QC#55 – Earth Friendly Fuel

Sun and water come together and make a very powerful, and virtually unlimited, "earth friendly" fuel.

See the full project video:

Solar panels provided by Verengo Solar:
Check the link for some free guides or a free quote.

Next Video: Gum Wrapper Fire Starter:
Previous Video: Matchbox Rockets:

Subscribe for new videos posted randomly!
Join my email list!

"Quick Clips" are clips of random experiments in a minute or less.

For other project videos, check out

Social Media Links:


Music By:
Music by Jason Shaw (RP-Clattertrap)

Project Inspired By:

Comments on a previous video ( ) suggesting I try the gas generation with renewable energy.

WARNING: Hydroxy gas is very powerful. Wear ear plugs when igniting the gas to avoid damage to hearing, and use caution and common sense to avoid injury and/or property damage. Misuse, or careless use may result in serious injury. These explosions sound like gunfire. Check local laws and county ordinances on noise restrictions. Use of this video content is at your own risk.

Project History & More Info:

Verengo Solar ( ) sent me some solar panels so I could get my feet wet with using energy from the sun. I tried a bunch of experiments, which you'll see in the project video. One of my favorites was hooking up my hydrogen generator, from a previous project, and generating this "earth friendly" fuel with renewable energy.

I've always wanted to hook my hydrogen generator to solar panels and see what happened, so that was the first order of business 🙂

I expected that gas production would be low, but was surprised to even get around 1 liter every 5 minutes. Imagine if you ran the generator all day. You could collect copious amounts of the fuel and it wouldn't cost a penny. Perhaps 100 liters for 8 hours of sunlight? That blows my mind .. and my ear drums.

The fuel is made by electrically splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen gasses (2H20 = 2H2 + O2)

This gas is perfectly balanced for a powerful reaction, and when ignited, turns back into water. There are no harmful by-products. The process can be repeated over and over, and the gas is very powerful.

57 thoughts on “QC#55 – Earth Friendly Fuel

  1. Grant Thompson - "The King of Random"

    *What’s up guys! Here’s a little teaser for the solar-electrical
    experiments I’m going to show you on Tuesday. :D*

  2. dream wolf gaming

    i know whats real earth friendly fuel and very cheap just make potato
    batteries and if you boil the potatos for 8 min it will last you over a
    month a reguler potato battery just last you 1 month boil it and it might
    be for 40 to 50 days maybe

  3. nigel turner

    hey im from the Caribbean Trinidad to be exact its a lot of fun watching ur
    vids but very hard to get the stuff to try some of them out but i still
    enjoy them keep it up i have seen pictures f people making glass cup from
    using using old beer and wine bottles using string and some kind of lighter
    fluid it would be nice to actually great to see it work cause i have a lot
    of those lol thanks THE KING OF RANDOM

    1. Hendlton

      +Spencer Howard Wait, putting HHO into the air intake? What about using it
      as fuel instead of just adding it and then the diesel or petrol or whatever.

    2. Spencer Howard

      +Rabi Sulaiman If you use a HHO generator like this run off an alternator
      you can destroy an engine. There is nothing implausible about this post AT
      ALL. Putting HHO directly into the air intake of a diesel is risky business
      as although hydrogen has a high self ignition temperature in a diesel it’s
      not hard to exceed that before fuel injection and essentially cause a
      detonation. Also if the system wasn’t set up well you could cause damage to
      the turbo, valvles and alternator. If enough HHO was produced you could
      easily blow up the cylinders and completely ruin the engine. I’ve even
      heard of flash backs wrecking the oil seal in the turbo and causing the
      engine to run away.

      It’s not entirely accurate to call it a fuel for his truck but change that
      to fuel system and it is entirely feasible.

      Also some idiots believe that they can achieve over unity by using the
      alternator to produce the gas and the gas to run the vehicle. Doing this is
      a great way to destroy petrol engines through similar mechanisms as
      described in the case of the diesel.

    1. seigeengine

      +Kalle B You felt the need to interject with oxygen.

      The produced gasses are hydrogen and oxygen, but the fuel is the hydrogen.

      I think this is a matter of what the OP meant.

    2. Mikey Allen

      +samocamo123 not in any way, its hydrogen gas (H2) and oxygen gas (O2) ith
      a two to one volume ratio of hydrogen to helium. no tin any way what so
      ever like flammable steam

  4. Hendlton

    I just realized something, this fuel doesn’t need air so this could be used
    to power vehicles on the Moon or even on Mars, you could use electricity to
    make HHO and power bigger vehicles such as trucks and stuff you’d need to
    build a colony on Mars!

