Hmm...try reading what I wrote. I said the most stored potential is in the form of fossil fuels That precious hydrogen you like to spout takes 3x more energy to produce the same level as equivalent fossil fuels.

 

No offense, but did you bother to finish reading my post? Apparantly not.

In fairness, maybe I was still typing it when you read the first part.

 

Sounds just like producing electricity then.

 

No you did not. You used far more energy than you would ever get out of the hydrogen you extracted. Try to comprehend this. Hydrogen is NOT energy it is energy storage. This is because the most abundant element is not readily available naturally on planet Earth. In our atmosphere hydrogen accounts for 1 part per million.

 

No, you misunderstood my post. I actually agree with you on that. School-lab electrolysis of water is obviously not efficient enough for mass-market use. That's why I said that more efficient methods are needed.....but we aren't going to find them if we don't start doing research.

BTW, just for the record, hydrogen fuel-cells themselves were a NASA-derived technology, first used back in the late 1960s, on our Apollo shots to the moon and back....so that shows you how much potential there is if we put our minds to it.

 

If you produce energy from the most inefficient source, sure. But luckily we have other things like nuclear, solar, wind and natural gas as sources of our grid. So you're saying we should burn coal in sunny California when we have plentiful solar energy. Pffft. Laughable.

 

When did I say that? But by the same logic, whatever source used to produce electricity can be used to produce hydrogen.

 

The 2nd option makes no sense to me, in packaging alone a FCEV is horrible.
By adding 7 more steps you get 1/3rd total efficiency. If that's what you are after then yea it's the way to go.

 

I was saying put it aside because there are non-polluting ways to get hydrogen as you know, by using excess 'renewable' energy for electrolysis. A hydro-electric dam even could produce hydrogen with excess energy being produced, and as you point out, use hydrogen as an energy storage system.

so the reason i said put it aside is if it's a non-issue like in the examples above, then do you not believe it's a good fuel for trucks and buses (maybe even trains) where they can do point to point long haul and have a less ubiquitous refueling infrastructure than persona vehicles requires?

And you keep fixating on passenger cars which isn't the only use here... again, what about trucks, buses, trains, plains, etc?

 

Yes this is what I've said many times, hydrogen may become viable as energy storage.
If and when we have excess energy then we can start using hydrogen in heavy haul vehicles. Using natural gas to make hydrogen is simply another way for oil companies to sell fossil based energy, it changes nothing and solves nothing.
Don't know what else I can add to this, I'm fine with these types of transport to use hydrogen if and when we have excess energy and need to store it. I am not fine using hydrocarbon fuels to make hydrogen this is asinine.

Prius has an EPA rating of 56 Mirai 66. Is it really worth it to build out an entirely new refining, transport and fueling infrastructure for that gain? Building it will take 100's of billions of dollars, you gonna pay for that?

 

i disagree and you're wrong about it solving nothing, i think your black and white view is too simplistic. the DoE has its scored about right (rare for govt, lol). Hydrogen Production: Natural Gas Reforming | Department of Energy
Specifically:

again you're looking at tiny cars (irrelevant). the trucking industry alone is VAST and can pay for it, AND there will be a payback. if the world is to become less polluting, everyone will pay though in many ways one way or another.

 

also, there's promising ways to capture CO2 from nat gas to hydrogen production like this:
Carbon dioxide sequestration through silicate degradation and carbon mineralisation: promises and uncertainties | npj Materials Degradation (nature.com)

 

Natural gas itself is a very clean-burning substance, especially by fossil-fuel standards.....and a network of refill-stations could probably be done, without much trouble, by the gas-utility companies...the same companies that pipe in gas for household appliances and furnace/AC systems. if nothing else, it would increase their business and profits....although, in some cases, as utilities, they are regulated by the State Corporation Commissions.

I'm not sure if it would be the best thing for me, though. I live in an all-electric home, am not used to being around gas, and the few times I am, I tend to be nervous and subconsciously worried about an explosion.

 

respectfully, my mention of natural gas had NOTHING to do with cars being propelled by the stuff and certainly not the explosive idea of people filling their vehicles with natural gas at their homes.

Natural gas can be used to create hydrogen, but the by product is CO2 which is widely considered as bad for the atmosphere/climate. But if the CO2 can be captured, then using the absolutely VAST known reserves of natural gas many places have to create hydrogen would be compelling.

 

A number of vehicles (including city buses) are indeed propelled by natural gas. But you're correct that it is not in widespread use.

I was not implying filling up with CNG at home, but at the nearest gas-company location, as some of their own vehicles do. Aside from me, Jill, Och, and maybe one or two others, there seems to be so much hostility in this thread to hydrogen use for vehicles that perhaps we should also consider some closely-related alternatives such as this.