I encourage you to do more research. Everything I stated is completely accurate. Don't stop until you understand why my statements are correct.
For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJjKwSF9gT8
Hydrogen is energy storage, not a fuel source. People who don't understand this wind up confused as to why H is a terrible fuel source.
I watched the video you referenced, and still maintain my disagreements with your statements.
At 1:43 in the video, he discusses H2 being compressed gas, not liquid. At 10:20 in the video, he discusses liquid H2 and how infeasible it is to use as a fuel. In any case, what I mean by "used as fuel" is actually when it is processed by the ICE or fuel cell into energy, and in both cases it is H2 gas, not liquid.
Likewise, I also agree that storing H2 as a gas or a liquid is terrible idea, which is why I mentioned H2O as the perfectly safe storage method.
The challenge is splitting H2O and catalysts are always being developed (sciencealert.com) to do it with less and less energy. I think one day we will have catalysts that can process a whole car tank filled with H2O using electrolysis and a modest battery, for example.
In several ways, the video you supplied supports my original comments. Thank you and I encourage you to also do a bit of research.
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.
(post is archived)