Curious George
Member
Bloomberg says, cost to produce hydrogen will plunge to $1.40 a kg by 2030 and to $0.80 a kg by 2050 due to renewables. So there is some hope for hydrogen. 
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Hydrogen vs. Battery
- Thread starter siry
- Start date
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Bloomberg says, cost to produce hydrogen will plunge to $1.40 a kg by 2030 and to $0.80 a kg by 2050 due to renewables. So there is some hope for hydrogen.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Once the ~10B kg/yr we need for other purposes is mostly filled... sure... gonna be awhile...
Bloomberg says, cost to produce hydrogen will plunge to $1.40 a kg by 2030 and to $0.80 a kg by 2050 due to renewables. So there is some hope for hydrogen.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Even if it turns out that using excess renewables to produce hydrogen is sensible/economic, that doesn't mean that it is also sensible/economic to use that hydrogen to power cars, requiring the further additional steps/costs:
- Storing it for long periods in H2 form (rather than using the hydrogen to make something else). By definition, this "excess renewable" energy is only available at certain times of year, or at the peaks/troughs of weather cycles.
- Transporting it to gas stations. A model that involves high throughput/low duty cycle on the electrolysers and long term storage is unlikely to fit physically on the available land to do it all on-site.
- Pressurizing up to 700bar to fuel cars which need very high pressure to support fast fill times and tank sizes which fit in a reasonable size car. This is significant extra energy, needed at the time of doing the filling (current systems use >10kWh electricity for 1kg hydrogen, which will drive a typical HFCV 60-odd miles, so the 'incidental' electricity would drive a BEV 30 miles on its own! The theoretical minimum possible energy with a 100% efficient compressor would be about 2.5kWh/kg, so any practical system is going to be worse than that).
So if you have turned the surplus renewables into hydrogen, it might be more sensible to do something different - like turning it back into electricity on the grid, or using it to make synthetic liquid fuels, or all sorts of other possibilities rather than putting it in cars.
Just two words and I already know that whatever is after that is nothing more than some thoughts.
Curious George
Member
So 80% of that is used to refine petroleum today, which is used in ICE cars.
If ICE cars aren't there, then that 8 B kg/yr will be unused?
A mid-size FCEV at 60 miles per kg consumes 200kg/yr for 12000 miles/yr average US driving.
So, that spare 8B kg/yr is enough for 40 million cars driving 12k miles/yr? What am I missing?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
You're missing the fact that H2 is not the primary energy source for those ICE cars. It's roughly a ~20:1 ratio of oil:H2. So using H2 as a fuel is not going to liberate an equal amount of H2 from oil refining. You can't simply shift from using H2 in oil refining to using H2 in a FCV.
The bottom line is that FCVs simply are not efficient enough to justify their use until they can draw ~100% of their energy from surplus wind or solar. BEVs ARE efficient enough that even if most of their energy come from fools fuel they still make sense... the reduction in fools fuel use is sufficient to justify the investment.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The fact that this thread has been debunking the same hydrogen arguments for over 10 years now. You can't bring up any point which we haven't fully debunked over and over again.
I take hydrogen ‘promotion’ stories as being Toyota promotion stories because they are severely behind in battery research and commitment and at this stage any public determination delaying tactic is a good tactic.
Hybrid is another one Toyota know all about and would prefer.......for the time being.
Hybrid is another one Toyota know all about and would prefer.......for the time being.
We should put this discussion on "ice" for 10 more years and give the hydrogen fuel cell guys a chance to actually deliver on their promises. So far, they are falling further and further behind BEVs. The time for talk is over
jackbowers
Jack Bowers
- Aug 23, 2009
- 274
- 449
Imagine if the Dutch had figured out magnetism, electricity and electrolysis (but not batteries) in the 1400s. The world's transportation system might have developed around wind-generated hydrogen and (clean) combustion engines with wind-to-wheel efficiency of about 10%. Then along comes natural gas. Suddenly the compressed gas tanks on the vehicles can be three times smaller while the range of the vehicles increases by a third thanks to improved energy density in the fuel. To put it mildly, hydrogen would be a sitting duck.
Today, electric vehicles are rapidly displacing natural gas cars and buses as we speak, even as natural gas plunges in price. Hydrogen, which is at least 3 times more expensive to store and transport than natural gas, would simply not stand a chance - even with well-to-wheel efficiency of greater than 50%. For every gasoline fuel tanker truck on the road today, we would need something like 10 hydrogen trucks to deliver the same amount of energy. Far easier to move electrons around - they don't weigh as much!
