NationStates Jolt Archive

... there are some things you should know about it. This is an excelent article on hydrogen. Basically it makes a good case for none of us living to see it.

DETROIT (ResourceInvestor.com) -- There is no logical or rational basis for small investors to make short-term investments in fuel cell development or in any other aspect of the “hydrogen economy.” The time frame in which such investments would “pay off” may well be between one and two generations. This is the well reasoned conclusion of a distinguished panel of American scientists reported two years ago in a special issue of Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, themed “Toward a Hydrogen Economy” (Issue for 14 August, 2004).

Financial analysts and financial publicists don’t seem to worry much about such well reasoned conclusions.

The announcement by General Motors [NYSE:GM] last week that it will produce, for driving trials next year, 100 fuel cell powered Chevrolet Equinoxes, its subsequent delivery of a fuel cell powered vehicle for testing to the U.S. Army and its further announcement of a fuel cell powered minivan earlier this week set off a public relations driven flurry of stories about the “hydrogen economy.”

The development of a safe, reliable fuel cell for vehicle applications is under way at every level, from large intensive programs to simple study ones, at all of the world’s OEM car makers. Many private companies both large GE [NYSE:GE], and small, Ballard [TSX:BLD], are also independently trying to develop a commercially viable fuel cell, and there are such programs also at many universities. It is very early in the development of fuel cells as mass produced power plants for vehicles. Yet the New York Times “Automobiles” section published a lead story called “Prequel to a Hydrogen Future: Driving G.M.’s Fuel Cell Prototype” on September 24, 2006.

Although American politicians, acting mainly to reduce pressure from their constituents that they do something about global warming, have proposed initiatives to provide federal funding to “study” and “promote” alternative fuel technology and, in particular, the development of a “hydrogen economy” there is, in fact, no Manhattan Project under way to develop the key elements of a hydrogen economy, because such a move is not (yet) perceived as a an response to an imminent threat to life and health.

The economic magnitude of a full scale conversion from fossil fuel to hydrogen as the basis of our energy production would be enormous. Such a conversion would proclaim and manifest itself as a structural change not only in the global energy industry but also in the global mining, manufacturing, automotive and fuel production and service industries. Vested interests in all of these industries and more would fight such a switch tooth and nail. Nations, such as Saudi Arabia, the economies of which are one trick ponies, based solely on the recovery and sale of fossil fuels, could simply fail and collapse into what used to be called third world status rapidly. The vested interests and the endangered nation-states will battle the development of the hydrogen economy every step of the way.

During World War II the United States, with Great Britain as (the only) invited guest participant, designed, instituted and implemented the greatest industrial research and development project in the history of mankind. With no limitations whatsoever on its budget, demand for energy, or on its draw of strategic (for the war effort) raw materials the project’s goal was to develop and implement a way to manufacture in quantity two isotopes of elements that were then considered rare and exotic. One of these isotopes, Uranium 235, existed in nature as 0.7% of natural uranium. The other, plutonium 233, did not exist in nature, but had been discovered only at the very beginning of the time period that the Manhattan Project came into existence.

A tiny cadre of physicists, mathematicians and chemists working only with slide rules, hand operated adding machines, and their brains had predicted that if a sufficient quantity of either of these isotopes could be assembled in a small volume then a reaction could be initiated with a simple neutron “trigger’ that would cause as much as 1% or 2% of the mass of either of them to be very rapidly converted into energy. The resulting explosion, of the minimum amount necessary, would be equivalent to, at least, 20,000 tonnes of TNT, and could conceivably destroy an entire city or damage a port beyond repair. At least this is what Albert Einstein said was possible in a famous letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940. It had only been 35 years earlier than the drafting of that famous letter that Einstein, himself, had discovered the relationship between matter and energy that allowed physicists to predict the size of the explosion that would result from the nuclear fission of the “fissile” isotopes of uranium or plutonium.

Fission itself had only been observed and described in the 2 years previous to Einstein’s letter. And, when the letter was written, no one knew exactly how to make a deliverable bomb utilizing fission even if one had the fissile material in sufficient quantity. All of the scientists in the know did agree that it was possible in principal.

So, we had a situation where less than, perhaps 25 American, British and other European men (and one woman) who were firmly on the side of the wartime coalition, which America joined, to fight the German and Japanese militarist regimes, had such stature among politicians that their supposition that the project was do-able in principal convinced Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill to dedicate enormous strategic resources of scientific, engineering and skilled manpower as well as resources of energy and metals to finding out if an atomic bomb could be built, and if so, to building not just one bomb but an assembly line for them.

The impetus for the Manhattan Project was simple. The two western leaders were convinced that if they didn’t commit to the project and their enemies did then if the project were successful the enemies would win the war by the threat of or actual annihilation of America and Britain and any and all of their allies.

Before you invest in fuel cell development or any part of the development of a hydrogen economy to replace the one we currently have, which is a global (energy) economy that gets its energy primarily and overwhelmingly from the burning of fossil fuels, ask yourself what is the driving force behind such a change?

There are two answers. The original impetus for a switch from fossil fuels to “hydrogen” was the reduction of pollution deemed injurious to health and habitat. That impetus has been joined during the last decade by a growing fear that the world is warming due to anthropogenic (i.e., man made) causes mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. This global warming it is feared will disrupt the world’s agricultural economy and produce dangerous weather extremes and eventually make conditions on earth unsuitable for sustaining human life. These reasons are not life threatening in the immediate or even in the near future. Therefore there is today no urgent pressure on national governments to create a Manhattan Project to bring about the profound and fundamental change that would result from the switch from a fossil fuel to hydrogen burning energy economy. There is also today no group of scientists with the stature necessary to, on their say-so alone, cause politicians to focus a major part of a nation’s economy on converting from fossil fuels to a hydrogen economy.

The mathematics of the design of an atomic bomb is deceptively simple. The story is told that the great experimental physicist, Enrico Fermi, scribbled on the back of an envelope and came up with a fair estimate of how much U235 would be needed to make a weapon. He had originally measured experimental values on the absorption of neutrons by U235 in the mid 1930s, but he had missed the discovery of fission. On the eve of the war a brilliant woman, Lise Meitner, had correctly explained the production of barium in experiments such as Fermi’s as resulting from the nuclear fission of uranium, and the resulting possibility of a chain reaction had been proposed. It quickly became clear to the specialized scientific community that a weapon of enormous power was possible.

