Hydrogen: The Fuel of The Future

School of Engineering
Lecturer Gavin Cutler
Student No:
Module No: 57033

Contents
1.0 Introduction:..............................................................................................................................3
2.0 The cost of Change:.........................................................................................................................4
2.1 Hydrogen:....................................................................................................................................5
2.2 Hydrogen fuel safety:...................................................................................................................8
2.3 Hydrogen vs. Oil:..........................................................................................................................9
2.3.1 For 1 gal of petrol:................................................................................................................9
2.3.2 For 1 kg hydrogen...............................................................................................................10
2.4 Hydrogen storage:.....................................................................................................................11
2.5 Hydrogen Infrastructure:...........................................................................................................12
3.0 Case study: Transportation:...........................................................................................................14
3.1 Public Acceptance:.....................................................................................................................15
4.0 Conclusion:....................................................................................................................................16
5.0 References:....................................................................................................................................18
2

1.0 Introduction:
With the rising requirement for energy needed to meet the worlds continuously growing
demand, comes the rapidly accelerating changes in the global climate along with the
worsening global geopolitical situations. The demand for energy is vast, the International
energy agency (IEA) a well-respected organisation within the energy sector, has in their
most recent international outlook report estimated the world’s energy consumption in 2013
to be 400 quadrillion Btu, with a predicted rise to approximately 800 quadrillion Btu by 2040
(IEA 2013). With the world’s primary fuel source becoming more and more scarce on a daily
basis, the effort to unravel a suitable alternative before the proven reserves are emptied is
well underway.
Hydrogen as a primary fuel source could be this desired alternative, and is widely being
considered to be the fuel of the future. The report will assess the viability and feasibility of a
hydrogen run global economy being achieved beyond year 2100 and what technologies will
be needed to make this happen. Other sources of renewable energy and their efficiency will
be considered as a contrast to hydrogen to detail the potential disadvantages and
advantages of using hydrogen. A comparison between hydrogen fuel and oil will also be
made, this comparison is important as oil is what supports the current global economy. The
report will also assess the bracket of infrastructure needed for the implementation of a
hydrogen economy necessary to produce sufficient volumes of hydrogen, along with a
quantification of the volume of hydrogen needed to be produced. Through the assessment
of these issues the report will draw a conclusion of the feasibility of a hydrogen dominated
future.
3

2.0 The cost of Change:
It is important to assess the other forms of renewable energy to provide a realistic
comparison to hydrogen, broadly in terms of cost if these other forms were used as the sole
global energy source. Many suitable alternatives in renewable energy have been elucidated
to overcome our looming energy crisis: nuclear, wind, solar, biomass and hydroelectric.
These are the main contributors on the alternative front and according to Renewable Global
Energy Status 2013, an independent source for energy data, statistics from 2011 shows that,
from the energy sources listed above 19% and 2.8% of the world’s primary energy
consumption are covered by renewable and a nuclear respectively the other 78.2% is from
conventional fossil fuels (Sawin 2013). In 2010 as a whole the global energy economy was
worth approximately $6.4 trillion, this figure was attributed to constituting roughly 10% of
global GDP. Furthermore of that $6.4 trillion around 21% was provided by non-fossil fuel
production. This data originates from Enerdata’s global data base, but was presented in an
article by Desbrosses (2011). Furthermore the cost of energy per unit output is an
important consideration to be taken into account when assessing efficiency in the energy
sector, particularly when evaluating the feasibility of non-fossil fuel sources. As of 2010 the
world was consuming 18.5 TeraWatts/year of electricity, a vast amount (US department of
energy 2010).
More specifically when looking at these figures, along with the source of energy and the
respective electrical generation efficiency (EGE), nuclear fission power plants have an EGE of
about 36%, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (2012). In 2012 the cost of energy was
15$c/kWh, making it one of the cheapest forms despite its very high commissioning and
decommissioning costs. To supply the worlds’ electrical needs using the data from 2010,
with a global nuclear capacity of about 375 Gigawatts from about 440 nuclear reactors, it
would take about over 20,000 reactors to meet that growing need for global power
consumption. With each reactor costing near $4.5 billion dollars, on an average based on
data from the IAEA, EIA and NEI, the total cost to covering power demands would be near
$90 Trillion. With this astronomical amount, finding 20,000 suitable locations which meet
all the criteria for the site of a nuclear power station is another issue, along with the
4

