Survey: Is There A Role For Hydrogen?

The questions asked about H2 and You are leading and skew the realities of hydrogen and fuel cell systems. I suggest these revisions:

Question 1 should read: "Though hydrogen fuel cell energy production is currently in use, mainly in stationary applications, it needs greater market support in order to be a ubiquitous technology. I want to see more of it."

Question 2 should read: "Hydrogen is a much cleaner energy carrier than gasoline or coal. Educating the public regarding the facts about hydrogen will promote a greater role for this important clean energy product."

Question 3 should read: "Hydrogen is usually made from natural gas in most cases today, but first-generation water electrolysis systems are up and running. Good news: natural gas-fuel cell energy production provides part of the 24/7 all-weather replacement technology for coal and nuke systems, along with large batteries, and with Smart Grid technology if forms a much cleaner solution to the systems at hand.

Hydrogen can be produced from agricultural waste through anaerobic digester gas and convert a lot of our landfill stuff into this zero emission fuel (zero emission at point of use) into other waste-to-energy processes like plasma and pyrolysis. Hydrogen production via algae; from sea water in a post-desalination process powered both by large fuel cells, solar and wind, are other means of getting the gas. This waste-to-energy takes off from biofuels but replaces the bad word ethanol (at least corn-based) with opportunity fuels that include waste-to-energy hydrogen. Considering hydrogen can be injected into the current natural gas pipeline system and provides a major stationary power solution, we should be taking another look at hydrogen and fuel cells today.

The auto manufacturers are have a hard time with their technology portfolios. Let's focus on utility-scale issues and the infrastructure for H2 and plug-in/H2 vehicles will follow. Taking another look at our opposition to hydrogen using current data and technologies may be a good prescription to our energy and climate change woes."

Grant:

1) Greater market support? Which products are you talking about? What hydrogen (from where?) are you going to use? The only opportunity hydrogen I am aware of is from chemical processes (notably chlor-alkali process) but even these plants have problems supplying hydrogen clean enough for low temperature fuel cells.

2) Gasoline and Coal are primary energy sources. They are potential chemical energy that you dig or pump out of the ground. There are not hydrogen wells; you have to use energy to MAKE it. What is your primary energy source for all of this H2. If you say "solar", why would you not use the solar to displace existing coal generation. We hardly have a surplus of renewable generation and we are nowhere near the limit of controllability of non-dispatchable energy on the grid.

3) the commodity prices of natural gas over the last decade have made it clear that you can't run everything on gas, let alone use the gas to make hydrogen to make electricity (all of these conversions cost energy).

You have to start with energy to get hydrogen. The primary energy is the problem, and the misconception that you can magically make energy by cracking water must be frustrating to every engineer and physicist that hears this line of reasoning. Explain to me a way that you can make hydrogen an energy carrier that doesn't carry HEAVY conversion, transportation, compression, and leakage losses and you could start to convince me that it makes sense.

Hydrogen is great - for Oil companies.

They are producing this energy-inefficient fuel to distract attention off of Lithium battery vehicles, which are very close to being perfected, with fast recharging being developed, and much less energy use.

They oil companies are subsidization the million plus dollar cars, giving them out for free.

Battery cars if mass produced would be cheaper than internal combustion cars, and would cost the driver hardly anything and use less energy to go the same distance than hydrogen.

Not to mention the technology is here for batteries.

With Hydrogen, Big Oil can continue their inflated false pricing, and continue to control us everytime we go to the pump whether for oil or hydrogen.

A major problem with the hydrogen economy is that hydrogen leaks out of any metal container. Perhaps the latest technology can prevent that. It also takes considerable energy to refine it from whatever source, or requires a non-renewable source such as methane to create it, and has a low energy density unless highly compressed or kept at extremely low temperatures.

The choices for question 1 are limited. My response would be:

Yes, hydrogen is the perfect choice for applications where liquid or gaseous energy are needed, including vehicular transportation. This recognizes the fact that like electricity, hydrogen is an energy carrier. To maximize the benefits, both hydrogen and electricity should be produced from sources that are clean as is practical.

Systemic Efficiency

H2 via electrolysis theory 50% practice 25%
H2 turbine theory 40% ICE practice 25%
Transmission CVT theory 95% auto practice 80%

H2 in theory 19% in practice 5%

Contrary to popular claims even pure H2 engines produce corrosive polutants like NO3 & H2O2 because the air is not pure O2 and the combustion is not perfect.

capacitor record 99.9% lead acid battery 90%
electric motor record 99.5% production 90%
no transmission needed, regen breaking too

existing records 99% in existing practice 80%

The all electric system also has less parts, less things to go wrong, easier repairs when something does and less noise and polution. In short, even if we insisted on burning oil to generate electricity, we'd still be better off with electric cars for commuters.

Long range trucks are harder but are big enough for natural gas fuel cells or microturbines with electric drive. If this seems outlandish, look up how modern diesel-electric trains work and why.