That's simply one video explaining one aspect of what was stated. Again, everything I stated is factually correct. As of today, the generally only practical use of H is in expensive fuel cells or as brown gas in a torch. Traditional energy companies love the concept of H as an energy source because almost all of it today is created from traditional carbon fuels.
Again, if you believe anywhere you differed from my comments are correct, you are wrong. I hope you'll take some time to learn why H as an energy source is idiotic and supported only by people with an agenda and by the ignorant.
Still disagree and do not appreciate your condescending tone saying everything you said is correct. Let's examine the first thing you stated and see if it could ever be incorrect:
Unlikely to ever be economically feasible without using waste heat from a reactor.
Why is "waste heat from a reactor" the only economically feasible approach to producing the energy necessary to produce H2? I can go to youtube and find scores of videos of people producing H2 using solar panels, natural gas, wind, algae, even cow manure (files.catbox.moe). Is it so unthinkable that any way to produce H2 other than waste heat from a reactor, is unlikely to ever be economically feasible? It is only waste heat from a reactor, and only waste heat from a reactor, that we can consider in our attempts to make H2 economically feasible? All other sources of energy that we know about, all the nano breakthroughs that we have made and will make in the future, are all unlikely to ever be a better option to make H2 economically feasible, than waste heat from a reactor?
I hope you can see how preposterously silly that statement is.
I don't doubt that you have some good knowledge to share. Saying if I disagree with any of your comments makes me wrong, is a strange way to try to convince anyone of your position.
Stating everything I stated is correct, is correct. Nor is it condescending. Will point out you started your response by incorrectly declaring my position is wrong even though everything I stated is factually accurate. By your own measurement you started out condescending.
Perhaps you should care more about the accuracy of your position than crying about the fact that you're incorrect and resent the same correction you incorrectly put upon me.
bro, he is right. notice how you say "people producing H2 using" and the proceed to name a bunch of energy inputs that require non-hydrogen fuels like solar, gas, etc. Thats proof the hydrogen isnt the fuel source in any of these applications, its just energy storage, whose source was some other fuel source.
When you talk about nanocatalyst in water, where did the nanocatalyst come from? if it was manufactured using non-hydrogen energy, or a limited resource mined from the Earth, its likely that your referring to an application where the source of the energy to make the system run is not hydrogen, its in the nanocatalyst.
No one is disagreeing that production of H2 requires energy input. I disagree with the notion that the only way to supply this energy input is waste heat from a reactor.
I'm not claiming H2 is a fuel source in any of those applications at all. I'm claiming that all those other methods can be used to produce H2 and any one of them could become economically feasible in the future.
Of course catalysts are produced, and that production takes energy. Catalysts are not used in a reaction but they lower the energy thresholds which govern them normally. So H2O could be split using less energy than is typical.
I'm not sure what you mean by "source of the energy to make the system run is not hydrogen, it's in the nanocatalyst". A catalyst does not run a fuel cell, H2 runs it. A catalyst does not run an ICE engine, H2 or some other fuel does. I'm not sure why you would think a catalyst would run anything. It facilitates a chemical reaction, in this example breaking apart H2O.
(post is archived)