Alternative energy

It is indeed. However, you have to extend the definition of "economically viable" to include not only obtaining and utilizing the hydrogen, but also to agument the energy-release process by burning whopping big mounds of cash.

To judge the effectiveness of alterative energy at this point is shortsighted.

Ever see the first arrow plane or the first car?

Solar and wind is just getting started among other green energy sources.

As long as we are finally on that path progress will go forward.

NOTE: when Regan was elected the first thing he did was to tear out the solar panels in the white house that Jimmy Carter had installed. So as long as we have the right people steering the ship progress will move forward.

In SA we had alternative electricity. Different areas on alternative days.

you're a bird alright

There are alternative methods of preparing hydrogen but it may not be significantly cheaper.

As a child I prepared Hydrogen from a piece of Zinc and an acid. (and it did not cost me a cent )

Let us rather consider and cost the alternative reactions. Say for a gallon's worth of H.

Another idea - Hydrogen heats up when released under pressure. Can this heat not be used for some energy?

We did the same " Larry Lightbulb" experiment. Surely you ignited the H !

The energy required to seperate H2O seems to equal or exceed that derived, yes

it is combustible isnt combustion a source of energy so to speak

No, it is not a source of energy. There is no natural hydrogen; it must all be made and it requires more energy to make than you get back by burning, so it can't be a source.

This is the crux of my question! h is the sun's fuel,if you will, h +o2 can propel a rocket into deep space h=propellent, O2 = oxidizer The rub is in your statement "THERE IS NO NATURAL H" There is no natural K or Na either, our mission is to find a way to derive h with minimal energy expenditure The crux of the question. TVP45 your input always borders on priceless!

Kay - TVP45 is right, at least with the current state of technology. You say H is the Sun's fuel - that's right, but there is a lot of free H on the Sun, in fact not much else at present, luckily for us! Also the Sun doesn't produce its energy by H + O₂.

It takes energy to produce free K or Na, but these are made when it's worth it in terms of $$ (including energy), for reasons unconnected with energy sources or transfer. Minimal energy expenditure to produce H is even in principle same as that got back on burning it, in practice higher.

To get back to the Sun's energy production, when (if) we perfect nuclear fusion power stations H will be an energy source. The energy needed to get H in the right form for feeding to the reactor is negligible relative to that released in fusion.

Cheers..........Codey

Kay said,

"TVP45 your input always borders on priceless!"

I used to have a manger who said pretty much the same thing. I think he said something to the effect that no human could ever calculate the value in my work.

Matter and energy are interchangable... just need to know how.....

A few pounds of uranium blows things up real good, or runs a power plant that lights up cities... Why mess with H2 when we already know how to use uranium?

WHY? Because the truth will set you free. The truth is not in the engineering,that is merely the facts and facts in and of themselves do not constitute "TRUTH" You must consider things like politics and sentiment Not so much to ascertain "truth" but PLAUSIBILITY P.S. I like uranium also

Your question should be

" Is hydrolysis of water an economically viable energy 'storage solution'? "

The simple answer is NO, not yet. Maybe not ever, but I try to keep an open mind.

Hydrolysis of water requires energy. Under ideal conditions you may be able to get most of that energy back when you recombine H2 and O. This means it MAY be a viable energy storage solution under the right conditions. However, the technology to economically use this process for everyday energy needs is not yet available.

There is no "free" way to catalyze the hydrolysis process. If you could find/create such a catalyst, the process would violate basic thermodynamic principles. Highly unlikely!

If I knew how to make this process economically viable, I'd tell you. Unfortunately, you would then have to mysteriously disappear

Side note: Aluminum is also not found in its pure metallic form and requires significant energy input during the electrolysis refinement process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium

If alternative energy sources like wind and solar become too large a portion of the grid, it is difficult to retain stability.

H2 is a good energy storage medium and electricity can be recovered with reasonable efficiency by using fuel cells.

Surplus energy from solar etc could be put into production of H2 and recycled back to the grid, allowing a larger proportion of the grid to be supplied from this source.

While compressed H2 is an excellent fuel for IC engines, the storage and refilling are cumbersome (and potentially dangerous). In addition, although it's energy density per unit weight is good, the density is low so the energy density per unit volume is poor. This makes it a dubious choice as a liquid fuel replacement except under specialized conditions.

Because of it's ability to diffuse through almost anything (as well as embrittle many materials), the requirements for leak tight fittings become hard to fulfill. The wide flammability limits also make leaks more dangerous.

On the plus side, the extremely wide range between upper and lower flammability limits allows an IC engine to be run efficiently through a very wide range of loads. Hydrocarbon fuels have a much more limited range of efficient operation.

One possibility for storage is absorbing into palladium under pressure, but the cost of Pa probably makes this impractical for large scale (transport) use.

It could be used in fuel cell powered cars but a lot of problems need to be overcome, not the least of which is production of a reasonably priced and efficient fuel cell. So far these have been more promise than fulfillment.

None of the above problems are insuperable, but it will probably be quite a while (if ever) before H2 becomes wide spread as a replacement for other fuels.

As TVP45 has pointed out, the energy required to make H2 is significantly greater than the energy which can be reclaimed from burning it. This makes it a secondary fuel, ie a means of storing energy.