The Hydrogen Hoax

A good article. Seemed to cover all the major and minor points.

Excellent article!! It should be required reading for every politician, policy maker and individual who claims technical expertise. Or votes. Or pays taxes. Thank you for offering it. The hydrogen hoax has gone on long enough. It's time to concentrate on a technically sound attack on the energy problem. DickL

Great article. Required reading for US citizenship.

It's good to explain the so-called 'hoax' or misunderstanding, most of which is due to a lack of understanding of science, particularly chemistry and thermodynamics. However, the author does not , himself, state the facts clearly enough. Hydrogen in water is not an energy source, neither is it a 'carrier of energy'. It's simply that water is the product of the 'burning' (oxidation) of hydrogen. There is some utility to hydrogen as a means of storing energy for either fuel cells or direct combustion in IC engines or gas turbines. However there is a lot to do to develop the equipment, infrastructure and handling procedures to make it both effective and safe. But it's good to see, in this article, such issues as efficiency of fuel cells and power management equipment being discussed. We need more such articles, critically read to be able to create a new power infrastructure that addresses both our need to both conserve fossil fuels, ensure clean air and address the rising levels of CO2. The first two, in my opinion, are more immediate, if not as catastrophic as the last. Scholar

Well done.

Add biodiesel to the fuel selection and plug-in hybrid technology (for off-peak charging, efficiency, regenerative braking, etc.). Develop switchgrass (biomass) production on marginal / abandoned farmlands (less threat to food supply, perennial, efficient, can also be used in pelletized form for heating and energy generation). Pond scum and poop (we NEVER run out of poop) never looked so good.

Now you have a comprehensive energy policy / initiative. Screw the space race, bring on the ecofuel technology race! I mean, space exploration is an admirable pursuit, but I think we have a perfectly good (well, slightly abused) planet right here that needs attention, and we would be better served investing in it's well being, despite ourselves, first and foremost.

And let's face it, we will continue to use coal, as it will always make economical (if not currently ecological) sense (there's a lot of it), so mandating more eco-friendly standards for its use would force investment in technology to that end. Similar to what we are seeing with fuel standards (diesel) in the EU currently.

A new age of invention and innovation is here, one that finally includes sustainability (on many levels) in its directive. I personally feel this is a challenging and exciting time to be involved in engineering the future.

Might we actually be considering diversity in fulfilling our energy supply requirement here Munky? What a novel concept. Add more efficient energy use scenarios and reassessment of nuclear power generation (I know someone out there is cursing me now) and you got a deal.

Wonderful article without any apparent technical ambiguity.

The only point which I could not clearly understand is that if we used solar panels to electrolyse water directly to produce hydrogen, how would that increase the greenhouse gases as stated in the article ?

Wouldn'nt such a scheme, if employed on a large scale, be an economical way to produce hydrogen ?

The solar panels only contaminate through the manufacturing process of their components, that is of secondary importance in this issue, or through the electricity consupmtion needed to operate them.

But it could be much better to use directly the electrical power obtained from the solar panels through electrical batteries, having in mind the problem of transportation of the Hydrogen.

To power a wheeled vehicle directly with solar panels, as they (the panels) are now, is not a pragmatic solution.

There have been constructed show vehicles powered by solar panels, that are only suitable for demostration purposes, not for mass production and use.

Saludos.

Arturo

Sorry fo the grammatical mistakes.

"if we used solar panels to electrolyse water directly to produce hydrogen"......"Wouldn'nt such a scheme, if employed on a large scale, be an economical way to produce hydrogen ?".......Sure. You could use highly refined and expensive energy (electricity) to produce a very unmanageable gas, but why would you want to? From the moment you produce hydrogen, it is dangerous and far from economical. I agree that a pure solar panel powered car isn't feasible, but add storage batteries, a small engine driven charger and plug-in backup and you have a very different story. The engine, running in its most efficient range, can also provide heat and power for accessories. DickL

As with all technologies, there has to be a starting point where some people will decide it is worthwhile to invest in.

