Questions about a Hydrogen Economy; Scientific American

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of a "hydrogen economy," exploring its implications, feasibility, and the energy sources required for hydrogen production. Participants examine the environmental impacts, technological advancements, and the broader context of energy production, including comparisons to fossil fuels and alternative energy sources.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the term "hydrogen economy" is misleading, suggesting it implies hydrogen is an energy source like petroleum, which it is not, as hydrogen must be produced using energy.
  • Concerns are raised about the environmental impact of using coal to generate electricity for hydrogen production, highlighting issues such as carbon dioxide emissions and other pollutants.
  • Others propose that nuclear energy could be a cleaner alternative for hydrogen production compared to coal.
  • Several participants mention various methods of hydrogen production, including biological approaches and the potential for using renewable energy sources.
  • There is a discussion about the energy costs associated with hydrogen production, with some suggesting that fossil fuels may still play a significant role in the energy landscape.
  • Some participants express optimism about the potential of hydrogen technologies, while others remain skeptical about the practicality of a hydrogen economy.
  • Participants note that hydrogen acts as an energy carrier rather than a primary energy source, which complicates its role in an energy economy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the implications and feasibility of a hydrogen economy, with multiple competing views on the role of hydrogen versus fossil fuels and the environmental impacts of various energy sources. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to hydrogen production and its place in future energy systems.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of hydrogen production methods and the energy costs involved, but do not reach a consensus on the implications of these factors for the viability of a hydrogen economy.

  • #121
Hybrid Turbine Electric Vehicle
...The vehicle will be a heavy class urban transit bus offering double the fuel economy of today's buses and emissions that are reduced to 1/10th of the Environmental Protection Agency's standards. At the heart of the vehicle's drive train is a natural-gas-fueled engine. Initially, a small automotive engine will be tested as a baseline. This will be followed by the introduction of an advanced gas turbine developed from an aircraft jet engine. The engine turns a high-speed generator, producing electricity. Power from both the generator and an onboard energy storage system is then provided to a variable-speed electric motor attached to the rear drive axle. An intelligent power-control system determines the most efficient operation of the engine and energy storage system.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1996/6000/6920v.htm

more hits from NASA:
http://search.grc.nasa.gov/query.html?qt=turbine+electric&col=grcint&qc=&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rq=0&rf=0&tx=0&go=Search

This looks to me like another great application for Hydrogen. :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #122
UK company way ahead of the market in creating green hydrogen

..." the key to Hydrogen Solar's breakthrough is nanotechnology. Hydrogen Solar developed a nano-crystalline material that will dramatically improve the production of hydrogen by using solar energy to split water more efficiently into its elemental parts." ...This means the company is fast closing on the target 10 percent performance that has been recognized as the benchmark for commercially viable production on the open energy market.[continued]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/bis-ucw092404.php
 
  • #123
Ivan, that last one really looks like a hoax to me.
 
  • #124
russ_watters said:
Ivan, that last one really looks like a hoax to me.

Contact: Makeda Scott
makeda.scott@fco.gov.uk
 
  • #125
btw, I should have highlighted this the first time

In the coming months Hydrogen Solar plans to open a laboratory in Las Vegas. This will enable it to take advantage of the hot dry area for research. The company is currently recruiting scientists and engineers for the new lab.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/bis-ucw092404.php
 
  • #126
Hydrogen economy looks out of reach

US vehicles would require a million wind turbines, economists claim.

Wind power might be green, but it is unlikely to power the hydrogen revolution.

Converting every vehicle in the United States to hydrogen power would demand so much electricity that the country would need enough wind turbines to cover half of California or 1,000 extra nuclear power stations [continued]

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/041004-13.html

Obviously I think their assessment is much too pessimistic. It shows a lack of understanding of the state of the industry and developing technologies. No one serious about this claims that we can convert the entire country to wind produced H2. However, I think the size of the problem we face is made clear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #127
Its all about the assumptions. 1000 extra nuclear power stations is probably what you would need to cover the energy used by cars and existing fossil fuel power plants.
 
