15 ms·

Hydrogen has an efficiency problem. You need to convert other forms of energy to hydrogen at a loss. Then you need to store it and transport it, which is costly

Hydrogen has an efficiency problem. You need to convert other forms of energy to hydrogen at a loss. Then you need to store it and transport it, which is costly and may impose quite some energy cost for cooling or compression. Then you need to convert it back to electricity, also at a loss. If you start at electricity, the electrical grid and batteries would be much more efficient. If you start at oil or gas, you could use convention ICEs and get comparable overall efficiencies. For them transport and delivery is a solved problem. Hydrogen fuel cells are clean where you use them. But so are batteries. Inner cities could be kept cleaner using either. Inner city traffic is mostly short range, so batteries are at an advantage. Batteries have a rare earth problem. But so do Hydrogen fuel cells. There is work to reduce it for both technologies. Hydrogen fuel cells have a problem with varying loads. You would use additional batteries in cars to supply peak demand when accelerating or store braking energy. For comparable weight, range, and price you could replace all hydrogen technology with more batteries. Those bigger batteries would also wear out slower because the power demand per cell is lower. So, when would hydrogen make sense? I think only if you don't care for efficiency. When you have so much electrical power that it costs you nothing and is available at least a few hours every night. Hydrogen would do well in a combination with large scale nuclear fission/fusion. It could take decades until we get there if we ever go that route. I see that, as batteries become less and less expensive, the niche where Hydrogen could have good advantage is getting smaller and smaller. However you twist and turn it, either oil&gas or batteries have the advantage.

