Hydrogen vs. Battery

[eladts]

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.

While this is possible, it would require much more energy than you would be able to generate from the hydrogen, so it has the same problem as electrolysis.

 

[Guy V]

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.

1. Things are always expensive in prototype stage, economies are produced at scale and as that drives cost-reduction efforts. Do you think 100,000+ gas stations weren't expensive? But we have them.

2. Zero carbon hydrogen is only as expensive as the the energy inputs. I have also read of research on direct generation of hydrogen by sunlight, bypassing the need for electricity production and hydrolysis. And that's just one possibility.

3. Fuel Cells are no more expensive than batteries. Hydrogen does not have to be stored as a compressed gas. It can also be bonded and released chemically.

You can see my Tesla and solar panels in my profile picture, and I am currently waiting for my Cybertruck, but I've lived long enough to be fed up with the endless technology naysaying. I have seen so much of it proven pathetically wrong, again and again and again. I live my life surrounded by technological "impossibilities". I've read science fiction all my life and am absolutely amazed at how much of it has been made real, and to a significant extent I believe it's because young people read it and grew up to give those fantasies substance. Elon Musk of course is one of them.

 

[Guy V]

While this is possible, it would require much more energy than you would be able to generate from the hydrogen, so it has the same problem as electrolysis.

Oh, you know this for a fact do you? The naysayers are always so dead certain they know everything, but they produce nothing but obstacles to progress.

 

[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. 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.



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

Absolutely not. Reducing demand creates LESS energy production. We want more green energy. We want the cost to keep being driven cheaper. That's exactly how we become "Flooded with clean energy". That opens up currently unimaginable possibilities. I think we may need a lot of those unimaginable possibilities to deal with climate change.

 

[nwdiver]

Absolutely not. Reducing demand creates LESS energy production. We want more green energy. We want the cost to keep being driven cheaper. That's exactly how we become "Flooded with clean energy". That opens up currently unimaginable possibilities. I think we may need a lot of those unimaginable possibilities to deal with climate change.

??? Um..... we're producing < 200TWh/yr from clean energy and demand is >4,000TWh/yr, >6,000TWh/yr if you want a H2 economy. Demand is not the problem......

By that 'logic' we should keep using incandescent light bulbs......

 

[Guy V]

??? Um..... we're producing < 200TWh/yr from clean energy and demand is >4,000TWh/yr, >6,000TWh/yr if you want a H2 economy. Demand is not the problem......

I never said I want a hydrogen economy. I want a zero carbon economy. If hydrogen helps get us there in any way, if a stupid Toyota Mirai or equivalent powered by green hydrogen takes an ICE vehicle off the road I am for it.

 

[nwdiver]

I never said I want a hydrogen economy. I want a zero carbon economy. If hydrogen helps get us there in any way, if a stupid Toyota Mirai or equivalent powered by green hydrogen takes an ICE vehicle off the road I am for it.

If we don't have a surplus of Green H2 replacing an ICE with a vehicle using H2 INCREASES emissions. How does that move us closer to a zero carbon economy? Do you seriously not understand that? We need a SURPLUS of green H2 for H2 powered cars to have a positive effect.

If your goal is a zero carbon economy and you have a kg of H2 the best thing to do with it is make ammonia so there's less CH4 being used to make ammonia. The next best thing is to make steel so there's less coal being used to make steel. The 3rd best thing to do is to mix it into the Natural gas lines since they can carry ~20% H2 with no modifications. The 4th best thing is to displace aviation fuel since that can't be electrified. After ALLLLLL that is done. Probably round about ~2070 - 2100. THEN..... THEN using H2 in cars might get you closer to a zero carbon economy instead of further away.......

 

[stopcrazypp]

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?

It's actually accountants that decided that hydrogen doesn't work for passenger cars. Everything about it (from the production, to the transportation, to the fueling, to the storage, to the fuel cells) is too expensive. As others pointed it out, it may work for fleets where BEVs might not (like long haul trucking, maybe aircraft), but not for passenger cars.

And if you are talking about comparing the same energy source, efficiency very much does dictate cost-effectiveness. This is true whether you are talking about electrolysis (in which the more efficient vehicle would cost less to run). Or about NG based hydrogen, (whichever method is more efficient in using that NG would cost less).

The only scenario where this changes is as already mentioned: when we have so much renewable energy that it's "free". But we are very far from that case right now.

 

[Guy V]

If we don't have a surplus of Green H2 replacing an ICE with a vehicle using H2 INCREASES emissions. How does that move us closer to a zero carbon economy? Do you seriously not understand that? We need a SURPLUS of green H2 for H2 powered cars to have a positive effect.