increased safety risk which could halt any such plans from coming to fruition. (McDonald
(IAEA). 2008).
Generating power from wind is another well-established method, with an EGE of
approximately 30%. An overall average of the cost per unit energy, as of 2010, was
13$c/kWh. Again despite the high capital investment, around 80% of which is paid up front,
wind power is still able to compete with more conventional sources of power (Bassi et al
2012). In 2010 the global capacity for wind power was just under 200 Gigawatts, produced
by just over 183,000 commercial wind turbines (Global Wind energy council 2011). So to
cover the global consumption in 2010, 17 million wind turbines would need to be built, the
average cost of a 2MW wind turbine is around $3.5 million which would bring the total cost
too $59.5 trillion coupled with the large open areas that would need to be used to install
this turbines. These figures are estimates of course and are susceptible to change along with
the increasing technological advances and understandably the cost of these project would
be spread out over many years. The point to take away is realising the enormous cost that
would be required with whatever path is chosen, and furthermore in such large scales these
alternative sources of power may have very detrimental effects. Therefore choosing the
right path is a momentous challenge our generation faces.
2.1 Hydrogen:
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe it is the building block of galaxies
and the fuel of stars, so quite the appropriate fuel source. At a standard temperature and
pressure hydrogen is a colourless, non-toxic, non-metallic and a highly combustible gas.
Hydrogen easily forms covalent bounds and thus mostly exists on earth in compounds such
as water and various organic matter, a fact from many issues arise in its economical usage
(Ball 2009). It is also important to note that hydrogen is not a primary energy source it is
simply an energy carrier. Hydrogen can be extracted from water, coal, petroleum, plant
matter and from some rocks (Sarmiento 2007). With water being the most abundant
compound on the planet, the fuel sources is almost inexcusable (Hart. 2010). Also when
hydrogen is burned it produces water, if the process needed to make it is excluded for
arguments sake, then hydrogen is an entirely clean fuel source (Ball 2009). Therefore the
numerous ways through which hydrogen can be produced make it a viable and interesting
ideal candidate as a renewable energy source:
5

 Biological water splitting, is a method where organisms such as certain types of
algae, which use the photosynthesis process to efficiently produce hydrogen by
using hydrogenase enzymes as a catalyst, where oxygen is a by-product. This
method evaluated in the Annual Report for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Programme (HFCP)
indicates that it is an efficient method and one of the few challenge that needs to be
overcome is the adapting of the oxygen-sensitive enzyme systems to be able to
produce hydrogen whilst in an oxygenated environment (Ghirardi 2013). The
ultimate target for photo biological hydrogen production according to HFCP, and
various other technical reports, is having eight hours of continuous hydrogen
production which amounts to 17% of the sun’s energy being converted into
hydrogen. This would be done in large reactors that are estimated to produce a
50,000Kg of hydrogen per day, keeping the price of hydrogen at just over $2/kg
(Department of Energy 2011). In terms of where hydrogen form this source could be
used, transport and vehicle fuel.
 Natural gas reforming (NGR), is currently the method of choice for producing
hydrogen and as of 2008 natural gas made up 48% of the hydrogen feed stock
globally (Kothari et al 2008). It will continue to be this way until a more feasible
solution is found, as it is one of the only sources with a high enough production
capacity to support the current hydrogen fuel cell fleet. The NGR uses thermal
process to convert methane into hydrogen. NGR is further broken down into two
more methods: steam methane reforming (SMR) and partial oxidation (PR)
(Holladay 2009). SMR is the more common of the two and will remain the focus.
SMR combines high temperature steam between 700-1000 °C, with methane under
high pressure between 3-25bar and in the presence of a catalyst it produces
hydrogen, carbon monoxide and low levels of carbon dioxide. The carbon monoxide
can further be reacted in what is known as the “water gas shift reaction” to produce
even more hydrogen, impurities are removed from the gas stream to leave pure
hydrogen (Holladay 2009). As mentioned before NGR is a well-used process, its
principal advantage is that it is flexible and can potentially be used to produce
hydrogen from ethanol and even gasoline (US DOE 2013). Other methods such as
partial oxidation of hydrocarbons and gasification which use oil and coal as a
6