cultofmetatron 6y ago
sounds like Iceland would do well to export hydrogen from electrolysis
- speedgoose 6y ago
  Transporting hydrogen is expensive. It also has a tendency to leak.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    > It also has a tendency to leak. But I mean, that has to be a limitation of current technology, right? There has to be engineering solutions that we can devise to make it as safe statistically as for example gasoline transport?
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      > But I mean, that has to be a limitation of current technology, right? Not much. Hydrogen has a tendency of assuming a form that no material can hold. People have been working on chemical storage, but the efficiency always suffer.
    - Xylakant 6y ago
      Hydrogen has the nasty property of leaking through many materials, including metals. It also needs to be kept extremely cold. Both properties make it much harder to transport and store. It’s not clear that technology must exist that makes transporting and storing hydrogen as safe and economically viable as gasoline.
      - ComputerGuru 6y ago
        Even storage of helium has largely been solved, and that is far more tricky than hydrogen. It’s just expensive.
        Xylakant 6y ago
        Helium is inert and not prone to explode when it sees the first spark. Also, as you indicate: storing helium is expensive - it is only economically viable because there is no competing product and hence whatever the price for helium storage is, it will get paid.
        SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        Remind me but there is also no way to make new helium. It’s not a renewable, is it? I thought it was only available as a byproduct of natural gas collection.
- thinkcontext 6y ago
  Iceland exports renewable energy in the form of aluminum. They have the potential to develop more energy but it's controversial because of impact on the landscape.
  - generatorguy 6y ago
    What type of energy can they develop? Iceland is well known for their geothermal energy I wouldn’t have thought that would have a huge impact on the landscape more than any other low rise industrial buildings.
    - thinkcontext 6y ago
      70% of electricity is hydro, most of the rest is geothermal. On the consumption side about 70% is used for aluminum.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    I ran into a fascinating paper published in the 1950's by a Norwegian group who ran a pilot plant to electrowin iron from iron-sulfide waste from a copper mine. They claimed something like 4-5 kwh per kg. Unlike electrowining aluminum it's a room temp aqueous process. My thought is, it's probably economic if you have access to intermittent sources of really cheap electricity.
  - aitchnyu 6y ago
    Aluminum is called congealed electricity due to the energy intensive manufacturing process and recycling is very economical.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lucioperca 6y ago
  They might be just connected to the Euro-Powergrid in the future: https://www.landsvirkjun.com/researchdevelopment/submarinecabletoeurope https://www.landsvirkjun.com/researchdevelopment/submarineca...
GhostVII 6y ago
Electricity has a transmission problem though - there are some parts of the world with lots of clean energy, which we can't fully take advantage of because we can't transport electricity that far. Hydrogen allows us to use that clean energy to power cars in other parts of the world, since you can produce hydrogen in those places and then ship it to places without much clean energy. Also you can presumably stop and start hydrogen production as electricity demand changes (ex. Only produce it on sunny windy days where there is excess electricity) allowing you to shift the demand curve more easily than with electric cars.
- mrpopo 6y ago
  Do you know more about hydrogen transport? I heard it is quite more complicated and expensive than LNG (closest equivalent), because hydrogen leaks more easily.
  - VBprogrammer 6y ago
    One interesting approach is to convert the hydrogen again into ammonia (nh4). It's easier to store and is a very useful industrial feedstock in its own right.
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    I don't buy that hydrogen transport could ever be more efficient than shipping high-voltage electrons over copper.
  - jimmcslim 6y ago
    There's also the issue of hydrogen embrittlement of steel, which is probably what causes the leaks I guess?
    - hansvm 6y ago
      Hydrogen is also really small and can seep out of seals that we would ordinarily consider air-tight.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
svara 6y ago
Many of the things you're saying aren't correct, see my other comment (sibling to yours) for references. Nuclear is not cheap compared to photovoltaics, wind and hydro. Since the former two are bursty, overcapacity in them leads to cheap excess energy at times, which needs to be stored. Which storage method is the best depends on multiple factors, particularly on the duration of storage, capacity required and frequency of charging/discharging. Batteries are great for relatively short term storage, but for long term, seasonal storage, hydrogen and pumped hydro are the options we have. Pumped hydro capacity is limited, and the cost of hydrogen production and storage is coming down. So that's where hydrogen makes sense: Long term, high capacity storage.
