Hydrogen vs. Battery

[nwdiver]

Renewables didn't just magically become cheaper, people have had to work on that for decades, driven by demand from whatever use cases would fund them.

Did renewables start getting cheap before or after we started using it to charge EVs? Did EVs even make a difference? Was there a correlation between the cost of renewables and the number of EVs? No. So why would FCEVs and Green H2 be any different?

There was plenty of demand for clean electricity.... we didn't need EVs to get cheap renewables. There is plenty of demand for green H2. FCEVs aren't going increase the amount of green H2 produced. All they're going to do is increase demand for CH4 until we're flooded with clean energy.

 

[Guy V]

Did renewables start getting cheap before or after we started using it to charge EVs? Did EVs even make a difference? Was there a correlation between the cost of renewables the number of EVs? No. So why would FCEVs and H2 be any different?

You have answered your own questions incorrectly.

 

[nwdiver]

You have answered your own questions incorrectly.

Really? If there's a correlation to EVs and the price of renewables then where on this graph did EVs start to really be introduced to the pubic? Where's the correlation?

US electric demand was actually flat even as the cost of renewables plummeted. How is that possible?

 

[miimura]

1. You can't predict that definitively, one thing being worked on is economical small scale point of use generation of hydrogen, such as at fueling stations.

2. "nobody has come up with" YET. There is no restriction on generating hydrogen only from surplus renewable. There is no reason not to build as much additional renewable energy production as meets your overall cost requirements. More of that for multiple purposes provides additional synergies.

3. You are over-reaching. You are making claims about "any other method" which you logically can't support because you can't know of every other method and how they may be pursued.

Finally, you overlook that practicality is not a necessary criteria, or we wouldn't have Tesla in the first place. Most of what humans pursue has little basis in practicality. The goal here is to stop doing the things that we know threaten our continued existence.

1. You misunderstand me. I'm not even talking about generating the hydrogen, I'm talking about the cost of the equipment to put it in a vehicle.

2. We agree that "there is no reason not to build as much additional renewable energy production" as possible. What does this have to do with the suitability of FCEV to our transportation needs? If you want to fuel a FCEV, you still need to produce renewable hydrogen and build infrastructure to dispense it into vehicles.

3. I'm talking about methods of storing hydrogen that are known today. Any storage solution that is not even known today in a laboratory will not be commercialized and deployed in any meaningful way to meet today's climate crisis.

I fundamentally disagree with you about practicality. I am talking about practicality in the sense of technology being cost effective and scalable to a magnitude that can make a difference in reducing the threats to our existence.

Investing the same amount of money in scaling up the production of batteries and EV charging infrastructure compared to scaling up the production of fuel cells, renewable hydrogen production, and hydrogen fueling infrastructure will result in far more BEVs on the road and far more vehicle miles traveled per dollar than FCEV. This I am certain.

 

[daniel]

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

This is a circular logic fallacy: We are giving reasons why H2 is inferior to batteries. You are assuming we are wrong and then accusing us of being naysayers. Calling us naysayers does not advance your argument in favor of H2.

I was not talking about Electrolyzers as I would burn H2 in peaker plants similar to natural gas. We have the infrastructure and green hydrogen would be far cleaner than fracking for more natural gas.

You are confused: Electrolyzers are the machines that electrolyze water to make H2. If you are going to burn the H2 in turbine generators (similar to natgas) then you've eliminated the fuel cells. Not the electrolyzers. Unless your plan is to continue using dirty H2 from fossil fuel. But that defeats the whole purpose, which was to store excess renewable energy for use later.

Solar panels and wind turbines produce electricity. If we want to store that in the form of H2 for later use, we need equipment to electrolyze water. That equipment is an electrolyzer. The most efficient way to then turn that H2 back into electricity when it's needed is a fuel cell, which is expensive and has a limited service life. Burning the H2 in a turbine is less efficient, so more of your original electricity is lost.

