Eliminating 60% of residential energy needs (Heating cooling and water heating) frees up a lot of energy for other uses. I could give a damn about the green thing but this is interesting.
Posted on 03/16/2019 4:44:49 AM PDT by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
We did that in high school chemistry.
Do I want to use hydrogen to heat my house? Do I really need to be that warm?
The problem as always is that solar power is a limited source of energy, and it takes up acreage. It can never replace fossil fuels. Same with wind. When bubble-headed politicians like AOC talk about “renewable energy”, there’s a reason they aren’t specific on what that means. There are none which will meet society’s demands.
Sunlight used to create carbohydrates out of carbon dioxide and water.
Given that hydrogen is a gas, isn’t providing a volume without a pressure meaningless?
Not at 15% efficiency you didn’t. ;-)
Direct to electric solar tops out in the low 20%’s in anything affordable and electric storage is impractical. Electrolysis is horribly inefficient. 15% direct to hydrogen is orders of magnitude more efficient than solar>electrolysis>H conversion. You will note that I did not say run your car on it. I said HVAC and water heat. If these panels are realistically priced would you not like to see a 60% drop in electric/gas bills?
But consider the fact that one gallon of gasoline contains more hydrogen than a gallon of....hydrogen!
Of course, some will object that "fossil" fuels have that awful carbon foot-print which causes global warming. Yeah, that's a hoax.
It would need to be compressed. Compression cost would be negligible. Store it in an underground tank so it is safe.
On the one hand, dry desert areas tend to get lots of sunlight.
On the other hand, cloudy wet areas have lots of accessible water in the air.
They just need to find a wet desert and they will have everything they need for theory to meet practice.
Burning hydrogen produces the green house gas water vapor
Thank you for posting this. LTBM!
Yep. Electrolysis of water is still the same whether a generator at the power plant makes the electricity or a solar panel does.
And it sure is funny that a volume of hydrogen is given here but not the pressure thereof, so no way to figure out just how many moles of hydrogen were generated.
If it is successful and cheap eventually...meaning -good for the USA -the democrats will destroy it.
re: “Hydrogen, unlike fossil fuels, doesn’t produce greenhouse gas emissions “
Au contraire!
WV (water vapor) is one of the BIGGEST GHG (green house gases) on the planet!!!!
Do they really provide a quarter of CA’s energy and if so, how much is it costing Californians?
I honestly don’t know, so I’m asking.
Is there ANY place for windmills and solar energy?
Again, responses appreciated in advance.
I don’t know how much energy they put out and how reliable they are on a daily basis and how much more they cost than fossil fuels.
Just wait till it's announced that electricity can be produced from the air (aether) for free as well.
Talk about true independence from utility companies!
Or is that a step too far down the conspiracy theory trail?
There is moisture in desert air.
“The humidity of the Mojave Desert changes throughout the day and night and from season to season. Average daytime relative humidity ranges from 10 percent to 30 percent. Nighttime humidity can be as high as 50 percent. Humidity is higher before and after the Mojave’s infrequent rainfalls; it tends to rise at night and during cold weather and to drop during the day and in hot weather. These temperature-associated fluctuations are largely a function of how humidity is measured.”
Not significantly more dangerous than natural gas.
I think it would be safe to assume that it is at 1 atmosphere, ie. uncompressed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.