- threatripper 6y ago
  > Many of the things you're saying aren't correct, see my other comment (sibling to yours) for references. I really wish that I was wrong instead of just semi-accurate and sloppy. > Nuclear is not cheap compared to photovoltaics, wind and hydro. The price of nuclear power is dominated by regulation. Running the power plant is quite cheap. The real cost is satisfying regulation and getting rid of the nuclear waste. If you use new reactor designs it promises to be really cheap. But currently regulation cost is so high that it's not happening any time soon. Similarly, nuclear fusion promises a lot. Maybe one day it will deliver. My point is that IFF you have dirt cheap nuclear energy, it would be quite appealing to convert it to hydrogen (or Methane/Methanol) and to replace natural gas and oil with it. But since that is not happening, renewables will NOT deliver enough energy to replace gas and oil completely any time soon. We have a factor of 10-100 to scale up for that to happen. > Since the former two are bursty, overcapacity in them leads to cheap excess energy at times, which needs to be stored. Wind and solar currently rarely have overcapacity because in many nations mandated by regulations the other sources will have to go offline instead. The problem is that if you really manage to build up wind and hydro to satisfy electricity demand on average the Hydrogen generators will only utilize somewhat in the region of 10% of their design capacity in average. They need to be very cheap to run at a profit for that. Also, if electricity is really cheap, we have a lot of uses for it. For example heating is ideally done using clean electricity. This substitution frees up a lot oil and gas that you can use instead of Hydrogen. > Which storage method is the best depends on multiple factors, particularly on the duration of storage, capacity required and frequency of charging/discharging. > Batteries are great for relatively short term storage, but for long term, seasonal storage, hydrogen and pumped hydro are the options we have. Pumped hydro capacity is limited, and the cost of hydrogen production and storage is coming down. So that's where hydrogen makes sense: Long term, high capacity storage. True. But if you have enough production capacity, you don't really need storage. You only store it if it is cheaper than simply generating more power when you need it. Instead of generating Hydrogen and storing it you could use a natural gas peaker plant. You have natural gas and storage solutions already available and installed. Hydrogen has to be cheaper than natural gas. You have some nice academic references while I only have anecdata that may be partially outdated by now. In my past experience Hydrogen and fuel cells have failed to deliver time after time, year after year while Lithium batteries have really taken off. Look at that figure: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S254243511830583X-fx1_lrg.jpg https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S25424351183058... Currently, Hydrogen is off the charts because it is too expensive but it is projected to come down and dominate the upper end in 30 years while Lithium batteries dominate all the rest. Lithium batteries are here today and the focus is on batteries. Natrium and other battery technologies may be ready by then and drop prices a further factor of 10. I do not deny that some Hydrogen from electricity makes sense. Especially if you need Hydrogen for your chemical processes. Maybe even for storage of excess electricity (or just adding it to the natural gas instead of storing it). But I don't see Hydrogen for small vehicles anytime soon.
SmokeyHamster 6y ago
>You need to convert other forms of energy to hydrogen at a loss. When wouldn't it be at a loss? That's just physics. Hydrogen fuel cells aren't a source of energy in and of themselves, they're just a storage medium, like any other battery. And the act of filling them will never by 100% efficient because nothing is, so there will always be loss.
- FabHK 6y ago
  Yes, any conversion incurs a loss. The point is that hydrogen introduces additional conversions, because it must first be produced, and then converted to something useful.
- polishdude20 6y ago
  Hydrogen fuel cells don't store the hydrogen. They convert the hydrogen into electricity. The losses come from a: converting electricity to hydrogen by electrolysis and b: converting that hydrogen back to electricity.
unchocked 6y ago
And batteries have a scaling problem - hydrogen complements them nicely for long term storage. When energy is free, make hydrogen and store it in a tank (or in a salt cavern, as the article describes).
pkphilip 6y ago
