When will Hydrogen fuel be viable?

Replacing fossil fuels with Hydrogen power has been seen as a panacea for decades. I would not bet on Hydrogen anytime soon, if ever - at least not as a chemical fuel.

Replacing fossil fuels with Hydrogen requires the following:

• Hydrogen generation (replaces gas/oil/coal extraction)
• Hydrogen transportation (replaces pipelines and box-cars)
• Hydrogen power plant (replaces engines and generators)

On Earth, Hydrogen (H₂) does not occur naturally in great abundance, and what little exists quickly floats to the top of the atmosphere and escapes into space. To get it, we must generate it via electrolysis - separate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. We must use Clean energy (Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, Geothermal) to generate the electricity, or we are back to where we started burning fossil fuels and adding carbon to the atmosphere.

Next, we have to store that Hydrogen (safely!) and transport it to where we need it. Hydrogen is very, very small and it leaks through microscopic cracks in pipes. A pipe that looks perfectly smooth and could hold water, gasoline or even Oxygen would still allow Hydrogen to leak through in small amounts.

Finally, we have to burn the Hydrogen to do some work. That means using an internal combustion engine to create motion or using a fuel cell to create electricity (which can be used with a motor). The waste product (water vapor) is safe, but we do not get all of the energy out that we put in during electrolysis.

So there's the problem: Create electricity to create Hydrogen to burn it to do some work. Each step in the process loses some energy. Electrolysis has its inefficiencies. Unless generated locally, moving Hydrogen loses Hydrogen! Releasing the energy from Hydrogen through a fuel cell or combustion has its inefficiencies, too. Why not just use the original source electricity from the original Solar, Wind, Hydro or Geothermal?

Well, original power sources are cyclical, unreliable, diurnal or unavailable. Converting to Hydrogen does allow the energy to be stored. So, even with the inefficiencies, it's better to have some power all the time than no power some of the time. That's a legitimate argument. However, that means we should be looking at the best (cleanest, most efficient) methods for storing energy. Does Hydrogen fit that bill?

I strongly suspect the best method for storing the Sun's energy will be biofuels made from non-food vegetable matter. Burning Hydrogen is about 1/3 as efficient as burning hydrocarbons. If we can make our hydrocarbons from plant or algae (renewably, sustainably), this beats Hydrogen. Meanwhile, battery technology continues to improve. Plus, there are all sorts of interesting energy storage methods under research.

There's an installation in Great Britain, a house off the grid that uses its excess eletricity to separate Hydrogen and store it in tanks for those winter months when the sun is low. Fuel cells use the Hydrogen to make electricity. Cost is about $1.45 Million.

Maybe this price will come down, maybe.

Of course, Hydrogen already powers our world. That great nuclear reactor in the sky dumps all of the world's energy needs for one year upon us in one hour. There will be a day when we find a way to make fusion reactors that produce more energy than they consume. While we are waiting, we need to work on demand reduction and clean supply.