3 ms·

EV != Tesla and Tesla != Autopilot Also maybe hydrogen is the future?

by stfp 5y ago

outworlder 5y ago
> Also maybe hydrogen is the future It definitely isn't if we are going to move away from fossil fuels.
- nameisname 5y ago
  Can't renewables produce hydrogen?
  - outworlder 5y ago
    They can. But overwhelmingly, they do not. It's much cheaper to extract hydrogen from fossil fuels and that's not likely to change any time soon.
- gumby 5y ago
  You can get H+ by cracking water. You “just” need a source of cheap energy. Storage is tough — those protons are really tiny and it’s hard to keep them from escaping
  - outworlder 5y ago
    > You can get H+ by cracking water. You “just” need a source of cheap energy. Well aware. But we don't have a source of cheap energy. And guess what, whatever source of energy we have, it is very wasteful to produce hydrogen. First, you need electrolysis. Around 80% efficient. However, in order to get any usable amount of energy per volume out of it, you need to either compress hydrogen (using more power) or liquefy it (way more power, boiloff problems). Now you need to transport it, physically. This uses more power, usually with some big trucks driving around, just as we have today with gasoline and diesel. This will get stored into some gas station equivalent. All the while losing mass, as those protons are hard to store, indeed. Now you can drive your vehicle and refill. Some inefficiencies here too but we can ignore them unless you need to travel long distances to refuel. This hydrogen will generally be used in a fuel cell. The output of the fuel cell is... electrical energy (+water) You could skip all that, use the electricity from the power grid to directly charge batteries. No hydrogen production plants needed, no container challenges, no diffusing through containers and embrittlement to worry about. No trucks full of hydrogen going around. Electricity is found almost everywhere, even in places where there's little gas infrastructure. Mind you, hydrogen has another disadvantage, other than thermodynamics: it ensures control is kept with the existing energy companies. We would still need to rely on their infrastructure to refill our cars (much like gas stations). They would like to keep it that way. Ultimately it doesn't really matter what's the fuel we are using, as long as we keep driving to gas stations.
    - gumby 5y ago
      I agree, H+ is a dumb approach.
      - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
        And H2 isn't much better.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      If hydrogen fuel cells lasted longer than batteries (in lifespans, not-per charge) or required fewer rare metals to create, I can see a giant win. EVs are pretty wasteful if you consider the entire car lifespan and not just what the end consumer fills up with, to the point that I feel the ecologically superior action is just to drive an old ICE.
      - outworlder 5y ago
        > required fewer rare metals to create Fuel cells require expensive and exotic catalysts, like platinum. So they don't even win there. Hydrogen might have aviation uses but I'm just as skeptical we'll get over the safety issues. > EVs are pretty wasteful if you consider the entire car lifespan Only until the required recycling infrastructure is in place. We can recycle around 96% of the material used in batteries. There's much less equipment needed for an EV, compared to ICE. There's also a push to use less of rare earth minerals like cobalt. Any advances in battery tech (like solid state batteries) can be easily incorporated, as electric motors don't care where the electricity comes from. EVs don't have spark plugs(consumable), oil pumps and filters, alternators(the drive motors work as alternators for regen braking), air filters, crankshafts, valves, pistons, exhaust(and catalytic converters with rare metals), starter motor... the list goes on. Even the brake pads last longer. It's at a minimum a battery bank, an electric motor, and some electronics to manage power. An order of magnitude less moving parts (that have to be manufactured, wear out, and have to be replaced). > the ecologically superior action is just to drive an old ICE. An old but relatively recent, fuel-injected ICE with the latest emissions standards? Probably much than getting a new one built, yes. A really old one with a busted engine (or one before we had catalytic converters in the exhaust)? Then I do not know. Might be better to scrap and get a somewhat less old vehicle. Honestly, the ecological win here would be to convert the existing fleet into EVs, rather than creating entirely new cars. There are some hobbyists doing that successfully. It's not even difficult - the difficult part is adapting the parts to fit the specific vehicle. The economics may be difficult to justify, however. At some point, when we have a sizable EV fleet, getting recycled batteries into them would be the way to go. They will probably last longer than our current ICE vehicles.
- catlikesshrimp 5y ago
  Hydrogen as fuel is unrelated to fossil fuels. Look it up. Edit: 95% of hydrogen is currently produced from hydrocarbons. BUT Electrolysis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water Hydrogen as a fuel has been tested in buses. Works a proof of concept. This was about hyundai marketing hydrogen as a fuel: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/07/04/after-many-false-starts-hydrogen-power-might-now-bear-fruit https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/07/04/... In the end, it will depend on the energy conversion efficiency that can achieved in the future.