Would you have bought one of these?:

http://www.mbusa.com/heritage/benz-three-wheeler.do

Generally, it makes more sense to use electricity to charge batteries than to electrolyze water and store the hydrogen. The original water has to be dealt with too. Battery and ultra capacitors seem much more promising as components in future power systems. Either way, the more power is concentrated, the greater the danger of explosion. The safeguards are critical.

This danger is not just with hydrogen - look at the problems with some of the Li-ion batteries.

In general, the energy needs to be stored safely, and in a way which is conducive to the operation of the product.

I was pretty much meaning that. Hydrogen is a less concentrated form of energy than ultracapacitors and batteries may eventually be. It may actually be safer from that perspective. But the hydrogen idea seems to take more steps in the process of conversion and handling of the hydrogen and water. I don't think it will ever be as energy efficient as directly storing the energy in a battery or capacitor. It has to go through the conversion processes.

Gee Wiz, so let's just give on the Hydrogen thing then. I bet the nay sayers told the Wright Brothers that there would never be a 300,000 pound air plane that can fly really fast too. Silly to think that ol' Jules even talked about going to the moon, what a goofy guy. Why would anyone want to even continue experimenting, what a waste of time and precious energy.

An excellent review of the facts or most of them anyway. Unfortunately, neither politicians nor the general public like to deal with science or facts; thats why we have so few scientific types in Congress. The general public only wants to deal with and discuss what the media tells them. Perhaps, we need to have a much higher science requirement in the curriculm for colleges that teach media and journalism.

Friends--

A reality check is always worthwhile. I have checked a few of the calculations and claims in Mr. Zubin's article and found them accurate. However, I also found one or two errors along with a couple omissions which deserve to be mentioned.

Regarding the cost and sale price of hydrogen as an automotive fuel, the electrical cost of generating the hydrogen is correctly calculated at $2.72 per energy-equivalent "gallon". To gain a profit margin of $0.20 per "gallon" requires selling this at $2.92 per "gallon". Daily cost of amortizing the construction costs (taking Mr. Zubin's numbers for this) is about $2.75 per "gallon" on a sale of 1000 "gallons" (that is 50 customers at 20 "gallons" each). Therefore the total cost per "gallon" is around $5.67. This is not an unreasonable value---look at the current costs for fuel in many countries. Energy costs would probably be lower than the $0.06 per kWh, because utilities love a customer who can shed load during peak times of day and add to their base load during slower times of the day, so a negotiated cost could be closer to $0.05 or possibly less. This cuts the break-even point for the hypothetical fuel station to around $5.25. No doubt, many people can quibble about these numbers or any other set of numbers. The point I raise here is that these numbers are closer to our current fuel costs than we realize.

The explosion concerns in parking structures are real, but in discussing this, we need to remember that the very low density of hydrogen gas means that it rises rapidly and diffuses rapidly into the atmosphere, instead of the problems we have with conventional liquid fuels. This certainly reduces the concerns raised by its flammability limits of 4% to 75% in air.

Omitted from the discussion is the use of certain metal hydrides as a hydrogen absorbent in storage tanks. The benefits at present are: 1) storage capacity equivalent to a 5000 psi tank is obtained within the same volume at much less than 200 psi, and 2) actual crash tests and tests with fired ammunition show a hydrogen release rate that is not explosive--the rate of fuel availability for combustion is fairly close to that of oil. The difficulties that remain include: 1) the tank weight is still high, although much less so than the other tank types, and 2) release of hydrogen from the metal hydrides requires heating them well above the boiling point of water.

In the 1970's, I remember a man, Roger Billings, who was converting standard cars to gasoline/hydrogen-powered ones with metal hydride storage tanks. He had a conventionally trained mechanic who installed dual-fuel carburetors (gasoline and LPG) which were re-jetted for the different density of hydrogen compared to propane. This was and is not rocket science, and was done without any source of government funding at all.

