Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Hydrogen engine / generator ( For vehicles on the surface of planets + Base)

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by SaturaxCZ, Oct 27, 2015.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. SaturaxCZ Senior Engineer

    You spam again what you did write on start of this looong of-topic...

    We did already discuse:
    1/ fuel cell is not batery
    2/ electrolysis dont consume much energy.

    If you seriosly must spam your wisdom, please find diferent topic where people will not know how it works...

    ( we already create hydrogen and oxygen from ice in game, this is just diferent use for it )
  2. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    1) Yes, Fuel Cells would mechanically be the same, at least if Electrolysis or hydrogen production gets increased as it should if hydrogen energy production gets introduced. You input energy, you output energy, the basic idea of a battery.
    2) Electrolysis consumes more energy than the hydrogen will output, or at least should for it not just being a different Uranium Reactor.

    Also if you want to have a problem with ME spamming the same wisdom, apply your logic equally to "your" side of the debate as well, and complain about others doing the same.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. SaturaxCZ Senior Engineer

    My logic from start is the same... its a game ... we already have hydrogen from ice.... lets put hydrogen in engine = new hydrogen engine.

    Not only you write 90% off-topic nonsence, but on top of it you repeated yourself, like page one didnt exist and you start second round on same topic... or meybe you realy only write and dont read what other wrote, or just dont think and dont remember what you yourself wrote on page 1.
    --- Automerge ---
    How is this diferent from what you wrote right now ?

    I can just copy ---> pass same comments i did write on page one. Meybe you was in so many topics and never tought there will be some one who know how it works... and i will not calmly explain again: Why you write rubbish, when you didnt bother read it at all in page one and you just continue spam forum with your untrue informations. Meybe others topics did end like this one will and you get ignored, when you can not contiue with normal discussion and you did end with spaming same think again and agian? It will not make your informations true...
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017
  4. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    @SaturaxCZ, i think BOTH of you are slightly missing each others point. I can see where you are both coming from, but i'm with Sio on this one.

    Think of it this way:

    What does a battery do?

    You input energy into it, and use it to store that energy for later.

    What you are suggesting is basically this:

    Put energy into ice to make hydrogen, then store it, so you can burn it later for energy.

    All Sio is trying to say that from a "gameplay" point of view, using either a hydrogen reactor, engine, fuel cell, etc is basically the same thing as using a battery, the only real difference is that the hydrogen system requires additional infrastructure either on board your ship, or at the base.

    Just so thats clear:

    Hydrogen setup requires:
    - Hydrogen production
    - Ice storage
    - Power/energy for production
    - Tank to store hydrogen
    - Hydrogen [power output device]


    Battery setup requires

    - Power to charge battery
    - Battery

    What you effectively asking for here is a different flavor of battery, that's not really a bad thing, just I personally think dev time could be better spent on "new" mechanics.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. SaturaxCZ Senior Engineer

    If you want compare hydrogen production, then compare it to normal fuel production from crude oil. Its not like you creat normal fuels and oils without energy use.


    From what magical place will you get power for battery ? In moment you will notice you need use power plant + you must get setup for runing power plant. ( dont event think about solar panels, just imagine how many solar panels + batteryes you need to replace power plant ( its so big its not practical ), or uranium reactor with rare uranium ore ( you may not find it ))
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Forgive me if it wasn't clear: I'm not even talking about reality here, i'm talking strictly about in SE terms where everything is magic with some random bits based in reality, I generally dislike the reality argument as most things SE are simplified for gameplay's sake.

    With that said to my mind, what you are suggesting here for the game, is effectively a different type of battery.
  7. SaturaxCZ Senior Engineer

    With game logic:
    Hydrogen tank store hydrogen so you can say its store power and work like battery then... ( already in game and i did never see some one write: we dont need hydrogen tanks, when we already have battery )
    Hydrogen engine work like new type of generator and store nothink... when you put hydrogen in engine/generator product energy.

    For that reason hydrogen engine/generator dont have function like battery and i dont see your and sioxernic point at all, specialy after all this explain it make less and less sence to me, what are you two trying to say.