  • #128
Although I agree the estimates are pessimistic, I think the idea of highlighting how large a problem the complete tranformation to a H2 economy is warranted.

Maybe a X-Prize or DARPA Grand Challenge style event that includes green production and realistic economics would be a great way to focus some of the efforts of people working on the technologies and gather publicity. Sure the numbers could be twisted but a competition aimed at replacing the average consumer transportation needs without penalty seems like a worthwhile cause.

Figure a mid-sized SUV at 2 tons with a retail price of $25,000 (including H2 generation equipment) with a weekly range of 300 miles and its a plausible goal. To make it a challenge worthy of a large prize, how about if a community like say Boulder or Portland wanted to retrofit existing cars and switch over with an ROI that could offset the initial cost after 5-10 years?

That seems about as impossible near-term as the X-Prize did 10 years ago.

Cliff
 
  • #129
Not sure if this has been posted, but:

http://www.time.com/time/europe/specials/ff/trip1/hydrogen.html

By the end of 2002, three state-of-the-art DaimlerChrysler buses with hydrogen-powered fuel cells will start plying the streets of the capital, Reykjavik, with refueling available from a Shell service station. The vehicles will be quiet but above all clean — fuel cells produce electricity by electrochemically mixing hydrogen and oxygen; the only waste product is water vapor. The plan is to gradually switch the nation's 180,000 vehicles — first buses, then cars, followed by its 2,500 fishing vessels — to hydrogen power
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #130
California Unveils State's First Hydrogen Refueling Station

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has unveiled his state's first hydrogen refueling station in Los Angeles. The official says it marks the start of a transition as cars convert from gasoline to hydrogen fuel cells

..."We will not just dream about the hydrogen highway," he said. "We will not just dream about the hydrogen fueling stations. We will not just dream about the hydrogen cars. We will build it." [continued]

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200410/200410230010.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #131
I think a hydrogen economy is inevitable. It is the only solution that makes sense in the long run. Waiting until oil reserves are depleted seems a bit short sighted. Other, more valuable uses exist for these resources. The transition is obviously not going to take place overnight. Clearly, it will take decades. Electrical power was the same way. People who lived away from population centers had to wait years to get hooked up. There are other obstacles as well. The technology for hydrogen production is potentially simple enough that people could afford to own household hydrogen plants; which would not necessarily bode well for the oil or power industries.
 
  • #132
Getting all that hydrogen is a near insurmountable problem. Since hydrogen is really just an idle wheel and not the real source of energy I think we should name the economy after the real source of energy if it ever shows up. There will likely be all kinds of nice technologies after we have all frozen to death in the dark.
 
  • #133
what about alcohol? ethanol and methanol are a lot cleaner burning than regular gasoline and can be manufactured. today's cars could run on it without major modification and it can be produced with little to no impact on our current fossil fuel usage for electricity generation.

the biggest problem notable here is that the USA lacks the major biological sources to manufacture ethanol. but that's not any different from importing foreign oil. brazil already uses ethanol in massive quantities as a secondary fuel source. hydrogen is far more ineffecient to manufacture than alcohol, and i expect it will be a very long time in coming, if it ever does.

as for electricity: NUCLEAR. instead of burying all the nuclear fuel for our atomic weapons we should be incorporating it into nuclear power plants. the USA has had only ONE (1) major malfunction of a nuclear power facility, and to my knowledge no one was injured, and it was 20 or 30 some odd years ago.

also, i think there's a big picture here that most of us are leaving unsaid. we couldn't relieve our dependence upon fossil fuels with just cars. we also need to focus on its other uses. we can generate electricity with nuclear power but where are we going to get petroleum jelly? propane? lubricant oil? there's a million biproducts of petroleum that we tend to ignore when we bring up the subject, and developing replacements for those as well is a daunting task at best.
 