  5. Dennis W

    Hydrogen is an extremely environmentally friendly fuel and incredibly easy
    to produce, but the practical application has a few drawbacks, like the
    difficulty in storing it and the fact that the “HHO” gas mixture you’re
    producing is extremely hazardous, even in small amounts. I’d love to have a
    device that separates the gases, making them safe to transport, but that’s
    very hard to pull off for thermodynamic reasons.

    1. Dennis W

      +Marielle ForgotMyLastName Sort of. It’s not impossible to store hydrogen
      in a gas cylinder, but harder than other gases. It will actually seep into
      solid metal and diffuse through it, which is pretty awesome.

    2. Dennis W

      +Jozef Mackovic You’re forgetting that what we’re trying to do is store
      energy. If you have water and a generator, you have all the tools to store
      energy, but no energy. In other words. you still need to run the generator.

    1. seigeengine

      +nacoran Sure, and smaller scale is great, but it’s also not a good power
      production strategy.

      I wasn’t dodging anything. If I didn’t specifically address something, I
      wasn’t taking issue with it.

      It’s really just not viable on any scale. There’s no good reason to build a
      massive dome over a city, and even if you had a good reason, it still
      probably would be a bad idea. You’re talking a 0.5-1 km tall structure
      encompassing hundreds of square kilometers of area. Consider that the dome
      would easily exceed all the materials in every single building, road,
      pavement, and gas/sewage/etc. line in the entire city. Probably by many
      many times. Hell, just imagine how much maintenance on such a structure
      would cost?

    2. seigeengine

      +nacoran The problem is I never picked on anyone’s grammar here. In fact, I
      spent like a solid hour doing research in order to evaluate your
      suggestion, and all you had to offer was moaning about how I’m picking on
      someone’s grammar? The hell?

    3. nacoran

      +seigeengine “Pro-tip: When the word you use to differentiate things
      refers to everything, it stops meaning anything.”

      YouTube seems to be de-threading threads. I was responding to a different
      one of your comments, not your well thought out response. I wasn’t trying
      to troll you; it was YouTube- A side effect, I guess of their new ranking
      system? Sorry for the confusion. YouTube’s notification didn’t even show
      me your other response.

      My rain gutter comment was, by the way, mainly meant to be facetious. I’m
      actually surprised the number was so high. There are a few spots on the
      planet where the rainfall is almost an order of magnitude greater than NYC
      though, and with your numbers-. Of course, you are still left with the
      problem of collecting it at 600 m!

      That said, if that was practical, creating 7% of the power for a city by
      putting a dome over it (if the dome had other useful purposes, like keeping
      the rain off the people in a city with an order of magnitude greater
      rainfall than NYC!) it might be worth looking at.

      Of course, if you had a place with high rainfall and high elevation- a
      Denver in the rainforest, you might have have something to start with.
      Maybe use the dome to make a rainy area a little less rainy? With another
      5000 ft. of elevation before you started collecting your rain. Of course,
      it’s much easier to let water go into creeks and rivers and harness it at
      natural points.

      I can’t think of anyplace that has that high an elevation and lots of rain,
      although the windward sides of mountain ranges do get more rain, and the
      dome, unless it served some other purpose would be financially ruinous.

      Maybe though, it would have enough power for a filtration system? (Of
      course, it might be easier to use the water pressure directly with standard
      filters rather than convert it into electricity to power a filter). I was,
      to the extent I was serious, thinking of source point power application.

      Sorry about the misunderstanding. I’ll keep an eye out for how YouTube is
      crossing their messages.

    4. seigeengine

      +nacoran That isn’t a grammatical issue, it’s a semantic one. If I said
      there were two groups, blue and red, and then put everything in the red
      group, them being red no longer has meaning. That’s my point. If you define
      the terms environmentally friendly and unfriendly such that everything is
      environmentally unfriendly, your definitions no longer mean anything.

      Technically you’re right. The highest average rainfall on Earth is
      approximately 10x, or one order of magnitude greater than the NYC average.
      The NYC average, however, is about typical for the USA. A few tiny regions
      in the USA average more in the area of 10 feet a year, but that’s about it.

      No, I don’t think so. NYC is a truly enormous city. Even if you had
      everything line up perfectly, it would still be an unrealistic undertaking.

      It’s important to remember it’s really hard to build things that are really
      tall, especially that cover a large area. It’s really just not worth it.
      Never mind the money alone, consider just how much raw resources would be
      required to construct something that large?

