Talk:Hydrogen storage

Untitled
This is turning into a good article! Mattisse 10:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Good start Matisse. Mion 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is only in focus about mobile storage, i am missing a section about domestic storage, in fixed storage volume doesnt matter. Mion 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Metal hydrides tank citation
Under the chemical storage section, then Metal hydrides, there are a number of claims made about the relative feasibility of using hydrogen tanks in cars. However there is no citation and, looking at a website that sells hydride tank (http://www.thehydrogencompany.com/subsiteproducts_16-60.html), the claim may be untrue. There is a project in Europe that uses hydride tanks for small vehicules. It is possible with certain types of hydrides (AB5 type) to use them for mobile applications.

pRoPeR cApItAlIzAtIoN?
Is there any objection to moving this article from "Hydrogen storage" to Hydrogen Storage", to properly capitalize? If my suggestion is improperly capitalized for wikipedia articles, then by all means, let me know so that i may change my ways. But I always thought that aritcles were capitalized.--Vox Causa 22:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely they are only capitalised if they are a proper name --Alex 08:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a name keep it as it is.Mion 10:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly!--Alex 10:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NAME for details. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

density
The article says, "Even liquid hydrogen has worse energy density per volume than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline by approximately a factor of four. In fact, there is about 50% more energy in a gallon of gasoline (121 MJ) (0.9 lb) than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen (80 MJ)(0.6 lb)." But if there's only 50% more energy in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen, then wouldn't liquid hydrogen have worse energy density per volume than gasoline by a factor of only 1.5, rather than by a factor of 4? 72.174.84.78 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * have a look at Energy density. liquid hydrogen 8 MJ/L, Gasoline 29.0 MJ/L almost factor 4. reg Mion 23:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the figures in the first sentence are all wrong. What it means to say is that there's 50% more HYDROGEN in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. But that doesn't mean there's only 50% more energy in the gasoline, because the carbon in the gasoline contributes substantially to energy of burning. See the point? I'll fix the text about confusing amounts of hydrogen with energy. S  B Harris 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There are related problems immediately following those noted above:

''Compressed hydrogen, in comparison, is quite different to store. Hydrogen gas has good energy density by weight, but poor energy density by volume versus hydrocarbons, hence it requires a larger tank to store''

That construction suggests that liquid hydrogen has poor energy density by weight but good energy density by volume versus hydrocarbons. The preceding paragraph describes the energy density of liquid hydrogen by volume as poor (1:4) compared to hydrocarbons, gaseous hydrogen can't be better.

The comparison of energy density by weight of liquid versus gaseous hydrogen is frivolous (unless some attempt at recovery of the energy used to compress is attempted, although this is unlikely to contribute significantly). The chemical energy available via combustion does not vary dependent on whether the hydrogen was previously stored as a liquid or merely a high pressure gas.

The final problem in paragraph is the claim that, Compressed hydrogen storage can exhibit very low permeation  Really? Very low permeation compared to what? Air through a screen door? The remark is completely unqualified. As compared to other pressurized gasses in similar containment, Hydrogen exhibits substantially higher permeation. It is very difficult to think of any situation where a description of low permeation might be valid, much less very low permeation. Those qualifiers require some or many comparisons above the subject to be valid. 70.171.3.221 (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC) BGriffin

The phrase "compressed hydrogen storage can exhibit very low permeation" might refer to the following: When talking to laypersons about automotive hydrogen storage the notion of the tank losing its fuel is often brought up. The difference between boil-off in the case of liquid storage (LH2) and blow-off in the case of cryo-compressed storage (CcH2) on one hand, and permeation in compressed storage (CGH2) on the other gets mixed-up a lot. Although the time scales are very different respectively: it takes about two weeks of parking to completely empty an automotive LH2 storage, while it takes years to do so with CGH2. That an ordinary gasoline or diesel tank looses its fuel over time, too, is less common knowledge. (Usually filters using activated carbon are used to catch fuel fumes. But during an extremely long park period they will get saturated and from then on the fuel will get lost.) To counter the above popular misconceptions, the term "very low permeation" might have been chosen: the ability to hold its fuel over a very long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:1480:E4:F919:F6E5:ADC3:4DDE (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * NEW THREAD: In response to the query as to 1.5 times vs. 4 times the energy, it is important to account for the enthalpy (energy) of combustion of carbon as well. Julian C-B

Slight reshuffle
I've rearranged the page somewhat. The stuff under targets was about proposals, and some of the stuff under research was about stuff (most notably nanostructured carbon) that's been shown to be unviable. So I've shoved it all together under "Proposals and research". I also took the opportunity to point out that the 2005 targets were not met. 129.16.97.227 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Metal Organic Frameworks is an excellent news.


