India Unveils Hydrogen Plan to Speed Shift From Fossil Fuels (bloomberg.com) 138
India unveiled its hydrogen roadmap, offering incentives for investors to produce the fuel at low costs and help the nation shift away from its reliance on fossil fuels. From a report: The first part of the plan announced Thursday offers free transmission of renewable electricity from one state to the other for the production of hydrogen and ammonia, helping drive down costs for an industry that's already winning support from billionaires like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani. The government is considering offering subsidies and obliging oil refineries and fertilizer plants to use the fuel in the second phase, which is still being prepared, Power Minister Raj Kumar Singh said Wednesday.
Green hydrogen, made from water and renewable electricity, will likely play a major role in cutting emissions globally, offering a route to decarbonization for heavy industries like steel and cement. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government aims to make India -- one of the largest importers of oil and coal -- a global hub for production and export of hydrogen, even though the fuel is still a long way from being commercially viable. "The mission aims to aid the government in meeting its climate targets and making India a green hydrogen hub," the power ministry said in a statement. It will also help meet a target of producing 5 million tons of green hydrogen by 2030, it said.
Green hydrogen, made from water and renewable electricity, will likely play a major role in cutting emissions globally, offering a route to decarbonization for heavy industries like steel and cement. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government aims to make India -- one of the largest importers of oil and coal -- a global hub for production and export of hydrogen, even though the fuel is still a long way from being commercially viable. "The mission aims to aid the government in meeting its climate targets and making India a green hydrogen hub," the power ministry said in a statement. It will also help meet a target of producing 5 million tons of green hydrogen by 2030, it said.
What is missing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A couple million tons could be used for their nitrogen fertilizer production alone.
Re: (Score:2)
I got into a discussion about this on another site not long ago. I thought H2 *could* work on ships and it was pointed out that the same inefficiencies that affect cars would affect ships too. The thing to keep in mind is that if you use electricity directly, electric engines are like 92% efficient in using the energy; but if you have to use that same energy for electrolysis, then storage & transport
Re: (Score:2)
For ships and aircraft the key would be to generate the hydrogen at the port or airport so at least you are not dealing with all the shipping and storage loses. It really only makes possible sense now fo
Re: (Score:2)
When you look into the economics of building hydrogen fuel cell cars and the huge supporting infrastructure they do not make commercial sense. Battery electric is far easier and cheaper. When you look at the energy efficiency from the power generation source to wheels on the road battery bat
Re:What is missing (Score:5, Informative)
one does not BURN hydrogen... Yes, it can be done however the best use for hydrogen is as feed to a fuel cell that drives an electric motor.
A fuelcell and H2 tank is MUCH lighter than an ICE engine or a BEV battery and fully re-fuels in 10 to 15 minutes vs 45 minutes to hours for partial battery charges.
Re: (Score:2)
A fuelcell and H2 tank is MUCH lighter than an ICE engine or a BEV battery and fully re-fuels in 10 to 15 minutes vs 45 minutes to hours for partial battery charges.
True. The real problem is that "green" hydrogen isn't yet competitive with "grey" hydrogen which is made from methane or similar fossil fuels. That means that you leak methane whilst extracting it from the ground, you then produce CO2 whilst converting the methane into hydrogen and then you also use electricity (and thus produce CO2) in order to do that conversion.
You also have massive energy losses - first in the chemical conversion process mentioned above, then compressing and cooling the hydrogen to tra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might be a better plan to just use the bio materials to generate Methane instead of Hydrogen. It would still be carbon neutral like this "green Hydrogen" and the infrastructure to store and distribute it is already in place. Another plus is existing combustion engines can be adjusted to run on it without much effort so switching existing systems over to it would be faster and cheaper than replacing said older devices.
And a big plus to bio-methane is we don't need to wait for the tech to get out of the lab
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, definitely interesting though I can see that each of those are more subjects of research than fully ready products or systems. I think there's a whole load of potential for all sorts of things here if someone was willing to invest heavily. The most important thing is simply to start producing green hydrogen in quantity. Bio-hydrogen would work, but then someone would have to start investing in industrial processes for making it. Unfortunately, hydrogen is really a play by the fossil fuel dinosaurs t
Re: (Score:2)
Is the grey hydrogen generation any worse that the fossil fuels needed to generate electricity to recharge batteries currently in use?
