Hydrogen may be accepted by automakers as a prime green energy alternative

[dvdjs]

But what’s the point of doing so with a return that’s less than one?

To significantly reduce the production of green house gases and other pollutants.

Btw: to avoid confusion (and acknowledge the law of the conservation of energy) none of these things is creating energy. They are capturing or utilizing existing energy. There is already energy in the wind and a wind turbine captures some of that energy.

That was clear from your definition in post#15. Although your idea of “source” might better be framed in terms of EROI, as discussed in the link in post#3.

PS - the income analogy is not the best because money is not conserved. Moreover the “source” idea actually involves an exchange./

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

source

Basically it boils down to this.

Energy source - you get more energy out than you used to refine it. This would cover nearly all hydrocarbons and fossil fuels.

Energy storage - you put in almost as much or more energy than you get out. This would be hydrogen due to the large energy requirements, especially considering that methane conversion implies a previous refinement of methane beyond that of natural gas (which is a mixture of gases).

 

[Cathoholic]

HerCrazierHalf . . .

Energy source - you get more energy out than you used to refine it.

No need to answer on behalf of @ThinkingSapien.

TS? How are YOU using this here?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

TS? How are YOU using this here?

That looks consistent with what I said when you asked me about a definition of energy source.

A resource for which the potential to do work extracted is greater than the work required to extract that potential and use it.

 

[Cathoholic]

HerCrazierHalf (on the need for enegy (name removed by moderator)ut to “refine” hydrogen . . .

due to the large energy requirements

This is part of new ideas HerCrazierHalf.

Using easy, efficient, or even as-of-yet, not even thought of, refining methodology.

Yes of course there is a loss of energy in the (in any) conversion process, but ideas like parabolic sun harnessing, microwaves, solar panel (name removed by moderator)ut, etc. the benefits are obvious.

Especially if your goals include minimization of greenhouse-gas emission (because you are utilizing hydrogen instead of burning hydrocarbons).

And it is not so clear that hydrocarbon burning is as little “(name removed by moderator)ut” as might be being put forth here.

After all, none of the discussion yet has factored in the possible energy expenditure needed in the future for “carbon sequestration” to “save the planet”.

You are possibly ignoring a major variable in the whole hydrocarbon refinement and burning equation.

But I’d like to hear from @ThinkingSapien on this.

By the way.

If you look in the article, you will see the Israelis are claiming 98% efficiency in “refinement” (at least regarding the molecular water-splitting process). Is this feasable commercially? Don’t know.

Even cleaner processes are possible. In late September, researchers from the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology unveiled a water-splitting technology they claim is 98.7-per-cent efficient and could reduce the cost of the equipment to produce hydrogen by half.

But others will be working on it too. I guarantee it.

The other thing is, imagine a HOME hydrogen refinery from solar energy! Imagine every home having their own proverbial oil well / refinery to use in your vehicle.

Naturally Government who WANTS taxes that hydrocarbon usage easily leands itself to. . . .
. . . And Big Oil (who should have been broken up long ago via antitrusting) also would use its power and might to lobby against this paradigm.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

After all, none of the discussion yet has factored in the possible energy expenditure needed in the future for “carbon sequestration” to “save the planet”.

You are possibly ignoring a major variable in the whole hydrocarbon refinement and burning equation.

But I’d like to hear from @ThinkingSapien on this.

If you’d like to remove carbon from the atmosphere planting trees and preserving forest is a start. The carbon gets stored in the structure of the trees and it doesn’t require much energy expenditure to do. Preserving existing forest helps. Stopping the burning of the amazon might be a good start too; that’s releasing the carbon that those trees had and halting their potential for future carbon removal.

 

[dvdjs]

Energy source - you get more energy out than you used to refine it. This would cover nearly all hydrocarbons and fossil fuels.

Only is you omit from the story the energy price paid in the past.

The fossil fuel cycle, by nearly all serious accounts, started with atmospheric CO2, converted to bio matter thorough photosynthesis and biochemistry, then to hydrocarbon through geochemical processing. The combustion of the hydrocarbons completes the cycle, returning the atmospheric CO2. In this sense, it is analogous to the water-to-water hydrogen fuel cycle. This broader perspective draws attention to the issue of changing levels of atmospheric CO2 and the costs associated with it.

