Whitelightning

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@***.net> wrote in message
news:flbe7u0h46@news5.newsguy.com...
>
> So do you have numbers for emissions per ton mile for diesel powered
> merchant ships? And what exempts ships carrying nickel from Canada to
> Japan from MARPOL Annex VI?
>
Well nothing, BUT we demand ultra low sulfter fuel for vehicles, the
allowed amount is 15ppm.

Yet MARPOL Annex VI allows 2.9-4 % m/m sulfer content.
If I searched correctly and I believe I did:
0.10% m/m is 1000ppm. So marpol allows up to 40,000 ppm sulfer content.
Now then I got the break down on allowed by MARPOL from their web site.
I got break down of 5 m/m to ppm from
http://www.enginemanufacturers.org/i...uelcharter.pdf


Whitelightning

J. Clarke

Whitelightning wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@***.net> wrote in message
> news:flbe7u0h46@news5.newsguy.com...
>>
>> So do you have numbers for emissions per ton mile for diesel
>> powered
>> merchant ships? And what exempts ships carrying nickel from Canada
>> to Japan from MARPOL Annex VI?
>>
> Well nothing, BUT we demand ultra low sulfter fuel for vehicles, the
> allowed amount is 15ppm.
>
> Yet MARPOL Annex VI allows 2.9-4 % m/m sulfer content.
> If I searched correctly and I believe I did:
> 0.10% m/m is 1000ppm. So marpol allows up to 40,000 ppm sulfer
> content. Now then I got the break down on allowed by MARPOL from
> their web site. I got break down of 5 m/m to ppm from
> http://www.enginemanufacturers.org/i...uelcharter.pdf


So what?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ed H.

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@***.net> wrote in message
news:flb05l02msf@news5.newsguy.com...
> Topp@Work wrote:
>> "KC" <kevinceddy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:646c58ca-025a-441f-8ef9-6d641447bd11@z26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 28, 5:40 pm, Nomen Nescio <***...@dizum.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I see a lot of people think its ugly, but personally, I think it
>>> looks pretty cool.
>>> It'd be perfect for my needs. I drive a '96 T100 single cab now,
>>> but
>>> I can't fit my whole family in it. I love that its green, too. I
>>> think it will sell.
>>
>> Green is relative....
>> The batteries for these Hybrids are made in canada,
>
> Source, please? Why would Toyota, which has perfectly capable battery
> manufacturers nearby, use Canadian batteries?
>
>> where for 1000
>> yards around the plant nothing
>> grows due to the chemicals that make up the batteries....
>
> Source, please?
>
>> The amount
>> of Fuel used to ship the chemicals and
>> raw materials for the batteries to canada, and then the fuel used to
>> ship the comleted units to Japan outweight your 2% fuel savings
>> over the life of the vehicle....
>
> And of course you can produce the numbers to support this contention.
>
> I believe that if you actually investigate instead of relying on what
> somebody told you you will find that the "plant" in question is the
> International Nickel Company (which is _not_ owned by Toyota) mine and
> refining plant in Sudbury that has been producing a high percentage of
> the nickel used in the world since 1870, and that most of the
> environmental damage occurred prior to 1970 when there was a major
> cleanup of the plant. Further, if you find the Sudbury plant on
> Google Earth and measure the distance to the nearest tree you will
> find that it is about 100 yards away.
>
> What do _you_ think should be done to address energy consumption and
> pollution by automobiles?

I think Volkswagon should bring back the '78 Rabbit. I got 35 MPG mixed
city/highway driving (highway speeds of 70 MPH) and as good as 50 MPG at 55
MPH for a long distance. That's pretty close to matching, or bettering
today's hybrids, with their more expensive batteries.

>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>

JR

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but most of the h2 generated in North
America comes from "cracking" Nat'l gas.
I do it every day. And btw, the process I use liberates more H2 than what is
in the gas to start with.
Regards,
JR


"bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
news:p8ednRS7db9j9uTanZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> ....
>> Hydrogen would be nice too---but it is not cost effective to release the
>> H
>> from the "Two O"....
>
>
> I think you need to release the H2 from the O.
>
> --
> Bearman
>
> America: Land of the free because of the brave.
>

J. Clarke

JR wrote:
> Not to rain on anyone's parade, but most of the h2 generated in
> North
> America comes from "cracking" Nat'l gas.
> I do it every day. And btw, the process I use liberates more H2 than
> what is in the gas to start with.

Interesting. Can enough be generated in that fashion to provide
energy equivalent to the current consumption of gasoline? If you're
getting more hydrogen out than was in the natural gas to begin with
one would expect so.

