Talk:Hydrogen economy

Content cut from Transport section

I removed the following as it is unsourced, poorly-sourced (Honda), or excessively detailed:

Hydrogen gas must be distinguished as "technical-grade" (five nines pure, 99.999%) produced by methane pyrolysis or electrolysis, which is suitable for applications such as fuel cells, and "commercial-grade", which has carbon- and sulfur-containing impurities, but which can be produced by the slightly cheaper steam-reformation process that releases carbon dioxide greenhouse gas. Fuel cells require high-purity hydrogen because the impurities would quickly degrade the life of the fuel cell stack.

The combination of the fuel cell and electric motor is 2-3 times more efficient than an internal-combustion engine. Capital costs of fuel cells have reduced significantly over recent years, with a modeled cost of $50/kW cited by the Department of Energy.

Other fuel cell technologies based on the exchange of metal ions (e.g. zinc–air fuel cells) are typically more efficient at energy conversion than hydrogen fuel cells, but the widespread use of any electrical energy → chemical energy → electrical energy systems would necessitate the production of electricity. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Hydrogen fuel into Hydrogen economy, for the following reasons:

• Hydrogen fuel is hydrogen. Everything we say about how "hydrogen fuel" is produced, stored, transported, and priced applies to hydrogen that goes into making fertilizer (for context, currently far more hydrogen is used as a fertilizer reagent than in any usage related to energy). There is nothing in the Hydrogen fuel article that shouldn't be covered in Hydrogen economy. We are just duplicating effort by trying to maintain two articles.
• The quality of the Hydrogen fuel article is very concerning to me. In the current version, the first sentence of the lead is wrong: When used in a fuel cell, hydrogen is not burned.[1] When hydrogen is burned, it is almost always burned with atmospheric gases and not with pure oxygen.[2] The last sentence of the lead ("The fuel technology has seen awakened interest from automakers who claim it is comparatively cheap and safer to incorporate into the modern vehicle architecture over recent challenges faced by electric vehicle makers.) is pure industry hype and at odds with high-quality independent sources. The second sentence of the lead is correct less than 1% of the time. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Merge Yes there seems to be an awful lot of overlap Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for revision work and what remains to be done?

Thank you to Clayoquot plus the other editors for making this article so much better through your revision work from September onwards! Much appreciated. How would you characterise the quality of the article now, are there still problem areas that need addressing or would you say it's pretty much "done" for now? Any remaining weaknesses? What's the reading ease like in your opinion, is some work needed in that regard to improve readability? And some more images maybe? EMsmile (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for giving it attention yourself! It's nice to be asked what else needs to be done. I might have some thoughts in the new year. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Section that is unsourced: a key tradeoff

This entire section has no sources. A chunk of it was added in 2007 in this edit. I wonder if this text is any good (in which case sources should be found) or if it should be taken out?

"A key tradeoff: centralized vs. distributed production

In a future full hydrogen economy, primary energy sources and feedstock would be used to produce hydrogen gas as stored energy for use in various sectors of the economy. Producing hydrogen from primary energy sources other than coal and oil would result in lower production of the greenhouse gases characteristic of the combustion of coal and oil fossil energy resources. The importance of non-polluting methane pyrolysis of natural gas is becoming a recognized method for using current natural gas infrastructure investment to produce hydrogen and no greenhouse gas.

One key feature of a hydrogen economy would be that in mobile applications (primarily vehicular transport) energy generation and use could be decoupled. The primary energy source would need no longer travel with the vehicle, as it currently does with hydrocarbon fuels. Instead of tailpipes creating dispersed emissions, the energy (and pollution) could be generated from point sources such as large-scale, centralized facilities with improved efficiency. This would allow the possibility of technologies such as carbon sequestration, which are otherwise impossible for mobile applications. Alternatively, distributed energy generation schemes (such as small scale renewable energy sources) could be used, possibly associated with hydrogen stations.

Aside from the energy generation, hydrogen production could be centralized, distributed or a mixture of both. While generating hydrogen at centralized primary energy plants promises higher hydrogen production efficiency, difficulties in high-volume, long range hydrogen transportation (due to factors such as hydrogen damage and the ease of hydrogen diffusion through solid materials) makes electrical energy distribution attractive within a hydrogen economy.

