Jump to content

Talk:Hydrogen vehicle/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hydrogen

Article previously stated the efficiency of the hydrogen system will never exceed 25%. This was referenced twice but the 2nd reference points to the first by Ulf Bossel. Ulf Bossel self-publicizes and as such is no credible as a source for Wiki. I've removed the statement and references and will be removing any others from EFCF. It is disappointing that his 'critique' is often quoted by opponents to Hydrogen as a source of energy, aside from him self-publicizing, a comparison of his reports with scientific, peer-reviewed studies often leaves you with the feeling that Bossel is a High School/College student.

Also added this from the DOE "Producing hydrogen from natural gas does result in some greenhouse gas emissions. When compared to ICE vehicles using gasoline, however, fuel cell vehicles using hydrogen produced from natural gas reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60%." Replaced the previous statement that hydrogen produced from natural gas releases more greenhouse gasses than gasoline. Since both references for the previous statement were unverifiable (one was a book the other a pay only website) and since this comes from the Government and can be independently verified by anyone I think it is more credible.Mrwobbles (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to clear up something here as I have been accused by ssilvers of being a hydrogen POV pusher on the Electric Car talk page. Its was never my intent to push hydrogen merely to accurately represent the electric fuel chain efficiencies that seem to go unnoticed by most. Hydrogen will play an important part in energy security and GHG emissions over the coming century. I think that given the advent of Nickel catalysts, recent advances in biological hydrogen production and some nifty looking low pressure storage solutions (check out carbonized chicken feathers), the introduction of FCVs as a mass product are not as far away as some expect. This is not to detract from the many challenges still faced by hydrogen, however, infrastructure upgrades are a serious concern and the 'chicken-and-egg' situation (no inrfastrucure w/o demand but no demand w/o infrastructure) are the two that present the most serious problems. Even with massive Government intervention and the recent advances, it will still take 15-20 years for FCVs to reach large volumes. Many people seem to lump themselves into one category PHEV, FCV or HEV, forsaking all others at the expense of a more balanced attitude. My opinion is that a concerted effort in all three areas will be needed to have the largest impact on GHG emissions (thou there seems to be a lack of consensus among the wider scientific community of the impact of PHEVs certainly when it comes to coal fired grids). Choosing to focus on one at the expense of all others is short-sighted and often overlooks the drawbacks of whichever approach is being suggested as the only logical choice. The only time I've mentioned Hydrogen was to state Honda's fuel cell efficiency and the theoretical maximum of fuel cells and electrolysis, everything else has been in reference to PHEV/BEV. I resent being accused of being a POV-pusher since I never stated my opinion on the matter, nor was I questioned as to my opinions and I would appreciate at least this courtesy before being accused in the future.Mrwobbles (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, you seem to be trying to do the right thing (thanks for signing your posts) and don't seem to be pushing any particular agenda. There is no doubt that all of these automotive pages could do with a more rational approach to calculations, unfortunately the enthusiasts can usually dig up some pie in the sky reliable source to back their ridiculous assertions up. So keep up the good work. As an example of ridiculous data, Tesla claimed that their car resulted in lower CO2 emissions, in small print because they assumed that all the power was generated from Natural gas. For the 99.9% of the population that don't own their own power stations such a guarantee is hard to make. Greglocock (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Debating over irrelevant technical data.

It is the same old story, a profit threatening alternative to fossil fuels has attention drawn to it and critics come out of the woodwork pointing out any negative features, even manufacturing a few. The thing is that many of the technical data they use to support their claims are outdated, or incomplete by design. For instance some claim that hydrogen production is too costly, they then use examples like plugging an electrolyzer into a wall socket and show the cost comparison. But they leave out the option of solar hydrogen production ( like in the "Solar Hydrogen Home" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEdQRVQtffw ) where this person had setup his home on solar and uses the excess power he doesn't use to run an electrolyzer to produce and store hydrogen for use in his hydrogen powered car and also for his hydrogen cell for backup electricity in case his solar goes down allowing him a good amount of time to repair it without being without power.

So I was thinking, if the guy who setup the solar hydrogen home was so successful, then why do some skeptics keep maintaining hydrogen is so inefficient to produce? Maybe they work for a company who has a vested interest in fossil fuels or some other alternative fuel source that is in competition with the implementation of Hydrogen. We have to wonder this since there is so much money tied up in the Big Oil because it is so marketable for reasons that not just anyone can refine or produce it. Whereas if Solar Hydrogen Production becomes more widely used a person can do this at their residence cutting out the Multi-Billion Dollar Corporations who have been running the show for the better part of the last 100 years. How many Wars have been fought over Oil/Fuel? A big part of the reason Japan attacked pearl harbor was because they were cut off from a large portion of Oil/Fuel supplies ( http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/pearlhbr.htm ). Vietnam no matter what anyone else may say had a large portion to do with Oil Rights ( http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj050701-3.html ). The Middle East has seen quite a bit of the same circumstances. My point here is, if these "Big Oil Giants" would go as far as condoning, supporting, urging, or even starting wars in which millions have died as a result of, would it be unthinkable that they would do less extreme things such as fabricating, spreading, teaching counter-intelligence information to protect their profit margins. I mean if someone would kill for a reason, why wouldn't they fabricate information? I don't mean to make this into an all out slam on the oil companies, but this has to be included as part of the info considered here since it bears much relevance to inaccurate information being spread abroad.