The first idea was to build a gun type bomb where two halves of a critical mass of uranium would be driven together at high speed, by firing one half into the other inside of a gun barrel, to form momentarily a critical mass, which would then be triggered to undergo a self sustaining chain reaction. This was exactly what was eventually done and it did work. Before the bomb could be made however it was necessary for Fermi to prove the existence both of the chain reaction and of its ability to be controlled or to be allowed to run unabated. Fermi proved the existence of the (controlled) chain reaction by designing and constructing the world’s first nuclear reactor that went critical one evening in Chicago in December, 1942.

Although many, many nuclear reactors have been built since that day first to produce fissile materials and then to produce electric power the association of nuclear reactors with weapons of mass destruction has prevented most of the world with replacing fossil fuel fired electric power generating stations with nuclear powered ones. The red herring brought up when this state of affairs is mentioned is safety. In fact, nuclear electric power generation has produced a negligible number of fatalities in the last 60 years outside of the former Soviet Union. Even factoring in Chernobyl there is no comparing the danger of operating nuclear electric power plants with the danger to human life of mining coal in China, for example. The real issues are political. First there is the unfounded fear of safe operation and then there is the real political fear of weapons grade fissile material proliferation. These two fears have so far cancelled out the fact that efficient nuclear electric generating plants can be built today, based on thorium for example, rather than uranium, which will simply not be able to produce weapons grade materials.

Engineering a fuel cell based electric power generating system to power a vehicle has not proved as simple as designing and building an atomic weapon.

All fuel cells are based on the discovery, more than a century ago, that platinum group metals can catalyze chemical reactions (This means that they can participate in a chemical reaction without themselves being changed, so they are not used up. Gasoline, for example, is produced by the catalytic cracking, using platinum group metals, of long chain hydrocarbons in crude oil to produce the short chain more easily combusted mixtures known as gasoline).

Up until now the key uses of platinum group metals have been the production of gasoline and the control of automotive emissions, but it may well turn out that the most useful reaction catalyzed by platinum group metals occurs when hydrogen gas interacts with oxygen in the presence of a catalyst, such as platinum. The hydrogen is ionized on the surface of the platinum at room temperature. This means that it, the hydrogen molecule, loses electrons. If there is a source of oxygen handy then a hydrogen ion, called a proton, will react with it in these conditions to produce water. From the very first discovery of this phenomenon a simple “cell” was devised that carried away the free electrons and the water, so that, if hydrogen (fuel) were continuously added the cell would produce a current of electricity, and the waste exhausts would be simply and only water and heat..

There are now a multiplicity of designs for fuel cells utilizing a variety of materials and catalysts. The one that has been chosen for pilot production by General Motors, and most other car makers, is known as a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEM). This type has, among the designs that operate at temperatures below that of boiling water, the greatest power output and its operation is most easily regulated by the simplest and most reliable and available components.

Car makers, when choosing a power plant, must always consider first the control and continuous variation in (for fuel cells, electric) power flow needed for a personal vehicle as well as, in the case of a fuel cell, the maximum sustainable output of electricity from the cell that will not cause it to degrade or fail. Then they need to determine how to make a car that is propelled by an electric motor directly connected to each drive wheel perform and handle in exactly the same way as an equivalent car driven by an internal combustion engine turning a central drive shaft that is connected to either two or all four of the wheels through gearing and axles.

Also to be taken into account are engineering issues long resolved in contemporary internal combustion (by gasoline) driven cars such as the effect on dynamic mechanical components of turning sharply. In contemporary cars where engine power is delivered through transmission (connection) to a drive shaft a differential gear box distributes power so that axles don’t bend or break from differential stress when the car is turning. On an electric (fuel cell powered) car with individual motors driving each wheel a different arrangement is needed. This and other historical already solved problems must be solved again and so on.

Each solution to an engineering problem must be tested in a working model of a car. Thus the total system is built up slowly and must be certified as safe and reliable each time a new step is taken. The continuous history of vehicle mechanical engineering gives me confidence that mechanical (automotive) engineers can solve any problems of the type discussed above.

The major problem is with the power plant, the fuel cell, itself. To determine how far we are from replacing our fleet, which now operates using gasoline and diesel powered internal combustion engines, with a fleet powered by hydrogen burning fuel cells we need to identify the problems preventing the immediate replacement of the older power plant type by the newer.

The key to understanding this is to recognize that contemporary automobiles are powered by safe, reliable, efficient engines the main drawback of which is not mechanical it is environmental. This is a political issue, and it is requiring that the laws of physics and the properties of materials be tailored to meet a political goal. The fuel cell, like the nuclear power plant, may not today be the cheapest solution to a problem. It is however an actual solution to the problem of maintaining our life style while implementing a solution to the alleged anthropomorphic cause of the so-called problem of global warming. Unless we suddenly enter into a mini-ice age the political pressure on fossil fuel energy generation in this country will not abate any time soon.

Those of you who disagree with me must then explain to me why we use any fossil fuels at all to generate electricity in a nation on a continent that is rich with enough uranium and thorium to build all of the nuclear electric power plants we could ever need. In fact, I assert that if we had built a predominantly nuclear electric power generating industry in this country after World War II we might now be driving battery powered vehicles and riding in all electric mass transit and heating and cooling our homes and factories with electricity. The U.S. would have no global warming gases emitted at all, and Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran would be very poor countries. Many of you will scoff at this paragraph and say that’s it not so simple. I say that it is. The methods used for the mass production of energy have been dictated globally up until now solely by cost, not politics.

Fuel cells are a major first step in the development and implementation of the so-called “hydrogen economy” currently being touted by automakers such as GM as the next best thing (since hybrids) in order to try and keep you buying the big vehicles they make. What they are asking you to buy is the same car, truck, SUV or crossover that you have now except that it will be powered directly (i.e., power will be supplied to each axle separately-the car will have no central drive shaft) by electric motors that are connected to fuel cells that will produce electricity as it is needed by, hopefully, catalyzing the oxidation (burning) of hydrogen at room temperature, not explosively (i.e., the way it is currently utilized to produce power ), but rather by combining hydrogen (the fuel) and oxygen (from the air) on a (currently) platinum group metals mesh that will be the sump into which the chemical reaction pours electrons released by the reaction. The generation of power (electricity) will cease immediately when the hydrogen flow is interrupted just as the generation of power does in an internal combustion powered vehicle when the supply of gasoline is stopped.