Many advances in molecular biology are now allowing the conversion of the cellulose portions of corn stalks or other similar materials into alcohol--remember that cellulose is sugar molecules joined together in a different way than done in starch, and our bodies do not possess the proper enzymes to break these bonds apart. In a similar way, I suspect that the biochemical pathways used in photosynthesis, called a hydrogen transport mechanism, can be applied to find ways to use sunlight to generate free hydrogen. This may occur within the next 5-10 years. When cortisone was first discovered and its medical benefits described, its cost was over 400 times the cost of gold. After intensive research, we found that incredibly difficult synthesis steps in the laboratory were very easily bypassed with fermentation reactions, and the cost of cortisone dropped about a thousand-fold.

It is possible that hydrogen generation can become a distributed type of manufacturing technology, so the problems of storage and distribution could become much less than they are at present. Such a business model flies in the face of today's big business models, but is actually more robust and healthy.

Beyond all the points discussed above, Mr. Zubin's conclusions are important. In no way should we seek a magic bullet in any area. We need to consider all the sources of energy, as well as all the uses we have of energy. We need to look at our energy usage and compare it to similarly robust economies which use less than half this per unit of GDP or per capita. We need to consider what will happen in the future as the developing countries and their peoples aspire to the scale of transportation and economy we enjoy. About 2000, a report to the UN noted that for all people in the world to have equal access to energy, our consumption of energy in the USA would have to be 1/10 what we use now. Concerns about CO2 production are very real and we are entering an uncertain future if we don't embrace ways to change the current models we follow.

We need to beware of blinders in our thinking and pride in our status. I suggest for reading, a short monograph by Steve Baer, titled "The Clothesline Paradox" (first printed in the 1960's), and Amory Lovins' book "Soft Energy Paths". I hope this discussion continues.

John M.

Unfortunately... after scientifically trashing hydrogen so eloquently, the author leaps forward to the less rigorously supported conclusion that methanol/ethanol are the 'right' fuels to replace petroleum - mainly because of the perceived politics of the matter. I have recently read a similar 'science-based' report (was there not a review in CR4 recently too?) which concluded that methanol from the US Agricultural Industry would consume more energy in its production, than it would yield when being consumed AND would adversly affect the economics of our food supply. If ALL of the arable land was devoted to methanol producing crops for motor fuels, we would NOT have sufficient production capacity to replace petroleum - but we would have shattered the relationship between agriculture and food - inevitably increasing costs of crops grown for food on that land.

Snowboy--

I agree that the trend initially has been to divert crops from food use to fuel use. However, we are now seeing the conversion of the non-food portion of the plant into a fuel source. This portion of the plant can give a much higher yield of fuel per acre planted than the food portion was able to, so diversion from food uses will decline and the yield of fuel per acre is increasing to levels much higher than the food production increase we saw earlier with the "green revolution".

Sunlight energy reaching the earth's surface, on the arable land, at conversion efficiencies of photosynthesis still greatly exceeds the world's total energy consumption.

I found that very interesting, too. Such detail on hydrogen's limitations -- much of which I support myself, and much of which many of us have been aware of -- but then a simplistic paragraph or two on the "one" solution. It's as if he was just worn out from writing, and felt he needed to propose some alternative at the end of the article. Personally, I think there are a great many alternatives. The article would have been better, in my view, without the last couple paragraphs.

Ohh geez, I've seldom seen such a pile of nonsense!

Reading some of the comments above is a clear reminder that people are like sheep, no wonder religious leaders are called "Pastors" lol

While I wont disagree with the science, the premise is wrong. The money invested in research is to produce/come-up with/invent NEW ways of liberating that Hydrogen, better ways of storing, and increase the conversion. That is the purpose of research, his entire diatribe is based on CURRENT technology or idiotic precepts "the only place to find free Hydrogen is in the Sun or Jupiter" lol

The nonsense never stops. I must say though, I got tired of it halfway and didn't finish reading it. He's arguing what nobody is proposing.

You mention the idiotic precept "the only place to find free Hydrogen is in the Sun or Jupiter". Where can it be found on earth? I'll admit it has been 35 years since I was in Chem Eng school, but back then, we couldn't find free hydrogen in useful quantities on Earth: it was just too reactive. Has that changed recently?

You also mention NEW ways to "increase the conversion". As it is now, we can get all the hydrogen out of water. Are you suggesting that we spend money to find ways of getting more than all of it out?

