15 ms·
It's a novel way to store hydrogen instead of a traditional high pressure tank. This is a teeny tiny problem for a hydrogen cars. It doesn't really address the
by gok 7y ago
It's a novel way to store hydrogen instead of a traditional high pressure tank.
This is a teeny tiny problem for a hydrogen cars. It doesn't really address the problem that fuel cells are ridiculously expensive, or that there's no filling network, or that there's no good way to fill them at home, or that fuel cells are themselves only 50% efficient typically.
- SuoDuanDao 7y agoFair enough - but as to the filling network at least, that seems a lot more feasible given a decent way to store it.
- jimmySixDOF 7y agoRIP Better Place (2007-2013). They were ahead of their time and if hydrogen refueling stations take off it will be following in their footsteps. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company)
- jkqwzsoo 7y agoMOF-based hydrogen storage has been around since at least 2003 (Omar Yaghi on MOF-5). Its hardly a novel concept. I haven’t read this paper, I just skimmed for figure out what the “aluminum sponge” was until I saw it was Farha and MOFs. As far as I can tell, this is in Science because it surpasses key benchmarks set by the DOE, not because it’s a new idea. This is a particularly high surface area MOF (>7300 m^2/g). I recently picked up a MOF project (not related to hydrogen storage) with derivatives of a popular MOF and it’s closer to 1000 m^2/g. Zeolites (a much more established class of porous material) are about a quarter of that (<200-300). An actual metal sponge (what I thought the article was talking about) is <~20 m^2/g.
- gpapilion 7y agoI’ve always thought the distribution issue it’s the largest problem for alternative fuel vehicles. Driving to Los Angeles from San Francisco is extremely difficult for either a fuel cell or ev vehicle (that’s not a Tesla, and it’s also true for cng vehicles). This is admittedly not a daily use case, but highlights the issues with refueling. It’s hard to see either technology being our primary transportation mode without solving some of this. EVs have an advantage for fuel availability, but issues around fueling time.
- logical42 7y agoThere are enough CNG stations to drive from SF to LA as long as you fill up appropriately.
- toast0 7y agoI had researched buying a CNG car in the LA area and bringing it back to San Jose. Reliable miles per tank data was tough to come by, but it seemed like if you couldn't use PG&E stations to fill (because it requires pre-registration, and a certified inspection), you wouldn't be able to take the most direct route. That was for a crown victoria/lincoln town car though. I don't know if the civic's get more miles per tank.
- halfdan 7y agoI think there's a common misconception in your argument. Even without a full distribution network it might be a viable solution. Most of us use our cars for our daily commute, grocery shopping and other things within a fairly small radius. The few times we would need to drive the SF->LA distance you can easily take a rental. The mistake is to assume that we would use "alternative fuel" vehicles the same way we would our petrol cars.
- greglindahl 7y agoI don't think there's an assumption there. The alternative fuel cars that sell well are the long-range ones. Sure, people mostly drive them locally, but it appears to be the case that there's comfort in knowing that they can also go long distance.
- rootusrootus 7y agoI think 300 miles is a realistic minimum for viable EVs. At least in America. Because honestly, almost nobody gets anywhere near that except when they're trying to win Internet points. A 300 mile Tesla Model 3, depending on trim, is more realistically a 150-200 mile car, and some days won't even make it that far. Source: I own a Tesla Model 3 Performance. For efficiency, the worst of them. Love the car, but saying it has 300 miles of range feels pretty dishonest.
- mrfusion 7y agoGood points. I’ve always been curious. Why not just plug in A hydrogen car and run the fuel cell in reverse to get a tank of hydrogen?
- pmorici 7y agoThe only reason that Hydrogen powered cars are even still discussed over battery electric is that 95% of industrial hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. In other words the people pushing it are probably protecting their oil and gas interests. They aren't going to put money into research to cut themselves out of the loop. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
- Hypx 7y agoBut nobody is suggesting that industrial hydrogen will be natural gas based forever. Furthermore, we must have green hydrogen for steel and ammonia production. So this is a “must solve” problem no matter what. This is basically the same kind of argument that BEVs are “secretly powered by coal.” These are backwards looking statements that are going to be wrong in the near future.
