Nuclear Power is the only option....

Most energy sources need require outside energy to create a form that can be utalized. Do we use crude oil in our cars? No, the crude oil must be refined, which uses energy. In fact, every form source of energy except solar, wind, water, and geothermal must be processed before they can be used. Ethanol requires fermentation, oils must be refined, hydrogen must be created from hydrolysis, coal is converted to coke, etc.

If humans can learn to harnass the power of geothermal, that would be a great energy source for electricity. I don't think that has happened, please correct me if I am wrong...

Peace & love

 

Again, refining crude oil and producing hydrogen are very different things. Ya actually get more out of the oil than what has to go into refining it. When ya produce hydrogen, ya only take a loss on your initial energy expenditure. You'll never get as much back. That's why hydrogen cannot be placed alongside oil as a source of energy. It can only be an extension of sources of energy. Perhaps it'd make an ideal storage method for certain alternative energies, but then the focus should really be on those, not the hydrogen.

I'm not big on the hydrogen idea, anyway. Its energy density by volume is very lousy, even when under great pressure. I certainly don't want to lug around a tank of pressurized hydrogen! Liquid fuels make me nervous as it is. I'm goin' for mostly solid fuels, personally.

 

Thats true but usually you get more energy from the oil than it takes to refine it. In the case of hydrogen the best you can do is get as much back as you put in. This is why its ok for cars but you need another power source to make it. I wouldnt want a tank of hydrogen but the fuel cells you refer to are ok.

 

How much energy is required to refine oil? Check out the fuel cell link, because hydrogen in cells aren't stored in tanks. They are more like batterys. A PEM cell is a voltiac cell.

Peace & love

 

I can't give ya exact numbers, but we obviously get more out of it than what goes into it. It's energy stored up for us! If it actually took more to get it and make it useful, everything would grind to a halt, as energy must come from somewhere (this has yet to be disproven, at which time we'll have perptual motion machines). Yes, you'll expend some energy to extract the crude, yes you'll expend some energy to transport it, yes you'll have to exend some energy to crack it, but ultimately you'll get more out of it. That's why it's an energy source. Hydrogen, on the other hand, is absolutely nothing more than a means of storing other energy.


And if you look at the proposed layouts for fuel cell vehicles, the hydrogen is stored in tanks of some sort. Some kind of vessel, and it's pressurized greatly. Not safe. Not for me.

 

They are both energy sources... How can I convince you otherwise??? The reason hydrocarbons are a fuel source is the hydrogen bonds. In combustion reactions, energy is derived from the bond breaking, specifically, the hydrogen bond breaking in the form of heat. In a hydrogen fuel cell, electricity is derivived from the redox reaction. The free energy is negative, which means that the reaction is spontanious.

Leopold, please explain why you think that "hydrogen is a means of storing other energy." Does that mean that Li batteries are a means to store other energy as well?

Drumminmama: there are other ways to get hydrogen, such as waste, fossil fuels, biomass, etc. Hydrogen is the most abundant element on the Earth. However, water is the cleanest method. I don't think CLEAN safe for human consumption water is a requirement, which that is a major shortage of. Other types of water can be used, however, the process would become more energy dependent than previously stated. I don't know how the process would work, I'm still working on the thermal dynamics of the hydrogen fuel cell.

Peace and love

 

Its simple conservation of energy, to run a fuel cell you need hydrogen and oxygen. Oxygen isnt so much of a problem but hydrogen is very rare in Earths atmosphere so the only way to get it in real quantity is to extract it from water. To do this you do the reverse of the equations you already posted, giving oxygen and hydrogen gas species. They are then recombined in the fuel cell giving the exact amount of electricity that was used to break them up, in a way its a fancy way of carrying the electricity from the power station arounds your car.

This would use comparatively small amounts of water and it recombines to make water so there is no net loss, the loss is only temporary. Anyway we get some water from asteroids burning up in the atmosphere, but this process doesnt loose any.