Not to mention that you need to compress the H2, which is very difficult to do and very energy-intensive and requires very expensive storage tanks.

H2 as a storage medium requires a great deal of expensive infrastructure. The infrastructure for battery storage already exists. Storing energy as H2 is centralized. Solar+battery is decentralized. Every home can have solar panels and batteries. But Big Business doesn't like that because there's no way to charge for the energy. Once you have solar+batteries you're independent. With H2 you're depending on the energy company that can keep charging you forever. Also, for the near term, all the H2 comes from fossil fuel. H2 means that the oil industry gets to continue fracking and selling natural gas in the form of H2. Burning H2 or using it in a fuel cell does not release CO2, but making H2 from natgas does release CO2. So the hydrogen economy drives climate change. FCEV cars are making the climate catastrophe worse!

The choice is simple: If you're a corporation you want H2. If you're a consumer, you want solar + batteries.

 

[Guy V]

Really? If there's a correlation to EVs and the price of renewables then where on this graph did EVs start to really be introduced to the pubic? Where's the correlation?


View attachment 696915

US electric demand was actually flat even as the cost of renewables plummeted. How is that possible?

View attachment 696917

LOLOL, you cannot deny that renewables have become less expensive and EVs have become more numerous, it's pathetic to try. For one thing it is no coincidence many owners of EVs are also owners of solar panels. Each reinforces the value of the other. China is both the largest producer of solar panels and largest producer of EVs.

You cannot point to blips on your curves for specific individual causations because they are the culminations of very many separate efforts and programs, which is exactly what we need to encourage, to not only continue, but accelerate the progress. They more fronts we can tackle undoing the damage to our environment the better our odds of keeping the planet livable.

 

[nwdiver]

LOLOL, you cannot deny that renewables have become less expensive and EVs have become more numerous,

ok.... then show me on that graph where EVs became more numerous. Where's the correlation? How can there be causation if there isn't even any correlation? THEN demand was flat even as the cost of renewables fell.... how does that fit into your idea that you need more demand for costs to fall?

They more fronts we can tackle undoing the damage to our environment the better our odds of keeping the planet livable.

Exactly! Is not reducing demand for fools fuel one of those fronts? Isn't using less methane better? With RE < 4% of electric generation and green H2 < 5% of H2 a FCEVs results in MORE methane being burned, does that not make them part of the problem not the solution?

 

[Guy V]

1. You misunderstand me. I'm not even talking about generating the hydrogen, I'm talking about the cost of the equipment to put it in a vehicle.

2. We agree that "there is no reason not to build as much additional renewable energy production" as possible. What does this have to do with the suitability of FCEV to our transportation needs? If you want to fuel a FCEV, you still need to produce renewable hydrogen and build infrastructure to dispense it into vehicles.

3. I'm talking about methods of storing hydrogen that are known today. Any storage solution that is not even known today in a laboratory will not be commercialized and deployed in any meaningful way to meet today's climate crisis.

I fundamentally disagree with you about practicality. I am talking about practicality in the sense of technology being cost effective and scalable to a magnitude that can make a difference in reducing the threats to our existence.

Investing the same amount of money in scaling up the production of batteries and EV charging infrastructure compared to scaling up the production of fuel cells, renewable hydrogen production, and hydrogen fueling infrastructure will result in far more BEVs on the road and far more vehicle miles traveled per dollar than FCEV. This I am certain.

1. You aren't? Why not? Others are, and it is critical to any cost-effective use of green hydrogen. Dirty hydrogen is a key objection of potential hydrogen vehicle purchasers, just as coal-fired electricity is to battery vehicles. The idea of blue hydrogen is just a sop to oil companies.

The cost of the equipment is something to work on, something that is being worked on. How do you think renewable electricity has gotten so cheap? How have batteries gotten cheap enough to power cars? It's though money and effort, and that's what it will take fuel cells cost-effective.