I believe the fact that his diatribe is based on CURRENT technology is the only reasonable thing to base it on, right now. To say that some unknown technology won't work makes a pretty nonsensical argument, doesn't it? We know of many energy gathering/conversion/storage technologies that currently show real promise, and that currently work well. We can see incremental improvements on the horizon. Would it not make sense to focus on technologies that we know work well now, rather than on ones that we know do not work well now. A bird in the hand... The low hanging fruit... etc.

In science fiction, it is fun to make leaps from an existing technology to to one many generations removed. In the science fact of the the real world, basing our decisions on current technology and the next generation seems less nonsensical than making great leaps.

An excellent article overall.

I disagree only on a few relatively minor points:

To much emphasis on alcohol based fuels.

Leaving out other hydrogen storage methodologies, such as metal hydrides, (which of course have numerous problems but might well find a place).

Not recommending what in my opinion is the best alternative for right now: A diesel hybrid, and biodiesel.

Too much blame on the oil companies related to the "love affair" with hydrogen.

An exaggeration of the dangers of hydrogen: It's lighter than air, disperses quickly, and it burns "upwards". While it is certainly explosive, and in a wide range of concentrations, its qualities make the explosion generally far less dangerous than say a natural gas explosion.

From the Hindenburg (Wikipedia):

"Most of the crew and passengers survived. Of 36 passengers and 61 crew, 13 passengers and 22 crew died. Also killed was one member of the ground crew, Navy Linesman Allen Hagaman. Most deaths did not arise from the fire but were suffered by those who leapt from the burning ship. (The lighter-than-air fire burned overhead.) Those passengers who rode the ship on its gentle descent to the ground escaped unharmed. In comparison, almost twice as many perished when the helium-filled USS Akron crashed."

Anyway, it raises a lot of points that seem to elude the advocates of a "Hydrogen Future", especially the present state of fuel cell practicality.

Greg

I'm not that pessimistic about hydrogen fuel becoming a reality in the future. There are many ways to skin a cat and eventually I'm sure man will figure out a way to extract hydrogen as fuel instead of crude oil. As a start, here's an example of it which sounds promising on a smaller scale: http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_48392.shtml

Beyond Batteries: Portable Hydrogen Fuel Cells

By: Carol Potera, EHP Online
Published: Dec 30, 2006 at 07:44
Email this article

The XRT can power lighting, radios, phones. and more in emergencies. Image: Jadoo PowerMention hydrogen fuel cells, and most people envision hydrogen-powered cars as an alternative to the gas-guzzling and polluting internal combustion engine. In fact, many much smaller applications also could benefit from this nonpolluting technology. However, despite the billions of dollars being poured into the research and development of hydrogen fuel cells, few products have been commercialized.

To jump-start the hydrogen fuel cell economy, Larry Bawden and Lee Arikara cofounded Jadoo Power Systems in 2001. While demonstrating their technology at a convention in 2002, an observer remarked that the creation of electricity from hydrogen seemed like magic. The company's name grew from that comment-Jadoo means "magic" in Hindi. "We wanted a nontechnical name to brand ourselves as a provider of solutions, not another technical house," says Bawden, Jadoo's president and CEO.

Continued

Note From CR4 Admin: Current copyright laws do not allow the posting of complete articles from other sites, so we removed the bulk of this post. To read the entire article, please follow one of the links.

- Chris

Although I agree with the trend of the discussion, I feel that criteria have become implicit rather than explicit. This could be unhelpful if what we are aiming for is a basis for decision-making.

Regarding whether hydrogen is a sensible fuel, the question should not be whether it can be made practical, but whether there are likely to be simpler, better or cheaper ways to achieve the desired results. Converting anything to hydrogen as a fuel for burning is undoubtedly an inefficient way to proceed. The only reason to use hydrogen would be if the total process (basic fuelstock to motive energy) could be made more efficient and/or convenient than using other fuels. I have yet to see anything that indicates it could.

