/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14567783
kek

>>14567783
Your a fuckwit, there is no such thing as more energy than put in.

>>14567788
>fuckwit
redditor detected

>>14567783
>but hydrogen fuel is dangerous!
We can use the water systems dually to power cities then use electric cars.
>but it'll rust the engine!
There are metals and metal alloys which do not react with O2.
>what about muh billionaire middle eastern prince!
memes
>it can't be that easy!
Yeah. It is.

>>14567788
>incorrect grammar
>barely understands the premise using 4th grade level English
>doesn't understand what fuel is

>>14567788
Hello ESL

>>14567783
Hydrogen is based but I think the massive costs put governments off

>>14567806
>but I think the massive costs
It's
.
fucking.
water.
What are you talking about?

>>14567808
Shouting 'its jursst worterhh' over and over doesn't mean widespread implementation of hydrolysis technology isn't expensive.

>>14567797
what makes fuel good is that nature put it in the high energy state for you.
you wanna electrolyze water then burn it back to water.
that's not energy generation, it's energy storage

>>14567815
Shut up, midwit. It's the creation of kinetic energy using potential energy. Maybe we should always intricate explanations for the autists on this board and refer to energy output as "kinetic energy output" or "the total net particle motion was set as hyperactive in the moment of this process to a total output of moving particl...".
>>14567814
>Shouting 'its jursst worterhh' over and over doesn't mean widespread implementation of hydrolysis technology isn't expensive.
As opposed to any other option? It literally is just water. You run a current through it. You can store it in cheap materials.

>>14567783
>>14567832
Are you not joking about this? I this what this board is like now?

>>14567840
Sorry, man. It's actual science and not Science!™ from blogs.scientificamerican.com. A bit daunting.

From Google asking the question:
>It doesn't exist on its own and needs to be extracted from water using electrolysis which in itself is a complicated process. The energy needs tons of investments and political backing in order to become a viable source of energy.
So it is incorrectly claiming electrolysis is "complicated" when it's just electrocuting water. And the main issue is backing with investments and politics. lol

>>14567844
What makes you think the energy of combustion can be greater than the energy used to electrolyze it?

>>14567853
Because then working motors using solely water wouldn't exist. They do. Hydrogen produces a lot of energy when combusted - even more-so than gasoline.

>>14567857
Yes they work by putting a battery in there that provides all the energy that is released in the combustion and then some because of losses.

>>14567867
I am sorry but your brain is useless. First off that's incorrect. Second you can brainstorm some ways to increase the efficiency of the electrolysis such as mixing the water with oil - a manner similar to how gasoline is mixed with additives for more efficient fuel conversion.

>>14567874
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/water-electrolysis

Here we go. I guess we'll ask the scientists from over 40 years ago. You can mix in it caustic potash or soda.

reject thermodynamics
embrace water car

>>14567832
>As opposed to any other option?
You mean burning mushed-up animals and big windmills?

>>14567898
>doesn't understand close to a century old scientific knowledge
We are regressing. Evidently.
>>14567903
>You mean burning mushed-up animals and big windmills?
There is no other way but to burn the mushed-up animals. I'll have you know.

>>14567907
>We are regressing. Evidently.
Sorry. Apparently it's closer to three centuries old scientific knowledge.
>Water electrolysis was first demonstrated in 1789 by the Dutch merchants Jan Rudolph Deiman and Adriaan Paets van Troostwijk using an electrostatic generator to produce an electrostatic discharge between two gold electrodes immersed in water [6].

>>14567783
>split H2O into H2 and O2
>put it back together
>get more energy out than in
What if someone just puts your new engine in the ocean and lets it run forever?

>>14567898
indeed, investigate Langmuir welding. Electrons are only kept alive because the vacuum energy prevents them from imploding, hydrogen is not a fuel, but a medium by which energy can be extracted from the vacuum

>>14568266
Being that salt is an electrolyte that may work to a certain extent. The main electrolytes apparently for electrolysis is soda and caustic something.

>>14568282

>>14567918
Retard. The whole idea is that turning that water to H2 and O2 takes up more energy than that H2 generates by burning later

>>14567783
Hydrogen has low energy density, too low to be useful for most applications. However, that doesnt mean it's not completely useless and is probably superior in some respects.

For one thing green energy's dirty secret is that solar panels are currently suffering massive losses in electricity generation from environmental heat. To the point where if you install a self powered cooling system to the panel it can actually improve overall electricity output. Direct solar to hydrogen generation wouldn't suffer that, and the hydrogen generation may actually improve with heat, as it causes the electrochemical reactions to move faster. From there hydrogen can be used to create hydrocarbons from the air with sufficient energy density, which can then be burned in a traditional vehicle.

>>14568305
>piggy backs on a response at the end of the thread
>'retard'
Well if you can read electrolysis of water for energy can have higher energy output via the use of electrolytes, retard. xD

>>14567783
>Why tf are we not using hydrogen as energy?
Because hydrogen isn't an energy source (until fusion), it's a shitty hassle of an energy storage if anything.