feedstock fuel source have a similar process. Overall an average size hydrogen plant
can produce about 135,000kg per day assuming it was working at 90% capacity
(Spath and Mann 2001). The hydrogen from this source is currently and
predominantly used in the oil and gas industry and it will continue to be used there
until it is no longer needed, unlike other sources of hydrogen this is finite, but will
continue to be used for major industrial uses until it becomes no longer viable.
 Electrolysis, is a method of obtaining hydrogen using a DC electrical current that
splits down the water into its base elements of hydrogen and oxygen (Mazloomi
2012). The process is simple; an electrolyser which is made up of a membrane lies
between two catalyst-coated electrodes. At the anode, water is split into protons,
electrons, and oxygen. The electrons then move through a circuit under the
influence of an applied electric field and the protons move through the membrane
and combine with electrons at the cathode to form hydrogen (NREL 2003). The only
requirement for this procedure is an electrical power source, where according to a
report from NREL it requires 52.5 kWh to produce 1 kg of hydrogen, this is assuming
a 75% efficiency system based on the higher heating value of hydrogen. (Levene et
al2005) Therefore for a 2MW wind turbine that can produce 2000kW per h on a
fairly windy site can process up too 912kg of hydrogen per day. Using electrolysis
may be the domestic energy source of the future, where houses in rural areas can
become completely independent of Grid systems using this method of producing
hydrogen.
These methods represent the most effective methods for producing fuel from hydrogen on
a large scale, the current method for producing carbon neutral and the future to produce
large quantise of carbon free hydrogen. The scales and methods of production give a clear
introduction as to what stage the transformation from a conventional sources to hydrogen
is at. Until conventional methods are improved and up-scaled, a renewable hydrogen supply
will not be viable.
7

Apart from the technologies mentioned in the previous paragraph it would be unfair not to
mention nuclear fusion, the holy grail of renewable energy. The method uses isotopes of
hydrogen, duetritium, which are naturally occurring and available in sea water and tritium
which can be made in the reactors, but is also naturally occurring in trace amounts ( Toribio
2000). The isotopes are fused together in different combinations to form helium in a
process that also gives off vast amounts of energy. Fusion is a safe, clean way of producing
power by mimicking the process stars use to produce energy and give off light, the one
major difference is that the gravitational conditions that cause stars to form and that initiate
the fusion process are applicable so large temperatures in the order of millions of degrees K
are needed to initiate collisions. The plasma that it formed from the superheated atoms is
contained in a magnetic field generated by Tokamak, a type of device used to create
electromagnetic fields. In theory fusion is the ideal way to solve the world’s energy
problems, but over 50 years of R&D has yet to yield a solution, and only recently has a
reaction taken place that produced more energy than it consumed (Orhan 2012). The issues
with the process are numerous, for example containing the super-heated plasma using a
magnetic field is proving to be very difficult. ITER are the international collaboration for new
sources of energy, the project was born in 1985 in Geneva at a superpowers summit. ITER’s
fusion projects are of particular interest as they are looking at fusion technology which can
produce energy on an industrial scale, where the output power is 10 times the input (2014).
It is believed that if successful the fusion reactors of the future will replace the current
power stations and run the grid system.
2.2 Hydrogen fuel safety:
Another very important question posed by the public about new fuel sources is its safety.
After the Hindenburge disaster in 1937 people’s perception towards hydrogen changed
negatively and to a certain extent a large portion of the public still thinks hydrogen is very
dangerous. Hydrogen diffuses very rapidly in air, about 3.8 times faster than natural gas
meaning that it dilutes very quickly into non-flammable concentrations. Even in closed off
areas it tends not to hang around the leaking area (Dutta 2014). It is odourless like natural
gas, but technology exists to make it detectable to humans like natural gas to which
mercaptan is added to give it an odour. Hydrogen is stored in modern two layered tanks
where if either of the skin is broken then the hydrogen is released into the air (Orhan 2012).
8