A battery or a battery pack will be added to the system, so that the car can have a way to power itself for a short time if it runs out of fuel and to power its accessories when the fuel cell is not operating. The battery will be charged each time the driver hits the brakes and a trickle of electricity will also be diverted from the operating fuel cell to maintain the battery at full charge. The current intermediate between internal combustion and electric powered vehicles, the hybrid, is mainly a test-bed for rechargeable batteries and for studying the issues involved in the direct application of propulsive force to the drive wheels.

GM does not make fuel cells, and it currently has no place to do so, since it spun off Delphi [TSX:DEE]. Delphi today is unable to even start such a mass production program for a new component without a total financial commitment by a supplier. Visteon [NYSE:VC] has been essentially pronounced dead by its parent, Ford [NYSE:F]. My guess is that it will not be a company the core competency of which is batteries to which GM will turn when fuel cells have reached the mass production stage. I think that very sophisticated electronics companies such as Samsung and Sony are today will be the ultimate manufacturer of fuel cells for automotive use. Samsung has just surpassed Sony as the world’s largest manufacturer of electronic devices, but I believe, based on its past history, that Sony will learn its lesson from its quality and reliability mis-step with lithium-ion batteries and come roaring back.

Both Korea and Japan have now active government sponsored strategic metals stockpile programs that will allow the financial departments of their large electronics manufacturers to remain calm as prices, and real and artificial shortages, for the necessary raw materials for fuel cell manufacturing defeat American and European electrical and electronic component manufacturers. China has already demonstrated its plan to control its natural resources as well as any outside of China on which it can get its hands. If China should develop or acquire the technology to mass produce fuel cells then its domestic range of raw materials will give it the upper hand, because no matter which technology predominates China will have the deepest and broadest access to specialty raw materials.

The variables to be decided before the finalizing of the design of fuel cells for vehicle manufacturing are:

I. The fuel source:

On board chemical reforming of hydrocarbons (or, perhaps even ammonia) to produce hydrogen as needed;
Pressurized hydrogen in tank(s);
Hydrogen stored in solid solutions of hydrides and released by heat or pressure application.
II. The fuel cell catalyst:

Platinum group metal;
Platinum group metal, such as Rhenium and other metal, such as molybdenum;
Non platinum group metals.
III. The electric bus bar collection system to channel the electricity to the motors and storage battery system:

Copper;
Aluminium;
A room temperature superconducting alloy.
IV. The proton exchange membrane (PEM):

Teflon type;
Ceramic.
V. The structural materials to conduct the steam and any breakdown products from the PEM to the exhaust or to a safe capture.


The above development will take many, many years and billions and billions of dollars. GM’s announcement that it will produce and sell thousands of fuel cell vehicles in 2010 is simply an announcement of an ongoing experiment that will, accounted for on its own, lose money.

If you are still interested in investing in fuel cell development and production as a prequel to the hydrogen economy I suggest that you only look at companies that have demonstrated long-term survival that also currently make products that will probably be used on the ultimate fuel cell for vehicles.

Just as in the mining industry where juniors do the exploration, fuel cells will turn out to be an industry where innovators develop concepts and devise techniques but expensive mass production of safe reliable fuel cells on time will be the sole provenance of large companies with deep pockets and deeper talent pools.

My personal choices for long-term investment would be Phelps Dodge [NYSE:PD] for copper and molybdenum, Johnson-Matthey [LSE:JMAT] for platinum and rhenium, Alcoa [NYSE:AA] and the new Russian Aluminium giant for aluminium, ExxonMobil [NYSE:XOM] for on-board hydrocarbon reforming and freestanding hydrogen fuel stations, DuPont [NYSE:DD] for plastic and Corning [NYSE:GLW] for ceramic, PEMs, Samsung for fuel cell mass production, and GM, Toyota, DCX, Hyundai and a Chinese car maker or two, as manufacturers of the hydrogen burning fuel cell powered vehicles.

For those of you that listen to my advice I foresee a rosy future for your adult grandchildren who are not yet born.

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=24298

Holy way too long of a post for me to read.


Hydrogen won't solve anything.


















Let that sink in a moment. Hydrogen solves NOTHING. At all. Why not? Burns clean, easy to store, fuel cells work wonderfully right?

We have no source for hydrogen, the main source we have is water, which for anyone who remembers basic chemistry is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen. Problem is to get hydrogen from water you have to pump it full of ridiculous amounts of electricity.

Where do you get the electricity?


A fuel cell is a battery, nothing more, nothing less.

Holy way too long of a post for me to read. That's why I bolded the highlites.


Hydrogen won't solve anything.


















Let that sink in a moment. Hydrogen solves NOTHING. At all. Why not? Burns clean, easy to store, fuel cells work wonderfully right?

We have no source for hydrogen, the main source we have is water, which for anyone who remembers basic chemistry is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen. Problem is to get hydrogen from water you have to pump it full of ridiculous amounts of electricity.

Where do you get the electricity?


A fuel cell is a battery, nothing more, nothing less.

Yep.

So if we all turn to hydrogen, the economy will collapse, the middle east will get closer to hell and we'll all be fucked right? Well what happens when the oil runs out? We have to do it some time and we might as well do it while there is some oil left rather than waiting for it to run dry.

So if we all turn to hydrogen, the economy will collapse, the middle east will get closer to hell and we'll all be fucked right? Well what happens when the oil runs out? We have to do it some time and we might as well do it while there is some oil left rather than waiting for it to run dry.

The point isn't what will happen if we do or do not turn to hydrogen. The point is that we will not turn to hydrogen.

The point isn't what will happen if we do or do not turn to hydrogen. The point is that we will not turn to hydrogen.

Since you're far more up to speed on energy issues than I am, what do you think is the solution?

Holy way too long of a post for me to read.
Same here.

Hydrogen won't solve anything.
It can, if two problems are overcome, basically production and storage.

Let that sink in a moment. Hydrogen solves NOTHING. At all. Why not? Burns clean, easy to store, fuel cells work wonderfully right?
Actually, it's a right bugger to burn in an internal combustion engine because it gets clogged up in water and belches out nitrous oxides.