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bit more detail - a good fossil plant will be around 40% efficient. By the time it's making your wheels go round about 30% of the energy from the combustion process, given transmission costs and battery charging inefficiencies.
Steam reformation is about 70% efficient, and Hydrogen ICE about 25%, so you get to keep about 17% of the energy. Except you have to transport and compress it, so it's closer to 15% in reality.
The best fuel cells are 60% efficient, so now you are talking 0.7*0.6*0.95, or 40%. So the
Re: (Score:2)
A fuelcell and H2 tank is MUCH lighter than an ICE engine or a BEV battery and fully re-fuels in 10 to 15 minutes vs 45 minutes to hours for partial battery charges.
True, however a certain amount of mass in a vehicle is a good thing so that it handles wind at speed and holding cruising speeds.
There is also the issue of hydrogen leaks and holding tank pressure, I mean it's the lightest element. They leak and hydrogen as a mist is explosive so in a vehicle it may turn out to a big risk not only for a single vehicle, in traffic, in a tunnel, or ferry for example. So there maybe a few more things needed to perfect it.
one does not BURN hydrogen... Yes, it can be done however the best use for hydrogen is as feed to a fuel cell that drives an electric motor.
True, that would be efficient, however what if there
Re: (Score:2)
a certain amount of mass in a vehicle is a good thing so that it handles wind at speed and holding cruising speeds.
What's wanted is a ratio of friction to side area. You get this better with more tire than more mass. But the more mass you have the more tire you need, and then you run into the situation where your tires are inconveniently wide. So it's best to have a lighter vehicle. The lighter vehicle also has less energy to dissipate in a collision.
what if there were banks of fuel cells at the charging stations?
Then you would get to pay for the inefficiency of producing the hydrogen, the inefficiency of transporting the hydrogen, the inefficiency of turning the hydrogen into elect
Re: (Score:2)
one does not BURN hydrogen... Yes, it can be done however the best use for hydrogen is as feed to a fuel cell that drives an electric motor. A fuelcell and H2 tank is MUCH lighter than an ICE engine or a BEV battery and fully re-fuels in 10 to 15 minutes vs 45 minutes to hours for partial battery charges.
That would be from the fuel cell and overall power train being much lighter, as to get a sufficient volumetric energy density for hydrogen, it is compressed, and so the tanks are themselves heavier than a gasoline tank for the same amount of energy storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Only marginally. where a gasoline tank would weight 20 or 30 lbs, modern fiber reinforced plastics suitable for 5 kilos at 300 BAR tend to be about 100lbs. Yeah, the H2 tank weighs more than a gas or deisel tank... but it's STILL not the 1400+ lbs of a BEV battery pack
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I don't think the point would be to take a car to a fueling station, but to have a Hydrogen filling infrastructure set up like they are proposing to do with electric battery recharging stations.
It isn't like we're currently so committed to battery recharging that we couldn't consider hydrogen....?
It isn't like there's that many char
Re: (Score:2)
I would have to have a HFCV trucked to the gas station as it doesn't have enough range to get there or back by itself.
You realise that about 80% of BEV owners charge at home? There is no shortage of places to charge. Public charging stations are relatively cheap to build and can be installed almost any where. Street side and public car park charging it what is needing invested in, to bring the same advantages to people who can't charge at ho
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what? It has been consider, and it doesn't stack up. I would have to have a HFCV trucked to the gas station as it doesn't have enough range to get there or back by itself.
Since this was once true for ICEV (few gas stations) I put it to you we have no ICEVs currently.
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look at all the HFCV investments today and they will be one of two cases, looking for
Re: (Score:2)
False equivalency. There was no viable competition to ICEVs so gas stations were a natural commercial result.
