Hydrogen from Coal Technologies

This post is being made to 1) explain the technology that is being proposed to produce and distribute hydrogen and 2) to help both my readers and myself understand whether the hydrogen economy is the right choice for our future energy requirements or whether some alternative technologies would make a better choice.  The material has been taken from the two resources noted at the end of the post, with very little editing, except to use only the pertinent excerpts.  The Program Plan is a very long document and I have tried to use only the portions that will help us understand the technology. Please also see my comments at the end of the post.

There are many long-term options for providing hydrogen as a fuel of the future, but coal is the leading contender to provide a hydrogen source in the near term. In his remarks on the Department of Energy’s (DOE) hydrogen research activities at the National Hydrogen Association Annual Conference in March 2005, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman stated “The progress that DOE and the automotive and energy industries have made so far has us on the path to an industry commercialization decision in 2015. If our research program is successful, it is not unreasonable to think we could see the beginning of mass market penetration by 2020.”

"While someday we may be able to produce hydrogen by breaking up water molecules in association with the high-temperature heat from nuclear power reactors, or through renewable energy technologies," said Chris Shaddix, principal investigator for clean coal combustion at Sandia, "right now the most cost-effective way to produce hydrogen is with coal."

Two approaches to burning coal now are under study. The first, oxy-combustion, combines coal with pure oxygen. The second, gasification, burns coal only partially to create a fuel gas.

Oxy-combustion is driven by concern over emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. Burning coal in oxygen is a near-term solution that can produce exhaust streams that are close to pure CO2, Shaddix said. Harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, sulfur compounds and mercury are virtually eliminated.

Companies in Japan, Canada, Germany and elsewhere favor oxy-combustion and are building pilot plants.  U.S. companies tend to favor gasification technologies, which offer higher efficiency and low pollution formation. Gasification technologies are the only ones described in this post.

The gasification process combines the coal with steam in a hot environment to produce a syngas (synthetic gas) composed mostly of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen.  Once the syngas is produced, it can be burned directly in a turbine to produce power, or further reacted with more steam to shift the remaining CO to CO2 and produce more hydrogen. The CO2 can be stored in oil and gas fields and the hydrogen can be used for the many applications that make up the hydrogen economy-- such as to power a car in an engine or a fuel cell, to power a turbine to produce electricity or to power a stationary fuel cell to make electricity.

There are two key hydrogen production pathways for the program – the central production pathway (gaseous hydrogen) and the alternate hydrogen production pathway (hydrogen-rich liquid fuel and substitute natural gas (SNG)).

For the central production pathway the goal is to demonstrate by the end of 2015: 60 percent efficient, near-zero emissions, coal-fueled hydrogen and power co-production facility which reduces the cost of hydrogen by 25 percent compared to current coal-based technology.  In this pathway hydrogen is produced at a large, central facility by converting coal into hydrogen. These plants may or may not co-produce electricity or other products, and will be designed to allow capture and ultimately sequestration of CO2.

Parallel to developing the hydrogen production technology, this pathway is to, by the end of 2012 , in collaboration with EERE and the Fossil Energy Office of Oil and Natural Gas, identify, develop, and demonstrate the feasibility of delivering hydrogen, hydrogen-natural gas mixtures, or synthesis gas using existing natural gas pipelines or dedicated, hydrogen-only pipelines.

In the alternate production pathway hydrogen-rich, zero-sulfur liquids and SNG are produced from coal at a central location. Hydrogen-rich liquids and SNG would be transported through the existing petroleum or natural gas pipeline distribution networks to sub-central or distributed locations where they can then be reformed into hydrogen near the end-user.

At sub-central plants, the liquid fuels or SNG would be reformed into hydrogen. This hydrogen would be delivered to the end-user local filling stations by tube trailer where it would be used in fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) or hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). At distributed plants, liquid fuels or SNG would be reformed into hydrogen at the refueling station. This pathway is envisioned as an interim pathway until a widespread hydrogen delivery infrastructure is available.

To examine the state of the technology for producing hydrogen from coal and future developmental paths, after examining many possibilities, DOE developed three scenarios to form the basis for going foreword. It should be kept in mind that a kg of hydrogen contains approximately the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline.

Today, hydrogen is produced from coal by gasification followed by processing of the resulting synthesis gas, and is used primarily to produce hydrogen for the production of ammonia for fertilizer.