There are other ways of generating electricity apart from electrolysis. For example, from food waste through yeast and other methods. Yes, there is some energy being used but you are talking about material which would go waste anyway: https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/a-simplified-way-to-turn-food-waste-into-hydrogen-energy/ https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/a-simplified-way-to-turn-foo... First: Energy density The primary advantage of hydrogen is energy density. Though Li Ion and other technologies have improved considerably, they are no where near the energy density of fossil fuel technologies and therefore vehicles which use these batteries will have to carry huge weight of batteries to get better range. With Hydrogen that is not a problem. Second: Storage There has been huge advances in the safe storage of hydrogen - from the use of nanoporous carbon for storage https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1002007112001335 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S100200711... to the use of LOHCs (Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers) that is aromatic liquids to store hydrogen instead of storing it as gas or liquid hydrogen: https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/hydrogen-storage-gets-real/3010794.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/hydrogen-storage-get...
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  > For example, from food waste through yeast and other methods. How is it better than generating biogas from biomaterial, something we already do at industrial scale? What’s the advantage of biohydrogen over biomethane?
  - weswpg 6y ago
    isn't methane much worse for the environment than generating power from hydrogren?
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      It depend where the (carbon in the) methane comes from. If it comes from the ground, the exhaust contributes to global climate disruption. Venting methane is worse, but that would be wasteful, too.
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
> So, when would hydrogen make sense? All production issues aside, aviation makes sense to me. Planes are only filling at known stops, the weight is superior to our best batteries, and the transition from fossil fuel to hydrogen jets should be easy. As for as long haul trucks, I can kinda see it, maybe, still a lot of storage, production, efficiency issues. Weight isn’t nearly the same concern as it is for aviation. For cars, yea, I don’t see it.
atombender 6y ago
I like this diagram from Volkswagen visualizing the energy loss at every step for hydrogen versus BEV: https://images.hgmsites.net/lrg/hydrogen-vs-electric--volkswagen_100740973_l.jpg https://images.hgmsites.net/lrg/hydrogen-vs-electric--volksw... This image (don't know the source), which includes oil and coal, is also a good visualization: https://i.imgur.com/Wuhnlvu.png https://i.imgur.com/Wuhnlvu.png Even simpler: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPkaz0nX4AAcr_v.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPkaz0nX4AAcr_v.jpg
- dehrmann 6y ago
  How efficient is electrolysis compared to making hydrocarbons?
- mongol 6y ago
  I would like to have seen more elaboration on transmission losses in the power grid. For example, if we imagine solar cells in Sahara generating energy for Europe, is power grid transmission feasible or does hydrogen look better in comparison?
  - sacred_numbers 6y ago
    The problem with generating power in the Sahara for use in Europe has little to do with transmission losses and much more to do with the capital cost of building high capacity power lines over thousands of kilometers. There's also the cost of protecting those lines, since they would have to pass through several different countries that are not always politically stable.
    - deltron3030 6y ago
      It could be an incentive for political stability in those regions if they benefit from it.
    - mongol 6y ago
      Good point. But that could also ve an argument for hydrogen?
pfdietz 6y ago
> Batteries have a rare earth problem. NiMH batteries do, but who is using those?
arrrg 6y ago
Hydrogen makes sense in industrial applications (steel, chemistry, e.g. ammonia production). Electricity often isn’t even an option there (same with aviation). I think people tend to be too blinded in their focus on cars here? I don’t think hydrogen cars make much sense. Batteries all the way – but that doesn’t mean that hydrogen is without merit for other applications. And if you want to replace all greenhouse gases in industrial applications with green hydrogen you still need a shitton of hydrogen (since, yeah, it’s inefficient – but if it’s the most efficient greenhouse-neutral way to get there – what choice is there?), so that’s not something you can just improvise. You need to tackle it head-on. That’s why I fear people being stubbornly focused on cars. Even if not a single car will ever use hydrogen ever we could still need a lot of green hydrogen for other purposes if we want to be greenhouse-neutra.
lejboua 6y ago
It seems hydrogen isn't economically sound yet, despite all the progresses made in the last decades: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoa...
m_mueller 6y ago
I think they also make sense in cases where battery charge time is prohibitive or where you have a very long and constant load without the option for recharging. City buses, firetrucks, container ships and tankers come to mind. Though hopefully we won't need the latter much longer...
Hypx 6y ago
The problem you're missing is cost of production: A hydrogen car fundamentally should cost no more than gasoline powered car, and will have a similar range. With batteries, you'll always be limited in range to some extend, and cost reductions have failed to reduce them to anything like a Toyota Corolla type of car. Batteries don't have a rare earth metal problem, they have a normal metal problem. You need a lot of raw materials to make them, and it's plausible that this will never scale to point where everything can run on batteries.

