Hydrogen isn't an energy source though, it's an energy transportation mechanism. It's a battery.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. You can use hydrogen in combustion devices, such as furnaces, boilers, recip engines, gas turbines, etc. They are not just for fuel cells. There are obviously more caution required in handling hydrogen but you can burn it like a fossil fuel. For home heating, you would probably want to generate the hydrogen on-site rather than store compressed hydrogen due to fire/explosion risks but it's all possible.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think hydrogen is the solution to all our problems but I think it's another tool in the tool belt.
But you have to get the hydrogen from somewhere, since it's not naturally occurring (i.e. you can't just dig it out of the ground like coal or put uranium close to more uranium like nuclear) you have to make it. Making it takes energy (more energy than you get burning it) and/or releases the waste products your trying to avoid in the first place.
Most hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
You can produce hydrogen from water through electrolysis. It's not an efficient process but if the source of the electricity is from renewables, it would be a zero carbon emission energy source for heating your home. It's a more likely zero carbon solution than nuclear energy. I doubt there will be a nuclear power plant approved in Canada during my lifetime.
The correct answer is number one...and the only thing that can help mediate it is technology...just like it has for every other issue that most of us don't even know exists anymore.
Carbonengineering.com
I agree. This and technology like it, and bio-engineering earth is the best answer.
Save earth + make life sustainable on this planet.
You can produce hydrogen from water through electrolysis. It's not an efficient process but if the source of the electricity is from renewables, it would be a zero carbon emission energy source for heating your home. It's a more likely zero carbon solution than nuclear energy. I doubt there will be a nuclear power plant approved in Canada during my lifetime.
That's what I meant when I said it wasn't an energy source, it's a battery.
The renewables would be the actual energy source, the hydrogen is just the delivery mechanism.
I think eventually they'll improve batteries enough that hydrogen won't really take off, but maybe it does stick around for things like heating homes.
EDIT: As for nuclear, I think China maybe be the one to lead there since they don't have to worry about the kinds of red tape most other places do, though I remember reading that there was a thorium reactor starting up in the Netherlands recently too.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
You can produce hydrogen from water through electrolysis. It's not an efficient process but if the source of the electricity is from renewables, it would be a zero carbon emission energy source for heating your home. It's a more likely zero carbon solution than nuclear energy. I doubt there will be a nuclear power plant approved in Canada during my lifetime.
It is much more efficient to use the electricity directly to power BEVs and the like. And again, hydrogen is not an energy source there is not enough of it occurring naturally.
Climeworks as a negative emissions demonstration plant in Iceland using geothermal to power the whole process. And it sequestering in Iceland the CO2 reacts with the rock to permanently sequester.
We just need a 3 to 4 factor reduction in cost as we are in the $100-$200 range right now. Which is pretty good because that about a 10 factor reduction over the last 10 years when it was forecast at over 1000 / tonne
It is much more efficient to use the electricity directly to power BEVs and the like. And again, hydrogen is not an energy source there is not enough of it occurring naturally.
I'm not sure what you mean by "naturally". Hydrogen is a major component of water and when hydrogen combusts in air, it reverts back to water. I mean, how natural is natural gas or propane or gasoline or coal? You have to expend energy to harvest it, just like hydrogen.
I'm not sure what you mean by "naturally". Hydrogen is a major component of water and when hydrogen combusts in air, it reverts back to water. I mean, how natural is natural gas or propane or gasoline or coal? You have to expend energy to harvest it, just like hydrogen.
Hydrogen makes up 0.00005% of the atmosphere which makes harvesting it from the air not feasible. To refine from water takes more energy than you get back which makes it an energy storage medium not a fuel. Compare that to oil, coal, natural gas etc. which is the result of millions of years of (mostly) solar energy being concentrated into a small space. And you get much more energy back versus what is needed to bring the energy to market.
To put fossil fuel into perspective a Tesla battery weighs 1000+ pounds and contains as much energy as less than 2 gallons of petrol.
Im really unaware, but why is nuclear energy not more of an option?
It seems it may still hold a stigma because of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl etc?
One would have to believe that technological advances in the last 40 years would surely see such accidents far less likely to happen no? There must be better ways of dealing with the radioactive waste than that long ago as well...no?
Or is it just so cost prohibitive to build now?
As burn this city points out, it is the same genre of enviro crazies screaming and yelling about climate change today, that virtually shut down the most efficient and environment friendly energy source ever known to man through the late 60's and into the 70's.
Because all these things are man made/developed, there will always be imperfections/accidents no matter what. However the planet itself would likely be way better off without the massive spike of fossil fuels the last 4 decades, that was needed to replace what just a handful of reactors can supply...no?
You’re not wrong and nuclear I think should be vastly more of our energy mix. But also people don’t realize what energy use also entails beyond power.
It means fertilizer. Roads. Plastics of all types. Fuel for jets cars, anything. It means textiles, manufacturing, metallics, construction materials... everything. it literally means everything in our current society’s fabric.
And nuclear doesn’t solve all of these other problems. It solves power. We can’t and don’t have nuclear reactor capability for planes or cars. We need technology to come a long long long way.
Meaning it's not just lying around to harvest. As you say you have to make it, which takes more energy than you get by burning it.
Yes, generating hydrogen by electrolysis is a net energy loss. Hydrogen makes sense in certain applications where gains in efficiency from using it in a combustion device helps offset some of the loss from generating the hydrogen.
Last edited by snootchiebootchies; 04-11-2019 at 12:21 AM.
Hesitant to click on this thread for sake of lowering again my outlook on the human species, but only 3% say hoax, well done CP and thank you for again restoring my faith.
Hesitant to click on this thread for sake of lowering again my outlook on the human species, but only 3% say hoax, well done CP and thank you for again restoring my faith.
If you look at Facebook comments, it seems about 30% say hoax.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