 * Well, that was random! 129.16.97.227 00:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Carbon
Those new references in the carbon section are mal-formed, and thus pretty useless. I'm sorely tempted to revert that whole edit. There have been so many contradictory specific claims about storage in carbon over the years you simply cannot say "carbon can store this much: see this reference" with any confidence. It's cherry picking. Please, fix those references. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No one commented. So I nuked it.  210.9.141.89 (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First cite
The first cite links to a PDF document and no page number is provided. The statement that the cite seems to refer to is that the 2005 targets weren't met. The document referenced doesn't seem to mention to 2005 targets, in fact the table in the document has 2007 targets where the wiki article has 2005 targets. In short, the reference provided is inadequate to support the claims made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.215.79 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, did you actually read that doc? Look at the Gap analysis, and then look at the 2005 targets.  210.11.145.48 (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen sulphide
Perhaps that converting hydrogen to hydrogen sulphide would be a better method to store it ? Hydrogen sulphide already occurs naturally (ie in cenotes, ...) so the creation aswell as the storage (natural occurence means storage possible at room temperature) would be simple. Are there any references or information about this, and if so, include to article. 91.182.84.241 (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC) '''It is a colorless, very poisonous, flammable gas with the characteristic foul odor of rotten eggs at concentrations up to 100 parts per million. Not very good idea.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.48.208 (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If it was just about hydrogen atoms, you'd use water. Hydrogen storage is about energy storage.  In hydrogen sulphide the hydrogen is tightly bound.  That means you're "storing" a low energy state, not a high energy state. 121.45.214.40 (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please add sodium silicide (NaSi) based hydrogen storage (also used in fuel cells)
It's not in the chart and it's not even explicitly mentioned. Just the group where it belongs. It's mentioned in a group that gives the impression that it's not available outside laboratory environment.

(The chart should be reworked to a svg.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelennonorth (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a very applicable and available material for making hydrogen storage material and fuel cells. (Nothing in this post is mentioned as advertisement but as proof that the material is available and used in actual products. This means it's relevant enough to add it to the table.)

Also a big table with comparison kinda like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_battery_technologies#Table_of_rechargeable_battery_types would be nice.

It's being made by this company: http://signachem.com/choose-industry/hydrogen-fuel/

And there are at least two companies that have available products based on it that are being in use today:

http://www.horizonfuelcell.com/store.htm

http://www.myfuelcell.se/products/

Here is an article that mentions commercial availability:

http://www.smartertechnology.com/c/a/Smarter-Strategies/Fuel-Cell-Rechargers-Finally-Here/

An application of a signa based fuel cell and hydrogen system as proof it's being used in an actual product:

http://www.pedegoelectricbikes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=169:pedegor-and-signa-chemistry-unveil-hybrid-electric-bicycle-at-interbiker-trade-expo&catid=2:news&Itemid=79

News where you can see other websites actually mention the technology and it's being used for actual products that have come on the market:

http://signachem.com/category/in-the-news/

Signachem also has products available:

http://signachem.com/choose-industry/hydrogen-fuel/

Considering the availability and use of products based on this material:

Please add this material to the article including the properties of this material.

There where more examples but what is available here for reference should be enough to make a decision to add this material to the table.

