re: Battery power will NEVER do what Hydrogen can

Pretty much all of the problems with hydrogen as a large scale fuel source (combustion or fuel cells) stem from two issues:

1. The energy density of hydrogen gas is too low compared to other fuel sources. The specific energy (per unit mass) of hydrogen is really high, but the energy density (per unit volume) makes it difficult to use in real world applications that require portable fuel.

Even compared to liquid hydrogen, which is the best case scenario but requires cryogenic storage, gasoline and diesel contain about 4x the energy per unit volume. LNG contains about 2.5x the energy by volume and can be stored at higher (but still cryogenic) temperatures.

2. Despite being the most abundant element in the universe, we don’t have a way to produce or “refine” hydrogen gas in a way that provides a net-positive amount of energy. In other words, we expend more energy creating the hydrogen gas than we can extract from that gas via oxidation.

Oil and natural gas require energy to be converted into usable fuels as well, but the heating value of the fuel is greater than the energy we expend to create it. (Side note - over a long enough timeline this becomes false due to the amount of energy required to actually create oil and gas in the first place. But that’s obviously why it’s considered “non renewable.”)

So basically hydrogen as a fuel source only becomes economically viable on a large scale when you have an abundance of cheap energy but need a way to store it. For example, hydrogen might turn out to be a great solution for storing energy produced by “unreliable” renewable sources such as wind and solar. Alternatively, if we ever figure out how to build a practical fusion generator then hydrogen will likely become our primary fuel source globally.. but then this entire discussion will seem a bit silly anyway.

Problem is that maybe one other poster on this thread knows anything about hydrogen more than what they have googled. Which means they still know nothing.

Wind/solar is plentiful where there is no water.

quote:

---

As of now, hydrogen in industrial quantities is a byproduct of oil refining, olefins and chlorine production.

---

False. We do get some H2 from those resources but 90% of the H2 in our worlds largest H2 pipeline is made from cracking natural gas in steam methane reformers. That's fact. I work for the company and have for 23 years.

quote:

---

Demolish the Hindenburg in a catastrophic explosion?

---

It didn't explode per se, it simply recycled itself in instantaneous fashion.

Then I stand corrected - thanks.

I'm curious - what is the hydrogen your company makes used for?

There are an awful lot of companies and countries that disagree with you for some reason. People like Rolls Royce,Air Products, Siemens,Chevron, Exxon, BWM, Audi, Mercedes Benz, and many others evidently don't think the technology isn't viable.

China, India, Australia..The Saudis..there must be something to it.

quote:

---

Converting hydrogen is much less efficient than a pure electric battery.
Hydrogen conversion\fuel cells are much bulkier, more expensive, and less efficient. Some EVs will be out this year with 500 mile ranges, and it’s infrastructure and tech is budding quickly. Comparing hydrogen to EV regarding personal usage the power grid requirements and practicality means hydrogen will have a lot of ground to make up. That’s not to say electric doesn’t have its cons, but it’s more user friendly.

In the near to mid future EVs will continue to dominate. Especially for personal use, hydrogen is just much less practical. Commercially for 18 wheelers and large businesses hydrogen may make more sense but it won’t overtake EV for personal use without some seriously disproportionate tech advances over EV.

---

As a hydrogenologist, I agree with this

quote:

---

but I bet if you figured a cheap way to separate H2O you could end up with a metric shite pile of it

---

You have to get a cryogenic H2O separater but they are expensive

One thing you have to overcome for EV is charging time. People don't have 20 -30 minutes or even longer per vehicle and can you imagine the wait at the "pump" so to speak? Not to mention you're going to have to produce a LOT of additional power for all those vehicles. And producing that power? How are you going to do it?

You'll never have battery powered aircraft, unlikely heavy trucks or ships, buses, heavy equipment or the like will ever be practical. But they are with hydrogen or ammonia.

EV's haven't taken over have they? The cost has to come down, and some hurdles have to be overcome. But it shows promise, and it has a place.

You want green? This stuff is as green as it gets.