Hydrogen vs. Battery

[Guy V]

Oh, you mean like this? End of discussion.

View attachment 695993

I like it, but you've kind of left out the entire power grid in the first case. That really isn't trivial, ask Texas or California. LOL

 

[nwdiver]

The benefit of a hydrogen vehicle is the same as the benefit of battery vehicle:

???? How? Does a H2 vehicle reduce energy use by >50%? No. Does a H2 vehicle reduce fools fuel use by any amount if we still have a H2 deficit? No.

Steam reforming is at best 75% efficient. So 1kWh of H2 consumed by a FFEV could have reduced fools fuel use by >1.3kWh. EVs don't have that problem. Not only do they use FAR less energy but they can take advantage of curtailment. 1kWh of wasted wind energy harvested to charge a BEV could not have displaced any fools fuel.

Hence the reality that H2 only makes any sense when we're 'Flooded with clean energy' because physics. Just as driving instead of flying 3k miles only makes sense if you have time to spare using a ridiculously inefficient vehicle only makes sense when you have energy to spare.

Focus on supplying the clean energy to meet the demand,

..... doesn't...... doesn't reducing demand with a vehicle that uses ~50% less energy help do that because numbers?

 

[Guy V]

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.

Oh come on, that's like saying BEVs are a boondoggle to sell more coal for power plants. While I doubt it very much, if they can ever actually generate zero pollution H2 from natural gas as they promise, that would be fine too. After all, it is the results that count. As you can see in my profile pic, I have solar for my Tesla too, but I'm not opposed to other people's choices if they don't do harm.

 

[Guy V]

???? How? Does a H2 vehicle reduce energy use by >50%? No. Does a H2 vehicle reduce fools fuel use by any amount if we still have a H2 deficit? No.

Steam reforming is at best 75% efficient. So 1kWh of H2 consumed by a FFEV could have reduced fools fuel use by >1.3kWh. EVs don't have that problem. Not only do they use FAR less energy but they can take advantage of curtailment. 1kWh of wasted wind energy harvested to charge a BEV could not have displaced any fools fuel. Hence the reality that H2 only makes any sense when we're 'Flooded with clean energy' because physics.



..... doesn't...... doesn't reducing demand with a vehicle that uses ~50% less energy help do that because numbers?

Oh that's very naughty of you, you left out precisely my simple clear statement of the overarching benefit of either a hydrogen or battery vehicle:

"Operating it doesn't generate combustion pollutants."

 

[nwdiver]

Oh that's very naughty of you, you left out precisely my simple clear statement of the overarching benefit of either a hydrogen or battery vehicle:

"Operating it doesn't generate combustion pollutants."

Do you not grasp the concept of a fungible commodity? Unlike electricity H2 can be stored. It can then be used as needed for what the market demands. H2 used for FFEVs is more H2 that needs to come from steam reforming. For the 3rd time. Until our MASSIVE H2 deficit can be met with Green H2 increased demand comes from steam reforming.

Producing 10M kg/yr of H2? Cool... we need 20M kg/yr more to meet our demand for ammonia. Keep going.
Producing 20M kg/yr of H2? Cool... we need 10M kg/yr more to meet our demand for ammonia. Keep going.
Producing 30M kg/yr of H2? Cool... we need 30M kg/yr more to make green steel. Keep going.
Producing 40M kg/yr of H2? Cool... we need 20M kg/yr more to make green steel. Keep going.

etc, etc, etc...... until we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use.....

Seriously... it makes more sense to just keep using gasoline.

 

[Guy V]

Not only do they use FAR less energy but they can take advantage of curtailment. 1kWh of wasted wind energy harvested to charge a BEV could not have displaced any fools fuel.

Say what? Now you are spreading false information. Hydrogen can be produced onsite of any power production facility. It can not only be distributed for remote use such as in vehicles, but it can also be used as the energy storage medium to return power to the grid when needed. You are blinded by your biases. You should stop fixating, and open your mind to other potential solutions.

 

[nwdiver]

Say what? Now you are spreading false information. Hydrogen can be produced onsite of any power production facility. It can not only be distributed for remote use such as in vehicles, but it can also be used as the energy storage medium to return power to the grid when needed. You are blinded by your biases. You should stop fixating, and open your mind to other potential solutions.

At an increased cost. A 900MW facility is going to be cheaper per kg than a 90MW facility. And.... why? Why add up all that cost and complicity? It accomplishes nothing over an efficient ICE until.... we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use.....

 

[Guy V]

At an increased cost. A 900MW facility is going to be cheaper per kg than a 90MW facility. And.... why? Why add up all that cost and complicity? It accomplishes nothing over an efficient ICE until.... we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use.....

We have a surplus of science nerds here, we need more accountants.

How do I get you to understand that efficiency according to physics does not dictate cost-effectiveness?

Can you possibly accept the fundamental reality that an inefficient process can cost less overall than a highly efficient one?

One more time. Do you understand for example that while electric resistance heating is, by laws of physics, by definition, 100% efficient, it is NOT the most cost-effective way to heat most homes?

Yay or Nay?

 

[nwdiver]

We have a surplus of science nerds here, we need more accountants.

How do I get you to understand that efficiency according to physics does not dictate cost-effectiveness?

Can you possibly accept the fundamental reality that an inefficient process can cost less overall than a highly efficient one?

One more time. Do you understand for example that while electric resistance heating is, by laws of physics, by definition, 100% efficient, it is NOT the most cost-effective way to heat most homes?

Yay or Nay?

What does that have to do with FFEV vs BEV? Resistance electric is terrible because you only get 1 unit of heat per unit of electricity vs 3 or 4 with heat pumps. FFEVs are terrible because you only get ~1.5 miles per kWh (roughly the same as ICE) instead of 3 or 4 with a BEV.

..... what exactly do you think is accomplished with a H2 powered car? For the reasons stated above ICE is just as good and... you know.... already exists with all the infrastructure and stuff. When we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use..... THEN H2 will have an advantage. Until then it's BEV if you have ethics, ICE of you prioritize convenience or FFEV if you don't understand numbers...

 

[Guy V]

..... what exactly do you think is accomplished with a H2 powered car? For the reasons stated above ICE is just as good and... you know.... already exists with all the infrastructure and stuff. When we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use..... THEN H2 will have an advantage. Until then it's BEV if you have ethics, ICE of you prioritize convenience or FFEV if you don't understand numbers...

I just told you: Hydrogen and battery vehicles are both emission-free. Either one, given that it's power source is green, can displace one ICE vehicle which does produce emissions which damage the environment and climate. We need as many as we can get by whichever proposition.

 

[nwdiver]

I just told you: Hydrogen and battery vehicles are both emission-free. Either one, given that it's power source is green, can displace one ICE vehicle which does produce emissions which damage the environment and climate. We need as many as we can get by whichever proposition.

Do you not grasp the concept of a fungible commodity? Unlike electricity H2 can be stored. It can then be used as needed for what the market demands. H2 used for FFEVs is more H2 that needs to come from steam reforming. For the 4th time. Until our MASSIVE H2 deficit can be met with Green H2 increased demand comes from steam reforming.

Producing 10M kg/yr of H2? Cool... we need 20M kg/yr more to meet our demand for ammonia. Keep going.
Producing 20M kg/yr of H2? Cool... we need 10M kg/yr more to meet our demand for ammonia. Keep going.
Producing 30M kg/yr of H2? Cool... we need 30M kg/yr more to make green steel. Keep going.
Producing 40M kg/yr of H2? Cool... we need 20M kg/yr more to make green steel. Keep going.

etc, etc, etc...... until we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use.....

Seriously... it makes more sense to just keep using gasoline.... until we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use.....

 

[Guy V]

Do you not grasp the concept of a fungible commodity? Unlike electricity H2 can be stored. It can then be used as needed for what the market demands. H2 used for FFEVs is more H2 that needs to come from steam reforming. For the 4th time. Until our MASSIVE H2 deficit can be met with Green H2 increased demand comes from steam reforming.

Producing 10M kg/yr of H2? Cool... we need 20M kg/yr more to meet our demand for ammonia. Keep going.
Producing 20M kg/yr of H2? Cool... we need 10M kg/yr more to meet our demand for ammonia. Keep going.
Producing 30M kg/yr of H2? Cool... we need 30M kg/yr more to make green steel. Keep going.
Producing 40M kg/yr of H2? Cool... we need 20M kg/yr more to make green steel. Keep going.

etc, etc, etc...... until we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use.....

Seriously... it makes more sense to just keep using gasoline.... until we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use.....

It is not your physics that matter in how quickly we build out green energy sources. It is economics. Demand creates supply. Cost governs demand.

When a use case is cost-effective for a consumer's need they will pay for the energy and the generation capacity will be built.

The really great thing is that now this has driven technology solutions to the point where renewable energy is quickest and cheapest to build making regulatory and high-subsidy levers much less necessary.

 

[nwdiver]

It is not your physics that matter in how quickly we build out green energy sources. It is economics. Demand creates supply. Cost governs demand.

