Talk:Hydrogen economy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lots of material deleted

In the past few days, a huge amount of material was deleted from this article. Is there an explanation? --Ssilvers 16:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the deletions since I see no justification for them. The page does seem long, muddled in several parts, repetitive. I will see if I can help. Quasarstrider 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely better. You deleted my statement that "in Europe and the U.S. the majority of petroleum that is imported is used automobiles." Isn't this a useful fact in the Rationale? Western economies are spending huge amounts of money to import petroleum for cars. However, as the entry shows, hydrogen fuel cells are not a feasible solution to this problem. The best immediate alternative is hybrid cars, and serious commitment to research on battery technology, which is stated in the entry, but perhaps not prominently enough. I'll leave it to you if you want to put the quoted statement back in somewhere (or not, if you don't think it's useful). --Ssilvers 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. Yes, that is indeed useful info. I put it back with some sentence restructuring. Please comment. -Quasarstrider 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I added to the sentence to clarify that the two biggies for the proposed hydrogen economy are cars and stationary fuel cells. Should we also say in the intro that the article explains why it ain't likely to happen any time soon, if at all? As it stands, it may look like we are saying that the "hypothetical" hydrogen economy is going to happen, and the reader has to read down pretty far to get the picture.

Also, the last sentence of the intro says: "The large market and sharply rising prices have also stimulated great interest in alternate, cheaper means of hydrogen production." What does this mean? Is it referring to sharply rising fossil fuel prices or sharply rising prices to obtain hydrogen, or what? --Ssilvers 21:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Concern over weasel-words

Recent edits (WpZurp)

Nice work - thanks for the cleanup and wikification.

But-

Isn't replacing "It may be" with "Critics argue" just replacing some slightly weasely words with more weaselly words? ;-)

I suppose. Still, it's a step to a lesser weasel state; also, "critics argue" creates the impression in the reader's mind that specific individuals are out there and that some kind of controversy exists. The final and concluding step out of the weasel-state would be to name such "critics" and give specific references to their criticism where they criticize specific industries or government actions. I remember seeing such criticisms in the past (which prompted my edit) and, if I run across those criticism again, I'll put in some specific links.

Thanks again, Leonard G. 04:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pulled an line about "expensive transport fuel" that doesn't hold up

By anon. user: 61.88.9.148

Once all hydrocarbon based fuels are either exhausted or outlawed, renewable Hydrogen, generated from wind, wave, hydro or tidal power would consume massive electricty generating capacity resulting in a transport fuel that is quite expensive, and perhaps leaving daily motoring beyond the reach of the average worker.

I pulled this as it does not seem to quite hold up as a well developed concept, paragraph, or sentence - relative to the theme and organization of the article. There will not likely be a point of hydrocarbon exhaustion - only that the price will make its use uncompetative with other sources - so it is not the price of renewables that is controlling but the price of alternative fuels relative to one another. Most of motoring at the present time is overly consumptive of energy, by a factor of at least three and possibly five or six, owing to the cheapness of fuels. It is well known that the the wind energy in a few northern tier states could supply all of the U.S. energy requirements if only it could be transported. One form of transport could be to make hydrogen and pipe it about - much as natural gas is piped around the country. It seems more likely that modern modular pebble bed reactors will have a place in the energy portfolio as they can be located closer to demand points. These are unlikely to be developed by the large U.S. companies, who have a vested interest in what is a 50 year old technology (large pressurised water reactors). Instead it appears that China will lead these developments - not because they need the energy but because they need to get away from the intense air pollution associated with coal, their primary domestic energy source.

In urban areas, daily motoring is already becoming impractical, not due to cost but due to congestion resulting from population growth combined with roadway limitations - a problem to be solved only in a relatively distant future by modern control technologies such as automated driving with "platooning", transportable micro vehicles, separation of various classess of traffic and other means of improving mobility (and parking).

Also, motoring and other travel as we know it is a social phenominum - a result of complex interactions between expectations and capablilities, driven by forces beyond individual and even collective control. A utopanist can costruct visions of postmechanical societies in which almost none of what we deal with now is necessary. Why drive daily when you can "be" anywhere in a virtual sense. Today (Sept 17, 2004) I was in the office of a patent attorney, to whom I demonstrated a software implementation related to a patent application. The examiner is in Washington, DC. Rather than carry a portable computer on a flight to Washington DC for a demonstration he will admit the examiner via telecommunications and specialized software to view (on the examiner's computer) an exact image of the screen on his computer as he demonstrates the implementation.

Note that almost no international tourists are driving individually, but travel by mass moving machines - ships, riverboats, aircraft, trains, and busses, interspersed with lots of walking.

---

Also by the same editor (left in) ...however whether Iceland can generate and store the equivelent amount of Hydrogen to displace the estimated 16,000 barrels a day ( 2001 data ) of oil it currently imports remains to be seen.

I'll work out some calculations on this when I get time (Ha!)- one need compute how much geothermal energy plant capacity is required to displace the 16KBD, allow for conversion efficiencies (especially if cryogenic hydrogen is to be used), etc. I'm rather busy right now - if anyone has the skill to do the calcs, especially capital cost/payback time etc., please do so. Better to put some real numeric projections in place of a "remains to be seen" (which it still will), but we will have a better article. It does appear that the authorities in Iceland have run the numbers and they look good to them.

Leonard G. 04:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Request specific examples of "inherent inefficiencies" of hydrogen economy

I see this line:

Some commentators are dubious about the success of a hydrogen economy due to the inherent inefficiencies in producing and consuming the hygrogen.

I would like references to specific commentators and, especially, need to learn some of the "inherent inefficiencies". Also, as a point of argument, would these inefficiencies be resolved if hydrogen use became widespread? That is, which inefficiencies are a result of tooling up and which inefficiencies could be long-term?

  Here are two links concerning the inefficiency of a hydrogen economy:
  
  European fuel cell forum
  Teslamotors technology comparison--85.218.17.222 07:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Economic rewrite

Hi Leonard. Let me know how you like the rewrite.

Oh -- I noticed you're a fellow Bay Area native!

Iain McClatchie 09:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, I'll go find references, but I'm pretty sure that hydrogen cannot be transported in natural gas pipelines. Apparently NG pipelines leak, and the same technology used to move hydrogen would leak more -- a lot more. Which is then a problem because hydrogen breaks down the ozone layer 20 times faster than NG. But I'll find a reference to quantify that, because I don't remember if 20x was volume-to-volume or BTU-to-BTU.

Greetings Iain:

This is a substantial and well thought out contribution. I am tempted to make some minor text modifications - but probably will not (is the en.WP primarily US English - that is an ongoing argument). There are a number of arguable points, but the one I notice particularly is that solar PV is not competitive - the reason it is not due to the externalized costs of its competition (coal: unhealthy emissions, acid rain, etc. Oil and gas: favorable tax subsidies: nuclear power - deferred downstream costs of waste disposal). If the externalized costs were fairly paid then solar PV would be competitive and large wind farm power a "no brainer". Also, the hydrogen car is a pipe dream boondoggle sold to the politicians by the automobile manufacturers to defer what should be done immediately - increased efficiency, reduction in large vehicle mass and aggressiveness (32 inch high bumper bottoms are legal in California, about the height of a sedan's door handle - make the roads safe for smaller cars) and useable (45-50mph) and effective (30-50 mile range) battery electric vehicles for errands and commuting that can replace a very high percentage of trips (each trip in an ICE contributes highly to the polution, due to the cold start problem) and a substantial amount of the mileage.

Leonard,

• Just go ahead and edit. My parents were English and I've apparently picked up some of their spelling. I have no problem with other people fixing my stuff.
• If you think a point is arguable, that means I haven't backed it up with enough facts. Sometimes more facts make me change my mind. Go find some. If you aren't sure how to rewrite the article, but you have references, stick them in here and I'll do the rewriting.
• This article isn't done yet.
• Solar PV: I really wish this worked. It's around $4-$6 per peak watt right now, and it needs to be around $1/peak watt to be competitive. Note that windpower is at about $1/peak watt right now -- very exciting! (But only in good windy spots.) I agree that there are externalized costs of oil and nuclear. But there are externalized costs to everything (PV is ugly to other people who have to look at the roof, and get ready for the environmental impact of disposal and degredation on-site of all that semiconductor). Part of the externalized costs for oil and gas are part of a massive 100 year investment, and you can't just junk that, nor can you replace it overnight. I'd like to see a carbon tax used to pay for our overseas military adventures, but realistically all these things have to happen slowly or too many people lose their jobs.
• Alternative energy development: This really needs a seperate article, as it's a fascinating subject independent of hydrogen economy rubbish and wind turbine technicalities.
• Hydrogen cars: boondoggle. Bingo. I would really like to add a history section to this article that explained how this stupid idea got started and who was responsible for pushing it into the mass media and politician's heads. I suspect RMI is near the root. Do you want to look into this?
• Hydrogen economy: more stupidity. I can't believe anyone seriously considers moving energy around in the form of hydrogen after they run the numbers, yet there are international conferences of people looking at this crap. We might be better off synthesizing ammonia and using that for a gasoline replacement. This is the only realistic option that I see for Iceland's fishing fleet if they are serious about cutting off most of their hydrocarbon imports. I haven't done research into burning ammonia yet in internal combustion engines. Might be pretty hard.
• Electric transmission: I don't really understand the economics of this yet. Multigigawatt long distance transmission has been done before: the Grand Coulee had to move 7 GW hundreds of miles to get to an interesting market, and no HVDC in the 70s. I've looked at some of the numbers and as far as I can tell, wires are not a significant portion of the cost of a electrical route (around 1%), nor a significant burden on the towers. If that's the case, getting a big wind farm's energy to cities 1000 miles away is just a matter of using thicker wire. But something must be wrong with this analysis, otherwise California wouldn't have a bottleneck on Path 15, and they wouldn't need to put up new towers to fix the thing.

Not sure I see the transmission problem

If H2 is generated from coal or oil - transport the coal or oil by pipeline, sea, road or rail to local H2 generation stations

If H2 is produced by electrolysis - generate the H2 at plants next to the power stations, or send the electricity to local stations and generate the H2 there.

I don't see why we'd want to centralise H2 production and send large volumes of it across long distances.

That said, I agree overall that H2 isn't the panacea imagined by politicians and media imagining we'll be able to continue to drive big fast cars when oil runs out.

Exile 14:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Somehow you've read the article without understanding some points, which means the article needs to be fixed. Please help me understand how you missed the following points, so that I can fix them. If you can point to specific spots in the article which are misleading or confusing, that would help a lot.

• If H2 is generated locally by coal or oil, yes that solves the transmission problem, leaving only the problem that hydrogen from hydrocarbon sources just uses more hydrocarbon to move the same cars the same distances as direct burning of that hydrocarbon.

• If H2 is produced by electrolysis, you have to transport the electricity to the electrolysis plant. Electricity is harder to move than hydrocarbons.

Thanks, Iain McClatchie 23:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added a bit about escaping hydrogen, which mentions the ozone problem in passing. I believe it is worth mentioning, because a lot will be lost (I believe the best car tanks made leak about 1.7% per day = half life of about 40 days) and will affect how we use hydrogen. If that is the best we can do, then a lot will be lost to space if indeed it is lost (I can't find proof one way or the other) like helium.

Also, I had a thought (and posted it (and the article was then destroyed by vogons and the page redirected here minutes later)), that the best arguement *for* hydrogen cars (don't say "it is cleaner" or I'll hit you) would be the ease of transition later. Hydrogen will be available for a long time and will only get easier to make, while hydrocarbons will go the way of the dinosaur eventually (pun). If we left all our energy habits the same but converted cars to hydrogen, we would soon find that when we did run out of hydrocarbons, we'd only have to replace a few thousand power stations slowly, instead of a few million cars all at once. Or something. Worth inserting? Splarka 06:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, the ozone depletion may be "unsubstantiated info", but I believe it is worth mentioning. Some of the major arguements for hydrogen are protection of the ozone layer and reduction of the greenhouse inducing CO2. To remain neutral, all viewpoints should be discussed. How about something like "There are as yet unsubstantiated theories that free hydrogen and/or methane might deplete the ozone layer". BTW a quick google will show this is a hot topic: [1] (I also included the helium comment because it is the one other substance that will escape completely into space and never be recovered, however... it is continually being produced by the underground decay of thorium and uranium) Splarka 20:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The argument for hydrogen has nothing to do with better ozone layer protection. Hydrocarbon fuels do not interact with it AFAIK. The ban was on CFCs. The problem with them was the Cl IIRC. A clean ICE vehicle will release pure CO2 and H2O as exaust. This is usually done with the help of a catalyzer. Same as us humans breathing. Or trees, they also emit these as gases on their breathing cycle. As for the greenhouse effect, that is different. This is due to CO2 or CH4 emissions. Some say H2O is also a big problem, but personally I doubt it. Regardless of how much H2O our vehicles will produce, it will pale in comparison with the H2O evaporated by solar rays hiting oceans, which are 2/3 of the planet surface. Quasarstrider 16:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quasarstrider: On the contrary, I believe it does have something to do with the arguement better ozone protection (along with cleaner air, greenhouse reduction, etc). Remember, "hydrogen economy" implies a large scale replacement of energy carriers with "clean" hydrogen. One of those gasses replaced will be methane (and remember, all fuels pollute not only from combustion, but by leakage). "Methane generates more ozone in the tropopause, which is below the stratosphere, and this layer can hide the holes in the stratosphere above it." -- how can we protect it if we don't know how bad it is? Aha. Now, this may or may not be true, especially now with satellite instruments that can measure just the top layers (SCIAMACHY), and that most methane comes from animal sources. But the fact that people believe it would make them believe switching to hydrogen would be better. And, there is the possibility that escaped molecular hydrogen would actually deplete the ozone layer. A hydrogen economy would produce a lot of hydrogen leakage. So, even if the arguments for hydrogen do not include ozone protection, the arguments against it should indicate that we do not yet know if it will deplete the ozone layer. Hydrogen naturally only makes up 0.00005% of our atmosphere, and a hydrogen economy could increase that significantly. I believe the best place to address this is in Hydrogen_economy#The_storage_problem. Do you still disagree? Splarka 20:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is pure speculation AFAIK. I think the text which is there now: "The possible interactions of hydrogen released in this way with the atmosphere are poorly known." provides an adequate blanket statement for your concerns. I think we should try sticking to the facts as much as possible. If you still think this is important, perhaps you should discuss it with the people working on the Hydrogen page and trying to add it there first?

