So far the main objection to hydrogen technology was that it is too expensive.
No, actually, this is not the main objection. The main objection I hear is that it is actually not a fuel. Rather, it is an energy conduit.
Oil, coal, and all the other forms of captured solar energy from prehistoric times are fuels. Pull them out of ground; light them on fire; energy released! Hydrogen, by contrast, must be produced using energy, preferably one of the common sources like those I cited just before typing "light them on fire." (If you're lucky, like we are here in the Pacific Northwest, you can use falling water trapped behind a dam; but such situations are rare. Using solar or wind is also an option, but until a majority of electricity is powered thusly. . . .)
Once you have hydrogen, yes, many things are possible, just as you said in the OP. Ah, but are they better than alternatives . . . like simple battery electric?
No. Not yet, at least.
Hydrogen is a tiny molecule. Building containers for it are therefore tricky to the point of Wow. The hydrogen losses from containment vessels in practice makes the trickle losses from batteries look admirable. Therefore, if one needs to power an application with electricity, it is far, far, far more efficient to do so using batteries.
In fact, a bit of your timeline should be revised:
And the hydrogen industry itself experienced a slowdown, once the initial enthusiasm of the 90s had evaporated in the 2000s.
Not so. That initial enthusiasm, according to all the development and promise, was in the battery-electric field, not the hydrogen. People never stopped tinkering with hydrogen, and the enthusiasts going into actual business in the field—like me—never dismissed it, knowing that it would be a good compliment to battery electrics. But it was always farther in the future than most cared to admit.
That changed with the election of GWB. Trust me, I saw this first-hand.
The California Air Resources Board gave up on its all-electric mandates, effectively killing electrics in this country for ten years. French battery maker SAFT killed a battery plant based on this, as did other firms. So many other projects, with promising words leaked from insiders, died on the vine.
And in return, W himself toured a GM facility with a fuel cell vehicle, one that was just decades away from completion/practicality. This distraction allowed GM to crush the battery electric cars that were practical now, and continue selling gas guzzlers fueled by W's friends for another 8 years at least.
I don't want to rain on anyone's passion, but in a nutshell, hydrogen hype retarded battery-electric transport by at least ten years. It was used as the distraction to continue burning carbon, and may be implemented as such yet again. Yes, one day it may make more sense than batteries. I'm not young enough to hold my breath waiting for that magic time to arrive.
no subject
No, actually, this is not the main objection. The main objection I hear is that it is actually not a fuel. Rather, it is an energy conduit.
Oil, coal, and all the other forms of captured solar energy from prehistoric times are fuels. Pull them out of ground; light them on fire; energy released! Hydrogen, by contrast, must be produced using energy, preferably one of the common sources like those I cited just before typing "light them on fire." (If you're lucky, like we are here in the Pacific Northwest, you can use falling water trapped behind a dam; but such situations are rare. Using solar or wind is also an option, but until a majority of electricity is powered thusly. . . .)
Once you have hydrogen, yes, many things are possible, just as you said in the OP. Ah, but are they better than alternatives . . . like simple battery electric?
No. Not yet, at least.
Hydrogen is a tiny molecule. Building containers for it are therefore tricky to the point of Wow. The hydrogen losses from containment vessels in practice makes the trickle losses from batteries look admirable. Therefore, if one needs to power an application with electricity, it is far, far, far more efficient to do so using batteries.
In fact, a bit of your timeline should be revised:
And the hydrogen industry itself experienced a slowdown, once the initial enthusiasm of the 90s had evaporated in the 2000s.
Not so. That initial enthusiasm, according to all the development and promise, was in the battery-electric field, not the hydrogen. People never stopped tinkering with hydrogen, and the enthusiasts going into actual business in the field—like me—never dismissed it, knowing that it would be a good compliment to battery electrics. But it was always farther in the future than most cared to admit.
That changed with the election of GWB. Trust me, I saw this first-hand.
The California Air Resources Board gave up on its all-electric mandates, effectively killing electrics in this country for ten years. French battery maker SAFT killed a battery plant based on this, as did other firms. So many other projects, with promising words leaked from insiders, died on the vine.
And in return, W himself toured a GM facility with a fuel cell vehicle, one that was just decades away from completion/practicality. This distraction allowed GM to crush the battery electric cars that were practical now, and continue selling gas guzzlers fueled by W's friends for another 8 years at least.
I don't want to rain on anyone's passion, but in a nutshell, hydrogen hype retarded battery-electric transport by at least ten years. It was used as the distraction to continue burning carbon, and may be implemented as such yet again. Yes, one day it may make more sense than batteries. I'm not young enough to hold my breath waiting for that magic time to arrive.