Anyways back on target here. There are a lot of examples of irrelevant or outdated data used to argue against the implementation of hydrogen as a replacement for fossil fuels. Please post any examples you can find. I did not create this thread to argue with anyone, I just was interested in how many examples can be found by everyone.

-JaK

you/re talking on the wrong page, try Talk:Hydrogen_economy, read Hydrogen production, The Hopewell Project, Hydrogen station. Mion (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Please sign your posts properly (4 tildes). Oh, and learn what engineers and physicists mean by efficiency. Using solar to make hydrogen is not a terrible approach, but efficiency is pretty lousy. You'd be better off with an electric car. Greglocock (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
If i'm correct, a hydrogen vehicle is an electric car, so i'm not sure what you mean Greglocock. Mion (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Follow the indents, I was replying to the OP, not you. I should have said BEV tho, you are right. Greglocock (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I know, [1], i think it comes down to costs, similar as with the solar panels, as long as the system price is lower, the efficiency is less relevant, the price (and the weight) of the battery has to come down ten fold, its WP:CRYSTAL to speculate that BEV's are better. Mion (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

JaK suggested using excess power from a solar roof and then using any excess power to make hydrogen for your car. First of all, if you have excess power from your solar roof (and not that many people have a significant amount of excess solar), you can sell it back to your utility or use it for heat/hot water or any other purpose. Besides, if you're going to make hydrogen with the excess power, you probably would rather use the hydrogen for a stationary fuel cell to generate electricity for use after the sun goes down rather than for a car. Anyhow, as Mion said, the application of a home solar system for any hydrogen fuel cell use is a topic more closely related to Hydrogen economy and the other articles that Mion mentioned above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well to wheel comparision

Sometimes funny questions pop up, how do you heat a car in wintertime with BEV (and is that mentioned in the well to wheel) ? Mion (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
For example, this [2] takes 300W Mion (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Electric_car#Energy_efficiency, it isn't in the well to wheel calculations, anyone seen a BEV or hydrogen vehicle with an on board airco ? Mion (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"anyone seen a BEV or hydrogen vehicle with an on board airco ?" Yes. Greglocock (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:) where ? Mion (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Tesla.Greglocock (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
ah, ok Tesla, thanks, maybe a stupid question, do you think the airco was on with de actionradius demonstration ? :)Mion (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


Encyclopedia style

A lead section must summarize the article, especially when it's as long and rambling as this one. Acronyms thrown in without explanation will get you a failing grade in any technical writing course I've ever heard of. For a year or more a 4-letter word was stuck in the article with no explanation of what it meant. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

that's what tags are for, for goodness sake. incidentally it took me less time to find out what it meant via google than it did to type it into the article. use some common sense, get off that high horse. Greglocock (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I am challenged and refreshed by your unique perspective. I know if I write a report for a client and I try to BS by throwing in a bunch of undefined acronyms, I will not get paid for the report ( or at least I'll have to do it over again). Why should an encyclopedia article make someone look up an arbitrary acronym
It doesn't now, because I looked it up and put it into the article. See, it really was that simple.
, which doesn't even have anything to do with the subject of the article? As it turns out the sentence is clearer if we re-write it to get rid of the one-shot acronym. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is NOT to show off how brilliant we are...it's to explain things simply, briefly, and accurately. If it took so little time to fix, it would have taken little time any time in the last year.
It took less time to fix than you have spent whining about how hard it would be to fix. it hadn't been fixed before because nobody had brought it up as an issue.
You know, a century or so ago, it was considered the height of erudition to include long quotations in German, Latin or classical Greek (in Greek letters) in one's writing. I don't think we want to see *that* tradition revived, do we? I suppose one could cut out the paragraph and paste it into a Google translator. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Look, Dobbin, tags are how wiki's articles improve. I am sure that you use a Manual of Style when you write for a particular organisation, wiki is no different. I agree that this article is a joke, but there is no reason for you to make it worse. Using hydrogen in the upper stages of a rocket makes sense. It is one of the few applications where that is so. Greglocock (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Featured articles have no tags. In my limited Wikipedia experience, tags accumulate in articles and are rarely acted on. Why the name-calling? I would think it's a generally accepted principle that you don't use an acronym without defining it, unless you're writing to a specialized audience. If I'm writing in a Wikipedia article, I'll spell out Computer-aided design (CAD) the first time I use it; someone writing for CADalyst doesn't have the same problem. It's amusing to see how many uses there are for the acronym "GLOW" - "Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling", "Gays and Lesbians of Windsor", etc. - none of which are relevant to the article. And the assertion is still unreferenced; someone must have written something in the last 80 years that describes *why* hydrogen is good for rockets, but none of our energetic and enthusiastic Wiki scholars are motivated to find a reference (in spite of a tag!) --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you have the wrong room. Arguments are down the corridor on the left. Well, if you had bothered to read the article you'll see that yesterday I had already included a ref to a page that says that high isp fuels are better suited to upper stages. As to whatever else you are blathering on about, get over it. wiki improves by tags. Greglocock (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It's working with such a fine collabrative spirit that is one's chief benefit of contributing to the Wikipedia. Tags are a crutch, usually used to say "Neener neener neener" without actually contributing anything. If you see a problem, fix it, don't tag it. I look forward to the User:Grelocock continuing seminar on "How to Write Featured Articles And Inspire Others With Leadership". --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wtshymanski and Greglocock, the lead is much improved, providing a better introduction to the article. Thank you both. I moved a couple of sentences from the third paragraph to the second paragraph, which I think makes it flow better and reduces redundancy about electrolysis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your lavish praise. There's nothing like a patronizing remark from a total stranger to make me feel like I've really made a difference. The lead might still get better, but the article is less than comprehensive. This needs a proper discussion of how you make, transport, handle and store hydrogen, and why it's so dificult. Getting into land-speed records and rumors of hydrogen-powered tractors is the absolute worst sort of Wiki-trivia. There's no point talking about Binford Motors development of a hydrogen-fuelled weed whacker until the article discusses how much energy a unit volume of liquid or compressed H2 can store and how this affects *everything* to do with the use of hydrogen for transportation. Ephemera, press releases and class notes are the stuff Wikipedia is made of. Nobody knows anything. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly did not intend to be patronizing; I intended to show gratitude. I'm sorry you took it that way. I agree with your comments about the article. You seem to be an experienced science writer, and I hope you will undertake the changes you suggest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