As for pollution reduction, it is like I said. An ideal clean internal combustion engine (a catalyzer equipped unleaded gasoline burning vehicle is close to it) would produce just CO2 and H2O. An ideal clean hydrogen vehicle produces H2O. The only different is the extra CO2, which AFAIK only has possible negative implications on the atmosphere by exacerbating the greenhouse effect, i.e. global warming. Yes, sources like methane may leak, but like you said, methane is produced in nature as well (decomposition of biomass) and gasoline, which is the fuel we use the most, doesn't evaporate as quickly. Quasarstrider 12:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is speculation; but so is a hydrogen economy. I just think that any possible benifit used in arguing for hydrogen, should be balanced with the possible negative side effects, to remain neutral. Hydrogen is becoming a political tool, and when that happens a lot of the negative aspects magically disappear. Splarka 20:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is interesting, the most convincing site against the "hydrogen destroys ozone layer" theories that I could find is this: Hydrogen/Ozone Study Based On Faulty Assumptions, however, it makes no claim to say that ozone is not depleted with hydrogen, just that the leak estimates were exaggerated. Contrarily, there is sufficient theory that increased hydrogen levels will harm the ozone layer. section 2.4 "Ozone _is_ destroyed if an O atom and an O₃ molecule meet: O + O₃ -> 2 O₂ This reaction is slow, however, and if it were the only mechanism for ozone loss, the ozone layer would be about twice as thick as it is. Certain trace species, such as the oxides of Nitrogen (NO and NO2), Hydrogen (H, OH, and HO2) and chlorine (Cl, ClO and ClO2) can catalyze the recombination. The present ozone layer is a result of a competition between photolysis and recombination; increasing the recombination rate, by increasing the concentration of catalysts, results in a thinner ozone layer.", combined with "Vertical transport in the troposphere takes place by convection and turbulent mixing. Only at much higher altitudes do mean free paths become so large that _molecular_ diffusion dominates and gravity is able to separate the different species, bringing hydrogen and helium atoms to the top." I think it is worth mentioning IMO. Also see: [2] for another possible method hydrogen could affect it. Splarka 20:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oxides like OH and NO are produced if the reaction is imperfect yes. The reaction is as perfect as you are willing to expense for it, with filters etc. Gasoline vehicles reduce NO emissions by using catalyzers which decompose these further. I am unsure of what is the emission level for something on hydrogen fuel cells, but it is probably real low. Nothing is 100% pollution free, there is no such thing, the best we can do is to try to reduce pollution as much as is economically possible to do so. In that respect, hydrogen powered vehicles seem better than regular internal combustion vehicles, even if just sligthly. This is why I haven't focused on that as a negative point, it doesn't carry much weight IMHO. I do find it curious that you think its necessary to add more damning information about the hydrogen economy however. I think the page is pretty damning in of itself :-). If you feel this is an important issue, we could link from this page to a page which describes these issues in more detail. Quasarstrider 21:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not talking about just oxides. Hydrogen (H, OH, and HO2). And I am not talking about combustion pollution, but fuel leakage. If we use hydrogen, some will leak, and that will increase the hydrogen in the air, and that could damage the ozone layer, perhaps significantly, and IMO that is worth mentioning. I am not trying to damn hydrogen, there are many positive aspects, but there are many negative. Splarka 21:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A clean hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle would not emit H (a free radical), but H2. "Hydrogen gas" is basically H2 gas. If you can generate and store free radical H in quantity, be sure to tell NASA about it, they would make you very rich because it is high ISP fuel [3]. :-) Quasarstrider 21:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, it is called the stratosphere. "In the upper atmosphere free radicals are produced through dissociation of the source molecules by solar ultraviolet radiation or by reactions with other stratospheric constituents." I believe Nasa has been through there a few times, except for the fake moon landings of course. The thing is, there aren't many sources of hydrogen atoms (bonded in molecules, which can be broken into H radicals) that high up. The stratosphere is somewhat dry (water vapor condenses and comes down as rain). CFCs are one source of stratospheric hydrogen, but so is molecular hydrogen gas. BTW, I think we are about at the colon limit? Splarka 22:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we are about to break the limit, I have to widen my browser page already, and I have a 1280x1024 screen :-D. You sure do seem to know a lot about atmospheric chemistry, so I think you should pour all that knowledge into a page describing all this stuff. I will be more than happy that we link to it from here. This page tries to be synthetic, even if sometimes it doesn't seem like it! :) There are lots of important details about this matter, I even thought about not putting the chemistry for extracting H2 from CH4 in here to begin with. IANAC (I Am Not a Chemist). Quasarstrider 22:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Colonectomy! (continuation of Quasarstrider 22:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Well, this goes back to the "poorly understood" nature of atmospheric chemistry in general, meaning no one really knows (I am not a professional chemist, I'd much rather have the opinion of a chemist who gets paid for this (and *not* paid by anyone who has any interest in oil vs hydrogen as fuel! darn lack of neutral POVs)). The best way to see the effects hydrogen would have on the ozone layer is to have a hydrogen economy. I don't think there is enough information to make a new article. Even just switching all our cars to hydrogen probably wouldn't have much of an effect, so no need to mention it on hydrogen car. Any mention on ozone depletion of this theory should mention and link back to hydrogen economy for more info, because hydrogen-ozone depletion (if it exists) is a natural continuous cycle at current H₂ levels. Those are my reasons for the logic behind putting a mention of ozone in this article. Does that make me fanatical? :) ... Anywho, perhaps in a new section called Hydrogen_economy#Environmental_concerns (or under 'the storage problem') "Hydrogen gas (H₂) may also form free radicals (H) in the stratosphere due to ultraviolet radiation, that can then act as a catalyst for ozone depletion. An increase in stratospheric hydrogen from leaked H₂ could exacerbate the depletion process." Then if any new information comes, it can be added. Thoughts? Splarka 22:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I put a crude (hardly encyclopedic yet) sketch of a possible article or section at User:Splarka/Sandbox:hydrogen. We could move our discussion to User_talk:Splarka/Sandbox:hydrogen as well, if you like? Splarka 00:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed at your power of synthesis! In your sentence goes, out goes the old one. We can still link to a more complete article, or add an extra section if you wish. Quasarstrider 00:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks. I am not sure if it needs an article or section yet, let us wait for a third opinion. One of my side reasons for aruging that ozone be mentioned in the article, was to generate a tiny bit of controversy/interest, and maybe some stratochemists will see it and tell us for sure (if anyone knows for sure, that is). I must say I learned quite a few things myself in this discussion (I knew the basic scenario at the outset, but not the exact mechanics of how it could/might happen). Splarka 00:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notes

In May 2005, NYMEX price for natural gas was $7/million BTUs. Hydrogen is 134700 BTU/kg, and at a conversion efficiency of 35%, that gives $2.70/kg, which is in good agreement with [4].

At a current worldwide production rate of 50 million metric tons per year, that's $135 billion/year of hydrogen.

Iain McClatchie 01:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"As of 2005, the economic value of all hydrogen produced is about $135 billion per year." (from article)

Which dollars are those? US dollars? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 03:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"The potential savings, just for the existing hydrogen market, could be substantial. General Atomics predicts that hydrogen produced in a High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR) would cost $1.53/kg. In 2003, steam reforming of natural gas yielded hydrogen at $1.40/kg, making the new scheme unattractive. At 2005 gas prices, hydrogen cost $2.70/kg, so a savings of tens of billions of dollars per year is possible with the nuclear-powered supply. Much of this savings would translate into reduced oil and natural gas imports." (from article)

Again, which dollars are we talking about? The link above clarifies a couple of references to be $US, but it comes from an Australian site. That page doesn't say 35% - where did that come from? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 04:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice overview of current hydrogen economy: [5] Iain McClatchie 11:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuel cells

From the page: An example of a CO2 emission-free system, possible with near-term technology, would be if renewable energy sources such as concentrated solar thermal power collectors and wind turbines were used to produce hydrogen from water, using high-temperature electrolysis.

Should this sentence go next: "Hydrogen fuel cells would then be used to produce electricity for mobile applications."

I don't think so. Hydrogen fuel-cell powered cars are not near-term technology. They can be made as research vehicles, but the economics are not there now, nor are they close at hand. Research on fuel cells may be a worthy pursuit, and justification for such a pursuit may be a reasonable point in this article, but today, they aren't near-term technology for ordinary automobiles.

Furthermore, in the near term, hydrogen is far more valuable as a chemical feedstock than as an energy supply. It's use as a chemical feedstock can suck up a very large amount (11 million tons/year just in the U.S.) of any developing cost-effective renewable supply before there is any need to burn the stuff for motive power. Iain McClatchie 02:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if the fuel cell comment were in there. Your objection is that FCVs are a future technology and don't have a current relevance. However you're forgetting that the so-called hydrogen economy doesn't really exist yet either. Since we are talking about a hypothetical energy distribution system here, it is relevent to explain how the hydrogen economy would affect transportation. In this case, the fuel cell reference serves that purpose. Either way, I'm not too concerned if the sentence stays or not since FCVs can be mentioned under the Transportation section anyway. Solarusdude 06:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point about it not mattering either way. One thing that bugs me about many articles, this one included, is repeated information in the same article. As you say, the FCV proposal is covered elsewhere.

Regarding the entire article, of course the subject is a hypothetical proposal. But that doesn't mean that the constraint to facts is removed. Heat engine physics imply that chemical industry usage of hydrogen will trump FCV usage until the chemical industry is saturated. So if FCVs are to be mentioned specifically as consumers, I think the chemical industry must be mentioned first. Iain McClatchie 01:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Production efficiencies

If someone knows figures for the efficiency of each production method, could they please put them in the Production section? ie "energy in" vs "energy out" Barrylb

A posting at http://www.biketas.org.au/FAQ/2003/20030522-1.php says "Technical advancements cannot overcome the thermodynamic hurdles that make hydrogen production and its utilization in fuel cells, a net energy loss". I think the article needs to mention this, if it is true. Barrylb 16:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a detailed efficiency analysis of a hydrogen economy European fuel cell forum--85.218.17.222 17:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of Solar/Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Efficiency for US Vehicle Transportation

I don't have the data for each method, but the biggest problem for hydrogen is definitely production. I think that should be emphasized in the article. Namly hydrogen is not an energy source, but a method of energy transport. This misunderstanding is so pervasive, it would help if the article could clarify.

The second big problem is the misconception that hydrogen/fuel cell vehicles would solve much of the energy problem. In fact the % of total energy consumption by gasoline vehicles is small even in the US (which consumes more transportation energy than many other countries).

A frequently mentioned hydrocarbon-free method is producing hydrogen via electrolysis via solar or wind power and using it in fuel cells.

Let's evaluate the feasibility of powering 50% of the gasoline cars in the US via fuel cells with hydrogen from solar-driven electrolysis:

Background data:

• US gasoline consumption is 117 billion gallons/yr
• US oil consumption is about 7.5 billion barrels/yr
• Total annual US energy consumption: 102 quadrillion BTUs
• Gasoline energy content: 120,000 BTU/gal
• Liquid hydrogen (LH2) energy content: 34,000 BTU/gal
• LH2 required to replace 50% of US gasoline: 103 billion gallons (Fuel cells are roughly 2x the efficiency of a modern gasoline engine)

% of total crude oil used for gasoline: 32%
% of total US energy consumption used by gasoline: 13.7%

Energy required to produce 103 billion gallons LH2 via water electrolysis: 2.27 quadrillion BTUs (liquifaction 50% efficient, electrolysis 70% efficient, overall production efficiency 35%). Therefore it takes 65% of liquid hydrogen's energy content to produce it.

2.27 quadrillion BTUs = 6.7E14 watt hours

Overall solar cell efficiency: 10% (crystaline cells can't be used in huge industrial quantities due to cost. Amorphous cells would be needed. Also must use real-world efficiency, not laboratory efficiency). Also solar cell output degrades several % per year, so after 20% output is about 1/2. Thus 10% is VERY optimistic.

Average solar insolation in US southwest: 5000 watt-hrs/m^2/day, or 1.8E6 watt-hrs/m^2/year Annual solar cell power: 186,000 watt hrs/m^2/year

Solar cell area required to produce 6.7E14 watt hrs: 3.6 billion square meters, or 890,000 acres, or 3,600 square km.

However we must factor in 20% for LH2 storage losses in transport and consumption, so say 4,320 square km

Must also add space for structure, maintenance roads, etc: say around around 5,000 square km, roughly the size of Delaware.

Summary:

A gigantic program consisting of:

• A solar photovoltaic farm in the US Southwest the size of Delaware
• Totally new LH2 manufacturing and distribution infrastructure
• 50% of current US gasoline vehicles replaced by fuel cell vehicles

Would save:

• 16% of crude oil consumption
• 6.9% of US energy consumption

Since energy consumption increases at about 2-3% per year, within about 3-4 years total US energy consumption would be back where we started. Not being a pessimistic, just realistically looking at the numbers. Joema 19:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources:

• http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/S/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2004.pdf
• http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
• http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html
• http://www.apolloalliance.org/strategy_center/reports_and_resources/energymemo.cfm

I do not think that Hydrogen Fuel Cell powered vehicles are the answer either, but I would like to mention several facts:

From my POV people are pushing for alternatives to petroleum because of:

1. Perceived cause of global warming because it is a fossil fuel which emits CO2 on combustion.
2. Political concerns about access to petroleum sources (some say the Iraq war was fought over oil).
3. Concerns about how much petroleum is left (i.e. Peak oil).

We already have alternatives for CO2 free or neutral electricity production (Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, Geothermal, etc).

France, for example, produces some 77% of its electricity from Nuclear power.

Coal, used for electricity production, also emits CO2 but is a large natural resource in the USA, Australia and China unlike oil.

The biggest problem is how to displace fossil fuels for transportation. Hence the noise about the Hydrogen Economy based on fuel cells.

Most serious proposals I have read on how to produce Hydrogen in an adequate scale involve the use of near future Nuclear or Solar thermal using thermal electrolysis or thermochemical processes (e.g. Sulfur-Iodine). Solar Photovoltaic is too low efficiency to make enough of a dent, I agree.

Quasarstrider 19:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is people are apparently just assuming "hydrogen must work" since the petroleum alternatives are unfavorable ("There's gotta be something better"). Yet the most basic back-of-the-envelope calculations show it cannot possibly work. For example, consider the number of nuclear plants required to produce hydrogen for ONLY the US gasoline vehicles, which ONLY comprise 32% of total US petroleum consumption and 13.7% of total US energy consumption:

• Annual energy used by US gasoline vehicles: 4.1E15 watt hours
• Annual energy production by a 1GW nuclear plant: 8.76E12 watt hours
• Overall LH2/electrolysis production efficiency: about 28% (see above)
• Number of 1GW nuclear plants required: ((4.1E15 / .28) / 8.76E12) = 1,671 nuclear plants

There are just 103 nuclear plants in the US. So building SIXTEEN TIMES the total number of nuclear plants now existing would only reduce US petroleum consumption by 32%. Whether you use solar thermal, wind, or nuclear, the required real estate or infrastructure is so gigantic and the payback so limited it's just not feasible. There is a huge disparity between the common perception and the mathematical reality -- so much so that it's amazing. This isn't politics -- it's physics.

I have no problem with articles on the hydrogen economy, but information providers have a responsibility to convey reality, not the common perception. The reality is the hydrogen economy is deeply flawed, and it appears to be totally unworkable based on any technology we have today. In 100 years if we have near limitless fusion power, it might work then.

It appears hydrogen is a technical "blind alley". The only semi-feasible transportation fuel alternative I've seen capable of scaling to the gigantic levels needed to support most of the gasoline vehicle fleet is biodiesel from algae: biodiesel, http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html, and even that requires more investigation to know for sure. Joema 17:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There may be another alternative, as biodiesel is still limited by the poor effeciency of internal combustion and may also be limited to the poor effeciency of photosynthesis in it's current ethanol implamentations. I consider Battery electric vehicles and Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to be the best, and potentially final, solution. They would instead address both parts of the problem while at the same time being transitional, versital, flexable, and implamentable today, right now by:

• 1. Increase the effeciency of the vehicles from ~30% to ~80-90%, thus reducing energy requirements.
  2. Decrease electricity requirements, versus the above stated requirements to crack hydrogen, instead you send that electricity directly to vehicles via an already established distribution network.

• PHEV's further offer a transitional technology capable of using both existing sources (FF, Electricity) and can also take advantage of bio-fuels.
• BEV/PHEV's are a perfect complimentary tech to the intermitent nature of Wind power which could easily supply all our traditional electricity and transportation requirements. [6]

These two factors combine to make BEV/PHEV's appear to be the best option of all by getting to the core problems of the energy effeciency in transportation and our ability to find suitable renewable energy resources to fuel them. --D0li0 11:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Analysis of Battery Electric Vehicles as Alternative to Hydrogen Powered Vehicles

While it's true that BEVs could handle a fair % of transportation needs (US national average commuting distance only 18.2 km or 11.3 miles), it would not save significant energy or petroleum. What counts is overall energy efficiency, not just vehicle efficiency.

For battery electric vehicles, this is: power plant generation efficiency 40%, transmission line efficiency 95%, charging efficiency 88%, vehicle efficiency 88%. This gives overall BEV energy efficiency of .4 * .95 * .88 = 33%

By contrast a modern diesel automotive ICE using common rail or piezoelectric injection has about 40% thermodynamic efficiency. Fuel production and processing is about 92% efficient, vehicle efficiency 88%, for an overall efficiency of about 32%, roughly the same as a BEV.

Even if BEVs use spare night generation capacity to recharge, it's not saving petroleum. The capacity is spare because the plants are throttled back at night. More nighttime demand to recharge BEVs necessitates burning more petroleum to service that.