Today, electric vehicles are rapidly displacing natural gas cars and buses as we speak, even as natural gas plunges in price. Hydrogen, which is at least 3 times more expensive to store and transport than natural gas, would simply not stand a chance - even with well-to-wheel efficiency of greater than 50%. For every gasoline fuel tanker truck on the road today, we would need something like 10 hydrogen trucks to deliver the same amount of energy. Far easier to move electrons around - they don't weigh as much!
Do I need to remind you guys about the insufficient battery production capacity again?
That and the energy density what drives the H2 research.
Tesla might get into the mining business to secure minerals for electric batteries – TechCrunch
That and the energy density what drives the H2 research.
Tesla might get into the mining business to secure minerals for electric batteries – TechCrunch
Merrill
Merrill
Let take all that money spent on NG and H2 and produce more batteries.Do I need to remind you guys about the insufficient battery production capacity again?
That and the energy density what drives the H2 research.
Tesla might get into the mining business to secure minerals for electric batteries – TechCrunch
There is a difference between production issues and technical issues. The one is just a matter of scale if the numbers work. The other requires solving of problems that may be insurmountable.Do I need to remind you guys about the insufficient battery production capacity again?
That and the energy density what drives the H2 research.
Tesla might get into the mining business to secure minerals for electric batteries – TechCrunch
Guy V
Member
That argument is bogus. There is far more actual battery production capacity than either H2 production capacity or fuel cell production capacity. It continues to increase to meet demand.Do I need to remind you guys about the insufficient battery production capacity again?
That and the energy density what drives the H2 research.
Tesla might get into the mining business to secure minerals for electric batteries – TechCrunch
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Do I need to remind you guys about the insufficient battery production capacity again?
That and the energy density what drives the H2 research.
Tesla might get into the mining business to secure minerals for electric batteries – TechCrunch
BEVs need more raw materials and/or use less per kWh. FCVs need to change the laws of thermodynamics. Which do you think is more likely to occur?
Curious George
Member
Where did you get that 10 KWh is needed for a kg of hydrogen compression? The numbers I'm seeing are much lower.
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirements_for_hydrogen_gas_compression.pdf
"The theoretical energy to compress hydrogen isothermally from 20 bar to 350 bar (5,000 psi or ~35 MPa) is 1.05 kWh/kg H2 and only 1.36 kWh/kg H2 for 700 bar (10,000 psi or ~ 70 MPa). Greater compression energies are required to fill vehicles in practice due to compressor inefficiencies and heating during fast fills. DOE Technology Validation Project data for compression from on-site H2 production is 1.7 to 6.4 kWh/kgH2 [2]. Additional energy required for pre-cooling (as cold as -40 C)[3] to ensure on board fast fill temperatures are 85 C or lower can be modest (0.15 kWh/kg H2)[4]."
And don't judge by what's happening today. When every family has a hydrogen car, every driveway will have a hydrogen faucet.
Oh Wow. So for 10 year you folks are stuck in this thread? I've got some respect for you guys! We may need to wait another 10 years.
You folks should stroll outside at times, see what new data might have emerged.
BEVs need more raw materials and/or use less per kWh. FCVs need to change the laws of thermodynamics. Which do you think is more likely to occur?
If the most efficient solution doesn't cover the demand due to supply issues, the efficiency of the second best solution is irrelevant as long as the price is reasonable. So not sure what laws need to be changed.
This second best may be H2 or synthetic fuel.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
The law of conservation of energy. Why spend energy cutting the C off CH4 to burn H2 when you can just burn less CH4 directly? FCVs make no sense thermodynamically until we have a surplus supply of H2 which is going to be a while since we need ~10B kg/yr for industrial use.
BEVs make sense because it's more efficient to use CH4 to make electricity to charge a battery to drive a car plus it's more efficient to use wind or solar directly instead of losing ~half to split water; The amount of energy required to split water is far too high for the amount of wind and solar we have installed. Makes more sense to displace other fools fuel generation. So you need to use surplus wind and solar (wind or solar that would be curtailed if not used) of which we also do not have enough of....
Bottom line is FCVs won't make any sense for at least another 10 years.... probably longer.
Last edited:
I agree that this is not the near future and H2 makes sense only if zero emission is enforced.
This is an existing plant on the drawing. If they store H2 or CH4 depends on the end users.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
In the meantime we need to accelerate BEVs because they use less energy.
So why use H2 in cars at all? Why not just use CH4?
Similar threads
