|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 17, 2019 14:20:42 GMT -5
If you think this us a futile quest I suggest you contact Stanford and graduate student McKenzie Hubert and Jaramillo. (Nature Nanotechnology November 2019 article). There are two different quests... 1. Make electrolysis more efficient. Yes, they're doing that. It could be useful for storing energy in hydrogen and burning it later. Or using the hydrogen for something else. It is not futile. 2. Use hydrogen derived from splitting water as a *source* of energy. This is against the known laws of physics. Not going to happen. I'll bet my life savings on it.  Do you see the difference? A unit of energy is a Joule (J). If you spend 100 J dividing the water, you will get back less (say, 80 J) from burning the hydrogen. It doesn't matter how efficient the initial electrolysis was, you will never get more than you put in. You need to get energy from somewhere *else* to split the water (nuclear, fossil fuel, solar, etc). It's *not* just a matter of research, time, and money to eventually figure out a way to get the balance to come out in our favor. It's the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of matter and energy. No, I do not understand #2, or your explanation. From Wiki, the Energy section, line 6. Once you have hydrogen (from #1 for example) then hydrogen can be used in much the same way as natural gas. Explain that. Once you have hydrogen then it is irrelevant how it was produced. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuelI consider you just simply wrong. I can't point to an error in something that just isn't correct. We're starting with water. The hydrogen is already "in" the water. But we can't use the hydrogen as it is, as water (as 2/3 of the water, H2). In the newly discovered process of separating water into H and O, we are merely making the hydrogen useful, that is, available to use. I do not understand how we are subverting the second law of thermodynamics. I would suggest, for the purposes of discussion, that the newly discovered Cobalt Phosphide catalyst process would be like using 10 joules of energy to separate the H and O in water, and getting in return 80 joules by using the hydrogen ("in much the same way as natural gas"). We are not getting something from nothing, we are, again, merely making the hydrogen available to use as energy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've been trying to think of an analogy. Most of the aluminium on the planet is in the form of bauxite. The aluminum is ~in~ the bauxite. The bauxite in and of itself is relatively useless. But once processed, the resulting aluminium is valuable enough to be worth more than the costs of the mining of bauxite (aluminium ore) plus the costs of the processing. Does that make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 17, 2019 23:02:00 GMT -5
There are two different quests... 1. Make electrolysis more efficient. Yes, they're doing that. It could be useful for storing energy in hydrogen and burning it later. Or using the hydrogen for something else. It is not futile. 2. Use hydrogen derived from splitting water as a *source* of energy. This is against the known laws of physics. Not going to happen. I'll bet my life savings on it. Do you see the difference? A unit of energy is a Joule (J). If you spend 100 J dividing the water, you will get back less (say, 80 J) from burning the hydrogen. It doesn't matter how efficient the initial electrolysis was, you will never get more than you put in. You need to get energy from somewhere *else* to split the water (nuclear, fossil fuel, solar, etc). It's *not* just a matter of research, time, and money to eventually figure out a way to get the balance to come out in our favor. It's the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of matter and energy. No, I do not understand #2, or your explanation. From Wiki, the Energy section, line 6. Once you have hydrogen (from #1 for example) then hydrogen can be used in much the same way as natural gas. Explain that. Once you have hydrogen then it is irrelevant how it was produced. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuelI consider you just simply wrong. I can't point to an error in something that just isn't correct. We're starting with water. The hydrogen is already "in" the water. But we can't use the hydrogen as it is, as water (as 2/3 of the water, H2). In the newly discovered process of separating water into H and O, we are merely making the hydrogen useful, that is, available to use. I do not understand how we are subverting the second law of thermodynamics. I would suggest, for the purposes of discussion, that the newly discovered Cobalt Phosphide catalyst process would be like using 10 joules of energy to separate the H and O in water, and getting in return 80 joules by using the hydrogen ("in much the same way as natural gas"). We are not getting something from nothing, we are, again, merely making the hydrogen available to use as energy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've been trying to think of an analogy. Most of the aluminium on the planet is in the form of bauxite. The aluminum is ~in~ the bauxite. The bauxite in and of itself is relatively useless. But once processed, the resulting aluminium is valuable enough to be worth more than the costs of the mining of bauxite (aluminium ore) plus the costs of the processing. Does that make sense? R.k's point is that to run the machinery it would take to decompose water using electrolysis takes energy. So, the cycle of generating and then burning your fuel is net energy negative. Compare this to the electricity generated by a windmill or a solar panel: even accounting for fixed build-out costs and maintenance, the cycle is energy positive, which is why people build wind and solar farms to turn a profit. This is because the sources of that energy are naturally occurring, and the turbine and panel are simply ways of converting that energy to electricity.
