Hydrogen is but one of many convenient methods of getting lots of energy with very little input. Safe storage is found in an exotic hydrogen compound called: "H2O" (water). Enormous amounts of hydrogen can be liberated with "smart" electrolysis and low power that pulses at a rate that resonates the ions.

I read with interest the debate of hydrogen power vs organic hydrogen power. I favor hydrogen because of its highest specific energy output when burned (oxidized). The issue of cost is a factor; however, consider a less costly energy exchange for a higher cost energy. This is exactly what the market place does in the present use of crude oil manufactured into other materials. Why not use solar energy to crack steam (water) into hydrogen and oxygen, somewhere around 2500 C, and centrifuge the different masses to separate them at high temperature (One hell of a ceramic centrifuge is needed, or perhaps several). Then, store the hydrogen as a hydride into iron or some other viable medium. The present transport market could use this safe fuel until fuel cells take over the internal combustion engine market. Personally I like the diesel engine as a fuel efficient power plant under the present market forces. That will change, I am sure, when the present middle east oil production soon peak. As a side light, I converted my old 1964 VW Bug to diesel power, using an industrial lightweight Japanese watercooled engine in 1978. For over 17 years I used it for work and never got less than 50 MPG overall. The motto was 60 MPG at 60 MPH. The car has since rusted away but the engine is still good for another 200K miles (and transplant). Thanks for the time to rant, but technology will eventually win this debate. Charles

Hydrogen's technical issues are dwarfed by our reliance on Middle East oil purchased from states that support terrorism. The human and financial costs of protecting our interests there are enormous, making a national Manhattan/Apollo hydrogen project essential. Patches of solar-heated boilers in the deserts of the Southwest can provide all of the electrolysis-produced hydrogen required, regardless of the low process efficiency. They would provide billions of dollars in US jobs in place of billions sent to the Middle East. Projects to develop mobile, high-pressure fuel tanks need to have adequate engineering manpower applied, keeping in mind that the “Hindenburg” danger of quickly-diffusing hydrogen is substantially less than our current highly explosive, slow-to-dissipate liquid fuel, gasoline. If fuel cells are not ready, burn hydrogen in internal combustion engines and remove the nitrous oxides from the exhaust. A perfect solution is not required. What we need is an adequate solution that we can improve over time. This is what government does best - push ahead on large projects that carry risks beyond those that companies are willing to take. And if we look at the entire picture, not just the technical problems, hydrogen's pollution-free potential makes it worth the national investment.

We need to create a fuel cell that runs off of de-ionized and ionized water. The byproduct would be stabalized water. Both forms of water are safe to transport. safe to contain, and the byproduct is safe.

Read the column in the latest Car & Driver magazine related to Hydrogen for autos to find out that hydrogen is 'not ready for primetime' and the cost to produce is far more than gasolene. If all the cars ran on hydrogen, we would be screaming for a lower cost alternative such as gasolene.

I applaud Levente Letso for confronting hype with facts. He demonstrates a massive loss of energy just getting energy into the medium called hydrogen, and then into a vehicle. But then hydrogen gets worse for so many reasons. Anybody actually work with hydrogen? Those little atoms leak everywhere meaning it does not store well. Hydrogen also has significantly less energy per pound - a damning number. Even to store enough for an insufficient range, the vehicle's tank would be 10,000 PSI. Current technology is a paltry 2000 or 4000 PSI for high pressure cylinders.

Petroleum remains the more efficient medium - as demonstrated by a damning number - energy per pound. To make hydrogen workable, vehicle efficiencies must increase massively in an industry that will only increase efficiency when government law demands it. Such innovation is not possible in a technical and political environment (policies of the Geroge Bush administration) that encourages more burning of energy rather than more innovation and efficiency (also called conservation).

In short, basic numbers (that engineers are suppose to learn before praising a new technology) are damning. A society advocating 200 and 300 HP auto engines cannot use hydrogen. Not enough energy per pound to make it viable. Difficult to store. Difficult to make. Difficult to transport. All these numbers limited by fundamental science such as thermodynamics.

Hydrogen as a temporary energy storage system - ie battery - has promise. Still, that means we must consume fossil fuels to make hydrogen - making the zero emmission hype into a complete myth.

Unforunately, I would expect engineers to see through that hype. My disappointment is that so many here see the promise and don't first temper those promises with basic sience numbers and real world experience. Hydrogen as a fuel is very inefficient from making it, to storing it, to transporting it, and finally to getting efficient work from it.

Long ago, we should have been treasuring petroleum energy by making better use of it - by innovating. Unfortunately, in America, it take government regulation (ie EPA mileage standards) before (what is called in the industry) bean coutners in top management will permit car guys (the innovators) to perform that long overdue innovation.

How many decades was simple hybrid technolgy possible before even the Japanese started doing it? Long before hydorgen can become a reality, first we must learn to get more miles with less energy. If not, then hydrogen for vehicles is not practical.