  • #134
didn't read all the posts, but I'll just add this

all this talk about renewable resources is fine, we should be looking for something to replace fossil fuels

BUT

it's a question of volume

we'll never ever ever in a million years get the volume of power we get from fossil fuels out of hydrogen, or biomass, or solar, or anything else we have today

if we can get the power we get from fossil fuels from any other source it will be nuclear (fusion)
 
  • #135
shrumeo said:
didn't read all the posts, but I'll just add this

all this talk about renewable resources is fine, we should be looking for something to replace fossil fuels

BUT

it's a question of volume

we'll never ever ever in a million years get the volume of power we get from fossil fuels out of hydrogen, or biomass, or solar, or anything else we have today

if we can get the power we get from fossil fuels from any other source it will be nuclear (fusion)


i agree that nuclear power is by far the most readily available form of energy in mass quantities, but i don't necessarily believe that it's fusion. right now fusion power is highly unstable and unpredictable. meanwhile current fission power plants are safe and clean and can put out more power than a similarly sized coal power plant. unfortunately nobody (investors) wants to touch nuclear power because of their uneducated worries.

whether it be hydrogen, ethynol, fission, fusion, solar, wind whatever sources of energy we are going to use in the future, our FIRST step should be in educating the general public. we won't get anywhere if we don't know where we're going.
 
  • #137
LURCH said:
I have never heard of this there is a way to make gasoline?!

One way is through Fischer-Tropsch synthesis:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/F/FischerT1.asp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #138
Nuclear gasoline

Apparently, gasoline can also be made from water and a carbon source such as carbon dioxide. Prolific energy commentator Graham Cowan dubbed gasoline thus manufactured with the manufacturing energy supplied by nuclear reactors nuclear gasoline.
 
  • #139
puf_the_majic_dragon said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3997249.stm
very interesting topic, fusion power. perhaps I'm wrong and there is potential for it in the near future.
Well, it seems awfully optomistic, but even then it says its planned as a 20-year project and "Final stage before full prototype of commercial reactor is built." So even if it works as advertised, we're still several decades from commercial fusion power.
 
  • #140
Hybrids vs. Hydrogen: Which Future Is Brighter?

Scientists Argue Hybrids Make More Sense Than Hydrogen Cars

..."The things that matter here are energy security, climate change and air pollution," said David Keith of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. "Focusing on fuel-cell cars makes no economic sense for any of these goals." [continued]
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Hybrid/story?id=266883&page=1
 
  • #141
russ_watters said:
In other words, burn more fossil fuels to make hydrogen? How does that help anything? Certainly not - I'm just not sure what hydrogen has to do with anything in this context. I think you probably understand the issue, but to the general public, they hear the politicians talking about a hydrogen economy and picture the hydogen materializing at the gas pump. Politicians (the people driving the issue) for the most part completely ignore the issue of manufacturing the hydrogen. And that's a dealbreaker for the whole idea. Its like talking about landing a man on the moon without first discussing how to get one in orbit around earth.

Realistically if Bush or Kerry (both have picked up the issue) succeed in getting a million hydrogen powered cars on the road in 10 years and a hundred thousand hydrogen fueling stations, where is that hydrogen going to come from? Realistically. My bet is it'll come from hydrogen manufacturing plants that either take their coal-fired electricity straight from an already overloaded grid or make their own power using oil-fired gas turbine generators. Net result: more pollution, more dependancy on domestic coal and foreign oil, and a bigger energy crisis.

Russ, has hit a raw nerve on this subject. Hydrogen is already manufactured from Hydrogen ores by industries that supply those who need hydrogen in industry. These people are not economic idiots, so it is a sure bet that they are producing that hydrogen in the most economically efficient processes currently known. the history of the chemical industry is replete with examples of new processes being developed and old suppliers being supplanted by more efficient ones.

So if ANY of the solar powered renewable bio-hydrogen processes were even remotely viable economically they would be in use already. Economic viability in a competitive market usually means energy efficient, since the cost of energy to process things is a big factor in the economics of it. So the likelihood of any new hydrogen process replacing the present methods which probably get it by processing natural gas; is slim to none.

And yes sea water is about as low on the stored chemical energy food chain as it is possible to get.

