Hydrogen Power from the Sun!

So excited to hear of this breakthrough.
However, I'm sure we'll let the world enjoy the friuts of our labour (research) for a pitance.
And thanks, forward thinking government of ours, for slashing CSIRO's budget. Kooks.

"Using the CSIRO technology, they can 'crack' the hydrogen back out and run transport vehicles on it, zero carbon."

How can it be "zero carbon" when you need power to get it to the transport vehicle? (I get the actual combustion process is)

Separating H from H20 requires power.
Combining H with N requires power.
Moving NH3 requires power.
Stripping H from NH3 requires power. (Lets assume this is done where its required, otherwise H & N need moving, which requires power)


Unless you're powering everything by solar or wind.... its not going to be "zero carbon"


Does solar/wind produce enough electricity to create enough Hydrogen plus some spare?
ie 1MW of solar/wind produces 1.4MW worth of Hydrogen (as the 1MW is already used, the .4 going to moving itself around and to the end user) (Or is it TGIF and I'm missing something?)

Select to expand quote

Buster fin said..
So excited to hear of this breakthrough.
However, I'm sure we'll let the world enjoy the friuts of our labour (research) for a pitance.
And thanks, forward thinking government of ours, for slashing CSIRO's budget. Kooks.

I agree 100%.
Imagine if they had a patent on wifi and Australia was making a royalty off it?
We could have made the Saudi's look poor.

Read what CSIRO put on their website

www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2017/Membrane-for-hydrogen-fuel-cells?featured=F29EDEB1728C4A92B579C7A5DC28BAD5

it doesn't look like anybody will be running their car on ammonia any time soon. They say that their membrane is used after the ammonia has been turned back into N2 and H2 and separates the gases. They don't suggest that it is a small enough or rapid enough unit to run the H2 into a fuel cell. All they are saying is that the NH3 is a good way to transport H2 close to where it can be used

Surely that depends on the time scale. You need to do these calculations over the life of the enterprise. I'd think it'd be very positive long term.

Sure, but there are serous doubts about whether you can make enough electricity from capturing diffuse natural energy to power the economy since the ability to capture diffuse natural energy comes from a surplus of hydrocarbons.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856

Hydrocarbons are in fact one of the most efficient natural batteries available and yet we burn them to make batteries that last 20 years, are less efficient by many orders of magnitude, are mostly toxic, and ultimately non recyclable without an external power source.

You cannot make batteries from batteries. Elon musk and his crew are using the last of the natural energy surplus to create even more toxic waste, at a large personal profit.



And we keep on using our energetic surplus on constructing hydrocarbon dependent infrastructure as if we had an infinite supply of a fuel which we already know is finite and will run out!

Ask the NRMA how much liquid fuel Australia really has in surplus:
www.mynrma.com.au/images/About-PDF/Fuel-Security-Report-Pt2.pdf

I have read recently about Elon Musk's farms in Silicon Valley harvesting the flatulence of the unicorns.
One unicorn fart can power the whole SF area for a month.

What a nonsense even talking about hydrogen since whole world switching from combustion engines into lithium-powered electric vehicles. There are not any reasonable means to:
- power your car by hydrogen - storage, and fuel cell problems are outside our generations life time span
-you can't manufacture hydrogen in your home from solar roof panels- but you could recharge the battery in your car. What a nonsense article and wasted money again.
There is only one way to use hydrogen today - that is in commercial airships but this obvious truth somehow escapes public and expert attention.

This is about solving problems one step at a time. This offers one solution on how to transport the stuff and recover it. It could be produced using spare green energy, storing it as hydrogen and using it latter when needed. Just like the pumping water up hill idea only better energy returns. Follow where the money is being invested........hint, its not into coal

Select to expand quote

kato said..
This is about solving problems one step at a time. This offers one solution on how to transport the stuff and recover it. It could be produced using spare green energy, storing it as hydrogen and using it latter when needed. Just like the pumping water up hill idea only better energy returns. Follow where the money is being invested........hint, its not into coal

If we read this article carefully there is nothing about discovery or innovation, but only about money.

Big money from our government coffers ( and our pockets ) being wasted on a gigantic scale.
All science behind _ chemical reaction H with ammonia and fact that hydrogen escapes from a metal container ( here read as an invention of the metal membrane) - seems to be just recollection from primary school chemistry lesson. Now smart ass extracts more than billion dollars making balloons from dumb politicians. For billion dollar investment, we could create next water pumping reservoirs - technology that works for hundred of years.
Or we could lay down next two gigawatts of solar panels ( at current price $0.5/ per watt).

Nah , titanium production as we have heaps