<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Firm to Build First Utility-Scale Hydrogen Power Plant</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/firm-to-build-first-utility-scale-hydrogen-power-plant/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/firm-to-build-first-utility-scale-hydrogen-power-plant/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:53:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Abe Beagles</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/firm-to-build-first-utility-scale-hydrogen-power-plant/#comment-6006</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Abe Beagles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:21:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2789#comment-6006</guid>
		<description>Gentlemen, The city must have a sewage plant in the area.  There is a technology that converts contaminated water to both gases and then uses what is known as a Bubble Gen Linear Generator to create, for conversation purposes say one mega watt of electricity, energy from only 2% of the hydrogen stored in a gallon of water.  This process when applied to a 100 GPM system that would destroy this much water a day,(144,000 gallons every 24 hours)would create 50 times more energy than was required to destroy the water in the first place.  There are 1,243 gallons of hydrogen gas in every gallon of water at atmospheric pressure.

If the system used this type of water or a much more contaminated water such as the Flow Back or Produced Waters that are coming from the production of natural gas wells all over America,(in what are known as Shale Plays such as the Barnett Shale in Texas) then this would demand a fee of $1.00 to $2.15 from the oil companies and would generate quite a handsom profit just from the cleaning of these types of waters and if these were recycled back to the oil companies for say $0.25 to $ 1.00 a barrell (42 gallons in the oil patch) that would create an income of from $857.00 to $3,428.00 per day which would pay a lot of over head costs, would it not and at the same time the electricity used to destroy the water could come from the hydrogen that was generated by the destruction of the water.  This is a real system and it is called the Plasma Incubator Reactor System which has been designed by four other scientists and myself over the past eight years and is available to companies like this one who want to use Hydrogen as a fuel source.  You may want to Google my name on the Internet to find out more about me and this process.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gentlemen, The city must have a sewage plant in the area.  There is a technology that converts contaminated water to both gases and then uses what is known as a Bubble Gen Linear Generator to create, for conversation purposes say one mega watt of electricity, energy from only 2% of the hydrogen stored in a gallon of water.  This process when applied to a 100 GPM system that would destroy this much water a day,(144,000 gallons every 24 hours)would create 50 times more energy than was required to destroy the water in the first place.  There are 1,243 gallons of hydrogen gas in every gallon of water at atmospheric pressure.</p>
<p>If the system used this type of water or a much more contaminated water such as the Flow Back or Produced Waters that are coming from the production of natural gas wells all over America,(in what are known as Shale Plays such as the Barnett Shale in Texas) then this would demand a fee of $1.00 to $2.15 from the oil companies and would generate quite a handsom profit just from the cleaning of these types of waters and if these were recycled back to the oil companies for say $0.25 to $ 1.00 a barrell (42 gallons in the oil patch) that would create an income of from $857.00 to $3,428.00 per day which would pay a lot of over head costs, would it not and at the same time the electricity used to destroy the water could come from the hydrogen that was generated by the destruction of the water.  This is a real system and it is called the Plasma Incubator Reactor System which has been designed by four other scientists and myself over the past eight years and is available to companies like this one who want to use Hydrogen as a fuel source.  You may want to Google my name on the Internet to find out more about me and this process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Abe Beagles</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/firm-to-build-first-utility-scale-hydrogen-power-plant/#comment-23502</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Abe Beagles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2789#comment-23502</guid>
		<description>Gentlemen, The city must have a sewage plant in the area.  There is a technology that converts contaminated water to both gases and then uses what is known as a Bubble Gen Linear Generator to create, for conversation purposes say one mega watt of electricity, energy from only 2% of the hydrogen stored in a gallon of water.  This process when applied to a 100 GPM system that would destroy this much water a day,(144,000 gallons every 24 hours)would create 50 times more energy than was required to destroy the water in the first place.  There are 1,243 gallons of hydrogen gas in every gallon of water at atmospheric pressure.

