4 ms·

https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage.. https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage.... Get the word out. Batteries are

https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage.. https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage.... Get the word out. Batteries are bad hydrogen is good. Current hydrogen gas will have more energy than batteries at peak technology growth. This matters because hydrogen cars are cheaper, more scalable, and more inclusive than battery cars. Rich people get battery cars, you get a battery bike.

kolinko 6y ago
hydrogen keeps status quo - big corporations supplying fuel stations. battery drives help with decentralisation - you can charge your car back at home from your own solar. Also, hydrogen has how much - 60% energy loss?
- afrojack123 6y ago
  Status quo doesn't matter. Cost does. Efficiency doesn't matter. Cost does. Economics<-> Engineering <-> Science Link the 3 and you will understand. Economics: Rare earth metals are scare, expensive, and political. Hydrogen sourced from natural gas is abundant and 50% less pollution than oil and petrol. Hydrogen is operating expense(pay on usage), batteries(pay upfront). Engineering: Storage is everything. Batteries have about the same Mega Joules overall as hydrogen storage in a car because the hydrogen has to be compressed. You can compare the range between Model 3 and Hydrogen fuel cell cars and see the ranges are similar. MJ/kg is ultimately what determines cost and batteries have significantly worse MJ/kg than hydrogen tanks. Science: Peak battery innovation will only be able to match current hydrogen fuel cells MJ/kg.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    Hydrogen cars are both more expensive (both upfront and operational) AND less efficient than comparable electric cars while having less range, less convenient recharging (no home or work charging, can only fill in a few stations in California), and being slower.
    - afrojack123 6y ago
      Give it some time.
      - Robotbeat 6y ago
        So that batteries become both lighter and cheaper and the advantage grows? I don't think time favors hydrogen cars. The underlying technology was available over 50 years ago (used on Gemini spacecraft as hydrogen fuel cells in the mid 1960s, and in stationary form in the early 1930s, first developed in the lab in the 1830s). Lithium chemistry has advanced dramatically in the time since it was first invented. There were no rechargeable lithium chemistry batteries 50 years ago, even in the lab. And they didn't enter practical use until the 1990s and significant yearly progress continues today. Time favors lithium chemistry rechargeable batteries.
        nickik 6y ago
        We will literally have silicon anodes batteries in 2-3 years, we will have pure lithium anodes in 4-5 years, after that we will have sulfer-lithium batteries within the decade. With lithium annodes we are at a point where you can replace most air-travel with battery planes. There is way more upside for improvement in batteries compared to fuel cells. Fuel cells have no future in transportation unless there is some fundamental breakthrew that nobody can anticipate, nothing I have seen even in research improves fuel cell technology enough to make it viable.
        Robotbeat 6y ago
        There might be some purpose for fuel cells for really long distance shipping and maybe seasonal storage use, but overall, I agree.
        nickik 6y ago
        I think for seasonal storage there are better options. I also don't see how fuel cells beat ICE even a renewable produced carbon fuel like methanol or Dimethyl ether. I would prefer small nuclear reactors but I seem to be the only one.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  > big corporations Whenever I see people use this phrase in a debate context, I give the argument less credit because it's meant to evoke an emotional response, but adds little to the discussion. There are all sorts of companies , some big, some small, some more profit-driven, some less, some with more flexible ethics, etc. A company being big or small doesn't inherently make it bad, and small companies aren't inherently good. It might also disrupt the status quo. Electrolysis (I assume this is where you're getting your hydrogen) just takes water and electric. People might even have home systems that can do it. That said, I still think hydrogen is, for the most part, silly, because of the electric requirement. Might as well use the electric as electric.
kolinko 6y ago
Also, the article you quoted treats energy density as the only deciding factor when choosing energy storage. It ignores both the cost and environmental damage of each energy source. If we discover a way to extract energy from little kittens more efficiently than from oil, according to you we should start building kitten farms for fuel. This is absurd :)
- afrojack123 6y ago