In case 1, present technology, the coal is first gasified with oxygen and steam to produce a synthesis gas consisting mainly of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2), with some carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur, particulates, and trace elements. O2 is added in less than stoichiometric quantities so that complete combustion does not occur. This process is highly exothermic, with temperatures controlled by the addition of steam. Increasing the temperature in the gasifier initiates devolatilization and breaking of weaker chemical bonds to yield tars, oils, phenols, and hydrocarbon gases. These products generally further react to form H2, CO, and CO2. The fixed carbon that remains after devolatilization is gasified through reactions with O2, steam, and CO2 to form additional amounts of H2 and CO.

Minerals in the feedstock (ash) separate and leave the bottom of the gasifier as an inert slag (or bottom ash), a potentially marketable solid product. The fraction of the ash entrained with the syngas, which is dependent upon the type of gasifier employed, requires removal downstream in particulate control equipment, such as filtration and water scrubbers.

The temperature of the synthesis gas as it leaves the gasifier is generally slightly below 1,900 ºF. With current technology, the gas has to be cooled to ambient temperatures to remove contaminants, although with some designs, steam is generated as the synthesis gas is cooled. Depending on the system design, a scrubbing process is used to remove HCN, NH3, HCl, H2S and particulates that operates at low temperatures with synthesis gas leaving the process at about 72 ºF. H2S, and COS, once hydrolyzed, are removed by dissolution in, or reaction with, an organic solvent and converted to valuable by-products, such as elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid with 99.8 percent sulfur recovery. The residual gas from this separation can be combusted to satisfy process-heating requirements.

This raw clean synthesis gas must be re-heated to 600–700ºF for the first of two water gas shift (WGS) reactors that produce additional hydrogen through the catalytically assisted equilibrium reaction of CO with H2O to form CO2 and H2. The exothermic reaction in the WGS reactor increases the temperature to about 800 ºF, which must be cooled to the required inlet temperature for the second WGS reactor in the range of 250–650 ºF, depending on design. The WGS reaction alters the H2/CO ratio in the final mixture. Overall, about 70 percent of the feed fuel’s heating value is associated with the CO and H2 components of the gas, but can be higher depending upon the gasifier type. Hydrogen must be separated from the shifted gas containing CO2, CO, and other trace contaminants, and polished to remove remaining sulfur, CO, and other contaminants to meet the requirements for various end-uses (e.g., fuel cell vehicles).

The process assumes that a Texaco quench gasification system with conventional acid removal and a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) system for hydrogen recovery are used. All of the CO2 is removed prior to the PSA unit, compressed to 200 bars (2,900 psi), and sequestered for an additional cost of $10 per ton of carbon. In this configuration, 87 percent of the carbon in the feed is sequestered and the required selling price (RSP) of the hydrogen is $8.18/MMBtu ($1.10/kg).

Case 2 represents a process for hydrogen production from coal that uses advanced gasification technology, advanced membrane technology for hydrogen separation with CO2 removal, and carbon sequestration.

In this configuration, advanced E-gas gasification with hot gas cleanup is used in combination with a ceramic membrane system operating at nearly 600 ºC (1,100 ºF), which is capable of shifting and separating hydrogen from clean synthesis gas. It is assumed that 90 mole percent of the hydrogen in the synthesis gas is recovered in this membrane system, assumed to be similar to the diffusion membrane system under development by the Inorganic Membrane Technology Laboratory at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).

The hydrogen produced in Case 2 is separated at high pressure, with the hydrogen product produced at low pressure. The hydrogen must be compressed to various pressures depending on its use or storage. The remaining tail gas, containing mostly CO2 with some CO and H2, is combusted with O2 in a gas turbine to provide power for the plant. O2 is used so that a concentrated stream of CO2 is produced for sequestration. Heat is recovered from both the gas turbine exit gas and from the hot hydrogen in heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs), where the steam produced is sent to a steam turbine to provide additional power. This efficiency improvement is due to improved gasifier design combined with hotgas cleanup that eliminates the need to cool and then reheat the synthesis gas, combined with efficient hydrogen membrane separation incorporating the WGS reaction. The capital cost for the facility is $425 million, with the required selling price of hydrogen estimated at $5.89/MMBtu ($0.79/kg). The amount of hydrogen produced is 158 million scfd with 25 MW of excess power.