There's also insufficient generation capacity to recharge a nation of BEVs. Total annual US gasoline energy consumption is 1.45E16 joules (4.25E15 watt hours). A 1 gigawatt power plant produces 8.76E12 watt hours per year. It would thus require about 500 new power plants to service that, or a combination of those plus using existing unused night capacity. In either case you'd be burning nearly as much petroleum in power plants as diesel cars would consume.

Wind power cannot possibly provide the needed energy (either hydrogen or electric) to service US or world transportation. US gasoline cars consume 4.25E15 watt hours per year. We already know the possible wind energy generation per acre from large current wind farms like the Desert Sky facility in Texas. A wind farm using the largest, most advanced wind turbines available would require 2,500 1.5 megawatt turbines on 225,000 acres to match ONE gigawatt power plant (wind turbine capacity factor is typically 25%). Therefore each 225,000 acres provides 8.76E12 watt hours per year. You'd need about 500 225,000 acre wind farms, or 112,500,000 acres, or 455,000 square km -- larger than California.

Even if every gasoline car in the US switched overnight to Mr. Fusion, that would only save 32% of US petroleum consumption, and only 13.7% of total US energy consumption. That's because all gasoline cars collectively only consume those percentages of petroleum and total energy. Joema 00:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You assume that electricity is generated from petroleum. From Electricity generation we find that approximately 40% of electricity comes from coal, 20% each from natural gas, nuclear and renewables, and only about 5% from petroleum. pstudier 23:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I should have said electricity generated from hydrocarbon energy sources, not just petroleum. But it doesn't change things much. Most utility electricity is generated from hydrocarbon sources, thus a huge increase in electrical load to charge BEVs OR to produce hydrogen would result in a huge increase in burning hydrocarbons. As the above figures show, solar and wind can't remotely provide enough power, so the choices are (a) burn more hydrocarbons or (b) build about 500 new nuclear plants, or (c) become transportation energy independent via biofuel from ultra-high-yield feedstocks such as biodiesel from algae.

And the main point remains: whether you replace all gasoline road vehicles with hydrogen/fuel cell vehicles or BEVs or biodiesel, or Mr. Fusion, that only constitutes 32% of US petroleum consumption and only 13.7% of total US energy consumption. BTW that's only 9.3% of WORLD petroleum consumption, and only 3.7% of world energy consumption. Peak oil would hardly be delayed at all even if every US automobile disappeared overnight.

There are geopolitical, financial, and environmental advantages to having vehicles powered by non-hydrocarbon energy sources (nuclear, biofuels, etc). However hydrogen/fuel cell vehicles or BEVs powered by current energy sources would save very little hydrocarbon fuels, or the environmental impact of burning them. Joema 00:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

LNG powered cars, while not saving total hydrocarbon emissions or energy consumption (as I believe they are less efficient than petrol) would, however, allow a switch to biofuel-petroleum gas (propane) mixtures, given methane-powered internal combustion enegines aren't particularly long-lived mechanically, especially the fuel systems. Propane-methane fuel mixtures are also quite good in terms of energy density, about 66% of petroleum, meaning the typical 30 gallon SUV tank would only need to be expanded to ~50 gallons, or kept the same for a reduced operational range. This isn't a huge problem for SUV's because most only get used to drop the kids off at school.

However, energy density of hydrogen is less again; metal hydrides are better than pressurised hydrogen (and, of course, safer), but also more dense and weighty, meaning that your typical hetal-hydride car weighs more and is therefore less fuel efficient.

Bit of a quandary, this whole cars and modern energy consumption thing. Personally, I think the US's answer to mid-east oil is LNG powered cars, because this can be implemented swift and cheaply, and requires no new technology at all, and minimal new infrastructure. Gas stations just need a big LNG tank instead of petrol tank, and LNG is already piped to most American cities, versus a whole new hydrogen economy with hydrogen plants, etc etc. Rolinator 03:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with LNG is supply, like all other conventional hydrocarbon sources. There's enough natural gas for about 60 yrs at current consumption rates. At expected consumption increases (2% per year), about 40 years. If you greatly increase natural gas consumption to power vehicles, it won't even last 20 years. Joema 04:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Confabulation

Consider this snippet that was in the 'Rationale' section:

... A system that produced hydrogen from other energy sources would centralize carbon emissions at the production site. This could be an advantage in that the emission control system may be better maintained and easier to inspect than systems on automobiles owned by individuals. Unfortunately, pure hydrogen is not widely available on our planet. Most of it is locked in water or hydrocarbon fuels. Pollution reduction at the production site may be offset by energy losses when converting to hydrogen. This is called the production problem

The above is nonsensical because of several confabulations and confusions among some editors. Facts:

1. Hydrogen isn't really an energy source, as the [7] section immediately above explains.
2. CO₂ is not a major urban pollutant ; it's not directly damaging to humans, so moving a pure CO₂ source from the city to the country doesn't help. (Other byproducts of burning fossil fuel are major urban pollutants!)
3. CO₂ emissions are not reduced by current commercial emission control systems. (Other byproducts of burning fossil fuel are, and sequestration technologies are in pilot testing.)

I edited the section in an effort to make it sensible. Similarly, there was confabulation between H₂ and other emissions as suspected ozone hole creators, but I think the discussions Quasarstrider had here cleared this up.

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/120.html mentions two reports that I've read that inform the debate over hydrogen economy feasibility.

Transportation

The section on transportation was Americanocentric, particulaarly with respect to LNG.
LNG is regularly piped hundreds if not thouands of kilometres from reservoir to market; this implies it is energy-efficient and cost-efficient to do so. It is also a much more readily accessible and utilisable source of energy than crude oil, as it does not have to be refined, cracked and reformed before use. It may need to be scrubbed and have water or sulfur dioxide taken out depending on whether it's wet gas or sour gas, which is usually done nearer the well-head than the market because otherwise energy is wasted pumping water or noxious gases, but essentially you can hook up your stove to the wellhead and cook.

It is also shipped in liquid form from Australia to China. If its inefficient at a small scale, you scale it up and build bigger ships.

In fact, the whole transportation issue boils down to cost, not energy efficiency. Cost is also worked out in terms of on-costs of refining, waste disposal and infrastructure. Shipped LNG meets the needs of societies, unlike California or the USA, where gas is in short supply and there is a deep penetration of LNG infrastruture and strong demand, with limited local supply, particulaarly for heating, industry and cooking. California also has its own oilfields and gas reserves, which is why alaskan LNG isn't utilised, because there is a nearer source.

Alaskan oilfields may also be reinjecting LNG to enhance oil recoveries via reseroiv repressurisation. If, as is the case in Australia, 3-5% of vehicles in the U.S. used LNG, then the case would probably be that more LNG would be used and the Alaskan oilfields would be piping it down via Canada to the lower 48 states.

Rolinator 02:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

sundry minor changes

Added references, removed some POV and replaced part of the 'water as a greenhouse gas' chapter by hyperlink to greenhouse gas which covers the water effects amicably.

Overall, the current article makes it clear that H2 is an energy carrier, not an energy source and addresses other issues well. However, some parts to me still appear to be circling around problems such as efficiencies and costs; both not fully encompassed, e.g. by a life-cycle analysis. I see a few near misses of some actual issues such as energy capacity, which ironically are clearly addressed in this talk. Would the contributors care to transfer these to the main article? Also, I see some ignorance of the engineering solutions which are existing for more than a century that hydrogen has been commercially in use, where such things as "embrittlement" are not a problem at all.

Time permitting (for myself or better authors around here), I would like to see more comparisons of well-to-wheel efficiencies and cost updates and to address the main rationale for the switch to H2 - sustainability, a major part of which is to have a CO2-neutral economy to prevent a runaway greenhouse effect (which appears unlikely from water vapor).

Per the data available to me (the book by Roy McAlister) CO2-neutral energy stored as hydrogen can be replenished from solar energy at about 10% overall efficiency, whereas fossil or biofuel generated from solar energy by plants can be replenished at about 0.5% efficiency, which would simplistically spoken, just require 20 times the acreage. We can speculate whether maintaining solar cell farms is likely to remain more cost-efficient than farming and processing crops for fuel. And then what do we eat? Bernd in Japan 15:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. But plants (organic biomass) are notoriously inefficient at storing sunlight energy as hydrocarbon fuel (plant oil, alcohol etc), using CO2 from the atmosphere. But that's not a thermodynamic problem, so far as I can tell, and can be solved in principle. Probably, humans would be a lot better at it, using hydrogen (or some reductive mix of same, like "producer gas") to take CO2 from fossil fuel burning plants and use it to re-create methanol or the hydrocarbon of your choice. The nice thing about all these liquids, is that they store way more hydrogen per liquid gallon than does liquid hydrogen, and our transportation (including hybrids) is already adapted to burn them. No new infrastructure to put in place, after you get done with the chem or nuke alcohol-making plant. And because CO2 emitted by autos in such a process would be the same CO2 used to make the fuel, it would be greenhouse-neutral.

What remains is figuring out how to do it. This is a sort of semi-hydrogen economy, but the hydrogen never gets to the primary user. Instead, it's used to get rid of CO2 from fossil fuel burning, to produce greenhouse-neutral liquid transportation fuels like alcohols, that don't need any special handling or special cars, and could be fed into our present system (for example, hybrid fuel-cell cars could use methanol, etc). Is there a discussion of this anywhere? Sbharris 00:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Steam reforming = cracking steam?

I just read about the ability to acquire hydrogen gas from 'cracking steam' in pebble bed reactors, and I wanted to learn more about this process. Steam cracking is not listed in the 'Sources' section in this article -- so is it essentially the same as steam reforming? Chris 07:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

elided "however...fuel."

I've taken the following phrase out, again:

however steam reforming and indeed any production of hydrogen from fossil fuels necessarily produces carbon by-products like CO2, which in some sense defeats the purpose of producing hydrogen as fuel.

It's true. But it's not relevant to the point of the paragraph, which is comparing the costs of different production methods. Please keep it out or explain otherwise here.

Iain McClatchie 01:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs some major cleanup. There are run-ons allover the place, as well as typos and simple grammar errors. I have marked this page with {{cleanup}} xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 16:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how helpful such marking is. If you see such simple editing problems, be bold and fix them yourself.Sbharris 16:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That was my first instinct too, just prune it down to managable size and topic, but running through the Talk page scared me off. It was a relief to get down here and see that there are some people who see it as I do. There are too many sections. The sections go on too long. Personally, I don't think much of a rationale or a history of power use is needed. Get on with the hydrogen economy part. KarenAnn 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed down the rationale, taking out some stuff that seemed OT. I also made a few other touch ups. Feel free to rv or fix if anyone disagrees. There is a lot of repetition, but I don't have the technical background to confidently delete stuff. Isn't the "problems" section very similar to the "Other challenges..." section further up? It would seem that these could be combined? --Ssilvers 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

O.K. And of course you can always revert. My first desire is to trim the opening statement. Why start out by saying something else needs to be addressed first (renewable energy) and that, along with all the other problesm related to development of hydrogen as a universal medium, it will probably will be decades etc....That should go at the end in a summary or conclusion section. KarenAnn 12:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this doesn't belong in the conclusion section. Recipies for Elephant Soup need to start out with the direction "Procure 1 (one) fresh elephant". As well have an article detailing the problems of producing a star-trading economy and Federation of Planets, without noting the small problem that something like warp-drive needs to developed *first*.Sbharris 19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits certainly add clarity--nice job. I like your idea of a conclusion section too, so I added it, and I also tried to make the intro a little more understandable--see what you think. But it still looks like there is a lot of repetition in the article. If you agree, can you take a crack at trimming? You obviously know much more about the topic than I do, and I am afraid to cut stuff that might have a technical aspect that I don't understand. --Ssilvers 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The page is much better! I especially like the intro. The stuff from "problems in implementation" onwards is a mess though. Quasarstrider 10:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

if the externalitiess of conventional energy sources are factored in, (but the policies of the world's major governments do not factor them in

What does this mean? I can't figure it out. Could you be more specific? KarenAnn 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does this language appear? --Ssilvers 13:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Under Production

...Some 'Green' energy sources are capable of generating energy in a cost effective way if the externalities of conventional energy sources are factored in, (but the policies of the world's major governments do not factor them in). Moreover, most 'green' sources produce rather low-intensity energy, not the prodigious amounts of energy required for extracting significant amounts of hydrogen (e.g. high-temperature electrolysis). KarenAnn 13:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know what the original writer meant. I agree that it's not clear at all, and it seems to be arguing about some political viewpoint. Go ahead and edit it so that it makes sense in the context. Regards, --Ssilvers 15:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What it means is that, if the externalities / external costs (different articles, which should maybe be merged) of 'conventional energy sources' were included in their prices, they'd cost more than 'Green energy sources'. But current government policies don't do this.

But since that's saying something critical of conventional power, the following criticism of Green power, "Moreover,..." doesn't fit--unless an inability to manufacture hydrogen is supposed to be a good thing.

—wwoods 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. External costs is a term of art, though, and I don't think we should make the reader click all over the place just to understand what is being said. Can you lay it out in plain English? Then it would be easier to reconcile the two statments. --Ssilvers 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Any such statement would have to be more specific -- which government? all the governments in the world, or what? Also, statements that are not facts obvious to everyone must have references per Wikipedia policy See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources KarenAnn 20:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Under Storage - what safety issues are you refering to

Storage

Hydrogen also has a poor energy density per volume. This means you need a large tank to store it, even when additional energy is used to compress it, and the high pressure compounds the issues of safety, as well as adds weight. KarenAnn 13:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. There are two different sections called Storage. Couldn't they be condensed and put in one place? KarenAnn 14:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S.S. Previously I condensed to different sections called Transportation. Hope that was O.K. KarenAnn 14:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! This is as much your article as anyone's. Wikipedia says, "be bold", and since you seem to have a good grasp of the subject, and you are obviously a fine editor, do what you think is best. If people don't like it, they can edit it. --Ssilvers 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider breaking this article down into several different ones

For example, there are two different sections headed Production. One of them is long enough to be an article of its own.

Maybe the second Production could be a new page, and under the first Procution you could have a link to main article:Production KarenAnn 14:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed one section (Production) but there is a link in the acticle to the full section I removed. I severely edited another - but there too there is a link to the full section unedited. So nothing has been deleted. And, of course you are free to revert everything.

I'm getting confused about what to do with the rest of the article as it seems to go off on a whole new tangent. Maybe what you are really interested in is the last part. The new pages I made to connect to your article are:

• Hydrogen production - under Problems in implementation > Production
• Challenges to the hydrogen economy - under Challenges to the hydrogen economy

please feel free to give me any feedback or suggestions. KarenAnn 19:38, A1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not my article, it's yours!  :) I don't think we need the separate section on "challenges". What you have left in the main article would seem to cover the topic, and the stuff in the separate section seems to be full of the older, less efficient language. The "production" article seems useful, though, but needs to be brought up to date with the edits you made (and are making?) in the main article. Just my 2 cents. --Ssilvers 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one to bring "production" up to date because I don't know anything about this subject. (I learned a lot by editing the article, though.) Why don't you, especially since you seem to be the only contributer that's interested in the article right now.

The "challenges..." page I originally named "Alteratives...." and everything was O.K. for about 20 minutes, and then it got slapped with two labels 1) that it is being considered for a merger with "alternative fuel" Alternatives to the hydrogen economy -- go look at it! and 2) it needs to be wikified. so I snatched a copy of the content and made the "challenges" page. But that incident says to me that "challenges" isn't contributing anything. KarenAnn 21:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

After seeing alternative fuel I think you're right. I'll see what I can do, and kill the new one. Then perhaps a synopsis 'alternative" paragraph in the hydrogen economy needs to be done, with a simple Main Article reference to alternative fuel. However, the hydrogen economy article itself is still worthwhite, as "hydrogen" now only has a paragraph in the alternative fuel wiki, so it's pretty straightforward to make it the "Main Article" for THAT section there (which I have done). That works everything out nicely. Sbharris 22:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I can nominate it for speedy deletion {db-author}} since I'm the author of that page the "challenges" page, since I created it. The material still exists in it's alternate form over as "alternatives..." and if anyone really cares it can be restored from the history. I'll do that. I'll change the links in the article to go to "alternative . . ." And then it can be removed it all together soon. KarenAnn 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

O.K. It's been nominated. There is a "Discussion" page there if anyone wants to stop it from happening. Challenges to the hydrogen economy KarenAnn 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I put the "challenges" heading back to "alternatives", since we now have only the alternatives there, ok? BTW, why are we talking about solar in that section? Or if solar, why not also wind? --Ssilvers 03:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hydrogen economy article is extremely worthwhile, but ....