    Only think i get you two dont want hydrogen engine, but reasons for it so far are untrue informations and when i or someone else try correct it, we run in circles...
  8. Levits Senior Engineer

    1:No other block provides power via gas.
    1.2: Uranium is a material that cannot be collected easily and requires detecting it, harvesting it, and refining it every single time you need to collect some.
    1.2.2: In addition, it is only ever possible to collect as an ore and therefore will never be in infinite supply.

    1.3: It provides power with very little surface area; something that solar panels cannot accomplish.
    1.3.2It can provide power 24/7, which cannot be accomplished by solar panels.

    1.4: It provides just enough power for operating hydrogen thrusters, lights, and rotors and is light enough and small enough not to be a burden, unlike batteries.
    1.4.2: In addition, the charging time of the hydrogen system is (by far) faster than the time it takes for batteries to recharge.

    These differences alone means that the hydrogen fuel cell / "generator" has strikingly different characteristics than the others. Enough to fill a niche that cannot otherwise be filled via the current 3 power systems.

    Output of hydrogen thrusters currently consumes a balanced amount to ensure that hydrogen fuel is used up in a balanced way. If need be, the current hydrogen thrusters could be tweaked to consume more fuel. With proper additions to the game, such as devices/parts to customize the output and fuel use of hydrogen thrusters (as well as others), this could be added as well. < This could be used to enhance gameplay and expand player-design choice. The fuel-cell would use hydrogen in a similar balanced way. Producing less power than it took to create the hydrogen, but running off of the ready supply of hydrogen.

    The output of the electrolysis device can also be balanced once this is introduced. But in the end, this would be an infinite source of fuel and power (if proper and realistic collection methods are added). Something that SE currently does not have other than solar. And as we all know, solar is not efficient when it comes to surface area (especially on strike craft and most small, large-ship designs). The amount of space you need to dedicate to a ship or craft PLUS the time it takes to recharge batteries, is a completely different and inefficient method as compared to hooking up and refueling a gas tank.

    The balancing of hydrogen is simple. It burns through its fuel source faster. In exchange it is far simpler to collect and create. Storage is also a balancing factor (a smaller fuel tank is needed, but it too would be limited by the same factor: hydrogen burns more fuel).
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    My logic from the start, it is a game, the block you are suggestion essentially does the same as the battery. Why is it necessary or even desirable for us to add this more complicated setup for what is essentially the same block?

    One thing I am 100% up for is the capability to create a Gas Powered Reactor as a moddable block, I am against Hydrogen Powered Reactors, but I am not necessarily against Gas Powered Reactors as a moddable concept.
    Then anyone can balance the game as they please, some might even disable the battery completely.
    I might even add that as a mod personally, might be interesting, but I don't think there is any true merit for it to be added as a core block.

    As @Levits is suggesting I would be even more uninterested in it as a block. It just becomes the low tier solar replacement on especially planets in certain environments (if we go by those mechanics he mentions) but doesn't seem very useful in many other circumstances. It becomes the "infinite" power source of just constantly finding water, anyone who has even the slightest modicum of scientific knowledge would probably find it really weird that you can pump power into water, water becomes Hydrogen and you burn the Hydrogen and you don't get water back (I assume that is what he means).
    --- Automerge ---
    That is not untrue, on the other hand the amount of power needed to be put into conventional fuels and oils is significantly lower than the power they yield back.
    The reason why I say Hydrogen is a "battery" and I haven't even mentioned Uranium as a "battery" is because even realistically "energy in vs energy out" in terms of Uranium is significantly higher than what you can get out of Hydrogen, unless you convert Methane to Hydrogen (which would require Methane to be added to the game to even have a slightly realistic feel), in this method you gain more energy than you put in from the Hydrogen, but Electrolysis it will always be "More energy in vs energy out" which is essentially batteries.