  Natural gas is 50% less polluting than traditional oil and petrol. This means you can double production before you see same effects. This is huge and acceptable by governments. Alternatively think of the low energy output of solar and wind power. In order to get more energy, you have to use more land and real estate. Are we supposed to chop down the entire rainforest and destroy poor people neighborhoods to get more energy.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I hate it when people use the "chop down rainforest" meme without any actual knowledge of why it is happening. No, people are not chopping down the rainforest for solar panels and integrating wind turbines into a forest is absolutely trivial with minimal loss of land. [0] The primary reason why rain forests are being destroyed is by what I personally call "disposable agriculture". Poor farmers set a part of the rainforest on fire. The resulting ashes drop down on the land and the farmer starts tilling the soil. The ashes act as a natural fertilizer. The farmer then plants his monoculture field and exports the harvest. The top soil in the rainforest is not very deep. Without trees it is prone to being blown or washed away. Additionally exporting the harvest means that organic matter is being taken away from the location which further depletes the topsoil. After 3 years the land is worthless and the farmer has to move onto the next location. Rinse and repeat. A single farmer can easily destroy hundreds of acres of rainforest. Depletion of nutrients is not exclusive to the rainforest though. Regular farmland also suffers from this which is why farmers have to use artificial fertilizer. You can farm in the rainforest even if you can't afford fertilizer. This is why it is being destroyed. [0] https://static2.bigstockphoto.com/5/1/3/large1500/315311371.jpg https://static2.bigstockphoto.com/5/1/3/large1500/315311371....
imtringued 6y ago
Hydrogen infrastructure suffers from huge energy losses. Unless you are powering aircraft, heavy industry, large scale grid storage or hybrid cars there is not much point in choosing hydrogen. You get much more mileage out of a single kWh with a BEV.
Robotbeat 6y ago
The claim that hydrogen cars are cheaper and that battery cars are just for the rich in comparison is entirely unfounded. I have no idea where this idea came from as it is not borne by reality. Compare two vehicles of the same overall type. A Toyota Mirai, one of the only hydrogen cars available, with a Long-Range Model 3. Msrp: $58,550 for the Mirai, $46,990 for the LR Model 3. Range: 312 miles for the Mirai, 322 for Model 3 LR. Curb weight (!): 4075lbs for the Mirai, 4072lbs for the Model 3 LR. Top speed, 0-60mph: 111mph and 9s for the Mirai; 145mph and 4.4s Model 3 LR Cost per mile: $0.33 per mile for Toyota Mirai in LA https://www.toyotasantamonica.com/toyota-mirai-faqs/#:~:text=How%20Much%20Hydrogen%20Fuel%20Costs,on%20the%20average%20consumption%20pattern https://www.toyotasantamonica.com/toyota-mirai-faqs/#:~:text.... About $0.05 per mile for the Tesla Model 3 LR (19 cents per kWh in LA for households average, ~4 miles per kWh) for home charging and $0.07 per mile for Model 3 LR with Supercharging (about 28 cents per kWh). Battery-electric cars are basically cheaper and more convenient and more efficient and better in virtually every single way. (Even lighter for more range, which I was surprised at.)
- afrojack123 6y ago
  Subtract the $15,000 fuel deposit for the Mirai. The price will come down at scale.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    It's not a "fuel deposit." There's no option but to pay it. It's marketed as "complementary" fuel. I consider it effectively a manufacturer's subsidy for early adopters, similar to Tesla's free Supercharging (which I didn't include here as I consistently didn't include any subsidies or incentives). The consumer doesn't get that money if they choose not to use the "free" fueling.
- dang 6y ago
  > That's ridiculous. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (The parent comment has since been edited.)
nickik 6y ago
Ah the old hydrogen fool cell idiocy has still not died out. No matter that end to end its less then half as efficient and more expensive. Doing basic efficiency calculation to going from a solar pannel to forward movement on a car, is so overwhelming that I really don't see how anybody can sill argue for it. And if we are talking about green hydrogen only, the fuel cost compared to electricity is like 50 times higher. There is basically no infrastructure either. Additionally hydrogen infrastructure is incredibly expensive to deploy and to keep running. Using the already existing power infrastructure is just so much smarter its not even close. Add to all that that nobody has ever produced fuel cells at that scale at anywhere the price you would need. It also contains lots of expensive metals that would make scaling to millions of cars very challenging. Compared to batteries that consists of lithium, nikel, graphite and silicon, with maybe some cobalt but that will be gone soon. All easily available materials that can scale. Any automaker that is still perusing fuel cells will be dealt harsh kicks by the market over and over again. At least they can keep sucking in government money to continue development, instead the government funding sulfer-lithium batteries that have way more potential.