In such a scenario, small regional plants or even local filling stations could generate hydrogen using energy provided through the electrical distribution grid or methane pyrolysis of natural gas. While hydrogen generation efficiency is likely to be lower than for centralized hydrogen generation, losses in hydrogen transport could make such a scheme more efficient in terms of the primary energy used per kilogram of hydrogen delivered to the end user.

The proper balance between hydrogen distribution, long-distance electrical distribution and destination converted pyrolysis of natural gas is one of the primary questions that arises about the hydrogen economy.

Again the dilemmas of production sources and transportation of hydrogen can now be overcome using on site (home, business, or fuel station) generation of hydrogen from off grid renewable sources." EMsmile (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for taking it out! Thanks for flagging this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, great, I've deleted that section now. EMsmile (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Ladder graphic

I think the ladder graphic in https://cleantechnica.com/2021/09/01/cleantech-talk-chemical-engineer-paul-martin-reflects-on-liebreichs-hydrogen-ladder-hopium-part-1/ would be worth adding. I see there is an old svg at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Einsatzbereiche_sauberen_Wasserstoffs.svg

@Moowahg3 How did you get that and are you able to upload a new version? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I like the ladder graphic. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

have added Chidgk1 (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that current title is sufficient and proposed title is too broad. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Hydrogen economy → Uses of hydrogen – Easier to understand Chidgk1 (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as the scope of the article is more expansive than the proposed title. ― Synpath 05:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting reason - could you explain in a few words which parts of the current article are both up to date and outside the scope of the proposed title? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Essentially any parts of this article not touched upon in Hydrogen#Applications, which would be the history of the term, markets, production, infrastructure, costs, pilot programs. My thoughts align with EMsmile and Wikipedialuva below. ― Synpath 17:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Mild oppose: It seems to me that the most commonly used term (in the media?) is "hydrogen economy". Would "Uses" include production of it as well as financial aspects, policies, subsidies etc.? EMsmile (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  We already have a whole article on Hydrogen production so production subsidies could go in there. I cannot find anything about consumption subsidies in this article.

  As for policy there is already an article on United States hydrogen policy and I cannot find any other mention of policy in this article.

  It is true there is a section on costs here but I think that is about cost of production rather than say transport? So that could be moved to the production article.

  However if you or @Synpath are thinking of adding more on financial aspects, policy and subsidies to this article I could reconsider. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we should rather add to this article so that it becomes the overarching high level article (and then, if needed, split off a sub-article for the details of hydrogen uses?). If not, which existing article would you say should be the high level article that pulls everything together? I thought it was this one. EMsmile (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I see @Wikipedialuva who created the article back in 2004 is still active, so it would be good to hear their opinion. I guess 20 years ago it was unclear how much decarbonization would be by electrification and how much by hydrogen. So at that time the title was perfectly fine. But now it is obvious that electricity will do most decarbonization I think the term “hydrogen economy” has become obsolete. However there are still some essential things that electricity cannot do at reasonable cost. So I think the title I propose will allow the reader to focus on those. So I am not sure that a high-level article makes sense nowadays. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chidgk1! Are you sure you meant me? I didn't create my account until 2006, and I don't recall creating this article. From what I can see in the page log, Leonard G. created the article, but they haven't been active since October 2020. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

duh yes sorry you are not so old - I mixed up latest editor with page creator - still would like your view though Chidgk1 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: No worries! To be clear, I was just doing copy editing using AutoWikiBroswer, not making substantial edits to the article. I don't have any special knowledge on this matter. To your question, I can see both sides of being both for and against. While I think the proposed move is fine, this also depends on whether the article's content and scope are broadened or narrowed per what EMsmile was discussing. It sounds like, for right now, before a decision on whether a move should be made, it needs to be decided/clarified what the article's content and scope are going to cover. I don't have strong opinions on the matter either way. Does this answer your question? Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I would opt for a broad scope article but I agree that "hydrogen economy" is perhaps too unclear. Maybe something like hydrogen for climate change mitigation? EMsmile (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

For brainstorming purposes, these are the terms that redirect to here:

