3 ms·

Fuel Cells are the scam. The cheapest way to make hydrogen fuel is through fracking. It's dirty under the top-level. So it's "no emissions" but still relies

by r00fus 5y ago

Fuel Cells are the scam. The cheapest way to make hydrogen fuel is through fracking. It's dirty under the top-level. So it's "no emissions" but still relies on the planet-killing petroleum fuel chain. If you think PHEVs are somehow constrained by EVs - you have no idea of the patent forests Toyota and others have built on hybrid tech. It's not the lithium that's stopping PHEVs.

dragontamer 5y ago
And the cheapest source of electricity is coal. So its not like your EV-powered vehicle (largely using coal to power itself) is much better. In any case, widespread electrolysis of Hydrogen is well researched and well on its way to being achieved: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-electrolysis https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-el... There was a good article or two on some systems developed that were direct from solar-power into hydrogen, skipping the inefficient electricity steps.
- r00fus 5y ago
  Coal isn't the cheapest power anymore. Your information is out of date [1]. Electrolysis or solar hydrogen production still isn't even here, much less cheaper than fracking. [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/renewables-cheapest-energy-source/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/renewables-cheapest-e...
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Forward looking statements are no different than a $39,900 Cybertruck. They're correct as far as my discussion point is concerned. A possibility of the future, the benefits of being forward looking. It may not exist, but the point of the statement is to be parity with Elon Musk's discussion style. Not to be on parity with the actual truth. That's the problem: Mr. Musk imagines the future and his discussions are apparently fine. But snap back to reality and suddenly everyone else (who is working on realistic numbers) is wrong. ----- Electrolysis could exist, and it could be cheap. Much like how a $39000 Cybertruck could exist in enough numbers to warrant customers putting down reservation money on it. Its the name of the game and you know it if you've followed how this discussion evolves. Yes, I feel icky using that kind of logic but its necessary in this age.
- diebeforei485 5y ago
  Even if "steam reformation" (greenwashed name for hydrogen from fossil fuels) is no longer used, electrolysis of water still requires transporting water to a hydrogen plant, purifying it, electrolyzing it, and then compressing or liquefying the hydrogen for transport, and transporting the hydrogen to stations around the world. I could see this being used for airplanes because there aren't very many airports (it's far better than avgas which contains lead, and it's probably better than jet fuel?). But there is basically nowhere outside the far far north where this could be anywhere close to being as good as electricity for cars. Even in Norway today, electric is far more popular than hydorgen.

by r00fus 5y ago

dragontamer 5y ago

And the cheapest source of electricity is coal. So its not like your EV-powered vehicle (largely using coal to power itself) is much better. In any case, widespread electrolysis of Hydrogen is well researched and well on its way to being achieved: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-electrolysis https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-el... There was a good article or two on some systems developed that were direct from solar-power into hydrogen, skipping the inefficient electricity steps.

r00fus 5y ago
Coal isn't the cheapest power anymore. Your information is out of date [1]. Electrolysis or solar hydrogen production still isn't even here, much less cheaper than fracking. [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/renewables-cheapest-energy-source/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/renewables-cheapest-e...
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Forward looking statements are no different than a $39,900 Cybertruck. They're correct as far as my discussion point is concerned. A possibility of the future, the benefits of being forward looking. It may not exist, but the point of the statement is to be parity with Elon Musk's discussion style. Not to be on parity with the actual truth. That's the problem: Mr. Musk imagines the future and his discussions are apparently fine. But snap back to reality and suddenly everyone else (who is working on realistic numbers) is wrong. ----- Electrolysis could exist, and it could be cheap. Much like how a $39000 Cybertruck could exist in enough numbers to warrant customers putting down reservation money on it. Its the name of the game and you know it if you've followed how this discussion evolves. Yes, I feel icky using that kind of logic but its necessary in this age.
diebeforei485 5y ago
Even if "steam reformation" (greenwashed name for hydrogen from fossil fuels) is no longer used, electrolysis of water still requires transporting water to a hydrogen plant, purifying it, electrolyzing it, and then compressing or liquefying the hydrogen for transport, and transporting the hydrogen to stations around the world. I could see this being used for airplanes because there aren't very many airports (it's far better than avgas which contains lead, and it's probably better than jet fuel?). But there is basically nowhere outside the far far north where this could be anywhere close to being as good as electricity for cars. Even in Norway today, electric is far more popular than hydorgen.