Just use hydrogen dummy

>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!
Um, erm, guys. Why tf are we not using hydrogen as energy? People have made cars run using water just running an electric current through H2O to produce H2 and O2 for more energy output than in. The exhaust is not harmful for environment and costs next to nothing.

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >fuckwit
      redditor detected

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

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

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        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

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          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...".

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

          >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.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

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

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

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

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

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

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hello ESL

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

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

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

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

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    reject thermodynamics
    embrace water car

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >doesn't understand close to a century old scientific knowledge
      We are regressing. Evidently.

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

      >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.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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].

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

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

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      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

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >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?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

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

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>let's heckin' use solar energy!
      >>no no let's do wind energy!
      >>we've got to get our hands on oil energy!
      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.

      kek.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >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.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Ok, so where are you going to get that electricity?
              What the fuck is a battery

              >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

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >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

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

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

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The most efficient way to use hydrogen is with hydrocarbons

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        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

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hydrogen water car guy

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

Your email address will not be published.