BTU Q's about burning water vs. burning gassoline

  • Thread starter Thread starter bbail2x2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Btu Water
AI Thread Summary
Hydrogen fuel offers a significant energy advantage over gasoline and diesel, containing 61,000 BTUs per pound compared to gasoline's 20,500 BTUs. However, hydrogen is less practical due to its low density, requiring about 10,000 times more space than gasoline. The production of hydrogen from water is currently more expensive than extracting fossil fuels, making it less economically viable despite its pollution-free combustion. The discussion also highlights that energy sources, whether fossil fuels or potential new fuels like hydrogen, will likely remain under the control of a few individuals, echoing historical patterns of resource management. The importance of water as a necessary resource for life adds complexity to the idea of it becoming a primary energy source.
bbail2x2
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I would like to know how Hydrogen compares to gasoline or diesel fuel for BTU which is the basic comparison for energy sources. If water is relatively easy to get, then the cost of hydrogen production is irrelevant. but gasoline on the other hand is expensive and controlled by a few individuals.
BTW, it is H2O not HO2 so you get 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
This source mentions that hydrogen gas contains 61,000 Btus of latent energy per pound compared to regular gasoline which has 20,500 Btus per pound. Of course it also mentions that a pound of hydrogen gas takes up about 10,000 times the space that gasoline does...:

http://mb-soft.com/public2/hydrogen.html

Making Hydrogen gas from water to use as a fuel is much more expensive than simply using fossil fuels to do the task (the above site does a good job of explaining why)...the only real benefit over using gasoline is that you do not have pollution when burning hydrogen.

Whatever society uses to run itself will always be controlled by a few individuals. In the Roman times, salt was a controlled substance that was used as payment and doled out in small increments to the everyday people. If I had the same access to salt now while living then I would be a Roman kajillionaire! But times change and new substances become "precious" to the running of society such as coal in the late 1800's or fossil fuels now. If a new fuel is found, be assured it will be controlled by the same sorts of people (and fossil fuels will probably still be available at that time; and nobody will really use them because everyone will have switched over to this new controlled fuel!). Seen from that perspective, I am sort of happy that water likely won't become the new substance used to run society (after all, we need it to drink!).
 

Attachments

  • NEWS-p14-395_tcm18-99997.jpg
    NEWS-p14-395_tcm18-99997.jpg
    12.8 KB · Views: 533
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top