 

[Cathoholic]

ThinkingSapien.

What are a few examples of “energy sources” using your own standards?

You just got done reading about hydrogen as a source of energy.

Your point?

Hydrogen ISN’T an “enegy source”.

(Here it is again) . . .

ThinkingSapien . . .

Hydrogen isn’t an energy source.

.

(It kind of looks like you are merely disagreeing to disagree. Since it can’t be that, why not just answer the question?)

So using your paradigm, WHAT are some “energy sources”?

This doesn’t come close to answering my question (to you).

If you’d like to remove carbon from the atmosphere planting trees and preserving forest is a start. The carbon gets stored

Here is the question again.

WHAT are some “energy sources” according to the ThinkingSapien definition?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What are a few examples of “energy sources” using your own standards?

Wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, chemical (ex:burning of oil), hydroelectric…

Some energy could be invested in the production of a wind farm, a solar farm, building a petroleum processing plant, or uranium refinement facilities and a nuclear power plant. With enough operation time the energy output of these things will exceed the energy that humans invested into their construction.

These are not derived from any standards of my own. College involved a year of physics classes on mechanics, quantum mechanics, thermal dynamics, and a few other topics. Energy is intrinsically part of all of those topics.

W=Fd

Many of these could be dissected and traced to other sources of energy. But I won’t go into that for now.

This doesn’t come close to answering my question (to you).

In the previous post you never actually asked me a question. You said you’d like to hear more from me on “this” right after talking about carbon capture. Thus I commented on carbon capture.

 

[Cathoholic]

ThinkingSapien . . .

Hydrogen isn’t an energy source.

.

ThinkingSapien . . .

These are not derived from any standards of my own. College involved a year of physics classes on mechanics, quantum mechanics, thermal dynamics, and a few other topics. Energy is intrinsically part of all of those topics.

So what?

A lot of people here have had classes/training/careers such as these.

So has the governments of China and Japan who see hydrogen as a viable energy source.

So have other scientists.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166497203002049

And if it is merely nature, to fit your word-game definitions, consider bacteria too, produce hydrogen.

Designer bacteria could fuel the future with cheap hydrogen​

https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/articl...ria-could-fuel-the-future-with-cheap-hydrogen

.

Wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, chemical, hydroelectric…

All these have had energy (name removed by moderator)ut too to now be energy transferring mediums.

None of them are “energy sources” if you want to play word games.

So you are defining “energy source” as nature doing the work of (name removed by moderator)ut of potential energy?

Like I said.

This statement from you . . .

Hydrogen isn’t an energy source.

. . . just sounds like you are looking to argue about something.

I still haven’t seen anything here that has to do with “physics” etc. that could be applied to “Wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, chemical (ex:burning of oil), hydroelectric”, that could not be applied to hydrogen.

Good grief.

Covfefe

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So what?

The purpose of sharing that information was provided with the information.

And if it is merely nature , to fit your word-game definitions

No word games here. If you find my definition less than sufficient it might be productive to point out where it is lacking. I do think there might be a misunderstanding of the word “work” though. If you have a good physics resource I encourage understanding what is meant be work in the context of energy and physics.

All these have had energy (name removed by moderator)ut too to now be energy transferring mediums.

I guess you missed where I acknowledged that several messages ago.

So you are defining “energy source” as nature doing the work of (name removed by moderator)ut of potential energy?

Here is the definition I provided. It should answer that question.

Hydrogen may be accepted by automakers as a prime green energy alternative World News

A resource for which the potential to do work extracted is greater than the work required to extract that potential and use it.

still haven’t seen anything here that has to do with “physics”

just sounds like you are looking to argue about something .

I’m not looking to argue at all. I made a statement and have since been responding to your requests.

I still haven’t seen anything here that has to do with “physics” etc. that could be applied to “Wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, chemical (ex:burning of oil), hydroelectric”, that could not be applied to hydrogen

It would be in the physical explanations behind these things.

Btw: I would need to read the source material at your link to comment on it.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Only is you omit from the story the energy price paid in the past.

Within the timeframe of human lifespans the term applies. Hence they are not “renewable” and are finite.

Hydrogen (if from electrolysis) OTOH goes through its cycle within our lifetime.

 

[abucs]

Have the Chinese declared which process they will use to obtain/refine/separate hydrogen?

