Twenty Hydrogen Myths

The paper was last updated in 2005 but I think a lot of information is still valid. I think it is a good topic for discussion.

Myth #1. A whole hydrogen industry would need to be developed from scratch.

Myth #2. Hydrogen is too dangerous, explosive, or “volatile” for common use as a fuel.

Myth #3. Making hydrogen uses more energy than it yields, so it's prohibitively inefficient.

Myth #4. Delivering hydrogen to users would consume most of the energy it contains.

Myth #5. Hydrogen can't be distributed in existing pipelines, requiring costly new ones.

Myth #6. We don't have practical ways to run cars on gaseous hydrogen, so cars must continue to use liquid fuels.

Myth #7. We lack a safe and affordable way to store hydrogen in cars.

Myth #8. Compressing hydrogen for automotive storage tanks takes too much energy.

Myth #9. Hydrogen is too expensive to compete with gasoline.

Myth #10. We'd need to lace the country with ubiquitous hydrogen production, distribution, and delivery infrastructure before we could sell the first hydrogen car, but that's impractical and far too costly -- probably hundreds of billions of dollars.

Myth #11. Manufacturing enough hydrogen to run a car fleet is a gargantuan and hugely expensive task.

Myth #12. Since renewables are currently too costly, hydrogen would have to be made from fossil fuels or nuclear energy.

Myth #13. Incumbent industries (e.g., oil and car companies) actually oppose hydrogen as a competitive threat, so their hydrogen development efforts are mere window-dressing.

Myth #14. A large-scale hydrogen economy would harm the Earth's climate, water balance, or atmospheric chemistry.

Myth #15. There are more attractive ways to provide sustainable mobility than adopting hydrogen.

Myth #16. Because the U.S. car fleet takes roughly 14 years to turn over, little can be done to change car technology in the short term.

Myth #17. A viable hydrogen transition would take 30–50 years or more to complete, and hardly anything worthwhile could be done sooner than 20 years.

Myth #18. The hydrogen transition requires a big (say, $100–300 billion) Federal crash program, on the lines of the Apollo Program or the Manhattan Project.

Myth #19. A crash program to switch to hydrogen is the only realistic way to get off oil.

Myth #20. The Bush Administration's hydrogen program is just a smokescreen to stall adoption of the hybrid-electric and other efficient car designs available now, and wraps fossil and nuclear energy in a green disguise.

Source

 

Not sure but Dr. Steven Chu has shifted his view on hydrogen, before he stepped down as Energy Sec.

 

Where is the camp 3 that supports domestic fuel (natural gas) for our energy independence?

FCV can be one of the solutions. We are going to need multiple technologies (BEV, PHEV, HEV and FCV) to achieve it.

I am all for clean energy. H2 can be generated from renewable source but at reduced efficiency. However, doing that also increases the vehicle refueling speed. BEV will have refueling bottleneck especially with the existing infrastructure (L1 and L2).

I think there is market for different refueling speeds. Some may like slow overnight charging that rarely goes out of the normal range. Others would want "gas like" refueling speed with electric propulsion.

I think this clean renewable energy purity is getting in the way of energy independence.

 

I totally agree. Only if FCVs are dirty and a resource hog.

Well-to-wheel efficiency of FCV is better than Prius that runs on gas. It is comparable to BEV that runs on today's electricity mix.

It is not like BEVs run ONLY on renewable energy. Most of them charge at night when electricity is generated mostly from fossil fuel. Talk solar yet consume coal. Word vs. action. That's how I see the current situation with EV-only proponents.

 

You can listen to him explaining why his stance changed. The segment starts at 1:22 in the video.

 

Let's not kill it, then the movie will be unnecessary.

Tri-generator sounds interesting. It can get rid of my hot water heater, gas furnace, get off the grid and power a FCV.

tri-generation that produce heat, power and hydrogen from natural gas or biogas, may also provide low cost hydrogen for vehicles.
​

Source

 

I don't recall reading or viewing anything like that.

However, Obama admin shifted direction with the new Energy Sec Ernest Moniz. These are a few good reads.

This one pops out:

Europe has committed to building a hydrogen infrastructure, with EU leaders saying, "The cost of the necessary Europeanwide hydrogen fueling infrastructure could be five times lower than the cost of the charging network required for battery and plug-in hybrid vehicles."​

Hydrogen cars met with mix of excitement and skepticism in Washington - The Washington Post


President Obama Changes Course and Backs Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles

 

In my view, that funding has already been spent in battery R&D and ineffective plugin incentives.



I agree with you that we should clean up our grid first.

I also believe that the funding should be tech neutral and our eggs should be spread in multiple baskets.