Remember the hydrogen car?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by solarguy

If you look at where the hydrogen -must- come from, it quickly becomes apparent that the so-called hydrogen economy will never take off.

Agreed. The cheapest way to make hydrogen is from natural gas and that gives you a negative net accomplishment.

Originally Posted by solarguy

If we eventually build enough wind and solar pv to make almost free electricity/hydrogen from electrolysis, it would still be more efficient to use batteries to store and use the electricity, rather than hydrogen.

It is just enormously difficult to store hydrogen at even decent energy densities.

Yes best thing to do with expanded wind and solar capacity that comes on line is just to use it as grid power. Replace the coal and natural gas being used to generate power.
Save the coal for making steel and concrete and the natural gas for heating and motor fuel.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by Vakarian

A decade ago, President George W. Bush espoused the environmental promise of cars running on hydrogen, the universe’s most abundant element. “The first car driven by a child born today,” he said in his 2003 State of the Union speech, “could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.”

It was a red herring a decade ago, it's a red herring now. Hydrogen is not the fuel of the future, it is not pollution free. It takes too much energy to create an impractical fuel that is difficult to store.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by darcane

It was a red herring a decade ago, it's a red herring now. Hydrogen is not the fuel of the future, it is not pollution free. It takes too much energy to create an impractical fuel that is difficult to store.

. . . today and yesterday. But, it is hubris to assume you will be correct in the future.

I can envision a scenario or two where cheap electrical power allows the production of hydrogen as a means of stored energy. This may not occur in our lifetimes, but it is still worth the research. As far as the ramrodding of H2 tech on the general populace today, I agree, it is wasteful. However, research needs to be done so as to provide a basis for future decisions.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I can envision a scenario or two where cheap electrical power allows the production of hydrogen as a means of stored energy.

The real problem, though (and I'm not the first to point this out) is not the production of hydrogen, it's transport and storage. To get anything like a useful amount, you have to either compress it to extreme pressure, or liquify it. Both of those take lots of energy, which is not recovered in use.

To add to the problems, pressurized hydrogen diffuses into, and through, almost anything, often causing hydrogen embrittlement on the way. Liquid hydrogen needs continual refrigeration, or it evaporates.

[UltArc]

I am all for hydrogen- but I've always wondered, are we talking tritium? Or protium or deuterium?

And seriously, what other method is there for us to maintain a life anything like today with any other source? With the waste of batteries, and the ability to use the sun and wind for power to make (though we will still need some batteries there) hydrogen, it seems like a non starter. Yes, batteries work- but it is a crutch, not a cure.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Using solar to make hydrogen is one of the worst ideas in the history of ideas.

Better than HHO?

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

The real problem, though (and I'm not the first to point this out) is not the production of hydrogen, it's transport and storage. To get anything like a useful amount, you have to either compress it to extreme pressure, or liquify it. Both of those take lots of energy, which is not recovered in use.

To add to the problems, pressurized hydrogen diffuses into, and through, almost anything, often causing hydrogen embrittlement on the way. Liquid hydrogen needs continual refrigeration, or it evaporates.

Yes, you can compress and liquify it, or you can entrap it in absorptive hydride storage schemes, but my favorite is the simple expedient of bonding with carbon. Yes, synthetic hydrocarbons. Methane being the simplest. Transport and storage becomes trivial since we already handle those compounds. And yes, you can use carbon from the biosphere to mitigate global warming. With a hydrocarbon, you now have more energy potential when you use the fuel in a solid oxide fuel cell or in the up and coming enzymatic fuel cells.

I am certain there are other storage/transport schemes in hidden laboratories. We will have to see what the future reveals. But there is no reason to abandon hydrocarbons as our transport and storage energy carrier.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by UltArc

I am all for hydrogen- but I've always wondered, are we talking tritium? Or protium or deuterium?

And seriously, what other method is there for us to maintain a life anything like today with any other source? With the waste of batteries, and the ability to use the sun and wind for power to make (though we will still need some batteries there) hydrogen, it seems like a non starter. Yes, batteries work- but it is a crutch, not a cure.

And it is there for our use except for the knee jerk reactionaries who have washed their hands of all nuclear power and because our leaders have dumped billions into fusion research.

Our current nuclear power plants were largely based on the need for the militarily important byproduct of plutonium. With the need of that end use pretty much dissolved, other more useful nuclear power schemes become viable. My favorite is thorium powered reactors. Look up Kirk Sorensen on YouTube for a quick overview. It seems like a no-brainer but public acceptance is always going to be a quagmire when it comes to nuclear power considering the lack of effort most people put into understanding our options.

A thorium based energy economy would allow us a few hundred, if not thousands of years, to get fusion right.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

. . . today and yesterday. But, it is hubris to assume you will be correct in the future.

I can envision a scenario or two where cheap electrical power allows the production of hydrogen as a means of stored energy. This may not occur in our lifetimes, but it is still worth the research. As far as the ramrodding of H2 tech on the general populace today, I agree, it is wasteful. However, research needs to be done so as to provide a basis for future decisions.

I can't.

Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors could easily power all our electrical needs. Using electrical power, fuels could be generated to power cars (or for short range, just use batteries). But why pick hydrogen which is unstable and difficult to store? Hydrocarbon fuels (propane maybe?) or an alcohol would make much more sense as a storage medium.

Hydrogen will not be widely used as a fuel.

[adam728]

Originally Posted by Sven7

Since when are expensive, leased hydrogen cars news?

I know!

I saw the Toyota story on the news earlier this week, and all I kept thinking was "Did everyone forget that Honda already did this?" A little Google-fu shows the FCX Clarity was available from 2008 until earlier this year. The only thing Toyota is doing differently is selling the Mirai, not just leasing it.