![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
| http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...305210003/1076 interesting but doesnt Hydrogen take a good amount of energy to create? |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:29:50 GMT, "GO Mavs" <GoMavs (AT) Mavs (DOT) com> wrote: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...305210003/1076 interesting but doesnt Hydrogen take a good amount of energy to create? There are two common sources of hydrogen right now, fossil fuels and water. Both sources have major problems that will have to be solved before hydrogen can be a completive fuel source. In the case of water, you actually have to put more energy into the system than you can get out so where is the incentive to use it? |
|
Fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal and oil do take high energy inputs to recover the hydrogen but with the use of catalysts, you can get more energy out than you put in. But, what do you do with the carbon and sulfur that are left after you take the hydrogen out of the hydro-carbon fuel? And why not just burn the hydrocarbon as fuel instead of just using one component of that fuel. Hydrogen is much less energy dense than fossil fuel. The atoms of hydrogen are the smallest in nature and will migrate through the steel walls of storage tanks, so it is almost impossible to store it for long periods. |
|
How do you transport it, as a liquid or as a gas? If as a liquid, you have to put even more energy into the system making it an even less economical fuel when compared to oil. Could it be that the rapid run-up in the price of crude is to make these alternate sources look even better in comparison? Jack --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 000742-1, 05/22/2007 Tested on: 5/22/2007 10:09:34 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
| http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...305210003/1076 interesting but doesnt Hydrogen take a good amount of energy to create? |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:29:50 GMT, "GO Mavs" <GoMavs (AT) Mavs (DOT) com> wrote: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...305210003/1076 interesting but doesnt Hydrogen take a good amount of energy to create? There are two common sources of hydrogen right now, fossil fuels and water. Both sources have major problems that will have to be solved before hydrogen can be a completive fuel source. In the case of water, you actually have to put more energy into the system than you can get out so where is the incentive to use it? Fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal and oil do take high energy inputs to recover the hydrogen but with the use of catalysts, you can get more energy out than you put in. But, what do you do with the carbon and sulfur that are left after you take the hydrogen out of the hydro-carbon fuel? And why not just burn the hydrocarbon as fuel instead of just using one component of that fuel. Hydrogen is much less energy dense than fossil fuel. The atoms of hydrogen are the smallest in nature and will migrate through the steel walls of storage tanks, so it is almost impossible to store it for long periods. How do you transport it, as a liquid or as a gas? If as a liquid, you have to put even more energy into the system making it an even less economical fuel when compared to oil. Could it be that the rapid run-up in the price of crude is to make these alternate sources look even better in comparison? Jack --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 000742-1, 05/22/2007 Tested on: 5/22/2007 10:09:34 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
| |