:dubious:
OK smartguy, the fan is to be used for pulling regular old air into a combustion chamber–presumably there’s be enough ambient hydrogen floating around to burn off the oxygen.
OK, there’s a path to another solution: if burning oxygen can locat a hydrogen & “grab” it, why couldn’t an “oxygen simulator” be made that would behave like an oxygen on the prowl and then, rather than bond explosively with them, nab hydrogens and stuff 'em in a bag? so to speak.
Now see, that’s where your idea goes to hell. The Earth’s atmospere is roughly 78% nitrogen (inert gas), 21% oxygen, and only .000055% hydrogen. No fuel there to burn, and if there was, it would have already done so with the 21% oxygen that is already there.
As I have shown, there just isn’t much hydrogen in the atmospere to “nab”.
However, I find your ideas interesting and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I think most of this has been covered but once again:
You need some kind of power to make hydrogen ‘fuel’. So it really is a storage device, like a battery. You also need water, but in the grand scheme of things not much, so that’s not an issue. And yes, there’s left over oxygen, but that’s not a problem.
You still have the problems of whatever you use to get the power, which is really either electric power, or some kind of fossil fuel. If you’re burning fossil fuel to get the power, then you still have the global warming problems.
The advantage of using hydrogen rather than gasoline is that 1) all the dirty stuff (burning fossil fuel) happens at the power plant, so pollution is easier to control [except the global warming part, which there’s not much you can do about), and 2) you can use non-fossil fuel electric plants, such as solar, dams, wood-fired boilers, exercise bicycles hooked up to generators or whatever, which means less toxic pollution and zero global warming problems.
A fuel cell burning hydrogen does give off water vapor, but not really enough to worry about – an engine burning gasoline also gives off water vapor.
However, in my humble opinion, the next likely step is not really a hydrogen economy, but a gasoline-burning fuel-cell economy, with a small device that creates hydrogen from gasoline in front of a hydrogen burning fuel cell. It’s still fossil fuel based, but a little more efficient, and produces less smog-forming pollution, plus likely would allow for a far broader range of fuels.
But as oxygen is highly flammable with the simple tools of fire, air and…oxygen I wonder what’s really going on with it if it’s not mating indiscriminately with the few hydrogens floating around? So why don’t we convert it into ozone and pump it via a LOOOOOOOONG pipe and repair the ozone layer? (should I be starting seperate threads on this stuff?) Or maybe we use it for bleaching stuff…but that makes dioxins doesn’t it? 
And be careful with those flip subscriptions to newsletters. Sometimes when the mustard on my tinfoil hat wears thin I can hear Them monitoring & broadcasting Their mind control beams so I KNOW They’re watching me. You don’t want to be on my distribution list unless you’re willing to commit to The Hatch. 
Err, wood fired boilers, while not fossil fuel plants, do in fact give off CO2 and so do contribute to global warming, yes?
You need to read the cites regarding where most commercially produced hydrogen comes from: natural gas. It is far more efficient to produce it through steam reforming of NG than by hydrolosis of water. Current technology is running between 65-85% efficiency in the conversion of NG to hydrogen. Hydrogen is no more of a storage medium than is gasoline. Hydrogen is a fossil fuel.
Oxygen is not flammable - it is necessary for most kinds of combustion, but it is not really itself a combustible fuel.
Is that based on the energy to extract it or does it also include the energy one could have gotten from the NG?
Hydrogen can certainly be produced in quantity through electrolysis, it’s just that steam reformation now is a cheaper way to do it. But that’s fine. The beautiful thing about a hydrogen economy is that once you have the infrastructure in place for burning the hydrogen (fuel cells, pipelines for distribution, etc), then you can change the method you use to make the hydrogen without changing the infrastructure. To me, that’s the most compelling feature. It’s like electricity - the power in your home wiring could have been created from nuclear, solar, wind, gas, whatever. You don’t know, and don’t care. That gives us tremendous flexibility in moving to new power sources as they become available, without having to tear down and rebuild our infrastructure.
As for where the power comes from to make hydrogen - nuclear. Canada has put together a proposal to build about 170 CANDU reactors in Nevada near Yucca Mountain. Take in water from Lake Mead, convert it to hydrogen, and pump it across the country. The heavy water byproduct is used in the CANDU, making the overall energy cycle pretty efficient.
Also, CANDU reactors can eat waste from the type of reactors the U.S. uses, and the waste the CANDU puts out has a 400 year half life, if I recall correctly, making long-term storage much safer. So the CANDUs take in the spent fuel heading for Yucca, burn it, produce hydrogen, and then their waste goes to Yucca, which is nearby, making transportation safer and cheaper.
The big problem with it right now is cost. As long as we can produce ample hydrogen from fossil fuels, electrolysis will not be competitive. But at some point, fossil fuels will become too expensive to burn for general fuel, and it would be nice to know that all we have to do is bring nuclear plants online and continue producing the hydogen without changing the distribution and usage infrastructure. One day we may even get Fusion working, or some other form of energy, and then we can just insert it into the power generation grid and start decommissioning the nukes.
Another quick question about the hydrogen economy – When using water to generate hydrogen, is it possible to use seawater? How much would that affect the price?
I myself have seen a working model of a fuel cell that uses photocells to electrolyze hydrogen. If a safe method of transport could be developed, a system of solar-powered hydrogen “refineries” could be built to supply fuel cells.
Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t current manufacturing costs and efficiency mean that photovoltaic cells take more energy to produce than they can be expected to provide in a normal service life.
I’ve never seen a good cite for this, so if you’ve got one, please provide.
Mangetout already addressed this, but let me elaborate. Oxygen does not burn, since burning things are just combining with oxygen, and oxygen is already combined with oxygen, as it were. However, there are a lot of things in the environment which can burn, just not very easily. If you put them into a high-oxygen atmosphere, however, many of those things would burn easily. So tanks of oxygen have a similar danger associated with them as tanks of, say, hydrogen, but for different reasons. If a tank of hydrogen breaks open in a lab, there’s a danger that the hydrogen will burn with the oxygen already present in the air. If a tank of oxygen breaks open, there’s instead the risk that the countertops, or the notebooks, or whatever will burn with all that extra oxygen.