In contrast (and here's the crux of rk's point): if you're going to burn hydrogen to generate electricity (or any other purpose), you've first got the collect the hydrogen, and if you do that by decomposing water, you're going to have to spend at least as much energy to do that collection.
Now, I've never done any serious reading as to the economics of the cycles of fossil fuel, but I'm pretty sure that even given the need to transport and refine, gasoline is net energy positive. Again, the source is natural: 10's of millions of years of geological pressure. All these articles you're posting about the hydrogen economy are really cool, but their vision is to concentrate renewable's into a form that can be used in a way similar to oil, and as an alternative to the current battery technologies. Noone is claiming a perpetual motion machine, which is simply the logical conclusion of trying to source energy by running any given chemical process in reverse. The improvements to the efficiency of electrolysis are a way to try to make renewable energy more competitive relative to fossil fuels: you'll never power an aircraft using solar or wind directly, but you might be able to do it with hydrogen fuel cells that are charged from windmills and solar farms (by powering the decomposition of water via electrolysis). Now, that said, I'm still interested in this, though. Because perhaps there might be some sort of technology in the future that doesn't exist yet that, similar to a solar panel or a wind turbine, might allow us to extract hydrogen from moving water passively, using the wave action of the ocean or the kinetic energy of a waterfall or river or even raindrops. Hydroelectric is another form of renewable (and I just learned from reading that it's very efficient), but maybe some future hydrogen-mining technique might be even more efficient than delivering that power long distance. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 18, 2019 0:16:38 GMT -5
No, I do not understand #2, or your explanation. From Wiki, the Energy section, line 6. Once you have hydrogen (from #1 for example) then hydrogen can be used in much the same way as natural gas. Explain that. Once you have hydrogen then it is irrelevant how it was produced. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuelI consider you just simply wrong. I can't point to an error in something that just isn't correct. We're starting with water. The hydrogen is already "in" the water. But we can't use the hydrogen as it is, as water (as 2/3 of the water, H2). In the newly discovered process of separating water into H and O, we are merely making the hydrogen useful, that is, available to use. I do not understand how we are subverting the second law of thermodynamics. I would suggest, for the purposes of discussion, that the newly discovered Cobalt Phosphide catalyst process would be like using 10 joules of energy to separate the H and O in water, and getting in return 80 joules by using the hydrogen ("in much the same way as natural gas"). We are not getting something from nothing, we are, again, merely making the hydrogen available to use as energy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've been trying to think of an analogy. Most of the aluminium on the planet is in the form of bauxite. The aluminum is ~in~ the bauxite. The bauxite in and of itself is relatively useless. But once processed, the resulting aluminium is valuable enough to be worth more than the costs of the mining of bauxite (aluminium ore) plus the costs of the processing. Does that make sense? R.k's point is that to run the machinery it would take to decompose water using electrolysis takes energy. So, the cycle of generating and then burning your fuel is net energy negative. Compare this to the electricity generated by a windmill or a solar panel: even accounting for fixed build-out costs and maintenance, the cycle is energy positive, which is why people build wind and solar farms to turn a profit. This is because the sources of that energy are naturally occurring, and the turbine and panel are simply ways of converting that energy to electricity. In contrast (and here's the crux of rk's point): if you're going to burn hydrogen to generate electricity (or any other purpose), you've first got the collect the hydrogen, and if you do that by decomposing water, you're going to have to spend at least as much energy to do that collection.