If extracting hydrogen from water was economically viable at all, then by inference it should be just as practical to extract another fuel; namely carbon, from the abundant supplies of it in the atmosphere, or the oceans, Doing that would make the whole CO2 problem moot. Not likely to happen, nor is any major shift to hydrogen.

Hydrogen vehicles such as inner city buses may make a lot of sense from a local air pollution point of view but for the mass of transportation needs it is a pipe dream; but one that Bush threw out there so the environmentallists could not say he was anti-environment. Now it is up to THEM to try and make a hydrogen economy real.

The practicality of increasing electricity generation capacity to the point where either hydrogen fuel cell or pure electric cars could totally replace the internal combustion engine, is just too silly to contemplate. We have enough problems now with regulations just getting enough electricity for electricity needs. The Nuclear opponents aren't going to sanction any massive swing to nuclear specially when it becomes apparent that breeder reactors will be necessary to make that long term viable. Fat chance in today's terrorist strewn world.

There is one other nasty problem with that lovely hydrogen picture. It also requires lots of additional energy just to get it into a storable form. The energy cost of gas compression, or the materials cost of metal hydrides, makes hydrogen a lot less pretty. Then there is all that 'clean' water vapor that will be emitted; well I suppose you could condense the water and save it in an onboard 'ungas' tank. But then water vapor is also a green house gas, and in fact is the major green house gas with by far the most influence on the environment and climate. Renewable (solar) energy sources sound like a great idea, until you realize how poorly concentrated they are. Surely they have to be used in niche situations where they make sense, as does every other energy source we have, but so far there are few real alternatives to hydrocarbons.

Arguably it would make much more sense to use the hydrocarbon fuels as we do now, and recycle the carbon. but even that only makes sense if you believe that CO2 is a significant problem to the environment. I for one do not believe it plays much role at all. With CO2 being 0.037% of the atmosphere, and water vapor as much as 4% at times, I think the problem of thermal flux balance of the Earth is not dependent on CO2 to any great extent compared to water.
 
  • #142
Iceland is going 100% H2 right now. They estimate that after satisfying their own needs (5%), they can sell the other 95% of the viable geothermal energy as H2. So for starters we need to look at the new energy "reserves" that can be transported as hydrogen, that would otherwise be wasted.

Then there is the nagging problem that it is in everyone's interest to stifle the demand for oil. Besides, sooner or later we will have no choice.

If extracting hydrogen from water was economically viable at all, then by inference it should be just as practical to extract another fuel; namely carbon, from the abundant supplies of it in the atmosphere, or the oceans, Doing that would make the whole CO2 problem moot. Not likely to happen, nor is any major shift to hydrogen.

How do you come up with that analogy? I'm quite sure that statement cannot be defended.
 
Last edited:
  • #143
Oil futures speculation in the context of Hubbert's peak

Ivan Seeking said:
Iceland is going 100% H2 right now. They estimate that after satisfying their own needs (5%), they can sell the other 95% of the viable geothermal energy as H2.
Iceland is an island. How might this H2 be delivered?



it is in everyone's interest to stifle the demand for oil. ...sooner or later we will have no choice.
Futures markets either correctly or incorrectly reflect the current value of future scarcity. Thus you are concluding that oil futures are underpriced right now, and further thus a good investment; correct?
 
  • #144
Hydrogen is more viable and less expensive than many may think. A number of methods are possible which could produce the hydrogen energy equivalent of gasoline for about the same price... or even less. Of course you still have the infrastructure hurdles, but, this need not take place overnight and could be solved more quickly than generally thought. Some informative links:


hydrogen from methanol
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Jun02/NPO19948.html

hydrogen from coal
http://www.nuclear.com/Energy_policy/Coal_gas_news.html

hydrogen from nuclear power
http://www.businessreport.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=291054

hydrogen from sunlight
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/09/14/6900043_Solar_Hydrogen/index.html

hydrogent from wind
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=502

fuel cells
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-03s.html

Technical issues of a hydrogen economy
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/1.html#pagetop
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
Ivan Seeking said:
Iceland is going 100% H2 right now. They estimate that after satisfying their own needs (5%), they can sell the other 95% of the viable geothermal energy as H2. So for starters we need to look at the new energy "reserves" that can be transported as hydrogen, that would otherwise be wasted.

