Considering Hydrogen: Problems with Implementation

Even in a liquid form, hydrogen takes up considerably more space than does gasoline, or other alternative fuels. Large fuel tanks would be required. There would be more energy involved in the production of less energy, due to weight, volume, and other often-forsaken considerations.

This issue is directly related to the anatomy of a hydrogen molecule; the hydrogen atoms in the hydrogen molecule are so very far apart, that there is very little energy in the bonds between the atoms, and so very little energy to be found per unit of volume.

Depending on the means of production, considerably more hydrogen would need to be produced, which could result in as many, or more, hydrocarbons being released than would be involved in the production of petroleum fuels.

One of the more popular methods is through the reforming of steam produced during the use of fossil fuels. While this method does, indeed, result in less hydrocarbon release than would the use of fossil fuels themselves as fuel, eventually we will run out of fossil fuels, and we will be back at square-one.

Another main problem, in short, is cost efficience; the cost of using hydrogen as a fuel source is roughly one hundred times greater than that which the Department of Energy has deemed reasonable. Until hydrogen becomes much easier to handle, produce, transfer, among other things, it seems it is highly unlikely hydrogen will be able to become a dominant alternative energy source.

The advent of nonreliance on fossil fuels, and more reliance on hydrogen fuel, will also beckon in the advent of heavy controversy, and perhaps even war.

When, for example, middle-eastern countries become aware that the west has become self-sufficient in regards to energy, all Hell may just break loose. With countries strongly disliked in the middle-east, such as the US and UK, breaking from the long-maintained energy treaties with nations whose policy the US otherwise strongly scorns, there will be little or nothing to prevent the collapse of other trade agreements.

When these trade agreements fail, conflict (be it foreign or domestic, or military or civil) will definitely ensue.
Companies will go bankrupt, unless they can somehow adapt to the rigorous reforms that would take place. Many companies that can handle gasoline or ethanol, or combinations thereof, would struggle to handle production of hydrogen. Sales on hydrogen-handling equipment would likely spike to an all-time and seemingly ridiculous (but vital to the survival of the company) high. Supply and demand would inequate.

Many companies based all around the world that handle only fossil fuels would not be able to sustain themselves under the weight of the new world of hydrogen fuel. They could, perhaps, stand a chance at surviving under a market dominated by such, more similar to fossil-based fuels, as butane or ethanol.

To sum it all up: I have severe doubts that a strong market for hydrogen will ever be developed. Not only do I doubt that the fossil fuel based companies themselves would allow it, but also do I doubt that the government would allow it.

The government, I am certain, is well-aware of the implications that would follow.

Allegedly, as lawyers would have me say, there was a man a while back that figured out a viable way of using water to fuel. He was killed in a 'robbery gone wrong' shortly thereafter. The assailant was never found. The research allegedly disappeared. Ghost story, or a fable of the silent energy war?