>>14568320
>Hydrogen has low energy density
This is incorrect. Hydrogen fuel cells have been used for not only car applications but also small aircraft where it is theorized to be used for large commercial aircrafts in the future. (I believe an R&D company made this work with propeller planes) It's hilarious you think hydrogen is low energy density when there are hydrogen bombs and not gasoline bombs. lmao

>>14568333
Well nevertheless cars which burn hydrogen still have to compete with traditional vehicles. When that happens it would be best to just turn the hydrogen into hydrocarbons. Not only that but you face the problem of pipelines, which are the most efficient way to transport energy sources possible. Hydrogen is too small, all of it would leak out the pipeline before it got to its destination. This is important for places like Europe which might set up solar panels in Morocco for instance, electricity and hydrogen are both not good energy sources to transport long distances, but hydrocarbons are.

>>14568344
>what about transport???
Dude you can make it with water, electricity, and electrolytes. H2 can be made readily in-situ. It's not like oil where it has to be transported through fucking pipelines. LOL You midwits are literally so useless to science.

>itt academics showing that their mindset is not "how can we make this work" but instead "NOOO ITS NOT IN MY HECKIN BOOK FROM MY PROFESSOR AND NOBODY HAS DONE IT YET ON A LARGE ECONOMIC SCALE SO IT MUST BE IMPOSSIBLE!"
Mental infants.

The most efficient way to use hydrogen is with hydrocarbons

>>14568366
Yeah I'm sure hydrogen bombs have less energy than petroleum mixed with gas bombs. Sorry your heckin' fuel source science book at school only has hydrocarbons and states them as the most efficient energy source. Shake my head.

>>14568353
Ok, so where are you going to get that electricity? Better yet, how are you going to set up your infrastructure to generate electricity in an optimal manner? Both are important questions to think about.

I suppose we could just ship off hydrogen fuel cell containers to hot countries where solar is harvested, but that incurs the cost of shipping large empty/full fuel cells back and forth. A pipeline is clearly the most optimal solution.

>>14568378
>Ok, so where are you going to get that electricity?
What the fuck is a battery
>>14568378
>how are you going to set up your infrastructure to generate electricity in an optimal manner?
What is an engine. O2 and H2 naturally separate into different layers along with a possible pollutant layer. Do you want me to design you an entire engine blueprint so you can grasp basic fundamentals here

>>14568378
>I suppose we could just ship off hydrogen fuel cell containers to hot countries where solar is harvested, but that incurs the cost of shipping large empty/full fuel cells back and forth. A pipeline is clearly the most optimal solution.
Here is the issue. We are talking about fucking W A T E R. It is EVERYWHERE. You don't have to transport anything just LMAO.
>b-b-buh this is a fuel so uhh... PIPELINES!!! WHERE ARE THE PIPELINES WE NEED PIPELINES
Do you need a looney vest or something? How is your mind so decayed here. lol

>>14568388
Anon you seem like a massive coping brainlet who doesn't know anything about recent developments in this field. We can convert hydrogen to hydrocarbons through a process called hydrogenation (fitting, I know).
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890420304040?casa_token=FI4_gk36gdsAAAAA:zjjBLeLDOF2Sae67sz-eLvESIA_vaWlHtj4O9aXxZlITqA9R_X3AlQOuXWmJlyy4NXLmWf8a_8U
We can also convert hydrocarbons to hydrogen, also known as blue hydrogen, but whether that's actually better for the environment is up for debate. We can also use hydrogen to sequester CO2 to convert into gas.

Hydrogen bombs are a nuclear reaction, I dont know how they work exactly but pretty sure they split nuclei. They have nothing to do with hydrogen fuel cells or anything.

Hydrogen water car guy
https://youtu.be/staL1wr07Sg

>>14568375
If hydrocarbons didn't exist you would want to invent them to store hydrogen's potential energy at room temperature, without pressure, and at high energy densities.

To get pure hydrogen to the level of Diesel you need to cool it to near absolute zero

>>14568331
This. Hydrogen basically an inefficient, more explosive battery. As a feedstock for hydrocarbons it becomes an even more inefficient, slightly less explosive battery.

>>14567783
>>let's heckin' use solar energy!
>>no no let's do wind energy!
>>we've got to get our hands on oil energy!
>>woooah let's try to implement fusion reactors!
That's how a free market works you fucking commie! Of course different groups will suggest different technologies, and then the superior one will win out based on customer demand. If multiple survive, then they are clearly the best at serving their customer's niches.
>Why tf are we not using hydrogen as energy?
If it's such a good idea, create a startup, create a low cost prototype, and sell sell sell. If it costs so little, then it should be very easy to market and you'll be rich.
>>14568266
kek.

Hydrogen has poor energy density per unit of volume. Which is kind of important for automotive use & aircraft. The big, bulky tank on a Toyota Mirai can only hold 5.6 kg of hydrogen; conveniently, 1 kg of hydrogen has about the same energy content as 1 gallon of gas.

Now, this is tolerable in a fuel cell vehicle, since those are about twice as efficient as ICE, but on the downside automotive grade fuel cells have stayed stubbornly expensive, more so than just having a big battery, and the whole setup ends up weighing more than a battery electric car. Add in that charging a battery is much more efficient than electrolysis of water + compressing the hydrogen, and that fast charger stations are much cheaper to build than hydrogen fuel stations, and yeah, I would say hydrogen makes no sense for personal automotive use.

>>14568713
>If it's such a good idea, create a startup, create a low cost prototype, and sell sell sell.
Not a bad idea. I don't have time for that, however.

>>14568428
This kills the hydrofag