One of the biggest fears and misconceptions is that if a hydrogen economy came into
fruition then the knowledge of how to make hydrogen bombs would be readily available
due to high numbers of people having access to hydrogen technology, the fear is that it
would fall into the wrong hands. However this is not the case, hydrogen used in fuel cells is
the most common form known as protium, whereas the hydrogen bomb requires the rare
radioactive and non-naturally occurring isotope tritium along with very sophisticated
technology which has nothing to do with the technology used in the production and storage
of conventional hydrogen (DOE and NHA 2012). In reality hydrogen is no more dangerous
than conventional liquid fuels and in some respects they may be even safer. Getting this
message across the general public is a big step in moving toward a hydrogen economy.
2.3 Hydrogen vs. Oil:
If hydrogen is to become the dominant fuel of the future then it must be cheaper and more
efficient then oil based fuels to produce and to use, this is one of the first steps that need to
be overcome in making this prospect feasible by the year 2100. One of the major reasons
hydrogen has not surpassed oil based fuels yet is because the production capacity is not
high enough to be able to sustain the modern world efficiently and economically, a fact
made clear above. To further understand why hydrogen has not overtaken oil based fuels,
the cycle of production of both oil and hydrogen should be taken in account. The costs in
the fuel industry can be summarised under theses headings: Where 1kg of hydrogen
provides near enough the same energy as 1 gallon of conventional petrol.
2.3.1 For 1 gal of petrol:
 Extraction/finding: This is the cost discovering new oil wells and the cost and
maintained of the equipment used to extract it. According to data from between
2014 the average cost for 1 gal of oil in the US was $2.22/gal
 Refining/production: This the cost of refining the raw material, crude oil into petrol
in 2014 the average cost in the US for 1 gal was $0.332/gal
 Transport infrastructure: This is the cost of moving the crude oil and distributing to
fuel stations, as of 2014 the average cost in the US was $0.332/gal
 Tax: as of 2014 the average in the US was $0.430/gal
9

Total =
This all amounted to a total cost as of January 2014 was $3.31/gal where the
information was presented in a report by the US EIA US Energy information
administration. (2014)
2.3.2 For 1 kg hydrogen
 Extraction: Hydrogen is not a primary fuel sources and assuming it is produced by
the NGR method. The cost of the gas needed to make 1kg of hydrogen is $0.72/kg
 Refining/production: This is the cost of the process needed produce 1kg of hydrogen
using the NGR method is $2.03/kg
 Transport: This includes the storage and compression and dispensing of hydrogen
and comes too $1.61/kg
 Tax: The tax on hydrogen is very low and has not changed much over the past
decade it stand at $0.13/kg
Total = as of 2009 figures where the cost of natural gas has only marginally fluctuated
from present day the price of dispensed hydrogen was $4.49/kg according to a report
commissioned by the US DOE (Dillich et al 2012).
Even though these figures are a few years apart they still reflect the cost difference between
the two fuels thus far. It also give a good indication as to the progress of the industrial scale
production of hydrogen. As the cost of oil increases due its finite nature and the cost of
producing hydrogen decrease due to increases in technology an equilibrium point between
the two will eventually be met.
10

2.4 Hydrogen storage:
Having cheap fuel is a start but it must be cost effective compared to its oil counterparts.
Liquid hydrogen has the highest energy density by mass of any fuel, coming in at 143MJ/kg
where as its gasoline counterpart is only 46.9MJ/kg. However the reason gasoline is still
more cost effective is that its volumetric energy density is 3 times that of liquid hydrogen,
where gasoline is 34.6 MJ/L and hydrogen is only at 10.1MJ/L (Rodrigue 2014). Here lies an
aspect of hydrogen as fuel that sets it apart from many other sources of renewable energy,
it has the ability to be stored, one of hydrogen’s biggest advantages over others (Orhan
2012). However it is also an area where the greatest challenges stand. These are issues
within hydrogen technology that could stop it developing any further. The need for storage
is crucial if hydrogen is to be able to compete with traditional gasoline fuelled cars with have
an average range of 300 miles (Dutta 2014). The underlying issues are:
 Volume and weight: Currently volume and the weight of storage tanks is too
high, innovation in both materials technology and design are needed to enable
the system to be competitive.
 Efficiency: Looking at the overall cycle, a lot of energy is used compressing and
liquefying the hydrogen so that it can be stored, this coupled with life-cycle
energy efficiency means that are very much less efficient then there fossil
fuelled competitors
 Durability: The issues with durability lie within the material where, hydrogen
greatly weakens alloys and reduce the life of the storage system to only 1500
cycles
 Cost: Very simply the cost of an on-board storage system is far greater then a
conventional vehicles fuel tank.
(US DOE 2011, Orhan 2012, Dutta 2014)
It is evident that a large gap between the technology and its commercial viability and how
far it still has to go before it replaces oil as a primary source of fuel for transport and
electrical power. It also highlights the major issues that the hydrogen producing industry has
to face with cost and storage.
11

