Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 10:25:41 UTC No. 16578300

>>16578207
Because it has low energy density which means you need high pressures to keep good amount of it around in a reasonably sized container, it has to be very cold to stay liquid and because hydrogen can no clip trough materials. You need bulky, heavily insulated and highly reinforced containers with added facilities to cool the contents to keep hydrogen in a liquid state.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:00:19 UTC No. 16578333

>>16578207
Hydrogen gas: 120 MJ/kg
Petrol: 13.3 MJ/kg; density: 750 kg/m^3
Hydrogen's density? @ room temperature, 41 moles per cubic metre, = 82 g/m^3
0.082 kg/m^2

Sure, you can compress it, but 750 vs 0.08 is a massive difference, even when the second is 10x more energy dense per mass.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:09:11 UTC No. 16578337

>>16578207
Gas is better.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:16:57 UTC No. 16578344

>>16578207
Smallest atom. It leaks through everything else because everything else that make up the container that is supposed to hold the smallest atom. To fix that, they have to engineer materials that are complex and vacuum to the atomic layer by layering materials. Further hydrogen interacts with everything. So over time, those layered stacks of atoms wear down. Which gets you leaks and stuff.

We dont have atomic manufacturing today on mass scale, so it makes atomic precise atomic tight shielding hard. Quality control also needs to be done on those containers by stress testing them in high pressures to make sure none of the layers crack under pressure.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 14:40:48 UTC No. 16578426

here's your hydrogen storage, m8

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 15:01:39 UTC No. 16578440

>>16578207
>Can't you surround it with an aerogel type material that will become saturated with hydrogen over time? Some type of sponge?
being retarded

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 15:08:42 UTC No. 16578448

>>16578207
Hydrogen ain't very dense. Liquid hydrogen's about as dense as styrofoam
>some type of sponge
Look into MOFs. They can store more hydrogen than empty space can because of van der waals attraction magic. There is already a meta for hydrogen storage, at least grid scale storage, salt domes. You can make a huge fucking airtight cave by pumping water into salt deposits to dissolve it and store hydrogen in the hole. Some places in Texas already store tens of thousands of tons of hydrogen this way
>>16578440
Fucking retard. More gas can be stored in materials with high surface area than empty space at the same pressure because van der Waals attraction from the surface mean the molecules stay near the surface more rather than bouncing into each other

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 15:11:57 UTC No. 16578453

>>16578426
/thread
You just need to plug it in to get the H2 out.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:29:43 UTC No. 16579396

>>16578207
Best way would really be >>16578426 but water splitting tech isn't well developed enough for getting the H2 and O2 back from water to be viable for mass commercial use. You could also hydrogenate/dehydrogenate alcohols or something.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 14:30:29 UTC No. 16579424

on-site methane reforming

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 16:20:15 UTC No. 16579480

>>16578333
checked

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 16:22:50 UTC No. 16579481

>>16578207
>Can't you surround it with an aerogel type material that will become saturated with hydrogen over time?

Hydrogen is corrosive.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 03:25:07 UTC No. 16580939

>>16579481
No it isn't. It's not fucking alkanest. It embrittles some metals. Some metals, not all metals

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 04:29:59 UTC No. 16580966

>>16578207
Hydrogen storage is really easy if you just bind it to some carbon

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:25:48 UTC No. 16581177

>>16579480
both exert a gravitational pull on hydrogen or other matter

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:33:35 UTC No. 16581179

>>16581177
not even that, they both distort space-time. there is no "gravitational pull", and no "force" acting.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:42:17 UTC No. 16581318

>>16578207
It'd be good if there were vast geological reserves of hydrogen for us to extract, then we'd not need to expend energy to produce hydrogen.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:22:56 UTC No. 16582390

Just convert to methane using co2 from the atmosphere and sabatier reaction.
Methane is a lot easier to handle than hydrogen.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 07:29:48 UTC No. 16583437

>>16581318
>muh geological reserves
Electricity is literally free, retards.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 07:30:34 UTC No. 16583438

>>16583437
if that worked why wouldn't it be used today

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 07:34:17 UTC No. 16583440

>>16583438
It literally already is.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 02:16:29 UTC No. 16584227

>>16578207
Hydrogen is so fantastically tiny. It's mostly just atoms of 1 proton and one electron (tiny fraction has one or two neutrons). Its gaseous form can leak through almost any material or hole given time. It's also very volatile and therefore dangerous when it leaks (see the Hindenburg). others make the good point that we already store hydrogen bonded to oxygen (as water) or carbon (as petrol products). One fancy high concept scifi technology people are hoping for is the ability to create large quantities of stable metallic hydrogen, which would naturally be a metal and would make for an extraordinarily energy dense fuel. We're still not really there yet, if such a thing is possible.