window. Fortunately far enough away to not be a nuisance, but to me this is ominously like spotting the tanks of the 7th Panzer Division on the horizon. Stand by to be invaded. Resistance is futile.
I have been reading up on the effects of wind turbines. The health and environmental effects are shocking. Passed off by the power co's of course as all fallacy and people whinging but the instruments they measure sub sonic sound are not lying or have opinions.
Like Cigarettes the health effects which are already known and understood untill too many people get sick and the evidence becomes over whealming.
In the mean time, Like the Cigarette companies, they will cash in for all they can and Fk peoples health and the environment.
Probably got a good 20 years of profiteering before it all comes out and compensation has to be paid and by that time the current board members and CEO's will be long since retired with MultiMillion golden handshakes and it will be someone else's problem to deal with.
This is the way Politics and Big biz work now and why worrying about ' The environment" is a complete and utter fools game. -
I'd rather see an actual paper ... we've been through this shit before with power lines. Hypochondriacs will hypochonder.
-
I'd rather see an actual paper ... we've been through this shit before with power lines. Hypochondriacs will hypochonder.
Pretty sure that's what they said about Cigarettes in the '70s too.