Gamma Radiation and Electrolysis

[Highlight]

This is my second attempt on this topic. [Inappropriate comment removed by the Mentors] Somebody around here told me that there are thousands of scientists around the world trying to figure out a way in which to make electrolysis more efficient. Which could be true. So maybe adding what the title of this thread suggests has already been thought of. But I will say it anyway.

Perhaps I read it wrong, but I was reading that exposing water to gamma radiation won't make the water radioactive. I was also reading that exposing water to gamma radiation can break some of the H20 molecules into various compounds. It seems to me that in breaking the H20 bond using gamma radiation in combination with regular DC electrolysis should make the DC electrolysis much more efficient in producing hydrogen and oxygen. Seeing how much of the breaking of the H20 molecular bond will already be getting done by the gamma radiation. And when it comes to producing gamma radiation, there is more than enough nuclear waste around to produce those gamma rays.

So, what do you think of this approach? Has it already been tried? Were some of the things I said in error? Please let me know.

 

[renormalize]

It seems to me that in breaking the H20 bond using gamma radiation in combination with regular DC electrolysis should make the DC electrolysis much more efficient in producing hydrogen and oxygen. Seeing how much of the breaking of the H20 molecular bond will already be getting done by the gamma radiation. And when it comes to producing gamma radiation, there is more than enough nuclear waste around to produce those gamma rays.
So, what do you think of this approach? Has it already been tried? Were some of the things I said in error? Please let me know.

I don't know if your idea has "already been tried", but it certainly has already been studied. Here is a very recent reference: Nuclear Waste–Powered Hydrogen: Tenfold Boost Using Radiation-Enhanced Electrolysis.
(By the way, this took me about a minute to find by searching with Google. Can't you do us the courtesy of first conducting your own search, so that you may then post better informed questions here?)

 

[Mayhem]

First of all it's H₂O, not H20. To chemists, using 0 in place of O is like using n in place of π is to physicists. Anyway.

Gamma radiation isn't free either. Would there be an inherent advantage to spending energy to generate gamma radiation over just using that energy directly to drive an electrolyzer?

If you want to use a gamma emitting isotope, you have to ask if it is worth producing for this purpose and whether or not it can be scaled to industrially relevant levels.

Water electrolysis is an infamously elegant idea for producing hydrogen but it is simply not economically viable as of now.

 

[Highlight]

I don't know if your idea has "already been tried", but it certainly has already been studied. Here is a very recent reference: Nuclear Waste–Powered Hydrogen: Tenfold Boost Using Radiation-Enhanced Electrolysis.
(By the way, this took me about a minute to find by searching with Google. Can't you do us the courtesy of first conducting your own search, so that you may then post better informed questions here?)

If I had the answers, what would I be doing here? I found the article you gave a link to interesting. I thought that ionizing radiation would make water radioactive. That isn't necessarily true. The point of all this is that you can indeed use radiation to be a significant help with regular DC electrolysis. So, why isn't it already being done on a large scale? There is certainly far more than enough radioactive waste around to get the job done. Take the "elephant's foot" mass of nuclear waste at Chernobyl. One place I was reading from said that it is expected to remain dangerously radioactive for around the next 4.5 billion years. To get into the aspects of why it isn't being done would be delving into things of a political nature. And that isn't allowed around here. In fact, I don't know if my saying that it isn't allowed around here is allowed around here.

 

[Highlight]

First of all it's H₂O, not H20. To chemists, using 0 in place of O is like using n in place of π is to physicists. Anyway.

Gamma radiation isn't free either. Would there be an inherent advantage to spending energy to generate gamma radiation over just using that energy directly to drive an electrolyzer?

If you want to use a gamma emitting isotope, you have to ask if it is worth producing for this purpose and whether or not it can be scaled to industrially relevant levels.

Water electrolysis is an infamously elegant idea for producing hydrogen but it is simply not economically viable as of now.

Wherever I see the water molecule being mentioned on the internet, they call it H20. That's close enough. You know what I'm talking about. Next, gamma radiation is free. As long as nuclear power plants exist, it will always be free. Because those power plants produce radioactive waste that right now is being wasted. The best they can think of doing with it is bury it. I also saw a picture once of a bunch of spent nuclear cores sitting at the bottom of a cooling pool. They glowed a blue color. The reason they did that was mainly because they were giving off gamma rays. No doubt along with alpha, beta and X-rays. Also, in post#2, renormalize gave me a link to an interesting article. Maybe you should look at it yourself. You might also find my reply to him to be interesting. It might settle your "economically viable" argument.

 

[renormalize]

If I had the answers, what would I be doing here?

My point is not that you need answers before posting here, but that you do need to search for yourself and then, based on what you find, ask here on PF. In other words, we ask that you demonstrate at least some effort at research before asking us to do the same.

So, why isn't it already being done on a large scale?

The reference I give in post #2 is an article summarizing the review paper published here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0029549325006880
I suggest that you obtain a copy of the paper and see if it addresses your question. Or you can directly contact one of the paper's authors via the email address shown in the above link.
I've offered you direction: now it's your turn to act.

 

[berkeman]

Since the OP is no longer with PF, this thread is now closed. Thank you to all who tried to help the OP.