True: there isn’t room on a car roof to use PV directly, but there is room on a station’s roof and its lot for it. Would it be “huge”; probably. It would also provide a boost to the PV industry, valuable to our entire world society as its resulting economies of scale greatly reduce the unit costs of PV manufacturing.

Mr. Deverell complains that hydrogen can’t be mined (thank goodness[!]; that would leave the environment much cleaner and health care costs lower).

He calls H2′s “manufacture” inefficient, but compared to what: drilling to extract oil — refining that? Drilling to extract “natural” (fossil) gas? Transporting these products great distances?

These techniques are not thermally “more efficient”; they just start with more stored energy in the raw material.

Their energy can’t be used though, without leaving carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Adding a few more years of that (maybe 50 to 100; maybe 10, or maybe only a year or two) brings Niagara-dwarfing torrents as land-based glaciers’ meltwater breaches its weakening ice-dammed impoundments. That raises sealevels at least 20 feet, shifting coastlines wordwide, flooding all coastal seaports. Resulting loss of intercontinental trade would severely curtail manufacturing of everything that could keep us from preindusrtrial poverty.

Why not just use gridpower to power electric cars? Utilities say their grid needs sdeveral times more power to replace gasoline for our transportation load. Crash programs are underway to increase that with wind energy. Like most people, I accept that very willingly, but some try, very vocally, with considerrable effect, to block it. In any case, 20% has been sited as about the highest portion of our total load that it could add.

Efforts are being made to persuade the public to accept increased nuclear deployment too. Many facts are being left unstated in this: significant, is plutonium’s (Pu’s) production by the process. Yes, as part of the fuel cycle, the Pu can release additional energy through its own fission, but so can it power city-busting bombs, should malevalent people steal some.

The bomb application is the easier (cheaper), since power plants’ slower reaction needs special moderating materials mixed in, to keep the reaction slow enough to avoid running away.

PV-electrolyzed H2 is a better substitute than gridpower, for gasoline, to avoid the added grid load and to let people avoid having to plug in their cars for long periods to use it. Its use can be very similar to gasoline, for the average driver, since it’s just another fuel to stop at the “(H2) gas” station for, and quickly, conveniently, fill their (pressurized) tank.

As to a “legacy” distribution system, those require(d) a centralized drilling, refining, transportation system, not needed by point-of-sale H2 electrolysis.

All things considerd, I think most rational thinking people do still realize that plug-in hybrids may be a good bridge to ultimate PV-electrolyzed H2, but not a permant substitute. As economics improve, onsite H2 electrolysis will evolve as the better storage system.

So the issue is simply whether hydrogen is a better secondary storage method than other methods. I suspect most rational people now realise it is not. However it is a good substitute for gasoline if you have a vested interest in retaining an legacy distribution system.
Else forget it.
Bob Deverell Bangkok.

A timely response. Who is back here rading these? Hehe.

Your answer to make hydrogen viable is to use PV? Why not just use the PV directly? Is this cost effective? How much juice do you need from your PVs to make this viable?

You mention station to station set-ups for this? The amount of raw panelling required to produce any quantity would be….huge. How big are these stations roof?

Some say electrically separating hydrogen (H2) from water (H2O) (called electrolysis) requires fossil-fueled electric-grid-reinforcement, and still more fossil-fuel to transport it to fueling stations/dealers, adding CO2 at every stage, just to use a fuel that burns without, itself, making CO2, effectively eliminates hydrogen’s carbon-reduction.

Does it?

Must electrolysis require grid-strengthening? Can’t photovoltaics (PV) run it – off-grid?

PV’s direct current (DC) immediately serves electrolysis without expensive, power-losing electronics to change from gridpower’s alternating current. Storable in pressurized tanks, production needn’t include night.

The grid could continue supplying the station’s non-electrolytic needs.

Using kits of: PV panels, electrolyzers, a compressor, instructions, etc., infrastructure can be inexpensively established, station by station: its product marketed, at first as alternative home-heating fuel for gas furnaces and space heaters. Many of these now use bottled propane, delivered to large white tanks near consumers.

Heating-hydrogen’s only transportation needed would be, like heating-gas now, from local fueling dealer to consumer. Need hydrogen automotive fuel be transported? Producing fuel where sold, with energy produced onsite, needs no transportation.

For evolving toward cars, heating-gas-trucks, and other applications, kits: with small pressure tanks, ignition timing adaptation (if needed), tubing, fittings, instructions, etc., could eventually permit burning hydrogen in your V-8 engine. Tinkering, adventurous, pioneering car enthusiasts, would, initially, find their fuel at these heating fuel suppliers. This could begin establishing PV-powered hydrogen fueling stations for new fuel cell cars, like General Motors’ new “Sequel” (now ready to approach production).

The fueling infrastructure could further evolve into the, more convenient, roadside locations, that gasoline and diesel now use.

The “chicken or egg” situation need not interfere with promptly introducing fuel cell cars.

It’s been 9 months. Where the f%#k is it?