We have no source for hydrogen, the main source we have is water, which for anyone who remembers basic chemistry is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen. Problem is to get hydrogen from water you have to pump it full of ridiculous amounts of electricity.
Not necessarily. Electrolsys is quite ineifficient, but thermochemical systems are much more so. Undoubtedly better systems will be found, as the phrase goes, "necessity is the mother of invention."

Where do you get the electricity?
Thermochemical systems simpy use heat, so a solar tower or trough, or geothermal system would be adequate. Otherwise, renewable electricity.

Or, I did read about Algae that could produce Hydrogen or even biodiesel. It's all in the R&D.

A fuel cell is a battery, nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, the Hydrogen, not the cell, stores the energy, but i'm being pedantic.

I think we'll turn to wind, nuclear, solar, and coal as main sources of energy. Hydrogen will be produced for fuel, but not as a main source of energy. It'll be much more expensive than gas is now, but since gas won't be available no one will mind much.

What we need is better batteries. MUCH better batteries, so that solar and wind and water power (which are resources that do not disappear with usage) can be more efficiently stored. Cars that run on electricity currently are hampered by batteries that are too big, too low powered, and with too little capacity. Better electrical storage capacity, that is the way to go.

Since you're far more up to speed on energy issues than I am, what do you think is the solution?

We need to rethink our mass motoring way of life. The real solutions to our energy delimna are abundant, don't need engineering, not as much anyway, and are implementable right now. The problem is they are not excting and they interfere with our current ideas regarding individual freedom.

They are mass transit, trains, waterways for shipping, busses. It's moving closer together and deploying ourselves in our urban landscape closer together. It's growing more food closer to where we live around our towns. It's smart recycling programs that work. It's rebuilding local and regional systems of manufacturing, distribution and retail that have so effectvely been destroyed by the big box way of life of Walmart and Costco. It's getting acquianted with our neighbors again so that problems with energy become problems for our towns and cities, not our whole country. It's losing the idea that we can and we must be able to hop in our cars at any moment and drive miles and miles from where we live to where we work, go to school or get our cheeseburgers. Believe me, circumstances are going to force us to lose that idea soon enough so we should at least prepare mentaly to start making these changes today.

Same here.At least read the bolded parts before you comment.


It can, if two problems are overcome, basically production and storage. This article disagrees.

The economic magnitude of a full scale conversion from fossil fuel to hydrogen as the basis of our energy production would be enormous. Such a conversion would proclaim and manifest itself as a structural change not only in the global energy industry but also in the global mining, manufacturing, automotive and fuel production and service industries.


Actually, it's a right bugger to burn in an internal combustion engine because it gets clogged up in water and belches out nitrous oxides.


Not necessarily. Electrolsys is quite ineifficient, but thermochemical systems are much more so. Undoubtedly better systems will be found, as the phrase goes, "necessity is the mother of invention."


Thermochemical systems simpy use heat, so a solar tower or trough, or geothermal system would be adequate. Otherwise, renewable electricity.

Or, I did read about Algae that could produce Hydrogen or even biodiesel. It's all in the R&D.



Actually, the Hydrogen, not the cell, stores the energy, but i'm being pedantic.

According to this article, the hurdles that you seem to think are so easy are anything but. If you're counting on it coming anytime soon, you should take teh time and at least skim it to see how seriosu the hurdles really are.

Where do you get the electricity?


A fuel cell is a battery, nothing more, nothing less.

true.

right now, we take the oil, burn it in a car, and the car goes.

if hydrogen were here:

we would burn oil in a power plant, convert electricity into hydrogen, put hydrogen in cars, and catalyze the hydrogen to make it go.


the difference between the first and second is that in the first, there is very little room to change things.

in the second, the first step could be replaced with any form of power creation.

hydrogen cars would still be leashed to oil, but the longer the leash, the easier it is to cut.

replace 'oil->electricity' with something else (solar? wind? tidal? geothermal?) and you're home free.


an interesting link:

http://www.dpccars.com/car-movies/05-15-06pageWaterasfuel.htm


so much for your whole big 'hydrogen will never happen' rant...

true.

right now, we take the oil, burn it in a car, and the car goes.

if hydrogen were here:

we would burn oil in a power plant, convert electricity into hydrogen, put hydrogen in cars, and catalyze the hydrogen to make it go.


the difference between the first and second is that in the first, there is very little room to change things.

in the second, the first step could be replaced with any form of power creation.

hydrogen cars would still be leashed to oil, but the longer the leash, the easier it is to cut.

replace 'oil->electricity' with something else (solar? wind? tidal? geothermal?) and you're home free.


an interesting link:

http://www.dpccars.com/car-movies/05-15-06pageWaterasfuel.htm


so much for your whole big 'hydrogen will never happen' rant...

You counter an extremely well written article that explains all teh reasons we won't live to see a hydrogen econmy with a page with pictures? Not a good argument.

did you even watch the movie?

this guy built a car that can drive for 100 miles with nothing but a few ounces of water.

Let that sink in a moment. Hydrogen solves NOTHING. At all. Why not? Burns clean, easy to store, fuel cells work wonderfully right?

We have no source for hydrogen, the main source we have is water, which for anyone who remembers basic chemistry is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen. Problem is to get hydrogen from water you have to pump it full of ridiculous amounts of electricity.

Where do you get the electricity?


A fuel cell is a battery, nothing more, nothing less.
The fuel source is water and you're wondering how to get electricity?

Hydroelectric power!

Dam up a large area, create hydroelectric power from it, and take a little water, and crack it to get the hydrogen. When the facility's not using the hydroelectricity for cracking, it could use a motor to pump the water at the bottom of the dam back up to the top again.

Sorted.

The fuel source is water and you're wondering how to get electricity?

Hydroelectric power!

Dam up a large area, create hydroelectric power from it, and take a little water, and crack it to get the hydrogen. When the facility's not using the hydroelectricity for cracking, it could use a motor to pump the water at the bottom of the dam back up to the top again.

Sorted.

look up 'perpetual motion' and get back to me.

unless you are damming up somewhere that you know the water will be renewed by natural means (ie: you don't have to pump it up by yourself), this is going to use up more energy than it makes

... there are some things you should know about it. This is an excelent article on hydrogen. Basically it makes a good case for none of us living to see it.