Case 3, is an example of an advanced co-production concept plant that is expected to be developed by 2015. The concept of this co-production plant is similar to the FutureGen prototype fossil fuel power plant of the future, and produces 153 million scfd of hydrogen and 417 MW of excess power. This case will employ advanced gasification, combustion and turbine systems, membrane separation, and carbon capture and sequestration in a co-production plant producing hydrogen and electric power using technologies similar to Case 2. In Case 3, a separate gasification train is utilized specifically to produce clean electric power. These highly efficient hydrogen and electricity coproduction plants could provide significant additional reductions in the cost of hydrogen, reducing the cost to $4/MMBtu ($0.54/kg) assuming power is sold at $53.6/MW-hr. The use of solid oxide fuel cells to generate electricity from hydrogen also can be introduced in these plants. In this configuration, hydrogen production costs can be reduced to about $3/MMBtu ($0.40/kg), depending on the price of electric power.

The areas of research that are required to support this program are:

• Advanced WGS reaction systems
• Advanced membrane separation systems (for hydrogen separation)
• Advanced CO2 separation systems
• Polishing filters (ultra-clean hydrogen purification systems)
• Advanced adsorption and solvent systems

Details of this research are beyond the scope of this post, but are explained in more detail in the Program Plan document.  They are not trivial developments and successful development of these items by 2015 is a challenging goal.

My main concerns have been 1) Is the most efficient use of our coal resources?  2)Is it cost effective? and 3) When is it reasonable to expect that the proposed technologies can be put in place?  I see a reasonable pathway to produce enough electrical power from coal, nuclear and renewable energy.  The comparison that I would like to see made is to using plug-in electric and all electric cars vs hydrogen fuel cell cars.  The ICE's in the plug-ins could be powered by ethanol or synthetic diesel if our fossil supplies are ever that low or if our environmental concerns become so dire as to require not burning fossil fuels in plug-in vehicles. I would like you, my readers, to comment on this for a few days before I make my comments.

Resources:

Energy Department Examines Hydrogen-Production Benefits of Coal, Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State, April 5, 2006
Hydrogen fro Coal Program, Research, Development and Demonstration Plan for the period from 2004 through 2015, US Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Fuels, September 26, 2005

Technorati tags: hydrogen, coal, energy, technology

Comments

[eric blair]

If your goal is to figure out if hydrogen is a good plan:

1) there is a $150 book with a title like the 200X guidelines for hydrogen storage. Each year it gets an update.

2) Have you read Don lancasters H2 pages?
http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp

[Ender]

From my research it is almost always easier just to use electicity as an energy carrier rather than hydrogen. For the applications that have to have liquid fuel then coal to liquids, ethanol, methanol or biodiesel are better options.

We could have alternative transport NOW. The hydrogen economy is just a stalling tactic.

[Engineer-Poet]

My conclusions, laid out here, appear to be the same as Ender's.

When it's so obvious that the case for hydrogen is bogus, it's amazing that it still gets so much mind-share.  It makes me wonder if one shouldn't have to demonstrate the ability to handle quantitative information in order to be allowed to vote.

[Real-Engineer]

There is no such thing as an engineer poet...you are kidding yourself with your mindless blather.

If you'd like to read some real in depth and peer reviewed analysis on hydrogen production you need not look any further than the DOE's H2A case studies.

You can download the case studies here:
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_production.html

The H2A case study for hydrogen from coal puts the wholesale price at the central gate at $1.34 / kilogram.

[Fake-Self-Replying-Agreeing-Engineer]

That H2A stuff is awesome Real-Engineer. Incredible detail and the credentidals of the team that put together the study is absolutely astounding.

Excellent post.

When it's so obvious that the case for hydrogen is unstoppable, it's amazing that it still gets so little mind-share. It makes me wonder if one shouldn't have to demonstrate the ability to handle quantitative information in order to be allowed to vote.

[Engineer-Poet]

$1.34/kg doesn't make hydrogen any easier to store, or make fuel cells (the only technology which makes hydrogen even roughly equivalent to gasoline in fuel cost) any cheaper or longer-lived.

Neither does it deal with toxics leaching from billions of tons of ash in landfills, scars in the land from the mines, or depleting supplies.  And that ignores any issues with sequestration or GHG emissions!

Last, it's inefficient.  So you can produce hydrogen from coal at 60% efficiency; big fat hairy deal.  If you feed that to a combustion engine, you'll be very lucky to get 25% efficiency (and even less after the losses in compression).  Throughput is 15% at best.  If I take the same coal and run it through an IGCC powerplant (40%) and charge an electric car (~70%), I get about 28% throughput.

