Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

longship

(40,416 posts)

21. Yes. ALWAYS!!

Reply to nationalize the fed (Reply #18)

Tue Apr 8, 2014, 12:22 AM

Apr 2014

What you are suggesting is a good idea, actually a great idea.

But the power generated by the hydrogen will always be less than the power used to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Always!

That's thermodynamics, my friend. And it's a bitch. One cannot get free energy.

A solar energy plant has to generate surplus energy for when the sun don't shine, so to speak. Storing that energy will always have an energy cost. Always! Hydrogen from electrolysis is certainly one way to do it. But one has to lose some energy in doing it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Could you soon be filling up with SEAWATER? US Navy reveals 'game changing' fuel created from water [View all] nationalize the fed Apr 2014 OP

We've spilled enough oil in it Politicalboi Apr 2014 #1

Exxon just purchased the rights to the new technology to make fuel doc03 Apr 2014 #2

Um.....no. jeff47 Apr 2014 #3

Exactly. You need a nuclear reactor to run the whole process NickB79 Apr 2014 #6

You mean this isn't THE perpetual motion machine? Viking12 Apr 2014 #33

The technology to convert water to "Brown's gas" has been around for a long time. Half-Century Man Apr 2014 #4

Browns gas nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #5

Hard doesn't particularly help with hydrogen fuel. jeff47 Apr 2014 #7

Toyota and Hyundai nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #9

And GM was confident enough to launch the EV-1. jeff47 Apr 2014 #11

Conversion at (or near)the point of ignition is key. Half-Century Man Apr 2014 #14

The conversion requires energy. jeff47 Apr 2014 #30

Sorry, nope!!! longship Apr 2014 #8

Quick! Tell this woman before she wastes more time nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #10

She's not doing what this shitty article is claiming. jeff47 Apr 2014 #12

Converting sea water to Navy jet fuel nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #17

I assure you that she knows it, too. longship Apr 2014 #13

It's obvious you are a freedumb hating shill pscot Apr 2014 #15

Huh? longship Apr 2014 #22

I believe he was joking... caraher Apr 2014 #25

Sometimes it is difficult to tell. Especially on line. longship Apr 2014 #26

*Not* Always nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #18

Yes. ALWAYS!! longship Apr 2014 #21

Wait, how can it take MORE energy? Jim Lane Apr 2014 #19

Here's why. longship Apr 2014 #20

It seems you're agreeing with what I said. Jim Lane Apr 2014 #28

Yup. Or just general inefficiencies. nt longship Apr 2014 #29

Related nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #16

Note: hydrogen is not an energy source. longship Apr 2014 #23

Yep, sure, just what we need... defacto7 Apr 2014 #24

Seems a bit large for autos Warpy Apr 2014 #27

This isn't new, really. Yo_Mama Apr 2014 #31

Well, if you happen to have a mobile, floating nuclear reactor . . . . hatrack Apr 2014 #32

Trashing. Overblown hype, posted too many times already. nt eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #34