The myth of water as a fuel oilprice.com impact of electricity in the 1920s

#########

Comprised of 60% water, Electriq-Fuel is a game-changer in zero-emissions energy. The innovative fuel is a cost-efficient alternative to batteries and compressed hydrogen. When compared to green energy storage solutions like lithium-ion batteries or compressed hydrogen, Electriq-Global achieves a greater range at a lower cost. The energy density potential electricity distribution map of the technology is up to 15 times that of electric batteries currently in use in electric vehicles.”

“I would need to know some details they probably aren’t willing to give up. For example, water itself can’t be a fuel. It’s a combustion product. The only way to turn it into a fuel is to add energy orlando electricity providers somewhere. I could boil the water static electricity images and turn it into steam. I could electrolyze the water to make hydrogen. I could add something (like sodium metal) that would react with the water to produce hydrogen. But each of these steps involves energy addition into the system.” Related: Lower Buying Appetite May Jeopardize New LNG Projects

That’s the catch with any of these systems that seemingly rely electricity load profile on water as a fuel. Water can’t be a fuel, just like carbon dioxide can’t be a fuel. These are combustion products. They can both be converted into fuels, or into energy carriers, but that requires additional energy inputs. (In the case of hydropower, nature has added those energy inputs). And gas gangrene the laws of thermodynamics require that the energy inputs to create a fuel will always be greater than the energy you get back when using that fuel.

It might, for instance, require four British thermal units (BTUs) of electricity to create three BTUs of hydrogen from water. There are cases where that’s economically justified, but electricity production in the us you want to be sure that the four initial BTUs that were used couldn’t be used to power the final application gas chamber. It is generally more efficient to use four BTUs of electricity to power a vehicle than to convert that into three BTUs of hydrogen to power the vehicle.

I did receive a response, but it was just a press kit that went into a few more details. The press kit did acknowledge gas bubble in eye that the water “reacts” with a catalyst to produce hydrogen. As a nitpick, a catalyst increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself being consumed in the reaction. If the substance is actually reacting with water it isn’t a catalyst, it is a reactant.

For example, as I mentioned in my response, sodium metal reacts — violently — with gas pain left side water to form sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and hydrogen (H 2). The reaction evolves energy so rapidly that the hydrogen can explode. In the process, the sodium metal is converted to sodium ions. Thus, sodium is a reactant and not a catalyst. Further, it is highly energy intensive to convert sodium ions back into sodium metal.

I don’t know for a fact that this is the case with the Electriq-Fuel, but the electricity word search answers press kit does say that the “catalyst” is a salt chemical they call BH4. I suspect it is a metal hydride (like sodium hydride, NaH). This class of compounds will produce hydrogen when reacted with water, but npower electricity bill are themselves energy intensive to produce. Related: Oil Rises Amid Nigerian Oil Terminal Shutdown

That may well be true in theory, but far too many technologies invoke the magic wand of renewable energy to claim zero emissions. What we would really like gas tax deduction to know are the actual required energy inputs to produce enough salt to propel the vehicle X miles. That way, we could compare this technology to the energy efficiency of an internal combustion engine or an electric vehicle.

In conclusion, it was by no means my intention to discredit or disparage the Electriq-Fuel electricity 101 presentation technology. As I mentioned in my reply to them, I would need more details before I could make a determination on whether I view this as a “game-changer.” My intent here was rather to help readers understand the kinds of questions you should ask when assessing these sorts of claims.