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=24298
I knew that. The solution is to slowly move towards Hydrogen or alternative fuels. do it in a way where the cost is minimized and spread out through the decades.

say... first by adding chemicals to the fuel to stretch it out... adding efficiency and milage...

then start creating hybrids, where fuel is still used, but alternate energy (electricity) is working in tandem...

then increase the additives, making fossil fuels the lesser percentage...

increase biofuels, and other alternatives...

then slowly insert the hydrogen cells (by then cheaper ways of obtaining Hydrogen will be around.)
and finally, cut out the electricity and bio fuels...


all in all... perhaps a century will have passed...

look up 'perpetual motion' and get back to me.

unless you are damming up somewhere that you know the water will be renewed by natural means (ie: you don't have to pump it up by yourself), this is going to use up more energy than it makes
No you're not...

It's done in a couple of places in the UK, in Wales there's a hydroelectric power station that does this.

It's not like you couldn't scale it up.

Why phase it in?

look at history: were the first cars half horse drawn and half steam powered?

they dumped cars on the market, and even though people couldn't use the existing fuels (oats and hay) to power it, it was still (obviously) a big success

Why phase it in?

look at history: were the first cars half horse drawn and half steam powered?

they dumped cars on the market, and even though people couldn't use the existing fuels (oats and hay) to power it, it was still (obviously) a big success

ah, but they didn't have Horse fueling stations, neither did oats and Hay become so ingrained in society.

think about all the gas stations in your area that will need to be upgraded. add to that all the service stations as well as auto repair shops that need to be upgraded.

then add in the cost of this new car. and add in the fact that not everyone will chance, thus you need to keep the old system in place.

even if you devote 100% of your income to your new car, Unless you're Bill Gates, you wouldn't last a year.

did you even watch the movie?

this guy built a car that can drive for 100 miles with nothing but a few ounces of water.
Did you even read teh article? It's not saying that building one car is impossible. Of course it is. There are people driving around in Hydrogen cars at this moment. He's saying:
The economic magnitude of a full scale conversion from fossil fuel to hydrogen as the basis of our energy production would be enormous. Such a conversion would proclaim and manifest itself as a structural change not only in the global energy industry but also in the global mining, manufacturing, automotive and fuel production and service industries.

and:

Therefore there is today no urgent pressure on national governments to create a Manhattan Project to bring about the profound and fundamental change that would result from the switch from a fossil fuel to hydrogen burning energy economy. There is also today no group of scientists with the stature necessary to, on their say-so alone, cause politicians to focus a major part of a nation’s economy on converting from fossil fuels to a hydrogen economy.

and:

Unless we suddenly enter into a mini-ice age the political pressure on fossil fuel energy generation in this country will not abate any time soon.

Those of you who disagree with me must then explain to me why we use any fossil fuels at all to generate electricity in a nation on a continent that is rich with enough uranium and thorium to build all of the nuclear electric power plants we could ever need. In fact, I assert that if we had built a predominantly nuclear electric power generating industry in this country after World War II we might now be driving battery powered vehicles and riding in all electric mass transit and heating and cooling our homes and factories with electricity. The U.S. would have no global warming gases emitted at all, and Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran would be very poor countries. Many of you will scoff at this paragraph and say that’s it not so simple. I say that it is. The methods used for the mass production of energy have been dictated globally up until now solely by cost, not politics.

And:

The above development will take many, many years and billions and billions of dollars. GM’s announcement that it will produce and sell thousands of fuel cell vehicles in 2010 is simply an announcement of an ongoing experiment that will, accounted for on its own, lose money.

and finally:

For those of you that listen to my advice I foresee a rosy future for your adult grandchildren who are not yet born.

I've seen it already anyways.

a: The process he has is not the same process we are talking about. He's generating HO, not HH

b: His process takes even more electricty than creating HH.

No you're not...

It's done in a couple of places in the UK, in Wales there's a hydroelectric power station that does this.

It's not like you couldn't scale it up.

and I guarantee that it's in a place that is renewed by a natural source.

it is physically impossible to get more energy out of a system than exists in the system (conservation of matter and energy)

let's put it this way: the water has X amount of kinetic energy. the plant transfers that energy into electricity when the water falls. pumping it back up does nothing but take that electricity and transfer it back into the water as kinetic energy.

do you think that it takes less energy to pump it back up than you get by passing it through the turbine? because that's what perpetual motion is: a closed system with a net output of energy.

it's also impossible.

and I guarantee that it's in a place that is renewed by a natural source.

it is physically impossible to get more energy out of a system than exists in the system (conservation of matter and energy)

let's put it this way: the water has X amount of kinetic energy. the plant transfers that energy into electricity when the water falls. pumping it back up does nothing but take that electricity and transfer it back into the water as kinetic energy.

do you think that it takes less energy to pump it back up than you get by passing it through the turbine? because that's what perpetual motion is: a closed system with a net output of energy.

it's also impossible.
It also makes no practical sense. You're better off building another dam downstream to capture any residual kinetic energy plus what has been added by gravity.

I just don't know when people will finally forget this school chemistry lab electrolysis notion.
Hydrogen is produced from natural gas, as byproduct or main product.

And natural gas resources are not as scarce. So for now temporary solution is simply installing gas equipment for cars. Some biogas also can be used.

Other problem is that heavy cars are used to transport passenger who is 30 times lighter; at extreme passengers take 20% of vehicle weight, compared with 50+% achievable. Lightweight and more fuel-efficient cars would be a partial solution.

Then, public transport could also heavily reduce fuel use, or do not require fossil fuels or fuel cell technologies at all, working on electricity. In Japan, for instance, trains are a well-developed solution; trolleys can be used extensively.

Electricity itself can be produced from uranium, and with use of breeder reactors reserves are quite high, since U-238 is processed into plutonium and burnt as well.

All these technologies are not tomorrow's, but today's. The obstacle lies in simply spending some more to apply them.

Right, I won't be alive to see fuel cells commonly used in consumer applications. But forty years isn't so far off that we should discredit the idea. Just not invest our life savings, while hoping for a big return. That's what the lottery is for.

I just don't know when people will finally forget this school chemistry lab electrolysis notion.
Hydrogen is produced from natural gas, as byproduct or main product.

And natural gas resources are not as scarce. So for now temporary solution is simply installing gas equipment for cars. Some biogas also can be used.

