1) hydrogen is the smallest, lightest element. It will slip away from anything (even through metal when under pressure). This makes it hard to store or transport in large quantities.
2) the most efficient way to get energy back from hydrogen involves fuel cells, which generally use platinum. This makes them very expensive. The alternative is to burn them in an engine, much like a gasoline engine works, but you don't get as much energy back this way.
That said, hydrogen fuel cells are sometimes used as back-up power for buildings, particularly in Japan. It's too expensive to make it rugged and mobile for a car (safety is not really a concern, it's just as safe as driving a car with 18 gallons of gasoline in it.) It's estimated the small number of vehicles they have made cost well over $100K each. It might work for the purpose you describe, but it's probably still too expensive to compete with natural gas right now.
To begin with fuel cells are very sensitive technologies. They require very specific operating conditions to be effective. The air in the atmosphere contains varying humidity levels which drastically effects the components of the fuel cell, and contaminants like carbon monoxide, which poison the fuel cell. Furthermore fuel cells developed for automobiles do not reach the required operation life requirements yet. So that's the first reason - fuel cell isn't developed enough.
Second reason, it will take a HUGE capital investment to build all the hydrogen refueling stations. Also, the number one way to produce hydrogen is through electrolysis of water using electricity. Most of the electricity in the US is made using fossil fuels. Moving to hydrogen wouldn't get us off of fossil fuels it would just shift the usage directly from consumer...to massive powerplants to produce electricity and then produce hydrogen. In each of these steps there are losses due to inefficiency...so it would be better to simply refine oil and burn gasoline since the refining process is very efficient.
Third reason...there are simply better, cheaper, technologies than the fuel cell. I personally see the battery and electric cars as a better option. You still have to produce electricity, but you don't have to produce hydrogen, the consumer can consume the electricity directly. Building electric refueling stations would be relatively cheap, and batteries can last much longer than fuel cells.
Hydrogen storage is also an issue but NOT because of explosions. Tanks built for automotive use are wrapped in carbon fiber to make them strong enough to withstand crashes. Plus, tanks are transported daily already and shipped to labs which use hydrogen. The problem is storing the amount of hydrogen you would need to drive any considerable distance. It is difficult to compress hydrogen since it is a nearly ideal gas, so you would need multiple tanks, which are heavy. The heavier the car, the more inefficient.
Source:
It's dangerous, highly explosive (see the Hindenburg Disaster), does not have a nationwide infrastructure (like present service/filling stations have), that can be used for transport/storage.
3 reasons off the top of my head. More if I put my mind to it.
Plus the cost.Not just the cost of the cars, but all the infrastructure that is needed for it to become a reality.
We need to be more efficient in our energy use. More diesel cars (which are far cleaner than the old 'smokers'), better fuel formulations and tax incentives to promote smaller, more economical cars and heavy tax penalties for SUV and other gas guzzlers.
Most commercially produced hydrogen comes from natural gas. Yes a fossil fuel. Making hydrogen from water is an expensive process and to store it is even more expensive. If it were as simple as you claim it is then society would have adopted hydrogen as a fuel source long ago.
For one it is highly explosive, it is very difficult to contain/store (it very easily leaks, and leaks are very hard to identify)
If you power a car with it, because it is so light/dense, the only way to carry enough for fuel is in highly pressurized cylinders at maybe 400atms, these cylinders are also very heavy.
In other words driving a hydrogen powered car, is like driving a bomb.
Compared to electricity, hydrogen has only one advantage it can be stored, transportation would be a nightmare, efficiency, well to convert H2 to electricity the most efficient would be combine cycle gas power station about 40%, vehicles about 30% efficient.
whereas electricity generated and transported to motors 90% plus
Because it takes more energy to obtain hydrogen from water or methane than the energy that can be obtained from burning hydrogen. Wind power is not free. Wind farms require huge amounts of land, the leasing of which is extremely expensive, and wind turbines interfere with each other which means wind farms only generate some 10 to 20 percent of the advertised electricity.
The main problem with hydrogen is that the molecule is so small compared with other molecules and the "speed" of the molecule at room temperature is so high , that it will leak through most materials . Normal gas pipes , tanks etc are no use for storing hydrogen.
It could make sense with nuclear power plants producing hydrogen for a new economy - this is one of China's aims with their PD reactors
It's a matter of economics. Today, it is cheaper to use natural gas as a backup for wind power than to use batteries or to make hydrogen.
Didn't read the responses, so if it hasn't been mention. Try infrastructure (feasibility).
I mean, what could be simpler; burning hydrogen with oxygen to produce energy. It's not rocket science!
Criticisms of wind turbines include intermittent operation and transmission losses. Both of these would disappear if the power was used to create hydrogen at source. This could then be used as a fuel for all sorts of requirements, from powering motor vehicles to generation of mains electricity.
Also, since the wind energy to make the hydrogen is already in the atmosphere, we would not even be warming the environment directly. In principle,we could have as much energy as we like from this source. With water as the by-product of the reaction, and zero CO2 emissions, wouldn't this be the ideal fuel?
Clearly, hydrogen is not widely used, so what are the problems with it? Storage? ... transportation? ... cost?
Why isn't more use made of hydrogen?
-----------------------
'not rocket science' was a joke, by the way. Thanks in anticipation.
