mneary

No, it's the carbon that burns while the hydrogen is chucked out bonding itself with oxygen making water.

Or maybe they both burn.

Thunderchild

so why the CO2 then ? if the carbon burns into energy how come it comes out as CO2 ?

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk
see also
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5
http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

bloody-orc

when you burn C chemicals (say CH4, that's not petrol I know) Then all you get is CO2+H2O. That's all there is to it.

if you want it so much I can get you the formula what happens when petrol reacts with oxygen (burns).

__________________
Need Help?
Press F1
If that doesn\'t help you, ask me... I might know better.

Hero999

I'm sick of some of the myths propagating about carbon dioxide and fossil fuels.

One CO2 is only poisonous in very large quantities, it's used in carbonated drinks and is pretty safe - you need to breathe huge amounts before it poisons you. I think you're getting confused with carbon monoxide which doesn't get produced if you completely burn the fuel.

Two, the amount of oxygen used up burning fossil fuels is insignificant. People still could live quite happily (in most areas) even if a fifth of the world's oxygen supply disappears.

Whether you agree or disagree with the main scientific consensus on climate change no one is going to be killed by oxygen deficiency or carbon dioxide poisoning even if we doubled out rate of burning of fossil fuels!

__________________
What's so bad about Microsoft?

Get Opera it's simply a superb browser.

eblc1388

Oh dear. "carbon burns into energy?" Destroying a carbon atom by burning it?

Energy is in the bonding between different elements within compound. Breaking up and forming bonds either take up or releasing energy. That's what I've been taught while I was a small child.

Don't they teach this in school anymore?

__________________
L.Chung

Thunderchild

OK granted I might have made a mistake there I see your point but still there's nothing wrong with burning H instead. whether or not CO2 or CO (anything that we don't normally breath) is dangerous or not is besides the point the fact that we are creating large amounts of it which is causing global warming and into the bargain making more heat for it to confine. as i said before the earth long before we were around was in a state of global warming and apart from the natural cooling of the earth trees and plants absorbed the excess CO/CO2 and then died and storing it in the form of fossil fuels, then we come along and let all that carbon out again taking the earth back to what it once was

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk
see also
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5
http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

eblc1388

No one is opposing the use of hydrogen. Don't be fooled, it all come back down to cost. It is my impression that burning hydrogen to obtain energy is a false economy.

It is always the case(up to present year 2007) where more energy input is required to get the amount of hydrogen which then burns to produce some energy. It is always less than one started or puts in the first place.

If one can obtain hydrogen cheaper than other fuels(maybe in the future), then by all means use it.

__________________
L.Chung

Thunderchild

well what do we do now ? we burn 4 KW of fossil fuel and only get 1 KW of electricity out of it, it is more economical and environmentally friendly to use gas for heating rather than electric at least it is 100 % efficient, think how stupid we use 4 KW to make 1 KW so 3 KW go out in heat anyway then we make heat out of the remaining 1 KW to heat our homes and cook how silly.

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk
see also
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5
http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

mechie

Actually, modern power stations are over 50% efficient so we use 2kW of fuel to generate 1kW of electricity.
If only industry were as efficient as a domestic central heating system ... 100% ? NOPE !
I'm afraid life isn't that simple - energy conversion is just one aspect of the argument - pollution is another, I suspect a modern power station produces far less pollution than a domestic cooker (per unit of fuel consumed). If you look into a process called 'flame impingement' - anybody that services gas appliances should know of this - it causes CO emissions to increase signifiantly, along with NOx --- and they are both unhealthy to breathe. Flame impingement is where a flame touches a surface such as your cooking pan.

__________________
I need a memory upgrade ...
My head is full !

bloody-orc

What happens when you start to burn H2 instead of C8H18 (most common element in petrol). Well... you get a BIG BANG and water vapor (H20). H2 burns over 50 times faster than any ingredient in petrol. To burn one unit of C8H18, you need 21 units of O2. And you say, it doesn't use a lot of Oxygen... check your facts before you say anything. CO2 isn't harmful most cases. But put it together with H2O (water) and you get H2CO3, witch is acid. Pretty strong one actually. In Petrol there is also some S8 So it too burns and takes some O2's creating SO2, witch also reacts with water to make H2SO3, one of the lowest pH levels.

2C8H18*S8+41O2->16CO2+18H2O+16SO2



There are many safer and more energy efficient ways to make H2 IMHO. Take Alkali metals or Alkaline earth metals, add some water and BOOM you got some H2.
Or metal + acid -> salt + H2
etc.

you could also make some NO2. One of the byproducts of this is H2. But I'm not going to give the formula here. just in case.


--Rain--

PS Chemistry exam coming soon

__________________
Need Help?
Press F1
If that doesn\'t help you, ask me... I might know better.

Pommie

That would be why carbonated drinks rot your stomach.
Good luck.

Mike.

bloody-orc

Sry got one fact wrong. H2CO3 is an acid, but turns into H2O and CO2 fairly quickly (1.75ns approx). Only H2S is weaker (also alcohols and other organic Acids). And it is pretty neutral acid also. H2SO3 and H2SO4 in the other hand are VERY strong acids so one should better avoid them

__________________
Need Help?
Press F1
If that doesn\'t help you, ask me... I might know better.

Thunderchild

well by spliting water you also produce the oxygen that will be used to burn the hydrogen, if electrolysis is so inefficient then the water would boil or some thing as the excess energy must be turned into something useless and that's normally heat

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk
see also
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5
http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

Thunderchild

Dear all being rather p!ssed at undue criticism (yes I now have the proof that is it undue) I researched, this comes from the wikipedia:


"The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. Some report 50–70%[1], while others report 80–94%.[2] These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included."


yes there is the efficiency of the electricity plant to consider but I still feel that it could be somewhat competitive,
consider right now we are paying a lot of money for fossil fuels to make our electricity and a power plant is only 25-30 % efficient and VERY poluting. now solar panels are 25 % efficient and electrolysis is reported as being AT LEAST 50 % efficient, so that is 12.5 % total efficiency against 25-30 % but for the comecial side of it a solar panel will make MW of power in it's life time and costs nothing to run but for our tradtional methods we have to mine the fuel, possibly refine it then transport it and as the machinery is all mechanical it needs constant repair throughout its life time, so there you go

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk
see also
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5
http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

mneary

I would like to see your maintenance free solar cells after a sandstorm. And as for your maintenance-free hydrogen pipelines, YOU can live next to one.