2.5 Hydrogen Infrastructure:
Another deciding factor influencing the switch from fossil fuels to hydrogen is whether the
current infrastructure can be converted to meet the demands of the new fuel, and if it
cannot, what novel infrastructure would be needed and at what cost. The hydrogen
infrastructure issues are being tackled from all angles, with R&D groups in the USA, France
and China exploring several different pathways concurrently.
There has been much debate as to how hydrogen can be readily available on tap. Three
main distribution layouts have been suggested by Yacobucci in a report to the US congress
on the matter in 2004. The first is a system where individuals, that is to say companies,
home owners etc, have small scale methods of producing hydrogen. Whether this be by
electrolysis by NGR, the advantage of these are that no highly expensive distribution system
would be needed to support the use of the fuel, furthermore individual systems will offer
greater autonomy to individuals in less populated areas (Chaubey 2013). However the
issues will lie in the initial cost of the technology needed to produce this “homemade
hydrogen” and the level of training individuals will need to undergo in order to mitigate the
risk of storing hydrogen in such close proximity. The second method suggested, is having a
centralized production facility that would produce the energy required to make the
hydrogen depending on its geographical location, that is to say that if the plant was in a
particular areas with large amounts of sunshine PV could be used for the electrolysis for
example (Mazloomi 2012). The advantages of this system are similar to the ones currently
experienced by today’s electricity and gas users, where the system and production is
managed by others, this localizes the cost and the maintenance required on the systems.
The safety risk of having centralized system would be dramatically reduced.
The disadvantage would be the astronomical cost associated with storage, transportation
and delivery of hydrogen from the centralized production facility to its point of use. More
expenditure would be used up in the production of a fleet of vehicles that would transport
the hydrogen to areas that the pipelines did not reach. Finally the option presented by
Yacobucci was to have combination of the two methods which was to have a strategically
12

placed centralized plant that provided for the majority of companies and homes that lie in
within urban areas without having costly infrastructure that spans hundreds of miles. The
plant could also be maintained by a highly skilled work force making for safer over all
operations (Yacobucci 2004). The overall plan is sound in theory, but as with any theory the
realities are almost always different.
In any scenario a hydrogen pipeline will be needed. One initial idea is to convert gas
pipelines, it is thought that as the need for natural gas decreased due to the increased use
of hydrogen, gas lines could be upgraded. The CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)
thinks that this is possible. Adding an inter polymer-composite to create the seal needed for
hydrogen as well as changing the compressors systems may provide a solution at minimal
extra cost, a few pipe line companies are already manufacturing and insulating hydrogen
compatible pipelines and in fact many of the old synthetic coal-gas (SCG) pipelines are
already hydrogen compatible, due to the nature of SCG being roughly 55% hydrogen (Lovins
2003). The issue may lie in the separation of the hydrogen from methane that it was mixed
with. Furthermore due the fact that the energy content by volume of hydrogen is about 3
times less the oil and, there would be issues with maintaining the energy flow rate (Bjorek
1999).
With the total length of specific hydrogen pipelines coming at over 2500km to data (Gnorich
2011) and the total number of NG transmission pipelines being estimated at 3,260,000km
roughly (Hopkins 2007, this highlight a huge gap between the two infrastructure systems.
Even with a sub national growth rate in the number of km of hydrogen pipelines per year,
having an infrastructure system like NG would be almost impossible by the year 2100. This
coupled with cost of the pipeline, which is not to too dissimilar to large diameter NG
transmission line, costing roughly $1 million/km Yang and Ogden. (2006) so to meet the
demands and current capacity the cost would be vast. Although there are other methods of
transmission and transportation such as by truck and by sea. Due to the differences in
volumetric energy density as previously mentioned, piping the hydrogen for the majority of
the systems infrastructure would be the most effective way of transmission and distribution,
especially as the global demand from hydrogen in 2013 would be 76.6 trillion kg if the entry
13