You do realise that in 1900 that BEVs were a serious competitor to ICEVs, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fifteen cents a minute means $216.00 a day (most of which would go on the electric bill), assuming the charger is constantly used. .
That's cost not profit. A gas station makes most of its profit on non-fuel items. If someone is charging for 30 minutes that's more opportunity to sell them a high-markup coffee, although whether it's more coffees in total, I am not so sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok...but they're not there yet at least, not anywhere I live or travel.
With more demand, then more supply should be made available too. That's how it tends to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
The low hanging fruit in this market is street lighting. Mos
Re: What is missing (Score:5, Insightful)
" The product of a hydrogen fuel cell is electricity which runs the electric motors on the wheels of an HFC vehicle. (So HFC cars are also EV cars.). The drain on the electric grid is much less than converting all ICE cars to EVs."
You know so much and yet know so little.
The inefficiency of the hydrogen system means using more grid power, not less, to make it
If there were hydrogen mines it would make sense to use hydrogen, but there aren't, so it doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
But there are hydrogen mines. Or wells. Hydrogen can be made from natural gas, so it's fracking easy to get it. Of course, this reveals the dirty secret behind hydrogen: it's a fossil fuel with the carbon removed in preprocessing. You can also make hydrogen from coal gasification.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, as you pointed out, those things aren't hydrogen mines. If they were, then the ocean would also qualify, but it doesn't.
The fact we have to "make" the hydrogen (separate, anyway) is the biggest part of what makes hydrogen non-workable. The other problems are pretty big too, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if the hydrogen production facilities are all local to power plants, there really isn't any strain on the grid. It'll reduce effective production capacity for the plant, but you don't suffer any extra load.
Re: (Score:2)
The power plans are part of that grid; In many places it's the part that is strained the most.
and production of hydrogen takes hydrocarbon like natural gas + energy releasing carbon, and still requiring fracking and drilling.
Or are you thinking of splitting water, that takes a crap ton of energy, we would have to double our power plants to replace all the ICE. And the only places you would do this at would be along the ocean.(they should make any sizable amount of electrolysis of freshwater a crime)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A high tension line is a lot cheaper than a pipeline, if it's not buried. Like, around 1/4 the cost.
https://www.power-grid.com/td/... [power-grid.com]
https://www.energy.gov/sites/p... [energy.gov]
That doesn't take terminals into account, but then, the cost of the hydrogen pipeline doesn't take into account the fueling stations, last mile delivery (trucking) etc. either. Electrical power has a huge advantage in that it can be delivered through the existing infrastructure. And if you're charging EVs with it then you're going to do that mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is missing (Score:5, Insightful)
The drain on the electric grid is much less than converting all ICE cars to EVs.
This makes no sense unless you come up with a large-scale process for generating hydrogen that is neither fossil-fuel-dependent nor electrolysis-based.
The by-product of HFC cars is water, a much needed substance in our environment.
...in quantities that have virtually no impact on the environment (compared to the amount of water *already* in the environment), not to mention that FCEVs don't create water out of nothing. That water has been consumed at some earlier time to produce that hydrogen.
Re: (Score:2)
The drain on the electric grid is much less than converting all ICE cars to EVs.
This makes no sense unless you come up with a large-scale process for generating hydrogen that is neither fossil-fuel-dependent nor electrolysis-based.
This makes perfect sense because he's talking about grid, not production. Put electrolysis facility next to a power plant, and there's no strain at all. Plus, you can run this thing only when there's energy surplus, stabilising the grid.
Contrast this with infrastructure investments needed to put fast charging points everywhere. And the wild swings in demand caused by people charging whenever they please, rather than whenever there's surplus.
Re: (Score:2)
Put electrolysis facility next to a power plant, and there's no strain at all.
As I pointed out elsewhere, it's a speculation whether it's better to lay pipes or wires.
Contrast this with infrastructure investments needed to put fast charging points everywhere.
Plugs are cheap; I have many in my house -- including a 20 kW one, and not even for a car. Hence there most likely isn't going to be a need to place as many fast charging points everywhere as you probably think.
Re: (Score:2)
Put electrolysis facility next to a power plant, and there's no strain at all.