    Uranium is not rare, uranium is not even hard to get. I see this argument pop up so often, but I can have enough Uranium to go for weeks after just 15 minutes of play, so that answers your question.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  10. Levits Senior Engineer

    You assumed wrong. You'd never collect enough water back to recycle the system infinitely. You'd always need an outside source of water. Which, for continued production, would require a facility to constantly be creating it. Using geothermal and/or solar power for an infinite supply.

    Look through these to get an idea:





    --- Automerge ---
    That needs balancing.
  11. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    5 of those videos explains Electrolysis or a similar water to H2 process, which will at all times produce less energy than could ever be put out.
    Also assuming Geothermal ever gets added, and even if you wanna talk about Solar Power then it is even more the same as a battery, and I would be against it personally.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  12. Cohors Trainee Engineer

    Ok, this has gone on a bit too long with too many rabbit trails.

    FROM A GAMEPLAY PERSPECTIVE, despite how much I want my thrusters producing power I do not believe we should have a hydrogen power block in vanilla SE.

    From a logic perspective a hypothetical engine shouldn't produce more power per hydrogen than it took to create said hydrogen. For that reason the only block, in my opinion, that should ever produce power from hydrogen is the thruster. It is both a real world thing and for gameplay it blows through supply like its water.

    But that aside, I think this is one of those things that should be in the mod side of the game. To be frank the best solution to this would be coal and combustion, again, a mod thing.
  13. Levits Senior Engineer

    So, only 3 means to provide electrical power in the game. (Non of them providing a thoughtful and economical way to utilize any of them. <especially nothing that adds anything unique to gameplay.)
    With only 3 types of propulsion in the game (4 if you want to include the wheels). <That leaves nothing for a player to customize and/or build around a specific design aspect.

    In addition to the:
    2 types of weapons. <just mod it.
    3 types of planets. <just mod it.
    1 "solar system". <just mod it.
    NO Reason to build a static facility/station. <just mod it.
    NO Reason to use planets what so ever. <just mod it.
    No reason to complete filling in the game to add additional aspects, choices, ways to play, things to do, etc. <Just Mod It.

    Space Engineers is not long for the gaming world if the only choices players have to work with is "make it look pretty" and build 1 or 2 of the only things you'll ever need in the game. Because there is no gameplay to be had. No choices to be made. No options to building something. Everyone's ship is exactly the same. And I will guarantee you that everyone has a battery strapped to their ship. If not, then they have a solar panel AND battery strapped to it. If not even that, then they have a Reactor strapped to it.

    You don't want hydrogen? No prob. that's your opinion and choice. But come up with something that will make the game better. Because having only 3 forms of fuel and power (with 2 of them working to create a "complex" (sure...) 2-stage setup) is boring as hell.

    If on the off chance you can explain to me just how amazing the power generation system of the game is, I'd probably take another look at it. Because there is Zero complexity in setting up a solar/battery system. And mining for Uranium all the time (or for the 15 minutes to collect a weeks worth of the stuff) is a terrible shame, when there could be so much more to the power generation, storage, and utilization aspects of the game.
  14. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    First statement, that is unwholly untrue.
    But even if you make 30 more power sources it wont really "add" to the customization. You will still only end up the "best" power source in each category being the thing that will be used.
    The only reason it wouldn't would be forcing players to use different sources by making fuel super scarce, but then people will whine about the fact that "I cannot use X as much because I cannot get enough Y fuel", so what did you gain? One set of players being happy and another set being unhappy.

    Your second rant here is also a little redundant, I haven't seen that much push back (and I am not one to do pushback against unique weapon ideas), I am actually one that suggested some mechanics for new weapons to be developed from at one point.
    Also, I have personally also been a proponent (although skeptical of the feasibility) of procedurally generated planets.
    1 Solar system? This you can't really demand of anyone really, should keen develop ALL of the solar systems? Is 2 enough? What about 3? Four?
    The last three are honestly asinine, I know it is a hyperbolic example but really....