To correct a common miscomception about the Hindenburg, the cause of the fire was NOT the hydrogen in the Hindenburg, but the fabric on the outside which was coated with a chemical similar to rocket fuel. Refer to http://www.hydrogenus.com/h2-safety-fact-sheet.pdf

Hello again Mr. David. I haven't seen any recent material on this subject, but I have had another thought. Hydrogen in free air is much lighter than air. And it is known to escape the atmosphere according to some people. If this is true, and even a very tiny bit of the hydrogen we separate from water dissipates into space, how long before we deplete our hydrogen supply? I am thinking that as we utilize the hydrogen, say .0001%, escapes into space, lost to us forever.

And based upon expanding energy needs, what are the projections for hydrogen utilization? How much hydrogen can we lose before the planet looses too much hydrogen to sustain our lives?

I too can hardly wait for this technology to emerge. With $2.00+ gasoline prices these days, it is our moral responsibility to develop this technology faster than what these pundits are saying. Our country's dependence on oil has got to stop soon. Let's make US businesses a leader in global energy production. Move over, OPEC!

I can't wait for hydrogen technology to become affordable and available. I will be at the front of the line to do anything that will protect our environment, make us less dependent on giant corporations and the weather, and most of all, lessen the chance of war. I want it for my home as well as for transportation.

It appears to me as though most of the concerns raised by the preceding comments have already been addressed. Hydrogen will be separated from methanol in a reclaimer as the load demands. This is an electro-chemical process similar to molecules passing through a membrane. The quanity of methanol needed to power-up a laptop for hours is permitted by most means of transportation. If you snooze you loose.

Hydrogen is not viable. It is costly to produce. It is extremely dangerous (remember the Hindenberg). It would be great otherwise, but those two shortcomings are insurmountable. The safety issue is the biggest obstacle; it is too dangerous to store and handle. It makes nuclear solutions look safe.

Fuel cells will have to be made to work with safer fuels. And there is progress. We will see a hydrocarbon-based solution which will be the answer. It may be methane or a methane relative. We have storage and handling methods in place that can deal with a methane type solution. There is no safe storage and handling method for hydrogen.

Cost of hydrogen is another issue. Energy requirements, today, to produce hydrogen are more than the energy output returned from hydrogen fuel.

People who think hydrogen is a practical fuel also believe in perpetual motion. NOT.

W. B. Studley

Hi Mark, As I have pointed out to another author recently, there is a tendency of late to over-hype fuel cells. It's not that this isn't exciting new technology, or isn't nearly ready for prime time, or doesn't solve problems. There seems to be a misconception that hydrogen, as an energy source, and fuel cells as the mechanism constitute the magic bullet that will solve all our energy related problems. The fallacy of this thinking is that ANWR (and other reserves) are not sources of cheap hydrogen waiting to be tapped. Hydrogen, as currently discussed in relation to fuel cells is NOT an energy source--it is a form of storing and transporting energy. The fuel cell by extension is not an energy source, either, it is a power conversion mechanism. If there were a ready supply of hydrogen, then the story would be different. But hydrogen must be created in order to be used. It can be created by dis-association of water (or other chemicals), but the energy required to do so exceeds the energy potential of the hydrogen released. It can also be created from a variety of hydrocarbons and other compounds, but doing so does nothing to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and may contribute to pollution and greenhouse gasses. Any form of hydrogen use will contribute to global warming, as heat is the final product of most of our energy consumption. Obviously, maximizing the efficiency and utilization of the energy we need and use solves most of these problems much better (unless you are the one trying to make money selling energy). Undoubtedly solutions exist or are forthcoming for where to get hydrogen from, and handling our energy needs in this manner may have its advantages (such as longer life for portable devices). However, I would encourage you and all who report on this technology to insist on getting and reporting the complete picture. The next time someone comes to you all excited about what they are doing in the fuel cell arena, don't leave until you have gotten the details on where the hydrogen is coming from. It seems that nobody wants to talk about that. Respectfully, Wilton Helm, Embedded System Resources, Franktown CO

<B>Mark David Replies:</B> Hello Wilton, You make some excellent points. Thanks for writing.

From what I learned at the MIT conference, there is a focus on generating hydrogen from "green" energy sources like wind & solar. Also, there was recently a big announcement about DOW recovering and selling hydrogen from chemical manufacturing processes.

Mark David, Electronic Design, Editor-In-Chief

Dear Mark,

Before you get too carried away by the hydrogen hype, check out

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

Don Lancaster makes a lot of observations that I have not been able to refute.

Best regards, Chuck Schall

Mark, Lots of luck getting your fuel-cell-powered laptop (or anything else) aboard an airplane these days.

Horace Smith, Senior Technical Writer, Sercel, Inc.

<B>Mark David replies:</B><BR> Good point, though what is stated is that the precedent for onboard flammable materials in canisters is already set with butane lighters.