As I pointed out elsewhere, it's a speculation whether it's better to lay pipes or wires.
umm... do you seriously think they run gasoline pipes from refineries to gas stations? Or do you seriously think hydrogen is going to be somehow different for some unfathomable reason?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is missing (Score:5, Insightful)
Why hydrogen, though? It is an expensive fuel to store because it escapes from the tanks. Instead, why not do a bit more chemistry, and use something like propane or maybe even a synthetic diesel? Propane still requires a pressurized container, but it is a relatively non-toxic fuel, burns well, and generates water on burning, which is a good thing. Plus, propane is a lot easier on engines than a lot of other fuels, as it doesn't corrode.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Propane is a product of natural gas. It's not zero emission, and producing it contributes to climate change.
If they can mass produce hydrogen using only renewable energy and water, they can potentially solve a lot of problems. As a fuel it is suitable for things like aircraft where the energy density of batteries is an issue. It could become a major export product for India.
The problem is that it's less efficient than batteries, so they would need a lot of clean energy to produce it in large quantities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The drain on the electric grid is much less than converting all ICE cars to EVs.
It takes about 60 kWh to produce 1 kg of hydrogen using electrolysis. A Toyota Mirai FCEV will travel up to 100 km on 1 kg.
You could run the hydrogen in an ICE, but you'd only get 25 km of range.
Use that 60 kWh to charge a BEV and it will travel 300 km.
Hydrogen only makes sense if you have a massive abundance of green electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
The drain on the electric grid is much less than converting all ICE cars to EVs.
It takes about 60 kWh to produce 1 kg of hydrogen using electrolysis. A Toyota Mirai FCEV will travel up to 100 km on 1 kg. You could run the hydrogen in an ICE, but you'd only get 25 km of range. Use that 60 kWh to charge a BEV and it will travel 300 km.
Hydrogen only makes sense if you have a massive abundance of green electricity.
...and are not worried about all the environmental damage and finite resources running out associated with batteries. We have only just started the transition to batteries and there's already lithium shortage. You really think it is sustainable to have everyone have a huge battery in their garage? Meanwhile for hydrogen you need water and that's it. And it even goes back into the environment once you use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen reacts with hydrogen oxide in the atmosphere to create water. The problem is, hydrogen oxide breaks down methane. So if we start using more hydrogen (which will leak in large quantities through any container) we're removing the normal reaction of HO with CH4, and we end up with more methane in our atmosphere, which is a potent greenhouse gas.
And hydrogen fuel cells have their own resource scarcity issues. So, complications on both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
...and are not worried about all the environmental damage and finite resources running out associated with batteries.
Yes, but it's a lower scale of concern. Batteries now exist which can run for a million journey miles and still have some utility in other ways and then can be at least partially recycled. The issue is more the longevity of the cars than the batteries and to what extent they can be recycled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used the data for the only hydrogen ICE I could find: the BMW H7, which is a 7-series V12 that weighs 2 tons. So yeah, there's room for improvement.
Another thing that would need improvement is hydrogen tanks. The tank in that H7 will be close to empty if you leave the car standing for 2 weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
The tank in that H7 will be close to empty if you leave the car standing for 2 weeks.
Ouch! It's not like you can easily siphon it off to store it either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yea, I like driving around with what amounts to a thermobaric weapon strapped under the chassis. Hydrogen, for vehicles, is a compressed gas - not liquid. As such, energy density drops dramatically.
While there are flammability issues with LiION, LiFePo, and similar Li chemistries - they are roughly equivalent in destructive power as current gasoline. Regardless what Hollywood would like you to believe, gasoline car's don't go boom. They tend to conflagrate. Rupture a 3000 - 4000 PSI pressure vessel of h
Re: (Score:2)
There are already hydrogen fuel cell-based tuggers and forklifts in plenty of warehouses and/or manufacturing facilities. Granted, they tend not to travel at faster than 7-8 mph, but at the same time, there are plenty of opportunities for accidents with heavy duty equipment that could easily rupture fuel cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I kind of am. If there were actual safety problems with existing fuel cells (much less future ones) then they wouldn't have proliferated as much in production environments where massive, powerful forklifts can potentially destroy equipment with ease.
