Talk:Hydrogen vehicle

IEA content is CC-BY
, you revision-deleted some content as a copyright violation. Page 523 of the file you said it was copied from says "this work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence." Page 523 of the final version of the file says the same thing. I can't see what you deleted as I'm not an admin, but if it contained excessively close paraphrasing it should be fixable with another edit summary saying content was copied from the CC-BY International Energy Agency source, right?

BTW in case you didn't hear, the IEA released most of its content under a CC-BY license quite recently (less than a year ago IIRC): https://www.iea.org/terms. It's fantastic. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 14:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It's okay to copy from compatibly licensed material, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. Note that the annex of that particular document is not compatibly licensed (from page 429 to the end). Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International is not a compatible license.    — Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * An edit summary is not adequate attribution for this. There's a series of templates that should be used: Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice. For example for this license,  can be used. Include it at the end of the inline citation.  — Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit to hydrogen in aeroplanes
I added the following paragraph on the future use of hydrogen in aeroplanes, but did not get around to citing sources quickly enough and it was reverted on Sept 1:

“The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Net Zero Emissions Scenario for net zero global greenhouse gas emissions sees the direct use of hydrogen accounting for 8% of worldwide aviation energy demand, with synthetic hydrogen-based fuels (not used by hydrogen planes) comprising 25%. The IEA expects hydrogen aircraft to become commercially available from 2035, with half of small and medium-sized passenger aircraft sold to serve short- to mid-haul routes being hydrogen-fuelled by 2050.”

The citation for this is page 149 of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2022 report (ttps://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/830fe099-5530-48f2-a7c1-11f35d510983/WorldEnergyOutlook2022.pdf). Would anyone object to me adding this content with the given source? DF824 (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would object to it. Long-range forecasts about hydrogen use in transportation have always been very wrong. These numbers, however, are not even the IEA's forecast, but only their projections in the theoretical "NZE scenario", which is only one of the possible outcomes discussed. This article should focus on things that are being commercialized and, if particularly helpful, short-term forecasts by reliable sources may be of significance.  Notwithstanding this IEA forecast, no one actually knows when hydrogen aircraft will become commercially available, and even when commercially available, it is not clear when or whether they will be a significant competitor in the aviation space.  Hydrogen cars finally became commercially available a decade ago, and today they still do not make up even 0.01% of cars on the road. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point! I hadn't thought of it from that angle. I won't add that paragraph then, thank you very much for your feedback. DF824 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Should the section “Comparison with other types of alternative fuel vehicle” be deleted?
1) It mentions electricity but is electricity a fuel?

2) Alternative to what? Methanol rocket fuel?

3) There is probably not enough research yet on, for example, the environmental effects of methanol in the upper atmosphere to be able to compare it.

I think we should just delete the section. What do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete it wholesale. Feel free improve it, but I think it should remain. Electric cars are considered an "alternative fuel vehicle" by the government, and as that article explains, it means alternatives to gasoline vehicles. Even though you have shoved automobiles way down on the list, they (as well as trucks and maybe ships/airplanes) are pretty much all anyone cares about. Methanol from rockets is not significant compared with the methanol emitted by agriculture and the oil/gas industry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I shortened the criticism section a lot
I removed the below because I thought the section was much too long - feel free to undo

Critics claim the time frame for overcoming the technical and economic challenges to implementing wide-scale use of hydrogen in cars is likely to be at least several decades. (ref)Meyers, Jeremy P. "Getting Back Into Gear: Fuel Cell Development After the Hype". The Electrochemical Society Interface, Winter 2008, pp. 36–39, accessed August 7, 2011 They argue that the focus on the use of the hydrogen car is a dangerous detour from more readily available solutions to reducing the use of fossil fuels in vehicles.(ref)White, Charlie. "Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a fraud" Dvice TV, July 31, 2008 In 2008, Wired News reported that "experts say it will be 40 years or more before hydrogen has any meaningful impact on gasoline consumption or global warming, and we can't afford to wait that long. In the meantime, fuel cells are diverting resources from more immediate solutions."(ref)Squatriglia, Chuck. "Hydrogen Cars Won't Make a Difference for 40 Years", Wired, May 12, 2008

