Merrill
Merrill
I have never understood the use of hydrogen for vehicles, it is expensive, volatile and where are you going to find a station.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hydrogen vs. Battery
- Thread starter siry
- Start date
I think that's why it has only been used in select markets (California) and why it has never scaled. The idea is certainly an intriguing one but like many of these types of ideas they lack the ability to truly scale and then something better comes along. Although on the third point people refuting battery powered cars would've made the same argument about a lack of stations and now it is largely a non-issue.
It seems we are fully on the battery electric vehicle path now, at least for passenger cars and light trucks. With the Tesla Semi coming out we will soon see how batteries perform in that application. Though with mandatory rest breaks and limits to how long a driver can actually drive there might be ample opportunity to charge built in.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
No because the infrastructure for EV's was already in place, it's called the grid. Interfacing with that already existing infrastructure for long distance travel was trivial compared to creating the hydrogen infrastructure for even local travel.
It never was when you looked at the basic physics and engineering problems involved. It was a DOA attempt at green washing by established industries.
Sheesh, I didn't think I was making argumentative points. People refuting battery powered cars did in fact make the same argument, that they weren't enough places to charge and now look at the landscape, that was my point!
Also, we all know hydrogen didn't end up being the fuel of the future but to be able to use an abundant element in place of something like gasoline to me sounds intriguing. Notice I didn't say the correct idea.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Except they were wrong using that argument and it's not comparable, that was my point!
It needs to be seen in the context of the time when the idea last got serious traction. There wasn't even DCFC and BEVs expensive, had low range and were relatively inefficient. If in the late 90s you were looking around for a solution to tailpipe pollution and sustainable energy, BEV wasn't capable enough, so it made it seem like HFCV was _necessary_, and as a potential solution it had the 3 key things: no tailpipe pollution, fast refueling and potentially renewable fuel.
However the engineering challenges are enormous, and the support was fairly quickly blown away with the combination of advances in batteries and power electronics, and the introduction of hybrids.
And to JRP3's point, piggybacking the grid made growth and adoption much easier. Not just for deployment of public infrastructure but because it allows home refueling. Home refueling is the killer feature. It substantially decreases the minimum viable infrastructure.
Last edited:
Having an abundant element means nothing. Because what is needed is hydrogen molecules...H2 not H.
I mean should BEV proponents argue that EVs use electrons which are far more abundant than any element, such as hydrogen?
There is no substantial source of H2 that is easily gathered...it all has to be produced by expending energy, so it isn't intriguing to me at all..
Thanks for adding this. This is why I prefer conversations versus trying to respond to posts. JRP3 and I were really making two different but related points. It is true that high voltage DC charging stations weren’t a thing, my point, but JRP3 made a great point that the electrical infrastructure already exists so adding the stations is easier. One could argue that the longest step in constructing stations is the permitting step!
Compare that hydrogen. There isn’t an infrastructure to move H2 around.
That depends. In some jurisdictions, the longest step is getting the local utility to acquire and install the transformer after the rest of the site is fully built out.
True, that’s my industry and I am amazed what lead times are for standard equipment.
I recommend we start doing so. For the laughs.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Just because some ignoramuses "said it" does not make it true. Or valid. Or reasonable.
Sorry, but if that is your "point" then you are on very flimsy ground.
Your point is wrong. It would help to listen to people who have been following this for a long time and know a thing or two about Physics and engineering of H2 as a fuel.
Installing a charging station and installing an H2 filling station is an order of magnitude more expensive and complex, that the physics and cost do not check out. You can't overcome the physics of efficiency of extracting H2, compressing it, transporting it and then finally pumping it to the car. Also H2 is a very leaky gas.
Last edited:
OMG. Do you have electric heating? This must be pricey! I think I'll enjoy my house for now.
Operator64
Member
Don’t Forget about the introduction of hydrogen to atmosphere creates an invisible fire at around 2000 degrees, car accidents will be easier to clean up just sweep up the ashes.
Our big boss once asked us to think about hydrogen transport by pipelines. That made me giggle thinking of how much hydrogen will escape thru the walls of regular pipes on its way from Houston to LA. Well, we could make pipes of thick-wall SS or some Titanium alloys... so a few people in Houston and LA can get new Bentleys and Ferraris.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
What's funny is that our heating was ALL gas until April '22. So, yeah, those high winter consumption figures are purely a gas boiler and 2 gas furnaces.
We have since replaced the HVAC system with heat pumps, and are currently using about the same amount of electricity to heat the house.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
When you say 'same amount', are you talking cost? If you are talking energy value (therm, kWh), the heatpump should use much less... as in only 25-35%.
Similar threads
