-
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
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
And that doesn't even show the compression steps to get it into storage tanks and vehicles.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Elon in Germany: "Hydrogen a complete waste of time" followed by maniacal laughter 
SalisburySam
Active Member
Tedkidd
Member
It's not a horse race without at least 2 horses. So Hydrogen was important.
It lost on cost for a litany of reasons. One was the cost of batteries.
And now batteries are getting cheaper at a rapid clip.
Time to send poor hydrogen to the glue factory.
I think the biggest threat to large scale energy storage via batteries is small nukes.
It lost on cost for a litany of reasons. One was the cost of batteries.
And now batteries are getting cheaper at a rapid clip.
Time to send poor hydrogen to the glue factory.
I think the biggest threat to large scale energy storage via batteries is small nukes.
Yep, you always give the boss 2 options. A real one and a stupid one. Watch out, though, sometimes the stupid one gets picked. Remember when the generals gave Drumpf options on Iran?
What exactly is the benefit of a H2 car? The benefit of an EV is that it reduces energy use by >50% and it can use otherwise curtailed (wasted) renewable energy. A H2 car does neither of those. It uses the same if not slightly more primary energy than an ICE and it relies on H2 infrastructure. Even if the H2 it uses was derived from a clean source that H2 could have been used to displace FF CH4 on a >1:1 basis. Until we're 'flooded with surplus RE' you're investing in a new fleet of vehicles and infrastructure while accomplishing nothing.
We are not in a position that we can afford to spend $$$ without accomplishing anything....
For context our H2 debt is 74B kg/yr of which ~half is needed for ammonia production so it's not displaced by using less oil. ~95% of that comes from the steam reforming of CH4. That's a least ~30B kg of H2 we need to produce from electrolysis. That's >1200TWh of energy required just to meet our current H2 debt. >25% of US electric use. Until that debt is met H2 cars are just CH4 powered cars.
AND.... AND that's not including future drivers of H2 demand like aviation and steel production. It's just insane to waste H2 in cars. Because.... physics
The benefits are that it's fuel-based with (theoretically) faster refueling It's one of the key things that lured people in, until the developments in hybridization and plug-ins shifted the possibilities. (The other lure was economic, as countries saw the potential value of being a big player in the technology.)
With fuel and fast refueling, you can have a hub model, which makes it easier to build up the required infrastructure for all use cases.
Realistically, EV doesn't have any prospect of using a fully hub-based model. It needs a significant chunk of charging at home/work/destination to make it work, and that messes with the economics of the hubs, as people will use them as a last resort.
As far as the efficiency goes, humanity has demonstrated repeatedly that it doesn't really give a crap about efficiency. It cares about efficiency because it impacts cost.
If somehow HFCV could overcome the fuel cell stack and refueling costs, it would be in a position to take over rapidly from gasoilne. The problem is that realistically it would need electrolysis of cheap electricity for the hydrogen. Not simply because of renewable policy, but because switching transportation to methane would put additional strain on the world's already-stretched natural gas supplies.
But realistically, we'll probably end up with BEV, EREV, and liquid biofuels and synfuels.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I would not put money on that wager. The path to 500 Wh/Kg battery is just looking too likely within a decade
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
And we have that now. Gasoline or Diesel. As long as we're getting >0% of our H2 from steam reforming it's insane to use H2 for automotive fuel in place of what we have now.
I do think that there is a familiarity aspect in play as well. You drive, you fuel up, you drive some more. It feels like less of a paradigm shift.
I feel like this graphic is propaganda from big H. The Hydrogen supply side should have way more than three solar panels to make up for the inefficiencies and to power the extra steps.
Every car has to park somewhere and that somewhere tend to have power infrastructure. We have not even implemented V1G nor V2G. So definitely have not done all we can to incorporate renewables onto the grid. Not having even maximized this and going back to 'fuels' is just dumb. NV Energy calls it Demand Response Event and have it for our HVAC and they are testing it on the free L2 chargers at their main office in Las Vegas. NV Energy
"Going to a fueling station"... Why would you want to do that?
Last edited:
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
NY Times article on hydrogen. Starts with "blue" and associated problems but also mentions "green."
www.nytimes.com
Nothing much new to those debating here but one tidbit that was new to me:
For Many, Hydrogen Is the Fuel of the Future. New Research Raises Doubts.
Industry has been promoting hydrogen as a reliable, next-generation fuel to power cars, heat homes and generate electricity. It may, in fact, be worse for the climate than previously thought.
Nothing much new to those debating here but one tidbit that was new to me:
Great, infrastructure money wasted on the hydrogen boondoggle. Sigh.