That's at the top of the page your "Challenges/Alternatives section is going to be merged with,unless you go to Alternatives to the hydrogen economy discussion page and plea your case.

Your article has good work. You guys know what you are talking about. (Unlike you, I know little about the subject, but I learned alot today trying to edit it.) But your article really did get totally out of hand.

It might be a mess now because I started to go crazy late today, and had to chop stuff out because I felt like I was in a Stephen King maze. I ended up just throw paragraphs into the catagories that seemed to me most suited and will clean it up tomorrow. But only you guys know the subject matter so you have to tell me.

Please offer your suggesting, like where fuel cells should go. Ideas welcome. KarenAnn 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The other section that went out on its own (still linked) but now inspected by the Wiki people is Hydrogen production (check the link). It did not fare badly, but needs much work before it should be allowed in again. KarenAnn 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: the nature of WP

KarenAnn, may I suggest patience? "The best is ever the enemy of the good" but that's a bad thing when the best isn't available yet. We don't have to burn our Saturn V blueprints because we want a Space Shuttle (and if we do, we usually regret it).

Progress is a process and sometimes (usually) an ugly one. As Bismark said ( quote loosely), anybody who has any taste for sausages or laws should not watch either one being made. This is to some extent also true of children and Wiki articles. Many (most) Wikis start out as stubs, or stuff no better than high school papers. They progress then through better and better quality of writing, with pruning and fights along the way. At some point they read decently, like a freshman journalist's effort, but with info quality an expert would sniff at them. But this is the point where expects are more like to jump in to fix the tech problems, because all the heavy lifting of writing (or most of it) has already been done by other people. And it may take a while for that to happen. Meanwhile, patience. This is how WP draws in genuine experts, without paying them anything. It's devilishly clever--- or would be, had it been planned. But it wasn't. It happened spontaneously, like evolution. You see, evolution happens everywhere, on all levels, all the time. It only looks like planning from the outside, over the long term.

Wikipedia started out as Nupedia which had all kinds of levels of professional review to make sure it was kosher. It didn't work. It evolved into what you see today. I suggest you read that link and draw some lessions for why it didn't work and why it evolved and why we have now what we have. Learn from the past.

When you say "Remember Wikipedia is an Encyclopia. Your article must not only be accurate, it must be concise, focused on your topic, and have a clear structure remember that you're talking about an eventual GOAL of articles, not what they need to look like all the way through their development process. Most of Wikipedia doesn't look like that-- it looks like a sausage factory or a senate fillibuster. But don't let that fool you. The end product comes out well. WP is not a regular encyclopedia. The essential differences are what you're complaining about. The guts are ugly. But they are the whole key.

You say: Further, it must be understandable to the general reader who wants information on the topic I agree. But you also said you learned a lot in editing hydrogen economy, so we're already there, on that. You know enough about the major claims, issues, problems, etc, to discuss it and ask good questions, even at a confab of experts. That's progress. Some of which you youself made. So again, patience. Sbharris 17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for the feedback. I'll stop. I think I'm beginning to get confused anyway. Had to spend a long time reading up on electrity grids, storage etc. - not my strong area. Time for me to move away for a while. Thanks for your encouragement and feedback! (I took your advice and added the stuff on production.) I'll just go back and make sure the links are correct. KarenAnn 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I fiddled with the first paragraph because I had no idea what it meant until this morning. But I don't think I did a good job. It needs work. KarenAnn 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S.S. If you've looked at the proposed policies lately, the Wikipedia people are going to crack down and be much more strict. They want to be taken just as seriously as the Encyclopedia Britanica. It's going to be very hard on some people initially, especially those who write about fictional characters - check this out: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)

KarenAnn 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

load balancing ?

Is that an insiders term, since according to the link it means "Grid energy storage"? Is there a way of phrasing the first paragraph so the general reader clearly understands how your article relates to our everyday life)? KarenAnn 15:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Page looking better and better now that you guys are working on it!

A main task now is referencing. Take a look at Fidel Castro to see how Wikipedia wants referencing done. Check out the reference section. (There is so much fighting going on over that page that anything that doesn't have a footnote is going to be removed.) There are 112 footnotes today and there are still whole sections that haven't been tackled yet.

See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information about Wikipedia's policies on these matters.

Also the load balancing issue. I'm the person who wrote the definition on the page load balancing is linked to now (and I know nothing about electricty). But the page you originally had it linked to didn't even mention load balancing. So I pretty much made up the definition. Make sure it's right! It probably could be worded better also. KarenAnn 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unit Confusion

In the present hydrogen market section, a reference is made to "200 gigawatts of energy". A gigawatt is a unit of power. This requires some attention.

128.151.161.49 Iain Marcuson.

I used information available at Heat of combustion and Ton of oil equivalent to convert the figure of 50 million metric tons for global production into MTOE. Also, I attempted to find a source for the production by technology figures, but it looks like they come from an IEA report that is not freely available: [8] Kyle Cronan 10:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't address the problem that energy units are still not being used here. My sources [9] give 2003 total US electricity generation at about 2 billion MWH, which is roughly 7 exojoules = 7 EJ = 7 x 10^18 J = about 7 Quads. The figure in the article is "442 gigawatts". Gigawatt-WHATs? 442 gigawatt-years is about 12 Quads, which at least is the right order of magnitude, but almost a factor of 2 off my figures. I'm going to remove energy units here until somebody comes up with some ENERGY figures. BTW, a mega TOE = MTOE (mega ton oil equivalent) is 45.2 PJ (petajoules = 10^15 J). That's about 1/20th of a Quad. SBHarris 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see the source of confusion now. I had edited the figure for world production, the one the OP referred to, but forgot to do something about the US production figure. Thanks for removing it. I doubt it was meant to be gigawatt years--a lot of the people involved in this debate who are, shall we say, more politically motivated just don't bother too much with accurate figures. The page on The Hype about Hydrogen mislabelled million cubic meters as gigajoules, and I'm pretty sure that was sourced from the popular book!

Hydrogen Myths

--newjediorder 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I was extremely disapointed with the "Direct Dangers in Use" section of this article. It was very negatively weighted and not very objective. I wanted to post things here before overhauling an entire section. I will outline a few myths that are misrepresented here.

• While it is true that hydrogen does have a lower energy need for ignition than natural gas for example, natural gas can still be ignited by a static electricity spark. In addition, for hydrogen to explode it must have a much higher density than natural gas needs.

• The Hindenburg disaster has been one of the greatest hydrogen myths of all time. In truth, the Hydrogen was not the primary cause of the fire. The flames in all pictures of the disaster are bright orange, while hydrogen flames are nearly invisible. In addition, a garlic scent was added to hydrogen to help detect leaks, and no one reported smelling garlic. Later testing showed that the treatment compound that the blimp had been painted with contained a cellulose acetate or nitrate (gunpowder) as well as aluminum powder, a common ingredient in rocket fuel. Of the 35 that died, 33 died from jumping and 2 died from diesel burns (the fuel that powered the blimp). The hydrogen did burn but did so upwards and very quickly rose away from the passengers due to it's bouyancy.

• Hydrogen does burn with a nearly invisible flame, but as i said, it rises quickly away from the vehicle. In addition, hydrogen flames radiate very little energy (which means that you must actually touch the flame in order for it to warm you or burn you) and produces no deadly fumes like carbonmonoxide or smoke. Gasoline fires are much more dangerous because the fuel pools under a leak and radiates much more energy.

--SmithGM 04:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC) (Possibly still a bit rough, this is just a first-pass for reaction here)

Perhaps the remedy is to use a more neutrally titled section called, “Hazards.” This seems more in keeping with the preceding sections (problems, alternatives, environmental concerns) and the term has more neutral connotations for me. Such a section could also be made largely factual in nature:

Hazards

The use of hydrogen as an energy carrier, like the use of any fuel, entails hazards—and, thanks to the Hindenburg disaster, there is good general awareness that hydrogen is a flammable gas (its primary hazard). Further, the hazards of hydrogen differ from those of carbon based fuels like coal, gasoline, diesel and natural gas, so different hazard management strategies are required.

Hydrogen is in fact a flammable gas (making it most comparable to natural gas). Hazards associated with this flammability include:

• the widest range of flammable compositions of any gas (4-74 % by volume in air)
• the widest known range of explosive compositions (18-59 % by volume in air)
• an extremely low ignition energy (20 μJ)
• the highest known heat of combustion with air (286 kJ/mole – needs conversion to a gravimetric basis)
• a hot flame (2045 oC)
• poor warning properties: no odor or color, a colorless, nearly invisible flame, and relatively low radiant heat from the flame.

Conversely, hydrogen has properties that mitigate its hazards:

• it is buoyant and diffuses rapidly – so leaks rise away unless contained and diffuse rapidly
• it is not toxic or poisonous, posing only an asphyxiation health hazard and then only in a confined space

Together, these create a high hazard potential (easy to initiate high-energy combustions with poor warning properties for many compositions) which, however, only comes into play in very limited circumstances (tight containment and a very nearby ignition source). Risk is a function of both consequence and likelihood, so evaluating the safety of hydrogen vs. carbon fuel alternatives requires professional, case-by-case analysis.

References/Links:

• http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/safety/index.asp
• http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/factSheet_safety.pdf
• http://www.llnl.gov/es_and_h/hsm/doc_18.04/doc18-04.html#2.0
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen

Liquid hydrogen merge to hydrogen economy

so far votes are to keep the Liquid hydrogen article separated, please read: [[10]].Mion 00:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Merge proposal is withdrawn, case is closed. -:). Mion 11:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen's effects on the weather

A hypothetical question: If all the automobiles in Los Angeles were magically changed into hydrogen cars(either fuel cell or combustions), then their exhaust would be changed from "smog+misc." to water. How would all this water exhaust affect cloud formation, warming, and the weather in a region?

--User:christgg 11:08, 21 September 2006 (PST)

Article needs organisation and less repetition

This article is almost impossible to understand. Seems like I read it a while ago and found it very interesting and informative, so I came back to it today to show it to a friend. But now I can't make any sense out of it at all and I am really disappointed. Timmy12 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how this happened. One problem is the rationale has expanded and gotten muddy. I trimmed some of it, but more needs to be done, both here and in the rest of the article. One problem is (again) that the problems of primary energy production vs. greenhouse emissions have not been separated clearly at the beginning of the article. The hydrogen economy is really TWO problems: one of non-fossil (renewable) energy; a second one of finding something to replace fossil fuels with AS transportation fuels (see methanol economy for an answer there which doesn't involve hydrogen-- it really doesn't matter what is used, once one has the energy to use to make it). SBHarris 02:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

problem is the structure, follow the DOE structure, and you can move every comment into its own section.. reg. Mion 02:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen production of greenhouse neutral alcohol

"Hydrogen in a full "hydrogen economy" has been envisioned as a way to make renewable energy available to automobiles which are not all-electric. A final theoretical alternative to hydrogen would do this by using hydrogen locally (captive use) to make liquid fuels from a CO₂ source. To be greenhouse-neutral, this source would be from air, biomass, or from CO₂ which would otherwise be scheduled to be released into the air from non-carbon-capture fuel-burning powerplants (of which there should still be many in the future, since carbon-capture is site-dependent and difficult to retrofit). These alcohols would then act as greenhouse-neutral additional energy stores and carriers for transportation, but without disrupting present methods of liquid fuel transport and use. Rather than be transported from its production site, hydrogen may thus instead be used centrally/locally to produce renewable liquid fuels which may be cycled into the present transportation infrastructure directly, requiring almost no infrastructure change."

Bascially have all power plants capture the CO2 as liquid (maybe dry ice), ship it to a processing site, and get back gasoline/diesel/methanol/ethanol, and ship it back. Have the automakers develop an engine (probably some membrane/fuel cell type, you'd still have an electric car) that operates with two tanks, one a gas tank, the other a liquid CO2 tank, and either emit the water vapor through the exhaust, or see what soaps you need to keep the water/CO2 mixture well mixed, or just let it separate, and periodically vent the water(soda pop) liquid layer onto the asphalt (Liq. CO2 density=1.03, water=1.00 g/mL). Since carbon is such a good hydrogen/energy carrier, this recycling scheme may or may not beat any kind of battery setup as far as energy density/longterm robustness is concerned - lithium ion has limited life span, and it's expensive, but may not be as expensive to recycle lithium batteries as building such a CO2 capturing engine. Also lithium ion or most other batteries cannot be instantly recharged, except for zinc/air batteries that can be mechanically charged, but have low energy density. With a CO2 capturing engine, you'd pull up to a gas station and while the gas is pumped, the CO2 is unpumped, and with correct density differences/immiscibilities the two liquids might even be in the same tank, and if you don't emit the water, then have a 3 layer liquid tank, co2/water/gasoline, and let the gas station do the proper water/CO2 separation based on the slight density difference/immiscibility, which should automatically happen in the large holding tank. This way when a truck brings gas to the gas station, and it makes an empty trip back, it woudln't be empty, but ship the liquid CO2 back, up the chain. The logistics would be the same, only the infrastructure would need to be updated to correct pressure-handling and 2 fluid line systems. As far as the gas station water/CO2 separation goes, you'd have to make sure to skim only the very bottom CO2 layer and replace the very top gasoline, and have the transient separating layers intact - basically the trucks would always take only a little bit of the storage tank home, and you'd never completely drain it. Because of this water/CO2 separation need, hydrocarbons might be better than alcohols, because most alcohols are highly soluble in water. On the other hand, emmitting ethanol to the environment is not a big deal, but gasoline tainted water is. So ultimately you mgith have to develop a membrane that separates water from CO2, and just exhausts it while the car moves. Another problem with the CO2 capturing scheme that the car's weight increases as it runs, as the CO2 is 3-4 times heavier than the gasoline (Molecular Weight 12 C vs. 44 CO2), while with litium ion it stays the same as it runs. But any metal/air battery type would have similar issues, having to store the oxidized metal, except for gaseous hydrogen that can be just emitted as water. If you had a system that just carried hydrogen better than ultrasupercold liquid hydrogen or noble metal dissolved systems, that'd be great. Perhaps there is chemistry to strip off hydrogen from a carrier, such as hydrcarbons like butane, pentane, hexane, octane, that are the best carriers, and convert them into graphite, and ship the graphite back to get reloaded with hydrogen. Perhaps not quite all the way to graphite, but just some PAH's that are easier to react back (also carcinogenic). But that'd be a waste to have all that carbon uncombusted, when you could get some extra juice out of it, but every time you react carbon with oxygen, the shipping weight increases similar to CO2. Still, instead of PAH's, you might find that some partially oxidized carbon material is the best carrier to ship back, that's easy to convert back to octane, but it's also easier to handle than high pressure liquid CO2 (example citric acid solid, lactic acid liquid (muscle strains are because of lactic buildup from lack of oxygen), but these need sophisticated reactions in an engine, while CO2 doesn't.) In the end you might find that best carriers are sugars as far as ease of reaction goes, or fats as far as energy storage, and just ship liquid CO2 back to the processing plant, and ship fat back from there, and practically have a second "biosphere CO2 geologic cycle" constricted to human built pipes, but at least this would keep it out of the atmosphere to cut global warming effects. Life pretty much optimized its dealings with energy, even though probably better systems are possible, because, for instance, photosynthesis is only 2% efficient maximally, more like 0.25% on a global scale, while humans can build metallic silicon solar panels that are 8-15% efficient directly to current, but if you have to take that current and make octane from CO2 with it, you may not be able to beat photosynthesis too much, unless you find a scheme like the sulfur-iodine cycle, that takes heat inputs instead of electricity to produce hydrogen, and you can probably collect solar heat with 70-90% efficiency into a black body and store it in a salt reservoir, but you'd need a chemical cycle that does carbon dioxide to octane, CO2->C8H18, or lactic to octane. There might just be a way to beat life by a long shot in efficiency of producing fats from solar/wind energy, because things such as pn-doped metallic silicon or 1000C temperature are not available to life. Maybe pn-doped metallic silicon is available to life, we just haven't witnessed enough evolution for it to show up, most photosynthesis is based on chlorophyl, animal oxygen transport on iron based hemoglobin, even though there are some deep underwater creatures that use geothermal energy to survive based on a sulfur cycle, or species such as octopuses use copper based oxygen transport. So who knows, maybe there is a chance for a species to evolve a pn-junction silicon method of solar energy collection one of these days, just like some bacterial life can bind atmospheric nitrogen through sophisticated catalysts at normal pressures, as opposed to humans using 200+ atm to accomplish the same thing. Sillybilly 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you have a lot of ideas up there, some practical and some not. It's easy to suggest having all powerplants capture their CO2 as dry ice or liquid and ship it somewhere-- it's something else to get it done. Carbon capture is a whole speculative subject with its own article. Even if we're going to do it, the people who advocate it have never suggested any practical means of doing it except to inject it into ocean or land at the powerplant, not for transport. And certainly nobody has a method of doing it "on the fly" for vehicles. Carbon capture is a large-scale enterprise, at BEST.