> Regards,
> JR
>
>
> "bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
> news:p8ednRS7db9j9uTanZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> ....
>>> Hydrogen would be nice too---but it is not cost effective to
>>> release the H
>>> from the "Two O"....
>>
>>
>> I think you need to release the H2 from the O.
>>
>> --
>> Bearman
>>
>> America: Land of the free because of the brave.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

JR

OK I will try to explain this as best I can off the top of my head.
The steam used to "crack" the gas is created in a small boiler that is also
gas fired. The waste gas stream from the burner contains H2 as well as other
unburned hydrocarbons. These are collected as well and run thru a series of
catalytic converters and stripped from the waste gas and reintroduced to the
cracking chamber at moderate pressure 2-300 psig. The spent steam itself is
also a small source of H2 as the flashed vapor is sent thru yet another
process (semi-permeable membrane filter) as it is enroute to a collection
vessel and discarded. All liquid waste is piped to our chemical waste
treatment plant. The final waste gas stream is scrubbed and released from a
short stack as a mix of inert gasses. This process produces roughly 10,000
cubic ft of H2/hour @ 200 psig using roughly 6,800 cubic ft of Nat'l
gas/hour @ 80 psig. I will leave it to you calculate the energy available in
each. I just want the H2 for other processes. There ain't no free lunch, but
we are constantly working on increasing the efficiency of the process.
Will this replace gasoline? I don't think so yet if you want to burn the H2
as a fuel, maybe in a few years as better methods of mobile storage and new
engines are developed. It could replace gasoline now if used in a fuel cell
to generate electricity.
The equipment I use was originally designed as an on site source
of H2 at a network of refueling stations across the country. Part of the H2
infrastructure so to speak. The H2 generating unit itself will fit in the
back of a 20 ft van truck. All it needs is a source of softwater ,Nat'l gas,
and electricity. It's pretty cool stuff.

Regards,
JR



"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@***.net> wrote in message
news:fldboh01v5u@news2.newsguy.com...
> JR wrote:
>> Not to rain on anyone's parade, but most of the h2 generated in
>> North
>> America comes from "cracking" Nat'l gas.
>> I do it every day. And btw, the process I use liberates more H2 than
>> what is in the gas to start with.
>
> Interesting. Can enough be generated in that fashion to provide
> energy equivalent to the current consumption of gasoline? If you're
> getting more hydrogen out than was in the natural gas to begin with
> one would expect so.
>
>> Regards,
>> JR
>>
>>
>> "bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:p8ednRS7db9j9uTanZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> ....
>>>> Hydrogen would be nice too---but it is not cost effective to
>>>> release the H
>>>> from the "Two O"....
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you need to release the H2 from the O.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bearman
>>>
>>> America: Land of the free because of the brave.
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>

JG2U

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:41:51 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@***.net> wrote:

>Whitelightning wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:flbe7u0h46@news5.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> So do you have numbers for emissions per ton mile for diesel
>>> powered
>>> merchant ships? And what exempts ships carrying nickel from Canada
>>> to Japan from MARPOL Annex VI?
>>>
>> Well nothing, BUT we demand ultra low sulfter fuel for vehicles, the
>> allowed amount is 15ppm.
>>
>> Yet MARPOL Annex VI allows 2.9-4 % m/m sulfer content.
>> If I searched correctly and I believe I did:
>> 0.10% m/m is 1000ppm. So marpol allows up to 40,000 ppm sulfer
>> content. Now then I got the break down on allowed by MARPOL from
>> their web site. I got break down of 5 m/m to ppm from
>> http://www.enginemanufacturers.org/i...uelcharter.pdf
>
>
>So what?
>
>--
So you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

david

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 07:12:35 -0500, J. Clarke rearranged some electrons to
say:

> JR wrote:
>> Not to rain on anyone's parade, but most of the h2 generated in North
>> America comes from "cracking" Nat'l gas. I do it every day. And btw,
>> the process I use liberates more H2 than what is in the gas to start
>> with.
>
> Interesting. Can enough be generated in that fashion to provide energy
> equivalent to the current consumption of gasoline?

I doubt it. The cracking process requires steam, which requires energy
to produce it. One needs to be very careful when comparing fuel
sources... the energy required to convert them into a usable form has to
be taken into account.

J. Clarke

david wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 07:12:35 -0500, J. Clarke rearranged some
> electrons to say:
>
>> JR wrote:
>>> Not to rain on anyone's parade, but most of the h2 generated in
>>> North America comes from "cracking" Nat'l gas. I do it every day.
>>> And btw, the process I use liberates more H2 than what is in the
>>> gas to start with.
>>
>> Interesting. Can enough be generated in that fashion to provide
>> energy equivalent to the current consumption of gasoline?
>
> I doubt it. The cracking process requires steam, which requires
> energy to produce it. One needs to be very careful when comparing
> fuel sources... the energy required to convert them into a usable
> form has to be taken into account.

Cracking crude oil to gasoline requires energy too, does it not? The
question is whether the energy required to make the steam is greater
than the energy to be derived by converting the resulting hydrogen
into energy either by combustion in an engine or by use in a fuel
cell.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

david

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:32:34 -0500, J. Clarke rearranged some electrons to
say:

> The
> question is whether the energy required to make the steam is greater
> than the energy to be derived by converting the resulting hydrogen into
> energy either by combustion in an engine or by use in a fuel cell.
>

Indeed, that is the question for *any* fuel source... how much net energy
is gleaned from it? Until that question is answered, you're comparing
apples to oranges.