cultofmetatron 6y ago

sounds like Iceland would do well to export hydrogen from electrolysis

speedgoose 6y ago
Transporting hydrogen is expensive. It also has a tendency to leak.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  > It also has a tendency to leak. But I mean, that has to be a limitation of current technology, right? There has to be engineering solutions that we can devise to make it as safe statistically as for example gasoline transport?
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > But I mean, that has to be a limitation of current technology, right? Not much. Hydrogen has a tendency of assuming a form that no material can hold. People have been working on chemical storage, but the efficiency always suffer.
  - Xylakant 6y ago
    Hydrogen has the nasty property of leaking through many materials, including metals. It also needs to be kept extremely cold. Both properties make it much harder to transport and store. It’s not clear that technology must exist that makes transporting and storing hydrogen as safe and economically viable as gasoline.
    - ComputerGuru 6y ago
      Even storage of helium has largely been solved, and that is far more tricky than hydrogen. It’s just expensive.
      - Xylakant 6y ago
        Helium is inert and not prone to explode when it sees the first spark. Also, as you indicate: storing helium is expensive - it is only economically viable because there is no competing product and hence whatever the price for helium storage is, it will get paid.
        SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        Remind me but there is also no way to make new helium. It’s not a renewable, is it? I thought it was only available as a byproduct of natural gas collection.
thinkcontext 6y ago
Iceland exports renewable energy in the form of aluminum. They have the potential to develop more energy but it's controversial because of impact on the landscape.
- generatorguy 6y ago
  What type of energy can they develop? Iceland is well known for their geothermal energy I wouldn’t have thought that would have a huge impact on the landscape more than any other low rise industrial buildings.
  - thinkcontext 6y ago
    70% of electricity is hydro, most of the rest is geothermal. On the consumption side about 70% is used for aluminum.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  I ran into a fascinating paper published in the 1950's by a Norwegian group who ran a pilot plant to electrowin iron from iron-sulfide waste from a copper mine. They claimed something like 4-5 kwh per kg. Unlike electrowining aluminum it's a room temp aqueous process. My thought is, it's probably economic if you have access to intermittent sources of really cheap electricity.
- aitchnyu 6y ago
  Aluminum is called congealed electricity due to the energy intensive manufacturing process and recycling is very economical.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lucioperca 6y ago
They might be just connected to the Euro-Powergrid in the future: https://www.landsvirkjun.com/researchdevelopment/submarinecabletoeurope https://www.landsvirkjun.com/researchdevelopment/submarineca...

GhostVII 6y ago

Electricity has a transmission problem though - there are some parts of the world with lots of clean energy, which we can't fully take advantage of because we can't transport electricity that far. Hydrogen allows us to use that clean energy to power cars in other parts of the world, since you can produce hydrogen in those places and then ship it to places without much clean energy. Also you can presumably stop and start hydrogen production as electricity demand changes (ex. Only produce it on sunny windy days where there is excess electricity) allowing you to shift the demand curve more easily than with electric cars.

mrpopo 6y ago
Do you know more about hydrogen transport? I heard it is quite more complicated and expensive than LNG (closest equivalent), because hydrogen leaks more easily.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  One interesting approach is to convert the hydrogen again into ammonia (nh4). It's easier to store and is a very useful industrial feedstock in its own right.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  I don't buy that hydrogen transport could ever be more efficient than shipping high-voltage electrons over copper.
- jimmcslim 6y ago
  There's also the issue of hydrogen embrittlement of steel, which is probably what causes the leaks I guess?
  - hansvm 6y ago
    Hydrogen is also really small and can seep out of seals that we would ordinarily consider air-tight.
Gibbon1 6y ago

svara 6y ago

Many of the things you're saying aren't correct, see my other comment (sibling to yours) for references. Nuclear is not cheap compared to photovoltaics, wind and hydro. Since the former two are bursty, overcapacity in them leads to cheap excess energy at times, which needs to be stored. Which storage method is the best depends on multiple factors, particularly on the duration of storage, capacity required and frequency of charging/discharging. Batteries are great for relatively short term storage, but for long term, seasonal storage, hydrogen and pumped hydro are the options we have. Pumped hydro capacity is limited, and the cost of hydrogen production and storage is coming down. So that's where hydrogen makes sense: Long term, high capacity storage.