Now, I've never done any serious reading as to the economics of the cycles of fossil fuel, but I'm pretty sure that even given the need to transport and refine, gasoline is net energy positive. Again, the source is natural: 10's of millions of years of geological pressure. All these articles you're posting about the hydrogen economy are really cool, but their vision is to concentrate renewable's into a form that can be used in a way similar to oil, and as an alternative to the current battery technologies. Noone is claiming a perpetual motion machine, which is simply the logical conclusion of trying to source energy by running any given chemical process in reverse. The improvements to the efficiency of electrolysis are a way to try to make renewable energy more competitive relative to fossil fuels: you'll never power an aircraft using solar or wind directly, but you might be able to do it with hydrogen fuel cells that are charged from windmills and solar farms (by powering the decomposition of water via electrolysis). Now, that said, I'm still interested in this, though. Because perhaps there might be some sort of technology in the future that doesn't exist yet that, similar to a solar panel or a wind turbine, might allow us to extract hydrogen from moving water passively, using the wave action of the ocean or the kinetic energy of a waterfall or river or even raindrops. Hydroelectric is another form of renewable (and I just learned from reading that it's very efficient), but maybe some future hydrogen-mining technique might be even more efficient than delivering that power long distance. I understand the point R.k is trying to make, but I don't consider it valid. Never will hydrogen be derived by such passive means you are considering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 2:06:03 GMT -5
No, I do not understand #2, or your explanation. From Wiki, the Energy section, line 6. Once you have hydrogen (from #1 for example) then hydrogen can be used in much the same way as natural gas. Explain that. Once you have hydrogen then it is irrelevant how it was produced. That's true. I think it's the first part of the process (the water → hydrogen) where you're missing something important. I'm not a teacher, and maybe my explanations are pretty bad. If so, sorry about that. I will try a couple new explanations below... You said "it would be like using 10 J [...] and getting 80 in return". Yes, exactly! But you can't do that. I looked up real numbers so we can stop using 100 as an example. It takes 237 kJ per mole of water molecules, to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. [1][2]. (I will call this energy, but technically it is the "Gibbs free energy" which is a value that takes into account both energy and entropy.) An important point: this 237 kJ is not about the process used; it's the difference between the energy in the molecules in the start and end states. The water molecule, as you said, has a certain energy. The separated H 2 and O 2 also have energy, higher than the water. To go from point A (low) to point B (high), you must put in energy. That's the law of physics that is in the way. You have to go "uphill" by 237 kJ/mol to pull the hydrogen out of the water. Maybe a useful intuition: separating the hydrogen from water is literally "un-burning" the hydrogen. Think about all the energy released when you burn/explode hydrogen. You have to bottle that energy back up, to return to the original state with hydrogen as an un-burnt gas. I think your intuition is off because you are imagining that hydrogen is right there in the water and can be gently separated with a little gentle nudging. That's not so. You are un-burning it, and it's a big deal and a lot of energy has to be put back into the system. After separating the water, the 237 kJ/mol is the same energy you will get back by burning the H2 gas, because that's the exact reverse reaction. The basic idea of a catalyst, like the cobalt phosphide you mention, is depicted in the diagram here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalysis#Reaction_energeticsNotice the ΔG (our 237 kJ) does not change because of the catalyst. The catalyst lowers the "bump" in between the start and end state and makes it easier (faster) for the reaction to proceed. I'm a little worried about talking off-topic so much, but this climate change thread was created for an off-topic discussion, so I think we're okay getting in the weeds some about alternative fuels. [1] www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gibbs+free+energy+of+water[2] A "mole" is a standard big number used in chemistry to talk about quantities of atoms or molecules. A mole is about 6x10 23. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 18, 2019 4:45:20 GMT -5
R.k's point is that to run the machinery it would take to decompose water using electrolysis takes energy. So, the cycle of generating and then burning your fuel is net energy negative. Compare this to the electricity generated by a windmill or a solar panel: even accounting for fixed build-out costs and maintenance, the cycle is energy positive, which is why people build wind and solar farms to turn a profit. This is because the sources of that energy are naturally occurring, and the turbine and panel are simply ways of converting that energy to electricity. In contrast (and here's the crux of rk's point): if you're going to burn hydrogen to generate electricity (or any other purpose), you've first got the collect the hydrogen, and if you do that by decomposing water, you're going to have to spend at least as much energy to do that collection.