EV != Tesla and Tesla != Autopilot Also maybe hydrogen is the future?

by stfp 5y ago

EV != Tesla and Tesla != Autopilot Also maybe hydrogen is the future?

outworlder 5y ago

> Also maybe hydrogen is the future It definitely isn't if we are going to move away from fossil fuels.

nameisname 5y ago
Can't renewables produce hydrogen?
- outworlder 5y ago
  They can. But overwhelmingly, they do not. It's much cheaper to extract hydrogen from fossil fuels and that's not likely to change any time soon.
gumby 5y ago
You can get H+ by cracking water. You “just” need a source of cheap energy. Storage is tough — those protons are really tiny and it’s hard to keep them from escaping
- outworlder 5y ago
  > You can get H+ by cracking water. You “just” need a source of cheap energy. Well aware. But we don't have a source of cheap energy. And guess what, whatever source of energy we have, it is very wasteful to produce hydrogen. First, you need electrolysis. Around 80% efficient. However, in order to get any usable amount of energy per volume out of it, you need to either compress hydrogen (using more power) or liquefy it (way more power, boiloff problems). Now you need to transport it, physically. This uses more power, usually with some big trucks driving around, just as we have today with gasoline and diesel. This will get stored into some gas station equivalent. All the while losing mass, as those protons are hard to store, indeed. Now you can drive your vehicle and refill. Some inefficiencies here too but we can ignore them unless you need to travel long distances to refuel. This hydrogen will generally be used in a fuel cell. The output of the fuel cell is... electrical energy (+water) You could skip all that, use the electricity from the power grid to directly charge batteries. No hydrogen production plants needed, no container challenges, no diffusing through containers and embrittlement to worry about. No trucks full of hydrogen going around. Electricity is found almost everywhere, even in places where there's little gas infrastructure. Mind you, hydrogen has another disadvantage, other than thermodynamics: it ensures control is kept with the existing energy companies. We would still need to rely on their infrastructure to refill our cars (much like gas stations). They would like to keep it that way. Ultimately it doesn't really matter what's the fuel we are using, as long as we keep driving to gas stations.
  - gumby 5y ago
    I agree, H+ is a dumb approach.
    - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
      And H2 isn't much better.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    If hydrogen fuel cells lasted longer than batteries (in lifespans, not-per charge) or required fewer rare metals to create, I can see a giant win. EVs are pretty wasteful if you consider the entire car lifespan and not just what the end consumer fills up with, to the point that I feel the ecologically superior action is just to drive an old ICE.
    - outworlder 5y ago
      > required fewer rare metals to create Fuel cells require expensive and exotic catalysts, like platinum. So they don't even win there. Hydrogen might have aviation uses but I'm just as skeptical we'll get over the safety issues. > EVs are pretty wasteful if you consider the entire car lifespan Only until the required recycling infrastructure is in place. We can recycle around 96% of the material used in batteries. There's much less equipment needed for an EV, compared to ICE. There's also a push to use less of rare earth minerals like cobalt. Any advances in battery tech (like solid state batteries) can be easily incorporated, as electric motors don't care where the electricity comes from. EVs don't have spark plugs(consumable), oil pumps and filters, alternators(the drive motors work as alternators for regen braking), air filters, crankshafts, valves, pistons, exhaust(and catalytic converters with rare metals), starter motor... the list goes on. Even the brake pads last longer. It's at a minimum a battery bank, an electric motor, and some electronics to manage power. An order of magnitude less moving parts (that have to be manufactured, wear out, and have to be replaced). > the ecologically superior action is just to drive an old ICE. An old but relatively recent, fuel-injected ICE with the latest emissions standards? Probably much than getting a new one built, yes. A really old one with a busted engine (or one before we had catalytic converters in the exhaust)? Then I do not know. Might be better to scrap and get a somewhat less old vehicle. Honestly, the ecological win here would be to convert the existing fleet into EVs, rather than creating entirely new cars. There are some hobbyists doing that successfully. It's not even difficult - the difficult part is adapting the parts to fit the specific vehicle. The economics may be difficult to justify, however. At some point, when we have a sizable EV fleet, getting recycled batteries into them would be the way to go. They will probably last longer than our current ICE vehicles.
catlikesshrimp 5y ago
Hydrogen as fuel is unrelated to fossil fuels. Look it up. Edit: 95% of hydrogen is currently produced from hydrocarbons. BUT Electrolysis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water Hydrogen as a fuel has been tested in buses. Works a proof of concept. This was about hyundai marketing hydrogen as a fuel: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/07/04/after-many-false-starts-hydrogen-power-might-now-bear-fruit https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/07/04/... In the end, it will depend on the energy conversion efficiency that can achieved in the future.