And what do you expect anybody to say to your suggestion that some species might someday evolve a pn-junction silicon solar energy collecter? That's so far off-topic it's, well, silly. SBHarris 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Information" icon transparency

The icon at the page header has a white opaque background, or at least it appears that way using Internet exploder version 6. 67.113.49.201 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Chart accuracy

The accuracy of the automotive fuel efficiency chart is disputed. See Image talk:Battery EV vs. Hydrogen EV.png The chart is also unreferenced. -- Beland (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks wrong to me too.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who posted it, but I'll add peer-reviewed references to it; the data is correct. -- Rei (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen safety

This discussion moved to Talk:Hydrogen safety. Mion (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Variety

we can make a section that states that the variety is increasing as a logical consequence on the Brownian motion [11](just 2 cents)Mion (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Wrong approach. Mion (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Theoretical or hypothetical

By bringing in Theoretical in the definition it suggests that hydrogen economy doesn't exists, which is not the case, I think that the quickest fix is to bring in the notion about scaling up the hydrogen economy to a world scale hydrogen economy. Maybe we need another article about The theoretical perfect hydrogen economy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mion (talk • contribs) 08:42, 28 July 2008

• By reverting my minor change of introducing theoretical, I believe you are violating WP:CRYSTAL. Until and unless hydrogen alternatives reach some significant percentage of transport usage, the technology is unfeasible, unproven, uneconomic, and unrealized... in a word, theoretical. As an engineer, I'm well aware of the research ongoing in the field, but the term an economy is something which must needs have an appreciable share of the world market... say 3% or more. Until then, use is contraindicated. Perhaps "Hydrogen fuel industry" is a compromise title, or "proposed hydrogen economy".
  
  In any event, until and unless there is an widespread infrastructure, at least as common as finding a filling station selling diesel fuel and including offsetting alternative electrical generation not using fossil fuels to produce hydrogen fuels... it's all something that might come into play in a significant way as an economy by the time the sea levels rise ten to twelve feet. Which is to say it's currently a dream, and so speculation, wishful thinking, and far from unrealized. I'd bet on that sooner than something I could hold my nose to call a hydrogen economy. The shear dollar cost of infrastructure and additional electric generation capacity certainly makes it uncapitalized to date... again obviating the use of economy without a theoretical qualifier. Let's keep the idealism and wishful thinking down to a minimum, please. Best regards // FrankB 09:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"term an economy is something which must needs have an appreciable share of the world market... say 3% or more". Any reference for that ? and secondly, that would be if the title was Hydrogen world economy, which it isn't, where can i find the reference for the requirement " until and unless there is an widespread infrastructure", ? I fully agree further discussion is needed about the intro. Cheers Mion (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice find, now in 1965, [12] everybody was running around to experiment with the economics of hydrogen, a quick look at the patents around 1970 don't mention John Bockris as the inventor of the hydrogen economy, anybody with access to more historical archives ? Mion (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Bockris invented anything he just coined a term. Similar to what Olah, Goeppert, Prakash, and Periana have tried to do with the "methanol economy". You can even google "butanol economy". With all this word play we might as well have a "hot air economy". Research with hydrogen started a long time before Bockris gave it a snazzy label. Folks working after the "coining" are not obliged attribute its origin if they do use the term. In addition folks who work with hydrogen as a commodity aren't required to use the term today unless they want to. I wish I had a better citation for the origin of the term . I knew about it due to the rather dubious origin which is infamous among alternative energy researchers. I just used the citation I found after a quick search. As a side note the statutes concerning patent language states the patentee is their own lexicographer, unless they egregiously violate established language. Most patents written poorly enough to violate the meanings of words are reject on other grounds but the allowed leeway can result in confusion. That just another reason not to look to patents for scientific evidence or terminology. Hope that helps.--OMCV (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure it helps, but the referenced article is giving a talk in 1970 as a reference without sourcing it, but given the circumstances, in 1959 (Allis-Chalmers#Agricultural_machinery) the economics of hydrogen was demonstrated across the US at state fairs which makes it unlikely that it took 11 years to discuss the impact of hydrogen economy or that it took 11 years to coin the term, so, back to the intro, step aside when the term was coined, hydrogen economy already took place long before 1970, as you pointed as wel, which is not reflected in the intro. Maybe we should just bring the hydrogen tractor into the intro to balance the intro, so we can keep the coined term as wel, until we find another referenced approach or solutionMion (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bockris is truly attributed with coining the term "Hydrogen Economy" and subsequently popularizing it. This isn't widely acknowledged since Bockris is a crack pot. Not every commodity chemical gets an "economy" named after it. In addition Hydrogen is generally consumed at the point of production making it most sense less of an economy then methanol, ammonia, or acetic acid. While it might be hard to imagine people researching an area without a goofy moniker like "nanontechnology" it is done. As far as what Bockris meant by his term "Hydrogen Economy" was a hypothetical global infrastructure based around hydrogen as an energy carrier for renewable energy sources. This was intended to completely replace the existing fossil fuel infrastructure. His meaning has yet to materialize.--OMCV (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe the popular part about it was more about the person who did it or about the news that he presented it as having an invention to make it happen , the sole concept, replacing the fuel within an economy with hydrogen was described in 1874 in The Mysterious Island [13], in that sense Jules Verne made it also popular. Mion (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right the concept of replacing fossil fuels has existed for as long as we have used fossil fuels. Hydrogen has been a chief candidate for to substitute for oil. But if Verne was going to call "the wide spread use of hydrogen as an energy carrier" an "economy" of sorts, it would have been the "water economy". Thats based off the chapter three passages if I remember it correctly. The "hydrogen economy" is just a term like the "arms race". The concept of "staying more technologically advance than you competitor in military terms" dates back to at least ancient Greece but it didn't get that specific name until recently.--OMCV (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

True, the introduction of when the term was first coined is still a good idea, i am not sure about Jules Verne, hydrogen as a fuel was already shown in 1807 by François Isaac de Rivaz, so why should he mean water ? maybe we need an expert opinion on Jules Verne or just go along with the current intro "proposed" .Mion (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen Power

Why isn't there an article on Hydrogen Power or Hydrogen Fuel? The only article is this wacky Hydrogen Economy entry? Also, this article is weirdly biased and unscientific. The whole intro and images are like some kind of PR campaign. I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia.(JoeTimko (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Maybe you're looking for liquid hydrogen ? Mion (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hydrogen Economy? Talk about a made up concept. How can this be an article when there isn't one for hydrogen power. Anyway, whatever. I trust there are articles on the Steam Economy, the Oil Economy, the Solar Economy, and the Hydro-Economy. (JoeTimko (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Nuclear power sources

Excuse me, but the last time I checked, "nuclear power sources" where not one of the greatest thieves behind global warming. The first part of the introduction implies (...and not from burning carbon-based fossil fuels or nuclear power sources...) that nuclear power is behind the global warming. This is just plain wrong... Nuclear power might not be a good solution, but that's not because of global warming... /Natox (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

More hydrogen in gasoline

The article says "there is actually more hydrogen in a liter of gasoline (116 grams) than there is in a liter of pure liquid hydrogen (71 grams)". A layman's reaction might be 'well, then why not use that?'. I assume this is bonded hydrogen, and it would be less confusing if that were explained. Actually, come to think of it, this is rather useless info. I bet there's more hydrogen in the car seats than in gaseous hydrogen, but how does it help to know something like that? It's just confusing, so shouldn't the sentence go? DirkvdM (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The layman's reaction is correct, energywise we could use gasoline on an energy/volume basis, as a liter of gasoline provides more energy than a liter of liquid hydrogen when you burn it. The reasons not to use gasoline are entirely related to carbon polution. The energy available from the hydrogen in gasoline is not affected much by its bond to carbon, because HH and CH bonds are about the same. The H-C bond is 99 kcal per mole, and the bond to another hydrogen in liquid hydrogen is 104 kcal/mole-- even stronger. They're BOTH "bonded". But the bond to oxygen is even stronger (119 kcal/mole).[14] SBHarris 04:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only the carbon issue, but also efficiency. We could use synthetic hydrocarbons as an energy storage system, as mentioned on the hydrogen storage page, via Fischer-Tropsch. But the efficiency is woeful. Which highlights my objection on the global focus on the hydrogen economy: It's not a solution, it just moves the problem to generation.

Having said all that, I think the hydrogen in petrol is a perfect illustration of hdrogen's volume density problem. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Methods of production

Synthetic biology too is coming up with hydrogen production methods. However, at present it has not yet produced a viable organic hydrogen generator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.167.92 (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

add in article

References

Merge proposal

I propose to merge the Hydrogen economy section of the Fuel cell article. This section is not about fuel celss, which is the main topic of the Fuel cell article, and therefore suits better here (if contains anything useful what is not already covered here in this article). Beagel (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure : both are bloated and it would be good to reduce them to the valid points only.--Environnement2100 (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what is left really belongs to the fuel cell article. I removed the doublure. If you dont like it, please revert it. Cheers Mion (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Greenhouse Gas

Proponents of a hydrogen economy suggest that hydrogen is an environmentally cleaner source of energy to end-users, particularly in transportation applications, without release of pollutants (such as particulate matter) or greenhouse gases at the point of end use.

Isn't water vapor a greenhouse gas?

69.20.226.218 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there is so much liquid water on the planet's surface, that overall it is in an equilibrium, and only the global average temperature determines the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, not how much you emit from vehicles. Extra water vapor above the overall equilibrium concentration precipitates out as rain, and if there isn't enough, more evaporates from lakes/oceans to get to the overall equilibrium saturation concentration. Basically you can't add more overall water vapor to the atmosphere by emitting more - it will simply precipitate out as rain. But you can add carbon dioxide and methane, which stay as gases. The only way to increase the overall water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is to increase the overall temperature of the atmosphere. In this sense water amplifies up the global warming effects: if anything causes a slight global warming, slight increase in the temperature, that will also increase the water vapor concentration too, therefore the temperature increase too. On the other hand, if a greenhouse gas concentration drops, so will the temperature slightly, so will the water concentration, and then the temperature even further. Water vapor on a global scale amplifies both the ups and downs. One note though, as the amount of water vapor increases in the atmosphere due to global warming, so might the amount of clouds, so more sunlight might get reflected back into outer space, causing global cooling, contrary to the expected global warming. Cloud formation and reflectivity also heavily depends on current pollution and fine dust/particulates in the atmosphere. The modeling and prediction of climate changes is very difficult. Sillybilly (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything after the "Yes" in the preceeding paragraph can be ignored. The answer to the question is "yes, water is a greenhouse gas." Proponents of a hydrogen economy erroneously claim that greenhouse gases are not produced at the point of end use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.168.91.156 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

contribs) 19:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

SineBot: Yes it is a greenhouse gas, but we will not be adding more of it to the atmosphere by burning hydrodgen in cars: "Water vapor is neither long-lived nor well mixed in the atmosphere, varying spatially from 0 to 2 percent (IPCC 1996). In addition, atmospheric water can exist in several physical states including gaseous, liquid, and solid. Human activities are not believed to directly affect the average global concentration of water vapor;" [15]. Technically, you are correct. But so what? Excess moisture precipitates out of air whenever the temperature drops below the dew point, so the it doesn't stay in the air very long anyway. Because the atmospheric lifetime of water is so small, the EPA and IPCC don't even bother assigning a global warming potential to it.Justin0741 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)JB

More importantly the hydrogen is created by taking water and separating it into oxygen and hydrogen. Later it is simply recombined. In the end we have exactly the same amount of water. The same would be true if we were separating carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbon, and then using that carbon as fuel. All carbon dioxide released would have been already present. The problem with current fossil fuels is that they are releasing greenhouse gases that are currently effectively removed from play (tied up as coal/oil). In other words use of hydrogen as a fuel will have no net change in the atmosphere.69.242.111.177 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives have been removed

In general I support removal of energy alternatives which have nothing to do with hydrogen, of course, as about half of the ones in this section did. However, there are some interesting alternatives which begin with hydrogen production, then use it to make other fuels without distributing or storing it AS elemental hydrogen. These are "hybrid" alternatives, which use a hydrogen input, without a lot of hydrogen-specific infrastructure. I would argue that, as hydrogen-production-input technolgies, they deserve mention HERE, rather than lumped in with dozens of other energy economies discussed elsewhere under energy-economies, which don't involve making hydrogen. I've restored selected parts of this section, therefore. SBHarris 19:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the fuel cell range extender for Electric Vehicles in the battery section [16], and what is interesting about toxic ammonia ? . Mion (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

By all means put in the fuel cell range extender, which involves a hydrogen tank. I didn't see it in the original list. As for toxic ammonia, it doesn't do much for me, but it's a lot easier to store and transfer than hydrogen, so for many applications (particularly commercial ones) it may be useful. As with ammonia refrigeration. The hydrogen economy isn't just private cars and homes and the like-- it's businesses, factories, and so on. SBHarris 20:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Its still toxic, and the latest news from the industry [17],[18],[19]. cheers Mion (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And it's toxicity is relevant how? You're not getting all O.R.-y on us, are you? Petrol's toxic too. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the opposite of a merger. There are too many topics wanting a home here. A good, cogent 5-10 paragraph discussion of hydrogen economy, history, and considerations followed by links to specific hydrogen energy uses, geopolitical concerns, and alternative forms of energy would be better. It's also be more likely that a solid definition of where the proposed hydrogen economy came from, where it is today, and a number of the hydrogen economy concepts by proponents and detractors, with conclusion and links to related concepts might have half a chance of reaching some form of consensus. Some.64.132.32.226 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning the International Centre for Hydrogen Energy Technologies

I am the Information Officer of the UNIDO International Centre for Hydrogen Energy Technologies (UNIDO-ICHET). This Centre is six years old and its projects and activities have received notable attention. As you can see from our webpages, we are affiliated with many of the authoritative organizations operating in the field of hydrogen energy technologies. In my humble opinion, it now seems appropriate to me that ICHET passes the "Wikipedia visibility threshold". This is why I included a link at the bottom of this page, and this is why - after its understandable deletion by Fæ for possible Conflict of Interest - I am now here in front of you.

(You should sign your posts. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

The creation of a stub for the International Centre for Hydrogen Energy Technologies has been recommended by an editor. Now I was thinking about providing a link to this article in the "External Links" section of this "Hydrogen economy" page. However due to recommendations on External linking in case of conflict of interest, I think I'd rather abstain in the absence of an external approval or consensus about the relevance of such a link. Although we do have an official mandate from a UN agency (UNIDO) to act toward the development and the spreading of hydrogen energy technologies, the "official link" case does not seem to apply for us inasmuch as no one can claim monopoly on a technology.

Can I get some feedback on this? Gregory Dziedzic (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok I talked with User talk:Fæ who pointed that this is not an external link and that I could therefore add it to the "See also" section, which is what I did. My future contributions to this article will be the inclusion of a few worthy significant demonstration projects of ours inasmuch as I can find external sources in English corroborating my assertions.