Other problem is that heavy cars are used to transport passenger who is 30 times lighter; at extreme passengers take 20% of vehicle weight, compared with 50+% achievable. Lightweight and more fuel-efficient cars would be a partial solution.

Then, public transport could also heavily reduce fuel use, or do not require fossil fuels or fuel cell technologies at all, working on electricity. In Japan, for instance, trains are a well-developed solution; trolleys can be used extensively.

Electricity itself can be produced from uranium, and with use of breeder reactors reserves are quite high, since U-238 is processed into plutonium and burnt as well.

All these technologies are not tomorrow's, but today's. The obstacle lies in simply spending some more to apply them.

Exactly but we'll have to agree to disagree on the abundance of nat gas. It's been in decline in North America since 2001 and nat gas doesn't roll down a hill when it declines like oil, it falls off a cliff. When most nat gas wells go into decline you're not talking about decline rates of 5%, 8% or even 12%, you're talking about rates of 20% or higher year over years. Also I would add that some structural changes to our economy are needed and doable right now. Rehabilitating local agriculture, rebuilding local and regional networks of economic interdependancy where people maufacture, distribute and retail goods on local and regional scales rather than just having the Chinese manufacture all our stuff and shipping it in from 12,000 miles away. These are all changes I'd like to see even if oil isn't at or near peak. These changes are good for a multitude of reasons that have nothing to do with global warming and Peak Oil.

Right, I won't be alive to see fuel cells commonly used in consumer applications. But forty years isn't so far off that we should discredit the idea. Just not invest our life savings, while hoping for a big return. That's what the lottery is for.

Forty years is not only not far off, it's also extremely optimistic.

Nations, such as Saudi Arabia, the economies of which are one trick ponies, based solely on the recovery and sale of fossil fuels, could simply fail and collapse into what used to be called third world status rapidly.
1. Saudi pratically is third-world.
2. They'd be much better off without 15,000 billionaire-princes.

1. Saudi pratically is third-world.
2. They'd be much better off without 15,000 billionaire-princes.

Sure, but without their oil revenue they'd be hard put to fund their massive desalinization scheme that makes it possible for hat many people to live there.

Exactly but we'll have to agree to disagree on the abundance of nat gas. It's been in decline in North America since 2001 and nat gas doesn't roll down a hill when it declines like oil, it falls off a cliff.
It is not a viable long-term substitute, but you can just take normal car and mod it to run on LPG, unlike with fuel cells. That makes switching quick. Trucks can shift to natural gas quite quickly, due to less design limitations.

Gas reserves are scarce only in US, but these are only few percent of world total. Most of natural gas is located in Iran (of course) and Russia; importing would be a viable solution. World gas reserves are estimated to keep economy about 20 years after oil fails (becomes inefficient). That will be enough of time reserve to build up nuclear industry and public transport.

It is not a viable long-term substitute, but you can just take normal car and mod it to run on LPG, unlike with fuel cells. That makes switching quick. Trucks can shift to natural gas quite quickly, due to less design limitations.

Gas reserves are scarce only in US, but these are only few percent of world total. Most of natural gas is located in Iran (of course) and Russia; importing would be a viable solution. World gas reserves are estimated to keep economy about 20 years after oil fails (becomes inefficient). That will be enough of time reserve to build up nuclear industry and public transport.

can't disagree there. I'm actually looking to buy a propane kit for my car. Flick the switch, I'm on gas. Flick it the other way, I'm on propane.

But that is the ticket. We need to be looking at solutions that are availablr right now. As a matter in fact, if we implement these kinds of changes we'll have a lot more resources to use to build nuclear and eventually hydrogen powered infrastructure. The problem is really cultural. People here in the US just can't imagine not having a powerful car as their primary source of transportation or being bound by where they work and where they get their necessities to where they live. Almost everybody else in the world does it, but we have this "everybody lives freely on wheels" attitude towards the world and it's going to get us into a lot of trouble if we keep striving to maintain it in the face of declining energy supplies - ESPECIALLY in a world that is becoming increasingly volitile as we're reliant on an energy source that comes predominantly from the MOST volitile area of the world where people don't like us very much.

Holy way too long of a post for me to read.


Hydrogen won't solve anything.

Let that sink in a moment. Hydrogen solves NOTHING. At all. Why not? Burns clean, easy to store, fuel cells work wonderfully right?

We have no source for hydrogen, the main source we have is water, which for anyone who remembers basic chemistry is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen. Problem is to get hydrogen from water you have to pump it full of ridiculous amounts of electricity.

Where do you get the electricity?


A fuel cell is a battery, nothing more, nothing less.

Hydrogen is not a magical, one shot type of thing, instead there are several greater structural charges that would be required. We'd have to increase our reliance on non-carbon emitting energy sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind and otherwise.

Beyond that, you get more energy from hydrogen than you put into it. Of course you have to put energy into water to break out the hydrogen, but that's doable, and you get more energy out. It's not merely a battery. More akin to oil which requires that you have to heat it to enourmous temperatures to get the distilled products out.

Hydrogen is an intermediate or long term solution; it's not the solution but one of many. The post-peak world is going to be one where we have to use multiple sources of energy to meet the same demands as one of the fossil fuels; it's actually more like earning energy rather than just having it present in the ground like fossil fuels. Currently, the main way of producing hydrogen is from natural gas, and that is going to likely peak within the 2010-2030 timeframe so it will not be a truly sustainable long-term solution (unless we manage to profitably extract methane hydrates, technology greatly boosts recovery rates or the overall reserves picture increases significantly).

Hydrogen will have invaluable uses both now and in the post-peak period but they will not become major sources of our energy portfolio until non-fossil method of extraction become viable; obviously, hydrolisis using renewable energy is going to be the most sustainable form of production but currently it's too expensive to be feasible.

And I seriously doubt that hydrogen combustion will ever really make sense; there are much better and more efficient uses for it than just putting it in the tank and burning it like a fossil fuel. There are simply too many logistical problems to do so except in the very long term; unlike ethanol or biodiesel, which many cars can use in current engines or with minor upgrades and which require moderate adjustments to the distribution infrastructure, hydrogen requires an entirely new network of pipelines, production facilities, storage tanks and vehicle designs.