NY Times article on hydrogen. Starts with "blue" and associated problems but also mentions "green."
For Many, Hydrogen Is the Fuel of the Future. New Research Raises Doubts.
Industry has been promoting hydrogen as a reliable, next-generation fuel to power cars, heat homes and generate electricity. It may, in fact, be worse for the climate than previously thought.
Nothing much new to those debating here but one tidbit that was new to me:
Great, infrastructure money wasted on the hydrogen boondoggle. Sigh.
Gotta keep the logistics system in business. Look how well that turned out in Afghanistan. Locally, we see price spike for gasoline. Do we need another reason to go rooftop solar + EV?
The Afghan Military Was Built Over 20 Years. How Did It Collapse So Quickly?
The Taliban’s rapid advance has made clear that U.S. efforts to turn Afghanistan’s military into a robust, independent fighting force have failed, with its soldiers feeling abandoned by inept leaders.
I have solar panels on my house. I charge my car from them. If you gave my a FCEV for free, it would cost me more to drive than it costs to drive mine. And if you gave me a free card to fill up for free, it would be more inconvenient than my car. There is no way a hydrogen car could be an improvement over my BEV. And that's without considering that fueling my car has ZERO carbon footprint and we're 20 or 30 years or more from having a green supply of H2.
Further, H2 is really hard to store and transport, When the day comes that we have excess green renewable energy, synthetic liquid fuels will be a thousand times easier to transport and store than H2.
H2 is a boondoggle to sell natural gas, which is the source of 99.9% of H2 today. Which is why the bipartisan infrastructure bill gives several billion dollars to building H2 infrastructure. So people can put H2 into cars that are so expensive that they have to be sold at a big loss. Or more likely leased, because the limited service life of fuel cells means that the cars will have no resale value at the end of their lease, when buyers of used H2 cars will have to pay full price for the hydrogen.
A free FCEV with a lifetime of free fuel is too expensive.
Further, H2 is really hard to store and transport, When the day comes that we have excess green renewable energy, synthetic liquid fuels will be a thousand times easier to transport and store than H2.
H2 is a boondoggle to sell natural gas, which is the source of 99.9% of H2 today. Which is why the bipartisan infrastructure bill gives several billion dollars to building H2 infrastructure. So people can put H2 into cars that are so expensive that they have to be sold at a big loss. Or more likely leased, because the limited service life of fuel cells means that the cars will have no resale value at the end of their lease, when buyers of used H2 cars will have to pay full price for the hydrogen.
A free FCEV with a lifetime of free fuel is too expensive.
Merrill
Merrill
I totally agree, H2 makes no sense when compared to what else is out there for all your reasons.
Guy V
Member
I agree 100%. As I said, I didn't get your point. It seemed that you were saying hydrogen should be a last resort, while my argument is exactly the same as yours, use whichever works for you that doesn't harm the environment.
Guy V
Member
What a range of irrelevance. The benefit of a hydrogen vehicle is the same as the benefit of battery vehicle: Operating it doesn't generate combustion pollutants. It does not matter how much primary energy it uses as long as the value proposition works for the buyer. It is precisely the same case for every single energy use that anyone makes. If it is economically justified power sources will be built to supply the demand.What exactly is the benefit of a H2 car? The benefit of an EV is that it reduces energy use by >50% and it can use otherwise curtailed (wasted) renewable energy. A H2 car does neither of those. It uses the same if not slightly more primary energy than an ICE and it relies on H2 infrastructure. Even if the H2 it uses was derived from a clean source that H2 could have been used to displace FF CH4 on a >1:1 basis. Until we're 'flooded with surplus RE' you're investing in a new fleet of vehicles and infrastructure while accomplishing nothing.
We are not in a position that we can afford to spend $$$ without accomplishing anything....
For context our H2 debt is 74B kg/yr of which ~half is needed for ammonia production so it's not displaced by using less oil. ~95% of that comes from the steam reforming of CH4. That's a least ~30B kg of H2 we need to produce from electrolysis. That's >1200TWh of energy required just to meet our current H2 debt. >25% of US electric use. Until that debt is met H2 cars are just CH4 powered cars.
AND.... AND that's not including future drivers of H2 demand like aviation and steel production. It's just insane to waste H2 in cars. Because.... physics
Focus on supplying the clean energy to meet the demand, not on trying to dictate which formula everyone should use. We cannot know what science and technology innovation will provide unless we let it take its course. You are following the same misguided path that EV naysayers always have.
Similar threads
