Power from water put into practice...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060828/...drogen_project

Hydrogen is extracted from a water molecule and used as a fuel to generate electricty and heat. This is the exact application discussed on here a few weeks ago and discounted as not being viable. It's still in its infancy, but it is promising. Discuss!

[Tower]

Tathacus Resources had this over 5 years ago. Unfortunatly it was swept under the carpet. It had a water tank and it went through the engine releasing O2 and burning the H. There was no storage tank/cell at all for the hydrogen. It was an amaizing produst. 2 working models I believe in Chicago and Vancouver.... Also was to be applied power power and heat for homes.

electric cars/homes are a joke compered to this. Nice to see it back!
http://www.earth-house.com/Disaster_.../xupdates.html

http://www.cseg.ca/recorder/pdf/2000...20resources%22

[photon]

Hydrogen is a very viable method of storing and moving energy from one place to another. No one is arguing against that.

That other video was just bad reporting and a shady company as they implied that the energy was coming from the water in the first place. Which it isn't in this case.

[JimmytheT]

The problem with hydrogen, is you need electricity to seperate it from a water molecule. And the net energy you get from this following the burning a hydrogen atom is negative.

Now this article is talking about generating the electricity for this purpose from Solar Power, which makes the most sense, as its inefficient to use fossil fuel generated electricity to use hydrogen.

I can imagine massive hydrogen "refineries" which are just very large solar power plants exclusively used to produce hydrogen for fuel.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060828/...drogen_project

Hydrogen is extracted from a water molecule and used as a fuel to generate electricty and heat. This is the exact application discussed on here a few weeks ago and discounted as not being viable. It's still in its infancy, but it is promising. Discuss!

Do I really have to explain why this is not an energy source.

Let me explain

The first step is to get the Hydrogen

2H2O + A LOT OF ENERGY -----> 202 + H2

Now you use the hydrogen as fuel.

2O2 + H2 -----> 2H2O + Less energy than you put into it in the first place.

The fact that you can get hydrogen from water and then use that hydrogen as a fuel is not new, people have know you can seperate hydrogen and oxygen for well over a century (probalby more, I dont' know the exact date).

The problem is that if you use more energy than you get from using it as a fuel.

Will it reduce emmisions? NO, because you end up using more energy, and that electricity you have to use to procuce the hydrogen has to come from somewhere, and in this world, that is prodominently from fossil fuels.
You're better off to just use a battery.

Adding unnecessary complexity to a process adds inefficiency.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Will it reduce emmisions? NO, because you end up using more energy, and that electricity you have to use to procuce the hydrogen has to come from somewhere, and in this world, that is prodominently from fossil fuels.

I'm guessing you didn't read the article?

The system unveiled at Chewonki uses renewable power — from solar panels atop the center and purchases of "green" electricity — to produce hydrogen from water through a process known as electrolysis.

So you would be quite right, except in this case where they are using solar to generate and store the hydrogen (in a building away from the main building).

[ken0042]

So basically it is taking solar energy, and storing it in the form of hydrogen instead of a conventional battery.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Do I really have to explain why this is not an energy source.

Let me explain

The first step is to get the Hydrogen

2H2O + A LOT OF ENERGY -----> 202 + H2

Now you use the hydrogen as fuel.

2O2 + H2 -----> 2H2O + Less energy than you put into it in the first place.

The fact that you can get hydrogen from water and then use that hydrogen as a fuel is not new, people have know you can seperate hydrogen and oxygen for well over a century (probalby more, I dont' know the exact date).

The problem is that if you use more energy than you get from using it as a fuel.

Will it reduce emmisions? NO, because you end up using more energy, and that electricity you have to use to procuce the hydrogen has to come from somewhere, and in this world, that is prodominently from fossil fuels.
You're better off to just use a battery.

Adding unnecessary complexity to a process adds inefficiency.

Seems that a lot of people are excited about the technology and are some how making it work. You keep saying it won't work, but more and more information is coming forth that indicates they have made it work and are continuing to refine it to become even more efficient. Is it possible that these people possibly have a better understanding of the technology and have indeed found ways to make this work?

BTW, what's your field of engineering?

[kermitology]

They're just going to end up as some kind of terror cell.. Big oil can't let this get big.

I do however wonder how much effort it takes to produce the energy requirements to get the hydrogen fuel though.

[drp_69]

The thermodynamics dont make sense.
You would need vastly huge solar arrays to make enough electricity to separate enough hydrogen for any meaningful quantities. The question is then, what and how much energy was used to make the solar panels?
This quote is also a little worrying:
"We've tried to resist placing a cost per kilowatt-hour on this because it would be meaningless at this point," said Peter Arnold, Chewonki's project director."
Hmmm?
Nuclear is the way to go in my opinion.