Can we have more ways to produce Hydrogen?

[goboking]

On 7/12/2020 at 12:08 PM, Neotuck said:

maybe add a new critter that excretes hydrogen?

Or a plant...

[0xFADE]

1 hour ago, goboking said:

Or a plant...

If the dupes ate that they should get a high pitched voice for awhile.

[KittenIsAGeek]

Seriously, if you want more hydrogen stop building SPOMs.  Yes, you will produce excess hydrogen from a SPOM, but you're burning a good portion of it to keep the thing running.   Every 9 or so dupes will consume all the oxygen produced by an electrolyzer, leaving you with the hydrogen to burn at your leisure without worrying about what to do with all the oxygen from the process.

I also start storing hydrogen as soon as I begin producing it.  Here's the rough-and-dirty system I've been using to take care of my dupe's oxygen needs:

Spoiler

Ignore the bit of CO2 at the bottom..I forgot to turn the fan off while a dupe was servicing the room and .. yeah. Anyway.

It doesn't run all that often (most of my oxygen comes from ferns) but I've still managed to save up 2.8 tons of hydrogen.  Shortly I'll be building a more robust system that will guarantee 1000 g/s of oxygen for  my base and by the time I reach space, I expect that each cell in my storage room will be closing in on 1000kg of hydrogen.

Lets assume that you're producing 1000g/s of oxygen for your dupes.  If you're not producing it with a SPOM, that's 126g/s of hydrogen you're going to be storing away.  In one cycle you'll have 75.68kg of hydrogen -- just from giving your dupes the oxygen they need to breathe.

If you're running a SPOM that guarantees a constant 1000g/s of oxygen, on the other hand, you'll be using between 80 and 100g/s of hydrogen depending on your design.  Lets assume a middle ground of 90g/s.  This leaves you with 36.13g/s of hydrogen which adds up to 21.7kg per cycle.  That's a measly 28% of your potential.

If you want hydrogen for your rockets, stop building SPOMs.

[mathmanican]

22 minutes ago, KittenIsAGeek said:

If you want hydrogen for your rockets, stop building SPOMs.

I'll quote @Lifegrow and let him stay out of this conversation. 

"SPOMs are a noob trap." Source.

I haven't built a SPOM for years. They were fun once.  I too have moved on.

 

[0xFADE]

I was going to say that ratio looked off but then I have 2 electrolyzers in a room with 2 [pumps] so it is pretty much the same (with the bottom open).  Used to have 4 in a room with 2 vents and the bottom open but they were over pressured so often that it was a waste of metal.

That is also why mechanical filters are so good.  You are replacing something that in your case costs electricity as much as the pump itself.

[KittenIsAGeek]

One electrolyzer running continually produces 888g/s of oxygen and 112g/s of hydrogen.   112/888 * 1000 = 126.126126126g/s of hydrogen if you're pumping a steady 1000g/s of oxygen out into your base.

[avc15]

While realism is a topic, also acknowledge that in the real world, electrolysis is how we get hydrogen in any meaningful quantity. It's also quite inefficient in real life.

[0xFADE]

58 minutes ago, avc15 said:

While realism is a topic, also acknowledge that in the real world, electrolysis is how we get hydrogen in any meaningful quantity. It's also quite inefficient in real life.

So in truth the electrolyzer was for hydrogen all along.  We have just been using the oxygen byproduct and throwing away the hydrogen.

[Trego]

17 hours ago, avc15 said:

While realism is a topic, also acknowledge that in the real world, electrolysis is how we get hydrogen in any meaningful quantity. It's also quite inefficient in real life.

No, as I referred to earlier, steam methane reforming is the cheapest method to produce hydrogen in the real world, and is used to produce the vast majority of hydrogen.

source: https://4thgeneration.energy/life-cycles-emissions-of-hydrogen/

http://ieahydrogen.org/pdfs/Global-Outlook-and-Trends-for-Hydrogen_Dec2017_WEB.aspx

(These are the result of a very quick google search and are some summary papers released by what appear to be nonprofits in the energy area and written by engineers, so not perfect sources, but it doesn't appear to be a controversial position.)