![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Hydrogen economy on Sept 30 2023. The result of the discussion was Merge. |
The statement, "Hydrogen can also be transported (like electricity) to locations where it is needed." is rather confusing since transportation is one of hydrogen's drawbacks. Nothing, other than information, can be transported like electricity. If a comparison is to be made then it should be done with natural gas, also a substance difficult (read expensive) to transport. Local infrastructure could be built out to deliver hydrogen much like natural gas, but cost eventually limits distance delivery. I have therefore changed this statement to read, "Hydrogen can also be transported (like natural gas) to locations where it is needed.
I also have issue with the statement "Hydrogen is high in energy..." but don't have time for a fix right now. The article is definitely a proponent of United States National Renewable Energy Laboratory's POV and needs work.
Truth is commercial quantities of hydrogen can be economically produced anywhere natural gas is available. The technology is now available to produce commerical quantities of hydrogen at every filling station that has natural gas with a minimal investment in equipment that would cost consumers less than $3.00 for an equivalent quantity of a gallon of gasoline. So there really is no need to transport hydrogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.178.250 ( talk) 17:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I came here looking for the data about energy released from hydrogen combustion (to compare with some others) and couldnt find it. In the oxyhydrogen flame page they state the Kj per mole, but that article is centered on a precise topic. I was expecting at least, the amount of energy released per mole and thus per Kg of hydrogen, ideally with the complete calculation, which is pretty straitforward, as you need the balanced stochiometric reaction equation, and then you calculate the net energy from the bond energies, adding the destroyed bonds and substracting the newly formed ones. If I dont do the edit, please consider adding this data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.115.177.147 ( talk) 02:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
this stuff doesn't sound like wikipedia...
i'll get to rewriting this stuff soon
PeregrineAY 05:25, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
The hydrogen economy article is much more detailed, organized, and balanced. If there isn't consensus for deletion/merge/redirect then a synopsis from that article should be put here, currently this article is woefully disorganized. zen master T 02:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. This article is not improving and still bears a strong sense of advertising. The information here is already available in fuel cell, hydrogen economy and hydrogen car in greater detail and without the POV. Amadeust 03:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hydrogen fuel and the concept of a hydrogen economy are not the smae thing. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
— unsigned comment added by Ernest R(new comment 12 02 09)I notice that nearly this entire group of articles seems to be heavily biased toward hydrogen's roll in the Green Energies movement. I would be much happier if it were presented just like any other Engineering topic. A good example would be the Oxyhydrogen flame article which is linked here. More candidly, I'm getting a little tired of the 'issues' obscuring the simple science in so many different fields here on Wikipedia. I feel that articles about Hydrogen as a 'green' energy should be separate from the main thread, as the side issue that they represent. The main thread should NOT be written by anyone but a thermodynamic engineer. I want to check or learn simple facts about the practical applications of a technology. I'm barely interested in the whatever politics or social movements or applications may have attached themselves to a given technology, (justly or otherwise). Could we please try to keep sociology and hard science separate, with a sideline for where they inevitably overlap? End of soapbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.128.130 ( talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Re add any useful content from the article's history. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article so small? I hear about hydrogen all the time. I'd expect a full page article, not this little stub.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The article is very short and should be added onto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.250.8 ( talk) 22:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to miss very important aspects of "Hydrogen energy". Focusing on classical combustion and stating that smaller devices can be powered by fuel cells completely omits the existence of renewable hydrogen community powering systems, whereby the excess energy produced by renewable energy sources is stored as hydrogen and released back to the grid upon need thanks to massive fuel cell systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Dziedzic ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As an atmospheric chemist, I object to the sentence "Since hydrogen gas is so light, it rises in the atmosphere and is therefore rarely found in its pure form, H2.[1] ". The background atmosphere generally contains about 550 ppb H2. Loss through gravitational separation is NOT a significant loss process for H2; the main loss processes are uptake by the soils and oxidation by atmospheric oxidants. See for example this review article for an overview of the processes that are important: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00416.x/abstract.
Gravitational settling of gases rarely plays an important role in the atmosphere, since the atmosphere is too well-mixed for that. "Heavy" CFC gases do not remain at the Earth's surface either. Atmospheric escape only takes place in the highest atmospheric layers. (Anneke Batenburg) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.228.180 ( talk) 12:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
hydrogen chemistry and production needs to be separated pls. Mion ( talk) 08:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Added sources from LSU databases: [1], [2], [3], [4]
WTR.Monkey ( talk) 22:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
References
The article definitely needs energy released per mole of hydrogen, both by combustion or when it's allowed to react galvanically. Hydrogen fuel isn't just combustion but it seems this article fails to address that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purgatoryoflife ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Does hydrogen fuel cause pollution and if then which Ayushnikhara ( talk) 16:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
What is bio diesel 2409:4042:E8D:209A:0:0:234B:D212 ( talk) 14:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Hydrogen economy on Sept 30 2023. The result of the discussion was Merge. |
The statement, "Hydrogen can also be transported (like electricity) to locations where it is needed." is rather confusing since transportation is one of hydrogen's drawbacks. Nothing, other than information, can be transported like electricity. If a comparison is to be made then it should be done with natural gas, also a substance difficult (read expensive) to transport. Local infrastructure could be built out to deliver hydrogen much like natural gas, but cost eventually limits distance delivery. I have therefore changed this statement to read, "Hydrogen can also be transported (like natural gas) to locations where it is needed.
I also have issue with the statement "Hydrogen is high in energy..." but don't have time for a fix right now. The article is definitely a proponent of United States National Renewable Energy Laboratory's POV and needs work.
Truth is commercial quantities of hydrogen can be economically produced anywhere natural gas is available. The technology is now available to produce commerical quantities of hydrogen at every filling station that has natural gas with a minimal investment in equipment that would cost consumers less than $3.00 for an equivalent quantity of a gallon of gasoline. So there really is no need to transport hydrogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.178.250 ( talk) 17:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I came here looking for the data about energy released from hydrogen combustion (to compare with some others) and couldnt find it. In the oxyhydrogen flame page they state the Kj per mole, but that article is centered on a precise topic. I was expecting at least, the amount of energy released per mole and thus per Kg of hydrogen, ideally with the complete calculation, which is pretty straitforward, as you need the balanced stochiometric reaction equation, and then you calculate the net energy from the bond energies, adding the destroyed bonds and substracting the newly formed ones. If I dont do the edit, please consider adding this data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.115.177.147 ( talk) 02:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
this stuff doesn't sound like wikipedia...
i'll get to rewriting this stuff soon
PeregrineAY 05:25, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
The hydrogen economy article is much more detailed, organized, and balanced. If there isn't consensus for deletion/merge/redirect then a synopsis from that article should be put here, currently this article is woefully disorganized. zen master T 02:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. This article is not improving and still bears a strong sense of advertising. The information here is already available in fuel cell, hydrogen economy and hydrogen car in greater detail and without the POV. Amadeust 03:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hydrogen fuel and the concept of a hydrogen economy are not the smae thing. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
— unsigned comment added by Ernest R(new comment 12 02 09)I notice that nearly this entire group of articles seems to be heavily biased toward hydrogen's roll in the Green Energies movement. I would be much happier if it were presented just like any other Engineering topic. A good example would be the Oxyhydrogen flame article which is linked here. More candidly, I'm getting a little tired of the 'issues' obscuring the simple science in so many different fields here on Wikipedia. I feel that articles about Hydrogen as a 'green' energy should be separate from the main thread, as the side issue that they represent. The main thread should NOT be written by anyone but a thermodynamic engineer. I want to check or learn simple facts about the practical applications of a technology. I'm barely interested in the whatever politics or social movements or applications may have attached themselves to a given technology, (justly or otherwise). Could we please try to keep sociology and hard science separate, with a sideline for where they inevitably overlap? End of soapbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.128.130 ( talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Re add any useful content from the article's history. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article so small? I hear about hydrogen all the time. I'd expect a full page article, not this little stub.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The article is very short and should be added onto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.250.8 ( talk) 22:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to miss very important aspects of "Hydrogen energy". Focusing on classical combustion and stating that smaller devices can be powered by fuel cells completely omits the existence of renewable hydrogen community powering systems, whereby the excess energy produced by renewable energy sources is stored as hydrogen and released back to the grid upon need thanks to massive fuel cell systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Dziedzic ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As an atmospheric chemist, I object to the sentence "Since hydrogen gas is so light, it rises in the atmosphere and is therefore rarely found in its pure form, H2.[1] ". The background atmosphere generally contains about 550 ppb H2. Loss through gravitational separation is NOT a significant loss process for H2; the main loss processes are uptake by the soils and oxidation by atmospheric oxidants. See for example this review article for an overview of the processes that are important: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00416.x/abstract.
Gravitational settling of gases rarely plays an important role in the atmosphere, since the atmosphere is too well-mixed for that. "Heavy" CFC gases do not remain at the Earth's surface either. Atmospheric escape only takes place in the highest atmospheric layers. (Anneke Batenburg) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.228.180 ( talk) 12:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
hydrogen chemistry and production needs to be separated pls. Mion ( talk) 08:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Added sources from LSU databases: [1], [2], [3], [4]
WTR.Monkey ( talk) 22:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
References
The article definitely needs energy released per mole of hydrogen, both by combustion or when it's allowed to react galvanically. Hydrogen fuel isn't just combustion but it seems this article fails to address that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purgatoryoflife ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Does hydrogen fuel cause pollution and if then which Ayushnikhara ( talk) 16:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
What is bio diesel 2409:4042:E8D:209A:0:0:234B:D212 ( talk) 14:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)