hydrogen fuel that runs on existing cars

I'm a first time poster so forgive me if I don't do it right. I'm fairly disappointed in this article. Yes it has plenty of great information on hydrogen in a generalized way and it was helpful, but I was really looking for particulars on hydrogen in an internal combustion engine.. There was only a bit of information on this subject and that was really discussing it's impact on the economy and briefly mentions forklifts... how about some more on the internal combustion engine? Also, any ideas on the status of the Penn State file hydrogen production cell? Will the spaces be realeasd to the public? Does it net produce energy? Thanks! 01:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)01:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.173.232 (talk)


Is this worth incorporating into this article ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1351341/Relief-pumps-Revolutionary-hydrogen-fuel-cost-just-90p-GALLON-run-existing-cars.html

--Penbat (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

About as worthy as all those Nigerian millionaires. If it's a top-secret laboratory, why is there an article in the paper about it? Do you think this story has the slightest credibility? Or is it just some bored editor plugging the newshole? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesnt look top secret at all. Explains developed by Cella energy at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxford and info on their website http://www.cellaenergy.com Maybe they need the publicity to get more funding. --Penbat (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. This technology is not available yet for real cars. See WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the right website for inventors to try to raise funding for their projects, so we must wait until this technology is working in real cars before it is ready to be explained in the encyclopedia. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Quality

The flow and general quality of the grammar used in this article are poor. Could anyone please advise me as to how to place one of those banners at the top of the article asking for assistance fixing it up?

Sentences such as:

"The challenges facing the use of hydrogen in vehicles include production, storage, transport and distribution. The well-to-wheel efficiency for hydrogen, because of all these challenges will not exceed 25%."

read badly, and are quite confusing. What factors are considered when calculating well-to-wheel efficiency? Why is it important? In short, what the hell does this mean? HappyGod (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well-to-wheel efficiency is a way to compare apples to apples when measuring the efficiency of different kinds of fuel for vehicles. If you see a way way to improve the grammar of any sentences in the article, go ahead and do so, and other editors can then review your work. I agree that this article is not well-written, but the first sentence you have chosen to quote above is IMO, perfectly alright. I have now clarified the second. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:21 am, Today (UTC−4)
See above for my low opinion of tags. Writing by committee invariably produces a disjointed, confused, dull, and unfocussed style. I would encourage you to just fix the confusing bits instead of putting tags in that no-one will act on either.Be Bold!, as we used to say around here. You can't hurt anything and you might well help. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The way I see it Wtshymanski, tags are part of the way Wikipedia works, and I happen to like them. Further more if you note the time I wrote my comment, it was 12:47am Perth time, and I was just browsing the wiki before heading off to bed. I wanted a reminder for myself as well as others that the article needs attention.
I contribute as much as my free time allows to fix up articles in Wikipedia and don't need any prompting to 'be bold', thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

rhetorical question from a newspaper article

Under the Criticism heading of this article:

The Washington Post asked in November 2009, "But why would you want to store energy in the form of hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to produce electricity for a motor, when electrical energy is already waiting to be sucked out of sockets all over America and stored in auto batteries...?"

Rhetorical questions do not seem encyclopedic. No doubt design engineers have their reasons for having produced stored hydrogen prototype vehicles. The quote from the Washington Post makes it seem that the stored hydrogen concept is absurd and neglects to acknowledge the fact that that electric batteries have their own limitations. While the article in the Post may be more balanced, the quote itself is unbalanced and contributes no substantial factual content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broiyan (talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be removed on the grounds that it is stupid criticism. How exactly do they expect the electricity to get from the wall sockets to the car? The whole point to hydrogen is that you don't have to leave your car on charge overnight, and you're only limited by the amount of fuel you can replenish rather than batteries you can keep charged... 193.132.145.151 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Rockets section

I tried to rewrite most of the section, because it just made me cringe. My English may not be perfect, but I think this still is an improvement over pseudo-intellectual style coupled with spelling errors and complete lack of understanding of rocket engines. The rest of the article could also use some attention regarding the language IMHO. Dasdingonesin (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Like". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Tesla