kolinko 6y ago

hydrogen keeps status quo - big corporations supplying fuel stations. battery drives help with decentralisation - you can charge your car back at home from your own solar. Also, hydrogen has how much - 60% energy loss?

afrojack123 6y ago
Status quo doesn't matter. Cost does. Efficiency doesn't matter. Cost does. Economics<-> Engineering <-> Science Link the 3 and you will understand. Economics: Rare earth metals are scare, expensive, and political. Hydrogen sourced from natural gas is abundant and 50% less pollution than oil and petrol. Hydrogen is operating expense(pay on usage), batteries(pay upfront). Engineering: Storage is everything. Batteries have about the same Mega Joules overall as hydrogen storage in a car because the hydrogen has to be compressed. You can compare the range between Model 3 and Hydrogen fuel cell cars and see the ranges are similar. MJ/kg is ultimately what determines cost and batteries have significantly worse MJ/kg than hydrogen tanks. Science: Peak battery innovation will only be able to match current hydrogen fuel cells MJ/kg.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Hydrogen cars are both more expensive (both upfront and operational) AND less efficient than comparable electric cars while having less range, less convenient recharging (no home or work charging, can only fill in a few stations in California), and being slower.
  - afrojack123 6y ago
    Give it some time.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      So that batteries become both lighter and cheaper and the advantage grows? I don't think time favors hydrogen cars. The underlying technology was available over 50 years ago (used on Gemini spacecraft as hydrogen fuel cells in the mid 1960s, and in stationary form in the early 1930s, first developed in the lab in the 1830s). Lithium chemistry has advanced dramatically in the time since it was first invented. There were no rechargeable lithium chemistry batteries 50 years ago, even in the lab. And they didn't enter practical use until the 1990s and significant yearly progress continues today. Time favors lithium chemistry rechargeable batteries.
      - nickik 6y ago
        We will literally have silicon anodes batteries in 2-3 years, we will have pure lithium anodes in 4-5 years, after that we will have sulfer-lithium batteries within the decade. With lithium annodes we are at a point where you can replace most air-travel with battery planes. There is way more upside for improvement in batteries compared to fuel cells. Fuel cells have no future in transportation unless there is some fundamental breakthrew that nobody can anticipate, nothing I have seen even in research improves fuel cell technology enough to make it viable.
        Robotbeat 6y ago
        There might be some purpose for fuel cells for really long distance shipping and maybe seasonal storage use, but overall, I agree.
        nickik 6y ago
        I think for seasonal storage there are better options. I also don't see how fuel cells beat ICE even a renewable produced carbon fuel like methanol or Dimethyl ether. I would prefer small nuclear reactors but I seem to be the only one.
dehrmann 6y ago
> big corporations Whenever I see people use this phrase in a debate context, I give the argument less credit because it's meant to evoke an emotional response, but adds little to the discussion. There are all sorts of companies , some big, some small, some more profit-driven, some less, some with more flexible ethics, etc. A company being big or small doesn't inherently make it bad, and small companies aren't inherently good. It might also disrupt the status quo. Electrolysis (I assume this is where you're getting your hydrogen) just takes water and electric. People might even have home systems that can do it. That said, I still think hydrogen is, for the most part, silly, because of the electric requirement. Might as well use the electric as electric.

kolinko 6y ago

Also, the article you quoted treats energy density as the only deciding factor when choosing energy storage. It ignores both the cost and environmental damage of each energy source. If we discover a way to extract energy from little kittens more efficiently than from oil, according to you we should start building kitten farms for fuel. This is absurd :)