    What the hell do you think people play Minecraft for? The extreme variety in block functions? OH, wait, there are very few functional blocks in the game.
    Do you see people making Thatch huts in ARK? Do you see them being made out of wood and stone? Not the second they have enough metal they don't. Does this mean people complain and whine? Not really.
    The way you frame it, yeah, it sounds like there is nothing to do. But I can customize my ship in tons of way, my power/weight ratio, my thrust/weight ratio, my mass, my way of building redundancy, how to save blocks, building something that looks nice and still is very efficient, etc.
    No matter how many useful blocks you add it will sthttp://steamcharts.com/app/268650ill not really make the ships unique. Okay we add the hydrogen reactor, people will still rely on Uranium power as their main power source UNLESS they want a themed ship. The way you explained how you want Hydrogen there is no real ... big benefit to them that the other three power sources don't already just do better. Quick refueling? Uranium is basically instant. Not requiring fuel? Batteries doesn't require infrastructure. Stationary or large surface area? Solar panels requires no infrastructure and combines well with batteries. The thing is combining these fueling methods in an efficient and effective manner with tricks is already a thing people are doing. And even then, take a look at the workshop, is it dominated by super efficient interesting well designed mechanical builds? No! It is dominated by AESTHETIC builds.
    Maybe aesthetics is not for you and you want a super fully uber fledged game with super tons of many choices, etc. but often that is not really what a game necessarily needs to succeed. The current thing about SE it is simple, rather easy to pick up but DAMN you can make some interesting stuff if you learn the mechanics. All you see is "these blocks can do this, but I want more blocks doing this but in a slightly different way", that does not necessarily add gameplay either.

    For YOU perhaps.
    I don't find "Geothermal" to be interesting, plop down a block, INFINITE POWER. That is super boring.
    I don't find Hydrogen interesting as a fuel source, I mean it is just the same as either a reactor or battery (depending on how it is implemented).

    If anything the better idea would be to add management to the current power sources.
    Nuclear might not be possible to throttle very quickly, requiring you build batteries to keep constant power supply if your power supply throttles a lot, could even include heat management.
    Also I could ask you: Try to come up with a way to make the CURRENT blocks more interesting.

    You honestly seem to have this idea that "Complex = Fun", for many people that is wholly untrue. I started up From the Depths, the sheer amount of bullshit I was looking at within the first 5 minutes basically made me uninstall and refund it. At the time I simply didn't have the time to spent learning all that shiz. Now I have a question for you, if more complex, more engineering focused combination of blocks and different ways to power and fire weapons are truly the holy grail that SE should aim for, why did From The Depths apparently stagnate quickly? Why is it not dominating?

    Complexity != Depth
    Complexity != Fun
    Complexity CAN be equal to fun, if it also adds good depth, and if it is also not to much.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  15. Levits Senior Engineer

    I find it funny that you think that going past 3 power sources makes the game complex. Yet you are willing to accept modding like it's the holy grail of SE.

    Someone is not thinking clearly or logically if they think that they can just "plop" down a geothermal power system. There is and would be a process to follow in order to achieve it, a reason and purpose for it, and drawback and benefits of using it. And to think that hydrogen as a fuel source is exactly the same as a reactor or battery is also narrow-minded. It may accomplish a similar goal (same thing as the current solar, battery, and reactor) but the way it would accomplish it and how it can be used are as different as the other 3.

    And...Power management of 3 blocks? Right, because this game is totally about power management instead of building ships of various form and function. But now explain to me how various our choices are with the current 3 themes of power generation. Go ahead and tell us how many possibilities there are to working with solar panels, batteries, and nuclear reactors. I have a feeling it will be a rather short read. "Nuclear might not be possible to throttle very quickly, requiring you build batteries to keep constant power supply if your power supply throttles a lot, could even include heat management." Reactors now need batteries to function... ok; well that wasn't very hard to figure out or accomplish. Why make it so complex?
  16. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    I am essentially just done with this conversation, we obviously have completely opposite views of how the game should be, and that is fine and all.
    I find your view of it invalid and you apparently find mine invalid, all power to difference of opinion and all.