Gregory Dziedzic (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

fuel cell

This discussion leads to economy, but digress initially to fuel. Then a fuel cell is alluded to. One has to read back to make sure they havent missed pertinent mention of said fuel cell, or that there is an assumed knowledge of such things. There needs to be clarity on what it is, or a link provided to somewhere. All professional texts give directions on how to integrate all new subects into a discussion, or give directions on where and how to obtain deeper knowledge of prerequisites for ongoing study of the subject.110.174.207.96 (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hydrogen sulphide

Perhaps that converting hydrogen to hydrogen sulphide would be a better method to store it ? Hydrogen sulphide already occurs naturally (ie in cenotes, ...) so the creation aswell as the storage (natural occurence means storage possible at room temperature) would be simple. Are there any references or information about this, and if so, include to article. 91.182.84.241 (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Or better yet, hydrogen cyanide...that way the crash scenes will smell better as they remove the corpses (bitter almonds smell better than rotten eggs, though it's when you stop smelling it that you die.)This is not the place for your highly original research. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Split suggested

Sorry to make two new sections, but I just realised the article is very long compared to other wikipedia articles. Perhaps sections that have articles elsewhere should be summarised and linked, with information being rolled into the other article, and sections without articles should have articles created?174.149.222.20 (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This article doesn't seem to be written from a completely neutral point of view. Many portions of the text seem to just talk about how battery electric vehicles are "better" than hydrogen.

Also, there seem to be some false assumptions. Given the many ways of producing and storing hydrogen (such as low pressure absorption/high pressure adsorption hydride storage systems that are being researched), sections such as "efficiency as an automtive fuel" need to be rewritten.

I will admit I am biased - I think that electric vehicles are a terrible idea. Not only are they expensive, they take a long time to charge (compared to the few minutes to fill a vehicle with gasoline and hydrogen - demonstrated by existing hydrogen pumps in California), but the batteries! Batteries wear down over time, so you get less and less use out of them, and they eventually have to be replaced, and by the time that happens the car will be worth less than the cost of replacement batteries.

Not to mention the safety aspects. Currently Hydrogen isn't safe to store (if there's a collision, for example), but future technologies may improve that. However, batteries are always going to have acid, which will at the least have to be disposed of at the end of the battery life, and at the worst, could leak in the case of an accident, requiring a hazmat team to clean it up (costing lots of money). And I personally would rather have a small hydrogen explosion than being covered in acid.

Anyways, tl;dr, think parts of the article are biased, but I can't edit because I myself am biased.174.149.222.20 (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

To put the shoe on the other foot: some sections of this article read like an essay, and there are quite a few paragraphs without citations. For example: "A key tradeoff: centralized vs. distributed production". Definitely not NPOV.174.149.222.20 (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Energy to produce a fuel cell

This claim is made in the "Fuel cells as alternative to internal combustion" section:

Currently it takes 2½ times as much energy to make a hydrogen fuel cell than is obtained from it during its service life.

Can anyone substantiate this claim? The reference indicated does not provide a source for this figure and provides an illustration that completely misinterprets the meaning (showing a 40% efficiency of converting methane to hydrogen and then to electricity). The figure would certainly be different for different types of fuel cells as well. Given the incredible energy throughput over the course of a fuel cell's service life, I'm very confident this claim is wrong, but wanted to check before editing. 128.158.1.175 (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the source given, which is 6 years old now, does not substantiate this claim. I have removed it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed a Couple of Titles for Simplicity

I may just be guessing here, but I think about 98% of people in America don't know what a "photovalec" cell is, but about half know what a "solar panel" is. I changed the title to Electrolysis of Water using electricity from Solar Panels, since solar panel is apparently "street" for photovalec systems. The only reason I can think of to use the term "photovalec" is to differentiate between thermal panels and electrical panels. I'm thinking "Solar Panels" can be two things.

I'm not sure what the author of High-Tempature Electrolysis is trying to do, other than blind us with science, but I think I get the gist of it. Its easier to boil water and turn it into hydrogen and oxygen than it is to wait for water vapor to evaporate so you can do the same thing. So I changed the title to "Steam", which I'm pretty sure most people understand.

Sorry if I'm "dumbing down" your articles, but I speak the King's English I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.120.11 (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hydrogen as indirect greenhouse gas

According to this article], hydrogen is a indirect ghg-gas. This means that aldough it does not act as a greenhouse gas itself, it worsens the effect of greenhouse gases already floating around in the atmosphere. This extra global warming should be calculated into the national ghg emissions in order for a emissionless economy to work. This would allow hydrogen use to remain carbon neutral in the calculation (simplifies calculation).

add in article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.194 (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That article was kind of silly. It assumed 10 percent of hydrogen would be released into the atmosphere and that all of it would happen in January, only. Spilling 10 percent of gasoline would be a problem, too, I suppose. PotomacFever (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, petrol doesn't diffuse through too many materials, so losing 10% of it would be much harder! 150.203.35.113 (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a few months after the above post about "losing 10% of it [petroluem fuels] would be much harder" the following happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macondo_Prospect And that's not the first huge oil spill in history. So, no, I don't think we can discount it. The assumption of 10 percent leakage has to be appleid to all fuels if we are to be fair and objective. That was the premise (not based in reality) of the article on hydrogen as an indirect GHG. To make an honest and fair comparison, you would have to ask what would happen if 10 percent of all petroleum were spilled, which it was in 2010.--PotomacFever (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Is Superheating Water Until it Seperates Considered Electrolysis?

I thought electrolysis was specifically referred to as the method of using a direct electric current (DC) to drive an otherwise non-spontaneous chemical reaction. I don't think that superheating water until it separates into hydrogen and oxygen gas due to an increase in temperature then drawing the gases out separately qualifies, as the reaction occurred due to heat, not the application of electrical current.

Also, I thought this was about the hydrogen economy. Any process which requires 108 Mega Joules to produce 1 KG of hydrogen, is not economically feasible, and doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.120.11 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely off point; steam hydrolysis does involve heating up the water first. It is more efficient to combine pre-heating with electrolysis versus solely electrolysis. --PotomacFever (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I think I might be headbutting the duchess on this. I'll try to use a little more tact and separate my articles instead of change yours. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.120.11 (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul planned for this page

In light of the heavy criticism seen in the above posts, I am planning on editing the page with much needed up to date, unbiased information. Just a summary of what is in store, the below outline is what is proposed. I understand that this is an ambitious change, however, I assure you that these edits are coming from industry experts and sources will be from government agencies (dept. energy), alternative energy and technology companies, and other relevant sources. This overhaul also will address the fact that the term hydrogen economy is no longer a relevant term. Hydrogen and fuel cells are part of clean energy portfolios and future power generation, but are not intended to represent a replacement for the entire energy or transportation industries.

• 1. History

a. 1670-1800: Early Developments b. 1800-1920: Fuel Cell Discoveries c. 1920-1960: Hydrogen Production Refined d. 1960-1980: Space Race e. 1980-Today: Commercialization

• 2. Production

a. Thermal b. Electrolysis

• 3. Infrastructure

a. Distributed vs. centralized b. Storage

• 4. Fuel Cells
• 5. Automotive Applications
• 6. Stationary Applications
• 7. Safety
• 8. Environmental Benefits
• 9. Costs
• 10. Examples – Pilot Programs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfchea (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT: Hydrogen indeed once WAS "intended to represent a replacement for the entire energy or transportation industries." That was until a lot of people wised up, but they spent (wasted) a lot of money on the idea, first. One thinks of Gov. Schwarzenegger's enormously dumb but politically correct and nicely liberal-green "California Hydrogen Highway" project, which that bankrupt state (where I live) spent mucho money on, even as major normal highway routes were clogged with 18-wheel big rigs, strangling the port at Long Beach and shipping to and from the southern part of the state (yes, we needed a rail line, but that wasn't sexy). And there are hydrogen highway starts in other places, too-- all of which are destined to go the way of jerkwater fill-stations for steam locomotives, and the dodo bird.

So leave some of this article as history, which otherwise will disappear. Personally I doubt that hydrogen fuel cells will ever play ANY significant part of future "energy portfolios." I think that's just as much a monument to stupidity, given the general difficult nature of hydrogen gas, as the larger propositions were. But see (for example) mercury-arc valve for an article on obsolete tech. We don't replace or delete articles on obsolete bits of technology on Wikipedia, to keep up with the times. At most, we keep the material and label it as a bad or obsoleted idea of previous generations. Biofuels deserve the same treatment. SBHarris 16:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Pfchea, in view of your employment with a hydrogen fuel cell advocacy firm, please float your ideas on the talk page before making major changes to the article. You should disclose this WP:COI when editing a new page. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You should talk, Ssilvers. You are a staunch advocate for blogger Joseph Romm's anti-hydrogen views and were best man at his wedding. Perhaps you are biased as well.--PotomacFever (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Great. There exist direct methanol fuel cells which make a lot more sense, inasmuch as their fuel can be used in internal combustion engines also, without much problem. In fact, the entire idea of a methanol economy, powered by fission breeder reactors, makes sense from every direction. Let us hope that the planners and the policitians find a way to talk to each other and spend some money for a scaled up version of a system that might actually work. Of course, with an electrical grid, electric cars and trains, and rechargable lithium ion batteries where convenient. SBHarris 03:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Very Poor Introduction of the Main Article

The main article begins,

In an (as-yet-hypothetical) hydrogen economy, the energy needed for motive power (for automobiles and other vehicle types) or electricity (for stationary applications) is derived from reacting hydrogen (H2) with oxygen. By eliminating the use of carbon-based fossil fuels, a hydrogen economy would sharply reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, which plays a central role in global warming.

This is a very poor introduction. Hydrogen used for storing motive power is a battery for electric power generated by some other means which is used to crack hydrogen from water H₂O. This stored energy is recovered when the hydrogen is recombined with atmoshperic oxygen in a fuel cell. Hydrogen is not used to generate electricity for stationary applications, since to my knowledge there are no pools of free hydrogen sitting around planet Earth waiting to be tapped.

A hydrogen economy isn't a replacement for hydrocarbons it is a replacement for mercury, lithium, lead, nickel and other materials that would be otherwise used in automtive batteries in either 100% plug-in electric, small conventional gasoline engines supplimented with stored plug-in electric, or Prius-style hybrid automobles.

Only to the extent that the substantial marginal electric power needed to replace the energy derived from the combustion of gasoline and diesel is generated from something other than coal, natural gas or oil is there any reduction in the consumption of hydrocarbons.

The majority of new electric power on the scales needed to replace gasoline would come from burning coal. This means that hydrogen fuel cell cars are simply an alternative method for turning coal into motive power and is a substitute method to just burning gasoline derived via existing coal-to-liquids tech.38.112.20.26 (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)glennscott9

Absolutely right, it needs changing.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The opening section has really deteriorated. Here's the first paragraph:

The hydrogen economy is a proposal for the distribution of energy using hydrogen. Hydrogen (H2) releases energy when it is combined with oxygen; however in practice, production of hydrogen from water requires more energy than is released when the hydrogen is used as fuel. Free hydrogen does not occur naturally, and thus it must be generated by electrolysis of water or another method. A reduction in carbon dioxide emission connected with hydrogen fuel is directly achieved only if the energy used to make hydrogen is obtained from non carbon-based sources. Nowadays (2009) the majority of hydrogen produced on earth comes from fossil fuels.

Not true that it takes more energy to electrolyze water into H2 than is released during use as a fuel. Supply chain efficiency well-to-pump is greater than 50 percent (LHV basis). Start with the LHV of the H2, subtract off the energy needed to produce it from the feedstock and compress and transport it; the net remaining is still more than half the LHV of the fuel and hence more than the energy needed to produce it. Carbon emissions of H2 used in fuel cell vehicles releases less CO2 than gasoline when you consider the full supply chain; this is true even if fossil fuels are used to produce the hydrogen as in natural gas SMR. Free hydrogen does occur and there's about 60 million tonnes in the atmosphere. Look at: The Hydrogen Economy (NAS, 2004) p. 63; Novelli et al J. of Geophysical Res Vol 14 pp. 30427-30444. My objective is to edit the opening with an eye toward what can be said from an engineering and economic standpoint and leave out predictions of the future.

Please give me your feedback; I don't want to make the changes until others have seen this.--PotomacFever (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not true that it takes more energy to electrolyze water into H2 than is released during use as a fuel.

Ever heard of the Second Law?

150.203.35.113 (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "Ever heard of the FIRST Law of thermodynamics" as there is nothing in the statement about entropy. Read David Goodstein's book The End of Oil if you want an explanation that doesn't have equations. PotomacFever (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I know exactly what I mean. I don't need to read some bloke's doubtless-biased book to apply basic physics to this particular application.

Consider Lord Kelvin's version of the 2nd law. One could rephrase the 2nd law as "there's no such thing as a 100% efficient process." So yes, it does take more energy to electrolyse water than is released when you recombine the hydrogen. The efficiency of this process is well below 100%.

150.203.35.113 (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Still wrong. You are forgetting that each kg of hydrogen has 120 megajoules internal energy (LHV basis); that energy is there all along and is not taken away when you electrolyze. So when you pop it into a fuel cell that is let's say 50 percent efficient then out comes 60 MJ of electricity. Nothing in the first or second law precludes this. If you don't like Goodstein then try Baerlein's Thermal Physics book. --PotomacFever (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Just be sure to support your statements with reliable sources, and for goodness sake don't include any original research. The IP was right, though he might have been nicer about it. Any thermodynamically reversible rxn takes forever and a day. If you can't wait forever and a day (and you can't if you expect to generate any amount of power at all), then the rxn won't be reversible and entropic losses are unavoidable. If the conversion isn't 100% efficient, then rxn products leave hotter than the starting materials, so of course you're going to have entropic losses, too. Goodstein is a physicist, and a good one. You won't find support for your statement in his book.

Let's just do the math: hydrogen can be made from natural gas at roughly 80 percent efficiency. (The article correctly notes this.) Per kg, that means it takes about 25 megajoules to create the hydrogen. Then if electrolysis is even 50 percent efficient (it's higher in real life) on an LHV basis, you get 60 megajoules back. You come out 35 MJ ahead. What you are missing is that, all along, there is 120 MJ in the kg of hydrogen.--PotomacFever (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The practical limit to production efficiency though isn't entropy but overvoltage. An electrolytic rxn won't go unless you apply a voltage higher than the redox potential. Simply put, you've got to apply more than 1.5V to charge a 1.5V battery, usually on the order of tenths of a volt more. Electrolytic charge-discharge cycles are lossy, and H2 redox is no exception.

When you say "production efficiency" I think you mean 'conversion efficiency.' I think you are failing to see that the question of 1) whether a process is thermodynamically reversible is not the same as 2) asking if it take more energy to make a fuel than can be converted into useful work.--PotomacFever (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you want feedback on. You're right that the lead is perfectly awful. It begins arguing the merits of the idea before explaining exactly what that idea is. The lead should explain what is meant by the term hydrogen economy, explain the role of hydrogen in the hydrogen economy, briefly compare an envisioned hydrogen economy with the current hydrocarbon economy to illustrate how they differ, and briefly explain how this could be a good idea. This much you need to know if you're to understand the rest of the article. If you can fit that into a couple three paragraphs in clear prose that Sally sixth-grader can understand well enough to use in her report for science class, then godspeed, my friend.

Is your plan to fold the prose that follows "Not true" in your statement above into the lead? Please don't. The lead is already confusing because the arguments begin before a foundation for understanding those arguments has been established. The lead should be an introduction and a summary of what's to follow. What you've written is interesting, but it belongs in one of the sections and not in the lead. Otherwise, we risk making this article as opaque as the awful article on the 2nd law of thermodynamics that you were referred to by the IP. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I just had a hack at removing stuff that you reasonably could claim NPOV for from the intro. I still don't like the "some futurists" bit. Is this now sufficiently devoid of content to removed the tag? 150.203.35.113 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, the changes I made were reverted without comment. These are the sentences that I claim are---whilst not necessarily incorrect---pushing a particular perspective:

• Production of hydrogen from water requires more energy than is released when the hydrogen is used as fuel.