economy ran on it. According to the research by the University of Leed’s faculty of
engineering, the current value of the global hydrogen market in 2013 is estimated to be at
$147.6 billion, a mere 2.94% of the amount of global GDP spent on fossil fuels (2007).
All though a large proportion of infrastructure development is cost and technology
originated, there is also a large share of it that is governed by the policy makers. The
hydrogen infrastructure development along with related technologies in 2010 received a
little over $ 1 billion in government subsidies globally (IPHE 2011). This needs a dramatic
increase if the hydrogen economy is to be functional by the next century and policy makers
will need to very much take the lead in this project and show the private sector that there
are plenty of opportunities to be had. One more reason why these policy makers are vital to
the process is that they will have a great part to play in the mapping of pipelines and
facilities nationally and regionally (Mills et al 2007). In some ways the main reasons for
uncertainty surrounding hydrogen is that there is no real mass production of hydrogen that
would need an infrastructure so the causality dilemma arises, does the infrastructure evolve
first and wait for the arrival of users? Or do the users initiate the process and await for the
infrastructure to play a constant catch-up?
3.0 Case study: Transportation:
With the rising population and urbanisation, the fight to meet the demands of urban
mobility whilst maintaining high-fuel-efficacy-per-person, abiding by the ever tightening grip
on urban emissions and the need to keep on top of the ever growing infrastructure system
needed to support it. This is one of the latest challenges faced by the international
association of public transport (UITP 2014). Since early 2000 several micro-transport
infrastructures around the world, from the USA to across Europe and down to Australia,
have implemented new hydrogen based transport systems in an attempt to combat the
issues mentioned above. An EU report written by Mckinsey on the alternative urban power
trains provides evidence that electric and hydrogen busses are the closest competitors to
the conventional diesel equivalent with a price premium of $0.42-0.83 and reduced GHG
emissions by 62% (2012).
14

The CUTE, ECTOS and STEP projects are just some of the many projects across the world
that have placed hydrogen buses in their existing public transport systems. These are a
means of a live test to see how: well they can be integrated in to different climates, different
operating cycles and also how acceptant the public are to the technologies, and finding out
where the limitations are. The aim of these ongoing projects is to improve the technologies
used in the buses by, for example improving their running cycles from 7-8 hours to compete
with their diesel equivalent ,that runs for 18-20 hours. Another aim is in reducing their
fuelling time down to 10 minutes. All three projects aim to see 47 of their 70 to 80 seater
hydrogen buses operating regular in 10 major cities around the world within the next 5
years (HyFleet:CUTE 2012). An initial report published in 2009 by the US department of
transport on the world wide hydrogen bus fleet, noted improved performance felt by the
drivers as well high public approval ratings with 75% of passenger reporting a smoother ride
and expressed a desire to see large fleets of 50-100 buses within their cities. (US DOT. 2009).
The initiative is a good start, programmes like these provided the opportunity to test the
technology in the environment to identify the issues as well as meeting the demands set by
the various energy departments. They are also a good promotion of the technology allowing
the public to get a feel for it as well.
3.1 Public Acceptance:
Public acceptance is a loose term that encompasses public awareness, understanding,
attitude, political beliefs, perception etc. Its understanding on a psychological level is key to
any successful marketing operation to successfully integrate a product or a system. The past
few years have shown that even viability is not the only variable that must be considered
when introducing technology into the market, granted economic benefits heavily influences
decisions making, however there are many examples of technologies that have been viable
but not excepted (Huijts 2012). “Better Place” was an Israeli based company that in theory
made electric cars viable along with the infrastructure to match a report on the project by
Deutche bank shortly after the proposal was made said “It has the potential to eliminate the
gasoline engine altogether” (Deutsche Bank 2008). Yet in May 2013 the company filed for
bankruptcy. This company’s failure did not just boil down to public opinion however. The
marketing approach was not right to start with. In an interview in 2012, John Voelcker the
15