    Especially since you literally asked me other ways to improve the game, I come up with a quick idea on the spot and instead of even trying to play with that idea you just go ahead and start being super condescending about it.
    But it's cool.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Late Late x 1
  17. JD.Horx Senior Engineer

    We already have an energy source, uranium. Why should we have another one? Seriously, u input energy to harvest uranium, you input energy to refine it, and in the end you have some compact energy storage. Thats totally alright, why should we use solar cells or batteries?

    See how this analogy makes no sense, so does yours.
    We already have the components to produces, store and burn hydrogen and oxygen (though I dont understand why they have to be stored in different tanks, just name small and large tanks, and select gas to store!).

    We can use hydrogen as propulsion so why shouldnt we be allowed to burn it for electricity?
    An easy use would be the start on an earthlike planet where you could harvest some ice on a lake and power your fuel cell to get a serious amount of performance and energy. Additionally you wouldnt need battery cells, which are hard to obtain on normal start and it wouldnt take half an hour to charge the battery. Just fuel up your hydrogen tank and off we go.

    Forget that real life stuff, we are already able to store hydrogen and oxygen nicely in their respective tanks. A fuel cell could also be much smaller than a battery at 2x3x3.
  18. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    Not analogous.
    Batteries also do not require any kind of conveyor system to charge, Solar Cells is a system that doesn't require any outside management when setup.
    Perfect, gotta repeat myself again.
    And even if we:
    Then we'll we'll have an "infinite" energy source, and it becomes nothing more than a gas powered nuclear reactor in terms of game mechanics (albeit with a lower output I assume).
    Not true infinite (why quotation marks)
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  19. JD.Horx Senior Engineer

    Still don't see your point against fuel cells other than "nah it's to similar to uranium".

    Thus I respectfully disagree with your opinion here.

    Also, what if, say, your colony ran out of uranium and isn't able to find any new for a good amount of time. With solar powered electrolysis of ice (that is also pretty common) you could fuel up ships for a much higher performance and maximum travel distance than let's say batteries.
  20. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Or you could charge batteries with solar power.

    Hydrogen motor could make sense if it gave performance boost like hydrogen thruster does.
    But i doubt it would really make any sense
  21. PilotMax Apprentice Engineer

    I think hydro power should be a horribly inefficent way of getting power during the night. Inefficent as in taking more power to produce the hydrogen than you can get from it.
  22. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    My point was actually either "Nah, to similar to batteries" or "Nah, to similar to reactors" with the addition of the reasons for it.
    Let's say we do this, right.
    For less power I can build a Hydrogen Powered vehicle with a few batteries, not requiring any of the intermediate steps, just due to the fact that Hydrogen itself can be used in the propulsion and most other "essential" blocks on a ship are pretty low power.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  23. JD.Horx Senior Engineer

    Ok another mind experiment. Lets say your whole colony built rockets to make it into orbit and farm platinum and uranium there. We assume you have tons, TONS of hydrogen produced for this step, but you miscalculated.
    (Or another scenario, last time I checked we produce O2 from ice, and iirc we get O2 & H2 from electrolysis.)
    However, you have huge amounts of spare H2.
    So what to we do with this spare amount of H2? Why are we forced to use it for propulsion? Why cant we decide how to spend it, and just bam it together with O2 to get some more power to refine platinum for your ion thrusters.

    Another situation. You are in space and ran out of uranium (happened to me several times with inventory bugs and the like).
    Say we have still suit power, some hydrogen bottles and some spare parts.
    Wouldnt it be nice if I could actually use that spare hydrogen to power up my refinery that can then refine some uranium ore I just have to mine with my hands?
    Especially in the first hours of survival this bothered me. (I had no battery and few solar cells, that dont have enough performance to power the refinery).
    A fuel cell is made from simple parts and could be a good emergency power generator.
    Some internal plates, some electrodes, small amount of platinum or silver, there you go, fire up your refinery again.
    otherwise you would be stuck here. respawn.
  24. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    Game mechanics will have to change, because Ice either produces O2 or H2, not both.
    So what do we do with all the spare uranium? I think we should have enrichment procedures and instakilling nukes.
    I know it is a hyperbolic example, but it is using the same logic, just because we have X resource, we need several ways to spend it.

