Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2014 6:21:00 PM (view original):
Hydrogen is produced deep within the earth and enters the ocean. It is produced by fracking and fossil fuels. It is produced through chemical reaction. It is produced through the production of fertilizer and ammonia. It can be extracted from air at the rate of 1/2 liter to 1,000,000. Get it before it leaves. It can be extracted from water and turned back into water at a big net gain of energy. IF YOU REALLY WANNA GO GREEN then this is the way to go.
Virtually all of the science in your post was wrong, but this part is just hilarious. You can extract hydrogen from water and turn it back into water at a big net GAIN in energy? The highest level of science background you need to recognize that this is IMPOSSIBLE is a year of high school chemistry and/or physics. Heck, my freshman high school physical science class taught me that this couldn't be right. But not everybody's high school science classes were that good.
There are no free lunches. You can't break a molecule, put it back together, and gain energy. Because no processes are perfect, you can't do it without losing energy. In fact, the efficiency of the best processes we have for converting water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning the hydrogen is just above 30%. But go on with your bad self, you know science.
Nothing you just posted addresses this simple truth. In physics there are NO FREE LUNCHES. Google that sentence - it's all over the place. You can't turn water into hydrogen and back into water and gain energy. It's impossible, would violate the basic laws of physics. At 100% efficiency you would be energy neutral, but nobody can come close to 100% efficiency. You can generate hydrogen from water at better than 90%, but it's impractical to convert back to water while capturing more than about 35% of the energy released, so you wind up at about 30% overall cycle efficiency.
Hydrolysis followed by combustion is useful for converting one energy source into another; for example, using electrical power from nuclear fuels to generate hydrogen to power a vehicle that can't conveniently be attached to the electric grid. But you can't use a cycle to generate excess energy. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Can't happen. You can gain energy by hydrolyzing water, collecting the hydrogen, and fusing the hydrogen into helium. But that isn't a repeatable process. It leaves you with a bunch of generally worthless helium. Over time it would turn the world's water supply into oxygen and helium. Probably not a good option for a long-term energy solution. This is why I can't understand why so many people are so invested in developing cold fusion (there was a successful test at LLNL a few weeks ago, the first with a net energy surplus ever reported). Sure, we can get power from that. If we don't want water in 100 years.