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

longship

(40,416 posts)
23. Note: hydrogen is not an energy source.
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 12:45 AM
Apr 2014

Last edited Tue Apr 8, 2014, 02:01 AM - Edit history (1)

However, it can be characterized as an energy storage medium.

Since there are no sources of free hydrogen on Earth, one must obtain it by splitting chemical bonds, like electrolysis of water. The energy it takes to split water will always be greater than the energy gained by burning the hydrogen.

But if one is building a solar energy plant one has to plan to store energy for use during times when the sun does not shine, like at night. That means that the size of any solar plant has to be sufficiently larger to be able to set aside some power for storage. Storing energy will always lose some. That's thermodynamics 101.

But solar panels delivering power plus hydrolyzing water to burn hydrogen for use at night is certainly one way to do that. But one is going to lose a bit in the process. That is inevitable and will have to be planned into the solar power plant.

So it is not free energy. One must plan a solar power plant for power generation plus storage plus the inefficiencies in the storage. That includes the whole chain of splitting water, storing the hydrogen (and oxygen) and then generating power from the hydrogen. Fuel cells might be able to be scaled up. Pretty efficient. But as Apollo 13 found out, not exactly safe.

Regards.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Could you soon be filling...»Reply #23