Why hasn't hydrogen replaced crude oil as a main stream non polluting fuel?

Question

When our vehicles and thermal electricity plants burn fossil fuels they produce carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide which according to some scientists are harmful to the environment, hydrogen burns and produces water. There have been suggestions to mass produce hydrogen from sea water using the electrolysis method by harnessing tidal or wave power to generate electricity needed for the process. Despite the obvious advantages why haven't governments in the developed world taken hydrogen as a viable alternative to crude oil?

Answer 1

The size and weight of a tank to carry hydrogen in a motor vehicle would be too great and just think of the bang when it leaked!
The Hindenburg burnt well because it was filled with Hydrogen as the Americans would not sell the Germans Helium.
I once suggested that uncertain energy producers such as windmills, photovoltaic panels and tidal movement should produce Hydrogen by electrolysis. Transporting this to city centres could be by hydrogen powered trucks and it could be used in public transport instead of the filthy, ill maintained diesels currently used. This would concentrate the use and storage.
Wouldn't it be fun for terrorists though?
RoyS

Answer 2

One thing for sure is fossil fuels can be just as dangerous as hydrogen there are thousands of cases where gasoline fuel tanks just explode, any one remember GM's pickups that were notorious for their explosive fuel tanks? Hydrogen is highly combustable but the Hindenberg is a lame excuse not to pursue hydrogen as an alternative fuel. If rockets can blast off safely using hydrogen as a fuel I see no reason why it should be called dangerous.

It should also be noted that some major car producers are embarking on hydrogen initiatives and production is expected in the next 5 years.

But back to the question, the main problem is fossil fuels are by far easier to obtain than hydrogen, i think the economics of it is against hydrogen but as the environment gets "worse" and environmentalists become more influential governments in time will resort to its use.

Answer 3

Entrepenuers being what they are, if there were money to be made by doing this it would long since have become an established fact government or no government, oil companies or no oil companies.

Harnessing wave power is extremely expensive, and the amount of hydrogen thus produced is a mere pittance in comparison to our energy needs. Why hasn't every nation converted to tidal generators for electrical production? same reason: low output per invested dollar (or pound or franc, etc)

In other words, if you take a close look at it, the advantages aren't obvious at all. Environmentalists are even now demanding the destruction of river dams which provide flood control and generate hydroelectric power. No one, to my knowledge, has considered the negative environmental effects of harnessing wave power, but it is certain to disrupt SOME local marine life cycles.

Answer 4

Hydrogen is not a "primary" fuel, ie it has to be produced from something else, surrently natural gas or nuclear electric.

Hydrogen is a very small molecule so escapes easily and takes up a large volume for the energy.

It is far more efficient to use the electric from renewable energy directly in the vehicle. The distribution network already exists, 90% efficient, to refuel from any socket at home or work without needing tankers or pipelines, gas stations etc.

Modern bateries will already meet the needs of 90% of our personal transport needs, without all the hype and government subsidies paid to the hydrogen technology.
see the tesla, build by Lotus in Norfolk UK ( but not featured in any UK media except a radio 4 business programme) 0-60 in 4 seconds 250 miles per charge on LI-ion batteries. and Altair have anounced new nano-technologies that will give them a 40 year life or 15,000 deep cycle charges.

Answer 5

The 'Fuel Cell' has been developed on a small island in the Pacific by the Japanese i think. As expected this is powered by hydrogen and, as has been mentioned numerous times before, it's expensive, but so is every single invention ever the first time it's developed. R&D is naturally expensive because it's sole purpose is to enter uncharted waters.

With regards to the use of hydrogen in rockets etc, i hardly think that a useful comparisson. Have you any idea how much a rocket costs? More money than every person answering will ever make in their lifetimes - combined!!

If anything is ever to work it needs to be affordable, reliable and be readily available. A case in point is the computer games console wars. If one console doesn't get the support from developers then it fades in to obscurity. It's economics really.

Answer 6

Well now there is a grand scheme for you. If we spent
lots of money maybe we might produce "some" hydrogen gas.

Now, what are you going to do with it?
You cannot put it in your gas tank.
It is extreeeeemely volatile. Any spark whatsoever
will ignite it and cause a catastrophic explosion and
fire.

Oh, you want to keep it in compressed cylinders
and use it when ever you need it? So, those wave
powered generators also have to run compressors
in addition to the electrolisis machines? Now, in
bringing home one of those cylinders full of H2 Gas,
what happens when I (or you) get into a really bad
accident? With roughly 900 cubic feet of H2 compressed gas on board, I can guarantee you one heck of a bomb
going off in a flash. Driver Side Air Bag or not, you're dead.

Show me a filling station where you can purchase a
tank full of H2 please.

There is no infrastructure established for the safe distribution of H2. Certain companies already handle
a wide variety of gases in compressed cylinders. I am
sure you have seen those big trucks carrying all colors
of tanks about 5 feet high. Have you ever noticed the
signs all over them about hazardous materials on board?
wonder what those signs mean?

Answer 7

The current popular method for producing hydrogen is to manufacture it by using a Natural Gas process. Until we find a method that uses less fossil fuel to produce than the end product we are just spinning our wheels. Although, hydrogen/natural gas are much cleaner burning so it's not a complete failure. I think we will be turning to the solar power initiatives for future uses. We just need to reduce the prices for silicon and for the battery storage.

Answer 8

First reason, logistics. The ability to provide the fuel and produce it on the scale that we do now with traditional fuel would take decades -- decades for an adequate infrastructure to be developed that equals the one in place now for petroleum products. Next reason is cost. The cost to transistion the whole energy base of a country, or the world for that mater, is one that no one wants to pay for now if they are honest about -- the cost if we began a full scale conversion right now would be astronomical, to the point we would be begging for three dollar per gallon gas again. Lastly , those in power and with the means to actaully intiate the change do have a vested interest in the present energy system and therfore are obviously in no hurry to change it.

Answer 9

Because the people with real power in the world are making beaucoup $$$$$$$$$$$ on keeping the system the way it is, and it'll be a huge investment by EVERYONE to change our main energy sources to anything but fossil fuels. People talk about the dangers of hydrogen, but natural gas/petrol are also highly flammable (and burn dirty to boot). "Where there's a will, there's a way" -- There obviously is not the will -- look at the all the SUVs and huge pick-up trucks still being driven around by urban/suburban America. Obviously, the high prices didn't bother us too much, and we're now back to our complacent ways....

Answer 10

Because it takes crude oil to produce hydrogen. We don't have an efficient way yet, so no matter what we will still be using a lot of crude oil.