Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Producing hydrogen from sea water
Chemistry World ^ | 28 April 2010 | Mike Brown

Posted on 05/03/2010 10:50:42 PM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
To: ckilmer

You’re pretty much right from what I can remember about chemistry. Except there is no extra electron in Na+ to strip out... you’re short an electron!

The amount of energy needed to seperate a sizeable chunk of Sodium from all its valence-shell electrons would be staggering. But you could do this on a molecular level. That’s sorta what a catalyst is.


41 posted on 05/04/2010 8:02:29 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Oh yeah that’s right. If the Na+ is positive—that means it lacks an electron. So you’d have to add an electron. That looks harder than stripping out the extra electron.


42 posted on 05/04/2010 8:25:36 AM PDT by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Recon Dad

lOL.


43 posted on 05/04/2010 8:32:12 AM PDT by Defiant (At what point will average Democrats say their leaders have gone too far? Is there any limit?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: reg45

If this technology works, it will be a great thing. I was making fun of global warming nuts, whose goal is destruction of modern society, and control of our lives, not protection of the environment. You watch, if all our cars run on hydrogen and only water is the byproduct, you will see them come up with a theory that makes that a bad thing. Cars give people freedom; that threatens socialists.


44 posted on 05/04/2010 8:37:04 AM PDT by Defiant (At what point will average Democrats say their leaders have gone too far? Is there any limit?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

You would spend more energy obtaining sodium ions than you would recover in the reaction. Most of the good primary chemical energy sources on the earth have already reacted with something and expended their reaction energy. The nuclear furnace 93 million miles away bombards us with electromagnetic energy which enterprising plants convert to chemical energy. We exploit the resulting plant energy as firewood, peat, coal and petroleum.

It is only because of plants that there is any free oxygen in the atmosphere, it would quickly have bonded with some other element otherwise.


45 posted on 05/04/2010 9:18:17 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The naked casuistry of the high priests of Warmism would make a Jesuit blush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

You would spend more energy obtaining sodium ions than you would recover in the reaction.
.........
the sodium ions Na+ are already present in solution in saltwater.

the question is —thanks to the previous poster— where do you get the extra free electron from to attach to the sodium ion Na+ and how do you attach it in situ in solution so that suddenly a sodium metal Na is in the exothermic presence of water H2O


46 posted on 05/04/2010 9:23:57 AM PDT by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
You probably have read about the violent reaction when sodium metal is put in water. We used it a lot when I was in jr. high and high school. We made mortars by using a piece of pipe with a cap on it and water in the bottom. A small piece of sodium would fire a can a long distance. If the can had flour in it there would be a cloud when the can hit the ground.

Way back then sodium was easily obtained and we didn't have much of a problem when we used it. I imagine now we would be classified as terrorists by having any on hand.

47 posted on 05/04/2010 1:39:23 PM PDT by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Correct, Na+ is the reaction product. If you dissolve a cup of salt in a quart of water, there will considerable heating, just from the salt going into solution. To recover metallic sodium from that solution requires more energy than recovering it from salt alone.


48 posted on 05/04/2010 3:42:25 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The naked casuistry of the high priests of Warmism would make a Jesuit blush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
Significantly, Long's catalyst is also stable in the presence of impurities that can be found in the ocean, meaning that sea water can be used without pre-treatment. The team used a sample of California sea water in the system and found the results to be similar to the results obtained for water at neutral pH.
The luddites will be out in force to get a seawater electrolysis ban. Thanks neverdem.
49 posted on 05/04/2010 3:53:49 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

To recover metallic sodium from that solution requires more energy than recovering it from salt alone.
‘’’’’’’

But the point here is not to recover the the Na but rather to change Na+ to Na while its in solution with H20 —or rather as its settling out of solution with H20 which would cause an exothermic reaction.


50 posted on 05/04/2010 4:10:18 PM PDT by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

I agree with you on both counts.


51 posted on 05/04/2010 4:53:39 PM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

The sodium in salt water is matched with chloride atoms. It takes energy to separate them, more energy then you would get by reacting the sodium. Just remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “There ain’t no free lunch”, or something like that.


52 posted on 05/04/2010 6:13:11 PM PDT by norwaypinesavage (Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

Whilst I have hitherto not seen the adverb “whilst” used in a modern document, I shall henceforth endeavor to make use of said term.


53 posted on 05/04/2010 10:56:12 PM PDT by rmlew (There is no such thing as a Blue Dog Democrat; just liberals who lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
Well sonny, there is no more powerful and prevalent greenhouse gas than water vapour, and guess what’s produced when H2 is oxidized to release energy?!?!

Prevalent, yes. Powerful, no.

54 posted on 05/04/2010 11:06:10 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter

Technically speaking molecule for molecule you are correct. My point is that water vapour overall is the most ‘powerful’ GHG in the atmosphere.


55 posted on 05/05/2010 8:46:54 AM PDT by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson