No, we don't have. We may not need it. I'm not sure that hydrogen is the best chemical energy carrier.

I agree with Yuri, However H2 may be a a good energy carrier for applications like transportation fuels because it burns cleanly.

I agree with both. And also with you that hydrogen as a chemical energy carrier is all set to take the lead as per current thinking on future energy provisions. We do not have infrastructure, but it is feasible. However, it is expensive, and nobody invests for it without being sure that it is valuable enough and that it will be expanded. Similarly, hydrogen energy devises are not expanded also because there is no infrastructure. Simply say: you need car first and infrasturure will be developed. In contrast, you need infrastructure first and car will be developed. Apart from that, there are still also some technical obstacles.

Hi Parvatalu Damaraju, I'm not an expert in this, and I don't have a good answer to your question. However, as a chemist I know how flammable hydrogen gas is and how easily it can form explosive mixtures with oxygen. Personally, I would never buy a car that has a hydrogen tank under my seat. This thought always reminds me of the so-called "Hindenburg disaster". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster)

We can not discount Hydrogen as the future as we are comfortable with the existing fossil fuel systems at present.

Hydrogen can bridge various renewable to existing fossil fuel systems as needed during transition times. Future energy requirements will have to be met by a combination of several energy sources depending on availability and affordability. Many of the renewable like Solar, wind etc., are location centric and seasonal in nature and production of electricity itself is a challenge to adjust with grids. Hydrogen will be the answer for optimal utilization of these vast resources. Energy requirement means it is not electricity alone.

Safety is an issue with every source. Even the hydrocarbons are not safe but we know how to manage them effectively.

Make no mistake H2 is a fossil fuel. It is produced via steam reforming of natural gas or other hydrocarbons or via partial oxidation. It may be useful to move emissions away from the tail pipe of a vehicle to a place were it could be (but usually is not) captured and sequestered.

Rick: It is not a fossil fuel. It is an energy carrier to be produced from any source like the case with electricity.

Right now 97% of H2 is produced from fossil fuels to cater to various needs at refineries, fertilizer industries etc.

What is expected in future, in the absence of fossil fuels, it will have to be produced in large quantities using water.

Parvatalu Damaraju Hydrogen is a really bad energy carrier due to its low energy density.

" it will have to be produced in large quantities using water. " Where do you take so much energy to split water to H2 and O2?

Producing h2 via electrolysis is a very poor choice. But if you make that choice remember there is a other product O2 that is also a pretty valuable product

Rick Manner Where can we take energy for water electrolysis?

@yuri the only place I can think of is excess solar or wind if storage is not available

Yes, Rick Manner , solar. But solar energy has disadvantages: It should be instantly converted to the chemical energy and the energy flux per surface area is very low. The energy density of H2 ( 1m^3 of liquid H2 weights only 55 kg) is too low for use H2 for storage or transportation needs. The solution could be to convert CO2 and water to a liquid fuel. In other words to use solar energy to force the burning of gas by O2 to proceed in opposite direction.

One thing to be remembered that in the absence of any single alternative source of energy that can match with scalesof fossil fuels, hydrogen will be the answer as it will be making use of unseasonal / intermittent nature of solar or wind etc.

Right now, the excess electricity produced by solar / wind is no acceptable to existing grud.This can be ysed for electrolysis as electricity can not even be stored.

To convert water to hydrogen, we have to intensify our RD &D efforts in several areas like materials, membranes, catalysts etc.

Agree with Rick that it has low density leading to increased volumes for storage.

But when there is no option left we will find ways and means to innovate and implement it.

Who knows what our great grand generations had felt when oil/gas or coal were introduced.

The same will happen with hydrogen as I strongly feel.

Time will decide as we are enjoying fissil fuels with lot of uncertain future.

Typing error Grid,

Dear All, I think that the safety aspects are often ignored in this field. It is well known that hydrogen is highly flammable and that it forms explosive mixtures with oxygen (air). What if hydrogen under pressure leaks out and explodes?

For our uncertainty time any potential source of energy must be qualified by multi-parameter coefficient, which can include different variables.

For example, energy expenditure for its production, latent heat, flammability and so on.

From the thermodynamics, to produce the hydrogen energy expenditure is huge, latent heat (for storage) is low. Without more details, hydrogen has no any chance for practical application.