This paper studies the practicable of hydrogen as a renewable energy source. The study proves a theorem on indirect energy conversion, suggests a monetary unit measured by unit energy, in which, comparing values of different industrial products and comparing different techniques used in production of the same product are better than that of money measured by gold, and proves an assertion, in which, the energy by decomposing a unit water is greater than that by composing a unit water, based on the law of conservation energy. According to the above, we get a conclusion: investment in hydrogen engine must be ended with failure.
In seeking new renewable energy source, hydrogen brings rich imagine to people. Hydrogen might be a hopeful potential energy source, because it can be obtained from water decomposition and hydrogen engine does not release pollutants. Therefore, the “hydrogen economy” [
However, is such huge-scale investment in hydrogen economy valuable?
Many sources can also be environmentally clean, e.g., solar energy, wind energy, electric energy, etc. As indicated by U.S. Department of Energy: “The over challenge to production hydrogen is costs” [
As an example of the application of the author’s papers [
Section 2 proves an assertion on energy, in which, based on the law of conservation energy, energy by decomposing a unit water is greater than that by composing a unit water. In Section 3, for accuracy to compare the costs of various techniques, ruling out non-technical factors, such as financial aid, and tax-free, a monetary unit measured by unit energy is suggested. In Section 4, a theorem on indirect energy conversion is proved. According to this theorem, and the money measured by energy, the cost of electrical engine (directly translating electrical energy to mechanical energy) is lesser than that of hydrogen engine (indirect energy conversion, i.e., firstly hydrogen production is needed, in which electrical energy is conversed to produce hydrogen. Secondary, the hydrogen energy is conversed to mechanical energy to drive vehicles by hydrogen engine). Finally, a conclusion is summarized.
ASSERTION: Energy by decomposing a unit water is greater than that by composing a unit water.
In the following,
PROOF OF THE ASSERT
where
where
Note that
Now, there are only three possibilities:
1)
2)
3)
Case 1:
Suppose that Equation (3) holds, then, one can get more and more energy from the circling of getting hydrogen from water by
Case 2:
In fact, Equation (4) shows that
where subscript p indicates practical case.
Both case 2 and case 3 mean that the energy of getting hydrogen from decomposition of water is greater than that energy emission from hydrogen engine by composition the same water in practice.
In order to judge a technique is success or failure, a monetary unit measured by unit energy (ruling out the effects of financial aid and tax-free from government, etc.) is suggested.
To produce industrial product needs spending energy. The relationship between industrial products and its spending energy is obviously closer than that with spending gold. Therefore, the application of money measured by energy is better than that money measured by gold for discovery of relation between values of different industrial produces, and for comparing techniques used in the same industrial product.
Let the monetary unit is measured by unit energy, i.e.,
Similarly,
where
By (6), we have
Equation (12) shows that the money creating by any practical technique of hydrogen engine using
If the costs of storage, transportation and safety are taken into account, then Equation (12) becomes to
where
Obviously, Equation (13) shows that the money creating by hydrogen engine using
In the following, the path of energy EA converted into energy EC directly is called “direct conversion”, while the path from energy EA converted to energy EB and from EB converted to energy EC is called “indirect conversion” or “multi-conversions”.
Theorem: In energy conversion, the loss of energy of the indirect method is bigger than that by direct method.
Proof:
Suppose that the losses of energy in energy
Similarly, the loss
Now, for an indirect conversion, we have
In practice, the losses are greater for practical cases than that of the ideal cases, i.e.,
There are so much people engaging in works of various methods. They do the best to minimum the loss in energy conversion. For a fair estimation, suppose that the same loss percentage, in future is 30% in each conversion. Then, we have from Equations (17)-(20):
Equation (23) shows the twice conversions, each has 30% of energy loss. So that we have
Equation (24) shows that the energy loss for direct conversion is less than that of indirect (multiple conversion) conversions. □
Application of this theorem, the loss of energy of electrical energy
A recently example of an aero-plane made by Airbus company driving by electrical engine across English bay is reported on 2015-07-12 [
According to the theorem, the suggested monetary and the assertion, investment in hydrogen engine must be ended with failure. If any technique exists relying on financial aid and tax-free from government, then it can’t last. Finally it must be ended with failure. Like the famous words of Engels: “despise on dialectics is foredoomed to be punished.” To despise on the law of conservation of energy is also foredoomed to be punished.
TianquanYun, (2016) Investment in Hydrogen Engine Must Be Ended with Failure. Journal of Mathematical Finance,06,64-67. doi: 10.4236/jmf.2016.61008