Thelennonorth (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't you add it yourself? 121.45.214.40 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

carbonite substances
Does this | 14% capacity claim significant enough to be included into this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.128.82 (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No. A press release is not a reliable source.  Particularly as: a) While Rafiee has published a lot of stuff on graphenes, I can't see any that look like they relate to H2 storage; and b) Rafiee explicitly misrepresents how his claimed capacity related to the US DoE targets.  121.45.214.40 (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Convertion to methane
Methane seems to be a much more stable gas (easier to store), so it seems useful to convert hydrogen into this (atleast for use as a fuel). I thus added Converting hydrogen to methane using the Sabatier-process at the see also section. Perhaps the gases can be quickly compared ? See also http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090330111257.htm 91.182.116.161 (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Best to compare both atmospheres, i think, see also Titan (moon) or Atmosphere of Titan.Mion (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hydrogen storage. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ceramics.org/ASSETS/A9168BABB2A549B59FA6B88F1887D50C/06_08_Wicks.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hydrogen storage. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/hydrogen2005.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/303939/Liquid%20asset.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cenh2go.com/PDF/CEnPoster_small.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.hyunder.eu/images/Presentations%20EUSEW/2%20HyUnder%20EUSEW%20workshop%20Luis%20Correas.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118102741/http://www.naturalhy.net/docs/Naturalhy_Brochure.pdf to http://www.naturalhy.net/docs/Naturalhy_Brochure.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hydrogen storage. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723142016/http://h2storage.net/docs/pdf/29/s4/makarov.pdf to http://h2storage.net/docs/pdf/29/s4/makarov.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513030624/http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/webonly/webex710.html to http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/webonly/webex710.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hydrogen storage. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917105718/http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/INTRODUCTION/DETAILS/XTRAIL-FCV/index.html to http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/INTRODUCTION/DETAILS/XTRAIL-FCV/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624022239/http://ceer.alfred.edu/Research/glassdiffusion.html to http://ceer.alfred.edu/Research/glassdiffusion.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917223841/http://www.pnl.gov/microproducts/conferences/2004/presentations/autrey.pdf to http://www.pnl.gov/microproducts/conferences/2004/presentations/autrey.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Photo-Chemical storage
The claims made in this subsection are WAY, WAY too interesting for the citations used. You have a YouTube video with a clickbait title referencing a "banned" technology, a corporate webpage, and a slideshow on what looks like it might be another website owned by the same company (I haven't looked at other pages on the site, I'm just going by the very clickbaity domain name).

Better citations are clearly needed for this game changing technology (assuming it is what they say it is). Is there a (peer reviewed) scientific paper about this? Are there news articles about this scientific and technological revolution? How about articles in popsci publications? Could this go in a "controversial technologies" section? I really hope this technology is legit, and, of course, Elon Musk would love to incorporate this in a future Tesla if it is. But Wikipedia should not be misused for advertising potential vaporware. If this is a 'thing' from the Wikipedia perspective then people other than the corporation behind it are definitely talking about it. Go and find the citations and incorporate them. But if no such citation is available then this subsection does not meet Wikipedia's standards and should be removed. Comiscuous (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There is this video by chemistry PhD Philip E. Mason (published under his pseudonym Thunderf00t) refuting the claims. I'm gonna remove it now. It can always be reinstated when proper sources are added. Florian Nord (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The E for Electric YouTube video used as a citation for the bulk of the content in that section is also a self-published source which, unless produced by an expert in the field who has produced other (non-self-)published works, has no business being used as a citation. The same is true for Plasma Kinetics, while Wang's source uses both of these as its only sources. Therefore, the entire section is best removed. — (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Every single week there seems to be this "amazing new breakthrough" in energy storage, and then later on 99% of them end up fizzling out because we find that they're vapourware. It's truly mind-boggling. But more importantly, every time something is claimed to be "so good it's banned" you should immediately dismiss it, like HOW CAN YOU HEAR THAT AND NOT THINK THAT IT'S SCAMMY??!!
 * It's also interesting, indeed, that Plasma Kinetics' storage mechanism (their "battery") operates on basically the same mechanism as a CD player or 8-track tape player. They store their magnesium hydride on a thin film, which is stupid. And then they're adding lasers to it, which is EVEN MORE stupid. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 12:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Elon Musk did it too. Invented a battery with twice the capacity batteries hold that have half the mass. xD no kiddin' --77.6.95.69 (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Please update with info on new salt storage
The article seems to miss some info about this study, briefly featured in 2022 in science like below, and/or its broader approach:

"A novel type of effective hydrogen storage using readily available salts is reported."

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead?
@Clayoquot Perhaps the lead has been improved enough since you last looked at it? Or are you saying that if excerpted to Hydrogen economy it should be completely cited? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'm just back from a ski trip and am slowly catching up on stuff. Will review this as soon as I can. Thanks for giving this topic area your attention and skill. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 00:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)