afrojack123 6y ago
Natural gas is 50% less polluting than traditional oil and petrol. This means you can double production before you see same effects. This is huge and acceptable by governments. Alternatively think of the low energy output of solar and wind power. In order to get more energy, you have to use more land and real estate. Are we supposed to chop down the entire rainforest and destroy poor people neighborhoods to get more energy.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I hate it when people use the "chop down rainforest" meme without any actual knowledge of why it is happening. No, people are not chopping down the rainforest for solar panels and integrating wind turbines into a forest is absolutely trivial with minimal loss of land. [0] The primary reason why rain forests are being destroyed is by what I personally call "disposable agriculture". Poor farmers set a part of the rainforest on fire. The resulting ashes drop down on the land and the farmer starts tilling the soil. The ashes act as a natural fertilizer. The farmer then plants his monoculture field and exports the harvest. The top soil in the rainforest is not very deep. Without trees it is prone to being blown or washed away. Additionally exporting the harvest means that organic matter is being taken away from the location which further depletes the topsoil. After 3 years the land is worthless and the farmer has to move onto the next location. Rinse and repeat. A single farmer can easily destroy hundreds of acres of rainforest. Depletion of nutrients is not exclusive to the rainforest though. Regular farmland also suffers from this which is why farmers have to use artificial fertilizer. You can farm in the rainforest even if you can't afford fertilizer. This is why it is being destroyed. [0] https://static2.bigstockphoto.com/5/1/3/large1500/315311371.jpg https://static2.bigstockphoto.com/5/1/3/large1500/315311371....

imtringued 6y ago

Hydrogen infrastructure suffers from huge energy losses. Unless you are powering aircraft, heavy industry, large scale grid storage or hybrid cars there is not much point in choosing hydrogen. You get much more mileage out of a single kWh with a BEV.

Robotbeat 6y ago

The claim that hydrogen cars are cheaper and that battery cars are just for the rich in comparison is entirely unfounded. I have no idea where this idea came from as it is not borne by reality. Compare two vehicles of the same overall type. A Toyota Mirai, one of the only hydrogen cars available, with a Long-Range Model 3. Msrp: $58,550 for the Mirai, $46,990 for the LR Model 3. Range: 312 miles for the Mirai, 322 for Model 3 LR. Curb weight (!): 4075lbs for the Mirai, 4072lbs for the Model 3 LR. Top speed, 0-60mph: 111mph and 9s for the Mirai; 145mph and 4.4s Model 3 LR Cost per mile: $0.33 per mile for Toyota Mirai in LA https://www.toyotasantamonica.com/toyota-mirai-faqs/#:~:text=How%20Much%20Hydrogen%20Fuel%20Costs,on%20the%20average%20consumption%20pattern https://www.toyotasantamonica.com/toyota-mirai-faqs/#:~:text.... About $0.05 per mile for the Tesla Model 3 LR (19 cents per kWh in LA for households average, ~4 miles per kWh) for home charging and $0.07 per mile for Model 3 LR with Supercharging (about 28 cents per kWh). Battery-electric cars are basically cheaper and more convenient and more efficient and better in virtually every single way. (Even lighter for more range, which I was surprised at.)

afrojack123 6y ago
Subtract the $15,000 fuel deposit for the Mirai. The price will come down at scale.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  It's not a "fuel deposit." There's no option but to pay it. It's marketed as "complementary" fuel. I consider it effectively a manufacturer's subsidy for early adopters, similar to Tesla's free Supercharging (which I didn't include here as I consistently didn't include any subsidies or incentives). The consumer doesn't get that money if they choose not to use the "free" fueling.
dang 6y ago
> That's ridiculous. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (The parent comment has since been edited.)

nickik 6y ago

Ah the old hydrogen fool cell idiocy has still not died out. No matter that end to end its less then half as efficient and more expensive. Doing basic efficiency calculation to going from a solar pannel to forward movement on a car, is so overwhelming that I really don't see how anybody can sill argue for it. And if we are talking about green hydrogen only, the fuel cost compared to electricity is like 50 times higher. There is basically no infrastructure either. Additionally hydrogen infrastructure is incredibly expensive to deploy and to keep running. Using the already existing power infrastructure is just so much smarter its not even close. Add to all that that nobody has ever produced fuel cells at that scale at anywhere the price you would need. It also contains lots of expensive metals that would make scaling to millions of cars very challenging. Compared to batteries that consists of lithium, nikel, graphite and silicon, with maybe some cobalt but that will be gone soon. All easily available materials that can scale. Any automaker that is still perusing fuel cells will be dealt harsh kicks by the market over and over again. At least they can keep sucking in government money to continue development, instead the government funding sulfer-lithium batteries that have way more potential.