Fuel Cells

I doubt it.

Haha wouldn't that be great...

...."best processes for water electrolysis have an effective electrical efficiency of 70-80%, so that producing 1 kg of hydrogen (which has a specific energy of 143 MJ/kg or about 40 kWh/kg) requires 50–55 kWh of electricity."...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

http://www.railway-research.org/IMG/pdf/ps.2.26.pdf

If my calculations are correct, the best you can hope for is a 50% overall efficiency, so a fuel cell would require at least twice the hydrogen it could produce....

Thanks. Since it was different processes, I thought it might work. It's not an energy in-energy out situation. Even if the efficiency got to where it could produce more hydrogen than consumed, it would not violate the law of conversation of energy because some hydrogen is used up in the process to balance the energy law.

If you could produce more hydrogen than you consumed, it would violate the conservation of energy law. You could use that excess hydrogen in another fuel cell to create more energy.

Well you might be able to cheat a little with a nuclear powered fuel cell, although you might be stretching the definition a bit...

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/could-hydrogen-help-save-nuclear

Since a solar powered house must have a battery for night use, the amount of solar panels required must be enough to power the house in the day and charge the batteries for nighttime use. So, why not have the solar power make hydrogen for operating the fuel cell or other generating sources to power the house 24/7? The other sources could be an ICE with generator, or, maybe a gas turbine generator. The system that would have the most efficient use of the hydrogen would be the one to use. And, add some more solar panels to make enough hydrogen to power a fuel cell automobile. I wonder about how many square feet of solar panels it would take?

Nice to see thinking outside the box. If you have the equipment already and its paid for it is costing nothing to produce the hydrogen. A simple hydrogen generator should cost around $20 to make running from a battery charged on solar.========https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaBm7USGZlA

Of course, a hydrogen compressor would be required-add more solar panels to supply the compressor. Have a closed system. It might take two acres of solar panels.

...then hydrogen would be the wrong solution. It is more economical to use battery storage instead and save on the conversion losses; there is always a conversion loss, because that's the way the universe works.

They would both have to be looked at. It would require a comparison of cost, longevity, and dependability to get the best value.

How big of a hydrogen plant do you want, this sound more commercial than home usage. Try here: ------https://www.phxequip.com/plant.2202/hydrogen-plant-200-000-scfh.aspx

It would be well worthwhile asking an understandable question, preferably with some numbers in it and more than one sentence; these things really help...

How many free energy devices do you know of?

Solar energy is free....sort of...

Hydroelectric is free....sort of

Wind energy is free ....sort of

Tidal energy is free.....sort of

Waste to energy is free....sort of

Nuclear energy is really cheap if you strip out all the regulations....

In fact all of our energy sources are free or cheap....it's the conversion to electricity that costs money

Its been 10 minutes I am still giggling at the nuclear option.

need to put on my work face now!

I like the analysis

None of these sources are free!

First you have to buy them, then you have to install them, then you have to maintain them, then you have to convert the energy, then when you look at the bank balance you realise that none of the free energy sources are free. Oh and don't forget the costs to dispose of the FREE energy products at end of life. Nothing is free not even death, someone has to pay!

Money is useless unless it is travelling away in exchange for something else.

you could fast(in diagonal) scan the results of https://www.google.com/search?q=methane+dissociation+hydrogen -- to get the new ideas more up to date

. . . lists also https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Thermodynamics/Energies_and_Potentials/Enthalpy/Bond_Enthalpies . . .

There has to be a balance if one stores the hydrogen made. Say 20 mins before using then one is only replacing the hydrogen used. I don't see why that would not work. If one is using the hydrogen as it is produced then No, there is no break even on production. Just a loss.

The three unwritten laws of thermodynamics:

1) You can only lose.

2) You won't break even.

3) This is the only game in town.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_jlZWbo33M They said batteries run flat, this one is still going after 176 years. I think this is proof that all that is stated is not always true. Food for thought?

..."The Oxford Electric Bell does not demonstrate perpetual motion. The bell will eventually stop when the dry piles have distributed their charges equally if the clapper does not wear out first.^[5][6] The Bell has produced approximately 10 billion rings since 1840 and holds the Guinness World Record as "the world's most durable battery [delivering] ceaseless tintinnabulation".^[2] "...

Amazing invention...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell

Since when does 176 years equal forever?

Love the English language, all is assumption. I never saw anything saying "forever;" however, it certainly outdoes anything made since this battery was made. But when ratio'd against today's equipment, 176 years is pretty much forever, longer lasting than human life. So I guess 176 years is forever longer. If it lingers longer, then it is deemed a longer linger which is longer than a moment and shorter than a forever.

The bell clapper is basically a pendulum. It takes very little energy, especially if in a vacuum as I suspect it is. The batteries are not carbon-zinc or any kind you have seen. They were obviously made for longevity rather than current flow. I have a 6.75V mercury battery made in 1984 that still measures more than 6.75V.

The batteries are undoubtedly Zamboni Piles...

..."A Zamboni pile is an "electrostatic battery" and is constructed from discs of silver foil, zinc foil, and paper. Alternatively, discs of "silver paper" (paper with a thin layer of zinc on one side) gilded on one side or silver paper smeared with manganese oxide and honey might be used.^[1] Discs of approximately 20 mm diameter are assembled in stacks, which may be several thousand discs thick, and then either compressed in a glass tube with end caps or stacked between three glass rods with wooden end plates and insulated by dipping in molten sulfur or pitch.^[2]

Zamboni piles of more modern construction were manufactured as recently as the 1980s for providing the accelerating voltage for image intensifier tubes, particularly in military use. Today such voltages are obtained from transistorised inverter circuits powered by conventional (low-voltage) batteries.

The EMF per element is approximately 0.8 volts; with thousands of stacked elements, Zamboni piles have output potential differences in the kilovolt range, but current output in the nanoampere range.^[3] "...

Absolutely!

If you run it on methane.