If the system used this type of water or a much more contaminated water such as the Flow Back or Produced Waters that are coming from the production of natural gas wells all over America,(in what are known as Shale Plays such as the Barnett Shale in Texas) then this would demand a fee of $1.00 to $2.15 from the oil companies and would generate quite a handsom profit just from the cleaning of these types of waters and if these were recycled back to the oil companies for say $0.25 to $ 1.00 a barrell (42 gallons in the oil patch) that would create an income of from $857.00 to $3,428.00 per day which would pay a lot of over head costs, would it not and at the same time the electricity used to destroy the water could come from the hydrogen that was generated by the destruction of the water.  This is a real system and it is called the Plasma Incubator Reactor System which has been designed by four other scientists and myself over the past eight years and is available to companies like this one who want to use Hydrogen as a fuel source.  You may want to Google my name on the Internet to find out more about me and this process.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gentlemen, The city must have a sewage plant in the area.  There is a technology that converts contaminated water to both gases and then uses what is known as a Bubble Gen Linear Generator to create, for conversation purposes say one mega watt of electricity, energy from only 2% of the hydrogen stored in a gallon of water.  This process when applied to a 100 GPM system that would destroy this much water a day,(144,000 gallons every 24 hours)would create 50 times more energy than was required to destroy the water in the first place.  There are 1,243 gallons of hydrogen gas in every gallon of water at atmospheric pressure.</p>
<p>If the system used this type of water or a much more contaminated water such as the Flow Back or Produced Waters that are coming from the production of natural gas wells all over America,(in what are known as Shale Plays such as the Barnett Shale in Texas) then this would demand a fee of $1.00 to $2.15 from the oil companies and would generate quite a handsom profit just from the cleaning of these types of waters and if these were recycled back to the oil companies for say $0.25 to $ 1.00 a barrell (42 gallons in the oil patch) that would create an income of from $857.00 to $3,428.00 per day which would pay a lot of over head costs, would it not and at the same time the electricity used to destroy the water could come from the hydrogen that was generated by the destruction of the water.  This is a real system and it is called the Plasma Incubator Reactor System which has been designed by four other scientists and myself over the past eight years and is available to companies like this one who want to use Hydrogen as a fuel source.  You may want to Google my name on the Internet to find out more about me and this process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Horwitz</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/firm-to-build-first-utility-scale-hydrogen-power-plant/#comment-6005</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Horwitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:08:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2789#comment-6005</guid>
		<description>Good point, David, but in stationary applications, particularly one like this with plenty of cheap real estate, the storage method is not so expensive nor critical.  The current challanges have to do mostly with on-board storage for passenger vehicles; on-site on-demand production and storage (for critical backup); and transportation of large amounts (vs. electricity transmission via a stressed grid).  Refineries and fertilizer manufacturers, consumers of most of the world&#039;s hydrogen have been producing and storing on-site large amounts of hydrogen for decades.  And they have dealt with the associated costs, so that is not so complicated nor expensive.  Using a fuel cell (my choice) or burning the hydrogen to drive a turbine is the more gray area for this project.  Augmenting natural gas and diesel with hydrogen (5-10%) is commonly done, but pure hydrogen does not trade off with other fuels seemlessly.  I&#039;m sure Ballard would love get a number of their 150 kW heavy duty PEM stacks in here in lieu of a questionable turbine, but additional subsidies would be needed.  The answer to the storage I&#039;m guessing is large steel tanks with pressures well under 5000 psi, not very portable, but cheap and easy.  Ask Exxon or Chevron what they use.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point, David, but in stationary applications, particularly one like this with plenty of cheap real estate, the storage method is not so expensive nor critical.  The current challanges have to do mostly with on-board storage for passenger vehicles; on-site on-demand production and storage (for critical backup); and transportation of large amounts (vs. electricity transmission via a stressed grid).  Refineries and fertilizer manufacturers, consumers of most of the world&#8217;s hydrogen have been producing and storing on-site large amounts of hydrogen for decades.  And they have dealt with the associated costs, so that is not so complicated nor expensive.  Using a fuel cell (my choice) or burning the hydrogen to drive a turbine is the more gray area for this project.  Augmenting natural gas and diesel with hydrogen (5-10%) is commonly done, but pure hydrogen does not trade off with other fuels seemlessly.  I&#8217;m sure Ballard would love get a number of their 150 kW heavy duty PEM stacks in here in lieu of a questionable turbine, but additional subsidies would be needed.  The answer to the storage I&#8217;m guessing is large steel tanks with pressures well under 5000 psi, not very portable, but cheap and easy.  Ask Exxon or Chevron what they use.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Horwitz</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/firm-to-build-first-utility-scale-hydrogen-power-plant/#comment-23501</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Horwitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2789#comment-23501</guid>