In the 2006 documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car?, former U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm said: "A hydrogen car is one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases."(ref) He also argued that the cost to build out a nationwide network of hydrogen refueling stations would be prohibitive.(ref) (ISBN 1-55963-703-X), Chapter 5 He held the same views in 2014.(ref)Romm, Joseph. "Tesla Trumps Toyota Part II: The Big Problem With Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles", CleanProgress.com, August 13, 2014 and "Tesla Trumps Toyota 3: Why Electric Vehicles Are Beating Hydrogen Cars Today" , CleanProgress.com, August 25, 2014 (ref)Romm, Joseph. "Tesla Trumps Toyota: Why Hydrogen Cars Can't Compete with Pure Electric Cars", CleanProgress.com, August 5, 2014 In 2009, the Los Angeles Times wrote that "hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars."(ref) Robert Zubrin, the author of Energy Victory, stated: "Hydrogen is 'just about the worst possible vehicle fuel'".(ref)Wrigglesworth, Phil. "The car of the perpetual future"' September 4, 2008, retrieved on September 15, 2008 The Economist noted that most hydrogen is produced through steam methane reformation, which creates at least as much emission of carbon per mile as some of today's gasoline cars, but that if the hydrogen could be produced using renewable energy, "it would surely be easier simply to use this energy to charge the batteries of all-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles."(ref) Over their lifetimes, hydrogen vehicles will emit more carbon than gasoline vehicles.(ref)"Hydrogen Cars' Lifecycle Emits More Carbon Than Gas Cars, Study Says",  Digital Trends, January 1, 2010 (ref)Cox, Julian. "Time To Come Clean About Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles", CleanTechnica.com, June 4, 2014 The Washington Post asked in 2009, "[W]hy 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"?(ref)Suplee, Curt. "Don't bet on a hydrogen car anytime soon". Washington Post, November 17, 2009 <(ref)Chatsko, Maxx. "1 Giant Obstacle Keeping Hydrogen Fuel Out of Your Gas Tank", The Motley Fool, November 23, 2013

Volkswagen's Rudolf Krebs said in 2013 that "no matter how excellent you make the cars themselves, the laws of physics hinder their overall efficiency. The most efficient way to convert energy to mobility is electricity." He elaborated: "Hydrogen mobility only makes sense if you use green energy", but ... you need to convert it first into hydrogen "with low efficiencies" where "you lose about 40 percent of the initial energy". You then must compress the hydrogen and store it under high pressure in tanks, which uses more energy. "And then you have to convert the hydrogen back to electricity in a fuel cell with another efficiency loss". Krebs continued: "in the end, from your original 100 percent of electric energy, you end up with 30 to 40 percent."(ref)Blanco, Sebastian. "VW's Krebs talks hydrogen, says 'most efficient way to convert energy to mobility is electricity'", AutoblogGreen, November 20, 2013 In 2015, CleanTechnica listed some of the disadvantages of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles(ref)Brown, Nicholas. "Hydrogen Cars Lost Much of Their Support, But Why?", CleanTechnica, June 26, 2015 (ref)Meyers, Glenn. "Hydrogen Economy: Boom or Bust?", CleanTechnica, March 19, 2015 A 2016 study in Energy by scientists at Stanford University and the Technical University of Munich concluded that, even assuming local hydrogen production, "investing in all-electric battery vehicles is a more economical choice for reducing carbon dioxide emissions".(ref)