These logistical challenges are too great to bring to market in less than several decades; remember that oil itself took at least until the beginning of the 20th century and the dawn of the automobile to really become a major fuel...there was nearly a 60-70 year gap between the first wells and the explosion of the oil industry at Spindletop and other sites in the 1900's.

The original post states that there is no immediate, driving reason for us to switch to hydrogen fuel. That is fairly true. It's this kind of short-sightedness that's difficult to combat; a lot of people seem content to stuff their pockets and die; the world be damned.

We have to think ahead. Generations from now, if there *is* a driving, life-threatening crisis, will it be too late? Will they look back and wish we'd done more?

Of course, I myself support alternative fuel more for what pollutants from fossilized fuel and the effects of global warming can do to the global ecosystem. Not that hydrogen is perfect.. The cells still have to be made, but at least they themselves won't spew noxious gasses.

On another note, the original article wanders way too much. This isn't an attack on the writer's credibility, it just seems.. weird. I mean, I can see the relevance that the discovery of nuclear energy has to the discovery of hydrogen energy (ignoring that the former creates an extremely hazardous waste product), but I don't think a history of the construction of the atomic bomb was all that neccessary.

We must all remember to K.I.S.S!

The original post states that there is no immediate, driving reason for us to switch to hydrogen fuel. That is fairly true. It's this kind of short-sightedness that's difficult to combat; a lot of people seem content to stuff their pockets and die; the world be damned.

We have to think ahead. Generations from now, if there *is* a driving, life-threatening crisis, will it be too late? Will they look back and wish we'd done more?

Of course, I myself support alternative fuel more for what pollutants from fossilized fuel and the effects of global warming can do to the global ecosystem. Not that hydrogen is perfect.. The cells still have to be made, but at least they themselves won't spew noxious gasses.

On another note, the original article wanders way too much. This isn't an attack on the writer's credibility, it just seems.. weird. I mean, I can see the relevance that the discovery of nuclear energy has to the discovery of hydrogen energy (ignoring that the former creates an extremely hazardous waste product), but I don't think a history of the construction of the atomic bomb was all that neccessary.

We must all remember to K.I.S.S!

I think his point is that it took a world war to create the political will to overcome the obstacles to nuclear power. Since we have no such crisis on teh immediate horizon now, and the technological challenges are greater, we probably will not see the kind of commitment to hydrogen power anytime soon that we had to nuclear power in the 40's.

I think his point is that it took a world war to create the political will to overcome the obstacles to nuclear power. Since we have no such crisis on teh immediate horizon now, and the technological challenges are greater, we probably will not see the kind of commitment to hydrogen power anytime soon that we had to nuclear power in the 40's.

Yes, but the fact that he took about seven paragraphs to explain what you did in one made me want to kick him in the throat.

Anyway, regardless, people will either overcome their reluctance to change, or suffer for it. Such is evolution!

And yet, I imagine all the nay-sayers will be left scratching their heads when someone actually does what they believe to be infeasible, and accomplishes it faster than they thought possible. That seems to be the way of revolutionary scientific advances.

The majority says 'don't bother, it just wont work'. And an individual, or small group of individuals, says 'we can make this work'. And then they do.

"Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create." Calvin Coolidge

I think that we would already have a fuel cell driven ecconomy if it weren't for the fact that the fossil fuel companies have a great deal of capital and influence; and also have an (understandable) interest in us not developing this technology.

While I agree with the author that we are not headed for a "hydrogen economy", I disagree with some of his other assertions and conclusions.

I disagree with the author that neither air pollution nor global warming are life threatening in the immediate or near term. For the former, try telling that to the tens of thousands of people that prematurely die across North America every year due to air pollution. As for the latter, we need look no further than the role that global warming is already playing in increasing the force of storms such as Hurricane Katrina.

I disagree with the author that the concerns about nuclear energy are baseless, and that nuclear energy is the answer to our woes. The nuclear lobby usually blames environmentalists for whipping up groundless hysteria about nuclear energy. I think that overestimates the power of the environmental movement. More importantly, I think it fails to explain why nuclear energy is considered so unsafe by insurers that they are unwilling to insure nuclear energy at a price that makes it economically viable. The only reason nuclear energy is economically viable is because government's limit their liability through legislation (i.e. if there was a nuclear disaster, you and I, not the power company, would bear the cost). Lets face it ... insurers are not exactly prone to hysteria ... they are largely rational, profit-seeking enterprises in a reasonably competitive industry. If they consider nuclear energy unsafe, there must be some basis for it.

Like Vetalia, I think that we are headed for an economy where hydrogen will be just one of many solutions, and that hydrogen will be viable in the intermediate to long term when non-fossil-fuel sources are onstream. Nuclear may be one of them, but it is not the magic silver bullet any more than hydrogen is.

And yet, I imagine all the nay-sayers will be left scratching their heads when someone actually does what they believe to be infeasible, and accomplishes it faster than they thought possible. That seems to be the way of revolutionary scientific advances.

The majority says 'don't bother, it just wont work'. And an individual, or small group of individuals, says 'we can make this work'. And then they do.

"Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create." Calvin Coolidge

I think that we would already have a fuel cell driven ecconomy if it weren't for the fact that the fossil fuel companies have a great deal of capital and influence; and also have an (understandable) interest in us not developing this technology.

Nobodies saying that hydrogen cars can't be made. What his point is is that the task of building a hydrogen infrastruture is massive and is impossible to accomplish quickly and cheaply. For example, hydrogen cannot be transported by any existing pipelines and cannot be stored in any existing tanks at gas stations and the like because it makes metal brittle and because it is so light that it leaks quickly from existing natural gas infrastructure. The tanks that are made to hold hydrogen are extremely heavy and are made with very expensive polymers to protect the seals any to make them straonger than air tight. Seeing as how natural gas and oil pieplines have taken decades to build, how long do you think it will take to build a whole new series of pipelines and hydrogen tanks to store and distribute the gas? That's just one hurdle. In addition you have to ask the economic questions like how are you going to get consumers to buy cars that cannot be filled up because there are no stations that sell hydrogen? How are you going to get stations o sell hydrogen when there are no cars that run on it? Which will come first?

As far as oil companies are concerned they'd just produce the gas themselves and make a bundle on it were it viable. I'm sick of these oil company conspiracy theories. They are no supressing anything. Shell, for example, is the largest producer of solar energy in the world. Chevron is buying up ethanol plants and, no, it's not to shut them down - it's to make and sell ethanol. If there's a buck in it, they'll do it.

