Jianguoxu’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Using liquid hydrogen as jet fuel

  As much as I dislike the idea of using hydrogen for cars, I do think there are a lot of advantages in using liquid hydrogen as jet fuel. It is light, it is clean, and its flame has a lower temperature, reducing the potentials of forming NOx.

  Now, safety may still be a concern...On Now and later posted 2 years, 8 months ago 21 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  carbon emission killers

  Let me take a stab:

  1. A safe, low cost battery (<$300/kWh) technology for PHEV with 60 miles of pure electric range that lasts more than 4000 cycles and 10 yrs,
     
  2. A PV technology that reduces the cost of solar cells to below $0.08/kWh on electrocity generation, installed
     
  3. A low cost, highly efficient heat driven heat pump that eliminates the need for the conventional heat pump
     
  4). A low cost system for using geothermal heat for residential heating and cooling.

  These four should be enough to reduce the amount of carbon emission by more than 90%, IMO On Global warming 'tis merely a flesh wound posted 2 years, 8 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Erratum

  "My inventions in H2 PSA are being used in plants with capacitities of greater than one billion standard cubic feet per day of H2"

  in the previous post should be:

  "My inventions in H2 PSA are being used in plants with total installed capacitity of greater than one billion standard cubic feet per day of H2 - more than 25% of the H2 production capacity of this country"On Tamminen and hydrogen posted 2 years, 9 months ago 20 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Amateurs accting as experts

  The problem I see here is a lot of amateurs are acting like experts. The read something, and thought they understand things which they don't. Yet they have the political clot, the influence in media, and may sound like experts to thoe who have no background in the area. But they really do not have the necessary knowledge and trainings to make correct analysis and judgement. Due to their influence in national and regional governments, and in the media, they can cause and have caused a lot of waste of resources, despite at least in some cases the good intention of these people.

  I did my PhD thesis in steam reforming of methane, the main means of generating H2 today - the kinetic model for steam reforming that I developed is what is being widely used in literature today. My inventions in H2 PSA are being used in plants with capacitities of greater than one billion standard cubic feet per day of H2. I have been involved in coal gasification projects, and am very familiar with generation processes. I also have patents in fuel cell-fuel processor integration, in safe dispensing of hydrogen etc. I would have a lot to gain if stored would indeed become the dominant means of energy for transportation. However, I will tell you that it does not make sense. I have listed the reasons in the previous discussion forum on this subject. Here I will only touch one important area that I did not mention earlier: Environmental impact of a H2-powered transportation system.

  If H2 for whatever reason would become the predominant source of energy for transportation, there would be a lof of H2 leaked from the filling stations and other productio and distribution channels, the vehicles etc. This leaked H2 would likely to rise to the upper atmosphere, and react with the ozone up there. I have not seen any scientific confirmation that shows this would not destroy the ozone layer.

  Without any scientific evidence that the leaked H2 would not destroy the ozone layer, how can someone say H2 is the solution to our transportation problem??? On Tamminen and hydrogen posted 2 years, 9 months ago 20 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Why hydrogen does not make sense

  Fuel cell has been considered a future means of power source for vehicles by some people, and the government and private sector have invested billions of dollars in this area. The problem with fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) is that there are too many issues with the fuel cell technology, among which the following is fatal in my opinion: that is, di-oxygen (O2) is too inactive to react at ambient temperature. As a consequence, we have the following two issues:
  1)    The (lower heating value of hydrogen to electricity conversion) efficiency of a proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell, the essentially only type of fuel cell underdevelopment for vehicle applications, is rather low-it typically does not exceed 50% when the fuel cell works at a decent power density. When the parasitic losses, including that for running the air blower and that for thermal management system, are included, the typical net efficiency of a proton exchange membrane fuel cell running at 80 deg C is in 35-45% range at the name-plate power of a fuel cell. This is only about the half of the round-trip efficiency of a typical rechargeable battery, which runs at ambient temperature.
  2)    PEM fuel cells have to be operated at an elevated temperature, typically at around 80 deg C, in order to have the desired power density/specific power to run a vehicle. Therefore, it is necessary to have an additional energy/power source for the period during which the fuel cell is being heated up, from, for example, sub-freezing temperatures. This problem is currently solved by adding a large battery or supercapacitor for running the vehicle before the fuel cell is heated up. This significantly adds to the cost of the fuel cell.

  Currently, as far as I know, there is even no speculation on how to solve this fundamental problem, let alone a plausible proposal for its solution. Such a situation is understandable since the relative inactivity of dioxygen at ambient temperature is after all the fundamental reason why the world as we see exists: without it, our furniture, all the plants and animals, including ourselves, would have been oxidized to form carbon dioxide, water, and some ashes, or rather, we would not have existed on the first place!

  The above mentioned problems are not the only serious problems with FCV's. The issues of high cost of building a hydrogen fueling infrastructure, the lack of a satisfactory hydrogen storage means, the currently too short fuel cell life, owing to catalyst deactivation due to Pt particle migration towards the separator, due to loss of active site area resulting from catalyst particle growth, due to the peeling off of the electrodes from the membrane owing to repeated dry-wet cycles that come with the use pattern of passenger cars, due to fuel cell poisoning by sulfur-compounds and other poisons, lack of enough platinum resources to support the large number of vehicles in the world, the high cost of manufacturing fuel cell stacks etc. are all difficult problems that may or may not have technical solutions, let alone cost-effective, solutions. That compares very unfavorably with the fact that ICE-battery hybrid cars, clean diesel cars, and Miller cycle cars are already commercialized and competing in the market place-the major technical problems for them are already solved.  
  On We will wonk you posted 2 years, 10 months ago 18 Responses