Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OKIsItJustMe

(21,207 posts)
6. There is a very big difference here
Fri Jul 22, 2016, 09:59 AM
Jul 2016

As water, yes, the oceans contain lots of H₂O.

Combining H₂ and O₂ produces water and a lot of energy, which can be used to propel a rocket, or power a car. However, reversing the process, splitting H₂O to produce H₂ and O₂ requires every bit as much energy (and more.)

It takes energy to produce fossil fuels from the ground, but less energy than is produced by burning the fossil fuels. They are a net energy source in our experience.

Producing H₂ from H₂O requires more energy than you get back by burning the hydrogen. It’s a net energy sink, but, perhaps useful as means to chemically “store” energy (much like a battery.)

This study suggests that there is molecular hydrogen, H₂, trapped in rock, which, perhaps, could be produced like fossil fuels.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Oceans May Be Large, Over...»Reply #6