3 ms·
> it costs more energy to make it than you get back out of it when you burn it. This is fine. Gasoline has horrendous losses too. The problem is that the most
by outworlder 5y ago
> it costs more energy to make it than you get back out of it when you burn it.
This is fine. Gasoline has horrendous losses too.
The problem is that the most economical way of making hydrogen is by using fossil fuels(natural gas). Just burn the natural gas instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
- pdonis 5y ago> Gasoline has horrendous losses too. I'm not sure what "horrendous" losses you're referring to, but I assume you mean losses due to inefficiency in combustion. That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the fact that hydrogen does not occur in its combustible form on Earth. You can't just refine it by purifying something that comes out of the ground, the way gasoline is refined from crude oil. You have to produce it by some process that basically reverses the chemical reaction that will take place when you burn it. And since the chemical reaction of burning produces a large amount of energy (otherwise you wouldn't use it to do things like power cars), reversing that reaction requires a large amount of energy (which is why steam reforming, as the article you reference says, is strongly endothermic). All that is in addition to the thermodynamic losses that will occur during combustion when you burn the fuel.