than what it takes to produce it. Is that the case?
If not there have been recent discoveries of deep hydrogen deposits in the Earth, like there are the many oil deposits already found for over a century. One in Africa and another in Australia.
That hydrogen is in just about pure form and does not have to be produced. Such deposits seem to be worth exploring.
One question, hydrogen fueled vehicles exhaust water, right? What happens in winter months? Will that exhaust free and make the roads slick and dangerous?
...there is no way to produce more energy than what it takes to produce it.
That's true with any form of energy. But luckily, green Hydrogen is produced using energy from sources like wind and solar which is as scalable as necessary, and the best plans for Hydrogen production plants incorporate their own dedicated wind or solar sources so no energy is removed from other needs or uses.
And you mentioned the possibilty of natural or 'White' H2 which, if it pans out, would be a phenomenal leap forward.
To be clear, produced Hydrogen itself is not an energy source, it is merely a way to store energy from other sources, just like batteries are, but without the mining and limitations of finite resources to create it.
As far as icy roads, I guess that's one of the details we'll have to deal with once we're past the existential threat (Biden's words) of burning fossil fuels.
such as wind and solar then storage and use after is clearly better for the environment as using it to fuel vehicles doesn't produce carbonized exhausts.
And yes, the icy roads problem can be solved, even if just keep salt/sanding the roads now in wihter.
Wouldn't it be great if the water exhaust could be gathered and saved, thus another water resource?
...it's pure H2O, and with the frehwater problems we'll be having due to climate change, there might be something we could do with the use of non-potable water to produce the H2 and end up with pure H20 after the H2 is used to create needed electricity, or something.
Either way, we know we have to leave fossil fuels behind as quicky as possible so we really should just be getting on with it, and sort the rest out after we've done what we need to do.
...but in my opinion, it doesn't really matter, we need to stop using fossil fuel-based energy so comparing the efficiency of other fuels to fossil fuels is pointless, we have to do it no matter what the efficiency differences are. It isn't like we can choose whether or not to continue using fossil fuels or use something else.
or partly used e.g. hydrogen is produced using electricity from a grid where fossil fuels supplement wind and energy (true of all but the most minor grids).
and the whole lifecycle thing including end-use still comes out favoring hydrogen and using fuel cell cars as far as greenhouse gas emissions, compared to drilling for oil, refining, and burning in an inefficient gasoline ICE car.
...obviously, producing H2 from non-fossil fuel sources of energy like solar, wind, or even nuclear won't produce any CO2 emissions at all.
And as I mentioned above, most new plans for H2 production plants include their own dedicated non-CO2 energy plants so no energy is taken from the grid.
I'm for reducing fossil fuel use anyway I can.
The reality of the situation is that there isn't enough wind and solar and nuclear, and there won't be for a long time. Yes, we should build those as fast as possible, but nuclear has a long long lead time, the bubbly boo about the little modular reactors is still a long way off from producing much of anything, and the intermittency problem keeps solar and wind limited because battery storage is way expensive and 4 hour batteries don't cut it.
Plan A - only produce hydrogen from green sources,
Plan B - produce hydrogen from green sources AND *IF* fossil-fueled or partially fossil-fueled hydrogen production (e.g. electricity from the utility grid) and end use efficiency reduces fossil fuel use (compared to what we're doing now), then do that too, until we reach the nirvana where all energy comes from wind, solar and nuclear which is a long way off.
I'm a Plan B person myself.
...reducing fossil fuel use was a false argument.
I said that claiming 'the production of H2 from fossil fuels is a problem' (pardon my paraphrasing) is a false argument because, as I wrote above...
"...producing H2 from non-fossil fuel sources of energy like solar, wind, or even nuclear won't produce any CO2 emissions at all."
Yes, we have to build out non-fossil fuel energy sources as quickly as possible to achieve a non-CO2 emitting energy industry, that really is the whole idea, the use of H2 as a storage method to eliminate the intermitancy challenge, or as a transit fuel or electric production fuel is only one aspect of that transition.
Last edited Tue Nov 28, 2023, 06:43 AM - Edit history (2)
use compared to what we're doing now (burning refined oil low efficiency gasoline ICE engines), then that's an improvement we can do now, since one of our frequent posters points out, it's how almost (edit: more than) 95% of our hydrogen is produced. All's we need are the hydrogen-fueled fuel cell cars to utilize it, which also fits right in with Plan A above in post#9.
I don't think that's a false argument.
I'm just asking that end-use efficiency be considered too in the analysis, something that we both agree on.
My point originally was to argue against those who simplistically say that hydrogen is bad because it takes energy to produce the hydrogen (no, that's not what you were saying), without looking at the end-user efficiency as well (fuel-cell cars vs gasoline ICE cars).
If I'm deciding on buying a car, and the hydrogen car (even if the hydrogen is produced mostly/entirely from fossil fuels) results in overall less fossil fuel use than the gasoline ICE or hybrid alternative, than that's what I'm going to do. That's all I was trying to say.
...but also keep in mind that any halfway measures being presented, as opposed to an all-out push to fully transition as quickly as possible, are usually stalling efforts being floated by the fossil fuel industry to slow-walk the transition so they can keep selling as much oil as possible for as long as possible.
We don't have time for that nonsense.
Saw this on the generation of hydrogen this morning. From phys.org
Natural clay magadiite containing silicon (Si) was heated in a sealed vessel in a water-based solution containing iron chloride (FeCl3) and nickel chloride (NiCl2) to create a metallic silicate made up of nickel (Ni), iron (Fe) and Si. The metallic silicate was then reduced by adding electrons to metallic silicate atoms with magnesium, salt and heat to create the more organized intermetallic silicide (ferric-nickel silicide) structure. The graph illustrates the lower voltage required for the ferric-nickel silicide (FeNiSi) alloy electrocatalyst to produce hydrogen and oxygen gas compared to NiSi and FeSi alloys. Credit: Nano Research Energy, Tsinghua University Press
A new electrocatalyst made of nickel (Ni), iron (Fe) and silicon (Si) that decreases the amount of energy required to synthesize H2 from water has been manufactured in a simple and cost-effective way, increasing the practicality of H2 as a clean and renewable energy of the future.
Hydrogen is a highly combustible gas that can help the world achieve its clean energy goals if manufactured in an environmentally responsible way. The primary hurdle to creating hydrogen gas from water is the large amount of energy required for the electrolysis of water, or splitting water molecules into hydrogen gas (H2) and oxygen (O2).
Most H2 produced today is derived from fossil fuels, which contributes to global warming. Manufacturing H2 from water through the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) requires the use of a catalyst, or agent that lowers the amount of energy required for a chemical reaction. Until recently, these catalysts were made up of rare earth metals, like platinum, reducing the cost-efficiency and practicality of clean hydrogen production.
A group of material scientists from Dalian University of Technology in Dalian, China manufactured an electrocatalyst, or a catalyst that uses electricity, using inexpensive materials and methods to effectively decrease the energy required to generate clean H2 from water. Importantly, the ferric-nickel silicide (FeNiSi) alloy, or mixture, also reduces the energy required to generate O2 from water, making the catalyst bifunctional.