Talk:Hydrogen economy

Ladder graphic

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)

I like the ladder graphic. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

have added Chidgk1 (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Excerpt production?

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)

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)

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)

Done but Hydrogen production could be further improved Chidgk1 (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Excerpt storage?

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)

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)

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)

Excerpt infrastructure?

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)

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)

Excerpt safety?

If we moved the safety section to Hydrogen safety we could also move their Hindenburg pic out of the lead and excerpt the lead back here. What do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't want to include the lead image in the excerpt you can just use the file=no syntax. (or did I misunderstand what your question was). In general, I am fine with including excerpts. EMsmile (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hydrogen safety is a really good article with a well-written lead. The second and third paragraphs of the current lead would be a good replacement for the current safety section in Hydrogen economy. Let's not excerpt the first paragraph of the lead as it would trip up the flow of the article. Some of the current content in the Hydrogen economy safety section should probably be ditched instead of moved elsewhere. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I've had a go at adding this excerpt. However, I felt the first para of hydrogen safety was actually too short (just one sentence) and in future someone working on the hydrogen safety article would likely expand the first para. I don't think that the first sentence of the excerpt disrupts the flow of content that much. I ditched the bullet point list of the current content of the safety section but the other two paras seemed OK to me (moved to hydrogen safety). Feel free to correct / adjust what I have done; I have no expertise on this topic but just wanted to move things along now. EMsmile (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Hindenburg disaster is an example of a large hydrogen explosion.

P.S. I opted not to bring the Hindenburg image across with the excerpt (see on the right). It is very iconic but not really very relevant to the safety issues of today's hydrogen economy. EMsmile (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I see you removed the section altogether without further discussion, saying excerpt not needed, moved term to "See also". This should (in theory) be about the safety of the hydrogen economy not the safety of hydrogen itself.[1] This rationale makes no sense to me. To the degree that hydrogen is unsafe, practical use of hydrogen (which is what the hydrogen economy is) is also unsafe. Understanding safety issues is critical to understanding what the practical uses of hydrogen are and are not. I will reinstate the section now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I tried to make an excerpt work here and couldn't. Hydrogen safety is written for a more technical audience. The concepts need to be explained more simply for the Hydrogen economy audience to get it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I guess we agree that the excerpt didn't work in this case. Good that you found a better solution with some unique text on safety now. I think it's important that the section on hydrogen safety remains rather short and succinct here, and that readers know they can click through to the other article to find out more.

I am just wondering if there any other issues with regards to safety within the "hydrogen economy", other than the safety of hydrogen itself? I am thinking of aspects to do with energy security, geopolitical aspects, any shortages of supply; perhaps not. Maybe the only issue is with the hydrogen as a substance. EMsmile (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I hope that anyone who works on this section understands the difference between safety and energy security. They are completely different things. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for very subtly pointing out that I have no clue, ha-ha! I don't mind. (One doesn't have to be a subject matter expert to edit Wikipedia articles). Anyway, so in summary, the section about "safety" in this article is meant to be solely with regards to the safety of hydrogen as a substance (because it's so flammable), not any other aspects around it, right? EMsmile (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Should the IRENA diagram be removed?

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)

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)

Improving readability of the lead

I came here to improve the readability of the lead. I made some small changes to the first paragraph but have stopped as others might be in a better position to work on this (or might disagree with my changes). One question that I immediately have for the first paragraph of the lead: We use the verb "to decarbonize" but without explaining to the reader what this means. I've seen in other places that we wikilinked it to climate change mitigation but I don't think that is sufficiently clear. The internet explains "to decarbonise" as follows: ""To decarbonise" means to reduce or eliminate the carbon emissions associated with a particular process, industry, or economy." So I guess it's just shorthand for reducing CO2 emissions. Can we therefore build that into this first paragraph?

For what it's worth (and I know many of you dislike Chat-GPT), this is what Chat-GPT proposes as a first sentence for this article (sentence too long): "The hydrogen economy is a proposed system where hydrogen, produced using various renewable energy sources or by electrolysis of water, serves as a significant energy carrier for various applications, including transportation, heating, and electricity generation".

