Re: Low Cost Hydrogen is here to stay

Don gave a reference to a web page that purported to show hydrogen
ain't gonna happen. So, I went to take a look at it. Here it is;

SUMMARY OF MY CONCLUSION AFTER READING THIS - Don, save yourself some
embarassment, TAKE THIS PAGE DOWN - or at least update it to reflect
current state of the art! Jesus Christ! You should be ashamed of
yourself. I never really read this before because I figured Don had
made some decent points and didn't need me to look at them. But now
that I've read this piece of trash - You're worse than Brad Guth you
idiot! lol. What a disgusting insane illogical and above all
DISHONEST rant! Take this page down, never refer to it again- you
should be ashamed of yourself you freaking ***. lol


* * *

This library page holds a collection of hydrogen energy resources.

But please do NOT call Hydrogen a fuel. Hydrogen is only an energy
transport media. It is incapable of delivering net on-the-books BTU's
of energy. Just as with a flywheel or lead acid, you'll first have to
fill
hydrogen with energy before you can empty it.


* * *

Okay, well this is an interesting statement. While it is quite true
that free hydrogen isn't found naturally on Earth it does not
logically follow that we cannot call hydrogen a fuel. That's because
the definition of the word 'fuel' is something consumed to produce
energy. And guess what? If you have a quantity of free hydrogen you
can produce energy with it! haha.. just like oil, coal or natural
gas.

Now, one MIGHT foolishly object and say that oil coal and natural gas
occur naturally on the Earth and hydrogen does not. And this web page
below makes similar statements. So, you have to EXPEND energy to MAKE
hydrogen from something that is NOT hydrogen. Alright. But that
affect hydrogen's status as a FUEL! If you want to say water isn't a
fuel, I'll have to agree with you. But go to the trouble of breaking
water down into its component parts and retain the hydrogen, you've
got a fuel - no matter how much energy it cost you.

After all, hydrogen exists in abundance on Jupiter. Does that make
hydrogen a fuel there and NOT a fuel if you manage to get some on
Earth? What use is a definition so lame that it depends what planet
you're on. Can you light a big fire on Jupiter using hydrogen? No.
Why? There's not enough OXYGEN! haha.. So, are we going to say
because no free oxygen exists on Jupiter that hydrogen isn't a fuel or
oxygen isn't an oxidizer there? If so, what of Titan? There's
methane seas all over the place there, and they don't burn because
there's no oxygen. Does that make methane not a fuel? See how
ludicrous this whole thing is.

Obviously the writer is confused about what a thing IS because of its
history. Besides, the same objections can be made about coal oil or
natural gas. Because, these things are inefficiently and randomly
accumulated over millions of years by the action of sunlight on
biology. Yet when we find these thing in the environment, we call
them fuels BECAUSE THEY PRODUCE ENERGY WHEN CONSUMED, JUST LIKE
HYDROGEN (when you can find it or make it)

So, there's no logical reason NOT to call elemental hydrogen a fuel.
Its pedigree and history or how you get it in the first place or how
efficient or inefficient is is don't enter into it. In fact hydrogen
is one of the best fuels there is by many measures. Take its
combustion characteristics for example. Its upper and lower explosive
range spans all other fuels, so you can burn hydrogen in nearly any
burner or engine that burns other fuels. Take its specific energy
content, a ton of hydrogen in terms of energy equals 6.2 tons of coal,
or 23 barrels of oil, or 2.55 tons of natural gas. NOT calling
hydrogen a fuel just because major multi-national energy companies
can't claim ownership of it isn't a good way to define the meaning of
a fuel.

* * *

Naturally, no non-nuclear means is known to make terrestrial hydrogen
that does not consume considerably more energy than it delivers.

* *

This is an interesting statement. It wrongly suggests that making
hydrogen requires nuclear reactors and that consuming more energy than
is released makes something uneconomic. What utter bull***.

First off, there are lots of ways to make hydrogen, some of them
chemical, some of them using conventional carbon fuels, some of them
electrical, some of them thermal, and some of them using light. None
of them PRINCIPALLY use nuclear energy. So, what is writer going on
about? haha.. First, they wrongly suggest that hydrogen isn't a
fuel, NOW they wrongly suggest hydrogen REQUIRES NUCLEAR REACTORS AS A
MATTER OF PRINCIPLE!

