Talk:Hydrogen storage

This is turning into a good article! Mattisse 10:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Good start Matisse. Mion 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• The article is only in focus about mobile storage, i am missing a section about domestic storage, in fixed storage volume doesnt matter. Mion 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Metal hydrides tank citation

Under the chemical storage section, then Metal hydrides, there are a number of claims made about the relative feasibility of using hydrogen tanks in cars. However there is no citation and, looking at a website that sells hydride tank (http://www.thehydrogencompany.com/subsiteproducts_16-60.html), the claim may be untrue. I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on the accuracy of that section.

pRoPeR cApItAlIzAtIoN?

Is there any objection to moving this article from "Hydrogen storage" to Hydrogen Storage", to properly capitalize? If my suggestion is improperly capitalized for wikipedia articles, then by all means, let me know so that i may change my ways. But I always thought that aritcles were capitalized.--Vox Causa 22:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Surely they are only capitalised if they are a proper name --Alex 08:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a name keep it as it is.Mion 10:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly!--Alex 10:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NAME#Lowercase for details. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

density

The article says, "Even liquid hydrogen has worse energy density per volume than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline by approximately a factor of four. In fact, there is about 50% more energy in a gallon of gasoline (121 MJ) (0.9 lb) than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen (80 MJ)(0.6 lb)." But if there's only 50% more energy in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen, then wouldn't liquid hydrogen have worse energy density per volume than gasoline by a factor of only 1.5, rather than by a factor of 4? 72.174.84.78 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

have a look at Energy density. liquid hydrogen 8 MJ/L , Gasoline 29.0 MJ/L almost factor 4. reg Mion 23:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the figures in the first sentence are all wrong. What it means to say is that there's 50% more HYDROGEN in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. But that doesn't mean there's only 50% more energy in the gasoline, because the carbon in the gasoline contributes substantially to energy of burning. See the point? I'll fix the text about confusing amounts of hydrogen with energy. SBHarris 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Slight reshuffle

I've rearranged the page somewhat. The stuff under targets was about proposals, and some of the stuff under research was about stuff (most notably nanostructured carbon) that's been shown to be unviable. So I've shoved it all together under "Proposals and research". I also took the opportunity to point out that the 2005 targets were not met. 129.16.97.227 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Metal Organic Frameworks is an excellent news.

Well, that was random! 129.16.97.227 00:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwanders^Talk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Carbon

Those new references in the carbon section are mal-formed, and thus pretty useless. I'm sorely tempted to revert that whole edit. There have been so many contradictory specific claims about storage in carbon over the years you simply cannot say "carbon can store this much: see this reference" with any confidence. It's cherry picking. Please, fix those references. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No one commented. So I nuked it. 210.9.141.89 (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First cite

The first cite links to a PDF document and no page number is provided. The statement that the cite seems to refer to is that the 2005 targets weren't met. The document referenced doesn't seem to mention to 2005 targets, in fact the table in the document has 2007 targets where the wiki article has 2005 targets. In short, the reference provided is inadequate to support the claims made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.215.79 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, did you actually read that doc? Look at the Gap analysis, and then look at the 2005 targets. 210.11.145.48 (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen sulphide

Perhaps that converting hydrogen to hydrogen sulphide would be a better method to store it ? Hydrogen sulphide already occurs naturally (ie in cenotes, ...) so the creation aswell as the storage (natural occurence means storage possible at room temperature) would be simple. Are there any references or information about this, and if so, include to article. 91.182.84.241 (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

  It is a colorless, very poisonous, flammable gas with the characteristic foul odor of rotten eggs at concentrations up to 100 parts per million. Not very good idea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.48.208 (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)