Talk:Hydrogen fuel

Transport

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

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

Truth is commercial quantities of hydrogen can be economically produced anywhere natural gas is available. The technology is now available to produce commerical quantities of hydrogen at every filling station that has natural gas with a minimal investment in equipment that would cost consumers less than $3.00 for an equivalent quantity of a gallon of gasoline. So there really is no need to transport hydrogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.178.250 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Energy

I came here looking for the data about energy released from hydrogen combustion (to compare with some others) and couldnt find it. In the oxyhydrogen flame page they state the Kj per mole, but that article is centered on a precise topic. I was expecting at least, the amount of energy released per mole and thus per Kg of hydrogen, ideally with the complete calculation, which is pretty straitforward, as you need the balanced stochiometric reaction equation, and then you calculate the net energy from the bond energies, adding the destroyed bonds and substracting the newly formed ones. If I dont do the edit, please consider adding this data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.115.177.147 (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I came here looking for the same. The article seems rather muddled with a lot of it written more journalistically than technically.Lkingscott (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

in need of rewrite

this stuff doesn't sound like wikipedia...

i'll get to rewriting this stuff soon

PeregrineAY 05:25, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

1. On methane - "However, this reaction causes a side production of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, which are greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming.[1]" Well, so is methane. This is just a sniping point that doesn't wash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.164.2 (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This article should be a redirect to Hydrogen economy

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

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

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

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

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

I notice that nearly this entire group of articles seems to be heavily biased toward hydrogen's roll in the Green Energies movement. I would be much happier if it were presented just like any other Engineering topic. A good example would be the Oxyhydrogen flame article which is linked here.

More candidly, I'm getting a little tired of the 'issues' obscuring the simple science in so many different fields here on Wikipedia. I feel that articles about Hydrogen as a 'green' energy should be separate from the main thread, as the side issue that they represent. The main thread should NOT be written by anyone but a thermodynamic engineer. I want to check or learn simple facts about the practical applications of a technology. I'm barely interested in the whatever politics or social movements or applications may have attached themselves to a given technology, (justly or otherwise). Could we please try to keep sociology and hard science separate, with a sideline for where they inevitably overlap? End of soapbox. Ernest R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.128.130 (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To do

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

Stub?

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

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

This article worries me too - there's more info at Hydrogen and at Hydrogen economy, which the reader isn't going to be directed to very clearly. Also the lead isn't a proper lead, and no references for most of the article. PamD (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The article is very short and should be added onto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.250.8 (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Internal combustion vs fuel cell

This article seems to miss very important aspects of "Hydrogen energy". Focusing on classical combustion and stating that smaller devices can be powered by fuel cells completely omits the existence of renewable hydrogen community powering systems, whereby the excess energy produced by renewable energy sources is stored as hydrogen and released back to the grid upon need thanks to massive fuel cell systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Dziedzic (talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hydrogen can also be burnt in Stirling engines. Either direct drive of the wheels or by conversion to electricity.

Boil off of liquid hydrogen is a major problem. It may be impractical to solve for cars but trains and aircraft can overcome it by refueling every day.

The Reaction Engines Scimitar is an example of an aircraft engine that burns hydrogen.

Sea going ships cannot refuel every day but they can carry high power refrigeration equipment. Andrew Swallow (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hydrogen in the atmosphere

As an atmospheric chemist, I object to the sentence "Since hydrogen gas is so light, it rises in the atmosphere and is therefore rarely found in its pure form, H2.[1] ". The background atmosphere generally contains about 550 ppb H2. Loss through gravitational separation is NOT a significant loss process for H2; the main loss processes are uptake by the soils and oxidation by atmospheric oxidants. See for example this review article for an overview of the processes that are important: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00416.x/abstract.

Gravitational settling of gases rarely plays an important role in the atmosphere, since the atmosphere is too well-mixed for that. "Heavy" CFC gases do not remain at the Earth's surface either. Atmospheric escape only takes place in the highest atmospheric layers. (Anneke Batenburg) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.228.180 (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

new sections

hydrogen chemistry and production needs to be separated pls. Mion (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Added Sources

Added sources from LSU databases: , , ,

WTR.Monkey (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Energy released

The article definitely needs energy released per mole of hydrogen, both by combustion or when it's allowed to react galvanically. Hydrogen fuel isn't just combustion but it seems this article fails to address that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purgatoryoflife (talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ditto! I came here looking for this.Lkingscott (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hydrogen fuel

Does hydrogen fuel cause pollution and if then which Ayushnikhara (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Presumably ICE vehicles would have to meet Euro 7 NOx limits - https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/eu-commission-euro-7-and-VI-may2021.pdf - if anyone has more info please add Chidgk1 (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a very wide ranging question.

If you are talking about its production, then it depends how it is produced. E.g. steam cracking of methane produces CO2 pollution. Electrolysis of water is probably pollution free, but chemicals may be needed in the water for the electrolysis and also depending on the source of the electricity. Plasma cracking of methane is potentially clean and the carbon produced has potential commercial uses. However methane from fossil sources could cause pollution due to aquifer contamination, drilling chemicals, well chemical leaks into the sea, etc...

If you are talking about its use, then it depends how it is used as a fuel. I.e. burning in an internal combustion engine has the possibility of generating NOX emissions.

In a fuel cell no direct emissions will be produced, but chemicals may be needed in the cell, etc.

If it is simply burnt directly for heating, it is unlikely to produce any identifiable pollution.

Hydrogen is also a potentially good option to replace coal for iron ore smelting. Iron ore will have impurities which may cause pollution during the smelting process.

Etc...

Lkingscott (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Bio diesel

What is bio diesel 2409:4042:E8D:209A:0:0:234B:D212 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Bio Diesel has nothing to do with Hydrogen fuel. Why ask about it here? There are plenty of articles about it if you use your favourite search engine. FYI Bio Diesel is just a type of hydrocarbon Diesel made from biological sources rather than fossil sources.Lkingscott (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)