Again, this is just as ludicrous an idea as the one hydrogen isn't a
fuel. Its so ludicrous in fact I wonder what the hell the writer was
going on about. And I guess the only way this statement about nuclear
means makes sense is if you remember that the sun is powered by a
nucler fusion reaction. Its not a reactor in a conventional sense -
since its natural - so they use the weasel word 'means' - so this
might be what they mean. Who knows? But if that's the case they're
worse than idiots, because NO CHEMICAL FUEL can then be made by
nuclear means. That is, I CHALLENGE THE WRITER OF THIS DRIVEL TO NAME
A FUEL THAT IS NOT MADE BY NUCLEAR MEANS - just to get at the root of
it. After all, coal oil and natural gas is derived from the decay and
organic matter over geological times. That organic matter wouldn't
exist without sunlight. Sunlight is a 'nuclear means' and so, one
could say by THIS demented logic that coal oil and natural gas were
derived by nuclear means. SO WHAT'S THE POINT IN SINGLING OUT
HYDROGEN? It doesn't make much sense and isn't very useful in
analyzing our energy choices on this planet does it? Utter bull***.

Then for good measure the writer adds - no way is known to make
terrestrial hydrogen that does not consume considerably more energy
than it delivers. So? NO way is known to make coal easily, IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE OIL WITHOUT HYDROGEN, and IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE
NATURAL GAS WITHOUT HYDROGEN. Nature made coal oil and natural gas
over geological times from organic material. And guess what?
CONSIDERABLY MORE ENERGY WAS CONSUMED MAKING THESE PRODUCTS THAN IS
DELIVERED BY THE FUEL!!!

Does that make using coal oil an natural gas uneconomic? NO! Does
that make using coal oil and natural gas impractical? NO! Not in the
short term relative to the time it takes nature to make the stuff.
So, if coal oil and natural gas can be used economically, can be used
practically today, even though no way is known to make the stuff and
its impossible to make 2 out of the 3 without hydrogen, why the hell
ASSUME IT IS IMPRACTICAL OR UNECONOMIC TO USE HYDROGEN DIRECTLY?
Bottom line, the statement means nothing, and it suggests things that
are demonstrably false.

* * *

Thus,
terrestrial hydrogen is a "pollution amplifier" that INCREASES the
pollution of the underlying fundamental energy source.

* * *

So the writer of this web page has falsely suggested hydrogen is not a
fuel when in fact its a pretty damn good fuel. Then the writer
falsely suggested that hydrogen requires as a matter of principle that
nuclear reactors are needed in its creation. Finally the writer
falsely suggested that hydrogen is impractical and uneconomic merely
because it follows thermodynamic rules that all other processes that
create fuels follow. NOW, the writer is trying to convince us WRONGLY
AGAIN that hydrogen somehow is a SOURCE OF POLLUTION!!! Well that's
just ludicrous. Hydrogen when burned with oxygen produces water.
What's polluting about that? The answer is NOTHING AT ALL. The
writer is also suggesting that as a matter of principle, hydrogen MUST
create more pollution than gets rid of. Hogwash.

Lets take an example. Lets imagine that we make hydrogen from coal
and water. It can be done. Coal's energy source is principally
carbon. SO, the reaction goes something like this;

C + 2 H2O ---> CO2 + 2 H2

This is called the shift reaction. 3 tons of carbon along with 9 tons
of water produce 11 tons of carbon-dioxide and 1 ton of hydrogen.
Now, 1 ton of hydrogen is equal to 6.2 tons of coal. When you burn
coal this is the principal reaction;

C + O2 --> CO2
6 16 22

So, to round things out to make the math easy, 6 tons of coal combine
with 16 tons of oxygen to create 22 tons of carbon-dioxide.

So, the shift reaction actually reduces carbon emissions. But I left
a part out, another 3.5 tons of coal are needed to HEAT the water,
since the shift reaction is endothermic - this adds another 24 tons of
carbon dioxide to the mix - bringing the total carbon score 22 to 24 -
so we have multiplied the carbon by 1.09 times

First off, this is NEARLY BREAK EVEN as far as carbon goes, and even
though this is a DIRTIEST PROCESS making hydrogen the carbon made is
confined to the hydrogen production facility and not spread all over
creation. So, the carbon can easily be sequestered and kept out of
the air. So, even if the dirtiest process known to man is used to
make hydrogen (which by the way does not involve nuclear means -
unless you include the sunlight used to make the coal! sheez) , you're
ahead if you've got lots of empty oil and gas wells (and the US has
millions of them) to pump the carbon into.