Forklifts do a lot of damage, quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The shunt trucks in the Port of Los Angeles run on hydrogen fuel cells. And they travel at road speeds. They are more efficient as they can be refuelled quickly, and have the torque required to pull heavy loads. Electric will drain very fast when requiring high torque, and take forever to recharge in terms of needing the vehicle on the road 24/7.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the recharge time is really what kills battery-powered equipment in logistics roles. The fuel cells are loud as fuck, but they refuel quickly.
Re: What is missing (Score:2)
No. You would have to replace the engine.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well kinda but not really. While it might be a bit easier to retrofit an ICE car with Hydrogen Electric, vs Battery Electric, as you don't need to figure out where to put all those batteries. However You need to take out the engine, fuel tank and replace it with an electric motor, fuel cells and hydrogen storage.
While possible, I wouldn't consider it a practical business plan, as the cost of retrofitting your car, would probably be more than just getting a new one, and actually getting the automakers supp
Re:What is missing (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I understand, current ICE cars could be fairly readily be converted to use hydrogen, no?
Yes, no.
Seriously though, while it's physically possible to take an old gasoline engine and make it run on some mix of gasoline and hydrogen or even pure hydrogen, it doesn't really make sense to run an engine on mostly hydrogen. Green hydrogen is crazy expensive, and you're far better off putting it into a hydrogen fuel cell, which is inherently more efficient than some kind of heat engine. Also, while you could just pump hydrogen in to the cylinders and fiddle with the computer, hydrogen molecules are tiny and diffuse into metal and cause "hydrogen embrittlement". So to convert your gasoline engine without drastically curtailing its service life you have to take it out and do an extensive rebuild with expensive, hydrogen-resistant parts.
Hydrogen ICE engines do eliminate greenhouse gasses, but they have a serious NOx emissions problem. Tuning the engine to reduce NOx production also drastically cuts engine power. However hydrogen ICE might work in some kind of hybrid electric vehicle, however you still have the efficiency problem: it's inefficient to produce green hydrogen, and once produced it's inherently inefficient to burn it in any kind of heat engine.
Green hydrogen is going to be important as a replacement for gray (carbon emitting sourced) hydrogen in existing hydrogen applications, but in other applications it has to beat out battery storage, which is a tall order. Maybe in aviation.
Re: (Score:2)
So to convert your gasoline engine without drastically curtailing its service life you have to take it out and do an extensive rebuild with expensive, hydrogen-resistant parts.
Yeah, like a new block, or at least sleeving the block. And new valves, and pistons, and rings. And cylinder heads, or at least a coating on them, which means getting the heads ridiculously clean. At which point you've spent far more than just putting in a different motor. It just makes zero sense as a retrofit, as you know, but it's best to be explicit about these things.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan is using coal derived hydrogen [theguardian.com] which is frankly worse than simply burning fossil LPG. They would be so much better to switch to battery electric if that remains their plan.
One more announcement (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is a Fossil Fuel (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl... [eia.gov]
If we move to hydrogen as a major transportation fuel, most of it will be made from natural gas and coal, as it's much cheaper than other methods. The whole push for hydrogen is all about trying to keep the same business model that we have today with a good bit of greenwashing.
Re: (Score:2)
right, more than 95% of our hydrogen is produced using nat gas + energy, with carbon being expelled. And we would have to make 1000x more hydrogen going down this path.
The Oil/Auto industry has wanted this solution, funded, and tried preventing alternatives. In some ways its the best as all the supply chains remain the same. (including getting hydrocarbons out of the ground)
Splitting saltwater takes a crap ton of energy and would mean cost would go up up up if they seek to deviate away from this.
Problems to solve (Score:2)
There are problems to be solved first.
