Talk:Hydrogen economy

message: Thank you to Clayoquot plus the other editors for making this article so much better through your revision work from September onwards! Much appreciated. How would you characterise the quality of the article now, are there still problem areas that need addressing or would you say it's pretty much "done" for now? Any remaining weaknesses? What's the reading ease like in your opinion, is some work needed in that regard to improve readability? And some more images maybe? EMsmile (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and thanks for giving it attention yourself! It's nice to be asked what else needs to be done. I might have some thoughts in the new year. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you for revision work and what remains to be done? 

message: This entire section has no sources. A chunk of it was added in 2007 in this edit. I wonder if this text is any good (in which case sources should be found) or if it should be taken out? 
"A key tradeoff: centralized vs. distributed production
In a future full hydrogen economy, primary energy sources and feedstock would be used to produce hydrogen gas as stored energy for use in various sectors of the economy. Producing hydrogen from primary energy sources other than coal and oil would result in lower production of the greenhouse gases characteristic of the combustion of coal and oil fossil energy resources. The importance of non-polluting methane pyrolysis of natural gas is becoming a recognized method for using current natural gas infrastructure investment to produce hydrogen and no greenhouse gas.
One key feature of a hydrogen economy would be that in mobile applications (primarily vehicular transport) energy generation and use could be decoupled. The primary energy source would need no longer travel with the vehicle, as it currently does with hydrocarbon fuels. Instead of tailpipes creating dispersed emissions, the energy (and pollution) could be generated from point sources such as large-scale, centralized facilities with improved efficiency. This would allow the possibility of technologies such as carbon sequestration, which are otherwise impossible for mobile applications. Alternatively, distributed energy generation schemes (such as small scale renewable energy sources) could be used, possibly associated with hydrogen stations.
Aside from the energy generation, hydrogen production could be centralized, distributed or a mixture of both. While generating hydrogen at centralized primary energy plants promises higher hydrogen production efficiency, difficulties in high-volume, long range hydrogen transportation (due to factors such as hydrogen damage and the ease of hydrogen diffusion through solid materials) makes electrical energy distribution attractive within a hydrogen economy.
In such a scenario, small regional plants or even local filling stations could generate hydrogen using energy provided through the electrical distribution grid or methane pyrolysis of natural gas. While hydrogen generation efficiency is likely to be lower than for centralized hydrogen generation, losses in hydrogen transport could make such a scheme more efficient in terms of the primary energy used per kilogram of hydrogen delivered to the end user.
The proper balance between hydrogen distribution, long-distance electrical distribution and destination converted pyrolysis of natural gas is one of the primary questions that arises about the hydrogen economy.
Again the dilemmas of production sources and transportation of hydrogen can now be overcome using on site (home, business, or fuel station) generation of hydrogen from off grid renewable sources." EMsmile (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for taking it out! Thanks for flagging this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, great, I've deleted that section now. EMsmile (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section that is unsourced: a key tradeoff 

message: I think the ladder graphic in https://cleantechnica.com/2021/09/01/cleantech-talk-chemical-engineer-paul-martin-reflects-on-liebreichs-hydrogen-ladder-hopium-part-1/ would be worth adding. I see there is an old svg at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Einsatzbereiche_sauberen_Wasserstoffs.svg
@Moowahg3 How did you get that and are you able to upload a new version? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the ladder graphic. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: have added Chidgk1 (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ladder graphic 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that current title is sufficient and proposed title is too broad. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 06:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hydrogen economy →  – Easier to understand Chidgk1 (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should rather add to this article so that it becomes the overarching high level article (and then, if needed, split off a sub-article for the details of hydrogen uses?). If not, which existing article would you say should be the high level article that pulls everything together? I thought it was this one. EMsmile (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see @Wikipedialuva who created the article back in 2004 is still active, so it would be good to hear their opinion. I guess 20 years ago it was unclear how much decarbonization would be by electrification and how much by hydrogen. So at that time the title was perfectly fine. But now it is obvious that electricity will do most decarbonization I think the term “hydrogen economy” has become obsolete. However there are still some essential things that electricity cannot do at reasonable cost. So I think the title I propose will allow the reader to focus on those. So I am not sure that a high-level article makes sense nowadays. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi ! Are you sure you meant me? I didn't create my account until 2006, and I don't recall creating this article. From what I can see in the page log,  created the article, but they haven't been active since October 2020. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: duh yes sorry you are not so old - I mixed up latest editor with page creator - still would like your view though Chidgk1 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries! To be clear, I was just doing copy editing using AutoWikiBroswer, not making substantial edits to the article. I don't have any special knowledge on this matter. To your question, I can see both sides of being both for and against. While I think the proposed move is fine, this also depends on whether the article's content and scope are broadened or narrowed per what  was discussing. It sounds like, for right now, before a decision on whether a move should be made, it needs to be decided/clarified what the article's content and scope are going to cover. I don't have strong opinions on the matter either way. Does this answer your question? Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for this. I would opt for a broad scope article but I agree that "hydrogen economy" is perhaps too unclear. Maybe something like hydrogen for climate change mitigation? EMsmile (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

