![]() ![]() So yes, hydrogen produces more energy per Kg than methane, and that is important if you are building rockets where weigt is such a limiting factor. More seriously, combustion of hydrogen produces 120 MJ/Kg whereas, combustion of methane produces 50 MJ/Kg. Methane, for example, gives you 4 hydrogens per mole instead of just the 2 that you get with hydrogen, and a carbon thrown for free Liquified hydrocarbon gases, primarily methane, propane, and butane, I believe have greater promise. General Motors, I believe, is still working on the storage units. The adsorbents are often rare metals, like platinum. ![]() It's basically cost per energy unit stored. So, current technology leaves us with choosing between dealing with low temperatures, high pressures, or adsorbing the hydrogen to a carrier from which it can be desorbed at the point of use. It is not that the problems can't be solved, but I don't believe the solutions are in the immediate future. This all relates to the real life problem of using hydrogen as a commercially viable fuel. That is not good, if you want to avoid mixing liquid hydrogen and oxygen in your home. For example, it is below the condensation point for air, which will condense on its surface. The problem is that that temperature is very low and difficult to maintain. Once at that temperature, LH2 can be handled like any other extremely cold liquid. One must be at or below the critical temperature to have a liquid state. We got onto liquid hydrogen because of a statement that hydrogen was liquid at something like 5000 psi, which it is not unless the temperature is low enough. You would need to do a cost analysis to determine whether it is worth it. Small amounts of low-pressure hydrogen will only produce a small amount of energy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |