-
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
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
Yes, that's the only way this makes sense. Basically, just the next logical step from converting to H2 forklifts.
However, the quote in the article makes it seem as though this is just a starting point for future expansion into the freight sector...when it's unlikely to lead anywhere else.
Yes, that's what they say. On paper it will work, even if I don't think Nikola will deliver a single vehicle.
brucet999
Active Member
BMW's liquid H2 engine uses a large tank kept at cryo temperatures by maintaining its insulation at a high vacuum. Still, it must vent hydrogen to keep pressure down when not in use, and in 10 days of non-use loses all its H2.
That's some vampire drain!
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Not to mention the wasted energy compressing, cooling then reheating the H2BMW's liquid H2 engine uses a large tank kept at cryo temperatures by maintaining its insulation at a high vacuum. Still, it must vent hydrogen to keep pressure down when not in use, and in 10 days of non-use loses all its H2.
That's some vampire drain!
temp of liquid Hydrogen, -423 F, (and it can combust, obviously, and is way more dangerous) temp of liquid Nitrogen -321 F.BMW's liquid H2 engine uses a large tank kept at cryo temperatures by maintaining its insulation at a high vacuum. Still, it must vent hydrogen to keep pressure down when not in use, and in 10 days of non-use loses all its H2.
That's some vampire drain!
you could, and can, casually walk down the halls at NIH, building 10, and other buildings and research labs, past numerous ~5ft high, ~2ft diameter tanks of LN (liquid Nitrogen) without too much thought, and truck loads of tanks are delivered daily. (Ultra freezers kept at -180 or so F)
OTOH, I would be extremely leery about tanks of LH anywhere within 1/2 mile of anywhere I was, especially in enclosed spaces, would refuse to enter the building.
The chemistry labs at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, ha d no floors above the labs so any explosions did not pancake above floors. 52,000 LP (natural gas) bottles blew up one night in a chain reaction series of fires and explosions in Florida last summer. spectacular expolsions "just happen"
You cannot casually fool around with "Liquid Hydrogen" without amazing pressurized fireballs
(try driving a camper with a 20 pound LP gas bottle through a tunnel without being arrested. much less a cryo tank)
Last edited:
I may be way behind the times on this, but last I read, H2 fuel cells had a relatively short lifespan, compared to internal combustion engines. As far as electric motors, I would imagine they'd last forever, with an occasional replacement of the bearings (and the brushes for motors with brushes).
Have they solved this problem yet, or are they just ignoring it and assuming folks will pay for a new (very expensive) fuel cell at frequent intervals? I have a hydrogen fuel cell car. It's a fully-functional toy, big enough for a mouse to ride on if you trained a mouse to sit still on it, or if the mouse was dead. (Monte Python reference, except that my car is too small for a parrot.) It's a really cute little thing. It's a great toy if you love gadgets. But it makes the technology seem utterly impractical. The high cost of the little fuel cell, and the inordinate amount of time it takes to charge it (using its built-in solar cell that runs the fuel cell backwards to produce the H2) would render it useless as practical transportation.
For all the issues of weight, cost, and energy density of batteries, they seem far more practical than fuel cells.
Burning H2 in an internal (or external!) combustion engine is an entirely different matter: trading pollution for reduced range and increased explosion hazard might have some benefits in pollution-plagued areas. But electrified rail might be better yet.
Have they solved this problem yet, or are they just ignoring it and assuming folks will pay for a new (very expensive) fuel cell at frequent intervals? I have a hydrogen fuel cell car. It's a fully-functional toy, big enough for a mouse to ride on if you trained a mouse to sit still on it, or if the mouse was dead. (Monte Python reference, except that my car is too small for a parrot.) It's a really cute little thing. It's a great toy if you love gadgets. But it makes the technology seem utterly impractical. The high cost of the little fuel cell, and the inordinate amount of time it takes to charge it (using its built-in solar cell that runs the fuel cell backwards to produce the H2) would render it useless as practical transportation.
For all the issues of weight, cost, and energy density of batteries, they seem far more practical than fuel cells.
Burning H2 in an internal (or external!) combustion engine is an entirely different matter: trading pollution for reduced range and increased explosion hazard might have some benefits in pollution-plagued areas. But electrified rail might be better yet.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
According to Nikola, it's merely compressed Hydrogen, not liquid.
Nikola Motor Company | Premium Electric Vehicles
Nikola Motor Company | Premium Electric Vehicles
Electric700
Active Member
All the more reason to go 100% electric, not to mention the inherit energy efficiency issues with hydrogen.
It's just so easy to plug in or even better, charge my EV wirelessly using something like Plugless Power.
The main page says:
Nikola Motor Company | Premium Electric Vehicles
I know I've read on their site that the Nikola One would use liquid hydrogen, but maybe they've changed their minds. 200 kg of hydrgen stored at 700 bar would require tanks weighing around 4 metric tons, though.
My understanding is that wireless charging, while considered convenient by some, is inefficient. I think it's better to have a wired connection for something using as much energy as a car. (Cell phones might not use enough energy for the inefficiency to make a difference.) It takes me literally about five seconds to plug in my car, and about the same to unplug it.
Except for solar, and wind, and hydro, and geothermal, and probably several others I'm not thinking of at the moment. And of course if they're going to put up solar farms (an excellent thing to do) the question remains whether it's more efficient and convenient to turn it into hydrogen, or just transmit and use it as electricity.
I believe liquid hydrogen is a lot safer than compressed hydrogen. Just like with gasoline, the hydrogen would need to evaporate and mix with air before you have a flammable/explosive mix. If you shoot a hole in a liquid hydrogen tank, hydrogen will pour out, pool on the floor, evaporate, mix with air and burn. If you shoot a hole in a compressed hydrogen tank, a massive jet of hydrogen will stand out of the tank. The noise alone will be enough to rupture your ear drums, but that's just the start. If you're lucky, it ignites right away, and the jet of gas turns into a column of flame, while if you're unlucky, it doesn't ignite right away, mixing with air before the slightest spark sets off a massive explosion.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
But that's also a perfect use for Tesla's EV semis. I don't see that hydrogen has an advantage.
brucet999
Active Member
But it is not even a complete trade off. The BM hydrogen ICE car can switch seamlessly from H2 to gasoline, so we know it is a high compression enginel. While H2 ICE would emit no hydrocarbons, CO nor CO2, It would certainly emit NOx because there would still be high compression and temperature to react at least part of the 80% of combustion air that is nitrogen.
brucet999
Active Member
I only said it made sense for a relatively short 200 mi range vehicle to operate locally around the seaports.
Lower tare weight and quicker refueling would be advantages for H2, but vastly lower energy efficiency and cost and safety measures of an H2 storage/fueling infrastructure might outweigh that advantage, especially if batteries were swappable to reduce tractor downtime.
I discussed all this on the Nikola One thread...
Is the Toyota issue down to Japanese management culture?
Is the Toyota issue down to Japanese management culture?
brucet999
Active Member
You may have gotten that from their fuel consumption claim of 13 - 15 mpg. Presumably that is mpg equivalent.
Under "fuel tanks" it says compressed hydrogen.
Similar threads