Now, I've never done any serious reading as to the economics of the cycles of fossil fuel, but I'm pretty sure that even given the need to transport and refine, gasoline is net energy positive. Again, the source is natural: 10's of millions of years of geological pressure. All these articles you're posting about the hydrogen economy are really cool, but their vision is to concentrate renewable's into a form that can be used in a way similar to oil, and as an alternative to the current battery technologies. Noone is claiming a perpetual motion machine, which is simply the logical conclusion of trying to source energy by running any given chemical process in reverse. The improvements to the efficiency of electrolysis are a way to try to make renewable energy more competitive relative to fossil fuels: you'll never power an aircraft using solar or wind directly, but you might be able to do it with hydrogen fuel cells that are charged from windmills and solar farms (by powering the decomposition of water via electrolysis). Now, that said, I'm still interested in this, though. Because perhaps there might be some sort of technology in the future that doesn't exist yet that, similar to a solar panel or a wind turbine, might allow us to extract hydrogen from moving water passively, using the wave action of the ocean or the kinetic energy of a waterfall or river or even raindrops. Hydroelectric is another form of renewable (and I just learned from reading that it's very efficient), but maybe some future hydrogen-mining technique might be even more efficient than delivering that power long distance. I understand the point R.k is trying to make, but I don't consider it valid. Never will hydrogen be derived by such passive means you are considering. Never, is an awful long time, dude.  R.k.'s point is just simple accounting, nothing more, nothing less: a perpetual motion machine would defy the conservation of energy. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 18, 2019 9:03:30 GMT -5
No, I do not understand #2, or your explanation. From Wiki, the Energy section, line 6. Once you have hydrogen (from #1 for example) then hydrogen can be used in much the same way as natural gas. Explain that. Once you have hydrogen then it is irrelevant how it was produced. That's true. I think it's the first part of the process (the water → hydrogen) where you're missing something important. I'm not a teacher, and maybe my explanations are pretty bad. If so, sorry about that. I will try a couple new explanations below... You said "it would be like using 10 J [...] and getting 80 in return". Yes, exactly! But you can't do that. I looked up real numbers so we can stop using 100 as an example. It takes 237 kJ per mole of water molecules, to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. [1][2]. (I will call this energy, but technically it is the "Gibbs free energy" which is a value that takes into account both energy and entropy.) An important point: this 237 kJ is not about the process used; it's the difference between the energy in the molecules in the start and end states. The water molecule, as you said, has a certain energy. The separated H 2 and O 2 also have energy, higher than the water. To go from point A (low) to point B (high), you must put in energy. That's the law of physics that is in the way. You have to go "uphill" by 237 kJ/mol to pull the hydrogen out of the water. Maybe a useful intuition: separating the hydrogen from water is literally "un-burning" the hydrogen. Think about all the energy released when you burn/explode hydrogen. You have to bottle that energy back up, to return to the original state with hydrogen as an un-burnt gas. I think your intuition is off because you are imagining that hydrogen is right there in the water and can be gently separated with a little gentle nudging. That's not so. You are un-burning it, and it's a big deal and a lot of energy has to be put back into the system. After separating the water, the 237 kJ/mol is the same energy you will get back by burning the H2 gas, because that's the exact reverse reaction. The basic idea of a catalyst, like the cobalt phosphide you mention, is depicted in the diagram here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalysis#Reaction_energeticsNotice the ΔG (our 237 kJ) does not change because of the catalyst. The catalyst lowers the "bump" in between the start and end state and makes it easier (faster) for the reaction to proceed. I'm a little worried about talking off-topic so much, but this climate change thread was created for an off-topic discussion, so I think we're okay getting in the weeds some about alternative fuels. [1] www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gibbs+free+energy+of+water[2] A "mole" is a standard big number used in chemistry to talk about quantities of atoms or molecules. A mole is about 6x10 23. If you are correct, then why is there any hydrogen production at all? If it is against the laws of physics to make hydrogen cost-productive, why would anyone lose money to make hydrogen? I browsed the following book excerpt link, The Hydrogen Economy. The authors have gone to a lot of trouble to make every possible comparison of different ways to produce hydrogen. www.nap.edu/read/10922/chapter/7#62Additionally, I don't consider that hydrogen is in the water. Hydrogen (+ oxygen) is the water (previously noted). EDIT: I found a link that corresponds to your figures. Page 6, Voltage Efficiency of Electrolysis Cells and Stacks, 3rd paragraph, "There is no way around this"... So I don't disagree with your basic point. But this still does not answer my questions posed above. I can't pinpoint the disparity, but something is amiss, because people/companies are making money, somehow, from hydrogen production. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47302.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 18, 2019 9:47:49 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 10:16:37 GMT -5
If you are correct, then why is there any hydrogen production at all? If it is against the laws of physics to make hydrogen cost-productive, why would anyone lose money to make hydrogen? One reason is energy storage. Solar and wind require this because they produce energy intermittently. Usually they use batteries for storage, but something like electrolysis creating hydrogen could also work. For example, the wind is blowing and the windmill is producing electrical energy, but no one is running any appliances, so where do you put the electric energy? You can vent it all as heat, or give up and turn off the windmill, or store it. If you store it you won't get 100% of it back, but that's better than completely throwing it away. Storage is also required for things like automobiles, which we load with stored energy, in a battery pack or gas tank. Storage also allows you to transport the energy to other places. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 12:14:14 GMT -5
I understand the point R.k is trying to make, but I don't consider it valid. Never will hydrogen be derived by such passive means you are considering. R.k.'s point is just simple accounting, nothing more, nothing less: a perpetual motion machine would defy the conservation of energy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 12:37:03 GMT -5