Also, this real world practical example gives you real information to
make real decisions. For example, 6.5 tons of coal cost $220 with
coal at $34 per ton. Now we said a ton of hydrogen has the same heat
value as 23 barrels of crude oil. So, by making hydrogen with even
the dirtiest process known, and burning it a hydrogen car like BMW's
new line of hydrogen cars gets you $10 per barrel oil - and even if
the costs are 3x higher than that - due to the cost of capital for the
facility, and the distribution system and the energy costs associated
with pressurizein and liquefying the stuff - even iwth all of that,
you're back to $30 per barel oil using coal. And the US has 245
billion tons of coal. Divide by 5.5 and multiply by 23 and you can
see that just this very dirty shift reaction can produce enough
hydrogen to make the equivalent of 900 billion barrels of oil!!!!
MORE oil than exists in Saudi Arabia. Obviously the writer of the
statement above doesn't know what the hell he's talking about because
he hasn't really looked at things rationally before making his
statements about hyrogen.

We have YET to touch on CLEAN ways to make hydrogen.

For example, using ultra-low-cost photovoltaic panels to make
electricity when the sun shines, and generate hydrogen from water via
electrolysis whose rate is matched against the lighting conditions.

This process produces ZERO pollution - so even if the writer were
correct in his baseless assertion that hydrogen was a pollution
multiplier, (which he sort of is, but only just) he'd be wrong in this
solar case because ZERO times any number is still zero.

I would ask the writer to answer honestly - WHAT IS THE MULTIPLIER?
IF hydrogen is a pollution multiplier what's the number? Then, where
does the pollution occur? Why?

Its easy to make baseless statements - harder to defend them with real
data. And in this case, they have NO real data to back it up because
there are many ways to make a cleaner energy economy with hydrogen
than the one we currently have - even if we use coal to do it.

* * *
It is utterly ludicrous to claim that terrestrial hydrogen is in any
way,
shape, or form "nonpolluting".

* * *

This statement follows from the earlier one that falsely claims
without any data whatever that hydrogen is a pollution multiplier.

Now, like any fuel, the processes by which the fuel is made take more
energy to drive those processes than is available in the fuel. This
is true of ANY FUEL - due to the operation of thermodynamics. But so
what? That has nothing to do with ways we can use hydrogen to limit,
restrict or eliminate entirely sources of pollution we face today. As
we saw, even in the case of using coal to make hydrogen, which makes
9% more carbon than burning the coal directly, we are still ahead
because we've concentrated the source of carbon emissions from every
tail pipe in the world to well defined points where we can sequester
the carbon and eliminate air pollution. And we also saw that using
solar panels to make hydrogen from water by electrolytic reduction
produces ZERO carbon emissions.

* * *
Note that commercial hydrogen is nearly always produced through the
reformation of methane. But the methane really has to want to reform.
* * *

This is another shift reaction - less polluting than coal, and very
efficient. Its the way most hydrogen is made commercially today - to
make ammonia fertilizers. But since natural gas (where methane comes
from) is more limited than coal, it doesn't occur in sufficient
quantities to make all the hydrogen we need for a hydrogen economy.
Only sunlight and coal are in sufficient quantities to meet our needs
in the immediate future. Only sunlight occurs in sufficient
quantities to meet our needs for the distant future.

* * *

Please also note that because of the staggering loss of exergy, use of
electrolysis for bulk hydrogen apps is a really, really dumb thing to
do.

* * *
So many errors so little space! haha..

First off, Exergy is not a real word. Its a made up word. Go to any
online dictionary and type in exergy. You won't find a definition.
There are words like entropy and energy that are well defined. Exergy
doesn't really mean anything. I challenge the writer to point to an
accepted source of technical defintions that clearly and concisely
define exergy. I further challenge the writer to use exergy in a way
that cannot equally be explained by using entropy and energy. So, by
using this word, the writer can play a game of the emperor has no
clothes! He can ridicule you if you ask him what it means. He can
pronounce that he's right because you don't understand the word.
Lacking any clear concise common definition he can have it mean
anything he likes - so its just a bull*** word to promote his
bull*** view without really getting back to the science and
engineering and economics of how energy can really be used in our
industrial economy.

Second, this is the first time he uses the word electrolysis - This is
very interesting, because just a few sentences before he said there
were no non nuclear means to produce hydrogen!!! Then he rants
against the staggering exergy losses of electrolysis!!! Dude!
Electrolysis isn't a nuclear means to do anything. Its a process of
taking mateials like water and using electrical energy to separate
them into their component parts like hydrogen and oxygen. Obviously
you knew about electrolysis when you wrote about the nuclear means, so
clearly you were lying to us, and YOU KNEW YOU WERE LYING TO US!