Definitely. As readers may or may not be familiar with energy conservation law, it is necessary to stress the matter.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not even close to being true. Crikey! Do the math: hydrogen can be made from natural gas at roughly 80 percent efficiency. Per kg, that means it takes about 25 megajoules to create the hydrogen. Then if electrolysis is even 50 percent efficient (it's higher in real life) on an HHV basis, you get 60 megajoules back. You come out 35 MJ ahead. So you might want to check those "energy conservation laws" you are citing.--PotomacFever (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's energy conservation that's important, why talk about energy nonconservation? 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Free hydrogen does not occur naturally, and thus it must be generated by electrolysis of water or another method.

Same : readers may know or not know that dihydrogen is not readily available on earth. The fact that you have first to produce it is important in the energy budget.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This statement about free hydrogen is on the right track but needs work. Free hydrogen does occur naturally and there are about 60 megatons in the atmosphere. The point is that H2 does not lie around in convenient reservoirs that can be tapped like a Texas oilfield. The article used to say this but someone deleted it.--PotomacFever (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy enough to see a re-worded version of this in the intro if you're concerned about pandering to the average idiot. However, "In the context of a hydrogen economy, hydrogen is...an energy carrier..." says it all. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• A reduction in carbon dioxide emission connected with hydrogen fuel is directly achieved only if the energy used to make hydrogen is obtained from non carbon-based sources.

Same : I see a number of car makers stating "green car" or "zero emission car", etc. You have to make the difference out for the reader, including the complete energy path.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about a hydrogen economy. Energy sourcing is an issue, but it's definitely not core business of the article. Yes, this needs to be discussed in the article, but it does not tell anyone who knows nothing about hydrogen energy what a hydrogen economy is. Remember, a hydrogen economy is not proposed only for environmental reasons. There's a huge block out there interested in hydrogen for energy security, "peak oil" and geopolitical reasons. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hydrogen can be produced from renewable sources and can be used to store energy from intermittent energy sources.

I usually do not use such sentences beginning with "Hydrogen can..." as this is a way to claim quite anything. This one should be rephrased.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is a hydrogen economy article... why should the renewablility of energy sources---a completely separate issue---get top billing? 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Also, the net efficiency of hydrogen as an energy carrier is lower than currently used methods, and leads to more energy waste.

This one is fundamental. The whole point of this article is to push hydrogen as an energy vector ; you have to state how it compares with other vectors.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of the article is to describe what a hydrogen economy is. Take your barrow pushing elsewhere! WP:NPOV! 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• As of 2010, the majority of hydrogen produced on earth comes from fossil fuels.

To my knowledge, it is 95% - you can put 95% if you want. A large part of the article is designed so as to make the reader believe that hydrogen could easily be a no-CO2 energy : there again, you have to face the facts.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Once more, why in the introduction? There's plenty of room to discuss the minutiae in the main body. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone comes onto this talk page and convinces me that these don't violate WP:NPOV, I'm deleting them again. All of these issues should be addressed in the article, but not in the introduction. Here's your chance people. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not convincingly. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

These are not minutiae; these are significant issues with widespread use of hydrogen as a replacement for oil. This isn't the place for advocacy; and a sincere advocate would want to address these problems instead of ignoring them. We'v got to explain to the proverbial bright 12-year-old in the opening paragraph just *why* Mummy and Daddy don't ride a hydrogen bus to work just yet (and may never).

I agree 100% that this isn't the place for advocacy. That's exactly why these sentences must go. All of these issues must be addressed, as I've said all along. The issues at hand don't tell you what "hydrogen economy" means. They're currently put up with an anti-hydrogen tone in the first paragraph. None of these issues have anything to do with why mummy and daddy don't ride hydrogen-fuelled buses to work. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The article wants restructuring; it should explain what an "energy economy" is in general terms, describe the objectives of an energy distribution system, compare the oil system with the objectives, then compare the hydrogen system with the objectives. We need a bit of description of the physical properties of hydrogen, too, since that determines the properties of much of the hardware.

Yes, let's restructure the article. Let's start with the intro. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(I suspect the future of energy distribution is going to be multifacted, with hydrogen just one string to the bow.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also suspect that hydrogen will be in the mix for geopolitical (rather than engineering or scientific) reasons. What's that quote... "Hydrogen is the least convenient and most expensive alternative to petrol," or some-such. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Nuked the most loaded sentences again. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the neutrality warning on the intro now? Any objections? 150.203.35.113 (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No-one objected, so I've removed it. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly dumb car fuel

Elon Musk called hydrogen as "an incredibly dumb car fuel". Reference: Article by Joe Romm at Think Progress 192.100.120.41 (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Efficiency As An Automotive Fuel" Section

Why does this section put the electrolysis effeciency at 70% when Thermochemical Production provides for the potential of producing hydrogen off of merely the excess heat from nuclear power plants with little to no electrical input? The article even briefly alludes to this process at one point. This is not only an efficient method of producing hydrogen, but is nearly a "free" energy source, utilizing otherwise unusable heat from the nuclear core that currently escapes untapped. (The economic efficiency therefore is extremely high, all energy transfer efficiencies aside.) How does one measure the "efficiency" of free hydrogen? If nuclear plants can produce hydrogen through Thermochemical Production as a mere byproduct of the nuclear reactor, or close to it, then efficiency becomes a nonsensical comparison altogether (when compared to batteries) because any energy left over after all the "well to wheel" inefficiencies have been taken into account is essentially free energy - because it will be there to be used whether it is or not. Does anyone catch my drift or am I blowin' at a brick wall here.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.211.28 (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Why does this section put the electrolysis effeciency at 70% when Thermochemical Production provides for the potential of producing hydrogen off of merely the excess heat from nuclear power plants with little to no electrical input? ... is nearly a "free" energy source, utilizing otherwise unusable heat from the nuclear core" Wrong. Thermolysis consumes the high-intensity heat that would otherwise be used for electric power generation. In fact, it requires abnormally intense heat, essentially mandating the use of next-gen reactors; current PWRs aren't up to the job. Generally you need gas-cooled, molten-salt, or molten-metal reactors for this. The generation of hydrogen versus electricity is an "either-or" situation, not a "both-and" situation. TNSTAAFL. -- Rei (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The picture depicting the energy efficiency is almost crude. Though the claims that a hydrogen based fuel cells are inefficient compared to direct use of electricity in cars, a more accurate description of related energy efficiencies is quoted by a Mr.Bossel at the following link. http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.4.137 (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This section is poorly conceived. I wouldn't endorse Bossel's article (he was working for a company that promotes hydrolysis and surprise suprise that turned out to be the best method of production in his analysis), but I do agree wity the above anonymous poster that there this section needs to be rationalized. First it discusses "efficiency as an automotive fuel" but fuels don't have efficiencies, only systems (e.g., vehicles) that convert fuels into other types of energy (e.g., motive power). That's semantics, I suppose. The section picks and chooses which aspects of hydrogen production transport and storage to discuss in order to make it look like a bad idea. There is one right way to do this, going back to Wang's article from 2002 that is cited elsewhere in the article and that is to consider well-to-wheels efficiency. The Wikipedia article sets this up in a nice conceptual paragraph but doesn't quite follow through. The bottom line is that given the efficiency of the FUEL CELL on board the vehicle, hydrogen (fuel cell) vehicles are more efficient well-to-wheels than anything in wide-spread use today or in demo phase like EVs. Let's pick one example of the poor reasoning in the artilce: the special pleading on behalf of Tesla: "Electric vehicles are typically 3 to 4 times more efficient than hydrogen powered vehicles" which is so ignorant because fuel cell hydrogen vehicles are in fact electric vehicles with electric motors. EVs are relatively efficient if you only consider efficiency but when you consider where the electricity came from (33 percent efficient for U.S. grid) and the 10 percent loss from the grid there are better alternatives. That's just from an efficiency standpoint--the focuse of the section. Elsewhere the article deals with other questions of feasibility (e.g., EVs have short ranges so their applicability is limited), cost and environmental impact. But that shouldn't cloud our thinking in this section.--PotomacFever (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Bossel's 2006 article is now woefully out of date, being predicated on carbon-free energy being "rare". Back then wind farms were indeed rare, and a 10 kW solar PV installation cost on the order of $100,000. Wind farms have since proliferated, solar panels are dropping below a dollar a watt, and Warren Buffett's NV Energy is paying First Solar 3.87 cents a kWh for their electricity. Coal and nuclear are both headed in the opposite direction, passing solar PV in $/kWh around 2010-2012. (Nuclear is widely believed to provide cheap electricity, but public outcry after Fukushima forced the French government to disclose all the costs of their extensive nuclear installation, which on analysis turned out to be within 20% of US$0.08/kWh with an expectation of ten cents for 2015-2020 projects, slightly more than the LCOE from coal.)

So I wouldn't take Bossel's decade-old analysis too seriously today. A lot has changed since then. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hydrogen economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dis.anl.gov/ceeesa/documents/NuclearHydrogen_ANL0530Final.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dis.anl.gov/ceeesa/programs/hydrogen_markets.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403113645/http://www.efcf.com:80/reports/ to http://www.efcf.com/reports/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hydrogen economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110702210000/http://www.bellona.org/reports/hydrogen to http://www.bellona.org/reports/hydrogen
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fz-juelich.de/scientific-report-2001/docs/patente/26_11600.pdf?web_session=e4af90eba1518be519b2c1b61fa42cfb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074743/http://www.fz-juelich.de/ief/ief-3/datapool/page/214/solar%20energy%2075%20469-478.pdf to http://www.fz-juelich.de/ief/ief-3/datapool/page/214/solar%20energy%2075%20469-478.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hyunder.eu/images/Deliverables/D3.3_Benchmarking%20of%20selected%20storage%20options.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hyunder.eu/images/Presentations%20EUSEW/2%20HyUnder%20EUSEW%20workshop%20Luis%20Correas.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118102741/http://www.naturalhy.net/docs/Naturalhy_Brochure.pdf to http://www.naturalhy.net/docs/Naturalhy_Brochure.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501193814/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/robert_boyd/story/16179.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/robert_boyd/story/16179.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721205150/http://www.hydrogenandfuelcellsafety.info/2007/jun/h2cng.asp to http://www.hydrogenandfuelcellsafety.info/2007/jun/h2cng.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224165308/http://www.global-hydrogen-bus-platform.com/index.php to http://www.global-hydrogen-bus-platform.com/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041108010448/http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf to http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.efcf.com/reports/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905135454/http://thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm to http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202130808/http://centralehydrogene.com/ to http://www.centralehydrogene.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Hydrogen economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100714141058/http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/factSheet_history.pdf to http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/factSheet_history.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101111203739/http://energy.ca.gov/distgen/equipment/fuel_cells/cost.html to http://www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/equipment/fuel_cells/cost.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125094124/http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/faqs.asp to http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/faqs.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cleanenergypartnership.de/fileadmin/pdf/Definition_of_Green_Hydrogen.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.hfpeurope.org/infotools/energyinfos__e/hydrogen/main03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322204531/http://www.grid-shift.com/white_papers/docs/3D_Water_Electrolysis_Abstract%202.htm to http://www.grid-shift.com/white_papers/docs/3D_Water_Electrolysis_Abstract%202.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150807010324/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/sci_tech/technology/AJ201508020014 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/sci_tech/technology/AJ201508020014
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://shgr.unlv.edu/stchNew/source/login.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119123638/http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/assets/documents/2008/10Things.pdf to http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/assets/documents/2008/10Things.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609041046/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/fc_types.html to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/fc_types.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527234233/http://www.ef.org/documents/NDakotaWindPower.pdf to http://www.ef.org/documents/NDakotaWindPower.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527234233/http://www.hydrogenenginecenter.com/userdocs/NRCan_Press_Release_Final_05.16.06.pdf to http://www.hydrogenenginecenter.com/userdocs/NRCan_Press_Release_Final_05.16.06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527234233/http://www.atti-info.org/HydrogenVeh/prospectus.pdf to http://www.atti-info.org/HydrogenVeh/prospectus.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080607172715/http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/ecobus/1206.asp to http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/ecobus/1206.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513030624/http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/webonly/webex710.html to http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/webonly/webex710.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513191842/http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/ammonia/index.htm to http://www.energy.iastate.edu/Renewable/ammonia/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927155111/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/cng_h2_workshop_9_chenoy.pdf to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/cng_h2_workshop_9_chenoy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100424073731/http://www.hydrogeit-verlag.de/hydrogen-society.htm to http://www.hydrogeit-verlag.de/hydrogen-society.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/energy/docs/hydrogen_synopses_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202130808/http://centralehydrogene.com/ to http://www.centralehydrogene.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Port Lincoln, South Australia planned plant

Not ready for inclusion yet, since only a proposal at this stage, but has received state government funding, so likely to go ahead: "A plan for a small hydrogen-fuelled power plant at Port Lincoln is getting funding from South Australia's renewable technology fund." "Key points:

• The project will use renewable energy and split water into hydrogen and oxygen
• Hydrogen can then be stored as a gas or liquid, or converted into ammonia
• The project includes two new power generation facilities — a 10MW gas turbine to burn hydrogen in air and a 5MW hydrogen fuel cell"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-12/hydrogen-power-plant-port-lincoln/9422022 http://reneweconomy.com.au/s-a-to-host-australias-first-green-hydrogen-power-plant-89447/ David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 02:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

no critics?

People have (politely) told the idea is stupid, and why. Even in previous version of the article, if I remember well. Somehow there is no trace here (anymore). Strange, isn't it? 15:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.168.175.234 (talk)

There is no lock on this article so feel free to add or re-add criticisms (you can see previous versions in the "history") if you have recent sources. Perhaps previous valid obstacles have been overcome. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

currently

The word "current" (the current technology) or "currently" shows up many time in the article. However, when nobody knows, when this section was written, one does not know how it looks today. Maybe the data was from 2008? Therefore we should change all the "current" into "current (2010)" or do you simply prefer "2010"? The different versions are listed here:

e.g. now: "Current best processes have an efficiency of 50% to 80%."
Version1: "Current (2010) best processes have an efficiency of 50% to 80%."
Version2: "Best processes of 2010 have an efficiency of 50% to 80%."

--Saippuakauppias ⇄ 10:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Some numbers are given for 2004-2005 which just don’t make sense: the article claims hydrogen is a 57 million tons market and is growing at 10%. Recent (2018 or so) estimates are in the range of 65M - so this seems unlikely

11M tons for US production and $135B market in 2005 make even less sense - although these seem reasonable estimates for 2018 or so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.237.68 (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Units of cost?

