In other hydrogen news:

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/innovation/natural-hydrogen-hyterra-will-reveal-next-month-if-it-has-world-s-first-commercially-exploitable-h2-field/2-1-1417594

' Natural hydrogen | HyTerra will reveal next month if it has world’s first commercially exploitable H2 field

Australian company is currently pumping water out of well in Nebraska, ahead of flow rate and gas composition testing

Australian company HyTerra will find out in the coming weeks if there are commercially exploitable quantities of naturally occurring hydrogen underground at a site in Nebraska, central US.'

Clearly if this test pans out, then they whole energy market is likely to be transformed, as well perhaps as the balance between battery and fuel cell vehicles.

OTOH, if the quantities are not commercial, that is a downer, but is not conclusive evidence that there would be an equally null result elsewhere.

If it works though in commercial quantities then it is deeply unreasonable to imagine that this is probably not also the case in other places.

It is not often that we have a time line of a month or so to see if something deeply transformative works out.

Commercial natural hydrogen would certainly be that.

@Lad:

It is a long trip from the laboratory to the road!

Just to be clear, I have absolutely nothing against batteries, just batteries which are 'coming real soon' used as a justification to heavily subsidise in all sorts of ways cars for the better off, at the expense of everybody else.

To me, it is equally mysterious why folk should attempt to rule out hydrogen, which can currently provide far more energy than batteries, with a 5 minute refuel without needing huge loads from the local grid.

If you fancy running around on batteries most of the time, and have somewhere convenient to plug in, then instead of a thumping great battery a plug in FCEV will do the job fine.

And it is tough in some areas to provide electriclty when it is ideally needed to charge cars.

If batteries can be improved economically to do what enthusiasts assume, that is just fine with me.

But a good alternative would be hydrogen , with whatever degree of battery assistance works best, so why a far better alternative than present practise should be discarded by so many is strange.

If renewables to hydrogen from places where that is far cheaper than renewaable electricity/natural hydrogen are to be the source, for many regions then why bother going through the extra step of producing electricity, when you can just pump hydrogen into your car?

That bypasses the fact that the vast majority of the world's motorists and especially would be motorists in the third world have and can have nowhere at all to plug in their car.

And they currently pay less for their whole car than than the price of the battery pack alone in the subsidised, mandated electric luxmobiles.

@sd said:

' Yes, if hydrogen was next to free and did not require more than twice the energy as batteries, '

As I have noted elsewhere, if you are intending to use renewable energy, you have to take local resources into account.

Since a solar panel in the Gulf or North Africa will get twice the energy over a year compared to the same panel in Germany, then your calculations given the high efficiencies now possible in converting solar to ammonia, transporting it and reconverting it to pump hydrogen into a car, and the fact that in places where it gets cold fuel cells provide heat for the occupants and to keep the batteries etc in good condition it is difficult to see how your calculations are wholly accurate.

That is aside from the fact that we are constantly told that most daily journeys are under 30 miles, so what perhaps should be compared is a car with a thumping great battery pack to cover the long runs and one where a modest pack covers day to day running around whilst a fuel cell conveniently covers long runs.

That alone drives a horse and cart through the efficiency claims you have presented.

And as I note above, if commercial natural hydrogen does pan out, why go through the extra trouble and expense of burning it in relatively inefficient cental generators, and producing electricity to be inefficiently transmitted to power expensive batteries when you can simply pump in hydrogen, and not have range etc limitations?

What is most effective, economic and efficient depends on where, using what technology etc., and is not the absolute slam dunk winner everywhere claimed for batteries, and most certainly not for anything like current batteries.

Perhaps Toyota have been somewhat influenced as like northern Europe and perhaps northern China Japan unless it goes heavily nuclear is not going to be able to power its transport etc from locally produced renewables, but will need hydrogen imports one way or another, perhaps as ammonia or LOHC

I like batteries a lot, but they are very far from the absolute, universal winner everywhere and in all situations and climates so often claimed.

Juan Carlos Zuleta

Hi Juan, it is good to see you here!

Just to clarify, I am very keen on the electrification of transport, and have been at least since the days that introducing the Nissan Leaf was mooted, and it started to enter the realms of practicality.

My objection is exactly the same as Toyota's, that for starters less well off motorists should not be left out in the cold, as in reality all electric BEVs remain an expensive solution.

When and as better batteries become available, well and good, but simply heavily penalising poorer motorists to help pay for luxury cars for the better off right now gets my dander up.

The other main objection is that if you are intending to use renewables, without importing energy as ammonia etc, the sums just do not add up in some places like Germany and Japan.

And no doubt issues will arise on the use of hydrogen, but simply assuming that they will be overcome in the case of batteries, and magically, renewable power will be available in Hamburg in December to power BEVs without importing ammonia or whatever is just shutting the eyes and fantacising.

I like batteries.

I like fuel cells.

Both work together superbly well, and enhance each other in the things that are more difficult for each.

Why folk seek to dismiss whole vast areas of technology, whilst also assuming that batteries can do what they plainly can't baffles me.

If Germany were going nuclear and all battery for most transport, that makes some sense.

What does not even begin to add up is trying to run Germany on renewables without massive imports of hydrogen in one form or another.

The same applies to Japan.

I am hoping although not expecting that should either natural hydrogen or other production methods further improve the economics then there will be a genuine reassessment of the role of hydrogen and its derivatives in decarbonisation.

What I expect is ' and another thing' argumentation evading any real re-evaluation when the conditions on which the judgement were purportedly made are comprehensive shown to be false.

Conclusions in search of a rationale, anything to hand will do.

It was entirely illogical anyway to imagine that renewables produced on the spot in Germany in winter or in Japan could manage to cover everything, including transport, without imports, so the position was in any case a fantasy.

I do not of course seek to ignore the substantial issues, such as transport and leakage, but there is a difference between constructive assessment and re-hashing wilfull dismissal, on any grounds that can be found.

For instance, it is repeatedly currently stated that hydrogen is no good for heating.

This simply ignores the inconvenient fact that home fuel cells are installed right now in hundreds of thousands of Japanese homes, which provide heat at well as power at stonking efficiencies of over 90%, instead of inefficiently burning natural gas now or hydrogen in some future centrally, chucking a lot of the heat out through a chimney, and with substantial losses sending electriticity to homes.

To dismiss hydrogen for heating, the trick is to simply assume the most inefficient method possible, burning it in a gas boiler, and talk about that as though it were the only option.

Hydrogen works very nicely in a fuel cell, including to power heat pumps if more heat is required.

That does not fit the pre-packaged conclusion required though, so it is simply ignored.

Davemart, you are right. Hydrogen emissions could pose one of the most challenging problems yet to be solved to avoid "irreparable environmental and socioeconomic damage."

The issue of hydroxyl radicals certainly throws a spotlight on the notion of controlling the temperature of liquid hydrogen by boil-off.