2. The same applies to storage and distribution, and oops, now you are talking about production which you just said you weren't talking about. I'm glad though that at least someone agrees we build out additional as we need it for a use case. It has much to do with the suitability because low cost of green source energy is a key element in the cost equation to overcome the objection that hydrogen is less efficient. If the energy is sufficiently cheap and available that doesn't need to matter. ICE after all is less than 20% efficient and we have all too much of that.

3. You can only talk about known to you today, not all that are being explored and worked on. It takes some conceit to predict the results of work you are unaware of.

The old argument that it will take too long is bogus. You will never get there if you don't start. Every technology that offers the potential to reduce the threats to our existence should be pursued. I do not understand why so many hear assume they are somehow mutually exclusive to one another. The fact is that many such efforts may reinforce one another, and certainly will contribute to the sum of knowledge.

I keep seeing the same economic fallacies being repeated. Money spent on production of batteries and charging infrastructure will depend on the enthusiasm and demand for those, not on how much may be spent on hydrogen vehicles, rockets to Mars, NFL football teams or anything else. There is no shortage of money that could be better utilized considering how much is spent on fashion and cosmetics.

 

[Guy V]

ok.... then show me on that graph where EVs became more numerous. Where's the correlation? How can there be causation if there isn't even any correlation? THEN demand was flat even as the cost of renewables fell.... how does that fit into your idea that you need more demand for costs to fall?



Exactly! Is not reducing demand for fools fuel one of those fronts? Isn't using less methane better? With RE < 4% of electric generation and green H2 < 5% of H2 a FCEVs results in MORE methane being burned, does that not make them part of the problem not the solution?

I can't help that you can't see what is in front of your face.

I keep telling you green hydrogen, not brown, not blue, but you just can't seem to pay attention.

I am not talking about hydrogen from methane, but if you want to go there, yes there are possibilities worth investigating even there. Consider waste methane from garbage or farming coupled with research underway on conversion via liquid metal producing solid graphite as the carbon output. If that could work it would be a double win. But no, you just want to restrict everyone to your priorities, your view of physics and how you think numbers should be used.

 

[nwdiver]

I can't help that you can't see what is in front of your face.

I keep telling you green hydrogen, not brown, not blue, but you just can't seem to pay attention.

I can't help that you can't see what is in front of your face.

I keep telling you that if you have 1kg of green H2 and burn it in a car that's 1kg that's not being used to produce ammonia => that's more methane that is burned. The reality is that using H2 in a car will result in higher emissions because math.

My solar array is producing 5kW right now. If I charge my car I'm using solar... sure... but if I wasn't charging my car that 5kW would be exported to reduce emissions from a gas plant. So I'm causing more methane to be burned by charging my car instead of exporting 5kW. What about that fact confuses you????? Not my 'view' just a fact.

What happened to paying off everything at once? If we're still using H2 to make methane you've still got debt on a 20% credit card. Shouldn't you pay that off first before you start wasting H2 on cars (paying off the 4% card)?

 

[Guy V]

I can't help that you can't see what is in front of your face.

I keep telling you that if you have 1kg of green H2 and burn it in a car that's 1kg that's not being used to produce ammonia => that's more methane that is burned. The reality is that using H2 in a car will result in higher emissions because math.

My solar array is producing 5kW right now. If I charge my car I'm using solar... sure... but if I wasn't charging my car that 5kW would be exported to reduce emissions from a gas plant. So I'm causing more methane to be burned by charging my car instead of exporting 5kW. What about that fact confuses you????? Not my 'view' just a fact.

And I keep telling you it isn't. If someone's project is to promote the sale of a hydrogen vehicle one of the biggest objections for the target market is that hydrogen is dirty and the simple response is to build production of green hydrogen to fuel it. It may be a game like big corporations are playing to claim they are carbon neutral, but if the result is enough additional green hydrogen production to fuel those cars that's what matters.