Why the article doesn't mention Tesla Model S as longest range EV with ~200 miles range? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.110.5 (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is about hydrogen vehicles. Tesla is not a hydrogen vehicle. It is discussed at Electric vehicle, Battery electric vehicle and Tesla Model S and does not belong here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

lux report date

The Great Compression: The Future of the Hydrogen Economy- December 2012 | State of the Market Report. [3]. Mion (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The report was in Dec. 2012, but the press release that is being cited was in January 2013. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the facts mentioned "quoted" are from 2012.Mion (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and we say that it was "In 2012". The citation, however, is to a document dated 2013. Read WP:CITE. It is shocking that an experienced wikipedian would not know how to date citation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparison with other types of alternative fuel vehicles

I intended just to correct some facts (the Volt is NOT the first series production plug-in hybrid, is the BYD F3DM, and the Leaf is not the first modern highway-capable series production all-electric car, it is the Mitsubishi i-MiEV) but I was surprised that most of the content in these sections do not present a comparison with hydrogen vehicles, and the electric car section talks unnecessarily a lot about BEVs rather than concentrating in the comparison. Just check the article alternative fuel vehicle, these three section as almost repeating the content already there. As an example of what a real comparison should look like, below I copy and paste a table from green vehicles. Also you could compare full-life cycle CO2 emissions.

Comparison of several types of green car basic characteristics
(Values are overall for vehicles in current production and may differ between types)
Type of vehicle/
powertrain		 Fuel economy
(mpg equivalent)		 Range Production cost
for given range		 Reduction in CO2
compared to conventional		 Payback period
Conventional ICE 10-78 Long
(400-600 mi)		 Low 0% -
Biodiesel 18-71 Long
(360-540 mi)		 Low 100% -
All-electric 54-118 Shorter
(73-150 mi)
Luxury models
Medium
(160-300 mi)		 High

Very high		 varies depending
on energy source		 -
Hydrogen fuel cell 80 Over USD100,000
Hybrid electric 30-60 380 mi [4]</ref> Medium 5 years

Such a table could replaced most of this section. Don't you agree? --Mariordo (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

specify "Astronomical" pls Mion (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This was presented just as an example (remove that column if you fancy). On a second though, those sections have so many issues that probably it would be better to reorganized and merge the content elsewhere in the article to organized the info in terms of advantages and disadvantages. See the plug-in electric vehicle as a good example.--Mariordo (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I think its on the wrong page, alternative fuel vehicles encompasses the different approaches any comparision should be there, not here, this article is about hydrogen vehicles, nothing else. Mion (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I took the table from green vehicles (by the way, not my edit, it needs serious improvement!) just to illustrate. Nevertheless, I do not understand your comment, you added a lot of content in the section intended for a comparison (particularly about EVs) and now you say it is not appropriate. My point was that talking about PHEVs, NGVs and BEVs without actual comparisons with hydrogen vehicles makes those sections look like the AFVs article.--Mariordo (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, a lot of the content on this page is about Fuel cell vehicles, and that creates a lot of doublure as it has the same sections, so, if more agree, it might be handy to move all fuell cell related to that page, and keep all ICE based hydrogen vehicles here, and give short after the lead a short story about the difference of the 2 and point to the other page. As for the comparisions, they should move too to a central page, and i think alternative fuel vehicles is a good place. We can add a short section about alternative fuel vehicles n this page, keep it neutral while pointing to that page. Mion (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree that this page should be only about ICE hydrogen vehicles, but the overlapped is so huge that I was wondering if a merge/partial move/split could be more appropriate, to a new article: Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. But not sure about it. I would like other opinions form the regular editors before making such a proposal.--Mariordo (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Not all Fuel cell vehicles are hydrogen based, see the DMFC forklifts and submarines, also a fuel cell vehicle is an industry classification, and the ICE hydrogen cant be merged into it. so a renaming of fuel cell vehicle is not an option, i think

Good point. What about Hydrogen fuel cell car (or automobile), just like there is a general article for electric vehicle and a specific one for electric car? Most of the content in this article is about hydrogen fuel cell passenger vehicles (automobiles, SUVs, light-duty trucks). And I meant to propose the creation of a new article, splitting content from here and leaving the general description for all type of hydrogen vehicles, not renaming it.--Mariordo (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe better to make a hydrogen electric car article, just like battery electric car so both topics can be handled in electric car ? I see now that battery electric car is directed to electric car, it should be moved to its own page, i think. as for whats upcoming, the range extenders might give the option to an article battery and fuel cell electric car.Mion (talk)
I do not agree that both topics can be handled in the same article. The issues associated with all-electric cars (or battery electric cars, it is the same) are quite different from hydrogen fuel cell cars (source of the fuel/energy, FCV don not plug-in, infrastructure for refueling/charging, ...). The only thing in common is that propulsion comes from an electric motor. Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia, and by WP policies we can not invent terminology/categories that technically do not exist in the real world. A range-extender vehicle is a series plug-in hybrid as defined by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or by country laws (such as plug-in electric vehicle in the US and UK). Finally, such an article will only repeat content already existing in other articles, and so, we would go back full circle to the repetition among this article and fuel cell vehicle.--Mariordo (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we should drop the question of moving articles around for a while and focus on the content? Then, when we have content that we like for each article/part of the article, we can more easily talk about moving content around from article to article and/or leaving cross-references and summary info in the more general topics, per WP:SUMMARY. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree. Let's wait until the article is improved.--Mariordo (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a stupid question IF battery and fuel cell electric cars [[5]], [[6]], [[7]] are a part of plug-in hybrids, why are they not mentioned on that article ? Mion (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuel cell cost

I have reinstated a quote from a recent Toyota presentation. The quote was removed, because the source allegedly "does not contain this information." It does, page 33 of the cited PDF. This information is notable, because someone is talking about the cost of making a vehicle who is actually making them. Whether Toyota has a conflict of interest, or not, is irrelevant in this context. All manufacturers pushing their technology are "conflicted." A lot of the information in the article is based on the U.S. Department of Energy. Current U.S. policy is pro BEV, and against FCV.

