Hydrogen

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Ok, you win OIL IS TEH L33T AND WE WILL USE IT FOREVER!!!!

OK bub, let me dumb it down for you even more. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source when produced via electrolysis. It will ALWAYS take more energy to produce X amount of hydrogen than X amount of hydrogen will yield when recombined with oxygen to form water. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. Does this mean hydrogen is useless? Far from it. However, it can NEVER be a source for energy via electrolysis. This would be a self-defeating practice. It can store energy generated by other means, such as nuclear power, but can NEVER be its own source of energy.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Ok, you win OIL IS TEH L33T AND WE WILL USE IT FOREVER!!!!

OK bub, let me dumb it down for you even more. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source when produced via electrolysis. It will ALWAYS take more energy to produce X amount of hydrogen than X amount of hydrogen will yield when recombined with oxygen to form water. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. Does this mean hydrogen is useless? Far from it. However, it can NEVER be a source for energy via electrolysis. This would be a self-defeating practice. It can store energy generated by other means, such as nuclear power, but can NEVER be its own source of energy.

OK, ignoring bioreactors and catalysts. I realize that we need to generate hydrogen from electricity. That's why I stated the need to develop more windmill and solar farms. These could be done far out to sea like oil rigs, or in the desert where water could be pumped to. Tidal energy, geo thermal energy, etc.

I never disagreed with this, so why argue about it? Economies of scale will make up for the cost, as will the efficiency of burning hydrogen over gas, as will the lack of cost from pollution.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
OK, ignoring bioreactors and catalysts. I realize that we need to generate hydrogen from electricity. That's why I stated the need to develop more windmill and solar farms. These could be done far out to sea like oil rigs, or in the desert where water could be pumped to. Tidal energy, geo thermal energy, etc.

All of these suggestions have environmental impacts of their own, but I'll leave that for another discussion. I'm just glad you finally acknowledge that hydrogen is not an energy source in and of itself.

I never disagreed with this, so why argue about it? Economies of scale will make up for the cost, as will the efficiency of burning hydrogen over gas, as will the lack of cost from pollution.

Yes, you just pranced around it rather than addressing it. I'm not sure why you're so fascinated with burning hydrogen, as that will not really yield so much benefit, especially since fuel cells are already so well developed and mechanically simpler (read: more reliable) than any combustion engine. Plus, when you output water vapor from combustion, it will have environmental effects - they'll just be different from those of gasoline combustion emissions. But that's yet another topic.

 

[DrPizza]

Praise the lord, we seem to be making progress. Now for a newsflash for you: Solar cells and wind are nice to supplement a SMALL amount of the world's needs for energy. You absolutely, regardless of how technologically advanced we become, will never be able to produce even half of our hydrogen needs for cars, once we stop using fossil fuels.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Praise the lord, we seem to be making progress. Now for a newsflash for you: Solar cells and wind are nice to supplement a SMALL amount of the world's needs for energy. You absolutely, regardless of how technologically advanced we become, will never be able to produce even half of our hydrogen needs for cars, once we stop using fossil fuels.

Well I have not changed anything since my first posts, I just broke it down a little better for you guys.

As tidal, geothermal, wind, solar and other technologies improve they will be able to provide a great deal of the hydrogen we will need. I remember reading an article over a decade ago that by covering 7% of the desert with solar cells we could provide enough hydrogen fuel. Granted that's a lot of land and will never happen but the potential is there. While cold fusion could solve all of our energy problems, I'm not holding my breath as no major breakthrough has been made.

BTW gas is now over $3 a gallon! I need a hydrogen powered moped :sun:

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Hydrogen is energy.

Perhaps you think you have not changed anything, but it's this kind of statement that draws some of the attention we've lavished on this thread.

We are far from being oil zealots. In fact, I'm concerned that the politicians are trying to convince the public that we solve our oil and pollution problems by merely switching cars from gasoline to hydrogen. I have pointed out in several of my responses that the real economic and ecological costs of hydrogen (and electricity) have to take into account the source of energy that is used to produce them. Hydrogen produced by burning fossil fuels is not "clean" energy. The politicians are being disengenuous when they sing the praises of hydrogen as a fuel without addressing the source of the energy that produces it. If we move to hydrogen right now and we try to keep its cost as low as possible, then it'll be produced by fossil fuel.