Moving from the basis for decisions to some views which I shall merely state - and some of the statements may be based on out-of-date information, so I'm happy to be corrected:
I believe (very possibly incorrectly) that the pressure (please excuse pun) behind using hydrogen as a fuel is due entirely to the misconception that, because no carbon is involved in its final conversion to energy, it is automatically ideal as a carbon-neutral fuel; this is clearly bunkum.
The simplest fuel for exploitation at the moment is probably bio-diesel. Longer term, however, it could be attractive to convert from internal combustion engines to fuel cells - because (in principle) fuel cells can convert a larger proportion of the chemically stored energy than can existing heat engines. But there is a very long way to go first - poisoning and limited power density being but two of the issues. In the meantime, we can also enrich existing gasoline-type fuels with (bio-)ethanol. I believe that we should in parallel with this investigate how far it may be practical to increase the efficiency of practical heat engines, as present automotive engines are clearly nowhere near to the fundamental limit. As the efficiency advantage of the diesel engine (over gasoline) is entirely due to its slow burn making it possible to combine a high compression ratio and with moderate thermal conduction losses (to the pistons and cylinders), illustrates the potential if we could simultaneously increase compression ratios and reduce thermal conduction. If we were prepared to accept heat engines with the lifetime of present fuel cells, we could use engine components with lower thermal conduction and lower specific heat; this would substantially improve the conversion efficiency of both diesel and petrol engines. What I'm trying to say is that the development of robust and more-efficient engines seems to be a potential area for conservation that is largely ignored by politicians and the green lobbies - unless you know different.

A final note - it could be that Mr Zubrin was rushed at the end, or could it be that he sees specific benefits in using alcohols (or has other reason for interest in the topic) that he will explain elsewhere.

Fyz

Debunking Rightwinger Propagandist Robert Zubrin's so-called Hydrogen Hoax

http://hydrogentruth.info/Villains/Debunking_Robert_Zubrin_H2Hoax.html

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ytp629

Two links to (eventually) the same site? And the "preview" appears to go to the full thing.

Zubrin, as ever, overstates his case, but this one is politically neutral - he's just pushing for a different balance in the expenditure on carbon-neutral fuels - and the hydrogen route does seem to be absorbing a disproportionate amount of (right-wing) government money. Branding Zubrin as a "rightwinger" (which he may be in other areas - I wouldn't know and I'm not that interested) does nothing to advance understanding or decision making. Zubrin is not always entirely accurate, because he's trying to cram too much in - but the rebuttal in the link covers only a small proportion, and contains even more inaccuracies the Zubrin's

No matter what anyone says or thinks here is a hydrogen process that works except for government interference. I don't know the details of why the government caused this to be put on hold but I would like ot find out.

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/

There are several pages of information here on already working hydrogen systems and generators for vehicles.

they have a corvette with a 650 mile range with hydrogen, which can then switch to is regular gasoline. they have other working hydrogen vehicles.

They do have your own onsite hydrogen geration system. It does take a while to refill the hydride storage tanks.

As we all know, and this article re-emphasizes, hydrogen is a battery. Millennium Cell is developing this technology to produce long lasting, lightweight batteries that could be used to power electronics or even vehicles. They also have a unique process that uses soduim borohydride to store and transfer the energy. The system is very efficient and totally portable. The regeneration involves a high temperature process that works very well with nuclear reactors. Of course this is not a panacea, it is still a battery and some of the input energy becomes unavailable as a result of the process.

We will still need more renewable, nuclear, clean coal, boifuel, and waste-to-energy to meet our growing demand for highly available energy sources. We also need to promote more intelligent use of energy. Frankly, until and unless we all feel some pain at the pump and in our utility bills, we will not look at these technologies. Building tennants, developers and owners, car drivers and manufacturers, and appliance buyers and manufacturers simply do not have a financial benefit to producing more efficient products, or those that are capable of using lower availability energy sources.

Greetings to all. first time post. Barring grammatical and composition errors, I will try to convey my thoughts here. While I do admit a certain amount of skepticism for some of the authors viewpoints, I believe hime to be correct on several fronts. While hydrogen does seem appealing to hold promise for the future, many years and evidently many tax dollars too will be spent developing it. However, we do need a more immediate solution to the energy equation and biofuels seem to be the most promising. A comprehensive energy independence policy will have to come from many fronts as no single source is even remotely ready to replace fossil fuels, even if i dare say in the next decade.