Third, electrolysis is routinely used in laboratories where very ultra-
pure hydrogen is used in a variety of ways ways. Bulk hydrogen is not
made this way because of the cost of electricity. That's all the
writer is really saying. But lower the cost of electricity to
fractions of a penny a kWh, and ultra-pure electolytic hydrogen
competes head to head not only against bulk hydrogen made with the
shift reaction, but also against other fuels like coal oil and natural
gas on a heat value basis.


It is the equivalent of exchanging two US dollars for one Mexican peso.

The writer is falsely suggesting that because the efficiency of
converting electrical current and water to hydrogen and oxygen gases
is 85% that value is necessarily lost. This is another falsehood. It
all depends on the nature and cost of the electrons you use to get the
hydrogen. As I said above, ultra-low-cost solar panels costing less
than 7cents per peak watt, produce electricity for a fraction of a
penny a kilowatt hour. That means hydrogen can be made from THIS
SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY at costs that are competitive with coal shift
reactions or $170 per ton. At these prices hydrogen on a heat value
basis is cost competitive with all fuels, coal, oil and natural gas,
and can displace them all economically.

* * *

Please also note that there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline
than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.

* * *

So? There's more hydrogen in a gallon of WATER than in a gallon of
gasoline. Is the writer suggesting WATER should replace gasoline?
This writer is so full of it. He introduces the nonsense word
'exergy' to dis electrolysis which he said earlier didn't exist - and
now he's comparing the amounts of hydrogen in various fluids as if
that means a damn thing! Clearly there is zero energy in a ton of
water and a lot of energy in a ton of gasoline. Equally obviously to
anyone who stayed awake in chemistry class, and which the writer would
like to hide from your attention, hoping you didn't, is that a ton of
hydrogen has more energy than a ton of gasoline.

* * *
Even after all these years, hydrogen is still number one on the
charts.

* * *

All these statements are bald faced lies suggesting things that are
demonstrably false. Now using these falsehoods the writer then uses
them to construct his arguments. But because his arguments are based
on lies - his results too are based on lies.

* * *
Here are the arguments against the hydrogen economy:

1. Terrestral hydrogen is ONLY an energy
carrier or transfer media and NOT a fuel.

* * *
The same can be said of ANY fuel. Coal is an energy carrier or
transfer media based on ancient plant life. Oil ditto. Natural gas
ditto. Does that make these other things not a fuel? Of course not.
Hydrogen once you have it is a fuel. Water is not a fuel.
Electrolysis driven by sunlight can break water down into hydrogen and
oxygen. Just because the sun was used to make that hydrogen in this
way doesn't invalidate hydrogen as a fuel - any more than the action
of ancient life forms creating the biomass that became coal -
invalidates coal as a fuel. Ditto for natural gas. Ditto for oil.
The only difference between coal and hydrogen or oil and hydrogen or
natural gas and hydrogen is that all the coal in the world and all the
oil in the world and all the natural gas in the world is owned by
someone - and those someones want to sell you what they have. Most of
the water in the world is controlled by the laws of the sea which
means anyone has access and none of the sunlight in the world is
controlled by anyone. So, using sunlight and water to make hydrogen
fuel is a way to challenge those who have spent considerable time
effort and money to gain control over a limited and diminishing
source. Is it any wonder that the writers of this page are associated
with major energy companies? OF COURSE they don't want you or me or
anyone to challenge their control of the energy empires they have
built. But challenge it we will.

2. Terrestral hydrogen creation is inefficient

Thermodynamically inefficient. Yes. But so is the creation of
terrestrial oil, or terrestrial coal or terrestrial natural gas. This
has nothing to do with its practicality or economic efficiency. Who
cares that one part in a million of the ancient sunlight that fell on
Earth ended up as coal trapped in the crust of the earth? As long as
it can be extracted and burned economically? So, all this talk of
thermodynamic efficiency and 'exergy' avoids the central issue - WHAT
WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE HYDROGEN COMPETITIVE WITH COAL OIL AND NATURAL
GAS? Of course, don't ask the coal oil or natural gas people for the
answer - providing it undercuts the value of their diminishing asset.

* * *
as considerably more energy of usually
much higher quality has to be input than
is eventually returnable.
* * *
Again, this talks past the issue of practicality and economic
efficiency.