Who is not supposed to be conflicted are Wikipedia editors.

Having said that, the article as a whole could use a lot more balance. It appears to be very much pro BEV, and very much against FCV. We are not supposed to be for, or against anything, we are supposed to report the facts, and both sides of the argument, if there is one.

As far as costs and other factors go, a lot of the material is dated and superseded by recent developments. BsBsBs (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The Toyota FCV has not been introduced yet, so it is premature to say that the car is available at this price: It has only been scheduled to be available by April 2015 at this price in four Japanese metropolitan areas. Many promises have been made and broken about hydrogen, so we cannot treat anything as a fact until it actually happens. Also, the Toyota presentation is, to say the least, not an independent source. I'll look again at page 33, but we really should cite an independent source. As for the rest of this article, I must stress that expectations about hydrogen have routinely resulted in failure and disappointment. Bush said that by 2010 everyone would be driving hydrogen cars. Schwartzenneger said that the hydrogen highway would be open by 2010. So we must take the announcements regarding the building of expensive hydrogen fueling stations to be hopeful but not facts until those stations are actually built and open. It certainly looks like things are happening for hydrogen cars now, but we must be cautious. The current information is not superseded quite yet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
One will be hard-pressed to find an independent source for a company's production cost. The source will always be the company, one way or another. We need to cite reliable sources, and when it comes to internal cost accounting, we have to accept their number just like we accept their 1.320 trillion yen operating income for Fiscal 2013. When Toyota says their product will be available at around 7 million JPY, then I will report that they said it, not that this is going to be. I absolutely agree that the article should be speculation-free. When someone else speculates that the price will be $50,000, as it happened in the past, then I will ignore it as speculation, and not put it in an article, neither at Wikipedia, nor elsewhere. Likewise, when Toyota says the cruising range of the Toyota FCV is approximately 700 km under Japan's JC08 test cycle, then I will report that they said it. I will NOT convert the 700km to miles, because now we would enter the MPG zone, and there is no mathematical formula to convert from JC08 to EPA. Miles would suggest EPA, and Bloomberg seemingly attempted a conversion. If Bloomberg goes there, I won't, because at this instance, Bloomberg is unreliable. BsBsBs (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hydrogen from water

I am no expert but I think the existence of technology for producing hydrogen from water through a physical reaction developed in the former SU it is worth mentioning. I am sorry I cannot give further details as I do not remember the name of the Russian scientist who developed it. The method would be simple and inexpensive as the hydrogen would be produced directly on each car, i.e. refuelling would be done with water.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. No, that "technology" is a hoax. See Water-fuelled car. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No. It is none of those in the articles. It was developed in the former SU around the middle of the century by a Russian academic. As I said I cannot give details as I hit on the issue by chance and it was not the main focus of my attention then. If any reader is acquainted with Russian science and technology he will perhaps have heard about it.Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument" and of course "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof" Greglocock (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Greglocock is correct: WP:V says: "All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." So if you cannot give us a citation to a WP:Reliable source, we cannot include the information in this encyclopedia. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing extraordinary, the article already has many. I wrote above I asked somebody with knowledge of Soviet Russia's science and technology to make his input here, provided there is one among wikipedia editors. I did not make any attempt to add anything to the article, I just mentioned the issue here in the apparently naive belief that this piece of information was not foreign to everybody.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference to a scientific experiment at MIT will save a lot of wasted time and improve public debate. On use of electricity from solar panels plus a cobalt catalyst to split water (H2O), providing plentiful hydrogen for fuel cells, see: Stephen Ritter, "Fuel from the Sun: Cobalt water-oxidation catalysts benefit from federal initiatives to harness solar power to make fuel," in Chemistry and Engineering News (July 5, 2010; pp. 26-28). French are using another kind of catalyst, but the big need is public investment in the network of hydrogren fueling stations (which ought to be no interest loans to be oil companies, though even if the estimate $18Billion cost estimated for a national network were correct, it would be about the same cost as the XL Keystone pipeline & other strategies to squeeze out a few more years of oil. [Roger Masters (Dartmouth College)], Oct. 13, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.134.115 (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's the linky. https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~sabrash/110/Fuel%20From%20The%20Sun%20_%20July%205,...pdf I'm not quite sure why using a PV cell to drive an electrolysis cell is news, but given the ease with which electricity can be transmitted and the difficulty with which hydrogen can be transported, I'd a thunk you'd be better off generating electricity from the PV where it can be most cheaply generated, and making hydrogen where it is most likely to be used. Not perhaps a very fashionable point of view. Greglocock (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Once hydrogen is made for cars in this fashion on a commercial scale, and reported on in the media, we will certainly write more about it. Whether it will be done on any significant scale any time soon is speculation. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah perhaps it would be better on Things we can do with electricity that we've been doing for 223 years Greglocock (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Greglocock's link leads to the article about Electrolysis_of_water, which is more directly relevant to information on this topic, until the process is used to make hydrogen for cars on the roads. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Its photocatalytic water splitting, sort of artificial photosynthesis in a photoelectrochemical cell [8]. Mion (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

New/Old article - hydrogen engine?