text: For brainstorming purposes, these are the terms that redirect to here:
* Hydrogen fuel (redirect to section "Use as an energy carrier") ‎ (links | edit)
* Hydrogen Economy (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* Hydrogen energy (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* Hydrogen power (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* Chemical hydrogen storage (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* Alternatives to the hydrogen economy (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* Hydrogen revolution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* Hydrogen society (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* Hydrogen as a fuel (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* Hydrogen energy plant in denmark (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* Hydrogen as fuel (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* Renewable hydrogen (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* Hydrogen-fuelled (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* Hydrogen-fuel (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
* European Clean Hydrogen Alliance (redirect to section "Examples and pilot programs") ‎ (links | edit)
* Hydrogen well (redirect to section "hydrogen well") ‎ (links | edit) EMsmile (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, yes. But I still wonder if - with some more brainstorming - we could come up with a short snappy title that is clearer than "hydrogen economy" (unless this is really the term that everyone uses, as per W:COMMONNAME?). I noticed that the short description says "Using hydrogen to decarbonize sectors which are hard to electrify". Does that give us any clues? Another thought is that perhaps a hatnote would help to address Chidgk1's concern that the title is too inaccessible. EMsmile (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 February 2024 

message: There is a lot of detail here (including also the experimental production methods near the end), so how about I move the production info to Hydrogen production and excerpt back the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the content about hydrogen production ought to be trimmed; perhaps move everything that is under "Current production methods" to Hydrogen production? If the lead of Hydrogen production is good then yes, an excerpt might be sensible. EMsmile (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of getting a bunch of detail out of the Production section. Currently the lead section of Hydrogen production would not work as a replacement. Its sourcing is poor, it gives undue weight to little-used methods, and it does not explain the color codes, which we need for the subsequent sections of Hydrogen economy to make sense, and the second paragraph duplicates things. I think you can just boldly shorten the Production section. I'm open to reconsidering if someone wants to try rewriting the lead of Hydrogen production  to make it  suitable to use here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done but Hydrogen production could be further improved Chidgk1 (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpt production? 

message: There is a lot of detail here so how about I move the storage info to Hydrogen storage and excerpt back the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your approach. Might have to improve the lead of Hydrogen storage first to ensure it's a good summary of the article? It seems a bit short to me at first glance. But doable. EMsmile (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: The lead of Hydrogen storage is currently not a well-rounded overview of the topic, it has a citation needed tag, and it has zero references. It needs to get a lot better before we consider spreading it around to more articles. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpt storage? 

message: The section has some detail so how about I move it to Hydrogen infrastructure and excerpt back the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, if/when the lead of Hydrogen infrastructure is improved it will be easier to say yes to this. Feel free to remove detail that doesn't belong here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpt infrastructure? 

message: Second graphic in article. It is from before the full scale invasion of Ukraine so is not “contemporary” Chidgk1 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The graph is still good, just the caption wasn't great (why "contemporary"?). I've changed the caption to make it the same as in the report where it came from: "Technology leadership opportunities in green hydrogen value chains according to the International Renewable Energy Agency in 2022". Or would you say the graph is no longer useful? What has it got to do with the Ukraine invasion? EMsmile (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the IRENA diagram be removed? 

message: By the way, the article uses a wild mixture of decarbonize and decarbonise. It seems to me that the majority of the article is in American English, is that right? If so, I'll add the tag on the talk page and change the British English spellings to American English. EMsmile (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look for the oldest non-stub version of this article. Wow, it's an old article!! It's from 2004, see old version here. It seems to me that it was written in American English spelling so if nobody disagrees then I will mark it as such, and change "decarbonise" to "decarbonize". EMsmile (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for checking and for offering to do this work. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've made the changes to American English now. However, I am confused about the tonnes and tons thing. Should I be changing all tonnes to tons? EMsmile (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  A 'ton' is 2000 lbs . A 'tonne' is 2204 lbs. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  American or British English? 

message: In the lead we have this sentence: . I have a problem with this sentence as I find it hard to grasp for lay persons. Also I don't know if placing the emphasis on 1.5 °C is the best choice when we all know that a) this was an arbitrary goal (to some extent) and b) that we will probably not even reach it, sadly. Therefore, I would change it to: . (although the sentence is still longer and uses more complicated wording than is ideal) Does the ref that is given for the following sentence also apply to this sentence? If so, maybe we could repeat it. EMsmile (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I will look into this. Been busy lately but hoping to have time soon. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've simplified this to "To limit global warming..." I think this is easier to understand than "contribute to climate change mitigation". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's a good solution. EMsmile (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence starting with "As part of proposals to limit"