      For a filtration system to filter what? I considered, briefly, a secondary
      purpose of collecting and storing large amounts of fresh, if not potable,
      water. The problem is, the ideal place for this is places that already have
      massive amounts of rainfall… in other words, places where water shouldn’t
      be an issue, and where enormously cheaper means of collecting it would
      yield the same result.

      I mean, after all the crap that would get in a water collection system of
      that magnitude, you’d need serious filtering.

    5. nacoran

      I was thinking much smaller scale for the water filtration system- more
      like the cisterns houses in the Florida Keys have (or had, until most of
      them were torn out).

      Semantics vs. grammar, you are correct. I misspoke, but I think you were
      dodging the other poster’s original comment a bit. There are clear
      differences in how green different technologies are, and while all
      technologies involve tradeoffs I think it’s fair to, for instance, call
      wind cleaner than coal (dead birds aside- I’m not sure anyone has done a
      study on how many birds coal kills, but if it compares at all to how many
      people are killed with respiratory problems from coal the wind farms are
      probably a net benefit for birds too). You weren’t engaging in the
      discussion because they said green instead of greener. That’s all I was
      trying to say- not that you weren’t correct linguistically, just that you
      seemed to be disregarding their comment because of a semantic issue- I’m
      not sure which logical fallacy that would fall under- not quite ad hominem,
      but close.

      Perhaps, to continue the crazy dome discussion, if you were to combine it
      with some of the wind tower ideas? I haven’t kept up on their development,
      but I know Spain had some towers designed to use temperature differentials
      between air columns to create wind inside their tower, to turn turbines. I
      guess, at the percentages rainfall add to much it would maybe only be
      useful in really unusual circumstances, maybe only in art projects/proof of

      Thanks for crunching the numbers. 🙂

  6. Tobias Weiß

    Except more energy was used in the production of that panel than you’ll
    ever produce with it.

    As for environmentally friendly fuels, bio diesel is probably the way to

    1. Spencer Howard

      +illudian I think that’s an issue of semantics. Of course pretty much all
      of the energy we use and will use comes from solar in one form or another.
      What I meant that in the mid term future say over the next 50 years ground
      based photovoltaic cells probably won’t make up the greater majority of
      supply in most countries. You will see algae based biodiesel production for
      heavy vehicles until battery technology reaches energy densities close to
      that of carbon fuels. In countries like australia hopefully you will see an
      increase in thermal solar based batteries as well as wind, tidal and hydro
      as well as some burning of natural gas and waste/biproducts. Of course as
      the technology improves it will eventually become almost 100% of the

    2. Spencer Howard

      The thing with bio diesel is that it isn’t viable from terrestrial based
      plants. There are 2 main situations where it is highly useful, the first
      being a way to recycle cooking and insutrial oils/fats this obviously isn’t
      enough to provide a base load fuel however it does make a range of things
      more efficient.

      The second and more important situation is the case of Algae based
      biodiesel. Algae can be 60% or more oil by dry weight and you can get more
      than 100 times the yield per acre of ground once again I don’t think that
      this can be a base of all fuel and energy production. In terms of pure
      electricity solar is far more efficient but algae oil will almost certainly
      be part of the future energy mix.

      We don’t just use one fuel for everything now, why would we use just one
      source of energy in the future?

    3. illudian

      +Spencer Howard The most obvious answer to why use one source of energy in
      the future is that solar energy is readily available almost anywhere in a
      star system, even if the further you are the less you get, where as
      hydrocarbons aren’t exactly a constant availability and neither is wind or
      nuclear energy. even if we ever transition to interstellar flight a ram
      scoop in interstellar areas could provide us with small amounts of hydrogen
      to power fusion plants or drive ion engines, even if it is a slow gather.
      It makes sense to switch away from burning things to produce energy as this
      1. requires oxygen to maintain, 2 consumes resources which are not easily
      replenished, and 3 is very inefficient at its best. In essence electric
      everything may not exactly be the BEST option at this time but it is the
      only PRACTICAL option for the future.

    1. ManiacalRam

      +Sam Kirb You are obviously too idiotic to understand my comment.

      Look at cocaine. The coca plant, in it’s natural state, is relatively
      harmless. Only when it is concentrated enough that cocaine that produced.

      Not all raw materials are dangerous or illegal. Red phosphorus is used in
      meth cooking, but that doesn’t make it illegal, does it now?

    2. ManiacalRam

      +Sam Kirb No, I want personal possession of hydrogen concentrated enough to
      explode to be illegal. Hydrogen is all around us, and you don’t exactly see
      it exploding when you light a match.

Leave a Reply