Dihydrogen is extremely hard to store. It is a very small molecule that moves through steel. It tends to escape from tanks and render them brittle. And if it escapes in the environment it is a greenhouse gas. Its effects on the greenhouse effect are being studied right now. It is also highly explosive. Also it is hard to move through today's pipes. Last time i heard an academic paper about that there were talks about putting a mix 95% fossil gas-5% hydrogen in gas pipes
Won't go well. (Score:3)
It looks like they have been convinced by the petrol folks that this is a good idea. However, they will quickly end up stuck using hydrogen from natural gas, which is why Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani are so fond of the plan. I looked them up and surprise, they are both profit from selling natural gas.
If they can get it work like they want then that is great but my understanding is that cheap polluting "blue hydrogen" will be too inexpensive to refuse. This is exactly why Koch on other fracking companies pushed for hydrogen cars.
India needs nuclear power. (Score:2)
India needs nuclear power if they want to be energy independent. That's because all nations need nuclear power to be energy independent.
Last time I made a comment like this someone replied that it is impossible to build enough nuclear power plants quickly enough to matter. It doesn't take but a minute to see how quickly nuclear power plants were built before, and we can do that again. Back then we were motivated by a Cold War and a trade war over petroleum. Back then nuclear power was new, it's no longe
Re: (Score:2)
Back then we were motivated by a Cold War and a trade war over petroleum.
So free market mechanisms to be ignored, as in France in the early 1970s? It's fine if that is the requirement, but if that is the yardstick, then we need to be honest that this is the requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen fuels are hardly inevitable. If you are going to use fossil fuels to generate the hydrogen, why not just power the vehicles with fossil fuels. If you are going to use electricity to generate the hydrogen, why not just use batteries to the extent possible. Your argument about lack of resources is a temporary blip. If there is a demand for electric vehicles, more lithiu
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off. Green hydrogen will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Battery supp
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that most of the world's population does not have an electricity grid that will even remotely satisfy all their vehicles if they have to be recharged? Not even North America or Europe. And in SE Asia, India, Africa, and South America, there is not a hope in hell. Not even close. And it will take multi multi decades or more, to build a proper grid, anywhere. And then there is the cost of and maintenance of recharging stations. Most of the world's population can't afford those, never mind the cars
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In most countries the grid will be fine with a modest management. The load of a car charging is on par with the surge in demand when people get home in winter, put on the heaters and start cooking a meal. The best way to deal with it is the have the car communicate with the grid over when to charge so that charging starts after the evening surge and is spread out thru the night. Typical charge times at home for commuters
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Give your EV shit a rest FFS (Score:2)
What the fuck is it with morons like you??? Third world countries like India DO NOT have the electrical infrastructure required to recharge all the cars and trucks they require. And they won't be able to have it, even if you put solar panels on every fucking roof, in the next century. Even South America won't. And Africa, just forget it. And that is probably 60% or more of the world population. Get your head out of your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
since you ship in hydrogen as you do oil today.
No, you don't because hydrogen's very different,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What new infrastructure??? There are already fuel distribution systems all over the world. Many places use propane or natural gas that can be adapted; but it isn't hard to add those anyway. That is nothing compared to building a power grid that can handle it. North America won't even be able to do this. People will figure it out soon.
Re: (Score:2)
What new infrastructure??? There are already fuel distribution systems all over the world. .
For liquid fuels at 1 atmosphere, not for hydrogen under pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are confusing Hydrogen with other fuels that could be manufactured using electricity, like Methane or Alcohol. Hydrogen absolutely cannot use *any* of the existing fuel distribution systems.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, you can make H2 from green sources but if you've already got a solar or wind planet hooked to the grid, why make an additional outlay to split and deliver H2 when you can just put watts out on the grid?
Storage mechanism. In the UK it is suggested homes will have hydrogen boilers (furnaces) and a hydrogen distribution grid of pipes to the home. That seems pretty unlikely. Ideally you'd save costs and reuse existing pipes by lining them to avoid hydrogen escaping, but you'd need large areas to go hydrogen at once. Unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
"The average USA citizen isn't rich enough to put up with all the BS that revolves around repair of EVs." - you think the average citizen will be able to deal with repairing a hydrogen vehicle?