When a use case is cost-effective for a consumer's need they will pay for the energy and the generation capacity will be built.

The really great thing is that now this has driven technology solutions to the point where renewable energy is quickest and cheapest to build making regulatory and high-subsidy levers much less necessary.

......... yeah........ like I've been saying over and over and over........ eventually we will be flooded with clean energy and clean H2 and using that H2 in cars might make sense. Until that happens gasoline is the better option. Cleaner, Cheaper and more Convenient. Unless you want make the limited clean energy we currently have go further.... then it's BEV.

We don't need cars to drive H2 demand. We already use 30B kg/yr for ammonia, need ~30B kg/yr for steel and another ~100B kg/yr for aviation. Plenty of work for supply to catch up to. Decades of work.

 

[Guy V]

......... yeah........ like I've been saying over and over and over........ eventually we will be flooded with clean energy and clean H2 and using that H2 in cars might make sense. Until that happens gasoline is the better option. Cleaner, Cheaper and more Convenient. Unless you want make the limited clean energy we currently have go further.... then it's BEV.

So, you are really an oil company shill? LOLOL

You have it exactly backwards, when and if hydrogen satisfies a consumer's need, they will pay for that resource to be produced. As you have said about hydrogen, electricity is fungible. The power plant will not be built specifically for the hydrogen generation, it will be built to satisfy the incremental demand, which in our economy is still increasing. If the hydrogen is being used to power a vehicle that replaces an ICE vehicle I would see that to be far more beneficial than mining another Bitcoin.

 

[nwdiver]

So, you are really an oil company shill? LOLOL

No. I just understand numbers. 1kWh of Green H2 is better utilized to displace 1.3kWh of CH4 than < 1kWh of oil. Numbers. Until we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use burning H2 in cars is worse than useless.

What exactly is the goal? Convenience? Then drive ICE. Reducing emissions? Then drive a BEV. Until we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use FCEVs is literally the worst of both.

 

[eladts]

if they can ever actually generate zero pollution H2 from natural gas as they promise, that would be fine too.

Whoever promises such think either doesn't know chemistry or lies. When converting methane (CH₄) and water (H₂O) to hydrogen (H₂) you also produce carbon dioxide (CO₂) as a by-product. There is no way around it, the carbon and the oxygen have to go somewhere.

 

[miimura]

So, you are really an oil company shill? LOLOL

You have it exactly backwards, when and if hydrogen satisfies a consumer's need, they will pay for that resource to be produced. As you have said about hydrogen, electricity is fungible. The power plant will not be built specifically for the hydrogen generation, it will be built to satisfy the incremental demand, which in our economy is still increasing. If the hydrogen is being used to power a vehicle that replaces an ICE vehicle I would see that to be far more beneficial than mining another Bitcoin.

Hydrogen will never satisfy a consumer's need for propelling a light passenger ZEV because it will cost more than than a BEV and it will be less convenient in most cases.

1. Hydrogen filling infrastructure is expensive
2. Zero carbon hydrogen is expensive
3. Fuel cells and high pressure tanks are expensive.

When you have a vehicle that is not as suitable for BEV adaptation as a light passenger car, you might have a viable application of FCEV. Vehicles that have very high duty cycle benefit from fast hydrogen refueling.

 

[Guy V]

Whoever promises such think either doesn't know chemistry or lies. When converting methane (CH₄) and water (H₂O) to hydrogen (H₂) you also produce carbon dioxide (CO₂) as a by-product. There is no way around it, the carbon and the oxygen have to go somewhere.

Not true, there are means to capture the CO2, and one liquid metal one that that produces solid carbon as graphite as I recall. More avenues are being pursued, but the fundamental point is that such denials as we see here only create obstacles to opening up possibilities.

 

[Guy V]

No. I just understand numbers. 1kWh of Green H2 is better utilized to displace 1.3kWh of CH4 than < 1kWh of oil. Numbers. Until we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use burning H2 in cars is worse than useless.

What exactly is the goal? Convenience? Then drive ICE. Reducing emissions? Then drive a BEV. Until we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use FCEVs is literally the worst of both.

You don't understand the numbers with dollar signs attached.

 

[nwdiver]

You don't understand the numbers with dollar signs attached.

Does cheaper H2 change the physics? If you have 1kWh of H2 your choices are still to reduce CH4 by ~1.3kWh or oil by ~1. Which does more good? Why invest in new vehicles and infrastructure just to INCREASE emissions over ICE??? .... are you a shill for the fracking industry?

Until we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use burning H2 in cars is worse than useless.