    Wouldn't it be nice if you decided to consider this possible scenario in your ship design and instead of having a hydrogen bottle you have a backup battery?
    Or put a few solar panels on it.

    These examples are honestly not amazing. The only one that I can even to the slightest degree agree with is honestly a way to spend Hydrogen, but in the end, it doesn't have to have tons more uses.
    Should Starbound have more ways to spend Fuel?
    Should ARK have more ways to use Gasolin?
    Should Uranium have more uses?

    In the end it is simplistic the way it currently works, but it works pretty darn well. If you want Hydrogen Thrusters, you get Hydrogen.
    If you have low power consumption you can mostly run your ship on a small reactor and a few batteries (small reactor to recharge batteries while idle).
    If you have higher power requirements you get a Nuclear Reactor, etc.
    Hydrogen Reactor, beyond being a straight up "I fucked up, bail me out Mr. Emergency Power" doesn't seem to be any kind of useful above Batteries (Maybe beyond the faster "charge" time) you still only store the energy.

    I can see one of two scenarios happening with the addition of Hydrogen Reactors, either they completely replace batteries because they have a better block/power and/or block/storage ratio and doesn't consume to much hydrogen to be sustainable.
    Or they require a consumable fuel making it an option in only the most specialized builds where they require faster fueling than a battery can do.
    Remember the minimum run time on batteries is 15 minutes, no matter what, couple with the fact that usually you don't have 100% usage constantly a 15 minute run time for most small ships at least is more than enough for most jobs small ships can perform (at least in space, a little worse on planets). It also takes an absolute maximum of 15 minutes to charge them, and during that time you can easily just fix on your ship, build new things, prepare supply chains, manage inventory, etc.

    I don't see why a fuel cell is made from simple parts is relevant?
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  25. SaturaxCZ Senior Engineer

    And sioxernic spaming continue, now 100% without logic... go on continue creat more pages about nothink... :tu:
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Bumber Senior Engineer

    We're not talking about energy storage on modern day Earth. We're talking about energy storage in space in the future.

    It's unlikely you will have electric nets or hydrogen deliveries out in the asteroid belt or on an uncolonized planet. This means you must produce everything on-site.

    Your electrolyser (a.k.a. "oxygen generator" in SE) needs to be powered somehow. You can't use the hydrogen to power more electrolysis because that breaks the laws of thermodynamics. This means you need to use uranium or solar panels (daytime only) to produce the hydrogen. Don't forget you have to mine the ice in the first place, which means you need a mining ship and the station must be located near ice, which limits your choices of location.

    Once you've got the hydrogen, you need to transfer it to your ship/vehicle through a connector. But that exact same connector is capable of transferring power directly from your station to your ship's batteries!

    Therefore, the only difference is you're taking the time to produce hydrogen up-front instead of the time it takes to charge the ship's batteries through the connector.
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
  27. SaturaxCZ Senior Engineer

    It was reaction on your modern -4-5 years old graph from rl and you did write how will all get solved by fast recharging batteryes + I did write: And dont forget to ask... from where you get electric in your plug.
    ( + some good points about new batteryes from this year, but it didnt change main problem with fast recharging. )

    For base:
    I can use hydrogen from start, because i did use it like fuel for engine and have some extra to use on new base side. I will use same hydrogen start create energy and create new hydrogen, oxygen, water. ( if some one didnt make a misstake and calculate it wrong ). Let hope mining ship use hydrogen too, because... why not, when main ship+base run on hydrogen ? I think its beter then bring crazy number of solar pannels and batteryes ( just weight alone make it hard to bring )+ your locations for bases are more limited then mine + you solar pannels logicaly work only with sun, so forget build on dark sides of planets, underground, planets with dense atmosphere, planets with long day-night circles, etc...

    For ships:
    Hydrogen ships will stay lighter, smaller and will store more energy, then ships using battery... so you will waste energy move heavy ships with tunes of death weight of batteryes ? Hydrogen on other side have god weight X energy use.