I agree that society might be better served by developing alternate energy sources, such as wind and solar. Oil prices will have to continue rising toward $100/barrel before we see the necessary investment made on the basis of economics. If we as a society decide to encourage new technologies through direct research and tax breaks (with money from our tax-paying pockets), then maybe we'd see those breakthroughs that make them more competative economically with fossil fuels much sooner. These same technologies could be more immediately applied to the generation of electrical power (where they have made small inroads). I don't see this kind of commitment coming anytime soon (the energy bill is just a drop in the bucket).

You'll remember that several of us have mentioned our hope for fusion as the energy source to produce "clean" hydrogen.

We have been responding to the contents of your postings as honestly (and patiently) as we can. We are pointing out that the source of the energy needed to produce it is the most important piece of hydrogen jigsaw puzzle, at least to us. What we've been waiting for is some acknowledgement in your posts that you understand the importance of this problem.

P.S. -- I suspect that the so-called bioreactors are supposed to mimic plant chemistry to dissociate hydrogen from water using solar energy. If so, then they may well produce carbon dioxide too. (I'm not being negative! Just raising a point of interest I hope).

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Hydrogen is energy.

Perhaps you think you have not changed anything, but it's this kind of statement that draws some of the attention we've lavished on this thread.

We are far from being oil zealots. In fact, I'm concerned that the politicians are trying to convince the public that we solve our oil and pollution problems by merely switching cars from gasoline to hydrogen. I have pointed out in several of my responses that the real economic and ecological costs of hydrogen (and electricity) have to take into account the source of energy that is used to produce them. Hydrogen produced by burning fossil fuels is not "clean" energy. The politicians are being disengenuous when they sing the praises of hydrogen as a fuel without addressing the source of the energy that produces it. If we move to hydrogen right now and we try to keep its cost as low as possible, then it'll be produced by fossil fuel.

I agree that society might be better served by developing alternate energy sources, such as wind and solar. Oil prices will have to continue rising toward $100/barrel before we see the necessary investment made on the basis of economics. If we as a society decide to encourage new technologies through direct research and tax breaks (with money from our tax-paying pockets), then maybe we'd see those breakthroughs that make them more competative economically with fossil fuels much sooner. These same technologies could be more immediately applied to the generation of electrical power (where they have made small inroads). I don't see this kind of commitment coming anytime soon (the energy bill is just a drop in the bucket).

You'll remember that several of us have mentioned our hope for fusion as the energy source to produce "clean" hydrogen.

We have been responding to the contents of your postings as honestly (and patiently) as we can. We are pointing out that the source of the energy needed to produce it is the most important piece of hydrogen jigsaw puzzle, at least to us. What we've been waiting for is some acknowledgement in your posts that you understand the importance of this problem.

P.S. -- I suspect that the so-called bioreactors are supposed to mimic plant chemistry to dissociate hydrogen from water using solar energy. If so, then they may well produce carbon dioxide too. (I'm not being negative! Just raising a point of interest I hope).

I must say that is the most level headed response I have received so far. :beer:

I am by no means talking about hydrogen taking over tomorrow. I'm talking 20 to 50 years in a gradual introduction along side other technologies.

As far as the bioreactor.... I found an interesting site where someone made a home kit
http://www.futurefarmers.com/survey/algae.php

Green algae can produce hydrogen gas, H2, in a process called "biophotolysis" or "photobiological hydrogen production." This process is carried out by photosynthetic enzymes, which split water to obtain electrons, excite these electrons with photons, and eventually use these electrons to reduce 2H+ to H2. The scientific challenge associated with this approach to hydrogen production is that the enzyme that actually releases the hydrogen, called a "reversible hydrogenase", is sensitive to oxygen. The process of photosynthesis, of course, produces oxygen and this normally stops hydrogen production very quickly in green algae. So, to overcome this problem, we are generating O2-tolerant, H2-producing mutants of the green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii by various genetic approaches. The ultimate goal of this work is to develop a water-splitting process that will result in a commercial H2-producing system that is cost effective, scalable to large production, non-polluting, and self-sustaining."-Maria Ghirardi

 

[Future Shock]

Wreckage,
Forget thermo, let's try chemistry:

1) We burn any element by combining it with oxygen

2) When we burn oil, we take a fossil fuel with no oxygen in it, and combine it (over a flame or spark) with oxygen. The act of binding that fuel to the oxygen releases heat, thus driving the engine, or roasting the meat, or whatever.