What I have not heard or read much about is I think an oversight to the notion that separating hydrogen from oxygen (water) is even practical. That the product of hydrogen derived from water converted to combustion is again simply water. While it does produce some water as an exhaust by product, this is only a reaction of reintroducing unburned hydrogen back to an atmosphere that contains oxygen, hence the water theory. You have now used water in a means by which it has never been truly consumed before. In all the history of the earth as we understand, water, our most plentiful and precious resource has never been lost or consumed. It has always been borrowed and then returned to the atmosphere by the somewhat normal means. Transpiration, evaporation or perspiration. But the separation and subsequent conversion to heat for a fuel source now eliminates that quantity of water from the earth and its atmosphere. It will not be returned in the same quantity as first separated as two thirds of it just went up in smoke albiet invisible smoke. As all would certainly be aware of the fact that something does not come from nothing, the hydrogen was not lost either although it has been converted to another form, mainly heat. On a small scale this is of no apparent risk to anyone. However, on a continental or global scale this could be devastating and result in a very dry planet. Now have I missed something in my studies? Possibly. Granted, I am no expert in this field of study, but I think this is worthy fodder to be discussed. Many would propose that water is in a almost endless supply, I ask you to consider the "almost" part of that. Can hydrogen be a part of the fuel solution? Definitely! Widespread distribution? Potential hazzards (injuries/fatalitys) lie ahead. Are we ready? Not yet, but we are getting closer to a solution with each passing day. It is only an opinion for now. thanks for allowing my participation. Cottonmouth1963

Welcome. Thanks for your thoughts. I think the extra water vapor going into the atmosphere would make the planet wetter.

A minuscule effect. Except in regions that are both arid and isolated by mountains or lack of circulation, water vapour typically has a half-life in the atmosphere of weeks to months; and if all the world's energy consumption involved transmission in the form of hydrogen, and the water was all released to the atmosphere as vapour, a year's usage would correspond to an atmospheric concentration of about 0.002% by volume. Typical atmospheric concentration in temperate climates is in the order of 1%, and the concentration generally increases with temperature. So you can see that the increase in precipitation would be considerably below 2%. If you look at a cooling tower, you will see that the precipitation is quite rapid and local when the concentration is locally high, so the global effect would be much smaller. And, because this is an equilibrium condition, the increase in water content tends to increase precipitation disproportionately, the increase in atmospheric atmospheric concentration would be rather less than 1% of the present level of water concentration.

I may be misunderstanding your drift. But all that is meant to happen here is that we use energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen and then recover some of the energy by recombining back to water - though it is possible there will be other intermediaries in some cases. There would be no intention to release any hydrogen the atmosphere (other than combined with oxygen), though inevitably there will be a small proportion that is wasted in this way.

So the only situation under which the water is 'lost' is if the hydrogen escapes and fails to recombine before leaving for outer space. Given the difference in density between water and air, I imagine the increase in atmospheric oxygen would be noticeable somewhat before the effect on the ocean became significant. But a 0.1% change in atmospheric oxygen concentration would have a very small effect (by comparison with such a change in CO2), and would require an amount of hydrogen to be wasted that corresponds to the total human production of CO2 to date. Assuming that we get the technology remotely correct, this should not be an issue within the time-frame that H2 remained the current technology for energy transfer.

BTW, a small amount of H2 is continuously released from the ocean surface, as it is a by-product of oxidation under or contacting water. Mostly this is not a problem, as it recombines with O2 in the air, or is lost. One place where I am aware of it becoming problematical is in submerged communications systems, where H+ diffuses through the protection structures, and recombines on the inside to give a pressurised cavity full of H2. This caused some serious accidents before it was adequately understood.

