In my HS physics class [decades ago] I came across some pamphlet showing a graphic of the electron “shells”, such that the 6 p electrons were distributed in a “probabilistic” representation of three sort-of-dumbbell shapes at right angles (x, y, z axes). I was very pleased with this as the next deeper or more “realistic” representation vs. the Bohr planet model.

Physicsguy or someone else might now explain that model has been superseded by another even less “defined location” version?

Actually, it’s a certainty they do, if you go with nuclear energy to do the job.

That, of course, opens up a whole can of worms for the Green Zealots, who go into anaphylactic hysteria upon hearing the word “Nuclear”.

}}} Kate: Hydrogen fuel cells are a lovely idea, if practical. The utility companies and all their associated suppliers oppose the idea of every household having its own handy energy production source. It would ruin their businesses.

Ummm. Fuel cells don’t generally “create” hydrogen (IIRC, some designs can be run backwards, mind you, to store energy to use later by creating the hydrogen from energy inputs. But this is irrelevant in context).

So somehow, you have to either deliver hydrogen (Think piped natural gas, but much more escapey and with leaks far more dangerous) or create it on the spot, presumably with some form of electricity to break a water molecule, which is a fairly high-energy bond(Ammonia and Alcohol are also an option, here, IIRC). So, where is the electricity going to come from, in the first place? It does not have to be a central power location, but that is, in general, the most functional and efficient system for doing so.

}}} physicsguy: As Jon Baker notes, breaking any molecular bond requires energy….other wise there would be no molecules as they all would spontaneously fall apart.

Well, there is a possibility of catalyst chemistry to reduce that quite a bit, but that would probably require a breakthrough in catalyst chemistry, so, unless they’ve done this, I’m in concurrence.

}}} As noted, H2 has to be produced by breaking molecular bonds…energy input. Then it has to be transported (see your link) and then stored all of which require more input energy.

Or use electricity at the endpoint to do the job, but yeah, still much the same issues. IF you have hydrogen fuel cells, you might be able to use a back and forth process to use electricity to break it apart, run the fuel cell, then collect the combined cell component for further breakup… obviously, entropy says this will be a net negative process, but the real question is how much energy is lost, and, among other things, how this compares — the important factor — to the efficiency of other options, including batteries and chemical storage (that including ICEs), as well as the concern of CO2 (if it’s to be taken seriously, which seems largely questionable — it certainly isn’t to the Greens, as their goal is to turn us back to the Stone Age… not supply humans with any power. And yeah, the number of people who will die as a result? Not a concern to them)

2021 Headline:

Chicago police fatally shoot man while trying to arrest him

Subtext (emphasis mine):

CHICAGO (AP) — Law enforcement officers in Chicago fatally shot a 33-year-old man who pointed a gun at them as they tried to arrest him Friday, authorities said.
——-
WHO
POINTED
A
GUN
AT
THEM
——
Why is THAT not part of the headline???Z

Why not:
“Chicago Police kill man using gun while trying to arrest him”.

Better, more contextual, innit?

And insanely relevant to one’s perception of what happened.
>:-/

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2024/07/10/hail-to-the-chick-dirty-jill-is-at-it-again-n4930521

Where is it that you people think Hydrogen, in its diatomic form, is freely available in large quantities, without breaking existing chemical bonds?

Why, in blimps, of course. 🙂

Xylourgos, upon saying

… as a railway engineer, I was embedded into a group of former Deutsche Reichsbahn […] engineers …

, caused me to recall the one time I rode in a DR wagon (2nd class) in Thuringia on the segment from roughly Hof to Weimar. What a neat thing to know the rails that well (engineer level)!

Don’t feel lied to. The Bohr model works fantastic for hydrogen. Any other element or add an electron is where it falls apart. Even for large atoms where they have a lone electron far out from the nucleus one can do a decent job just assuming Bohr type orbit…..save the headache of a complicated Schrodinger eqn.

” Hydrogen as a net energy source on planet Earth” tends to irk me.

My understanding of hydrogen fuels cell at this point is they are basically fancy, water making batteries. Good for space stations maybe. Not true net producing energy makers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xyAIrlIbI8

an illustration of another ill considered project,

Your link requires a registration, which I won’t do, but I did a search on that technology to get an idea of what they are doing. From my quick look, that company says they can transport H2 easier and cheaper with silicon hydrides. Not being a chemist, I’m not sure what compounds they are using. However, their claim that they can release the H2 from the silicon hydride with net zero energy input sounds very fallacious to me. As Jon Baker notes, breaking any molecular bond requires energy….other wise there would be no molecules as they all would spontaneously fall apart.

Hydrogen, to the green crazies crowd, sounds like a wonderful fuel as the main result of the 2nd Law heat engine using H is water. Not, that nasty CO2. As noted, H2 has to be produced by breaking molecular bonds…energy input. Then it has to be transported (see your link) and then stored all of which require more input energy. Right now, it’s a net negative in terms of total energy in to what is output. H2 has it’s highest energy density in liquid form which is why it is used in rockets. Not at all practical for common energy uses.

When someone finds a way to match the energy density of H2 in some form to that of gasoline, let me know.