3) Water has hydrogen - that is ALREADY burned!! That's all water is, burned hydrogen. It can't combine with oxygen because it already has combined with oxygen. One oxygen atom has electron space for two hydrogen atoms, and no more. So starting with H20 means that we are already out of places to attach more atoms to anything else.

4) Hydrolosis seperates those hydrogen atoms from the oxygen - but it takes the exact same amount of energy to seperate them as you will later get back when you burn the hydrogen. There is no magic here - this is chemistry, not nuclear energy, so there is no matter or energy conversion taking place. Energy IN = Engery OUT.

5) When you later burn that hydrogen, you get exactly what energy you put in, minus some losses from transport, storage, etc.

Clearer? That's why you can't measure an economy by hydrogen - it is merely a zero sum (energywise) game. You MUST concentrate on what is producing the elecricity you started with to get that hydrogen - so there is no such thing (despite FUD being spread) as a "hydrogen economy". There may be a nuclear economy, there may be a coal economy, etc.

FS

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Wreckage,
Forget thermo, let's try chemistry:

1) We burn any element by combining it with oxygen

2) When we burn oil, we take a fossil fuel with no oxygen in it, and combine it (over a flame or spark) with oxygen. The act of binding that fuel to the oxygen releases heat, thus driving the engine, or roasting the meat, or whatever.

3) Water has hydrogen - that is ALREADY burned!! That's all water is, burned hydrogen. It can't combine with oxygen because it already has combined with oxygen. One oxygen atom has electron space for two hydrogen atoms, and no more. So starting with H20 means that we are already out of places to attach more atoms to anything else.

4) Hydrolosis seperates those hydrogen atoms from the oxygen - but it takes the exact same amount of energy to seperate them as you will later get back when you burn the hydrogen. There is no magic here - this is chemistry, not nuclear energy, so there is no matter or energy conversion taking place. Energy IN = Engery OUT.

5) When you later burn that hydrogen, you get exactly what energy you put in, minus some losses from transport, storage, etc.

Clearer? That's why you can't measure an economy by hydrogen - it is merely a zero sum (energywise) game. You MUST concentrate on what is producing the elecricity you started with to get that hydrogen - so there is no such thing (despite FUD being spread) as a "hydrogen economy". There may be a nuclear economy, there may be a coal economy, etc.

FS

I don't need an elementary school lesson on hydrogen :roll:

If hydrogen is being generated by several sources relevant to each location (solar, wind, tidal, bioreactor, geothermal), yet the entire country is running off the hydrogen you get a hydrogen economy. There are dozens of ways to generate electricity. A bicycle hooked up to an alternator could generate electricity to create hydrogen. With a bioreactor or a catalyst you don't even need electricity to generate hydrogen.

Now if all the cars are running on hydrogen and all the homes are heated with hydrogen and fuel cells are all powered by hydrogen you get a hydrogen economy.

Use Google to search for "hydrogen economy", read through the 1000+ links and you will see I am not making this up.

Also feel free to read the ENTIRE thread where I have repeatedly discussed the use of multiple sources for hydrogen and the gradual introduction of such an economy

I hate to sound condescending, but I have had to repeat myself several times because either people are not reading all of the posts or it's just beyond their level of thinking.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Use Google to search for "hydrogen economy", read through the 1000+ links and you will see I am not making this up.

Amazing logic here. By this reasoning, we might just as likely have a porn economy!