		<description>Good point, David, but in stationary applications, particularly one like this with plenty of cheap real estate, the storage method is not so expensive nor critical.  The current challanges have to do mostly with on-board storage for passenger vehicles; on-site on-demand production and storage (for critical backup); and transportation of large amounts (vs. electricity transmission via a stressed grid).  Refineries and fertilizer manufacturers, consumers of most of the world&#039;s hydrogen have been producing and storing on-site large amounts of hydrogen for decades.  And they have dealt with the associated costs, so that is not so complicated nor expensive.  Using a fuel cell (my choice) or burning the hydrogen to drive a turbine is the more gray area for this project.  Augmenting natural gas and diesel with hydrogen (5-10%) is commonly done, but pure hydrogen does not trade off with other fuels seemlessly.  I&#039;m sure Ballard would love get a number of their 150 kW heavy duty PEM stacks in here in lieu of a questionable turbine, but additional subsidies would be needed.  The answer to the storage I&#039;m guessing is large steel tanks with pressures well under 5000 psi, not very portable, but cheap and easy.  Ask Exxon or Chevron what they use.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point, David, but in stationary applications, particularly one like this with plenty of cheap real estate, the storage method is not so expensive nor critical.  The current challanges have to do mostly with on-board storage for passenger vehicles; on-site on-demand production and storage (for critical backup); and transportation of large amounts (vs. electricity transmission via a stressed grid).  Refineries and fertilizer manufacturers, consumers of most of the world&#8217;s hydrogen have been producing and storing on-site large amounts of hydrogen for decades.  And they have dealt with the associated costs, so that is not so complicated nor expensive.  Using a fuel cell (my choice) or burning the hydrogen to drive a turbine is the more gray area for this project.  Augmenting natural gas and diesel with hydrogen (5-10%) is commonly done, but pure hydrogen does not trade off with other fuels seemlessly.  I&#8217;m sure Ballard would love get a number of their 150 kW heavy duty PEM stacks in here in lieu of a questionable turbine, but additional subsidies would be needed.  The answer to the storage I&#8217;m guessing is large steel tanks with pressures well under 5000 psi, not very portable, but cheap and easy.  Ask Exxon or Chevron what they use.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Lockie</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/firm-to-build-first-utility-scale-hydrogen-power-plant/#comment-6004</link>
		<dc:creator>David Lockie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:39:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2789#comment-6004</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d be interested to learn how much hydrogen will be stored, and how. The method of storing hydrogen has a great impact on the overall system efficiency - e.g. compression vs cryogenics vs metal hydrides. Any info on this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d be interested to learn how much hydrogen will be stored, and how. The method of storing hydrogen has a great impact on the overall system efficiency &#8211; e.g. compression vs cryogenics vs metal hydrides. Any info on this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Lockie</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/firm-to-build-first-utility-scale-hydrogen-power-plant/#comment-23500</link>
		<dc:creator>David Lockie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2789#comment-23500</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d be interested to learn how much hydrogen will be stored, and how. The method of storing hydrogen has a great impact on the overall system efficiency - e.g. compression vs cryogenics vs metal hydrides. Any info on this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d be interested to learn how much hydrogen will be stored, and how. The method of storing hydrogen has a great impact on the overall system efficiency &#8211; e.g. compression vs cryogenics vs metal hydrides. Any info on this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: russ</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/firm-to-build-first-utility-scale-hydrogen-power-plant/#comment-6003</link>
		<dc:creator>russ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:46:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2789#comment-6003</guid>
		<description>@greendoughnuts - If it ain&#039;t efficient then it won&#039;t fly! Regardless of what bean counters or greens would like industry is based on science and engineering - not wishes.