* * *

3. No large terrestral source of hydrogen gas
is known.
* * *
This is true as it is irrelevant.

* * *

Water, of course, is a hydrogen
sink and, by fundamental chemical energitics,
is the worst possible feedstock.
* * *
This is more word games. What does the author mean by water is a
hydrogen sink? Hydrogen isn't absorbed easily by water. The only
thing he could mean is that water is MADE out of hydrogen. If that's
what he means, yeah, it takes hydrogen to make water just as it takes
oxygen. The formula in fact is

2 H2 + O2 => 2 H2O.

One ton of hydrogen plus eight tons of oxygen make nine tons of
water.

SO WHAT? The author already said there are no free sources of
hydrogen on the planet. So, the real question should be, are there
BOUND SOURCES OF HYDROGEN ON THE PLANET? ANd the answer is YEAH!
WATER! Its plentiful and easy to break down into hydrogen and oxygen.

But the writer also said by fundamental chemical energetics water is
the worst possible feedstock! What the hell does that mean? Only
that water doesn't burn.

So he wrongly suggests that water is not a good feedstock for hydrogen
because water doesn't burn and water is 1/9th by weight hydrogen.

Does this make sense to anyone? You can't use water as a source of
hydrogen because its made partly of hydrogen? and water doesn't
burn?

Well no one I know ever suggested water could burn. Is that a
requirement for something to be a feedstock? I would ask this writer
to explain his statement here.

Obviously water is cheap - about 30 cents a ton in most places - and
so $2.70 worth of water contains 1 ton of hydrogen. Electrolysis is a
dandy way to break water down if you can get DC electricity cheap
enough. Sunlight - which falls freely across the Earth - can be
converted to DC electricity. The only rub there is that it didn't
used to be cheap. That is until I came along and made a 3 sq m solar
panel that produces 540 watts for less than $35 - in quantity. That
means when installed in a sunny location these solar panels make DC
electricity when the sun shines for 1/5th cent per kWh. It takes 50
kWh to make a kg of hydrogen from 9 kg of water. That's $0.10 per kg
- that's $100 per ton for the electricity - So, I can make using ultra-
low-cost solar panels - a ton of hydrogen from about $102.70 per ton.
Since you get the same heat out of burning a ton of hydrogen as you do
burning 6.2 tons of coal, or 23 barrels of crude oil, or 2.55 tons of
natural gas - you can see that under these conditions hydrogen can
easily compete against every single one of the major fuels we now use
- despite the inefficiencies and despite the fact that the hydrogen
came from water.

Bottom line, what you don't know after reading this writer's
misbegotten statement is that water is a freely available substance
and is efficiently converted to hydrogen gas.

* * *
4. The CONTAINED energy density of
hydrogen by weight is a lot less than gasoline.
* * *
All the writer is saying here is that hydrogen is a lot less dense
than gasoline. Liquid hydrogen masses 70 kg per m3. Gasoline masses
737 kg per m3. But a kg of hydrogen contains 141.8 MJ of energy while
a kg of gasoline contains 45 MJ of energy. . So, gasoline is 10.5
times more dense than liquid hydrogen and 3.3 times more energy dense
than gasoline. All this means is that instead of a 20 gallon tank of
gasoline you need a 60 gallon tank of liquid hydrogen to get the same
amount of energ. SO WHAT? This has little to do with the economic
efficiency or practicality of hydrogen.

* * *
And drops dramatically as the tank is emptied.
* * *
You've really gotta watch this writer. If you divide the volume of a
half filled tank by the energy content in the tank, you reduce the
energy per unit volume. But this is true of ANY tank! If you have 1
gallon of gas in a 20 gallon tank, guess what, that tank is 1/20th as
energy dense as a full tank!! See how ludicrous this statement is?
ALL TANKS CONTAIN LESS ENERGY AS THEY EMPTY - thre's nothing special
about hydrogen or gasoline that changes this. Its a logical
impossibility for contained energy to rise as any tank is emptied. So
what's the point of the statement? Fact is it has no real point - its
just another way to create a sound bite that makes it sound that
hydrogen is impractical without really saying anything of substance.