Results 1 - 10 of about 635,000 for porn economy. (0.16 seconds)

The entire problem with your hypothesis (that hydrogen is the end-all, be-all) is that we must have a clean, renewable resource/source of work to generate said hydrogen. You repeatedly list solar, wind, tidal, bioreactor, and geothermal, but you don't appear to comprehend the limited applicability of these technologies, nor the scope required to achieve the desired energy output to do what you want to do. If it were so easy to harness the sun's energy at high efficiency such that only a pittance of land would generate everything we need. These resources are being exploited to the best of our ability even now, yet they provide the tiniest fraction of power generation for our nation. Sure, with improved technology we could increase this fraction, but not to the extent where it could even replace the entire power grid, let alone gasoline supply. You have to add nuclear to the list if you want to even approach your goal, yet you seem extremely hesitant to do so. Adding nuclear as the dominant power source would solve just about every problem in the book.

 

[IonYou]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The entire problem with your hypothesis (that hydrogen is the end-all, be-all) is that we must have a clean, renewable resource/source of work to generate said hydrogen. You repeatedly list solar, wind, tidal, bioreactor, and geothermal, but you don't appear to comprehend the limited applicability of these technologies, nor the scope required to achieve the desired energy output to do what you want to do. If it were so easy to harness the sun's energy at high efficiency such that only a pittance of land would generate everything we need. These resources are being exploited to the best of our ability even now, yet they provide the tiniest fraction of power generation for our nation. Sure, with improved technology we could increase this fraction, but not to the extent where it could even replace the entire power grid, let alone gasoline supply. You have to add nuclear to the list if you want to even approach your goal, yet you seem extremely hesitant to do so. Adding nuclear as the dominant power source would solve just about every problem in the book.

Except what to do about nuclear waste.

 

[Zebo]

Wrekage Google: Second law of thermal dynamics digest it. Oil is basically free same with coal. Hydrogen costs infinity more to produce since it requires more energy to produce than it gives. I don't think I've ever heard of something so dumb. Akin to buying a 5% tbill with a 21% Credit card. But even worse returns and intrest.

Basically electric autos will be the future with some type of lithium sufide high amp/hr battery and the energy source will be our existing sources...fossils, nuclear, and physical to include hydro/tidal/wind

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
[
Um... Yeah. Gas comes from oil. The purpose of modern oil refineries is the selective production of hydrocarbons with compositions distributed around octane and heptane. If all we needed oil for was to lubricate motors, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Yeah, I know. The point was that gasoline needs to be refined from oil, much in the same way hydrogen needs to be split from water.

Gasoline is refined from oil just the same way olive oil is obtained from olives. You just heat it a little and press it a little (ok, is a bit more difficult than that, but just a bit)
Hydrogen is split from water just the same way a Rubik's cube is changed from completely assembled to shuffled: you loose energy (time and so on) every way.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Wreckage, perhaps it is you who needs to re-read this thread.
I will allow you this point - at the point of use, hydrogen can replace gasoline.
Everyone in this forum agrees with that point.

I don't really agree with that point. Just now, hydrogen can replace gasoline just as easy as car designs from 50 years ago can replace car designs from now. You loose much in weight (ok, you GAIN in weight) and/or loose in autonomy. High efficiency internal combustion engines are highly efficient while running very hot, and this creates NOx, which are pollutants. If you run them at lower temperatures, you loose some of the efficiency
Hydrogen is bound to be the equal to gasoline in power/weight/volume regards - but right now it is not

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Wreckage, perhaps it is you who needs to re-read this thread.
I will allow you this point - at the point of use, hydrogen can replace gasoline.
Everyone in this forum agrees with that point.

The question is WHERE does the hydrogen come from? It's NOT a matter of technology. Oil is a SOURCE of energy. Wind is a SOURCE of energy. Solar is a SOURCE of energy. Hydrogen IS NOT, I repeat, IS NOT A SOURCE OF ENERGY
It never will be. It never can be. It's not a matter of technology. You need to produce hydrogen. You need energy from somewhere else to do it. You cannot use hydrogen to produce hydrogen.

Your idea of having solar and wind farms to produce hydrogen around the clock is a great idea. It appeals to the masses. We worship the power of the sun and wind. However, if you had actually read the article I referred to above, you would see that world-wide, we absolutely CAN NOT feasibly sustain our energy needs with solar and wind power.

