Comment 33386

By JonC (registered) | Posted September 11, 2009 at 16:31:16

"The fact remains that hydrogen must be manufactured before we can do anything with it - and that manufacturing process will consume more energy than we will get out of the hydrogen when we use it."

Yes, hydrogen does need to be manufactured, but if the source is self-sustaining (other than atmospheric drivers), there is a net gain of energy.

If we take the bacterial case again, the bacteria has no energy benefit to people, it just makes hydrogen. So to call that the energy source is disingenuous. It's like saying that solar panels suffer a net loss, as the positive energy is in the sun and all we do is waste energy by converting solar energy to our grid. Chemical energy is just as valid a source as any other and if hydrogen can be made passively, then it can made with a positive EROEI.

I fully accept that in the case of electrolysis, where electricity is the driver of water splitting, you always lose energy, that's agreed upon, and that's the way we do things now, and I think this is what you keep getting stuck on. The only time that ever makes sense is if you need hydrogen for some specific task. In the case of hydrocracking at refineries, they do this with the methane and use the hydrogen produced to fuel the cracking process (as far as I know, that's actually the largest source and consumption of hydrogen in the world). I think hydrogen powered cars are ridiculous. But there is nothing inherent with hydrogen that forces an energy loss from an EROEI standpoint. Thermodynamically, all fuel sources are losers.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds