Hydrogen vs. Battery

[eladts]

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.

Motivation and funding allow engineers to unlock the potential of technologies, but they won't allow them to break the laws of physics. Toyota had plenty of motivation and almost unlimited funding to develop FCEV. How many car did they sell?

 

[daniel]

I can fuel my BEV for free, at home.

The only way you can fuel a hydrogen car for free is if they give you a gift card for free fuel (which they do in order to get people to drive the thing. And you can't fuel it at home.

If you gave me an electrolyzer, I could fuel a hydrogen car for free, but because of the added conversion step I'd have to use more electricity to do it, which would mean I'd need more solar panels.

If you drive a Mirai today, you're really just using natural gas, and using it less efficiently than if you burned the natural gas directly in an ICE. And to do that you don't need a whole new car. You just need a natgas tank (much cheaper than an H2 tank) and a modification to your fuel injectors.

But since I can fuel my BEV for free at home, a hydrogen car seems pretty pointless.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

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.

Well, to be fair, even if BEVs only got 50mpge they still have the advantage of being fun to drive. FCEVs are...driveable.

 

[nwdiver]

FCEVs are...driveable.

.... until you get to the bottom of the hill

 

[Guy V]

..... 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.

It's people who ought to know better making choices damaging to the planet who are part of the problem.

If the EV had the same range but took twice as much energy from your solar panels it would still be a far better choice than the diesel, particularly one cheating on government regulations.

 

[Guy V]

Motivation and funding allow engineers to unlock the potential of technologies, but they won't allow them to break the laws of physics. Toyota had plenty of motivation and almost unlimited funding to develop FCEV. How many car did they sell?

Exactly, they didn't motivate the CONSUMER.

That's what I keep telling nwdiver, he has it backwards, you must start with creating demand.

 

[nwdiver]

If the EV had the same range but took twice as much energy from your solar panels it would still be a far better choice than the diesel, particularly one cheating on government regulations.

???? How? If a EV used ~2x as much energy driving 50 miles in the EV would result in ~25# of CO2. Driving 50 miles in the TDI would result in ~20# of CO2. Why would I spend $100k to increase my emissions by ~25%???? Explain how 0.5# of CO2 per mile is better than 0.4# per mile. Math.

you must start with creating demand.

???? Where are you getting this? The demand has been created. We use >70B kg/yr of H2... the demand is there.

 

[Guy V]

???? How? If a EV used ~2x as much energy driving 50 miles in the EV would result in ~25# of CO2. Driving 50 miles in the TDI would result in ~20# of CO2. Why would I spend $100k to increase my emissions by ~25%????



???? Where are you getting this? The demand has been created. We use >70B kg/yr of H2... the demand is there.

An EV using green energy isn't emitting any CO2.

 

[nwdiver]

An EV using green energy isn't emitting any CO2.

.... YES.... it IS.... ~99% of solar is grid-tied. I can export and displace fools fuel OR use it to charge an EV. What about this confuses you? Hence the 'UNTIL WE'RE FLOODED WITH CLEAN ENERGY' bit I keep repeating. What about that don't you get?

If driving my TDI meant that I could export 40MWh reducing emissions by 20 tons of CO2 and the oil consumed emitted 15 tons OR I can use the 40MWh to charge an EV exporting 0 then driving the TDI would be the better choice because... THAT'S HOW NUMBERS WORK.

 

[Guy V]

.... YES.... it IS.... ~99% of solar is grid-tied. I can export and displace fools fuel OR use it to charge an EV. What about this confuses you? Hence the 'UNTIL WE'RE FLOODED WITH CLEAN ENERGY' bit I keep repeating. What about that don't you get?

You still have it backward, the goal is to shift to green energy. I even stated from your solar panels, if it needed twice as much you can install twice as much. Displacement is bogus if you are creating green energy production to fulfill. the demand.

Your diesel which you would rather continue to drive and support the oil companies does this:

The primary pollutants emitted from diesel engines include:

• Particulate matter (PM)
• Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
• Hydrocarbons (HC)
• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
• Other chemicals that are classified as “hazardous air pollutants” under The Clean Air Act

 

[nwdiver]

You still have it backward, the goal is to shift to green energy. I even stated from your solar panels, if it needed twice as much you can install twice as much.

That easy? Just 2x? 1) My roof literally can't fit more panels. 2) Why? Why spend more to accomplish the same task?

How do you think this works? If enough people want 10TW of solar it just appears? It's taken ~20 years to get to ~3.5% wind and solar. We can't just squander clean energy because..... reasons?

 

[Guy V]

That easy? Just 2x? 1) My roof literally can't fit more panels. 2) Why? Why spend more to accomplish the same task?

How do you think this works? If enough people want 10TW of solar it just appears? It's taken ~20 years to get to ~3.5% wind and solar. We can't just squander clean energy because..... reasons?

LOLOL, I'm not saying we should make the Model S need 50% more energy, I said that even if did it would still be a far better choice than diesel.

Toyota did not develop the Mirai to be a compelling competitive car; it did not develop it to take sales away from Lexus. It was built as a distraction the same as GM built the EV-1. In the new environment where it knew full well that EVs were becoming a competitive reality, it built it as a distraction to undermine a consensus that batteries were the way to bet on the future, to help let equivocating manufacturers stay sitting on the fence.

Dieselgate was a great gift that made VW get off the fence real fast. It was a gift to VW too, though at a pretty steep price, but they now expect to very soon be selling more EVs than anyone else, including Tesla. They may be wrong, but they certainly have a fair shot at it. Toyota, wasting all that they have learned about electrification from hybrids, not so much.

Getting back to hydrogen, you do nothing but try to point out how it is impossible according physics to actually make a compelling hydrogen car because there are barriers and chokepoints, so everyone should stop trying, the same kind of arguments not long ago made against battery cars. First of all, why do insist on trying to get in the way of people working on the problems? Those problems are opportunities if they can be overcome. Secondly your argument that the inefficiencies of the physics involved make it impossible is insupportable. The hydrogen vehicles we have already seen are still twice as energy efficient as ICE but we have sold hundreds of millions of those.

 

[nwdiver]

you do nothing but try to point out how it is impossible according physics to actually make a compelling hydrogen car because there are barriers and chokepoints, so everyone should stop trying, the same kind of arguments not long ago made against battery cars.

I said no such thing. For the ~10th time....

Hence the 'UNTIL WE'RE FLOODED WITH CLEAN ENERGY' bit I keep repeating. What about that don't you get?

The 'barriers and checkpoints' are the reality that until we have a surplus of green H2 a H2 powered car will only move us further away from a zero carbon economy. Just as if BEVs used 2x as much energy using them instead of ICE would also move us further away from a zero carbon economy UNTIL..... WE'RE FLOODED WITH CLEAN ENERGY.

Take this to an extreme. Assume BEVs are absurdly inefficient, would it be better to use 1 MILLION solar panels covering 10 acres to charge an EV instead driving an ICE? No? Ok... then at what point does it start to make sense? Math. You've made this lazy assumption that anything is better than fools fuel. That's not necessarily true... because numbers.

 

[Guy V]

I said no such thing. For the ~10th time....



The 'barriers and checkpoints' are the reality that until we have a surplus of green H2 a H2 powered car will only move us further away from a zero carbon economy. Just as if BEVs used 2x as much energy using them instead of ICE would also move us further away from a zero carbon economy UNTIL..... WE'RE FLOODED WITH CLEAN ENERGY.

Take this to an extreme. Assume BEVs are absurdly inefficient, would it be better to use 1 MILLION solar panels covering 10 acres to charge an EV instead driving an ICE? No? Ok... then at what point does it start to make sense? Math. You've made this lazy assumption that anything is better than fools fuel. That's not necessarily true... because numbers.

No, just let it go and stop taking it to the extreme.

It is absolutely ludicrous to insist people not make their preferred use of clean energy until your favored priorities are met. It takes tackling the problem everywhere possibilities exist, and transportation is 25% percent of the problem. It is nonsensical to make a checklist and say we can't work on B and C until A has been completed, especially when those working on A have minimal enthusiasm. Where is that big drive to get what you believe to be highest priority done? If it's so all-consuming (literally) important where is the massive effort that everything else should wait for?

Instead let all who are motivated work to promote production of the resources their projects require. The greater push there is for green hydrogen the more quickly it will be produced in quantity. Exactly the same is true for green energy, It is like saying you can't use wind or solar for anything else until all coal and natural gas plants have been replaced. We will only be "FLOODED WITH CLEAN ENERGY" when everyone who can find use for it works to get the capacity built. Think it through, these things can't be ranked and ordered by energy efficiency and done one at a time. That's a perfect formula for getting the least accomplished.

 

[nwdiver]

No, just let it go and stop taking it to the extreme.

It is absolutely ludicrous to insist people not make their preferred use of clean energy until your favored priorities are met.

It is like saying you can't use wind or solar for anything else until all coal and natural gas plants have been replaced.

No, where would it make sense? 500,000 solar panels? 200,000? There is a number. What is it?

Not my priorities... just numbers. If you have 3 credit cards at 15%, 8% and 4% and your goal is to get out of debt quickly which do you pay off first? Is that a 'favored priority' or just math? Why is this any different. It's. Just. Math.

Nope. Never said that either. Just explained the reality that as long as we lack a surplus of RE frivolous use of that RE moves us further away from a zero carbon economy. Fortunately EVs are efficient enough that they work. Unfortunately FCEVs use too much energy to be useful. It's. Just. Math.

If you ignore reality and pay off the 4% card first instead of the 15% card because.... reasons.... that's a perfect formula for getting the least accomplished.

 

[dhrivnak]

The one thing I see missing from this discussion is a VERY good use for green hydrogen and that is in peaker plants. I think we can all agree solar and wind do have intermittency issues. While batteries can work they are in short supply and expensive. So store green hydrogen from some excess solar and wind production to use when needed. We can use a good part of the natural gas assets making this conversion relatively easy. For cars I believe batteries have a huge advantage over a very expensive infrastructure needed to support it and the higher conversion costs. But hydrogen can be a great way to bridge cloudy and/or windless days.