- clouddrover 7y ago> In other words the people pushing it are probably protecting their oil and gas interests. Shell builds EV charging stations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nst2RGtgzfk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nst2RGtgzfk BP builds EV charging stations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaSRn6hYOwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaSRn6hYOwc Petro-Canada builds EV charging stations: https://www.petro-canada.ca/en/personal/fuel/canadas-electric-highway https://www.petro-canada.ca/en/personal/fuel/canadas-electri... They're in the energy business. They don't really care what form it takes.
- blibble 7y agoin a world where everyone has a charger at home and at work there's little to no need for Shell and BP hence their push for hydrogen, where everything remains essentially the same (and they keep their vertically integrated business)
- gryzzly 7y agoOr that pollution from tires is a serious problem and SUV-level weight moving at high speeds is not something we need more of.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoMost "SUVs" are just station wagons with an extra inch of ground clearance. They aren't that heavy. A Prius, on the other hand is close to the weight of a light truck.
- PhantomGremlin 7y agoA Prius, on the other hand is close to the weight of a light truck. I was real confused by this. Wiki says Prius is in the range of 3,000 lbs. Much lighter than a truck of any sort. Perhaps you meant to say Tesla Model X instead of Prius? That the closest comparison to an SUV. It weighs in at well over 5,000 lbs, which closer to the range of a light truck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_(XW50) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_(XW50) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_X
- pokeymcsnatch 7y agoHe may have meant "small truck" instead of light truck? "light truck" has a specific definition and it's probably not what most people would think when using or hearing the term. A Prius is about the same weight as a lot of small trucks, or at least what small trucks used to be before the weird side-effects of fuel-efficiency regulations: 2005 Tacoma: 3,140 to 4,4100 lbs 2005 Ranger: 3,028 to 3,606 lbs 2003 S-10: 3,016 to 4,039 lbs
- mrpopo 7y agoThe best-selling Hyundai all-categories SUV in the US is the Hyundai Santa Fe and weighs in average 1.8t. The fact that there are lighter SUVs appearing on the market is encouraging, but your affirmation is most likely not true.
- 7y ago
- Hypx 7y agoBasically everything you said is wrong. The costs of fuel cells are dropping so fast, that that is probably the main driver of interest in fuel cell technology recently. The filling stations are being installed by dozens around the world right now. Fuel cells have reach 60% efficiency in real world testing. It’s been something of a blind spot among tech workers that they are completely oblivious to the gains made in fuel cells. For all the hype about us being forward thinking, a lot of us are seriously stuck in the past.
- casion 7y agoOP mentioned things that exist now, your response seems to be that things are improving. Those ideas aren't at odds.
- reissbaker 7y agoIt's not much of a blind spot. Fuel cells are worse for consumer cars than batteries, both in environmental terms and in terms of convenience. A BEV can recharge at home using existing standard outlets (a 240v 30A or 50A dryer outlet for good performance, or even a 120v regular outlet will do if you're willing to wait a while); good luck refilling a fuel cell. BEVs are nearly 80% efficient already [1], are comparatively widely deployed, and the infrastructure for them exists in everyone's home. For long distance travel, there are far more fast chargers than hydrogen stations, and far more investment in building more of them. Also, most independent real-world tests I've seen of hydrogen cells reported much lower efficiency in practice than claimed — often between 30-40%. The only tank-to-wheel 60% claim I could find was a statement by Honda of their own car; FWIW, the EPA rating of the latest, most-efficient version of that car (the Honda Clarity Fuel Cell) is actually 68 MPGe [2], which is much lower than most BEVs. In fact, the battery-based version of the same exact car, the Honda Clarity EV, has an EPA rating of 114 MPGe [3], which is nearly 70% more efficient. Hydrogen fuel cells for consumer cars just don't make sense. 1: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml 2: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=40044 https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=40044 3: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41185.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41185.shtml
- 7y ago