threatripper 6y ago
> Many of the things you're saying aren't correct, see my other comment (sibling to yours) for references. I really wish that I was wrong instead of just semi-accurate and sloppy. > Nuclear is not cheap compared to photovoltaics, wind and hydro. The price of nuclear power is dominated by regulation. Running the power plant is quite cheap. The real cost is satisfying regulation and getting rid of the nuclear waste. If you use new reactor designs it promises to be really cheap. But currently regulation cost is so high that it's not happening any time soon. Similarly, nuclear fusion promises a lot. Maybe one day it will deliver. My point is that IFF you have dirt cheap nuclear energy, it would be quite appealing to convert it to hydrogen (or Methane/Methanol) and to replace natural gas and oil with it. But since that is not happening, renewables will NOT deliver enough energy to replace gas and oil completely any time soon. We have a factor of 10-100 to scale up for that to happen. > Since the former two are bursty, overcapacity in them leads to cheap excess energy at times, which needs to be stored. Wind and solar currently rarely have overcapacity because in many nations mandated by regulations the other sources will have to go offline instead. The problem is that if you really manage to build up wind and hydro to satisfy electricity demand on average the Hydrogen generators will only utilize somewhat in the region of 10% of their design capacity in average. They need to be very cheap to run at a profit for that. Also, if electricity is really cheap, we have a lot of uses for it. For example heating is ideally done using clean electricity. This substitution frees up a lot oil and gas that you can use instead of Hydrogen. > Which storage method is the best depends on multiple factors, particularly on the duration of storage, capacity required and frequency of charging/discharging. > Batteries are great for relatively short term storage, but for long term, seasonal storage, hydrogen and pumped hydro are the options we have. Pumped hydro capacity is limited, and the cost of hydrogen production and storage is coming down. So that's where hydrogen makes sense: Long term, high capacity storage. True. But if you have enough production capacity, you don't really need storage. You only store it if it is cheaper than simply generating more power when you need it. Instead of generating Hydrogen and storing it you could use a natural gas peaker plant. You have natural gas and storage solutions already available and installed. Hydrogen has to be cheaper than natural gas. You have some nice academic references while I only have anecdata that may be partially outdated by now. In my past experience Hydrogen and fuel cells have failed to deliver time after time, year after year while Lithium batteries have really taken off. Look at that figure: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S254243511830583X-fx1_lrg.jpg https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S25424351183058... Currently, Hydrogen is off the charts because it is too expensive but it is projected to come down and dominate the upper end in 30 years while Lithium batteries dominate all the rest. Lithium batteries are here today and the focus is on batteries. Natrium and other battery technologies may be ready by then and drop prices a further factor of 10. I do not deny that some Hydrogen from electricity makes sense. Especially if you need Hydrogen for your chemical processes. Maybe even for storage of excess electricity (or just adding it to the natural gas instead of storing it). But I don't see Hydrogen for small vehicles anytime soon.

SmokeyHamster 6y ago

>You need to convert other forms of energy to hydrogen at a loss. When wouldn't it be at a loss? That's just physics. Hydrogen fuel cells aren't a source of energy in and of themselves, they're just a storage medium, like any other battery. And the act of filling them will never by 100% efficient because nothing is, so there will always be loss.

FabHK 6y ago
Yes, any conversion incurs a loss. The point is that hydrogen introduces additional conversions, because it must first be produced, and then converted to something useful.
polishdude20 6y ago
Hydrogen fuel cells don't store the hydrogen. They convert the hydrogen into electricity. The losses come from a: converting electricity to hydrogen by electrolysis and b: converting that hydrogen back to electricity.

unchocked 6y ago

And batteries have a scaling problem - hydrogen complements them nicely for long term storage. When energy is free, make hydrogen and store it in a tank (or in a salt cavern, as the article describes).

pkphilip 6y ago

There are other ways of generating electricity apart from electrolysis. For example, from food waste through yeast and other methods. Yes, there is some energy being used but you are talking about material which would go waste anyway: https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/a-simplified-way-to-turn-food-waste-into-hydrogen-energy/ https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/a-simplified-way-to-turn-foo... First: Energy density The primary advantage of hydrogen is energy density. Though Li Ion and other technologies have improved considerably, they are no where near the energy density of fossil fuel technologies and therefore vehicles which use these batteries will have to carry huge weight of batteries to get better range. With Hydrogen that is not a problem. Second: Storage There has been huge advances in the safe storage of hydrogen - from the use of nanoporous carbon for storage https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1002007112001335 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S100200711... to the use of LOHCs (Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers) that is aromatic liquids to store hydrogen instead of storing it as gas or liquid hydrogen: https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/hydrogen-storage-gets-real/3010794.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/hydrogen-storage-get...