If your goal is a zero carbon economy and you have a kg of H2 the best thing to do with it is make ammonia so there's less CH4 being used to make ammonia. The next best thing is to make steel so there's less coal being used to make steel. The 3rd best thing to do is to mix it into the Natural gas lines since they can carry ~20% H2 with no modifications. The 4th best thing is to displace aviation fuel since that can't be electrified. After ALLLLLL that is done. Probably round about ~2070 - 2100. THEN..... THEN using H2 in cars might get you closer to a zero carbon economy instead of further away.......

No, the best thing to do is increase demand for green hydrogen to drive down the cost of production just as we have done for wind and solar. Similar regulatory and subsidy support might help too. You're looking at things backwards, always backwards. Why are you wasting energy confronting anyone working toward green hydrogen instead of those producing dirty hydrogen?

 

[nwdiver]

No, the best thing to do is increase demand for green hydrogen to drive down the cost of production just as we have done for wind and solar.

???? If >30B kg/yr isn't enough do you really think a few million kg/yr for cars will make a difference???? There's already MASSIVE demand for green H2. We don't need more demand. How exactly am I working against green H2? I'm just opposed to squandering it. We need more Green H2 to make ammonia, steel and aviation fuel. THEN we can use it for cars.

It's insanely counter-productive to go through the trouble of making H2 and divert it to vehicles if we still need it to manufacture ammonia, steel or aviation fuel... things that you can't electrify like cars.

We don't even have enough wind and solar yet, FAR from it. That's why we need to work on both sides... increasing supply AND decreasing demand. Was it a mistake to reduce electric demand with LEDs???? Are you really that insane? How is what you're suggesting any different?

 

[Guy V]

???? If >30B kg/yr isn't enough do you really think a few million kg/yr for cars will make a difference???? There's already MASSIVE demand for green H2. We don't need more demand. How exactly am I working against green H2? I'm just opposed to squandering it. We need more Green H2 to make ammonia, steel and aviation fuel. THEN we can use it for cars.

It's insanely counter-productive to go through the trouble of making H2 and divert it to vehicles if we still need it to manufacture ammonia, steel or aviation fuel... things that you can't electrify like cars.

We don't even have enough wind and solar yet, FAR from it. That's why we need to work on both sides... increasing supply AND decreasing demand. Was it a mistake to reduce electric demand with LEDs???? Are you really that insane? How is what you're suggesting any different?

Who's insane? You just contradicted yourself saying hydrogen demand for vehicles wouldn't make a difference.

It isn't your job to decide what green hydrogen is best used for, for one thing, you're not up to it.

It's a great thing to improve energy use efficiency on the consumer side, it saves us money, and it's been most beneficial that it hasn't been green energy it reduced the need for, it slowed the building and increased the retirement of coal plants. But ramping up to provide energy to take ICE vehicles off the road is a positive.

Advocate for renewable energy production, you good with that? Advocate for green hydrogen production, you good with that? Don't get in the way of people working on doing that better, whatever their intended use. Don't get in the way of people working to use green energy to take ICE vehicles off the road.

And by the way, don't tell people they can't use electric resistance heat to keep their feet warm instead of raising the temperature of the whole house with an insanely expensive geothermal heat pump.

 

[nwdiver]

It isn't your job to decide what green hydrogen is best used for.

You said your goal was a zero carbon economy.... right? That's the ~progression because physics. Ammonia => Steel => Aviation => all other CH4 uses => cars. Most to least effective to achieving a zero carbon economy because Physics. If for example 10kg of H2 reduces CO2 by 20kg when used to make ammonia, 15kg when used to make steel, 10kg when used to make jet fuel and 5kg if you use it in a FCEV then shouldn't that be the ranked priority to achieve the goal because of how numbers work?

If you're trying to get out of debt and you have a 15%, 8% and 4% loan you don't pay down the 4% loan first because math. It's a similar concept. I'm not telling anyone to do anything.... I'm just explaining why FCEVs don't make any sense until we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use. You don't pay off the 4% loan until the 15% and 8% are paid. You don't squander Green H2 on cars if you're still producing H2 from steam reforming of CH4.

Don't get in the way of people working on doing that better, whatever their intended use.

That's the whole point here... you're NOT doing better. Until there's a surplus of Green H2 wasting H2 in a car is WORSE than just keeping ICE.

For Many, Hydrogen Is the Fuel of the Future. New Research Raises Doubts.​

 

[SageBrush]

We cannot know what science and technology innovation will provide

Keep digging. You just may find that huge lake of hydrogen

 

[SageBrush]

I've read science fiction all my life and am absolutely amazed at how much of it has been made real, and to a significant extent I believe it's because young people read it and grew up to give those fantasies substance. Elon Musk of course is one of them.

The same Elon Musk who thinks hydrogen cars are idiocy ?
You should read what Elon says, since you lack the science background. In a nutshell, he says that EVs have a physics advantage over hydrogen cars. That physics advantage was obscured for a while by practical consumer desires for long(er) range and fast(er) charging, but those obstacles are technological and are obviously going away.