Why the hell would I build a trillion dollars of hydrogen infrastructure for the privilege of buying twice as much coal to run it as I would with electrics?

[Samir Succar]

the question in this case isn't whether the H2 economy is a viable vision. the real issue is that coal is a an abundant commodity with a low, stable price and we have to find ways like this to use this resource in a way that will not send carbon emissions through the roof. Today about 79GW of new coal capacity is planned for the U.S. and even more worrisome is that China has been adding new coal capacity at the rate of 40-50GW per year for the past two years. Current coal plants (supercritical steam) put about 280 grams of carbon in the atmosphere for every kilowatt hour of energy they produce. Coal IGCC with CCS (described above) could cut that number in five. Thats big. Whether we make synthetic fuels like dme ( http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1539 ), ftl, ethanol (assuming a catalyst can be developed), or electricity or H2, is beside the point. The real issue is how do we bring these technologies into the mainstream fast and steer ourselves off our current collision course with a 14-20 GtC/y future

[JF McGehee]

A couple of comments, first, the Futuregen project (Joint DOE/industry) for the zero emissions power plant by gasification of coal, CO2 recovery+sequestration and burning hydrogen in the IGCC turbines is pretty far along. My understanding is that they are developing the design package for the backbone technologies and probably going out for bids next year. It will be a 275 MWe demonstration.

Secondly, you should be aware that aside from discussions of the "hydrogen economy" and running cars on hydrogen,etc. there is a significant amount of hydrogen being now made through gasification. Several existing and new refinery projects will be generating almost all their hydrogen this way. This is increasing in importance since almost all transportation fuels except fuel oil for ships (and maybe not even that in the future) is headed toward being hydrotreated to near-zero sulfur

Best Regards

Jim

[larry]

This company seems to have the best Hydrogen storage solution I've heard of. Store it as sugar in your gas tank, and their device produces the needed supply--at under $4 per kg. No distribution headaches!

http://www.virent.com/

[heating]

If you have looked into solar energy as a method for heating your home, panels are usually the first things that come up.

There are, however, other unique methods.

The Solar Heating Aspect You Have Never Heard of Before

The power of the sun is immense. The energy in one day of sunlight is more than the world needs. The problem, of course,

is how does one harness this power. Solar panels represent the obvious solution, but they have their downside. First,

they can be expensive depending upon your energy needs. Second, they do not exactly blend in with the rest of your home.

Passive solar heating represents a panel free method of harnessing the inherent energy found in the sun for heating

purposes. If you come out from a store and open the door of your car in the summer, you understand the concept of passive

solar heating. A wide variety of material absorbs sunlight and radiates the energy back into the air in the form of heat.

Passive solar heating for a home works the same way as the process which overheats your car in the parking lot.

[sean costello]

i think boron is actually a better fuel than hydrogen, there's enough of it out there and boria (boron oxide) is fairly easily processed back to boron, in this manner powdered aluminum for hydrogen production from water is also relevant, but carries a massive weight penalty as you have to carry both the aluminum and the water whereas with boron you carry just the boron initially and boron has more energy density than aluminum and/or hydrogen. furthermore, the state of mass-produced engine technology is sufficiently out-dated, turboelectric generators should have long surpassed piston-based engines

[Bob Leet]

Tens of millions of dollars are being spent by battery companies in order to discredit hydrogen because hydrogen works better than batteries. A large number of “pundits” who act as “writers”, “bloggers”, “authors” and “non-profit evangelist group founders” are actually supported by financial gain from battery companies who are terrified of hydrogen displacing their revenue streams. You will see a list of these people and their backers online soon. The following facts are cut and pasted from tens of thousands of validating scientific sources available online and in libraries, federal studies and university research papers.

Hydrogen can be made at home. Anybody who says it can’t is either a shill, an idiot or completely out of touch with reality and technology. You can make it for free, at home, all day long and all night long. Anybody who says it costs too much or that it has some evil chain reaction of “negative karma” or “sour grid source” or causes cancer because of something back in the energy chain is almost always a shill because the energy chain is constantly improving. Anybody who says the numbers say it is all wrong or bad or evil or inefficient are also usually a shill who are quoting numbers from six months or six years back (which is ancient history in hydrogen timeframes). It now costs less to make hydrogen from water than any known way to make gasoline and it continues to get cheaper every month. The “battery shill” spin has worn thin and has been supplanted by facts. Hydrogen is made from WATER via solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy. Hydrogen can also be made from any organic garbage, waste, plants or ANYTHING organic via lasers, plasma beams or dozens of other powered exotics which can be run off of EITHER the grid or the free hydrogen made from solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy OR the grid. There is no oil that needs to be involved anywhere in the production of hydrogen. These systems trickle charge hydrogen into storage containers, either tanks or solid state cassettes, 24/7.