xyzzyz 6y ago
> For example, from food waste through yeast and other methods. How is it better than generating biogas from biomaterial, something we already do at industrial scale? What’s the advantage of biohydrogen over biomethane?
- weswpg 6y ago
  isn't methane much worse for the environment than generating power from hydrogren?
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    It depend where the (carbon in the) methane comes from. If it comes from the ground, the exhaust contributes to global climate disruption. Venting methane is worse, but that would be wasteful, too.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago

> So, when would hydrogen make sense? All production issues aside, aviation makes sense to me. Planes are only filling at known stops, the weight is superior to our best batteries, and the transition from fossil fuel to hydrogen jets should be easy. As for as long haul trucks, I can kinda see it, maybe, still a lot of storage, production, efficiency issues. Weight isn’t nearly the same concern as it is for aviation. For cars, yea, I don’t see it.

atombender 6y ago

I like this diagram from Volkswagen visualizing the energy loss at every step for hydrogen versus BEV: https://images.hgmsites.net/lrg/hydrogen-vs-electric--volkswagen_100740973_l.jpg https://images.hgmsites.net/lrg/hydrogen-vs-electric--volksw... This image (don't know the source), which includes oil and coal, is also a good visualization: https://i.imgur.com/Wuhnlvu.png https://i.imgur.com/Wuhnlvu.png Even simpler: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPkaz0nX4AAcr_v.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPkaz0nX4AAcr_v.jpg

dehrmann 6y ago
How efficient is electrolysis compared to making hydrocarbons?
mongol 6y ago
I would like to have seen more elaboration on transmission losses in the power grid. For example, if we imagine solar cells in Sahara generating energy for Europe, is power grid transmission feasible or does hydrogen look better in comparison?
- sacred_numbers 6y ago
  The problem with generating power in the Sahara for use in Europe has little to do with transmission losses and much more to do with the capital cost of building high capacity power lines over thousands of kilometers. There's also the cost of protecting those lines, since they would have to pass through several different countries that are not always politically stable.
  - deltron3030 6y ago
    It could be an incentive for political stability in those regions if they benefit from it.
  - mongol 6y ago
    Good point. But that could also ve an argument for hydrogen?

pfdietz 6y ago

> Batteries have a rare earth problem. NiMH batteries do, but who is using those?

arrrg 6y ago

Hydrogen makes sense in industrial applications (steel, chemistry, e.g. ammonia production). Electricity often isn’t even an option there (same with aviation). I think people tend to be too blinded in their focus on cars here? I don’t think hydrogen cars make much sense. Batteries all the way – but that doesn’t mean that hydrogen is without merit for other applications. And if you want to replace all greenhouse gases in industrial applications with green hydrogen you still need a shitton of hydrogen (since, yeah, it’s inefficient – but if it’s the most efficient greenhouse-neutral way to get there – what choice is there?), so that’s not something you can just improvise. You need to tackle it head-on. That’s why I fear people being stubbornly focused on cars. Even if not a single car will ever use hydrogen ever we could still need a lot of green hydrogen for other purposes if we want to be greenhouse-neutra.

lejboua 6y ago

It seems hydrogen isn't economically sound yet, despite all the progresses made in the last decades: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoa...

m_mueller 6y ago

I think they also make sense in cases where battery charge time is prohibitive or where you have a very long and constant load without the option for recharging. City buses, firetrucks, container ships and tankers come to mind. Though hopefully we won't need the latter much longer...

Hypx 6y ago

The problem you're missing is cost of production: A hydrogen car fundamentally should cost no more than gasoline powered car, and will have a similar range. With batteries, you'll always be limited in range to some extend, and cost reductions have failed to reduce them to anything like a Toyota Corolla type of car. Batteries don't have a rare earth metal problem, they have a normal metal problem. You need a lot of raw materials to make them, and it's plausible that this will never scale to point where everything can run on batteries.