That is not to say I favour the use of H2 as an energy transfer mechanism - just that this is argument against its use doesn't holds much water (pun originally accidental)

Fyz

Greetings to you too. Your post is well-thought-out, although there is a technical error. If you split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burn the hydrogen in an engine (or elsewhere), the h and o recombine into water. As you know, this process gives off heat (and heat makes the engine go). Unfortunately, splitting apart the water in the first place requires slightly more energy than you get out of the recombining. Where this becomes especially problematic is in using electricity from the grid to do the electrolysis. The process of generating electricity from fossil fuels is only about 33% efficient (from fuel through to usage point), so much of the energy (coal, natural gas, oil) consumed to run the powerplant is wasted. When that is transformed and rectified to DC for use in hydrolysis, there is a slight further loss.

On the other hand, if you use wind power to provide the electricity to do the hydrolysis, then the environmental costs are much lower. But even wind power is not environmentally free: it takes lots of energy to make the wire in the windings, transport the materials, make the aluminum in the housing, the plastics and fiber reinforcement in the blades, etc. If only there were a free lunch.

But, in any case, your post reflects the kind of thinking we need to be doing, with more people saying "But what about..."

Thanks Ken,

It has always been my observation that far too many people are willing to follow someone down a potential wrong road before thinking it through. I perceive that the bulk of the opinion here is that there are far better alternatives to the energy situation within our grasp than to plunge headlong into the new hydrogen fuel scenario. We already have most of what we need to set up new and safer nuclear power plants, large solar arrays and wind generation. We could put solar arrays in the vast areas of uninhabited desert where the sun is intense anyway. There would be a few complaints from the locals, but The latter of the two mentioned will produce energy with no little or no pollution after their construction. I read somewhere about a offshore wind farm project being proposed in europe not long ago. Of course every conceivable project will have pros and cons and the people's opinions that believe in them and or despise them. I realize that I am probably preaching to the choir here too.

I suppose it is time that a few knowledgable people get involved in the process of educating the general public against private and personal interest over the greater good for all. A noble enterprise? Nothing new. Anyone interested? I once heard in a movie line "A little revolution now and then is a good thing". The tea is in the pot brewing Boston.

I tend to see things from a practical standpoint. If we have people who when they fill up their auto's with gasoline overfill the tank, we have a slight risk potential for fire. On the other hand, what will happen to these people when the miscalculate a fillup and have a release of -200 degree liquid hydrogen in their vicinity. It appears that the release of hydrogen would be of no environment impact once dissipated, but somone could be frozen solid as a result or lose appendages at the very least. This risk would nessesitate robotic controlled service, and as with all mechanical systems there is risk for failure. Who would operate it? This would lead to more skilled and qualified service personell of course. Good for the general economy true. I suspect that it's just not feasable.

It is just my opinion that we need much more evaluation before we dive in to a hydrogen for everyone program. Lets just hope that the current government doesn't just throw a bunch of taxpayer money at this in the hopes of appearing to be doing something about a "Hot button" topic for an upcoming election. Happens all too often anyway. Cover for an unfocused and comprehensive energy policy me thinks. Thanks again. Cottonmouth1963

I fear that, at least at present, the limitation to deriving energy from deserts is distributing that energy to wherever people wish to use it. You may not be too surprised to hear that this is one of the selling points for the hydrogen lobby - and I'm not certain what the alternatives are. Maybe hydrogen for would make sense for bulk power generation, even if (as I currently suspect) automotive use of hydrogen is an expensive diversion.

Fyz

Air Products Corp. has supplied liquid hydrogen to the space industry for over a half century. They are the world's largest, most experienced, manufacturer. For those who envision filling your car's fuel tank with liquid hydrogen, I'd like to cite some recommendations from Air Products Safetygram # 9: A) Except for specially trained employees of the liquid hydrogen supplier....."Two persons should be present when liquid hydrogen is being used or transferred or when a container is moved." B) "Purging should be done with helium since liquid hydrogen can solidify other gases, such as nitrogen, and cause plugging and possible rupture of the transfer line or storage vessel." C) "Cold burns may occur from short contact with frosted lines, liquid air that may be dripping from cold lines or vent stacks........" D) Minimum Distance (ft) from Liquified Hydrogen Systems to "Places of Public Assembly" must be 75 feet. E) "Personnel must be thoroughly familiar with the properties and safety precautions before being allowed to handle hydrogen and/or associated equipment." and "Full face shield, safety glasses, insulated or leather gloves, long-sleeved shirts, and pants without cuffs should be worn when working on liquid hydrogen systems. Pant legs should be worn outside of boots.".....There is much more. This brief excerpt from one completely impartial and non-political document is written as a reality check, not a scare tactic. Storing liquid hydrogen in an 80 degree F ambient is comparable to storing gasoline in a 600 degree ambient and trying to keep it from boiling away. The inefficiencies, costs and energy losses associated with manufacture, processing, transport, storage and distribution of liquid hydrogen are unmatched by other potential fuels.

