Talk:Hydrogen#Emission Spectra

{{ping|Clayoquot}} I think what you've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydrogen&diff=1269664436&oldid=1269661424 just replaced] is outdated as there are now various projects looking to utilise hydrogen found in geological features: [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/29/climate/white-hydrogen-fossil-fuels-climate/index.html] which wasn't the case 30 years ago. That's not the best of sources to use here, but we should include the info somewhere. I see a brief mention in Hydrogen#Terrestrial but that's not the best source either. SmartSE (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:We have natural hydrogen which is linked, but only in the lead (as dihydrogen) and the see also. SmartSE (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Clayoquot}} So H2 is not a fuel, it is a carrier. Also, from energy carrier, we read "carriers include springs, electrical batteries, capacitors, pressurized air, dammed water, hydrogen, petroleum, coal, wood, and natural gas." That seems to about wrap it up for combustable stuff (surprise: they are definitely not fuels!).

What we are trying to convey in this article is not whether H2 is a fuel or a carrier, but that a large effort is dedicated to what one might call "H2 carriers" (carriers of carriers?). Engineers like H2 as a not-fuel-fuel because it burns cleanly and it can be made from abundant resources (water). But engineers dislike H2 as a not-fuel-fuel because it is not readily condensed or stored. So engineers have dedicated much effort to systems that are carriers for H2, which are H-rich materials that are reversibly release H2 on demand. So, we have a predicament that editors might help with: on one hand we have the nomenclaturists who insist that H2 is a carrier, and on the other hand we have engineers who are trying to solve problems, not with nomenclature, but with energy, and they are focused on carriers for H2.

Hope that makes sense. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:Yup, I hear you and Smartse. I've got some ideas for making everyone happy... but I also just got handed a new task at work so I won't be able to flesh things out yet. I'll self-revert for now and will come back to this in a few days. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:The IPCC likes to use the term "energy carrier" to distinguish H2 from primary energy sources but you've made a good point that ISO 13600 defines the term more broadly. As SmartSE pointed out above, there is also potential for underground H2 repositories to be a non-trivial primary energy source. Given that the term "energy carrier" has varying definitions and is confusing to many readers, I'll replace it with "fuel" where appropriate. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@WikiCorrector5241

In the article we learn that Boyle discovered a reaction:

• {{tq|In 1671, Irish scientist Robert Boyle discovered and described the reaction...}}

and but that

• {{tq|In 1766, Henry Cavendish was the first to recognize hydrogen gas as a discrete substance...}} and

{{tq|He is usually given credit for the discovery of hydrogen as an element.}}

and

• {{tq|In 1783, Antoine Lavoisier identified the element that came to be known as hydrogen...}}

This is inconsistent with the infobar content.

During this era of history the nature of elements and especially of gases was unclear. You can see that in the sources. The concept of "discovery" of the element makes little sense. I think if the infobar must have a "discoverer", then all three should be listed. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:I checked the references cited in the template:infobox hydrogen and they all agree that Cavendish discovered hydrogen. I changed the infobox accordingly. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Hydrogen|answered=yes}}

Change all the American spellings to British spellings because this article is written in British English (see top of talk page). 2600:1700:14BE:E00:B56A:1711:D3E7:DCB6 (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Jlwoodwa there is already a consensus to use British English. @ 2600:1700:14BE:E00:B56A:1711:D3E7:DCB6 , could you please specify what American spellings you see? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::“Heat of vaporization” to “Heat of vaporisation”, “Vapor pressure” to “Vapour pressure”, “Ionization energies” to “Ionisation energies” 2600:6C5A:557F:D058:FC51:A35B:329D:9634 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The section on water electrolysis claims "efficiency of energy conversion is inherently low". That source quotes an International Energy Agency spokeperson:

• {{tq|“All energy carriers, including fossil fuels, encounter efficiency losses each time they are produced, converted or used. In the case of hydrogen, these losses can accumulate across different steps in the value chain. After converting electricity to hydrogen, shipping it and storing it, then converting it back to electricity in a fuel cell, the delivered energy can be below 30% of what was in the initial electricity input.}}

A different source

• Van Renssen, S. (2020). The hydrogen solution?. Nature Climate Change, 10(9), 799-801.

gives a different story: if the initial electrical energy was created say in the Sahara where solar is efficient it may be transported to the Netherlands in hydrogen and beat locally produced solar power.

So the current content is not neutral but more important the cited source does not verify "inherently low" for hydrogen produced by electrolysis. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:"Inherently low" is inherently kind of vague, so a more precise figure like "can be below 30%" might be better. IEA content is CC-BY so we can copy it with attribution.