 

[Cathoholic]

To the readers here.

Here is what @ThinkingSapien said.

Hydrogen isn’t an energy source.

I am thinking . . . Huh???

I ask him to clarify. (It kinda looks like he is just being “contrary”, at least to me).

I kind of couteously gave wiggle room for TS to back off of such a statement.

I ask for reasons.

I get stuff like . . .

W= fd

Which is merely a common physics 101 formula that teaches work = force by distance.

Absolutely irrelevant to this pretending hydrogen is not an energy source.

Also a lot of really . . . Nothin.

@ThinkingSapien.

If I were you I would have just said something like . . .

"Well Cathoholic. I just had in mind that hydrogen was an energy TRANSFER medium.

And if I ignored the (name removed by moderator)ut to harness it, I thought of it as “Natural” as opposed to having to “refine” hydrogen. (Also ignoring the natural bioproduction that can occur).

But I guess in that sense ALL energy SOURCES need “refinement”.

So yeah. Hydrogen is or at least can be an energy source."

.

Instead this thread saw a lot of . . .

. . . Well just read the above.

I’m not going to say it.
Just read the above and draw your own conclusions.

This was a thread that was not (supposed to be) contentious.

I thought everybody could gain something here, and not argue such points (pretending hydrogen ISN’T an energy source).

I was wrong.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Designer bacteria could fuel the future with cheap hydrogen

I read the link. As I understand it the group hopes to engineer bacteria that do photosynthesis to separate the hydrogen in sugar. As I don’t know the energy required to produce the sugar that is fed to the bacteria and since this isn’t a system that has been developed yet there isn’t much to evaluate at this time.

"Well Cathoholic. I just had in mind that hydrogen was an energy TRANSFER medium.

I used a rechargeable battery as my metaphor.

Which is merely a common physics 101 formula that teaches work = force by distance.

It is one of them. I thought putting that in a message might help set the context for what I have meant when I refer to work and work potential.

And if I ignored the (name removed by moderator)ut to harness it, I thought of it as “Natural” as opposed to having to “refine” hydrogen. (Also ignoring the natural bioproduction that can occur).

I’m getting the feeling you want me to make a man/natural dichotomy. That’s the third comment on nature here. I don’t think such a dichotomy is necessary.

But I guess in that sense ALL energy SOURCES need “refinement”.

Depends on what you mean by refinement as it has been used in a literal (removing impurities) and metaphorical sense within this thread. If the there is energy available that can be directly used for work then no refinement is necessary.

This was a thread that was not (supposed to be) contentious.

I had not realized it was contentious. I’ve mostly been responding to questions and referring back to the previous answers to a question when it gets asked again.

If you feel that a conversation with someone will make things contentious, even if it is one with me, might I suggest not asking for further responses?

 

[Cathoholic]

You go ahead ThinkingSapien and think hydrogen isn’t an energy source
in the sense I was using it.

Once again. ThinkingSapien . . .

Hydrogen isn’t an energy source.

And just keep “doubling down” on it too.

.

For everyone else.

This concept would be really cool if it became common, and new techniques were developed for “refinement” or “preparation” and distibution and availabilty.

It also seems like a win win for our environment too.

 

[dvdjs]

Within the timeframe of human lifespans the term applies. Hence they are not “renewable” and are finite.

Hydrogen (if from electrolysis) OTOH goes through its cycle within our lifetime.

All true. But it is imprtant to realize the consequences and costs of returning all of that carbon to the atmosphere.

 

[dvdjs]

I used a rechargeable battery as my metaphor.

It is a god one. Here is another:

Gordon Butte Energy Park

Montana based, Absaroka Energy, LLC is developing the Gordon Butte Pumped Storage Hydro Project through its wholly owned subsidiary GB Energy Park, LLC (GBEP). The Gordon Butte Pumped Storage Hydro facility utilizes best-in-class technology to respond to a dynamic energy landscape, thereby helping M

www.gordonbuttepumpedstorage.com

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is a good one. Here is another:
https://gordonbuttepumpedstorage.com/

That’s pretty cool. Haven’t seen anything like that before. The shock absorber metaphor has me thinking of capacitors.

 

[dvdjs]

That’s pretty cool.

The energy ROI is a loss. But given the economics of energy demand, it works.