With real processes there are pilot plants and various steps on the way to commercialization of a process. No mention of anything like that here or from any other source mentioning Henry Herman.



With pilot plant proved processes something like one in a thousand ever make it commercially. This guy is just going to jump in and spend 219 million? Must either be very wealthy (with Papa&#039;s money) or have stupid backers.



NREL is working with a couple of companies on something similar to this and they are complicated things - a CE friend of mine noted &#039;similar to a refinery in complexity&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@greendoughnuts &#8211; If it ain&#8217;t efficient then it won&#8217;t fly! Regardless of what bean counters or greens would like industry is based on science and engineering &#8211; not wishes.</p>
<p>With real processes there are pilot plants and various steps on the way to commercialization of a process. No mention of anything like that here or from any other source mentioning Henry Herman.</p>
<p>With pilot plant proved processes something like one in a thousand ever make it commercially. This guy is just going to jump in and spend 219 million? Must either be very wealthy (with Papa&#8217;s money) or have stupid backers.</p>
<p>NREL is working with a couple of companies on something similar to this and they are complicated things &#8211; a CE friend of mine noted &#8216;similar to a refinery in complexity&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: russ</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/firm-to-build-first-utility-scale-hydrogen-power-plant/#comment-23499</link>
		<dc:creator>russ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2789#comment-23499</guid>
		<description>@greendoughnuts - If it ain&#039;t efficient then it won&#039;t fly! Regardless of what bean counters or greens would like industry is based on science and engineering - not wishes.



With real processes there are pilot plants and various steps on the way to commercialization of a process. No mention of anything like that here or from any other source mentioning Henry Herman.



With pilot plant proved processes something like one in a thousand ever make it commercially. This guy is just going to jump in and spend 219 million? Must either be very wealthy (with Papa&#039;s money) or have stupid backers.



NREL is working with a couple of companies on something similar to this and they are complicated things - a CE friend of mine noted &#039;similar to a refinery in complexity&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@greendoughnuts &#8211; If it ain&#8217;t efficient then it won&#8217;t fly! Regardless of what bean counters or greens would like industry is based on science and engineering &#8211; not wishes.</p>
<p>With real processes there are pilot plants and various steps on the way to commercialization of a process. No mention of anything like that here or from any other source mentioning Henry Herman.</p>
<p>With pilot plant proved processes something like one in a thousand ever make it commercially. This guy is just going to jump in and spend 219 million? Must either be very wealthy (with Papa&#8217;s money) or have stupid backers.</p>
<p>NREL is working with a couple of companies on something similar to this and they are complicated things &#8211; a CE friend of mine noted &#8216;similar to a refinery in complexity&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dewayne Curry</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/firm-to-build-first-utility-scale-hydrogen-power-plant/#comment-6002</link>
		<dc:creator>Dewayne Curry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2789#comment-6002</guid>
		<description>@greendoughnuts



A mere 5% interest on the upfront costs would be $1825 per year.  The operating costs are still hanging out there as a significant unkown as well.  Obviously that comapany has found a way to make the project viable for them.  I doubt the taxpayers who are probably fronting a significant portion are not going to find it so profitable.



On a side note, try to stick to discussing the subject.  The fact that I am not the accountant is both obvious and irrelevant.  In case you didn&#039;t know, calling people nay-sayers is an ad hominem attack and does nothing to further the discussion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@greendoughnuts</p>
<p>A mere 5% interest on the upfront costs would be $1825 per year.  The operating costs are still hanging out there as a significant unkown as well.  Obviously that comapany has found a way to make the project viable for them.  I doubt the taxpayers who are probably fronting a significant portion are not going to find it so profitable.</p>
<p>On a side note, try to stick to discussing the subject.  The fact that I am not the accountant is both obvious and irrelevant.  In case you didn&#8217;t know, calling people nay-sayers is an ad hominem attack and does nothing to further the discussion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dewayne Curry</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/firm-to-build-first-utility-scale-hydrogen-power-plant/#comment-23498</link>
		<dc:creator>Dewayne Curry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2789#comment-23498</guid>
		<description>@greendoughnuts



A mere 5% interest on the upfront costs would be $1825 per year.  The operating costs are still hanging out there as a significant unkown as well.  Obviously that comapany has found a way to make the project viable for them.  I doubt the taxpayers who are probably fronting a significant portion are not going to find it so profitable.



On a side note, try to stick to discussing the subject.  The fact that I am not the accountant is both obvious and irrelevant.  In case you didn&#039;t know, calling people nay-sayers is an ad hominem attack and does nothing to further the discussion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@greendoughnuts</p>
<p>A mere 5% interest on the upfront costs would be $1825 per year.  The operating costs are still hanging out there as a significant unkown as well.  Obviously that comapany has found a way to make the project viable for them.  I doubt the taxpayers who are probably fronting a significant portion are not going to find it so profitable.</p>
<p>On a side note, try to stick to discussing the subject.  The fact that I am not the accountant is both obvious and irrelevant.  In case you didn&#8217;t know, calling people nay-sayers is an ad hominem attack and does nothing to further the discussion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

