Nuclear Power is the only option....

too many options, non of which are ideal - and perhaps not enough time for those people in charge to make up their minds about where to go.

I'd really love to get solar for my house but its too expensive, and i try hard to reduce my energy demand; but at the end of the day its going to have to come from somewhere (how else will I power this PC!).

 

Hydrogen does come from fossil fuels, but it can also come from electrolysis of water. Link: http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/Sources.htm

There are other sources for H...

Peace & Love

 

and it is this electrolysis of water that requires energy in the first place, and it aint going to come from alternative energy.

thanks for the link.

 

And the fuel cell process is basically reverse electrolysis, so you can never hope to get as much out of it as you put in.

 

But doesn't EVERYTHING require energy? It takes energy to drill oil, to transport it, etc, as well as nuclear, which requires energy to extract the Uranium, transport it, build a plant, etc. The question is, does the energy produced by the fuel source outweigh the energy required to produce that fuel source? I believe with hydrogen, it does.

One proposed method is using solar power to run the electrolysis of the water. Then the Hydrogen is extracted and put in a regenerative fuel cell. There are ways to use alternative fuels to make hydrogen.

Read the book "Hydrogen Economy" which is a really cool book. I read it for a Global Social Change class my freshman year. I wish I still had the book; I would give you quotes from it.

Peace & love

 

so in that sense renewables are the prefered choice as long as the technology is reliable and has a long life span.

 

But the difference is that oil is a source of stored energy. You get more of of it than ya have to put in.

No, it doesn't. Hydrogen is nothing more than a storage medium, a battery of sorts, not an actual source of energy. Even at an impossible 100% efficiency, you wouldn't get out any more than what went into it. The electricity producing process is the same process that separated the water, only in reverse. It does NOTHING in the way of providing a source of energy. You still must look elsewhere for that. There's no avoiding it.

If these alternatives couldn't make it with all the storage methods we already have (make it as a far as providing enough energy to sustain the populace at large), why would a different method salvage them?

 

Actually, Hydrogen produces 282 kJ/mol. Here's a link: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/electrol.html

Why don't you do some research Leopold?

Peace & Love

 

I like how ya didn't mention what it'd take to separate that hydrogen from water. What you get out cannot exceed that.

 

It's called electrolysis, which is mentioned in an earlier post. Electrolysis is the process of using electric charge to break H2O into H2 and O2. In a regenerative cell, Hydrogen combines with Oxygen to produce H2O. The H2O is then converted back into H2 and O2 through electrolysis, using some form of energy, solar, wind, fossil fuel, etc. Here's a fuel cell link: http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/fc_types.html

There are many places to find information about hydrogen as an alternative transportation fuel. I am not saying to use this as the country's primary energy source; I think it should be considered for transportation. I believe that each area should have specific energy sources that fit each area. After all, wind power can't be used in low wind areas, but where it can be used, it should.

Peace & Love

 

Leopold, where do you think oil gets its energy from? Just wondering...

Peace & Love

 

You are describing a perpetual motion machine. Consider the cycle:

H20 >> (add energy, electrolysis) >> H2 + 02 >> (get energy by burning hydrogen) >> H20

The energy added is greater than the energy gotten out. I forget which law of thermodynamics, but it won't work.

By the way, the energy in oil is ultimaly solar. The sun grew the plants which converted to oil.

My concern about nuclear is that the people in charge of storing the waste are (broadly) the same folks who are in charge of maintaining the Mississippi levies.

 

Exactly! The energy in oil is due to the Hydrogen fission in the sun! Thanks Mike! Therefore, the energy in oil is due to the hydrogen bonds.

The difference between the perpetual motion machine is the electrolysis is fueled by a separate power source, not the energy created by the H2 + O2 process.

Outside energy + H2O >> H2 + O2 >> H2O + energy >> outside energy + H2O...

The energy produced by the H2 reaction is used to power the vehicle. It's like a car battery. When you start it, the battery is used to power the vehicle. As it is running the alternator recharges the battery. Similar concept, outside power source charging the battery.

Peace & Love

 

Very similar to the battery. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a storage method. So is oil, but the cycle is much longer so it looks like a source to us.

Hydrogen will not replace (even in part) oil as an energy source. It could replace gasoline as a transportable container of easily accessable energy.

 

Tomorrow I will talk to Dr. Kasem, my chemistry teacher about hydrogen power. He will know way more than any internet site will. He is a very knowledgable man. His favorite quote is "Our mother is the sun!" with an Egyptian accent. Hopefully I will be better prepared to discuss this subject...

Although I agree, it will not be the ultimate energy source, but I think it does have the potential as a transportation fuel. Check out some of the other links to learn a little more about hydrogen.

Peace & love

 

Um, I know what electrolysis is. I mentioned it earlier. What you should understand is the fuel cell process is the direct inverse of electrolysis. It's impossible to get any more energy out of it than what had to expended to get it. Then there are the unavoidable losses, and ya now have more energy goin' into that than ya get out of it.

Same place as all our energy...the sun. I've stated many times in other threads we all already use solar and hydrogen power...in the form of hydrocarbons.

But there's still no comparision, because the energy in oil has already been stored up for us. It has to be refined, but ya still get more out of it. With hydrogen, ya have to expend energy just to get it, more than you'll get out of it. If there was hydrogen ready for the taking, it'd be an energy source. Since we must produce the hydrogen, it's nothing more than a means of storing other energy.

If ya actually could subvert basic principles and get more energy out of hydrogen than it took to get the hydrogen, you'd have an efficiency exceeding 100% - perpetual motion. Obviously this isn't possible.

Riiiiiight, exactly!!! It's that separate power that's the real question! And the energy produced by the fuel cell will always be less than that initial "separate power source."

 

Actually, according to the site that I had a link for, the enthalpy of a hydrogen cell is 285 kJ, while the energy put into electrolysis is 237 kJ. That appears to have a net production of 48 kJ of energy. Seems posible to me. Like I said, I will talk to a electrochemist about this concept tomorrow and give you his take on this matter...

Here's the link again: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/electrol.html#c2

Peace & love

 

the first law of thermodynamics - conservation of energy....and while the odds of breaking such a law are extremely slim, you can't say it's impossible - the laws of physics have been "rewritten" several times over the past century. but no, hydrogen power isn't going to break this law.

 

Talk to your chem teacher. They can explain the laws of thermodynamics. Basicaly what they say is that you can't increase energy by moving it around.

 

I'm just going to come out and say it, I am terrified of only two things

Alien Invasions and Nuclear War.