I'm disappointed to see that hydrogen engines are redirected to hydrogen vehicles. Hydrogen vehicles are either fuel cell based or engine based. Hydrogen engines can have applications in automotive, aerospace, industrial, or stationary applications. Fuel cells deservedly have their own article. Any objections to me splitting off a hydrogen engine article? Eljamoquio (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the Fuel Cell article encompasses all of the topics you mention, doesn't it? Wouldn't an additional article be redundant? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Fuel cells and hydrogen engines are quite fundamentally different! Battery-electric vehicles should have a wikipedia article. Batteries should have a wikipedia article. Similarly, fuel cells should have a wikipedia article, and fuel cell vehicles should have a wikipedia article. Similarly, hydrogen engines should have a wikipedia article, and hydrogen-engined vehicles should have a wikipedia article. There's enough research out there on hydrogen engines (rather than fuel cells) to have a wikipedia article on hydrogen engines. Eljamoquio (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I see. Sure, if you can do the research and can write a nice article about it, then happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe Hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle was ment ? We have a German article for the engine only de:Wasserstoffverbrennungsmotor. Mion (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I can quickly think of several pieces of information that would greatly enhance this page as well as any discussion of fuels whose use might reduce our contribution to the carbon footprint.

First, consistent comparison data would enable us to make reasoned deductions about hydrogen-powered vehicles, but it's lacking here. For example, in some cases there are references to the hidden costs of production for various hydrogen power methods such as fuel cells and hybrid cars, but no such reference to hydrogen or gasoline. Valid comparisons and useful decisions can only be made when pertinent information about each of the fuel types is presented. It's notably lacking here, and I'm not able to provide it or I would.

Secondly, it would be reasonable to mention that there are political and financial motives strongly influencing the public postures towards hydrogen-fueled vehicles of virtually every source of "information". This makes the positions of "knowledgeable sources" as much an argument as they may be informative. In other words, quoted sources are presenting a small percentage of the information needed to come to a decision about whether hydrogen fuel is a practical alternative for vehicles. As mentioned earlier, it is apparently impossible to discover what the actual cost-per-mile is of "electric" cars, which derive their electric "fuel" from an electrical grid that burns huge quantities of coal. The direct cost of the electrical "fuel" is never mentioned, and the indirect cost of the burning of coal to produce the electricity is also very much hidden. The same is true for fuel-cell costs. My understanding is that fuel cells are incredibly expensive to produce and the cost of placing them in cars today is highly subsidized. I suggest all these pertinent factors be presented in this article in a clear, inclusive manner that shows the same data on costs for ALL of the options relating to hydrogen vehicles.

BuckAlaska (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Cost of electricity by source might give a partial answer, but its hard to get good reference prices, as gas fracking results in very cheap gas in the US (which also lowers the hydrogen price coming from it) its not a worldwide view, Europe has only 5-10% gas fracking if fully employed, Japan has almost none. Mion (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hydrogen is an incredibly dumb car fuel

Elon Musk called hydrogen as "an incredibly dumb car fuel". Reference: Joe Romm at Think Progress 192.100.120.41 (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes he did, but it is not useful to just say that he thinks it's dumb; instead, we already explain the rationale for why he thinks so, in the Criticism section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a dedicated article for that Hydrogen economy which of-course is listed under See also section J mareeswaran (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

lead refs

The drawbacks of hydrogen use are high capital cost, low energy content per unit volume, production and compression of hydrogen, and the large investment in infrastructure that would be required to fuel vehicles. Davies, Alex. "Honda Is Working On Hydrogen Technology That Will Generate Power Inside Your Car", The Business Insider, November 22, 2013 Berman, Bradley. "Fuel Cells at Center Stage", New York Times, November 24, 2013, p. AU1

Aldo i am maybe not disagreeing with mentioning drawbacks, the 2 refs are not fact based, but just personal opinion articles which are not properly supporting the claims. for me, the whole statement should be removed if not well supported by facts based on proper research. Mion (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
the second ref is from Brad Berman from PluginCars.com[www.plugincars.com/user/brad-berman] a battery car promotor, what is that ref doing outside de Bev versus hydrogen section ? Mion (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree with your removing the reference to this new New York Times article called "Fuel Cells at Center Stage". Stop warring on this article. If you are satisfied with the statements made, let's just agree to disagree on what is the best ref. I find a very large number of refs in this article to be personal opinion articles by fuel cell promoters. If you want to improve this article, what you should do is comply with WP:CITE by adding the required information to the citations you have added, including author information, publisher and publication info and dates. It is terribly shoddy work, and I am frankly amazed that you are not embarrassed by doing this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, first of all its not surprising that fuel cell promotors , from which most refs are from people who are working in the fuel cell industry) are referenced here as many fuel cells end up in a hydrogen vehicle, as that is what this article is about, which we cant say from your endless adding of refs from battery vehicle promotors which belong on the page BEV. and for me you should tone down a bit.Mion (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The New York Times is widely considered a reliable source in Wikipedia, and this article is NOT an editorial piece, so ther is no reason to remove it.--Mariordo (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
As for Ssilvers, may i point you too Wikipedia:Canvassing as both editors that recently showed up are very active BEV editors ? no offence btw to both editors as i assume good faith. As for Mariordo's comment, the question was not if the Times is considdered a reliable source, but the author in question Brad Berman from PluginCars.com[www.plugincars.com/user/brad-berman] is a reliable source. Mion (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC) And 2 almost every technology has its critics or drawbacks, i dont see the drawback in the lead of BEV, as in general in most of our articles ?Mion (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