Never, is an awful long time, dude. R.k.'s point is just simple accounting, nothing more, nothing less: a perpetual motion machine would defy the conservation of energy. This is an evil looking alien. But I imagine his eyes say it all, given the current state of technology, absent the miracle of cold fusion, trees are the only eficient way to scrub carbon from air. Hence, we should make reforestation a priority. The only problem with this plan is countries are wholeheartedly restoring forests, but with the very intent of harvesting them. What is the cure for greed? Never mind. I'm rethinking. His eyes say "nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 13:05:07 GMT -5
This is an evil looking alien. But I imagine his eyes say it all, given the current state of technology, absent the miracle of cold fusion, trees are the only eficient way to scrub carbon from air. Hence, we should make reforestation a priority. The only problem with this plan is countries are wholeheartedly restoring forests, but with the very intent of harvesting them. What is the cure for greed? Never mind. I'm rethinking. His eyes say "nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure." Good question. What is greed really? I see it as the ability to duplicate. The problem isn't greed, it's the mismanagement of waste. We already have everything we need, and yet we keep mining, and making plastic, and drilling for oil. There are more mobile phones on the planet than there are people now and the minerals in them are still being mined for instead of recycling them. www.austmine.com.au/News/category/articles-editorials/the-top-10-metals-and-minerals-powering-your-mobile-phoneThe mining companies could be told to stop now. Apple could make a stand and completely use recycling for their manufacture. And then, we can use alien technology to get the 2 hydrogen atoms out of water..  "Dream better dreams." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 13:57:00 GMT -5
This is an evil looking alien. But I imagine his eyes say it all, given the current state of technology, absent the miracle of cold fusion, trees are the only eficient way to scrub carbon from air. Hence, we should make reforestation a priority. The only problem with this plan is countries are wholeheartedly restoring forests, but with the very intent of harvesting them. What is the cure for greed? Never mind. I'm rethinking. His eyes say "nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure." Good question. What is greed really? I see it as the ability to duplicate. The problem isn't greed, it's the mismanagement of waste. We already have everything we need, and yet we keep mining, and making plastic, and drilling for oil. There are more mobile phones on the planet than there are people now and the minerals in them are still being mined for instead of recycling them. The mining companies could be told to stop now. Apple could make a stand and completely use recycling for their manufacture. And then, we can use alien technology to get the 2 hydrogen atoms out of water.. "Dream better dreams." I don't know if you're familiar with the Alien movies. The quote is from Aliens 2 I believe. It's referring to an Alien life form that is a threat to everyone. In the movie, it's some horrific, nightmarish life form that needs living hosts to reproduce. I propose to you that we need not look far to find a species that is a threat to everything. So "nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure." If it were only just mining companies. Hydrogen goes boom. Remember the Hindenburg.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 14:04:19 GMT -5
Good question. What is greed really? I see it as the ability to duplicate. The problem isn't greed, it's the mismanagement of waste. We already have everything we need, and yet we keep mining, and making plastic, and drilling for oil. There are more mobile phones on the planet than there are people now and the minerals in them are still being mined for instead of recycling them. The mining companies could be told to stop now. Apple could make a stand and completely use recycling for their manufacture. And then, we can use alien technology to get the 2 hydrogen atoms out of water.. "Dream better dreams." I don't know if you're familiar with the Alien movies. The quote is from Aliens 2 I believe. It's referring to an Alien life form that is a threat to everyone. In the movie, it's some horrific, nightmarish life form that needs living hosts to reproduce. I propose to you that we need not look far to find a species that is a threat to everything. So "nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure." If it were only just mining companies. Hydrogen goes boom. Remember the Hindenburg. It never ceases to fascinate me how people experience their Earth. Nuke it if you want.. But you'll be back.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 14:22:40 GMT -5
I don't know if you're familiar with the Alien movies. The quote is from Aliens 2 I believe. It's referring to an Alien life form that is a threat to everyone. In the movie, it's some horrific, nightmarish life form that needs living hosts to reproduce. I propose to you that we need not look far to find a species that is a threat to everything. So "nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure." If it were only just mining companies. Hydrogen goes boom. Remember the Hindenburg. It never ceases to fascinate me how people experience their Earth. Nuke it if you want.. But you'll be back. The earth is a "mansion of delights," as Satch likes to quote. No problem with it, just the humans. I confess to misanthropic tendencies. I'll say three " Hail Marys." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 14:36:58 GMT -5
It never ceases to fascinate me how people experience their Earth. Nuke it if you want.. But you'll be back. The earth is a "mansion of delights," as Satch likes to quote. No problem with it, just the humans. I confess to misanthropic tendencies. I'll say three " Hail Marys." There would be no zazeniac without all the other humans. |
|
R.k.'s point is just simple accounting, nothing more, nothing less: a perpetual motion machine would defy the conservation of energy.:strip_icc():format(jpeg)/kly-media-production/medias/823641/original/036586200_1425650612-aliens.jpg)