 

Hydrogen in pure gas form is rare on Earth; however, hydrogen is everywhere! Hydrogen reacts with nearly everything, it has only one proton and one electron. The H+ is refered to as a proton. Hydrogen is in Fossil fuels, water, heavy water H3O, acids aka HCl, HK, etc. It is a really common element; it is not found pure. Then again, neither are any of the group I metals, classified with Hydrogen because of their valence electrons. PEM cells work like any other galvanic aka voltaic cell. Does anyone want to chalenge the validity of Li ion batteries because it takes energy to remove Li ions from their compounds? It's the same principle...

Peace & Love

 

Actually, you lose energy trying to extract h2 from water. You lose it in the wires, in the excess energy from the power station, as long as h2 refining is dependent on fossil fuels, it isn't a viable.

 

For a start the tritium isotope has a tiny abundance so isnt really a significant source. Im a physicist not a chemist so I cant really critique every battery making technology. But at a shot id say that any rechargable battery works by storing power from the mains if its one you plug in, unless the whole plug is just a decoy to fool you and really its being beamed from elsewhere. I dont know how the lithium is removed from its compounds but as with any alkaline metal I guess one way would be to dissolve its salt and then remove via electrolysis, though I have no idea of the way lithium is found in the crust.

I dont know how you'd go about getting hydrogen reliably out of oil, though I imagine some cracking procedure would come into it somehow, or some other environmentally bad procedure.

 

If I read my text right, Li is removed via chemical redox. If I learn this is incorrect, I will correct my mistakes (or someone will correct them for me ) The problem with Li ions is that they are soluble and cannot be qualitatively analyized. Li ions don't even have a group! Poor Li ions...

Back on subject, this is how the text describes processing H2 from methane, called steam-reforming process:

CH4 (g) + H2O (g) ---> CO (g) + 3H2 (g) ^H = 206 kJ

I am not recommending this method because of the Carbon monoxide produced, plus it must heated to over 10,000 C.

There is another method, called water-gas shifting. If you would like, I can write the formula for that as well.

Peace and love

 

The windmills I've seen weren't loud at all. Nor were there piles of dead birds at the base. I think nuclear power should not be used unless we can make absolutely sure there is NO contamination, and the plant is underground, and shoot the waste into space or something. Until then, and even then, I believe the best idea BY FAR is to limit consumption. We use and waste soooooo much power it's unbelievable. I would rather fill the desert with solar cells than have nuclear power.

 

CH4 (g) + H2O (g) ---> CO (g) + 3H2 (g) ^H = 206 kJ
it would be more efficient to just burn the methane straight off with oxygen.

the CO isn't a problem it can be reacted again with O2 to create carbon dioxide
ermmm.. CO + 1/2O2 --->CO2 exothermic reaction (gives out heat) one mole CO and 1/2 mole of O2 to create one mole CO2. the H2O would have to be in the form of steam i think?

nuclear power? waste of time. if people just heated their hot water systems using the sun the whole pollution thing would radically reduce but this solution is too simple.

 

we need nuclear plants france allready built enough of them to suppply all aliens in this galaxie with enrich uranium and plutonium for the next millions of years.

 

It would be nice to do that wouldn't it - but can everyone afford to convert to that. There are loads of things we can do on a daily basis that are free to save energy - but to install solar or wind for the home is only an option for the more priveleged in society. And because millions of people don't care about the problems caused by their energy usage things may only get worse, so in the meantime nuclear can provide on a large scale CO2 free energy just to give us a bit of time until the renewables become cheaper, more widespread and more efficient and available for all.

 

mean while the french built another 10 nuclear power plant ,80 % of france electric power is nuclear . im sure the germans and british well soon falow.

 

Not brilliant BUT surely better than China building a few hundred new coal fired power stations.

 

China .....dont worry about the coal soon everything well be = Made in China. better worry about were your future job might be.

 

energy production is a global issue, and if coal powered stations continue to be built then any efforts made be 'gree' countries will be cancelled out by the pollution caused by others. And as for my job, well thats safe cos i don't work in a factory.