[left}To take this back a bit, i asked here for proper refs based on facts [9], as we have proper refs in the wiki article itself, this opinion article doesn\t confirm any of these refs. Mion (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "as we have proper refs in the wiki article itself, this opinion article doesn\t confirm any of these refs"? If you could explain what you mean more clearly, it is possible that we may be in partial agreement, but I can't figure out what you are trying to say and might be able to find a compromise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Drawback of high tankage weights[citation needed], high storage vessel pressures[citation needed], the storage[citation needed], transportation[citation needed] and filling[citation needed] of gaseous or liquid hydrogen in vehicles, the large investment in infrastructure[citation needed] that would be required to fuel vehicles, and the low efficiency of production processes[citation needed].
pls fill in a fact base reference with numbers of the last one, the low efficiency of production processes Mion (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
give me a fact based reference for the drawback of a high storage vessel pressures ? Most of these proclaimed drawbacks are just made up by the writer. Mion (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
What you are saying seems to be nonsense. The article no longer says anything about "high storage vessel pressures". -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Mion is a hired gun to promote hydrogen. look at his contribution. No point in discussion with him. Anu Raj (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hydrogen vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Disadvantages of hydrogen vehicles

Disadvantages: 1. Fossil Fuels Are Still Needed in the process In order to separate the atoms of the hydrogen and oxygen and generate hydrogen fuel, fossil fuels are still needed. This completely defeats the purpose of an alternative energy source. If we ran out of fossil fuels we would no longer be able to produce hydrogenated energy. 2. It is flammable While it may not be toxic, it sure is flammable. The source of the risk comes from the hydrogen itself, which is very prone to catch on fire, or even exploding. This would add unnecessarily and new risks into society. 3. It is very costly to produce. As of now, the energy is not efficient enough to produce hydrogen energy in a cost effective way. Troublemaker anonymous (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I see those are not the major disadvantages.
  1. Fossil fuels are not required. Take an advanced nuke, such as Dual fluid reactor and use that for direct hydrogen generation.
  2. We use flammable fuels daily. If hydrogen leaks, it rises quickly upwards. You won't stumble on a puddle of burning hydrogen.
  3. Anything may be costly to produce, it depends on primary resources such as energy. See #1.
So, what are the major disadvantages then? Although the specific energy of hydrogen is high as measured in Wh/kg, the energy density of hydrogen is low as measured in Wh/L, even for liquefied hydrogen, which is impractical in automobiles. So, hydrogen must be stored in pressurized bottles. The bottles are large and also heavy because they must withstand the high pressure. Also the fuel cells are quite big.
Anyway, methanol fuel would be an obvious alternative. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There are additional major disadvantages (that we already mention in the article):

  • Once you produce the hydrogen, you need to truck it to the fueling stations;
  • There aren't many fueling stations, and each one costs about 50x as much to build as installing a quick-charger;
  • You need to fill up at a hydrogen fueling station, whereas EVs can be charged overnight at home or during the day at work;

The first poster is correct that, no matter how you do it, it is much more expensive to produce, compress and store hydrogen to move a car x miles than to charge a battery to move the car x miles. And, given how hydrogen is actually produced, it is far dirtier today, and not likely to be the best choice for decarbonization in the future: see this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My point was that, if the energy that moves the vehicle, becomes so inexpensive that the average consumer does not even care about the difference between two alternatives, because they are both inexpensive, then the question about the fuel capacity of the vehicle becomes critical. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added references to Argonne National Laboratory and US Department of Energy notes on this subject. I would also suggest that 1. fossil fuels are not the only source of primary energy for production of Hydrogen, 2. lots of things are flammable, 3. Cost vs Emissions should be carefully studied. In fact, the most cost-effective solution may be the pressurized gas escaping a nearby oil well, but that is not the subject of this article. I might suggest Fuel efficiency and Fuel economy in automobiles for that topic. Kyle(talk) 04:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Whilst i appreciate that those observations are from a reliable source it is still a load of rubbish. If I have some solar cells they can be used to supply grid electricity or make hydrogen. If they are used to make hydrogen then somebody else needs to supply the grid, so the CO2 emissions still increase. Greglocock (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with User:Greglocock. The addition is not appropriate for the "criticism" section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Hydrogen vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Blimp

This article doesn't mention the LZ 129 Hindenburg. --Spunionztastic (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Airships used hydrogen for lift, but I don't think they used it for propulsion. This article is about vehicles that use hydrogen for propulsion. Still, the point that hydrogen fuel is highly flammable, and can even be explosive, should be made somewhere in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no history of the technology section?

