4 ms·

Fuel-cell proponents keep claiming they're just around the corner but the issues with them are fundamental. ~3x the total energy use because of all the ineffici

Fuel-cell proponents keep claiming they're just around the corner but the issues with them are fundamental. ~3x the total energy use because of all the inefficiencies, and needing an all new infrastructure compared to BEVs where the grid is already everywhere. If FCEVs show up and are actually usable that would be fine but I wouldn't bet on it. They're mostly brought out as an argument for staying on ICEs until, real soon now, we'll finally have them. Maybe for long sea shipping hydrogen will work, but even for trucking the 3x energy input needed is hard to justify.

Hypx 6y ago
There's nothing stopping FCEVs from being as efficient as BEVs. Even now, huge improvements are being found like 90% efficient electrolysis[1]. Future improvements in hydrogen and fuel cell technology could close the gap entirely. Like I said, you're repeating many arguments that are a mirror of the arguments made against BEVs. It's pretty ridiculous to just repeat anti-EVs for something else while being pro-EVs. The other thing is that this viewpoint is increasingly outdated. A lot of these "facts" date to the 2010s or earlier. These are more inline with a person being out of touch than someone that is informed. [1] https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/03/20210307-topsoe.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/03/20210307-topsoe.htm...
- DuskStar 6y ago
  90% efficient electrolysis doesn't matter when "getting hydrogen from the pump to your car's fuel tank" has 20+ percent energy losses. And from the tanker trailer to the pump. And... This comes from the inherent thermodynamic inefficiencies of compressing something, letting it expand, and then compressing it again.
  - Hypx 6y ago
    Those losses can be made much less than that. Theoretical minimal losses are on the order of 1-2kWh per kg, and in practice not much more than that[1]. Further efficiency improvements can get reality even closer to theoretical. Most of these arguments are increasingly outdated, as I mentioned before. We're at the point where hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on hydrogen right now[2]. So naysayers are more accurately described as being out of touch with latest events and not people with any special knowledge. [1] https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirements_for_hydrogen_gas_compression.pdf https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirement... [2] https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/7/8/europe-unveils-plan-boost-hydrogen-market-green-re/ https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/7/8/europe-unveils-pl...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Hypx 6y ago

There's nothing stopping FCEVs from being as efficient as BEVs. Even now, huge improvements are being found like 90% efficient electrolysis[1]. Future improvements in hydrogen and fuel cell technology could close the gap entirely. Like I said, you're repeating many arguments that are a mirror of the arguments made against BEVs. It's pretty ridiculous to just repeat anti-EVs for something else while being pro-EVs. The other thing is that this viewpoint is increasingly outdated. A lot of these "facts" date to the 2010s or earlier. These are more inline with a person being out of touch than someone that is informed. [1] https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/03/20210307-topsoe.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/03/20210307-topsoe.htm...

DuskStar 6y ago
90% efficient electrolysis doesn't matter when "getting hydrogen from the pump to your car's fuel tank" has 20+ percent energy losses. And from the tanker trailer to the pump. And... This comes from the inherent thermodynamic inefficiencies of compressing something, letting it expand, and then compressing it again.
- Hypx 6y ago
  Those losses can be made much less than that. Theoretical minimal losses are on the order of 1-2kWh per kg, and in practice not much more than that[1]. Further efficiency improvements can get reality even closer to theoretical. Most of these arguments are increasingly outdated, as I mentioned before. We're at the point where hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on hydrogen right now[2]. So naysayers are more accurately described as being out of touch with latest events and not people with any special knowledge. [1] https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirements_for_hydrogen_gas_compression.pdf https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirement... [2] https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/7/8/europe-unveils-plan-boost-hydrogen-market-green-re/ https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/7/8/europe-unveils-pl...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]