    You will still need create oxygen for your space engineer, so then evade electrolysis its beter change all system to use electrolisis, with minimal loses.

    + From thermodynamics side: you can use heat from electrolysis to melt ice and at same time you will use ice for cooling of electrolysis ( perfect symbiosis ).
    + I still dont know from where you guys get idea electrolysis in industrial size cunsume more energy then create... its not true.

    Dont join MP if you dont want see PvP in games and exploding solar panels ( shame on servers where are weapons off ). From in game military view, you can use only uranium reactor now + hydrogen for thrusters/fighters. Solar panels are hard to defend and will get sweep from planet surface/space base first + dont creat enought power to wage war effectively. ( specialy after 1-2 attacks :eek:ops:).
  28. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    vut? Breaking water into oxygen and hydrogen takes ALOT of energy.(think of energy released but reverse it
    ) as hydrogen oxidizes to water this energy is released, but inefficiensies in electrolysis make certain you lose energy in the process.
    I dont know if the rocket in that video is hydrogen one but amount of energy should be something similar.
  29. Bumber Senior Engineer

    I'm not sure if there's enough data out yet for a modern graph. Regardless, the graph was intended to point out the sources of energy loss in making and using the hydrogen.
    The electricity in the plug comes from a variety of sources, based on what's available. The hydrogen is produced from the exact same energy. In SE, the only current options are uranium and solar.

    Your energy will run out. Every time you do something with the energy a large amount is lost to waste heat and can't be recovered.

    I guess if you're venting the water vapor that's produced. You've got to carry oxygen, too, if you're not in atmosphere. You're essentially carrying the ice. (Keep in mind that the weight of hydrogen in SE is currently not counted. A tank full of liquid hydrogen should have a significant weight. ~177,125 kg extra, compared to the 8,161.6 kg of the tank.)

    It's not possible. You can't contain all the heat because it radiates and conducts through the surrounding material. Even if you could contain all the heat, electrolysis needs flowing electrons, not heat, or you just get water vapor. Trying to convert the heat to electricity is an inefficient process (affected by conductivity.) And even if you could theoretically achieve 100% efficiency for electrolysis, it still wouldn't do you any good. The moment you try to use the energy in the fuel cell for something (e.g., turning a wheel) it leaves the system. It's lost on waste heat (mostly friction) and momentum.

    Basically, you're describing a perpetual motion machine that generates electricity.
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2017
  30. JD.Horx Senior Engineer

    Alright if you think SE is fine in this state and shouldn't evolve for whatever reason you give, then that's your opinion.
    Still you don't seem to understand my example: I didn't ment to design a ship, I was building an outpost in normal survival mode from scratch. At one moment I just came back from mining but my base had run out of Uranium and couldn't refine some new because, yeah there was no energy. So I was stuck with 20k of uranium ore, 4 solar panels, a few hydrogen bottles and nothing to build a battery from.
    After an hour of survival it is pretty common, that you don't immediately have a battery.

    And again: if I find some hydrogen tanks but I have no hydrogen thrusters, using a simple fuel cell to charge your battery is a valid option, because at this moment in SE the h2 would be waste when you cannot fuel any h thrusters.
    From an economically point of view it makes absolutely no sense to not use the simple physical/chemical processes we already learn in school to actually get were we want. In a matter of: energy OR propulsion.

    Also you could get more duration/performance combinations with hydrogen than with batteries.

    For satellites for example you use one fuel cell with a large tank. For long endurance.
    For a performance vehicle you maybe use several fuel cells with only a medium tank for high output.

    While with a battery you can not increase the output energy without doubling the endurance (with a second battery) what maybe isn't required.
    On a small ship this is already pretty many blocks at 4x3x3.

    H2 already has quite little use in game and it is mostly used to get from planet to orbit or in small amounts for the Jetpack. But even uranium if you don't use it for your reactors it is still used for building rockets.
    A little bit variation for Hydrogen wouldnt hurt.
    --- Automerge ---
    Yep, fuel cells can have from 50 to 80+% efficiency. So you would always loose some energy, that is correct. But still fine I guess.
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.