Again with the fallacies. If you installed your solar panels to power your home, that's fine. If you want to power you car from solar too then build more. You complained you have no more room on your roof. Me either, I built a solar carport. You can put them on your garage or in your yard. If that isn't possible you can join a solar coop and pay to produce a sufficient share to offset what you draw from the grid to charge your car. You can pay your utility company to source an equivalent of your car usage from renewables.

You know what's happening here? These are all different entrepreneurial solutions to create more green energy production from people concurrently pursuing multiple possible ways to address the overall challenge.

 

[nwdiver]

And I keep telling you it isn't. If someone's project is to promote the sale of a hydrogen vehicle one of the biggest objections for the target market is that hydrogen is dirty and the simple response is to build production of green hydrogen to fuel it.

We expanded renewables before EVs. Why would we need FCEVs to expand clean H2? You think fertilizer and steel companies are somehow immune from pressures to 'Go Green'?

Having more solar on my home does nothing to change the fact that exporting less to charge an EV means more CH4 is burned... until.... say it with me.... WE'RE FLOODED WITH CLEAN ENERGY. I could have 10MW on my house. STILL putting 5kWh into my car would mean ~5# of CH4 was burned. until.... WE'RE FLOODED WITH CLEAN ENERGY. You don't pay down the 4% card when you still have debt on the 15% card unless you don't understand numbers.

 

[dhrivnak]

This is a circular logic fallacy: We are giving reasons why H2 is inferior to batteries. You are assuming we are wrong and then accusing us of being naysayers. Calling us naysayers does not advance your argument in favor of H2.



You are confused: Electrolyzers are the machines that electrolyze water.

You are right as I thought you meant fuel cell.

The choice is simple: If you're a corporation you want H2. If you're a consumer, you want solar + batteries.

Except batteries are VERY hard to get. I have been trying to get a PowerWall for 2 years with no hope in sight. I tried to get some LG batteries and again back stocked. I sell solar and batteries are a challenge as they are hard to get and very expensive.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I can't help that you can't see what is in front of your face.

I keep telling you that if you have 1kg of green H2 and burn it in a car that's 1kg that's not being used to produce ammonia => that's more methane that is burned. The reality is that using H2 in a car will result in higher emissions because math.

My solar array is producing 5kW right now. If I charge my car I'm using solar... sure... but if I wasn't charging my car that 5kW would be exported to reduce emissions from a gas plant. So I'm causing more methane to be burned by charging my car instead of exporting 5kW. What about that fact confuses you????? Not my 'view' just a fact.

What happened to paying off everything at once? If we're still using H2 to make methane you've still got debt on a 20% credit card. Shouldn't you pay that off first before you start wasting H2 on cars (paying off the 4% card)?

What ought to happen and what would happen are different.
Cost is what matters to the market. Efficiency only matters for cost.
EVs are much more efficient than ICEVs, but sales are much lower due to the high cost.

The key question about HFCV is not whether it's more efficient than BEV, it's whether it'll be cheaper than ICEV, PHEV and BEV.
I say no, because hydrogen, but it sure would be useful to have cheap fuel cells and electrolyzers, even if hydrogen being hydrogen is too much of a barrier to widespread use.

 

[nwdiver]

What ought to happen and what would happen are different.

That's where subsidies come in. It's insane to subsidize FCEVs before subsidizing first renewables and second electrolyzers. FCEVs don't make sense until we're using electrolyzers to convert >1000TWh/yr of electricity into H2 and converting >1000TWh/yr of electricity into H2 makes no sense until we have >1000TWh/yr of surplus clean energy. So FCEVs right now is like 3 layers of insanity.

 

[ohmman]

Logged into my Facebook Toyota Mirai account to view the group today. Ouch. This is basically the entire conversation, not a select excerpt.

Personally, I feel badly for these people who were sold a lie. They had the right idea and the right motivation and were screwed over. Too bad they didn't have some naysayers around them to prevent this.

 

[woof]

Biz school trained CEO: "There's gonna be a breakthrough out there, gonna make clean hydrogen cheap! Let's use it for transportation!"