editor of Green Car Reports, suggest that “Israel was an usual place to sell cars, as over 50%
of all new buys where from fleet owners” this may have meant that consumers would have
been a small group that where mostly to have been conventional thinkers and would have
wanted to stick with what they knew worked. It is human nature to not want to be the first
to risk it all trying something new. Acquiring public acceptance for new ideas and
technologies takes time, particularly if it is on a global scale with technologies and ideas that
do not directly affect them or what they want but it is what is needed. A paper written by
Otto Wildgruber in 1990 evaluated the issues with public acceptance and nuclear power,
issues such as lack of education, bad press and bad experience led to high levels of
opposition to the Nuclear power. These sorts of issues are likely to be faced again by the
new hydrogen technologies, where the public needs to be eased into the new hydrogen era.
Another area that may prevent hydrogen developing is the shift in power both economically
and politically, once the technology is well underway on production and consumption level,
the need for oil will be drastically reduced which will completely change the face of the
geopolitical world. No longer will the world have to rely on the Middle East and Africa.
Evenly distributed fuel sources will mean evenly distributed power. Economies will have to
diversify to survive and it may be likely that some very wealthy states may slowly have their
wealth stripped from them, thus it easy to see how there may be some resistance to this
change.
4.0 Conclusion:
With the firm foundation that already exists for hydrogen development and technology,
utilizing hydrogen as a primary fuel source is a feasible prospect for the future. As described
previously, there are a multitude of ways of producing hydrogen based energy. However
currently the most efficient way is also the most un-sustainable way. The potential to
produces vast quantities, using the biological water splitting methods, is in our reach but the
issue lie in costs. The enormity of the task is elucidated in this paper, with a growing energy
demand globally necessitating a production of 76.6 trillion kg of hydrogen per year.
Furthermore with the colossal costs involved, it could take up to 300 years to meet the costs
needed to change the system as we know it, not to mention competition with oil pricing.
16

A hydrogen economy could change the ways cities are built, just as the use of oil did. The
CUTE bus initiatives are the first steps towards integrating this hydrogen infrastructure into
cities. The initiative allows for a low financial risk solution to gaining the public’s trust in the
technology. With any new technology it has to filter down through society until it reaches
the final consumers. There is no doubt that this technology is technically and perhaps even
economically feasible to implement on a global scale, it only really relies on the will to take
action.
17

5.0 References:
Allan Mcdonald (IAEA). (2008). Nuclear Power Global Status. IAEA bulletin. 1 (1), P45-48.
Ball M and Wietschel M. (2009). The future of hydrogen – opportunities and challenges.
international journal of hydrogen energy. 34 (1), p.615–627.
Bjorek PO and Grahn M. (1999). Hydrogen Distribution . Feasibility study. 1 (1), p7
British Petroleum Company (plc). (2013). BP Statistical review. World energy June 2013. 1
(1), p2.
Brent D. Yacobucci. (2004). A Hydrogen Economy and Fuel Cells. CRS Report for Congress. 1
(1), P7.
Bruno Gnorich. (2011). Hydrogen pipeline by pipeline . Available: http://www.ika.rwth-
aachen.de/r2h/index.php/Main_Page. Last accessed 27/03/2014.
Chaubey R, Sahu S, Olusola J, Sudip Maity. (2013). Bjorek PO and Grahn M. (1999). Hydrogen
Distrabution . Feasibility study. 1 (1), p7. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 23 (1),
p.443–462.
Christopher Yang and Joan Ogden. (2006). DETERMINING THE LOWEST-COST HYDROGEN
DELIVERY MODE. Institute of Transportation Studies. 1 (1), p8.
David Hart. (2010). Hydrogen. Available: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153620/. Last
accessed 25/02/2014.
DOE and The national hydrogen association . (2012). Hydrogen safety . Fact sheet Series. 1
(1), P1-2.
Deutsche Bank. (2008). Electric cars: Plugged in. Global market research. 1 (1), p10.
Dutta S. (2014). A review on production, storage of hydrogen and its utilization as an energy
resource . Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. 20 (4), p.1148–1156.
Energy.gov. (2011). Hydrogen production. Multi-Year Research, Development and
Demonstration Plan. 1 (3.1), p26.
Global Wind energy council. (2011). Annual market update. Global wind report 2010. 1 (1),
p14.
Holladay JD, Hu J, King DL, Wang Y. (2009). An overview of hydrogen production
technologies. Catalysis Today. 139 (1), p.244-260.
18

