Talk:Hydrogen fuel

Unsigned comment

The statement, "Hydrogen can also be transported (like electricity) to locations where it is needed." is rather confusing since transportation is one of hydrogen's drawbacks. Nothing, other than information, can be transported like electricity. If a comparison is to be made then it should be done with natural gas, also a substance difficult (read expensive) to transport. Local infrastructure could be built out to deliver hydrogen much like natural gas, but cost eventually limits distance delivery. I have therefore changed this statement to read, "Hydrogen can also be transported (like natural gas) to locations where it is needed.

I also have issue with the statement "Hydrogen is high in energy..." but don't have time for a fix right now. The article is definitely a proponent of United States National Renewable Energy Laboratory's POV and needs work.

in need of rewrite

this stuff doesn't sound like wikipedia...

i'll get to rewriting this stuff soon

PeregrineAY 05:25, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Please do rewrite it. The author of this article wrote a few energy-related articles, all of which had serious POV issues. Your help is welcome. Rhobite 06:00, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Since it seems this page is near to a rewrite, I won't edit it, but I do have some suggestions for whoever might. Hydrogen as a fuel has many advantages and disadvantages over other possible fuels.

1. Hydrogen does burn clean in a car, but hydrogen is curruently produced using hydrocarbons or other dirty methods that produce CO2 and other gasses. It will not reduce and may actually increase pollution for a while until hydrocarbons become too expensive, or pollution becomes a serious concern. The main reason touted by politicions is to reduce polution, and people should be aware that hydrogen will not immediately do this.
2. Hydrogen is more inefficent than gasoline. It would be possible to reverse the combusion of gasoline using electrical and chemical reactions (we could basically make our own custom hydrocarbons out of water and free CO2), and these would have more power for a smaller storage tank mass (liquid hydrogen has low mass itself but requires vast storage tank mass). This would be a clean cycle (get back what you put in), same as hydrogen, if more complex. Currently the most efficient formula for portable energy seems to be Boron [1]. Burn solid boron and gaseous oxygen, and produce glass-like boria, which can be stored separated back to boron and oxygen at a power plant. Almost any reactive element (beryllium, zinc, carbon) can work for this. However, hydrogen is very abundant and directly splits with just electricity.
3. Hydrogen leaks around 1.7% per day from any container small enough to put in a car. This is bad in that the hydrogen may (I have not heard conclusive proof either way) escape the Earth's atmosphere in the same way helium does, without reacting. This is bad in that the hydrogen could be permanently lost (?)
4. Now, before I sound too much against hydrogen: We will run out of "free" fossil fuels (fuels that give us more energy than we use in getting them) that will fit in a car, possibly within our lifetimes. Our only choice is to switch to a renewable portable energy source for cars. Electrical batteries would work, but take dangerous chemicals and require replacement. Hydrogen is the best cantidate thus far that has seen practical applications.
5. When we do run out of fossil fuels, if we are using the last drops in our cars, we will suddenly have to replace all our cars. If, however, we've replaced our cars with hydrogen cars (or some other type using a renewable reaction), and are cracking the last breath of methane to make hydrogen, we already have nuclear and solar power plants to provide the electricity to break water (via electrolysis) to hydrogen, and thus we have no car crisis.

Thus it is, that hydrogen is a good possible step away from our reliance on fossil fuels. We won't stop using them, but we will be able to. Splarka 01:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==(new comment 12 02 09)== I notice that nearly this entire group of articles seems to be heavily biased toward hydrogen's roll in the Green Energies movement. I would be much happier if it were presented just like any other Engineering topic. A good example would be the Oxyhydrogen flame article. More candidly, I'm getting a little tired of the 'issues' obscuring the simple science in so many different fields here on Wikipedia. I feel that articles about Hydrogen as a 'green' energy should be separate from the main thread, as the side issue that they represent. The main thread should NOT be written by anyone but a thermodynamic engineer. I want to check or learn simple facts about the practical applications of a technology. I'm barely interested in the whatever politics or social movements or applications may have attached themselves to a given technology, (justly or otherwise). Could we please try to keep sociology and hard science separate, with a sideline for where they inevitably overlap? End of soapbox.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.128.130 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 

This article should be a redirect to Hydrogen economy

The hydrogen economy article is much more detailed, organized, and balanced. If there isn't consensus for deletion/merge/redirect then a synopsis from that article should be put here, currently this article is woefully disorganized. zen master T 02:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is not improving and still bears a strong sense of advertising. The information here is already available in fuel cell, hydrogen economy and hydrogen car in greater detail and without the POV. Amadeust 03:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything not taken up by those articles can be put in a small paragraph of Hydrogen (after links to fuel cell, hydrogen economy, and hydrogen car), possibly something like Other uses as a fuel (space shuttle, welding, lighter-than-air craft, historic uses) Splarka 05:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I created the redirect. zen master T 05:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hydrogen fuel and the concept of a hydrogen economy are not the smae thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To do

Re add any useful content from the article's history. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Stub?

Why is this article so small? I hear about hydrogen all the time. I'd expect a full page article, not this little stub.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be expanded. Hopefully someone will work on it. The article on hydrogen economy is much longer, but I don't think it's the same subject and so shouldn't be merged at this time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)