Then there is the nagging problem that it is in everyone's interest to stifle the demand for oil. Besides, sooner or later we will have no choice.




How do you come up with that analogy? I'm quite sure that statement cannot be defended.

Well it is very easy to defend Ivan. Hydrogen, when burned yields water plus some energy. Water, after the input of at least as much energy, restores the hydrogen which can be burned again or run through a fuel cell.

By the same token, carbon can be burned to yield carbon dioxide and energy. Carbon dioxide, after the input of at least as much energy restores the carbon which can then be burned again.

In both cases the element is being used as a source or transport means of energy, but you need some other source of energy for the recycling process. That other source of energy could of course be used instead of the hydrogen or carbon, so why bother with the wasteful processes or recovering hydrogen from water, or carbon from carbon dioxide.

If it is technically viable to obtain hydrogen from water to use as a source of energy, it is equally technically viable to start form the abundant CO2 and get carbon fuel from it.

Both of course don't make any sense if what you want is additional sources of energy over and above those which we already have. When the fossil fuels oil and natural gas are gone where will you get all the energy to create hydrogen ? And if you have such a source of additional energy why waste it on what is at best a zero sum game, but in practice is a massive energy wasting scheme. Or doesn't the prohibition against perpetual motion apply to you?
 
  • #146
Chronos said:
Hydrogen is more viable and less expensive than many may think. A number of methods are possible which could produce the hydrogen energy equivalent of gasoline for about the same price... or even less. Of course you still have the infrastructure hurdles, but, this need not take place overnight and could be solved more quickly than generally thought. Some informative links:


hydrogen from methanol
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Jun02/NPO19948.html

hydrogen from coal
http://www.nuclear.com/Energy_policy/Coal_gas_news.html

hydrogen from nuclear power
http://www.businessreport.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=291054

hydrogen from sunlight
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/09/14/6900043_Solar_Hydrogen/index.html

hydrogent from wind
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=502

fuel cells
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-03s.html

Technical issues of a hydrogen economy
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/1.html#pagetop

So we can get hydrogen from ethanol; where do we get the energy to create the ethanol in the first place; current methods of ethanol production take more energy to produce than you get from the ethanol.

Hydrogen from coal; when you remove hydrogen from coal you get a rather nasty effluent called soot; what are you going to do with all that soot other than burning it too for additional energy; why not just burn the coal itself.

Hydrogen from nuclear power; just in case you haven't noticed, all the nuclear power on Earth is currently being used to make electricity for people who need electricity. Attempts to generate more nuclear power have been stopped by environmentallists who don't like nuclear energy.

Hydrogen from sunlight; I don't see much hydrogen in sunlight; maybe they are using solar energy in some form to generate hydrogen; why not use that energy from sunlight for what you want energy for.

Hydrogen from wind; also never seen much hydrogen in the wind; perhaps the wind is being used to generate mechanical power or even electricity. Why not use that mechanical power to do work or use the elctricity for people who want electricity.

As I said if any of these schemes for making hydrogen were technically or even economically viable, they would be in use today generating industrial hydrogen. they aren't and they aren't.

It's a Ponzi scheme !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #147
hitssquad said:
Futures markets either correctly or incorrectly reflect the current value of future scarcity. Thus you are concluding that oil futures are underpriced right now, and further thus a good investment; correct?
Interesting assessment - I'd think that due to today's political climate, the future scarcity is probably overcompensated for in the market price. I'll be right back... :wink:
 
  • #148
Seafang said:
As I said if any of these schemes for making hydrogen were technically or even economically viable, they would be in use today generating industrial hydrogen. they aren't and they aren't.

To some extent I agree with you, and indeed as you state, some of those methods for 'mass' production of energy are not as desirable as others, and you're right to be asking "we run cars on hydrogen, so what? We still have to get the energy from somewhere."

However, you're missing the point. The key thing about hydrogen is not that it's going to be the ultimate source of energy, but an extremely efficient method of storage and distribution.