* * *

The energy density of hydrogen gas by volume
is a ludicrous joke.
* * *
What the hell does this mean? Because I've gotta have a 60 gallon
liquid hydrogen tank to run my beamer the same distance on hydrogen as
on 20 gallons pf gas? SO WHAT? A kg of hydrogen has a little more
energy than a gallon of gas. Now it takes about 20% of the energy in
hydrogen to liquefy it. Another 20% to gasify it. But since heat
engines produce a lot of heat, you can use that free source of waste
heat to gasify it in a car - like BMW does. So, the real loss is 20%
to liquefy it. But that doesn't show up in the tank, that shows up in
the processing plant. Well, hell, it takes 20% of the all the oil
coming out fo the ground to run the refineries, oil pipelines, and
tanker trucks - so, why have the conversation - because I've heard
idiots say that because liquefying and gasifying hydrogen liquid takes
40% of its contained energy you only have 60% left. Bull***. A 60
gallon liquid hydrogen tank delivers as much energy as a 20 gallon gas
tank. The 'exergic' costs occur in the 'refinery' just like with
gasoline - and that adds to the cost of the fuel, nothing more. just
like with gasoline.

The point is a gallon of gas has a little less energy than a kilogram
of hydrogen. And if I'm making hydrogen for $200 per tonne - that
means a kilogram costs me something like $0.20 - AND IT HAS THE SAME
ENERGY CONTENT AS A GALLON OF GAS COSTING $3.00 OR MORE!! Obviously
at these prices its worth carrying the extra sized tank around hidden
under your back seat. Besides, actual systems that have used hydrogen
in even less efficient gaseous form have proven to use less volume for
the total energy system than gasoline and engine combinations -
because hydrogen gas volume, plus fuel cell volume, plus electric
motor volume - for the samed sized system - is LESS with less dense
hydrogen. Should I make up a phoney word to describe SYSTEM VOLUME
and say that gaoline based systems are less <phoney word> efficient?
haha.. But its true, electric motors are about 1/8th the volume of
gas motors. So, when you put together electric motors and hydrogen
tanks, the overall system volume is less than gas tanks plus gas
motors, especialy when you account for the volumes under the hood
dedicated to radiators, air handlng and so forth.

* * *
5. Virtually all bulk hydrogen is produced by methane
reformation. And thus is EXTREMELY oil
dependent.

* * *

This is an interesting statement because the methane shift reaction is
this;

CH4 + 2 H2O --> CO2 + 4 H2

See where HALF THE HYDROGEN IS COMING FROM? Thats' right! WATER!
But didn't this writer say that water was a terrible source of
hydrogen because of chemical energetics and that water was a hydrogen
sink?

Clearly this writer is depending on the reader's total lack of
chemistry to let his bull*** stick. Can this writer be so stupid?
Or is he knowingly lying to us? How can someone in one breath tell
us that water is the worst feedstock for hydrogen imaginable and then
in the next breath say all bulk hydrogen is made from water?

Even so, this is one statement that this writer has made that is sort
of true. ALL BULK HYDROGEN MADE TODAY IS PRODUCED BY METHANE
REFORMING. and ALL BULK HYDROGEN MADE TODAY IS DEPENDENT ON SOURCES
OF METHANE (not oil), but natural gas and oil can and do occur in the
same well, so they're both produced at the same time and from the same
regions.

But what does this have to do with the hydrogen economy? We already
know there isn't enough natural gas to really produce all the hydrogen
we would need for such an economy.

All this says is that we'll need another source of hydrogen for the
hydrogen economy. We have already seen that the shift reaction using
coal and water, can easily produce enough hydrogen in ways that are
non-polluting (using sequestration). We have also seen that ultra-low-
cost solar panels with electrolysis of water can make abundant
hydrogen that is totally non-polluting and compete with all forms of
carbon fuels.

* * *
6. Hydrogen has the widest explosive range known,
the least spark energy required for ignition,
* * *
Interesting, the writer would have us believe the hydrogen is not a
fuel, but IS an explosive. By what logic does that make sense?

Besides, why is this a bad thing? I would ask this author, by what
stretch of the imagination do you conclude this to be a bad thing for
a fuel?

This is another of his statements are is absolutely correct. But what
that means is that ANY ENGINE, ANY BURNER, ANY DEVICE that burns ANY
FUEL CAN ALSO BURN HYDROGEN! How is this a negative people? ITS A
CLEAR POSITIVE FOR HYDROGEN! All we need to do is strap on a hyrogen
fuel tank a regulator and we can say good bye to oil coal and natural
gas.

* * *
and
has no known colorants or odorants. Its flame is
often invisible or nearly so.
* * *
This one I have to have a reference - because gratuitous assertions
can be gratuitously denied.. haha..

http://www.jari.or.jp/en/pub/jido_pub/15.html

Here is a paper that discusses the effect of the odorant
diethylsuflfide on fuel cell performance.

