5 ms·

I assume there are also costs to store and deliver hydrogen fuel? I'd like to see an EROEI comparison of electric vs. hydrogen.

• meepmorp 5y ago
  Make ammonia out of it, easier to store and transport.
  • toomuchtodo 5y ago
    The closer you can get to both steel mills and pipelines, the better. Steel mills can use the hydrogen to replace metallurgical/coking coal, and the pipeline can accept ammonia for transport. Hydrogen is very hard on pipeline infra, unless mixed at low concentrations with a carrier gas.
    • jsonne 5y ago
      It also is how they power refrigeration in meat processing to keep the freezers cold. Seems like if you put it next to those manufacturing facilities to power the freezer trucks and facility itself you could save a significant amount of energy and reduce greenhouse gasses.
      • jhloa2 5y ago
        Probably not as much as you'd think. Ammonia is used as a refrigerant in a closed-loop system. You'll eventually have some leaks and have to recharge the system, but the ammonia isn't a consumable item in this process.
    • ncmncm 5y ago
      A steel mill will make its own hydrogen on demand from wired-in power off the continental grid. Likewise, international airports for LH2 aircraft. They will bank hydrogen synthesized when grid prices are lowest, in mid-day, when immediate power need is vastly outstripped by solar generating capacity.
• hannob 5y ago
  This is the wrong question to ask. Hydrogen is not for use cases where there is an electric alternative. Electric almost always wins. But there are use cases where there is no electric alternative or none that is available any time soon, most notably chemicals and steel.
  • aunty_helen 5y ago
    It's the wrong question to ask but it sure as shit is what it's being promoted as. Look at the wayward Toyota, they seem to think they can navigate around chemisty to sell their EVs with a hydrogen fuel cell attached.
    • zamalek 5y ago
      They made a bet on hydrogen, hydrogen cars failed, and they are now sinking in more costs. They are a financial and executive failure, not a scientific one. There is still use for hydrogen outside of vehicles (and possibly some highly specific scenarios involving vehicles).
      • Diggsey 5y ago
        Most of the problems with hydrogen for cars comes from how you produce that hydrogen. Obviously, producing hydrogen from methane to power cars is a stupid idea if your goal is to reduce greenhouse gases. However, pure electric cars are only successful in some niches, and larger vehicles like buses and lorries just aren't practical yet, whilst hydrogen buses are already a thing. Battery technology has come a long way, but the energy density is still absolute garbage when you compare it to the energy density in any fuel. If you can produce hydrogen directly from solar power, then the overall efficiency may be less important: the advantages of greatly increased power density, and ease of refueling may make it more appealing. For battery-powered cars to be the long-term solution, and not just a stop-gap measure, there will need to be a massive breakthrough, to the point that energy densities can be compared with other fuelds. As petrol/diesel cars are phased out, there will be an increasing number of customers whose needs cannot be met by the current state of electric vehicles, and there will need to exist another option. At that point, maybe hydrogen won't look like such a bad bet...