Is anyone seriously suggesting the use of liquid hydrogen (rather than adsorbed hydrogen) for automotive use?

Not any more.

Where is the technical information on adsorbed hydrogen?

Searching "hydrogen metal hydride" finds a large number of links; some are batteries, but I understand that some are suitable for transporting hydrogen. I suppose the energy required to release the hydrogen depends on the chemistry.
Perhaps John Mueller could identify some realistic links?

"Searching "hydrogen metal hydride" finds a large number of links; some are batteries, but I understand that some are suitable for transporting hydrogen. I suppose the energy required to release the hydrogen depends on the chemistry.".......I don't want to start a basic search, because I don't regard hydrogen, in any form, as a legitimate contender. I include the old web pages with the tanks in the trunk of the Corvette. I tracked one of those and found three actual deliverable items; solar panels, tubing and t-shirts. If anyone has a hydrogen scheme that's worth analyzing I'd like to see a real discussion develop. Any metal hydride plan that claims higher energy density than liquid hydrogen isn't on my list. I may be wrong on the basics, but there's a long way to go before hydrogen merits serious considerations. DickL

It was you who asked for this information. Now you say you can't be bothered to look, because you've already made up your mind. You must have known before you asked that the energy density of liquid hydrogen will inevitably be higher than an adsorbed system if we include the weight of the adsorber. You certainly knew that the reason for considering such systems is safety, not energy density. I suppose you expect to be taken seriously?

Here's a quote from one such site:

The objective of the four-year, two-phase effort by RTI International is to develop synthesis and hydrogen extraction processes for nitrogen/boron hydride compounds that will permit exploitation of the high hydrogen content of these materials for on-board hydrogen storage, thereby meeting Department of Energy (DOE) targets. The compound of interest in this project is aminoborane (H₃BNH₃), a stable solid at ambient conditions that releases 19.6% of its weight as hydrogen during its thermal decomposition. With a low-pressure on-board storage and an efficient heating system to release hydrogen, aminoborane has a potential to meet DOE's year 2015-specific energy and energy density targets based on total system weight and volume.

A kg of hydrogen (about the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline) would then weigh (in hydrides) about 5 kg, nearly twice the weight of a comparable amount of gasoline. The tank required would not be extremely heavy, but it would have to endure pressures and temperatures higher than the average gasoline tank. If the hydrogen is then consumed in a fuel cell, the efficiency might be such that the extra fuel weight could be compensated by vehicle efficiency. Maybe.

Clearly a subject that is getting everybody's attention! However, the exitement is in danger of stopping the action as Aesoph notes. (Note:Hydrogen produced by sunlight can easily be pumped into the existing gas mains to mix with natural gas. Gas appliances can be re-jetted back to where they were when we used coal gas if necessary. Continent wide distribution exists already). The real action needs to be in reducing CO2. This is simple: re-forrest the world. All countries need to introduce laws to outlaw deforrestation, and make obligatory the planting of any suitable land with trees. Ten trees per acre of land per year as a landowners obligation, and large projects for areas such as Scotland. This is not rocket science and could be saving the world before alternative technology gets off the ground. We will turn all our moorlands back into forrests, but the alternative is losing London and the coastline.

Even if we were to start this instantly using all available land, and assuming that all previously forested land was suitable and the that sufficient fast-growing seedlings were available, it would only just about counteract the present rate of accumulation. It's a good idea to do everything practical in this area, but it could not be sufficient.