Mark David, Electronic Design, Editor-In-Chief

All the excitement over hydrogen fuel cells is really neat, but think about this:

A terrorist wants to blow up a major building. He pulls his manure-laden pick-up truck over to the nearest fuel-cell pitstop and presto, he has upped his energy density by who knows how much?

In addition, although hydrogen is a "renewable" resource, just exactly how is it going to be renewed? Most systems rely on either chemical or catalytic separators, and the chemicals used are really toxic, or the catalysts age over time, and are rare besides. Electrolysis won't work, because it takes more energy to separate the hydrogen from water than the hydrogen returns. Therefore some external source is required to supply the missing energy. And I haven't seen the equations that describe how this works.

Add in the issues with heat generation (which is a pollutant without chemicals), weight of the generators and tankage, and the issues of controlling the escape of hydrogen in closed spaces (think underground parking garages), and you have some real obstacles to overcome.

Worse, I haven't seen anyone addressing the developments required to simplify the production of hydrogen.

I'm not anti-technology or anti-advancement, but I just would like to know why the oil companies think this is a good idea? They don't stand to make anything off of a nearly free resource (as hydrogen is touted in some areas)?

Author replies: You make some excellent points. I do believe these issues are being addressed: the energy companies believe they can make lots of money--precisely because hydrogen is a "nearly free" resource, and they will control the separation process and the distribution network. (Exactly the same is true of oil if you think about; the raw materials are worth nothing without the processing and the distribution). -- Mark David, Electronic Design Editor-In-Chief

Another late thought.... If hydrogen is the fuel of choice, suppose I as a closet inventor and dabbler, come up with a fairly efficient hydrogen generator, powered lets say by sunlight. What prevents me from using that as the fuel for my car, and possibly my home generator, disenfranchising the utilities from my home and life? What would be the ultimate impact?

Or if nanotechnology makes it possible (and I believe it will) think about a hydrogen generator based upon physical fractionating of water. Of course here in Southern Calif. water is already a scarce commodity. what happens if it becomes the fuel as well?

Worse yet, think about compact urban areas, where you might end up with thousands of such generators running. Even if each produces a very tiny amount of hydrogen, the potential for disaster is tremendous. Think wild fire in an urban area. Regards, Les H.

Author replies again: I don't know: I'm assume you can use saltwater for the hydrogen process? Not exactly in short supply in Southern Calif. Part of the vision is indeed a home hydrogen generating system; of course, brought to you by Shell or GM or a combination thereof. And, indeed, you may be able to power your home or even sell power "back to the grid" from this home energy source. I don't think Mobil/Exxon has any care whether they take potential businesses away from your local utility company. As to flammability issues, I'm not sure how much more dangerous it is than every garage after garage filled with gasoline filled fuel tanks...some of them leaking... --Mark David

I’ve been reading Electronic Design for many decades. With me, your magazine consistently rated between excellent and delightful. This is why it bothers me that, in your October 27 Editorial, you (and many others too) have fallen prey to the incessant drumbeat of false advertising.

Please bear with my somewhat pedantic explanation for my reasoning:

Hydrogen, in sharp contrast to natural gas, oil, wood, etc. is not a primary energy source -- it only exists as a man-made product. Further, a hydrogen fuel cell, is an energy storage device. And just like any other energy storage, such as a battery, it gives back but a fraction of the energy needed to maufacture it in the first place.

No doubt, the hydrogen fuel cell has excellent, special applications. The U.S. space program used 2+O² fuel cells throughout. It is also quite dangerous: remember Apollo 13? I, for one do not care to sit in my car over a 1000-psi hydrogen bottle. After an accident, for instance, the hydrogen burns with an invisible, extremely high-temperature flame. Nor do I care to let this thing be handled by an ordinary neighborhood mechanic.

I’ve read about hydrogen cracked aboard a car, stationary generator, etc. from other fuel. Now this is a scam, if I ever saw one. The hydrocarbon fuel has to be cracked, because your run-of-the-mill fuel cell cannot handle carbon. Remember, liquid or gas fuels are generally hydrocarbons. Fully half of their energy derives from the carbon portion, and it gets thrown away! So, before hydrogen is used in the fuel cell:

100% original fuel

45% after cracking (5% to run the cracker)

36% after fuel cell (80% efficient)

Good diesel engines regularly get there, and big power stations are in the mid-40% range. What’s more, cracking pollutes -- so where is the advantage?

Because of all these drawbacks, you might conclude, I am categorically against the hydrogen fuel cell. But let me emphatically state: I hardly can wait for a methanol-fueled laptop, cell phone, as well as all and sundry small appliances. In these applications, the efficiency does not matter as much as continuous operation. Undoubtedly, the methanol fuel cell would represent a notable advance over present-day batteries, just as today’s lithium units have it all over yesterday’s leaky zinc-carbon ones!

Finally, we must all understand that research is necessary and good, and nobody in his/her right mind refuses federal grants, when given.

Levente Letso AT&T Bell labs (ret)