Could metric units such as joules or kWh be used in the "cost" section, instead of GGE which is a very strange unit for those of us who don't own cars or measure liquids in gallons.Chidgk1 (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Very poor article

This article is pretty useless. More than 3000 people a day are looking at this article, yet it is very confused and largely full of propaganda presumably by people with a vested interest in opposing a Hydrogen economy. The bulk of this article should be about what a hydrogen economy would look like and the basic science behind it, where the technology is at and then smaller sections on criticism and alternatives. At the moment its just a hodge podge of personal essays.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

agreed, feel free to correct some of the issue. Mion (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate aspect of Wikipedia. We should keep an eye on this page to keep the article within standards. --MadameArsenic (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

disagree. It is quite objective, showing the factual working, the pros and cons. 194.53.253.51 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree this post is awful. It is often linking to fuel cell related articles from a decade ago, this is a field where research is being done constantly, and many great strides have been made. It needs massive cleaning up. Connordfc (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Another to add to the "very poor" list: where, under the "synthetic methanol" header is a single mention of methanol? Also, use of statements such as "It is always possible that some kind of breakthrough in hydrogen storage or generation could occur" is incredibly empty and useless. This can be said of any field of science or engineering that the authors intend to promote or show as promising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.168.91.156 (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This sentence does not seem to make sense: "To enable the commercialization of hydrogen in consumer products, new model building codes and equipment and other technical standards are developed..." Should it be "...must be developed...", "...are being developed..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediacontributor38452 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm extremely sceptical of everything in the article and utterly unconvinced (without saying what I'm unconvinced of!) Perhaps the nature of wikipedia places limits on this kind of article that authors will always struggle with. Perhaps less 'detail' might lead to a more useful article with less claims about technology and efficiency. KISS. 78.17.209.167 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No Definition/sources don't back up definition of the article

Currently, the defines the hydrogen economy as The hydrogen economy is an envisioned future in which hydrogen is used as a fuel for heat and hydrogen vehicles, for energy storage, and for long distance transport of energy. However, if you check the sources provided, non of them provide a definition, in fact, some not even mention the hydrogen economy. They all focus on using hydrogen for certain purposes, but that's not what an hydrogen economy is and clearly doesn't define it. Please correct that and use an actual definition, as currently the definition seems to be unsourced POV. Andol (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Done - feel free to edit it yourself too.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

References

efficiency

this article says fuel cell vehicles are 2-3 times more efficient than internal combustion cars the fuel cell Wikipedia says fuel cells are 40-60% efficient the diesel engine wikipedia says diesels are 45% efficient so which of them are wrong ? 37.1.170.203 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@37.1.170.203 don't know what it said in mov 21, but now the article currently says the combination of fuel cells _and_ electric motors is 2-3 times more efficient, so above above point needs clarifying

whether clarified or not, the 2-3 times refers / context is entire vehicles, and the other point is related to engine efficiency only which are different measures. Also 45% is within the 40-60% range so without further referenced facts I would propose Wikipedia is still the best representation of facts (to the limit they are referenced) at the moment. Jsmr1971 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

fix the meaning of chemical formula sentance

could someone improve the below. As a single sentence it does not have a clear meaning, and as an English native speaker but not a Hydrogen expert it seems to have two different meanings depending on context

"(In fact 55% of the reaction CH4 + 2 H2O = 4 H2 + CO2)."

Given that the article states that 2 different processes and therefore different chemical reactions currently make up the industrial product of H2, the stated included sentence is at best unclear. Jsmr1971 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

deleted Chidgk1 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Why the color codes?

@A455bcd9 Why they're colored gives an answer to why it's relevant at all, which gives an answer to why it's pertinent for this article to have this section at all. Fephisto (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fephisto, {{why}} is to request clarification (per WP:CLARIFY). There's a field "reason" that should be filled with the "Explanation of why causal clarity is needed". You haven't done so and I see no need to clarify anything in the sentence "Hydrogen is often referred to by various colors to indicate its origin.". This sentence is clear. Reliable sources use different color names for the various sources of hydrogen and that's enough for Wikipedia. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Pipeline storage section looks like original research

Hydrogen_economy#Pipeline_storage as of 03/08/23 states:

A natural gas network may be used for the storage of hydrogen. Before switching to natural gas, the UK and German gas networks were operated using towngas, which for the most part consisted of hydrogen.

There is no reference to back up this claim. On the contrary, the linked towngas article claims 50% H2 content as common in coal gas.

Later in the section states:

The use of the existing natural gas pipelines for hydrogen was studied by NaturalHy.

However the study looked into the use of natural gas pipelines for H2 transport, not for storage purposes. Thus the usage of natrual gas pipelines for storage is not backed up by the references and looks like original research. Anttix (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the section and pasted it below. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

=== Pipeline storage === A natural gas network may be used for the storage of hydrogen. Before switching to natural gas, the UK and German gas networks were operated using towngas, which for the most part consisted of hydrogen. The storage capacity of the German natural gas network is more than 200,000 GWh which is enough for several months of energy requirement. By comparison, the capacity of all German pumped storage power plants amounts to only about 40 GW·h. Similarly UK pumped storage is far less than the gas network. The transport of energy through a gas network is done with much less loss (<0.1%) than in a power network (8%). The use of the existing natural gas pipelines for hydrogen was studied by NaturalHy. Ad van Wijk, a professor at Future Energy Systems TU Delft, also discusses the possibility of producing electricity in areas or countries with abundant sunlight (Sahara, Chile, Mexico, Namibia, Australia, New Zealand, ...) and transporting it (via ship, pipeline, ...) to the Netherlands. This being economically seen, still cheaper than producing it locally in the Netherlands. He also mentions that the energy transport capacity of gas lines are far higher than that of electricity lines coming into private houses (in the Netherlands) -30 kW vs 3 kW-.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Rewrite of lead section

Hi everyone. I just did a major rewrite of the lead section, so I am pasting the previous version below for reference. If I missed anything important, please let me know or just put it back in. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The hydrogen economy uses hydrogen to decarbonize economic sectors which are hard to electrify, essentially, the "hard-to-abate" sectors such as cement, steel, long-haul transport, etc. In order to phase out fossil fuels and limit climate change, hydrogen can be created from water using renewable sources such as wind and solar, and its combustion only releases water vapor into the atmosphere.

Although with a very low volumetric energy density hydrogen is an energetic fuel, frequently used as rocket fuel, but numerous technical challenges prevent the creation of a large-scale hydrogen economy. These include the difficulty of developing long-term storage, pipelines, and engine equipment; a relative lack of off-the-shelf engine technology that can currently run safely on hydrogen; safety concerns regarding the high reactivity of hydrogen fuel with oxygen in ambient air; the expense of producing it by electrolysis; and a lack of efficient photochemical water splitting technology. Hydrogen can also react in a fuel cell, which efficiently produces electricity in a process that is the reverse of the electrolysis of water. The hydrogen economy is nevertheless slowly developing as a small part of the low-carbon economy. As of 2019, almost all (95%) of the world's 70 million tons of hydrogen consumed yearly in industrial processing, significantly in fertilizer for 45% of the world's food, are produced by steam methane reforming (SMR) that also releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

A possible less-polluting alternative is the newer technology of methane pyrolysis, though SMR with carbon capture and storage (CCS) may also greatly reduce carbon emissions. Small amounts of hydrogen (5%) are produced by the dedicated production of hydrogen from water, usually as a byproduct of the process of generating chlorine from seawater. As of 2018 there is not enough cheap clean electricity (renewable and nuclear) for this hydrogen to become a significant part of the low-carbon economy, and carbon dioxide is a by-product of the SMR process, but it can be captured and stored.

The idea of hydrogen economy has been heavily criticized from the moment it was proposed. The main issues with the H2E scenario are as follows:

1. The human civilization does not have a clean, energy-efficient and low-cost source of H₂. The current production methods either produce a large amount of carbon dioxide per kW than direct burning of coal, or are more expensive or are less energy efficient.
2. Storage of H₂ within a transportation vehicle for its own motive power faces cost and safety issues.
3. Conversion of H₂ into electricity in fuel cells have a low (ca. 60%) energy efficiency, with issues of durability and cost remaining unresolved.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Content cut from Transport section

I removed the following as it is unsourced, poorly-sourced (Honda), or excessively detailed:

Hydrogen gas must be distinguished as "technical-grade" (five nines pure, 99.999%) produced by methane pyrolysis or electrolysis, which is suitable for applications such as fuel cells, and "commercial-grade", which has carbon- and sulfur-containing impurities, but which can be produced by the slightly cheaper steam-reformation process that releases carbon dioxide greenhouse gas. Fuel cells require high-purity hydrogen because the impurities would quickly degrade the life of the fuel cell stack.

The combination of the fuel cell and electric motor is 2-3 times more efficient than an internal-combustion engine. Capital costs of fuel cells have reduced significantly over recent years, with a modeled cost of $50/kW cited by the Department of Energy.

Other fuel cell technologies based on the exchange of metal ions (e.g. zinc–air fuel cells) are typically more efficient at energy conversion than hydrogen fuel cells, but the widespread use of any electrical energy → chemical energy → electrical energy systems would necessitate the production of electricity. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Hydrogen fuel into Hydrogen economy, for the following reasons:

• Hydrogen fuel is hydrogen. Everything we say about how "hydrogen fuel" is produced, stored, transported, and priced applies to hydrogen that goes into making fertilizer (for context, currently far more hydrogen is used as a fertilizer reagent than in any usage related to energy). There is nothing in the Hydrogen fuel article that shouldn't be covered in Hydrogen economy. We are just duplicating effort by trying to maintain two articles.
• The quality of the Hydrogen fuel article is very concerning to me. In the current version, the first sentence of the lead is wrong: When used in a fuel cell, hydrogen is not burned.[20] When hydrogen is burned, it is almost always burned with atmospheric gases and not with pure oxygen.[21] The last sentence of the lead ("The fuel technology has seen awakened interest from automakers who claim it is comparatively cheap and safer to incorporate into the modern vehicle architecture over recent challenges faced by electric vehicle makers.) is pure industry hype and at odds with high-quality independent sources. The second sentence of the lead is correct less than 1% of the time. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Merge Yes there seems to be an awful lot of overlap Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for revision work and what remains to be done?

Thank you to Clayoquot plus the other editors for making this article so much better through your revision work from September onwards! Much appreciated. How would you characterise the quality of the article now, are there still problem areas that need addressing or would you say it's pretty much "done" for now? Any remaining weaknesses? What's the reading ease like in your opinion, is some work needed in that regard to improve readability? And some more images maybe? EMsmile (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for giving it attention yourself! It's nice to be asked what else needs to be done. I might have some thoughts in the new year. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Section that is unsourced: a key tradeoff

This entire section has no sources. A chunk of it was added in 2007 in this edit. I wonder if this text is any good (in which case sources should be found) or if it should be taken out?

"A key tradeoff: centralized vs. distributed production

In a future full hydrogen economy, primary energy sources and feedstock would be used to produce hydrogen gas as stored energy for use in various sectors of the economy. Producing hydrogen from primary energy sources other than coal and oil would result in lower production of the greenhouse gases characteristic of the combustion of coal and oil fossil energy resources. The importance of non-polluting methane pyrolysis of natural gas is becoming a recognized method for using current natural gas infrastructure investment to produce hydrogen and no greenhouse gas.

One key feature of a hydrogen economy would be that in mobile applications (primarily vehicular transport) energy generation and use could be decoupled. The primary energy source would need no longer travel with the vehicle, as it currently does with hydrocarbon fuels. Instead of tailpipes creating dispersed emissions, the energy (and pollution) could be generated from point sources such as large-scale, centralized facilities with improved efficiency. This would allow the possibility of technologies such as carbon sequestration, which are otherwise impossible for mobile applications. Alternatively, distributed energy generation schemes (such as small scale renewable energy sources) could be used, possibly associated with hydrogen stations.

Aside from the energy generation, hydrogen production could be centralized, distributed or a mixture of both. While generating hydrogen at centralized primary energy plants promises higher hydrogen production efficiency, difficulties in high-volume, long range hydrogen transportation (due to factors such as hydrogen damage and the ease of hydrogen diffusion through solid materials) makes electrical energy distribution attractive within a hydrogen economy.

In such a scenario, small regional plants or even local filling stations could generate hydrogen using energy provided through the electrical distribution grid or methane pyrolysis of natural gas. While hydrogen generation efficiency is likely to be lower than for centralized hydrogen generation, losses in hydrogen transport could make such a scheme more efficient in terms of the primary energy used per kilogram of hydrogen delivered to the end user.

The proper balance between hydrogen distribution, long-distance electrical distribution and destination converted pyrolysis of natural gas is one of the primary questions that arises about the hydrogen economy.

Again the dilemmas of production sources and transportation of hydrogen can now be overcome using on site (home, business, or fuel station) generation of hydrogen from off grid renewable sources." EMsmile (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for taking it out! Thanks for flagging this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, great, I've deleted that section now. EMsmile (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that current title is sufficient and proposed title is too broad. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Hydrogen economy → Uses of hydrogen – Easier to understand Chidgk1 (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as the scope of the article is more expansive than the proposed title. ― Synpath 05:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting reason - could you explain in a few words which parts of the current article are both up to date and outside the scope of the proposed title? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Essentially any parts of this article not touched upon in Hydrogen#Applications, which would be the history of the term, markets, production, infrastructure, costs, pilot programs. My thoughts align with EMsmile and Wikipedialuva below. ― Synpath 17:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Mild oppose: It seems to me that the most commonly used term (in the media?) is "hydrogen economy". Would "Uses" include production of it as well as financial aspects, policies, subsidies etc.? EMsmile (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  We already have a whole article on Hydrogen production so production subsidies could go in there. I cannot find anything about consumption subsidies in this article.

  As for policy there is already an article on United States hydrogen policy and I cannot find any other mention of policy in this article.

  It is true there is a section on costs here but I think that is about cost of production rather than say transport? So that could be moved to the production article.

  However if you or @Synpath are thinking of adding more on financial aspects, policy and subsidies to this article I could reconsider. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we should rather add to this article so that it becomes the overarching high level article (and then, if needed, split off a sub-article for the details of hydrogen uses?). If not, which existing article would you say should be the high level article that pulls everything together? I thought it was this one. EMsmile (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I see @Wikipedialuva who created the article back in 2004 is still active, so it would be good to hear their opinion. I guess 20 years ago it was unclear how much decarbonization would be by electrification and how much by hydrogen. So at that time the title was perfectly fine. But now it is obvious that electricity will do most decarbonization I think the term “hydrogen economy” has become obsolete. However there are still some essential things that electricity cannot do at reasonable cost. So I think the title I propose will allow the reader to focus on those. So I am not sure that a high-level article makes sense nowadays. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chidgk1! Are you sure you meant me? I didn't create my account until 2006, and I don't recall creating this article. From what I can see in the page log, Leonard G. created the article, but they haven't been active since October 2020. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

duh yes sorry you are not so old - I mixed up latest editor with page creator - still would like your view though Chidgk1 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: No worries! To be clear, I was just doing copy editing using AutoWikiBroswer, not making substantial edits to the article. I don't have any special knowledge on this matter. To your question, I can see both sides of being both for and against. While I think the proposed move is fine, this also depends on whether the article's content and scope are broadened or narrowed per what EMsmile was discussing. It sounds like, for right now, before a decision on whether a move should be made, it needs to be decided/clarified what the article's content and scope are going to cover. I don't have strong opinions on the matter either way. Does this answer your question? Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I would opt for a broad scope article but I agree that "hydrogen economy" is perhaps too unclear. Maybe something like hydrogen for climate change mitigation? EMsmile (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

For brainstorming purposes, these are the terms that redirect to here:

• Hydrogen fuel (redirect to section "Use as an energy carrier") ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen Economy (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen energy (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen power (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Chemical hydrogen storage (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Alternatives to the hydrogen economy (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen revolution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen society (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen as a fuel (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen energy plant in denmark (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen as fuel (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Renewable hydrogen (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen-fuelled (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen-fuel (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• European Clean Hydrogen Alliance (redirect to section "Examples and pilot programs") ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen well (redirect to section "hydrogen well") ‎ (links | edit) EMsmile (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm sympathetic to trying to use plainer language but overall I see more downsides than upsides. Our convention to use singular noun forms has the benefit of keeping articles focused on a topic rather than letting articles devolve into lists. An article titled "Uses of hydrogen" would probably attract more edits of the "here's another use someone created for hydrogen as reported in my local newspaper" variety, which are not helpful. I also oppose "Hydrogen for climate change mitigation" as it sounds more like the title of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. But I still wonder if - with some more brainstorming - we could come up with a short snappy title that is clearer than "hydrogen economy" (unless this is really the term that everyone uses, as per W:COMMONNAME?). I noticed that the short description says "Using hydrogen to decarbonize sectors which are hard to electrify". Does that give us any clues? Another thought is that perhaps a hatnote would help to address Chidgk1's concern that the title is too inaccessible. EMsmile (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excerpt storage?

There is a lot of detail here so how about I move the storage info to Hydrogen storage and excerpt back the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your approach. Might have to improve the lead of Hydrogen storage first to ensure it's a good summary of the article? It seems a bit short to me at first glance. But doable. EMsmile (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead of Hydrogen storage is currently not a well-rounded overview of the topic, it has a citation needed tag, and it has zero references. It needs to get a lot better before we consider spreading it around to more articles. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Excerpt infrastructure?

The section has some detail so how about I move it to Hydrogen infrastructure and excerpt back the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As above, if/when the lead of Hydrogen infrastructure is improved it will be easier to say yes to this. Feel free to remove detail that doesn't belong here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)