SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DavesM who wrote (580228)6/2/2004 1:35:19 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
Re: easier (and therefore cheaper) to break.

Not necessarily.

Yes, the energy required to break the C-O bond is always greater... but that doesn't mean it is always cheaper to produce hydrogen from fossil fuels.

When you are producing hydrogen by classic means (splitting the bond in water either with electricity or high temperatures), then yes, it costs much more then it currently does to strip hydrogen from natural gas, for example.

But when your energy input is essentially free (as sunlight is), then the cost advantage shifts.

I mention this because there have been recent break-throughs in the development of semiconductor chips ('photo-hydrogen' cells) which, when immersed in water and exposed to sunlight, use the energy from capturing photons to split the H-O bond and release hydrogen.



To: DavesM who wrote (580228)6/2/2004 1:46:09 PM
From: gerard mangiardi  Respond to of 769670
 
That is true. What a real shift in energy needs is a quantum leap in battery technology. Hydrogen like a battery or oil stores energy. Renewable sources can produce a lot of hydrogen from water. The real benefit is not in the costs of electricity but in the ability to store the energy in the form of hydrogen. On a personal level I think we should have a lot more nuclear plants including breeder reactors that would dramatically reduce the amount of nuclear waste.