The 1994 TV movie, Bandit Bandit has an experimental car that runs on Hydrogen Peroxide and so I'm wondering how long I have been waiting for Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology. This page only speaks to what is available now. 2601:1C2:1701:C380:90B8:8C97:587E:ACBF (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There is some history in the Fuel Cell Vehicle article, and, frankly, the two articles could be combined. But I'm not going to attempt it. The main problem with both articles, though, is that most of the hydrogen fuel cell applications are obsolete, as battery technology is improving so fast and has overtaken hydrogen fuel cells for most applications, and these two articles should acknowledge that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hydrogen and oxygen from water - electrolysis

Can someone please explain why electrolysis is not mentioned as a way of creating hydrogen gas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Shield (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article, although 98% of hydrogen is produced using steam methane reforming, which emits carbon dioxide. See "Realising the hydrogen economy",Power Technology, October 11, 2019. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Onboard storage

This 4/18/2020 article speaks of a possible development 1--Billymac00 (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

How is this notable for this article? There are Sunday-Supplement "breakthroughs" every month. We're not supposed to publish research results. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Underlying engine technology of Fuel Cells vs battery

It would be useful to see a comparison between Fuel Cell Vehicles and BEVs. FCEVs must have a battery to smooth out the output from a chemical reaction so it is suitable to drive an electric motor at random intervals. This means FCEVs must have a battery to store energy and provide the mechanism to drive a motor. That means having the electronics, inverter, converter etc at full power to do the motor drive. All these are in a BEV. Only the size of the battery is different. Hence, an FCEV replicates everything in a BEV. How does this impact the long-term costs for FCEVs vs BEVs? Some extra data to show FCEV designs vs BEVs would be illuminating. Here is a site that does this to a degree: [10] -- Unsigned by User:Peterdev2.

I agree that we should clearly describe how the batteries work in an FCEV vehicle, but any new paragraph comparing this with BEV design and the resulting costs should be very brief, for two reasons. First, the technology is a moving target, because battery technology for BEVs is improving so fast that any current comparison we add will be out of date next year; a simple comparison of the total cost-to-own of FCEVs vs. BEVs is probably more useful and easier to keep track of. Second, the most important differences between FCEVs and BEVs that we need to highlight are as follows: (i) BEVs are more than twice as efficient as FCEVs; (ii) 95% of hydrogen is produced using the polluting steam reformation process; (iii) there is very little public charging infrastructure for FCEVs, and building a hydrogen fueling station is many times more expensive than building a battery charging station (plus, most BEV charging is done at home); and (iv) delivering hydrogen to filling stations is generally done by gasoline trucks -- very wasteful and polluting. I think a more interesting area to focus on would be the kinds of vehicles that lend themselves more to FCEV technology, like ships and aircraft. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Toyota's testing of ICE cars adapted to use hydrogen

An IP editor has been edit-warring to add this trivia to the Hydrogen vehicle article. Putting aside the facts that the cite is a bare citation and that the source article is mischaracterized in what the IP is adding, the Toyota test vehicle that is described has not been commercialized, is not close to being commercialized, and given all the problems with hydrogen infrastructure, cost and efficiency, likely never will be. Furthermore, the fact that the information described in the article is a one-off event means the statement is WP:UNDUE here. More broadly, since there are two actual production hydrogen vehicles, and so many test vehicles have now been abandoned, I suggest that we do not add information about early test vehicles unless and until a company announces firm plans to manufacture a particular production car. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

But it is both Toyota and Mazda. This article is the place to talk about this. Perhaps in the history section. I'm not sure which other companies you are referring to.49.178.131.33 (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
This is just a test vehicle. We do not need to discuss it until the manufacturer(s) have firm plans to commercialize the vehicles, which I doutbt they ever will. There have been dozens or hundreds of hydrogen test vehicles, all of which have been abandoned except for the two that continue to be manufactured. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Are those other vehicles created by rather obscure companies?49.178.131.33 (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Obscure companies like BMW? Greglocock (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Um, the other editor said "dozens". He did not say BMW.49.178.131.33 (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
BMW built more than one hundred. Whatever point you are trying to make is not coming through.Greglocock (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Well obviously I did not realise that BMW made a hundred. Shall we include BMWs research in the article?49.178.131.33 (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
List of hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles would seem to be the ideal place for that bit of trivia Greglocock (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Where is the section on nuclear-powered electrolysis and purple/pink/red hydrogen?

Given that nuclear is small footprint, on demand, zero CO2, and soon highly modular, it seems that a complete absence of discussion on nuclear as a source of energy for any motor vehicle (ICE, EV, fuel cell) is a big miss. 2600:4040:1225:8600:BDFE:E759:A11E:54B0 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

There is are separate articles about hydrogen and hydrogen production. This article is about hydrogen vehicles, so production is a tangential subject and is properly treated briefly. If nuclear becomes a major source of hydrogen for vehicles, then it can be added then. You can write an article about nuclear as a source of energy for vehicles, if you have WP:Reliable sources about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hydrogen combustion emissions

Where it states the “ while the main exhaust product of hydrogen combustion is water vapor.” is not accurate, hydrogen combustion ie not via fuel cell but burning it in an internal combustion engine, creates a lot of NOx emissions, which are highly toxic on a local level. So this entry is not accurate. Should that entry be deleted or changed, then maybe added to mention that it isn't just water vapour like fuel cells do mostly. More background here on Hydrogen combustion issues. https://www.cleanegroup.org/hydrogen-hype-in-the-air/

It is even mentioned here Hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle EditsBoy (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

By all means, please adjust the combustion section to make it accurate and cite the best recent sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bh2471 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bh2471 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hydrogen_vehicle/Archive_2&oldid=1212973266"