Huijts NMA and Molin E. (2012). Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy
technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews. 16 (1), p.525–531.
HyFleet:CUTE. (2012). Hydrogen powered buses. Available: http://www.global-hydrogen-
bus-platform.com/About/Introduction. Last accessed 7/5/2014.
IEA. (2013). World energy outlook 2013. World energy outlook 2013. 1 (1), p25.
IEA. (2013). Overview. World energy outlook 2013. 1 (1), p43
IPHE. (2011). 2011 Hydrogen and Fuel Cell. IPHE update. 1 (1), p10.
Janet L. Sawin. (2013). Global Sates Report. Renewable 2013. 1 (1), p19.
J.I. Levene, M.K. Mann, R. Margolis, and A. Milbrandt. (2005). An Analysis of Hydrogen
Production from Renewable Electricity Sources. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 1
(1), p4.
Lovins, Amory B. n (2003). Twenty Hydrogen Myths. Rocky Mountain Institute. 1 (1), p4.
Maria Ghirardi, Paul King, and Seth Noone. (2013). Biological Systems for Hydrogen Photo
production. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program. 1 (2), P105.
Mazloomi SK and Sulaiman N. (2012). Influencing factors of water electrolysis electrical
efficiency . Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 16 (6), p.4257–4263.
Michael Mills, Robert K. Dixon, Kathy Lyon and Kristin S. Deason,. (2007). Building the
Hydrogen Economy: Enabling Infrastructure Development. Summary of Workshops. 1 (4),
p8.
McKinsey. (2012). Alternative power trains for Europe. Urban buses. 1 (1), p8.
Nathalie Desbrosses. (2011). World Energy Expenditures. Available: http://www.leonardo-
energy.org/world-energy-expenditures. Last accessed 20/02/14.
National renewable energy laboratory . (2003). The New horizon for hydrogen. Research
review 2003. 1 (1), P4.
Orhan M, Dincer I, Rosen M, Kanoglu M. (2012). Integrated hydrogen production options
based on renewable and nuclear energy sources . Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews. 16 (8), p.6059–6082.
Otto H.Wildgruber. (1990). Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power. ABDAN-Conference. 1 (1),
P3-5.
19

Pamela L. Spath and Margaret K. Mann . (2001). Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen
Production via Natural Gas Steam Reforming . National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 1(1),
p5.
Phil Hopkins. (2007). Oil an gas pipelines: Yesterday and today . Pipeline systems division. 1
(1), p7.
Richa Kothari, D. Buddhi, R.L. Sawhney. (2008). Comparison of environmental and economic
aspects. Elsevier. 1 (1), p555Rodrigue J. (2014). Energy Content of some Combustibles.
Available: https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/energycontent.html.
Last accessed 15/03/2014.
Sara Dillich, Todd Ramsden & Marc Melaina. (2012). Hydrogen Production Cost Using Low-
Cost Natural Gas. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Record. 1 (1), p1-4.
Sarmiento B, J.J. Brey, I. Viera, A.R. González-Elipe, J. Cotrino, V.J. Rico Hydrogen production
by reforming of hydrocarbons and alcohols in a dielectric barrier discharge. Journal of Power
Sources. 169 (2007). P.140-143
Samuela Bassi, Alex Bowen and Sam Fankhauser. (2012). Cost of onshore wind. The case for
and against onshore wind energy in the UK. 1 (1), p10-14.
Toribio J and Kharin V. (2000). A hydrogen diffusion model for applications in fusion nuclear
technology. Fusion Engineering and Design . 51 (1), p.213–218.
UITP. (2014). Advancing Public Transport. http://www.uitp.org/.
University of Leeds. (2007). Hydrogen economy. Available:
http://reporter.leeds.ac.uk/press_releases/current/biodiesel.htm. Last accessed 8/5/14.
US department of energy. (2010). International electricity consumption. Available:
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=2. Last accessed
24/02/2014.
US Department of Energy. (2011). Hydrogen Storage Challenges. Energy Efficiency . 1 (1), P1-
5.
US department of energy. (2013). Natural Gas Reforming. Available:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/natural_gas.html. Last
accessed 10/03/2014.
US Energy information administration. (2014). Short Term Energy Outlook. Available:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/. Last accessed 15/03/2014.
US Department of Transport. (2009). Report on Worldwide Hydrogen Bus Demonstrations.
National fuel cell bus programme. 1 (1), P1-4.
20