It is not by chance that hydrogen has become the rallying cry for the NG industry. It is not good for much else.

 

[eladts]

Oh, you know this for a fact do you? The naysayers are always so dead certain they know everything, but they produce nothing but obstacles to progress.

Yes, it is a fact because the laws of Chemistry. You are not going to produce anything by ignoring science.

 

[ohmman]

Well, I'm sorry I woke this thread from sleep.

Quick moderator note - Some of these arguments are bordering on personal, and those should be avoided as they're not permitted here. I'd also gently suggest that it's quite possible every point that can be made in this particular sub-argument has been made. Opinions aren't changing, and neither are facts.

 

[daniel]

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.

Physics again: Surprisingly, the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the U.S. today are cleaner than any gas-powered cars sold in the U.S. today, with the possible exception of the Prius, which is about the same. This is because of the efficiencies of scale and the fact that most people fail to understand just how dirty gasoline cars are. (If you live in a big U.S. city to can see how dirty they are!)

But the U.S. grid today is not all coal. The average U.S. grid electricity is much cleaner than coal. Which means that BEVs in the U.S. today are much cleaner than coal.

Economics & physics: While you can use solar electricity, or nuclear-generated electricity to electrolyze water to make H2, doing that you've added a step (an unnecessary step) in the process:

Version one: Make electricity from sunlight, use that electricity in a car.

Version two: Make electricity from sunlight, use that electricity to make hydrogen, use that hydrogen in a car.

Version two adds cost (the electrolyzer) and reduces efficiency (the added step in the process).

In addition, distributing H2 is more costly and technically difficult than distributing electricity. It can be done, but it's much harder.

The Toyota Mirai was introduced in 2014 and is still such a niche car that they have to practically give it away and you can only drive it in a few limited areas in California that have H2 stations, and you need to check your app first to make sire your station is functioning.

The Tesla Model S was introduced just two years earlier (I don't count the Roadster, which was a toy for the rich) and today there are superchargers all over the country and most people can plug in at home, and many of us already make our own electricity for our BEVs, and electric cars are now mainstream. BEV's are all over the place!

There's a reason for all this: BEVs are more economical, more convenient, more efficient than FCEVs.

 

[eladts]

The Toyota Mirai was introduced in 2014 and is still such a niche car that they have to practically give it away and you can only drive it in a few limited areas in California that have H2 stations, and you need to check your app first to make sire your station is functioning.

The Tesla Model S was introduced just two years earlier (I don't count the Roadster, which was a toy for the rich) and today there are superchargers all over the country and most people can plug in at home, and many of us already make our own electricity for our BEVs, and electric cars are now mainstream. BEV's are all over the place!

The Model S could go coast to coast in 2014, just two years after its introduction. The Toyota Mirai can't do this even today, seven years after its introduction.

 

[Guy V]

You said your goal was a zero carbon economy.... right? That's the ~progression because physics. Ammonia => Steel => Aviation => all other CH4 uses => cars. Most to least effective to achieving a zero carbon economy because Physics. If for example 10kg of H2 reduces CO2 by 20kg when used to make ammonia, 15kg when used to make steel, 10kg when used to make jet fuel and 5kg if you use it in a FCEV then shouldn't that be the ranked priority to achieve the goal because of how numbers work?

If you're trying to get out of debt and you have a 15%, 8% and 4% loan you don't pay down the 4% loan first because math. It's a similar concept. I'm not telling anyone to do anything.... I'm just explaining why FCEVs don't make any sense until we're 'flooded with clean energy' with more H2 than we can use. You don't pay off the 4% loan until the 15% and 8% are paid. You don't squander Green H2 on cars if you're still producing H2 from steam reforming of CH4.



That's the whole point here... you're NOT doing better. Until there's a surplus of Green H2 wasting H2 in a car is WORSE than just keeping ICE.

For Many, Hydrogen Is the Fuel of the Future. New Research Raises Doubts.​

The real point is that it just does not work that way. It is not best physics that will get the job done, it is greatest motivation. People are not buying Teslas because physics says they are the most efficient use of energy, Tesla made them desirable, performance and cost-competitive with the most coveted cars in the world. They have displaced ICE vehicles faster than any other. That's real accomplishment.

Where are you going to dig up the motivation and the funding to address the use cases that most concern you? Quoting physics isn't going to inspire those who are satisfied with the status quo.

 

[nwdiver]

People are not buying Teslas because physics says they are the most efficient use of energy,

..... if my Model S used 2x as much energy I would have just kept my Jetta TDI because numbers.

You.... you think that people would still buy a BEV if they got ~50mpge instead of >100mpge? Really? No doubt a few would.... probably roughly the same number that got suckered into a Miraii. But that is precisely WHY BEVs are sold in the millions instead of the hundreds like FCEVs.... physics.