I don't know about this. Storing hydrogen is an incredible pain. No vessel contains it well for long, and it needs to be contained at very low temperatures in order to keep its vapor pressure low enough. Its density is really low, even as a liquid. This means that any storage that we devise for it will be extremely space-hungry. Transporting it is a pain, as well. Not only is it of course not very dense, which means it's hard to transport a sizeable amount, but pipes are also not feasible. Just as storing it is hard, so is transporting it through pipes. Normal pipes become embrittled, and any new pipes we install will need to be wider anyway to accommodate for its very low density. I don't think we'll have a hydrogen economy. It might be used as a reducing agent, produced locally as-needed, for processes such as iron refinement. But for general purpose energy storage and delivery? I don't think so.
Where can I learn more/be up to date on the current status of water/H2 energy? (Books, journals/publications, etc)What are the current issues with water splitting? Are there any catalysts/potential catalysts? What is the criteria for one, what must it do mechanistically and which look like attractive options right now?
A long way off indeed on finding a catalyst to split water. Catalysts lower the activation energy for a downhill (as terms of energy goes) reaction to occur. The water molecule itself is the result of a downhill reaction. Splitting the water is not a downhill reaction but an uphill reaction. You can cheat with platinum because the water hangs out on the platinum and it weakens the bond somewhat in preference for the platinum. This reduces the amount required to split it, but overall there is still waste heat and energy loss. It isn't a free lunch for the net reaction. To reduce the energy cost, and dispense with the use of platinum in making the splitting of the water energetically cheaper, perhaps the solution is not one catalyst but two...or two metals in combination...or an alloy. Perhaps it can be done with organometallic chemistry, the extra field of chemistry which you hadn't mentioned.
appeal to authority much you dont need to be a climate scientist to understand what is happening with the climate, there is a reason actual climate scientists publish their findings and interpretations and predictions, so other people can know about them
Indeed, hydrogen, if created from water without using too much energy, could take the place of using batteries. The latter use a lot of energy to make due to refining their raw materials. They're also very heavy to lug around. Hydrogen isn't very safe, though...
looking at hydrogen (with fuel cell to make it back into electricity with atmospheric oxygen) it's like a gas battery that is charged up and then transported... but is hydrogen really the only game in town? is there something else that is abundent, can be charged/split/whathaveyou via electricity in one place then carried or stored to another then recombined again... prehaps something else that only outputs non-greenhouse has that is anyway abundant in the atmosphere? maybe some sort of nitrogen thing?
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't know about this.
Storing hydrogen is an incredible pain. No vessel contains it well for long, and it needs to be contained at very low temperatures in order to keep its vapor pressure low enough.
Its density is really low, even as a liquid. This means that any storage that we devise for it will be extremely space-hungry.
Transporting it is a pain, as well. Not only is it of course not very dense, which means it's hard to transport a sizeable amount, but pipes are also not feasible. Just as storing it is hard, so is transporting it through pipes. Normal pipes become embrittled, and any new pipes we install will need to be wider anyway to accommodate for its very low density.
I don't think we'll have a hydrogen economy. It might be used as a reducing agent, produced locally as-needed, for processes such as iron refinement. But for general purpose energy storage and delivery? I don't think so.
What about ammonia?
Where can I learn more/be up to date on the current status of water/H2 energy? (Books, journals/publications, etc)What are the current issues with water splitting? Are there any catalysts/potential catalysts? What is the criteria for one, what must it do mechanistically and which look like attractive options right now?
That one's definitely in the pipeline!
I like your very very practical view on how finance works... my own angle is about the same but far more cynical.
A long way off indeed on finding a catalyst to split water. Catalysts lower the activation energy for a downhill (as terms of energy goes) reaction to occur. The water molecule itself is the result of a downhill reaction. Splitting the water is not a downhill reaction but an uphill reaction. You can cheat with platinum because the water hangs out on the platinum and it weakens the bond somewhat in preference for the platinum. This reduces the amount required to split it, but overall there is still waste heat and energy loss. It isn't a free lunch for the net reaction. To reduce the energy cost, and dispense with the use of platinum in making the splitting of the water energetically cheaper, perhaps the solution is not one catalyst but two...or two metals in combination...or an alloy. Perhaps it can be done with organometallic chemistry, the extra field of chemistry which you hadn't mentioned.
I am totally with you, but is it feasible and economical? (You might guess, but I am an engineer.)
You're no climate scientist, bud.
Even if you don't believe in climate change harnessing new energy sources is still necessary. Oil and coal will run out at some point...
appeal to authority much
you dont need to be a climate scientist to understand what is happening with the climate, there is a reason actual climate scientists publish their findings and interpretations and predictions, so other people can know about them
Indeed, hydrogen, if created from water without using too much energy, could take the place of using batteries. The latter use a lot of energy to make due to refining their raw materials. They're also very heavy to lug around. Hydrogen isn't very safe, though...
... Don't listen to me, though, I'm only a French graduate!
looking at hydrogen (with fuel cell to make it back into electricity with atmospheric oxygen) it's like a gas battery that is charged up and then transported... but is hydrogen really the only game in town? is there something else that is abundent, can be charged/split/whathaveyou via electricity in one place then carried or stored to another then recombined again... prehaps something else that only outputs non-greenhouse has that is anyway abundant in the atmosphere? maybe some sort of nitrogen thing?