Guy V
Member
I also don't think the folks here arguing high efficiency battery "round trip" are basing it from the coal mine, which is thing we have to stop.
-
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
This is like saying that diamonds are really and truly abundant and everywhere around us...just mostly locked up in the atmosphere with oxygen as CO2.
QOTD: Why Aren’t EVs Becoming More Affordable?
Ford increased pricing on the F-150 Lightning EV substantially this week, citing “significant material cost increases and other factors.” The all-electric model now comes with an MSRP that ranges between $46,974 (for the base Pro trim) and $96,874 (for the Extended Range Platinum). All told, the...
www.thetruthaboutcars.com
yea why not? if they expect everyone to move to ev by 2030 the prices need to come way down.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
i get that....plus its usa not india. I just would like to see companies release 30-40k ev that DONT LOOK LIKE GOLFKARTS and drive like them...a sporty ev..and NOT an suv. I testdrove the mustang and didnt care for it at all and it looks so boring..The id4 looked better and drove better but its still that "suv" looking style. They both look like kia's to me. yuk
Guy V
Member
You are being facetious but there is a kernel of truth there. We do manufacture diamonds as needed but atmospheric CO2 isn't the most easily and economically useable material source. If carbon use for diamond production were to become a significant climate change contributor though, requiring it be sourced from CO2 would be a plus, wouldn't it? That's the root of advocating for a carbon tax, isn't it?
Hydrogen production from H2O on the other hand IS the most easily and economically useable CLEAN source.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The general market is preferring CUVs/SUVs (not just for EVs) plus there are more loopholes where it is treated better, so I don't think the trend towards them would change regardless of how affordable car makers can make EVs.
Guy V
Member
Yes, the upcoming new EV credit with a $55,000 price cap on cars and an $80,000 one on trucks and SUVs is vile.
Agreed. So let's guess as to what the thought process was here. SUVs are bigger and more inefficient, generally. So let encourage them to get made with lots of batteries. This will cost more so let's increase the price cap on these.
the most ecological and clean way is not to use hydrogen for electricity...
The Bulwark: It’s All About the Hydrogens.
www.thebulwark.com
Well, looks like more money to try to move to hydrogen anyway. There is a CO2 shortage for sofa and beer so I guess as long as we capture the CO2 from blue hydrogen, it is not a totally bad idea.
It's All About the Hydrogens
Understanding Joe Manchin and the environmental provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.
www.thebulwark.com
Well, looks like more money to try to move to hydrogen anyway. There is a CO2 shortage for sofa and beer so I guess as long as we capture the CO2 from blue hydrogen, it is not a totally bad idea.
Average cost of green hydrogen to fall to $1.50/kg by 2030 as electrolyser capacity ramps up 50-fold: analyst
Global demand for H2 will grow to 735 million tonnes by 2050 — almost all of which will be produced via electrolysis, according to new study by Rethink Energy
www.rechargenews.com
Despite the physics showing HEV making less sense than BEV...
BEV at 12c electricity and getting 3-4 miles per kWh, it is 3-4c/mile.
So for the Mirai with consumption at 0.8kg/100 miles, it is already 3.2c per mile at $4/kg. With hydrogen $1.50/kg, that would be 1.2c per mile.
New California hydrogen station retailing at $13.14/kg
A new hydrogen station has opened in California, US – and the price of hydrogen is $13.14 per kilogram.
www.h2-view.com
roblab
Active Member
So what's the problem with getting a Model 3? Base is near $40K, and it does not resemble a golf cart. Ours looks very much like the Model S in many respects, like a car, not an SUV. But any car priced at $30K is going to look cheap, will probably be small, will not carry much load, and will be uncomfortable on trips. Model 3 will cost more and do more. Trouble is, they're popular, so hardly any used for sale. But if you insist on something that looks like a Mustang, you'll pay extra and still end up owning a Ford. Good luck with that.
BMW starts making fuel-cell stacks for iX5 Hydrogen
The German automaker is using Toyota fuel cells for its hydrogen-powered SUV, but many of the electric-drive components are borrowed from the i4 and iX battery electric models.
BMW going after the wealthy demographics who do not care how much it costs. They would probably have a hydrogen refueling station in their garage. LOL
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Watts_Up
Well-Known Member
Those kind of reports are often bias in supporting the interests of particulars individuals.
For example:
Among other things, it noted that “despite hydrogen’s great potential,
it must be kept in mind that its production, transport and conversion
require energy, as well as significant investment.”
The debat of "Hydrogen vs Battery" should be discussed more be providing different options depending of the usage.
I would recommend watching this excellent video:
Professor David Cebon has authored or co-authored more than 200 peer-reviewed papers
on dynamic loads of heavy vehicles, road and bridge response and damage, asphalt micromechanics,
weigh-in-motion, advanced suspension design, safety, productivity and energy consumption.
In this episode, he hones in on Hydrogen and sets straight a few myths about its uses and cleanliness.
Just some extracts:
31:30
if you drive a truck on Gray hydrogen it's far far worse in carbon emissions terms than driving on diesel
41:00
green hydrogen is the first thing to do the second thing is use a hydrogen
to decarbonize sectors where the where it's used as a chemical
to decarbonize sectors where the where it's used as a chemical
41:40
alking about hydrogen for heating or hydrogen for transport it's not going to work
we've talked about if they're eating a factor of six difference in energy
it's a factor of three different in transport
we absolutely shouldn't delay electrification electrification
is the one thing that we can really do to help this energy transition
we've talked about if they're eating a factor of six difference in energy
it's a factor of three different in transport
we absolutely shouldn't delay electrification electrification
is the one thing that we can really do to help this energy transition
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
The bias is toward math and reason.
For example one proposal is to mix H2 in with CH4 fed to homes to reduce CH4 use. Which would be an absolutely insane thing do to when we're still producing H2 from CH4.
The point is that we need to use H2 in areas that rely on H2. We're already using ~10B kg/yr of H2. So just displacing that demand is going to absorb every molecule of H2 we can produce for the foreseeable future. The point is that it's counter-productive to divert any to areas like transportation and home heating when you can do both just fine without H2.
The point is we need to start at the top and work our way down. No point in using H2 to displace stuff in the G category when we're not even done with 'A' yet.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
This exact same argument can be applied to EVs as well, that we should first meet the current electricity demand with clean sources before we add more demand.
I bought hybrids for a decade, in part because of this argument. Over time I've decided it is not a bad argument but it is incomplete since it neglects the effect of more demand leading to more supply. I don't think it is the most efficient approach, but thankfully it is not a zero sum game.
H2 would be fine if it were produced from renewable resources (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) and used in applications that justified the storage and transportation costs.
But it's not.
H2 is produced from fossil fuels. Therefore H2 is no better than fossil fuels. The only "good" thing it can do is reduce smog in cities by moving the pollution emission point from car tailpipes to rural production facilities. This does nothing to reduce climate change but does reduce respiratory distress for city residents.
H2 is used in transportation for one reason and one reason only: It's a boondoggle by the fossil fuel industry to keep selling fossil fuels.
But it's not.
H2 is produced from fossil fuels. Therefore H2 is no better than fossil fuels. The only "good" thing it can do is reduce smog in cities by moving the pollution emission point from car tailpipes to rural production facilities. This does nothing to reduce climate change but does reduce respiratory distress for city residents.
H2 is used in transportation for one reason and one reason only: It's a boondoggle by the fossil fuel industry to keep selling fossil fuels.
Similar threads
