|
|
Al wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:19:21 -0700, Mike McWilliams
> <michael.mcwilliams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >they admit that they get 14% efficiency, and make a misleading statement.
> >
> >"" It does, however, produce more energy in the form of hydrogen than
> >the energy input in the form of methane.""
>
> Mike, a correction: They state that they get 14% more energy out in
> the form of hydrogen than goes in in the form of methane.
>
> Some would call this 114% efficiency (and they would make the
> thermodynamicist in each of us cringe).
>
> The long and the short of it is that for a measly 14% gain, you'd be
> better off just burning the methane directly and using the solar
> collector in a more conventional manner. I'd like to see a full cost
> breakdown of the SHEC system, including full amortization of the
> capital costs. I suspect it's not all that good
It's plenty good. I have the numbers, but certainly not to give out on
a usenet forum. I think you now have backpeddled enough
>
> But if your goal is not to produce energy, but rather produce
> hydrogen, this process may be OK. (Especially if you're after
> government grants and subsidies aimed at promoting "the hydrogen
> economy".)
they are a hydrogen producer, and they do it cheaper and cleaner than
anyone else.
Go SHEC.
|
|