Incidentally, since you referred to internal combustion of hydrogen: WRONG WAY TO DO IT!!!! There are inherent losses in an internal combustion engine that simply cannot be overcome. What this means: It's IMPOSSIBLE to get anywhere near to 100% efficiency with such an engine. Hence the research into fuel cells. - convert the hydrogen more directly to electricity. This gives a huge boost in efficiency. So, you may want to research a bit about fuel cells.

I'd have shut up a while ago and given up any hope of convincing you, but *sigh* it seems that there are too many stupid politicians who are completely unprepared to make policy decisions concerning future energy needs. I suspect the reason Dick Cheney met behind closed doors with energy executives and refused to release minutes from the meeting was to avoid embarassment after having to be explained things 10 times.

Anyway, I'll attempt one more analogy.

Oil needs to be converted to Gasoline, just as water needs to be converted to hydrogen. There is a LOT more water than oil. Oil is not a practical energy source until it is converted to gasoline.

As far as using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine....
http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/h2r_racer.htm
I will trust the Engineers and BWW more than you.

I bet you would drink your last glass of water and die before saving it to find a better source. Oil is your last glass.

Most scientists agree that hydrogen will be the energy source of the future.... If you don't agree you might want to start saving your oil now.

I can make a steam engine (for a train) that works by burning crude oil. I can run a Sterling engine (a closed system engine) using only a hot source (burning crude oil) and a cold source (like outside air).
When you find about an engine that consumes water and produces energy, please come and share it with us

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Oil needs to be converted to Gasoline, just as water needs to be converted to hydrogen. There is a LOT more water than oil. Oil is not a practical energy source until it is converted to gasoline.

As far as using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine....
http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/h2r_racer.htm
I will trust the Engineers and BWW more than you.

I bet you would drink your last glass of water and die before saving it to find a better source. Oil is your last glass.

Most scientists agree that hydrogen will be the energy source of the future.... If you don't agree you might want to start saving your oil now.

Have you seen that that hydrogen racer have a 6l V12 engine generating 210kW while the SAME engine on the 760Li (6l V12 gasoline injected) generates "only" 408bhp (or 300kW)?

But it doesn't produce NOx, so my earlier point is false

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Well most of the automakers have internal combustion engines on their drawing boards. Since that's where I get my cars from I will have to trust them. I am in no way saying this will be an overnight transition. It will take years, maybe even decades. It's already started so now it's just a matter of time.

Several people above may not seem to like hydrogen, but they offered nothing better. I believe the technology for producing hydrogen will improve vastly over the next two decades to the point where everyone can use it.

You can start from the design of a gasoline engine and transform it to a hydrogen engine. There are many changes to be made (see the BMW racing page supplied by Wreckage), and now hydrogen engines are not as powerfull as gasoline ones (see the same page, and look for specifications of the BMW 760Li engine).
Using better electric engines and fuel cells is a much better proposition.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Several people above may not seem to like hydrogen, but they offered nothing better. I believe the technology for producing hydrogen will improve vastly over the next two decades to the point where everyone can use it.

What about ethanol/methanol?
You can store it in current fuel tanks (unlike hydrogen). You can burn it in current design engines (like hydrogen), maybe fewer modifications will be needed. And you can obtain it naturally (the same way you obtain high alcohol content drinks).
Brasil even has most of its automotive fleet running on methanol/ethanol (like 90% plus of it).

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Wreckage
OK, ignoring bioreactors and catalysts. I realize that we need to generate hydrogen from electricity. That's why I stated the need to develop more windmill and solar farms. These could be done far out to sea like oil rigs, or in the desert where water could be pumped to. Tidal energy, geo thermal energy, etc.

All of these suggestions have environmental impacts of their own, but I'll leave that for another discussion. I'm just glad you finally acknowledge that hydrogen is not an energy source in and of itself.

I never disagreed with this, so why argue about it? Economies of scale will make up for the cost, as will the efficiency of burning hydrogen over gas, as will the lack of cost from pollution.

