The problem with hydrogen is that you don't just come across it naturally. You have to start with something else, usually water, then add a shed-load of energy to extract the hydrogen. You could have used that energy more directly.
So, in my book, hydrogen is more of a battery than a fuel.
Same with gasoline. We don't just find it laying around. We have to dig up something out of the ground, and then process it into usable materials/fuel. By your own argument, gasoline is a battery. Even if it IS more energy dense than hydrogen.
Frankly, I think a Nuclear plant, operating a hydrogen cell production line for vehicles, would be the ideal way to go. A burnable, portable fuel produced from cheap, abundant energy from nuclear plants that also power other industries and cities. And THEN instead of gasoline, we use oil for its numerous other products.
In the case of aluminium, you start with bauxite which is "free" - you just need labour - then you add energy to make aluminium which you can sell for a profit.
In the case of hydrogen, you start with water - which is "free" - then you add energy to make hydrogen which you then sell at a profit to someone who will make electricity from it. They will make less electricity than was put in to make the hydrogen in the first place.
If the people with the electricity could get together with the people who wanted to use the electricity then they could cut out the hydrogen step altogether and save money and other resources.
That is why I maintain that hydrogen is only a way to move energy about and is not a source of energy in itself.
I believe in Hydrogen above all others.
I hear those are great for blimps.
Stacey Abrams has entered the chat: "How would I use hydrogen?"
The problem with hydrogen is that you don't just come across it naturally. You have to start with something else, usually water, then add a shed-load of energy to extract the hydrogen. You could have used that energy more directly.
So, in my book, hydrogen is more of a battery than a fuel.
Same with gasoline. We don't just find it laying around. We have to dig up something out of the ground, and then process it into usable materials/fuel. By your own argument, gasoline is a battery. Even if it IS more energy dense than hydrogen.
Frankly, I think a Nuclear plant, operating a hydrogen cell production line for vehicles, would be the ideal way to go. A burnable, portable fuel produced from cheap, abundant energy from nuclear plants that also power other industries and cities. And THEN instead of gasoline, we use oil for its numerous other products.
That will be like the advance that allowed us to mass produce aluminium. I believe much should be invested in this direction.
In the case of aluminium, you start with bauxite which is "free" - you just need labour - then you add energy to make aluminium which you can sell for a profit.
In the case of hydrogen, you start with water - which is "free" - then you add energy to make hydrogen which you then sell at a profit to someone who will make electricity from it. They will make less electricity than was put in to make the hydrogen in the first place.
If the people with the electricity could get together with the people who wanted to use the electricity then they could cut out the hydrogen step altogether and save money and other resources.
That is why I maintain that hydrogen is only a way to move energy about and is not a source of energy in itself.
As in directly using hydrogen or using hydrogen fuel cells to power an electric motor?
Probably the latter one.