Hydrogen processors now make hydrogen with 91% efficiency.

NO INFRASTRUCTURE IS NEEDED!!! This is the biggest lie of all. A large number of start-ups have solid state hydrogen solutions that entirely use existing infrastructure.

Battery Shills, backed by companies who are invested in batteries, are the usual suspects in anti-hydrogen reporting.

A “fuel cell car” and an “electric car” ARE THE SAME THING. The shills want you to think otherwise. The only difference is where the electricity is stored. You can pull the batteries out of every Zenn, Tesla, Zap, EV1, Venture Vehicle, etc. and pop a fuel cell/hydrogen pack in the same hole and go further, more efficiently in EVERY SINGLE CASE.

A modern fuel cell and hydrogen system beats batteries on every front including

FIRE- Batteries catch on fire constantly and have been the result of massively more fires and explosions than hydrogen.

Life Span- Hydrogen power systems run massively longer and provide massively greater range per charge than batteries.

Run Time – The run time of batteries constantly shortens while hydrogen does not.

Memory Effect- This effect is not present in hydrogen systems

Recharge Time- modern hydrogen systems are instant recharge.

Charge life- Modern hydrogen systems can recharge massively longer than batteries before end of life.

Nano powder batteries have cancer causing powder that falls into the pores of the Chinese factory workers skin and gives them potentially fatal diseases

Cost- The cost per 300 mile range for a hydrogen car system is massively lower than a battery system

Energy from “sour-grid”- A modern hydrogen system can be charged from a completely clean home energy system.

Can’t make energy at home- Hydrogen can be made at home. Batteries cannot.

Storage Density – Modern hydrogen technology has a massively higher storage density than batteries.

Bulky Size- Hydrogen systems are dramatically less bulky than batteries.

High Weight- The weight of batteries is so great ir reduces the reange of travel of a vehicle which causes the use of wasteful energy just to haul the batteries along with the car. Hydrogen energy systems weigh far less.

Environmental soundness- The disposal of batteries after use presents a deadly environmental issue.

Self Discharge issues- Hydrogen does not self discharge like batteries.

The charge-keeping capability of a typical lithium-ion battery degrades steadily over time and with use. After only one or two years of use, the runtime of a laptop or cell phone battery is reduced to the point where the user experience is significantly impacted. For example, the runtime of a typical 4-hour laptop battery drops to only about 2.5 hours after 3,000 hours of use. By contrast, the latest fuel cells continue to deliver nearly their original levels of runtime well past the 2,000 and 3,000 hour marks and are still going strong at 5,000+ hours
The electrical capacity of batteries has not kept up with the increasing power consumption of electronic devices. Features such as W-LAN, higher CPU speed, "always-on", large and bright displays and many others are important for the user but severely limited by today`s battery life. Lithium ion batteries, and lithium-polymer batteries have almost reached fundamental limits. A laptop playing a DVD today has a runtime of just above one hour on one battery pack, which is clearly not acceptable.
Such limitations have led to an enormous interest in alternative power sources, of which the fuel cell is the most promising candidate. Storage density, i.e. the electrical capacity available per unit mass of energy storage means, is one of the most important parameters.

So you have battery evangelists who are anti-hydrogen sheep:
Ulf Bossel of the European Fuel Cell Forum, Alec Brooks, EV World Sam Thurber, Cal Cars and others.

Yet for every manipulated argument they come up with, they are shot down by hundreds of sites with facts.

The interventions of these 'doubters' fall into a number of clear categories which I'll summarise as:

1 "You can't succeed because no-one has ever succeeded at this (sports car making / battery-power / taking on the majors, etc etc) before". - May I commend to everyone Dava Sobel's wonderful (and short!) book, "Longitude", which offers a perfect map of the tendency of government and the scientific establishment collude to reject true innovation. This effect can only be overcome when a tipping-point of perceived popular utility is reached, at which point the establishment suddenly has a bout of collective amnesia about their earlier denials. (Same story many times over, historically, of course - from Gallileo onwards.)