While I agree with the author that we are not headed for a "hydrogen economy", I disagree with some of his other assertions and conclusions.

I disagree with the author that neither air pollution nor global warming are life threatening in the immediate or near term. For the former, try telling that to the tens of thousands of people that prematurely die across North America every year due to air pollution. As for the latter, we need look no further than the role that global warming is already playing in increasing the force of storms such as Hurricane Katrina.I don't think he's saying it's baseless. What he's saying is that the perception is that there's no immediate crisis. Whether there actually is or not is imaterial. As long as the perception is that the crisis is not on us, the political will is lacking.

I disagree with the author that the concerns about nuclear energy are baseless, and that nuclear energy is the answer to our woes. The nuclear lobby usually blames environmentalists for whipping up groundless hysteria about nuclear energy. I think that overestimates the power of the environmental movement. More importantly, I think it fails to explain why nuclear energy is considered so unsafe by insurers that they are unwilling to insure nuclear energy at a price that makes it economically viable. The only reason nuclear energy is economically viable is because government's limit their liability through legislation (i.e. if there was a nuclear disaster, you and I, not the power company, would bear the cost). Lets face it ... insurers are not exactly prone to hysteria ... they are largely rational, profit-seeking enterprises in a reasonably competitive industry. If they consider nuclear energy unsafe, there must be some basis for it.

Like Vetalia, I think that we are headed for an economy where hydrogen will be just one of many solutions, and that hydrogen will be viable in the intermediate to long term when non-fossil-fuel sources are onstream. Nuclear may be one of them, but it is not the magic silver bullet any more than hydrogen is.

Interestingly enough, in SciAm today:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. researchers have designed a reactor fuel that they believe can make nuclear power plants 50 percent more powerful and safer, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said.

Researchers say their new technology should be ready for commercial use in existing reactors in about 10 years.

In a nuclear reactor, the fission of uranium atoms provides heat used to produce steam for generating electricity.

Already, one pickup truck full of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor can supply a city with enough electricity for a year. The MIT scientists believe they have found a way to make the fuel go even further, boosting output by about 50 percent.

Uranium fuel typically is formed into cylindrical ceramic pellets about half-inch in diameter. The pellets look like a smooth, black version of food pellets for small animals.

Pavel Hejzlar and Mujid Kazimi of MIT recently completed a three-year project for the U.S. Department of Energy, along with scientists from Westinghouse and other companies. The researchers looked at how to make fuel for pressurized water reactors more efficient while maintaining safety margins.


About two-thirds of the 103 reactors operating in the United States are pressurized, using high pressure to prevent the water from boiling.

The scientists changed the shape of the fuel from solid cylinders to hollow tubes, adding surface area that allowed water to flow inside and outside the pellets, increasing heat transfer.

The new fuel design also is much safer because it reaches an operating temperature of about 700 degrees Celsius, much lower than 1,800 degrees for conventional fuel and further from the 2,840 degrees melting point for uranium fuel.

Hejzlar, a principle research scientist in MIT's Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, said it could take up to 10 years to commercialize the new fuel concept.

Hejzlar did not have time to patent the concept before accepting more than $2 million in federal research money and publishing the results. He said several reactor manufacturers and utilities have expressed interest in the new fuel.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=CF2F3FE19FFBA462831D7F037A07FC83

I don't think he's saying it's baseless. What he's saying is that the perception is that there's no immediate crisis. Whether there actually is or not is imaterial. As long as the perception is that the crisis is not on us, the political will is lacking.

I agree that the political will is lacking due to the lack of perception of this being a problem. But him saying that these problems are "not life threatening in the immediate or near future" does not add to the sense of urgency. It only detracts from it.


Interestingly enough, in SciAm today:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=CF2F3FE19FFBA462831D7F037A07FC83

Interesting article. I am not saying that nuclear power can never be safe, and that it should never be used. Waht I am saying is that suggesting that the best alternative to a "hydrogen economy" is a nuclear economy is flawed. It's every bit as flawed as having a fossil fuel economy because the economics are false: the true costs are not reflected.

The interesting thing is "where" the best place to produce hydrogen would be. A place with a vast amount of sunlight which could be used to convert sea water into hydrogen. Then pipe it to an industrial area. (Far better than using it for transportation because of containment) The best area that has these assets---North Africa. Plenty of sun and a pipeline under the sea to Europe. Saudi Arabia and other sunshine countries could ship it to the US and East Asia.

The interesting thing is "where" the best place to produce hydrogen would be. A place with a vast amount of sunlight which could be used to convert sea water into hydrogen. Then pipe it to an industrial area. (Far better than using it for transportation because of containment) The best area that has these assets---North Africa. Plenty of sun and a pipeline under the sea to Europe. Saudi Arabia and other sunshine countries could ship it to the US and East Asia.

There's another problem. You'd have to contain the stuff under enormous pressure to make shipping it worthwhile. Hydrogen is not very energy dense so you have to pay attention to the energy cost of shipping it. Even if you were to retrofit an LNG tanker to ship hydrogen you may use more energy to ship it than the hydrogen contains which would make it a pointless venture. In fact, if you were to use the hydrogen on board to power your ship you might run out long before you get to your destination.

There's another problem. You'd have to contain the stuff under enormous pressure to make shipping it worthwhile. Hydrogen is not very energy dense so you have to pay attention to the energy cost of shipping it.

*takes a whiff of hydrogen* Oh, yeah! Good stuff!

It's true, I doubt we'll see ships or ducts carrying hydrogen in the same way they carry oil now; let alone enormous storage tanks for hydrogen. It's far more probable that hydrogen will be produced as close to the spot where it's going to be used as possible.

However, research is going hard at developing alternatives, that is a chemical reaction that you can use to store energy in liquid form and that can later be reversed to free that energy (minus entropy, of course). There are a couple of promising lines now, but nothing certain, at least not for a decade at least.

*takes another whiff of hydrogen*

*takes a whiff of hydrogen* Oh, yeah! Good stuff!

It's true, I doubt we'll see ships or ducts carrying hydrogen in the same way they carry oil now; let alone enormous storage tanks for hydrogen.

*takes another whiff of hydrogen*

Can you imagine if one of those 60,000 tonne tankers had beached itself on some rocks and there was a spark from the impact...?