• Hydrogen fuel (redirect to section "Use as an energy carrier") ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen Economy (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen energy (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen power (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Chemical hydrogen storage (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Alternatives to the hydrogen economy (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen revolution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen society (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen as a fuel (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen energy plant in denmark (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen as fuel (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Renewable hydrogen (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen-fuelled (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen-fuel (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• European Clean Hydrogen Alliance (redirect to section "Examples and pilot programs") ‎ (links | edit)
• Hydrogen well (redirect to section "hydrogen well") ‎ (links | edit) EMsmile (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm sympathetic to trying to use plainer language but overall I see more downsides than upsides. Our convention to use singular noun forms has the benefit of keeping articles focused on a topic rather than letting articles devolve into lists. An article titled "Uses of hydrogen" would probably attract more edits of the "here's another use someone created for hydrogen as reported in my local newspaper" variety, which are not helpful. I also oppose "Hydrogen for climate change mitigation" as it sounds more like the title of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. But I still wonder if - with some more brainstorming - we could come up with a short snappy title that is clearer than "hydrogen economy" (unless this is really the term that everyone uses, as per W:COMMONNAME?). I noticed that the short description says "Using hydrogen to decarbonize sectors which are hard to electrify". Does that give us any clues? Another thought is that perhaps a hatnote would help to address Chidgk1's concern that the title is too inaccessible. EMsmile (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excerpt production?

There is a lot of detail here (including also the experimental production methods near the end), so how about I move the production info to Hydrogen production and excerpt back the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the content about hydrogen production ought to be trimmed; perhaps move everything that is under "Current production methods" to Hydrogen production? If the lead of Hydrogen production is good then yes, an excerpt might be sensible. EMsmile (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of getting a bunch of detail out of the Production section. Currently the lead section of Hydrogen production would not work as a replacement. Its sourcing is poor, it gives undue weight to little-used methods, and it does not explain the color codes, which we need for the subsequent sections of Hydrogen economy to make sense, and the second paragraph duplicates things. I think you can just boldly shorten the Production section. I'm open to reconsidering if someone wants to try rewriting the lead of Hydrogen production to make it suitable to use here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Done but Hydrogen production could be further improved Chidgk1 (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Excerpt storage?

There is a lot of detail here so how about I move the storage info to Hydrogen storage and excerpt back the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your approach. Might have to improve the lead of Hydrogen storage first to ensure it's a good summary of the article? It seems a bit short to me at first glance. But doable. EMsmile (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead of Hydrogen storage is currently not a well-rounded overview of the topic, it has a citation needed tag, and it has zero references. It needs to get a lot better before we consider spreading it around to more articles. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Excerpt infrastructure?

The section has some detail so how about I move it to Hydrogen infrastructure and excerpt back the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As above, if/when the lead of Hydrogen infrastructure is improved it will be easier to say yes to this. Feel free to remove detail that doesn't belong here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Excerpt safety?

If we moved the safety section to Hydrogen safety we could also move their Hindenburg pic out of the lead and excerpt the lead back here. What do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't want to include the lead image in the excerpt you can just use the file=no syntax. (or did I misunderstand what your question was). In general, I am fine with including excerpts. EMsmile (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hydrogen safety is a really good article with a well-written lead. The second and third paragraphs of the current lead would be a good replacement for the current safety section in Hydrogen economy. Let's not excerpt the first paragraph of the lead as it would trip up the flow of the article. Some of the current content in the Hydrogen economy safety section should probably be ditched instead of moved elsewhere. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I've had a go at adding this excerpt. However, I felt the first para of hydrogen safety was actually too short (just one sentence) and in future someone working on the hydrogen safety article would likely expand the first para. I don't think that the first sentence of the excerpt disrupts the flow of content that much. I ditched the bullet point list of the current content of the safety section but the other two paras seemed OK to me (moved to hydrogen safety). Feel free to correct / adjust what I have done; I have no expertise on this topic but just wanted to move things along now. EMsmile (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Hindenburg disaster is an example of a large hydrogen explosion.

P.S. I opted not to bring the Hindenburg image across with the excerpt (see on the right). It is very iconic but not really very relevant to the safety issues of today's hydrogen economy. EMsmile (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Should the IRENA diagram be removed?

Second graphic in article. It is from before the full scale invasion of Ukraine so is not “contemporary” Chidgk1 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The graph is still good, just the caption wasn't great (why "contemporary"?). I've changed the caption to make it the same as in the report where it came from: "Technology leadership opportunities in green hydrogen value chains according to the International Renewable Energy Agency in 2022". Or would you say the graph is no longer useful? What has it got to do with the Ukraine invasion? EMsmile (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)