A 2017 analysis published in Green Car Reports concluded that the best hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles consume "more than three times more electricity per mile than an electric vehicle ... generate more greenhouse gas emissions than other powertrain technologies ... [and have] very high fuel costs. ... Considering all the obstacles and requirements for new infrastructure (estimated to cost as much as $400 billion), fuel-cell vehicles seem likely to be a niche technology at best, with little impact on U.S. oil consumption.(ref)Voelcker, John. "Energy use for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles: higher than electrics, even hybrids (analysis)", Green Car Reports, May 4, 2017 The US Department of Energy agrees, for fuel produced by grid electricity via electrolysis, but not for most other pathways for generation.(ref) A 2019 video by Real Engineering noted that, notwithstanding the introduction of vehicles that run on hydrogen, using hydrogen as a fuel for cars does not help to reduce carbon emissions from transportation. The 95% of hydrogen still produced from fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, and producing hydrogen from water is an energy-consuming process. Storing hydrogen requires more energy either to cool it down to the liquid state or to put it into tanks under high pressure, and delivering the hydrogen to fueling stations requires more energy and may release more carbon. The hydrogen needed to move a FCV a kilometer costs approximately 8 times as much as the electricity needed to move a BEV the same distance.(ref)Ruffo, Gustavo Henrique. "This Video Compares BEVs to FCEVs and the More Efficient Is...", InsideEVs.com, September 29, 2019 Also in 2019, Katsushi Inoue, the president of Honda Europe, stated, "Our focus is on hybrid and electric vehicles now. Maybe hydrogen fuel cell cars will come, but that's a technology for the next era."(ref)Allen, James. "Honda: Now Is The Right Time to Embrace Electric Cars", The Sunday Times, November 4, 2019 Chidgk1 (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Should most car info be moved to fuel cell vehicle?
@Ssilvers and anyone interested in cars, I only just found out there is an article Fuel cell vehicle - so I wonder if most of the car info should be moved there? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

All the car info relevant to fuel cell cars should definitely be there, but in this article, it should not be radically cut, just made more concise. As I said in the edit summaries, you may think that hydrogen rockets are more important than hydrogen cars, but most people coming to this article are interested in cars. That may change some day, or maybe not. If you can make a good argument for merging/combining the two articles, and were willing to do the work carefully, that would be interesting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don’t think the articles should be merged. I am not an expert but am I right that all fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen as the fuel? If so then fuel cell vehicles are a subset of hydrogen vehicles. So perhaps all the fuel cell vehicle stuff should be moved from here to there and the lead of that article excerpted back to here? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * By the way what makes you think that most people coming to this article are interested in cars? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I stongly oppose moving information about cars out of this article. Iknow that most people seeing this article are interested in hydrogen cars because of the car companies' longstanding marketing campaigns. If you google hydrogen vehicle, you will see that more than 90% of the hits will be about cars -- maybe 99%. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Re am I right that all fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen as the fuel? Yes, that's correct. Ideally the Fuel cell vehicle and Hydrogen vehicle articles should be merged since nearly all hydrogen vehicles are fuel cell vehicles, but that would be a lot of work. I don't see potential for excerpting back the lead of Hydrogen fuel because it would mean either replacing most of the article with just three paragraphs, or having a bunch of repetition within the article.
 * Ssilver's point about 90+% of Google hits being about cars makes sense. I've noticed that our articles on Alternative fuel vehicle and Green vehicle have a scope that's more in line with the ordinary conversational meaning of the term "vehicle" - cars, trucks, maybe buses, and definitely not rockets. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 02:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Clayoquot I am against merging. Personally I hardly use the word “vehicle” in conversation. I am not sure what the result would be if you asked 100 random people “Is a rocket a vehicle?” However I see NASA use the word “vehicle” in text for grades 5 to 8 https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/for-kids-and-students/what-is-a-rocket-grades-5-8/ Chidgk1 (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Unreferenced chart
Please do not add unreferenced info to the article, like that unexplained chart in which you make vague claims -- How important? When? You need to cite the sources and explain what the chart shows in the text or with clear references to reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have amended and cited different sources to show that experts do not agree yet on how important and when Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Very good. I moved this discussion out of the caption and into the text of the article, where it belongs. If it needs to be moved around the sections more, feel free to do that.  Since this is English Wikipedia; you don't need the English language parameter in citations; only needed for foreign languages.  We should not cite hydrogen industry sources in this article.  Better to use independent and government sources.  See WP:RS -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Re the English parameter I use the “automatic” option in Visual Editor whenever I can - I don’t know why they decided to include that.  Chidgk1 (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)