This is how we are going to get hydrogen

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Imagine if this technology is perfected for the civilian market. An all wheel drive car that makes more electricity than it uses.

What you're speaking about there, Sir, is nothing other than Perpetum Mobile and that defies laws of physics. Don't trust your source.

Besides Toyota has production vehicles as we speak that run 300 miles with 5-6 gallons of diesel off-road. Without electrical gadgets attached. Hell my Mercedes Benz 320cdi runs 300 miles on tarmac with less than that!

[Mini D]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The reactors will create enough energy to heat themselves.  Think about it, if a reactor couldn't produce enough hydrogen to heat itself to 150 degrees, it would be producing too little energy anyways to be of any use.

LOL! Think about it. All it would have to do is create enough energy to create itself and still have enough left over to power something else. Ummm... no.

The main shortfall of Hydrogen is production. This does not look like an efficient way to get it. Unfortunately, any attempt to produce bacteria that would do this with room temperature water would only mean that we'd all have to learn to breath hydrogen.

There will be easier ways to produce hydrogen, but nothing that will compare to fossil or hydro-electric power generation.

Why would you use the power generated by a nuclear reactor to generate hydrogen when you could just generate electricity from it?

[AquaShrimp]

Theres 4500 (kilo)calories per kilogram of glucose.  It takes one (kilo)calorie to raise a kilogram of water by 1 degree celcsius.  Considering an ambient temperature of 80 degrees (F), it will take about 26 degrees of (C) to reach 150 degrees (F).

So basically, out of the 4500 (kilo)calories of energy you have in a kilogram of glucose, only about 25 kilocalories are going to be needed to heat the vessel to operating temperature.

[Angus]

Finally somebody who knows the law!
(Actually my school had 4600 kcal/kg).
Watch it though. That's pure sugar. Starch is different.
An 85% dry kilogramme of Barley contains some 1650 kcal.

Well, it still balances out.

This:
"If this pans out, and the economics hold up (that'll be key), it would be a major stride forward. Would be nice of farmers grew stuff, instead of getting paid not to."

On a nice soil, you'll get 1.200 litres of rape oil pr. ha (2.5 acres), which burns directly on a diesel engine. That's enough for quite some driving!
For the work put into the field you will have to subtract some, something like 5-10% for the fuel for a very good job.
Most of the biomass of the food rape is still left, and is a very good cattlefood!

[Tuomio]

What is the remaining product after the hydrogen has been separated from the glucose?

[Angus]

Now THAT is a good question.
Some carbon, actually quite some, as well as oxygen, but in what form?

[Mini D]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Theres 4500 (kilo)calories per kilogram of glucose.  It takes one (kilo)calorie to raise a kilogram of water by 1 degree celcsius.  Considering an ambient temperature of 80 degrees (F), it will take about 26 degrees of (C) to reach 150 degrees (F).

So basically, out of the 4500 (kilo)calories of energy you have in a kilogram of glucose, only about 25 kilocalories are going to be needed to heat the vessel to operating temperature.

You're confusing calories with hydrogen. How much hydrogen are you going to generate from one kilogram of glucose? How long would it take and how long would you have to be heating it to do it?

You're numbers don't even matter in that scenario.

Try again... there is no such thing as a perpetual machine.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Except that the system aquashrimp describes is far from perpetual machine as it's fed with fuel constantly. Many systems generate the heat they need to function by themselves, one example being your car engine.

The claim of 'electric engines geared to produce more electricity than they consume' would be perpetual machine. And it ain't gonna happen, Bubba.

[AquaShrimp]

MiniD, let me explain it in simpler terms.  This is not a perceptual motion or magic machine.

Gasoline we put in our car has the chemical composition of C6 H14.  Thats six carbons and fourteen hydrogens.

Glucose has the composition of C6 H12 O6.  Six carbons, twelve hydrogens, six oxygens.

All the energy is in the glucose, just a little bit goes to heating the vessel.  But if you dont believe me, just wait a few years, this is where our hydrogen is going to come from!

It would be good too, our farmers might actually make a profit if we have huge demands for sugar.

[Mini D]

I don't think you're doing the  math right. It's about how many calories release x amounts of hydrogen and how much hydrogen is able to release x amounts of calories.

Your math is not relevant to the problem.

I'm saying that more energy is required to produce the hydrogen than the hydrogen itself is capable of producing. And, it's not by an insignificant amount. Efficent hydrogen production is still a ways away... and getting it anywhere near the efficiency of fossil fuel production is near impossible.

[AquaShrimp]

Fossil fuel levels, that brings up a good point.  For renewable energy sources, we are going to be limited to either the Suns direct solar energy (solar panels), or the % of the suns energy that plants are able to use.

So basically, were going to be on an energy budget with renewable energy sources.  But that will spur more energy effecient devices.

[Tac]

"I'm saying that more energy is required to produce the hydrogen than the hydrogen itself is capable of producing. "

I was under the impression the same applies if you substitute 'hydrogen' for 'gasoline'

[AquaShrimp]

I'm saying that more energy is required to produce the hydrogen than the hydrogen itself is capable of producing. And, it's not by an insignificant amount. Efficent hydrogen production is still a ways away... and getting it anywhere near the efficiency of fossil fuel production is near impossible.

Thats just for producing hydrogen from water.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Tac
"I'm saying that more energy is required to produce the hydrogen than the hydrogen itself is capable of producing. "

I was under the impression the same applies if you substitute 'hydrogen' for 'gasoline'

No, it's not true of gasoline. It is simply a refining process. If you don't believe me, light an oil field on fire.

Breaking the hydrogen bond free requires a reaction. It requires more energy than the hydrogen can produce. Hydrogen as a fuel source is cleaner and theoretically ideal except for that one small detail.

[Angus]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
MiniD, let me explain it in simpler terms.  This is not a perceptual motion or magic machine.

Gasoline we put in our car has the chemical composition of C6 H14.  Thats six carbons and fourteen hydrogens.

Glucose has the composition of C6 H12 O6.  Six carbons, twelve hydrogens, six oxygens.

All the energy is in the glucose, just a little bit goes to heating the vessel.  But if you dont believe me, just wait a few years, this is where our hydrogen is going to come from!

It would be good too, our farmers might actually make a profit if we have huge demands for sugar.

Not necessarily sugar, but any plantmass.
Energy can be grown, and it's already far more effective than solar panels for instance, but a lot of land is needed.
Now if you can not only extract the C for fuel, but the H as well, things are becoming very interesting