:The Van Renssen source does not contradict the IEA in any way. It actually has pretty good agreement: "A solar panel in the Sahara generates 2–3 times as much power as one in the Netherlands. If you convert that power to hydrogen, transport it here and turn it back into power via a fuel cell, you are left with more energy than if you install that solar panel on a Dutch roof." Both sources are saying that if you want 30kWh of electricity in the Netherlands you can either A) collect 30kWh through a solar panel locally, or B) install the same solar panel in the Sahara to get 90kWh of electricity and then lose 60kWh in transport and conversion en route to the Netherlands. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::The Van Renssen source contradicts our content. There is nothing "inherently low" in hydrogen energy conversion.

::The Van Renssen source in the just below the passage you quote makes the point that efficiency only has meaning in the specific context they are used. Efficiency loses are always relative, numbers like "30%" are context dependent. The losses in the Sahara and transport may be huge and it could still make sense. As an extreme example, what is the efficiency of producing hydrogen from methane if you have to create the methane by burying logs for 500 million years? That methane was originally created by solar power, but that bit was ignored in the context of the "inherent" efficiency.

::In one sentence we should not be saying anything about efficiency in my opinion. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Should we just remove "efficiency of energy conversion is inherently low"? It's not really adding valuable information in this context. The efficiency of producing hydrogen from fossil fuels is also low, and as you point out there is additional inefficiency of producing fossil fuels from sunlight. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, IMO "production" should be about economically feasible processes, not about theoretical concepts. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Removed. I think what the IEA was trying to get at is that direct electrification of end-uses is more efficient than using hydrogen. E.g. it is more efficient to plug in a battery electric cars than to take electricity, make hydrogen from it, and put hydrogen into a hydrogen car. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Comparing two paths with the same starting point and environment the way you do would be fine and perhaps useful to readers of Hydrogen. The counterpoint in the other article is that it could make sense to make hydrogen remotely and transport it rather than try to transport electricity. However, this seems very hypothetical to me and I think we should focus on actual production/transport. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm planning to expand the "Safety" section based on recent secondary sources. It used to cover more issues but the sources have always been old. Here are some sources I found using a search for "hydrogen safety" on Google Scholar:

• {{Cite journal |last=Li |first=Hao |last2=Cao |first2=Xuewen |last3=Liu |first3=Yang |last4=Shao |first4=Yanbo |last5=Nan |first5=Zilong |last6=Teng |first6=Lin |last7=Peng |first7=Wenshan |last8=Bian |first8=Jiang |date=2022-11-01 |title=Safety of hydrogen storage and transportation: An overview on mechanisms, techniques, and challenges |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352484722008332 |journal=Energy Reports |volume=8 |pages=6258–6269 |doi=10.1016/j.egyr.2022.04.067 |issn=2352-4847}} (CC-BY licensing)

• {{Cite journal |last=Abohamzeh |first=Elham |last2=Salehi |first2=Fatemeh |last3=Sheikholeslami |first3=Mohsen |last4=Abbassi |first4=Rouzbeh |last5=Khan |first5=Faisal |date=2021-09-01 |title=Review of hydrogen safety during storage, transmission, and applications processes |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950423021001790 |journal=Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries |volume=72 |pages=104569 |doi=10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104569 |issn=0950-4230}}

• {{Cite journal |last=Yang |first=Fuyuan |last2=Wang |first2=Tianze |last3=Deng |first3=Xintao |last4=Dang |first4=Jian |last5=Huang |first5=Zhaoyuan |last6=Hu |first6=Song |last7=Li |first7=Yangyang |last8=Ouyang |first8=Minggao |date=2021-09-03 |title=Review on hydrogen safety issues: Incident statistics, hydrogen diffusion, and detonation process |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319921025520 |journal=International Journal of Hydrogen Energy |volume=46 |issue=61 |pages=31467–31488 |doi=10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.07.005 |issn=0360-3199}}

Please let me know if there are other sources we should use. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:Done. I agree with Smokefoot's comment in the FAR that cryogenic burns are not worth mentioning. Detonation and fire are by far the biggest two issues in the literature that I have seen. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The Infobar pushes the images for the first sections way down the page, making them incoherent with the text.

We could

• Place those images on the left, or
• break the infobar into logical sections associated with corresponding content, or
• ?

Johnjbarton (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:I learned elsewhere that the issue is that the infobar and images are both floats that compete for space on the right side. Left placement seems to be the best fix for smallish thumbnail like images. I applied that fix. {{done}} Johnjbarton (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It is probably necessary to add a small portion talking about Hydrogen Peroxide as to include the danger of turning it into Piranha Solution Baryapupy (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is not necessary in the article about the element hydrogen. Remsense ‥ 论 22:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I deleted a section calle "Lab synthesis". Modern labs don't synthesize hydrogen. The section had one primary source about an aluminium reaction studied for hydrogen power research. I don't think this is notable for an article about the element. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)