I would like to see a working comparison of the losses involved in transmitting an amount of energy over a set distance using high voltage power lines, against the energy required (in terms of trucks, trains, whatever) to transport the same amount of energy, in hydrogen form, over the same distance. Anyone?
 
  • #149
Seafang said:
So we can get hydrogen from ethanol; where do we get the energy to create the ethanol in the first place; current methods of ethanol production take more energy to produce than you get from the ethanol.

Hydrogen from coal; when you remove hydrogen from coal you get a rather nasty effluent called soot; what are you going to do with all that soot other than burning it too for additional energy; why not just burn the coal itself.

Hydrogen from nuclear power; just in case you haven't noticed, all the nuclear power on Earth is currently being used to make electricity for people who need electricity. Attempts to generate more nuclear power have been stopped by environmentallists who don't like nuclear energy.

Hydrogen from sunlight; I don't see much hydrogen in sunlight; maybe they are using solar energy in some form to generate hydrogen; why not use that energy from sunlight for what you want energy for.

Hydrogen from wind; also never seen much hydrogen in the wind; perhaps the wind is being used to generate mechanical power or even electricity. Why not use that mechanical power to do work or use the elctricity for people who want electricity.

As I said if any of these schemes for making hydrogen were technically or even economically viable, they would be in use today generating industrial hydrogen. they aren't and they aren't.

It's a Ponzi scheme !
Read the links before leaping to conclusions.
 
  • #150
Boron vs hydrogen as a petrol-replacing energy carrier

brewnog said:
hydrogen is ... going to be ... an extremely efficient method of storage and distribution.
Graham Cowan has pointed out numerous times on Know Nukes that indicators seems to be pointing in the opposite direction. This is basically why Cowan proposes that boron technologies, instead of hydrogen technologies, be developed to replace fossil fuels as energy carriers:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

One could not put a hydrogen or hydrocarbon tank right next to the engine, lest it get heated and build up excessive pressure. But there's no harm if a bin full of boron bits gets warm.
a hydrogen vehicle's fuel reservoir system is more massive and much more complex than a gasoline tank, in part because of hydrogen's superlative bulk
Hydrogen at Sea
Hydrogen as fuel is lighter than petroleum, lighter even than boron, and has a nonreturning oxide. Water vapour can be dumped anywhere and hydrogen generating plants can find new water to split, or at least different water, almost anywhere. Hydrogen isn't explosion-proof like boron, but it must beat hydrocarbons and boron in the efficiency race, must it not?

Actually it comes dead last. Liquefaction energy is the culprit, and it's not a seven percent loss, it's about half. A boron carrier could go around the world the long way and still beat a hydrogen carrier. So could a carrier of plastic made from air, water, and solar energy.
Consider two power plants. Each turns 20 or 30 gigawatts of heat into 10 GW of chemical fuel. This is larger than usual for electric power plants today but an ordinary size for oil refineries.

One makes hydrogen, the other makes boron. If the boron plant has no takers for a couple of weeks, it can stack boron outside, perhaps on pallets, 40 acres six feet deep. Rain won't hurt it.

The hydrogen plant might also store two weeks' production, not, of course, in contact with the elements -- Earth and water are OK, but definitely not air or fire -- but perhaps as the inflating gas in a kilometre-wide gas supported tent 250 m high at the centre. This is about five times more area than the pallet field, and seems certain to cost more per unit area.
How big are the tanks, really? Answers are given here in terms of litres per three gigajoules, not one, because 1 GJ of fuel energy propels a typical car only about 300 km, and 1,000-km range is not very unusual:

Hydrogen - 373.8
Boron - 139.9

The 140-L entry for boron is 108 L for ash, 32 L for fuel. This is based not just on tripling the data from Ash Volumes and Boron the Dense but on multiplying them by further factors of roughly 1.5. These extra adjustments allow for imperfect packing of solids.
Below are the various light oxophiles' volumes in litres per gigajoule of oxidation potential energy.

Hydrogen - 124.59
Boron - 7.82
 

Similar threads

Debunked : You guys will love this
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K