Yes, you just pranced around it rather than addressing it. I'm not sure why you're so fascinated with burning hydrogen, as that will not really yield so much benefit, especially since fuel cells are already so well developed and mechanically simpler (read: more reliable) than any combustion engine. Plus, when you output water vapor from combustion, it will have environmental effects - they'll just be different from those of gasoline combustion emissions. But that's yet another topic.

CycloWizard, you now are totally wrong - the typical gasoline engine produces more water than a fuel cell/electric vehicle having the same power rating (gasoline contains both carbon and hydrogen).

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Use Google to search for "hydrogen economy", read through the 1000+ links and you will see I am not making this up.

Amazing logic here. By this reasoning, we might just as likely have a porn economy!

Results 1 - 10 of about 635,000 for porn economy. (0.16 seconds)

The entire problem with your hypothesis (that hydrogen is the end-all, be-all) is that we must have a clean, renewable resource/source of work to generate said hydrogen. You repeatedly list solar, wind, tidal, bioreactor, and geothermal, but you don't appear to comprehend the limited applicability of these technologies, nor the scope required to achieve the desired energy output to do what you want to do. If it were so easy to harness the sun's energy at high efficiency such that only a pittance of land would generate everything we need. These resources are being exploited to the best of our ability even now, yet they provide the tiniest fraction of power generation for our nation. Sure, with improved technology we could increase this fraction, but not to the extent where it could even replace the entire power grid, let alone gasoline supply. You have to add nuclear to the list if you want to even approach your goal, yet you seem extremely hesitant to do so. Adding nuclear as the dominant power source would solve just about every problem in the book.

Unlike oil-based economy, which is space-independent (you have hundreds of square miles of wells, pumps, ports, railroad lines, pipelines, refineries), all the renewable resources listed there are space-dependent (area-dependent). To produce what it is now extracted from oil deposits you need millions of square miles of land
This could be a big problem, or a small problem. But right now it is a big problem.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Calin
CycloWizard, you now are totally wrong - the typical gasoline engine produces more water than a fuel cell/electric vehicle having the same power rating (gasoline contains both carbon and hydrogen).

Totally wrong? Maybe you can tell me where I said hydrocarbons don't release water. The relative amounts of water produced by each process will be different. In a hydrogen combustion engine, the amount of water produced may very well be greater than that in a gasoline engine. It's hard to say without knowing the engine specifics (really, just the overall efficiency and operating temperature are needed for a first approximation, but this doesn't mean you're correct that gasoline engines produce more - it depends). In a fuel cell, there is no water vapor product.

Besides, I was simply stating that the effects of water vapor emissions are largely unstudied. The thrust of scientific inquiry has been towards determining the effects of all other emissions.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Use Google to search for "hydrogen economy", read through the 1000+ links and you will see I am not making this up.

Amazing logic here. By this reasoning, we might just as likely have a porn economy!

The point was not the number of links. The point was for you to click on the links and educate yourself.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
The point was not the number of links. The point was for you to click on the links and educate yourself.

I've spent the last six years of my life educating myself on this and similar subjects. So, unless you already have a PhD in chemical engineering, I doubt you have any room to tell me to educate myself.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Wreckage
The point was not the number of links. The point was for you to click on the links and educate yourself.

I've spent the last six years of my life educating myself on this and similar subjects. So, unless you already have a PhD in chemical engineering, I doubt you have any room to tell me to educate myself.

Then why do I have to keep pointing things out for you. You doubted the hydrogen internal combustion engine, so I posted a link for you. You doubted the hydrogen economy, so I posted a link for you. I've shown at least 2 ways you can get hydrogen without electricity. I have already stated we are talking about the future of energy without fossil fuels, yet all you can talk about is fossil fuels.

I have broke it down into clear and simple terms yet you still are not getting it. That's ok. PowerEngineer seems to be on the same page now. I will work on Calin next.

 

[f95toli]

Yes, you can get hydrogen without electricity. But you can not get hydrogen without ENERGY.
Electricity is just one form of energy and there are many others.
The point is that even if you use some biological process to do it you still need to add energy to that process (light, heat etc) in order to produce hydrogen. It is possible to get some of that energy from the sun but then you might as well use solar cells to produce electricity directly.

Using hydrogen to produce electricity (either by buring it or in fuel cells) makes no sense whatsoever.