People, when are we going to learn? This writer cares nothing for the
truth and will say anything use any twisted logic to support his
unsupportable views. He twists langauge to unrecognizable forms,
makes up words, contradicts himself time and time again and now is
telling bald faced lies in the vain hope that someone witha google
search engine couldn't type in the words hyrogen and odorant. Sheez.

* * *

7. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline
than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.

* * *
And there is more hydrogen in a gallon of water than a gallon of gas -
SO WHAT? What counts is the energy in a ton of the stuff.

A kg of water contains no energy - because it really is not a fuel and
occupies one liter.

A kg of gasoline contains 45 MJ and occupies 1.32 liters

A kg of liquid hydrogen contains 141.8 MJ and occupies 14.3 liters.

* * *

8. No effective vehicle compatible means of hydrogen
storage is known that is remotely as cheap, safe,
dense, and convenient as carbon bonded hydrides.
* * *
More lies and distortions.

Most vehicles are less than 25% efficient at converting fuel energy to
mechanical motion. Fuel cells are over 75% efficient. This means
that 1/3 the chemical energy is needed to run a fuel cell based system
than needed to run an internal combustion engine. This reduces fuel
volumes for the more advanced fuel cell system. Further, electric
motors require only 1/8th the mass and volume as internal combustion
engines, so, for a given engine size, the combination of fuel plue
electric motor is less than a comparable combination of internal
combustion engine and fel tank. Finally, electric motors don't
require the highly volume inefficient transmission, air handling and
heat handling systems of internal combustion engines - so, TOTAL
SYSTEM VOLUME OF A HYDROGEN BASED VEHICLE DRIVE TRAIN IS LESS THAN THE
DRIVE TRAIN OF A MORE CONVENTIONAL VEHICLE WHEN INCLUDING ENGINE FUEL
TANK TRANSMISSION AIR INTAKE RADIATOR AND EXHAUST SYSTEM

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1999/TM-1999-209429.pdf

Even when one merely replaces the fuel tank in a conventional vehicle
with a liquid hydrogen tank a perfectly safe cheap convenient vehicle
results. That's because fuel tanks constitute such a vanishingly
small percentage of the total, cost, risk, volume, and weight of a
vehicle that even tripling the volume, doubling the cost, and
quadrupling the risk of the fuel supply system makes little to no
difference in the overall vehicle.

http://www.bmwzentrum.com/exhibits/hydrogen_car.asp

In 1998 BMW did a series of hydrogen car crash tests and demonstrated
conclusively the safety of a variety of liquid hydrogen and gaseous
hydrogen storage systems for vehicular use.

* * *

9. No infrastructure exists for gaseous hydrogen
distribution. Pipelines in particular raise major
density and embrittlement issues.
* * *
More lies and distortions.

Even in 1911 when Haber first started making hydrogen for fertilizers,
embrittlement in pipelines was less a problem with early these
hydrogen pipelines than corrosion typical of ALL pipelines.

A commercial hydrogen pipeline was constructed at Chemich Werke Huls
AG, Germany in 1938.
NASA began using liquid hydrogen in 1958 on their RL10 engine.
In 1964 Cominico built the first commercial hydrogen pipeline in
Canada.
In 1966 Air Liquide built a long distance hydrogen pipeline in
Europe.
In 1980 Lockheed did a comprehensive analysis of hydrogen safety risks
for aircraft operations and found no major roadblocks to its use in
aircraft.

In 1987 X42 steel was developed for use in hydrogen pipelines
improving safety and performance AND ENDING EMBRITTLEMENT ISSUES.

IN 2006 THE ASME (AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS) CREATED A
B31 STANDARD FOR HYDROGEN PIPELINE SAFETY AND CONSTRUCTION

http://files.asme.org/STLLC/7445.pdf

DUE TO THE LOW VISCOSITY OF HYDROGEN GAS RELATIVE TO OTHER FUELS
HYDROGEN PIPELINES ARE AN EFFICIENT MEANS OF TRANSMITTING MASSIVE
AMOUNTS OF ENERGY AND RAISE NO SAFETY EMBRITTLEMENT OR ENERGY DELIVERY
ISSUES WHATEVER!!!

* * *

10. Electrolysis from high value sources such as
grid, wind, or pv is totally useless as a hydrogen
source because of the staggering loss of exergy.