2 "It's inefficient to carry around". Rather as it's inefficient to carry around a full tank of gas, perhaps? Or to carry around a SUV chassis which itself weighs a ton or more? (Come on, Detroit, you can find a better argument than that, surely?)

3 "This technology is not a solution and never will be." This very much reminds me of the IBM's famously short-sighted take on the prospect of home computing, back in the 70s. The language of these contributions, let alone their content, points to a thought-process rooted in volume-producers'
vested interests. Consider the successes of some other new-tech challengers of vested interests: Dyson taking on Hoover with a bagless vacuum-cleaner; Bayliss bringing clockwork (i.e. battery-less) radios and laptops to the third world; thin-film solar panels (sorry, can't remember who, but you know who I mean). On this point, it was deeply depressing, at a high-level environmental science conference of the UK Government last year, for me to witness a "leading and respected" Professor of Transport rejecting electric traction out-of-hand with the words "it will never be more than just power storage on a trolley". Given that this "expert" was advising ministers of state setting future national policy on alternative transport, my immediate thought was "Who pays this man's research grant?"

So let's be vigilant for any who claim, in a smooth way, that invention can't possibly have the answers. From a position of some expertise in this field, may I remind readers that the "you-don't-understand-how-our-industry-works" argument has been the policy instrument of choice for numerous corporate fraudsters and protectionists down the ages (Enron, anyone?). New York's energetic DA, Mr Spitzer, has made a fine career out of challenging such thinking in the finance sector (with the simple rejoinder: "WHY does your industry work like that? Against customer choice?"). And then of course there's the entire consumer movement (remember Flaming Fords? remember "Unsafe at Any Speed"?). We can and should ask the same questions of the conventional auto industry.

The good news is that genuine innovation will out - as long as ordinary consumers are able to find it and buy it. One of the early lessons of the twentyfirst century, thank goodness, is that the old-school, browbeating style of corporate communication - terrorising one's customers into rejecting alternatives - increasingly fails as people wise up to making decisions based on their own independently-gathered information about benefits and risks. (Interestingly, a popular reaction against "selling by fear" is also now happening in the political field. Now why might that be?) As a consumer, one doesn't have to agree with the in-ya-face techniques of anticorporate critics like Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock to still subscribe to the view that we can buy what we want to buy. We no longer want to be told by old-tech that new-tech is inherently suspect. Isn't it old-tech that brought us dependency on oil, climate change, wars over energy sources?

So c'mon people, how about a reward system for "spot the spoiler"? I'm all for free debate on the issues, but some of these blogs smell rather like the work of paid old-tech corporatists trying to sabotage your success.
Challenge such interventions with the greatest possible vigour, and let consumers decide for themselves!

1.) Battery companies are spending millions of dollars to knock H2
because it works longer, better, faster and cheaper than batteries! Most of the people writing these screaming anti-H2 articles are battery company shills or have investments there. H2 does beat batteries on every front so the should be SCARED!

2.) The steel unions hate H2 because H2 cars don't use steel. Steel is
too hard to afford any more so nobody will use it in any case.

3.) Activists hate H2 because they think it can only be made by the oil
companies and they hate the oil companies. This is a falsehood created by the battery and steel guys.

4.) Oil companies hate H2 because it is so much better than oil but they
only get to hate it unto 2030 when the affordable oil runs out. Then they know they must love it because H2 energy will be all that is left. The Oil industry is dismayed that H2 is coming on so fast and they are trying to slow it down even more.

5.) Other alternative energy interests hate it because it is getting all
of the funding because the polita-nomics are better with H2 than ANYTHING ELSE ON EARTH.

If the gasoline in your car blows up it will do a VAST AMOUNT more death and damage than H2 ever will.
You are driving a MOLOTOV COCKTAIL. In 2030 oil is GONE and there is NO OTHER OPTION that can be delivered world-wide in time but H2!

If I am a shill who could I possible be working for? I say it is all free and you don’t need an oil company or energy company anywhere in the loop.

[Pradeep]

I am a MBA (Marketing).

I have been looking for a electricity making process using coal (cheaper solution than gas or fuel oil) and also create hydrogen as a by-product.

Will be very grateful for your assistance in this regard.

Always,

Pradeep Chandak, MBA (Marketing)