And I think this article is also a very good example of the usefulness of the readability script: The entire third and fourth paragraph of the lead lights up in dark red. And that text is indeed rather difficult to read and understand for a layperson. Pinging User:Efbrazil in case they are interested in helping with this lead. (I am assuming the merge propose above is not taking place). EMsmile (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I reverted most of your changes as they introduced either inaccuracies or grammatical errors, so thank you for stopping there. Good point about "decarbonize" being jargon. I've replaced the first usage of the term with "reduce greenhouse gas emissions"; the second usage should be clear from context.

Regarding ChatGPT, to be honest I think putting ChatGPT output on Talk pages is a waste of other editors' time and I would love to see the practice stop until the technology significantly improves, e.g. maybe a year from now. As usual, Chat GPT's output above contains significant diversions from expert consensus. It's not fair to expect other volunteers to explain why ChatGPT is wrong again. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the term "decarbonize" is clear at all when it appears in the paragraph for the first time. Surely we could allow a bit of space to explain it? You could just put it in brackets after this sentence: "The aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions". I seem to be unqualified, or not qualified enough, to improve the readability of this lead properly. I hope that someone else can give it a go then. The entire third and fourth paragraph are very difficult to understand for laypersons. You might not see it as it's your field of expertise, Clayoquot, (and because you are a native speaker) but trust me on that one (as a layperson and non native English speaker). The language used is certainly not for anyone who does not have a university degree. Here are some examples:

• The last 3 sentences in the second last paragraph are very long. Surely there can be ways to break them up.
• This sentence took me several attempts to read and understand it: As of 2023 there are no real alternatives to hydrogen for ammonia production for fertilizer, hydrogenation, hydrocracking, and hydrodesulfurization.
• Very long sentence: The extent to which hydrogen will be used to decarbonise chemical feedstock, long haul aviation and shipping, and long-term energy storage is likely to be influenced by the evolving production costs of low- and zero-carbon hydrogen.
• Very long sentence Estimates of future costs face numerous uncertainties – such as the introduction of carbon taxes, geography and geopolitics of energy, energy prices, technology choices, and their raw material requirements – but it is likely that green or white (underground) hydrogen will see the greatest reductions in production cost over time. EMsmile (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for articulating these issues. I'll look into fixing the issues you raised. I think "decarbonize" is understood by many more people than "climate change mitigation". The New York Times and BBC, for example, both use "decarbonize"/"decarbonise" in headlines. I seldom see them use the term "mitigation". Can you give us examples of layperson-oriented publications that regularly use the term "mitigation" to mean reducing emissions and NOT to mean adaptation? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I refactored the sentences you mentioned. Thanks for raising these issues. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making those recent edits. They are great improvements. I'll look out for the term "decarbonize" in future but for me it certainly isn't very common (maybe also because there is no equivalent German term for it; I also follow the climate change discourse in Germany). But also, we do not have any Wikipedia articles, not even redirects for decarbonisation, decarbonization, decarbonise, decarbonize. This makes me think that this term is not so highly used yet, otherwise we would have a Wikipedia article or redirect for it, wouldn't we? Should we create some redirects for it? EMsmile (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary so there are plenty of commonly-used words that are not suitable article titles or redirects. Decarbonisation just means reducing GHG emissions. We don't have an article on it because it is a subset of climate change mitigation. I think redirecting or linking this term to climate change mitigation would confuse people far more than if they were to type "define:decarbonisation" into Google. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

So then let's mention it at least once in this article that decarbonisation means reducing GHG emissions, and then afterwards we can continue to use the term. For me, this is not intuitive because decarbonisation seems to refer to carbon or CO2 specifically when it actually refers to all GHGs.

By the way, the IPCC AR6 WG 3 report uses the term a lot (520 times) but in the Annex they define it like this: "Decarbonisation: Human actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from human activities." This means they use the narrow definition to refer to CO2 only.

This means to me that we should somewhere in Wikipedia provide this definition and then have a redirect from "decarbonisation" to that page and section.

Also I find it interesting that our article on greenhouse gas emissions does not mention "decarbonisation" at all, and the one on climate change mitigation uses it only four times.

