13 ms·

> separate it from water, which is a net energy LOSS This is true of every form of energy transfer. There is never, ever 100% energy maintained, and maybe you

> separate it from water, which is a net energy LOSS This is true of every form of energy transfer. There is never, ever 100% energy maintained, and maybe you'll be stunned at how inefficient existing energy sources are.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kkfx 4y ago
It's not a matter of efficiency but a matter of scalability: hydrogen generated by hydrolysis demand so much energy that we can't produce it on the needed scale, no matter how much it can cost. Methane extraction is absurdly costly, transport and storage are no less absurd BUT we can do it on a needed scale. That's the sole thing that matter. Similar if for hydro: mountain hydro is fantastic, we MUST develop it as much as possible, but it demand mountains and water. For some part of the world it's ok, they are there both in needed quantity essentially all the year, for some other they are not. You can power Norway on hydro with little nuclear backup, you can't power Mongolia even if Mongolia have very little needs compared. Similarly we can imaging electric commercial trains that only run on p.v. surplus, for all non-perishable goods that might be ok if well designed on scale. We probably can design that on scale in many, many areas of the world. We can't to the same for ships, for plane, for cars. We can't do that for perishable goods of passengers transits.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  It is not, in fact, the case that production of hydrogen is impractical. It will take time to build out electrolysis equipment. But you can buy it from China today. And, given cheap storage, of course we can run passenger trains on renewables.
moralestapia 4y ago
I may be wrong about this but I recall reading it on a book about the history of energy. Anyway, supposedly around 99% (!) of the net energy of fuels gets lost from the source to your home. This due to energy conversion, loss in transmission lines, transformers, you own electrical installation, battery charging/discharging and other inefficiencies on the grid or the devices you use.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Losses are generally in tens of %. 99% loss is rare, maybe limited to AA batteries and food. Many of the calories we eat could in principle be converted to horsepower (e.g. biking), but are not.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kkfx 4y ago

It's not a matter of efficiency but a matter of scalability: hydrogen generated by hydrolysis demand so much energy that we can't produce it on the needed scale, no matter how much it can cost. Methane extraction is absurdly costly, transport and storage are no less absurd BUT we can do it on a needed scale. That's the sole thing that matter. Similar if for hydro: mountain hydro is fantastic, we MUST develop it as much as possible, but it demand mountains and water. For some part of the world it's ok, they are there both in needed quantity essentially all the year, for some other they are not. You can power Norway on hydro with little nuclear backup, you can't power Mongolia even if Mongolia have very little needs compared. Similarly we can imaging electric commercial trains that only run on p.v. surplus, for all non-perishable goods that might be ok if well designed on scale. We probably can design that on scale in many, many areas of the world. We can't to the same for ships, for plane, for cars. We can't do that for perishable goods of passengers transits.

ncmncm 4y ago
It is not, in fact, the case that production of hydrogen is impractical. It will take time to build out electrolysis equipment. But you can buy it from China today. And, given cheap storage, of course we can run passenger trains on renewables.

moralestapia 4y ago

I may be wrong about this but I recall reading it on a book about the history of energy. Anyway, supposedly around 99% (!) of the net energy of fuels gets lost from the source to your home. This due to energy conversion, loss in transmission lines, transformers, you own electrical installation, battery charging/discharging and other inefficiencies on the grid or the devices you use.

ncmncm 4y ago
Losses are generally in tens of %. 99% loss is rare, maybe limited to AA batteries and food. Many of the calories we eat could in principle be converted to horsepower (e.g. biking), but are not.