And the long suffering engineers tell's him: "No matter how it's created (magical unicorn farts for the win!) hydrogen just isn't a compelling energy carrier over batteries today. It's inefficient, leaky, and requires expensive equipment. The physics is clear on this."

CEO: "Eventually we'll have magical ways to store it and transport it safely, and the prices will come down!"

Engineers: "Great! Get back to us when that happens. In the meantime, we'll keep using batteries until something better comes along. Maybe that's hydrogen fuel cells (but we doubt it), maybe it's Mr. Fusion, or captured black holes on a stick always pulling us forward. But at the moment, sir, it's just not compelling to use hydrogen over batteries."

CEO: "You guys are all nay sayers. Nerd harder! The only way to make things cheaper is to build up economies of scale! So we'll start using hydrogen today so in the future, it'll be better!"

Engineers: "But if we use hydrogen now, it'll create even MORE green house gas than using gasoline! Why should we do that when it's imperative to reduce green house gases as much as possible?"

CEO: "Because economics! Scale! You've got it all backwards!"

Engineers: "Take it up with Lord Kelvin. Thermodynamics clearly shows..."

CEO: "You're Wrong! Our marketing dept. says so! You guys are all the same. And who is this Kelvin guy? Does he wanna play golf?"

 

[nwdiver]

Personally, I feel badly for these people who were sold a lie.

Hard to tell who's really to blame here.... I met a client interested in solar that had already invested >$30k in a 'small' wind turbine. In a good year it probably produces ~200kWh. He's in a canyon and not much wind. There's a deeper problem that people just don't understand how thing work and they lack the motivation to put a little effort into researching it......

What's even worse IMO and I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more coverage is CNG. All the stations near my house are closed now. Wondering what happened to the CNG vehicles...

 

[ohmman]

Hard to tell who's really to blame here.... I met a client invested in solar that had already invested >$30k in a 'small' wind turbine. In a good year it probably produces ~200kWh. He's in a canyon and not much wind. There's a deeper problem that people just don't understand how thing work and they lack the motivation to put a little effort into researching it......

Maybe I'm just a pushover, but I don't tend to blame people for being uninformed. There are plenty of reasons why they might believe what they do, or why their understanding of physics is stilted. It's very possible they put a lot of research into it, but they were never taught how to research, so their research was just thumbing through marketing materials or other ideologically based materials.

When I look at all it takes to move people (read "Nudge" by Richard Thaler), I have a hard time judging them based on those decisions. I might wish they made different ones, but I have to recognize that they're influenced by the same biases that I am.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Biz school trained CEO: "There's gonna be a breakthrough out there, gonna make clean hydrogen cheap! Let's use it for transportation!"

And the long suffering engineers tell's him: "No matter how it's created (magical unicorn farts for the win!) hydrogen just isn't a compelling energy carrier over batteries today. It's inefficient, leaky, and requires expensive equipment. The physics is clear on this."

CEO: "Eventually we'll have magical ways to store it and transport it safely, and the prices will come down!"

Engineers: "Great! Get back to us when that happens. In the meantime, we'll keep using batteries until something better comes along. Maybe that's hydrogen fuel cells (but we doubt it), maybe it's Mr. Fusion, or captured black holes on a stick always pulling us forward. But at the moment, sir, it's just not compelling to use hydrogen over batteries."

CEO: "You guys are all nay sayers. Nerd harder! The only way to make things cheaper is to build up economies of scale! So we'll start using hydrogen today so in the future, it'll be better!"

Engineers: "But if we use hydrogen now, it'll create even MORE green house gas than using gasoline! Why should we do that when it's imperative to reduce green house gases as much as possible?"

CEO: "Because economics! Scale! You've got it all backwards!"

Engineers: "Take it up with Lord Kelvin. Thermodynamics clearly shows..."

CEO: "You're Wrong! Our marketing dept. says so! You guys are all the same. And who is this Kelvin guy? Does he wanna play golf?"

You're giving the CEO too much credit.