5 ms·

The train has left that station 10 years ago, and it's all electric. No point staying in the trenches like the apocryphal Japanese soldier, fighting for the res

by yholio 5y ago

The train has left that station 10 years ago, and it's all electric. No point staying in the trenches like the apocryphal Japanese soldier, fighting for the resurgence of Hydrogen. It's less efficient, more expensive for vehicles and infrastructure and more expensive to fuel, has lower range, it's more dangerous. The range record for a Hydrogen vehicle is less than the range of mass-produced commercial cars available today for purchase. As an inferior technology, Hydrogen stood a chance if it was able to quickly deploy a network of charging stations, locking in customers with a strong network effect. The opposite is true now, electric charging points are popping up everywhere, because it's so damn easy to do, every shopping mall can accommodate at least a handful using its existing electric cabling. Most everybody has a 3.7KW power outlet at home that delivers significant range for an overnight or over-weekend charge. Meanwhile, Hydrogen needs a completely new pipeline distribution system, using special metals and seals because it's so agile and leaky. There is no point in investing in such a system, because battery electric has already won the race. And without this network, Hydrogen remains an oddity fuel relegated to specialty applications. It was a dead-end anyway. You either get Hydrogen form natural gas, which is an environmental killer, or you get it from green energy with a 20-30% whole cycle efficiency. Why not use the energy directly with a 80-90% efficiency, and use that vehicle fleet to regulate the whole electric grid?

k4lk 5y ago
I don't think it has left the station per se. I agree we should get as driving battery EV as possible, but at some point the current grid will not sustain more charging stations at the mall through existing cabling. At that point it makes sense to look to hydrogen. It should be possible to drive it to existing gas stations for refueling, reusing existing infrastructure on that front.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > the current grid will not sustain more charging stations at the mall through existing cabling. At that point it makes sense to look to hydrogen Is the assertion laying new hydrogen pipes would be cheaper than expanding electrical lines?
- yholio 5y ago
  > It should be possible to drive it to existing gas stations for refueling, reusing existing infrastructure on that front. Building pipes instead of wires is already 3 times less efficient per unit of energy. Moving around huge bombs that weigh more than their load is ridiculously ineficient. It's just unfathomable for the same reasons we don't move around compressed methane gas in tanker trucks - and hydrogen is even less dense. Gasoline, diesel and propane are very special cases of compact hydrocarbon fuel, you cannot replicate that for Hydrogen. We do liquify natural gas, but that's not an option for Hydrogen, and even for gas, it's only an economic option where there are no pipes and when the energy to do it (gas price) is basically free. As an energy storage solution, it's abysmal.
specialist 5y ago
The future has always been H2. Li-ion is a bridge to H2, an enabler. H2 fuel pellets will be passed around like hard candy. H2 production will be just as distributed, decentralized as our future energy generation. Li-ion will peak ~2032, hitting yearly (battery) production of ~8T gw/h, and state of the art attaining a large fraction of theoretical max energy density. Assuming H2 today is ~= Li-ion 2006, peak H2 would be ~2050. Assuming civilization lasts that long.
- yholio 5y ago
  "H2 pellets" could be the name of a street drug that makes people believe absurd things. But, unless you live on Neptune, it is certainly not an effective form of energy distribution. Hydrogen solidifies at an insanely low 14 Kelvin. Using an ideal Linde liquefaction cycle will waste you 30% of the energy contained in the fuel simply to perform this deep freeze. You get a relatively low density fuel, about 5 times less energy dense than gasoline, that you will need to protect with massive thermal insulation (think Space Shuttle external tank) otherwise it will outgas like crazy and be an imminent explosion risk. When you add the electrolysis and fuel cell loses, you get a bulky but inefficient vehicle. Sorry, this will never happen, regardless of what some hard SF author converted to futurologist may have led you to believe.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Never: http://plasmakinetics.com http://plasmakinetics.com Double or nothing?
    - yholio 5y ago
      There is nothing in your link about "pellets". I clearly assumed you were talking about frozen H2 since this is the standard term in the energy industry, see for example fusion research where solid fuel pellets are used. High absorbency materials have been around for a while, but they failed commercially, they are typically more trouble then the equivalent high pressure COPV tank. Maybe a hype laden Wordpress template website will change it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

by yholio 5y ago

k4lk 5y ago

I don't think it has left the station per se. I agree we should get as driving battery EV as possible, but at some point the current grid will not sustain more charging stations at the mall through existing cabling. At that point it makes sense to look to hydrogen. It should be possible to drive it to existing gas stations for refueling, reusing existing infrastructure on that front.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> the current grid will not sustain more charging stations at the mall through existing cabling. At that point it makes sense to look to hydrogen Is the assertion laying new hydrogen pipes would be cheaper than expanding electrical lines?
yholio 5y ago
> It should be possible to drive it to existing gas stations for refueling, reusing existing infrastructure on that front. Building pipes instead of wires is already 3 times less efficient per unit of energy. Moving around huge bombs that weigh more than their load is ridiculously ineficient. It's just unfathomable for the same reasons we don't move around compressed methane gas in tanker trucks - and hydrogen is even less dense. Gasoline, diesel and propane are very special cases of compact hydrocarbon fuel, you cannot replicate that for Hydrogen. We do liquify natural gas, but that's not an option for Hydrogen, and even for gas, it's only an economic option where there are no pipes and when the energy to do it (gas price) is basically free. As an energy storage solution, it's abysmal.

specialist 5y ago

The future has always been H2. Li-ion is a bridge to H2, an enabler. H2 fuel pellets will be passed around like hard candy. H2 production will be just as distributed, decentralized as our future energy generation. Li-ion will peak ~2032, hitting yearly (battery) production of ~8T gw/h, and state of the art attaining a large fraction of theoretical max energy density. Assuming H2 today is ~= Li-ion 2006, peak H2 would be ~2050. Assuming civilization lasts that long.

yholio 5y ago
"H2 pellets" could be the name of a street drug that makes people believe absurd things. But, unless you live on Neptune, it is certainly not an effective form of energy distribution. Hydrogen solidifies at an insanely low 14 Kelvin. Using an ideal Linde liquefaction cycle will waste you 30% of the energy contained in the fuel simply to perform this deep freeze. You get a relatively low density fuel, about 5 times less energy dense than gasoline, that you will need to protect with massive thermal insulation (think Space Shuttle external tank) otherwise it will outgas like crazy and be an imminent explosion risk. When you add the electrolysis and fuel cell loses, you get a bulky but inefficient vehicle. Sorry, this will never happen, regardless of what some hard SF author converted to futurologist may have led you to believe.
- specialist 5y ago
  Never: http://plasmakinetics.com http://plasmakinetics.com Double or nothing?
  - yholio 5y ago
    There is nothing in your link about "pellets". I clearly assumed you were talking about frozen H2 since this is the standard term in the energy industry, see for example fusion research where solid fuel pellets are used. High absorbency materials have been around for a while, but they failed commercially, they are typically more trouble then the equivalent high pressure COPV tank. Maybe a hype laden Wordpress template website will change it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.