 

[JRP3]

So store green hydrogen from some excess solar and wind production to use when needed.

Long term storage of hydrogen has it's own issues, it likes to escape containment. Plus the further efficiency loss of burning hydrogen in peaker plants. Also the fact that there is no green hydrogen now nor will there be in the near future. We'll increase battery supply faster than we'll create enough green hydrogen to matter.

 

[daniel]

If the EV had the same range but took twice as much energy from your solar panels it would still be a far better choice than the diesel, particularly one cheating on government regulations.

Correct. My BEV would be the better choice than diesel, gas, or H2 regardless of how efficient or inefficient it was because the electricity is all free.

My point was that even if I had free H2 from my own electrolyzer, and even if somebody gave me that electrolyzer for free, my BEV is still the better choice because it doesn't put as much demand on my solar panels as making H2 for a FCEV would do.

But I don't have an electrolyzer, so if I had a FCEV I'd have to buy H2 made from fossil fuel and pay more for it than I'd pay for gas or diesel if I had an ICE gas car.

~99% of solar is grid-tied. I can export and displace fools fuel OR use it to charge an EV. What about this confuses you? Hence the 'UNTIL WE'RE FLOODED WITH CLEAN ENERGY' bit I keep repeating. What about that don't you get?

My home is grid-connected only for load balancing, which I only need because of my air conditioner. My A/C is not 100% green. It's only about 99.99% green. The starting amperage is supplied by the grid. My car doesn't use any grid energy. My batteries store energy for when the sun isn't shining. And even with those batteries, my system was still cheaper to install than buying energy from the grid.

The one thing I see missing from this discussion is a VERY good use for green hydrogen and that is in peaker plants. I think we can all agree solar and wind do have intermittency issues. While batteries can work they are in short supply and expensive. So store green hydrogen from some excess solar and wind production to use when needed. We can use a good part of the natural gas assets making this conversion relatively easy. For cars I believe batteries have a huge advantage over a very expensive infrastructure needed to support it and the higher conversion costs. But hydrogen can be a great way to bridge cloudy and/or windless days.

Batteries are in limited supply and expensive. Electrolyzers and fuel cells are in even shorter supply and probably equally expensive and fuel cells have a shorter service life than even batteries. And while battery storage just requires batteries, H2 storage requires electrolyzers to convert the electricity into H2, very expensive very high-tech tanks to store it, compressors to get it into those tanks, energy to run the compressors, and fuel cells to convert it back to electricity. And to do that on a grid scale, the electrolyzers, compressors, and fuel cells would have to be massive!

H2 as storage for an intermittent electrical supply is a fail on so many levels that the only reason it's even on the table is because H2 is a ploy to keep using fossil fuel.

 

[Guy V]

No, where would it make sense? 500,000 solar panels? 200,000? There is a number. What is it?

Not my priorities... just numbers. If you have 3 credit cards at 15%, 8% and 4% and your goal is to get out of debt quickly which do you pay off first? Is that a 'favored priority' or just math? Why is this any different. It's. Just. Math.

Nope. Never said that either. Just explained the reality that as long as we lack a surplus of RE frivolous use of that RE moves us further away from a zero carbon economy. Fortunately EVs are efficient enough that they work. Unfortunately FCEVs use too much energy to be useful. It's. Just. Math.

If you ignore reality and pay off the 4% card first instead of the 15% card because.... reasons.... that's a perfect formula for getting the least accomplished.

You are just too narrow-minded, oops sorry, I mean tightly focused. Things will progress as they always do, when demand and creativity drive countless small steps of technological improvements and innovative breakthroughs that sidestep the narrow paths of obstacles that you see in the laws of physics. Perhaps someone will develop an inexpensive way to chemically release hydrogen power by direct sunlight, they are working on that. Perhaps someone will be able to cheaply store and release hydrogen chemically by photo/electrical trigger, they are working on that. LOL, maybe we will actually get compact cold fusion generators in our basements. Of course you would give us numbers that show there are not enough basements.

As to paying off credit card balances, I believe what works best is to get that good job you were pursing and then be able to get a low-interest loan to pay them all off at once. On the other hand perhaps you get an inheritance, win the lottery, marry someone wealthy,... You would probably quote odds against each of those, but all of those things DO HAPPEN. Most people are looking for career advancement of some kind, a lot of folks will be getting that inheritance as us boomers die off, and a lot of young folks, older ones too I suppose, are out there looking for a well-off spouse.

The thing is, the naysayers do not help, they just get in the way and make things that much harder for those who are looking for solutions.

 

[dhrivnak]

Long term storage of hydrogen has it's own issues, it likes to escape containment. Plus the further efficiency loss of burning hydrogen in peaker plants. Also the fact that there is no green hydrogen now nor will there be in the near future. We'll increase battery supply faster than we'll create enough green hydrogen to matter.

While true, storing hydrogen near a peaker plant is an order of magnitude easier than building hydrogen stations across the country and supplying them. And of course much safer than having compressed hydrogen in cars on the road.