* * *
Again that made up word - exergy - as if it explains anything!
Electrolysis from the grid is indeed wasteful. No doubt about that.
Electrolysis from wind is far from totally useless - but a means to
make wind and pv a reliable low cost baseload source of energy; As
this report from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory shows

https://www.llnl.gov/str/pdfs/05_97.2.pdf

and with ultra-low-cost solar panels, hydrogen gas freely competes
without subsidy (despite thermodynamic inefficiencies) with ALL OTHER
FUELS.

* * *
There ALWAYS will be more intelligent things
to do with the electricity.
* * *
The writer falsely associates high quality grid energy (which is AC
and available on demand) to low quality intermittent energy sources
(which in the case of PV is DC and available only when the sun shines)

* * *

11. Improper burning of hydrogen produces highly
polluting nitrous oxides.
* * *

Improper burning of ANY fuel in air produces nitrous oxides. Yet the
writer would have the reader believe falsely that this is something
special to hydrogen or something that should stop hydrogen from being
used.

http://www.aie.org.au/pubs/anzcoal.htm
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/envirom/princairpol.htm
http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html

Fact is, hydrogen because of its large range of combustion is far
easier to burn cleanly than any other fuel and so nitrous oxide is
LESS a problem with a properly engineered hydrogen fueled system than
with any other fuel.

* * *

12. Terrestrial hydrogen is basically a POLLUTION
AMPLIFIER that INCREASES the pollution of
its underlying sources.
* * *
We've already dealt with this. The writer would have us believe
wrongly merely because that thermodynamic limits exist for all
processes including those involving hydrogen, that hydrogen is somehow
singled out. What hogwash. He knows that wind and pv produce ZERO
pollution and they can be used to power an electrolysis unit to make
hydrogen with ZERO POLLUTION. SO, how can you fairly characterize
something that produces zero pollution as a pollution amplifier? You
can't. That's why he has taken special care to knock wind pv and
electrolysis off the list for another bogus reason above - but
clearly, hydrogen produced in this way IS THE ONLY FUEL THAT PRODUCES
ZERO POLLUTION THAT COULD BE PUT INTO WIDE USE TODAY.

* * *
It is utterly ludicrous to
claim that hydrogen is in any manner, way,
shape, or form "nonpolluting".
* * *

Where's the proof? Give me an example of a real system where hydrogen
creates more pollution! You can't! I showed that even if you used
coal - the most polluting source known - to make hydrogen from water
using the shift reaction - you could create a non-polluting hydrogen
by sequestering the carbon dioxide at the point of production - and
send the energy on in the form of hydrogen for use in a pollution free
environment. I then went on to show that ultra-low cost solar panels
operating low cost electrolyzers would produce hydrogen more cheaply
than any fossil fuel with ZERO pollution. You can't get any more
nonpolluting than that! This writer would have you believe that
hydrogen isn't a fuel and is highly polluting. NOWHERE IN ANY OF HIS
STATEMENTS DOES HE HAVE ANY REFERENCES TO BACK UP HIS BOGUS CLAIMS

13. Hydrogen rots most metals through embrittlement.

Since 1911 hydrogen has been routinely sent through pipes. While
prior to 1938 embrittlement was an issue to early hydrogen users, it
was less a concern than corrision. NASA in 1958 worked out practical
means to use hydrogen in rockets including safe reliable supply
chains. In 1980 Lockheed completed a similar study for the production
of safe reliable delivery of hydrogen to fuel aircraft. In 1987 X42
steel was developed that was impervious to hydrogen. In 2006 the ASME
released safety reliability and performance guidelines for commercial
hydrogen pipelines and hydrogen handling for the coming hydrogen
economy.

* * *
14. "Carbon Neutral" solutions would appear better
than "Carbon Free" because (A) A significant
measure of the energy of most fuels is in its carbon
fraction, (B) Carbon appears to be essential for
convenient and safe room temperature liquids,
and (C) Reformation is not required or else
is simpler, cheaper, and wastes less energy.
* * *
When total system efficiencies, system volumes, system reliability and
system costs are taken into account, carbon free systems are less
expensive, more compact and lighter weight and more reliable than
carbon based systems notwithstanding the 3.3x increase in fuel volume
for hydrogen.
* * *

15. An optimal hydrogen storage solution exists by
carbon bonding as in heptane or iso-octane. Both
of these room temperature liquids ain't broke.
* * *
Methanol is a better way to use carbon to stabilize hydrogen for
transport and storage. Doing without carbon altogether is better
still.

.