The question in my mind is: do we think this term is important, useful and should be used more often in our articles? If so, then let's ensure that people know what we mean when we use it. Or do we think it's not such an important / useful term, in which case we should avoid using it and simply spell it out each time. Now that I've seen how much the IPCC AR 6 WG 3 report uses it, it seems to me that it's an important term (more important than I realised). - I'll ask on WikiProject Climate Change about this possible redirect. EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot that decarbonisation already redirects to climate change mitigation but I think it should probably redirect to a specific section within climate change mitigation, or within greenhouse gas emissions, where the term is clearly defined. EMsmile (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

American or British English?

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)

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)

Thanks for checking and for offering to do this work. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

No. A 'ton' is 2000 lbs . A 'tonne' is 2204 lbs. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Third sentence of lead

The third sentence of the lead is not clear enough in my opinion. It currently says: In this context, hydrogen economy encompasses the production of hydrogen and the use of hydrogen in ways that contribute to phasing-out fossil fuels and limiting climate change.. I think we need to place the emphasis on the "in ways", and I'd like to change it to "in those ways" or "in certain ways". This is to set it apart from the current practice of producing and using hydrogen which is not really focusing on reducing GHGEs. Isn't the key here that for it (the hydrogen economy) to be successful/desirable and a step in the right direction, that the hydrogen needs to be produced in a certain way? By renewable energy sources or by electrolysis of water, right? EMsmile (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a lot more nuanced than that. How to generate the H2 is just one issue, and arguably there are multiple ways to generate low-carbon H2. Another issue is not using H2 wastefully, because the supply of lowest-carbon H2 will be limited for quite some time. A third issue is that for road transport in particular, promotion of H2 vehicles leads to delays in committing to EV infrastructure because it essentially creates a competing standard. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. Would you say this already comes out clearly in the lead or in the main text and that I have overlooked it? If not, it might be worth adding, perhaps in a section called "challenges". Or would you say it's already in the section "history and contemporary rationale" (or somewhere else) and I hadn't found it yet? Summarising this in the lead somehow could also be a great addition. EMsmile (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I will look into this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The point about there b3eing multiple ways to generate low-carbon H2 was already in the lead: "Low-carbon hydrogen, which is made using SMR with carbon capture and storage (blue hydrogen), or through electrolysis of water using renewable power (green hydrogen)". I just added a sentence, "Since relatively small amounts of low-carbon hydrogen are available, climate benefits can be maximized by using it in harder-to-decarbonize applications." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That's good. I am just wondering if this thinking and rationale should also be spelled out in the main text, not just in the lead. I find the section title "history and contemporary rationale" a little bit awkward. Should we perhaps split them into two, so that "history" has its own section and is further to the bottom (or perhaps not, as the history aspect is rather short and recent)? Also the wording "contemporary rationale" is difficult to understand for a non-academic audience. Could it perhaps reworked to become "Goals" or "Objectives" or "Aims"?

Also, I am missing a section (towards the end of the article) which would be on "Challenges", "Issues", "Problem areas" or alike. The content is probably already in the main text somewhere but for a reader it would be useful if it because more visible through a heading in the table of content. EMsmile (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I've changed that section heading to "History and objectives". I still wonder if we'd like to include a specific section on "Challenges" or if we prefer that the challenges are mentioned throughout, without a separate section. EMsmile (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it works to have challenges mentioned throughout. The challenges vary for different applications of hydrogen. Our WP:NPOV policy recommends interweaving positives and negatives within sections instead of segregating them in separate sections, so we should not segregate unless there is a strong reason to. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sentence starting with "As part of proposals to limit"

In the lead we have this sentence: As part of proposals to limit global warming to 1.5 °C, it is generally envisaged that the future hydrogen economy replaces gray hydrogen with blue and predominantly green hydrogen.. 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: In order for the hydrogen economy to contribute to climate change mitigation in a meaningful way, it is generally envisaged that the future hydrogen economy replaces gray hydrogen with blue and predominantly green hydrogen.. (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)

I will look into this. Been busy lately but hoping to have time soon. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Thanks, that's a good solution. EMsmile (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)