5 ms·

Hydrogen makes more sense when you consider that fillup stations are built with concrete and steel... while electric is full of SiC MOSFETs, expensive electroni

Hydrogen makes more sense when you consider that fillup stations are built with concrete and steel... while electric is full of SiC MOSFETs, expensive electronics, and a ton of copper to pass through 2MW of electricity. There's a tradeoff of course. What's easier for refueling stations is less convenient for the consumer. But if you're a fleet operator (ex: Delivery trucks or Semi-trucks), suddenly you care more about the cost of refueling stations. So I dunno, lets have the methodologies compete and may the best tech win? I'm mostly just happy that a variety of alternative fuels are competing now.

masklinn 5y ago
> But if you're a fleet operator (ex: Delivery trucks or Semi-trucks), suddenly you care more about the cost of refuelling stations. The concrete and steel station of hydrogen refuelling is quite a few steps (miles) beyond petrol though, and the danger (and thus the additional security risks) are in an entirely different realm as well. > So I dunno, lets have the methodologies compete and may the best tech win? The problem is... compete how? Because currently electricity has already won (if we ignore the elephant of fossil fuels in the room).
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > The problem is... compete how? https://www.reuters.com/article/olympics-2022-energy-hydrogen-idCNL1N2SR0GD https://www.reuters.com/article/olympics-2022-energy-hydroge... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hydrogen-olympics-lit-a-torch-for-the-clean-fuels-future1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hydrogen-olym... By building and testing Hydrogen solutions. You may declare it over, except everyone sees the problem with electric and is continuing to try to make progress on this front.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    Well done getting smoked by the fossil fuel industry and their attempt to sell their dirty hydrogen as a transition fuel. > clean-burning fuel [...] as long as you make the hydrogen from a clean source that's one hell of a footnote you've got here, because currently 95% of hydrogen production is not that.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > Well done getting smoked by the fossil fuel industry and their attempt to sell their dirty hydrogen as a transition fuel. Well done getting smoked by the electric car industry, and their attempt to sell their dirty Li-ion as a green source. Come on, we both know this argument style isn't helpful. Or at least, I hope you understand that this style of discussion doesn't help anyone. ------- EDIT: A more serious counterpoint: Japan doesn't have a fossil fuel industry, yet they are the ones pushing Hydrogen the most. I think your read on politics of this whole thing is a bit weird (albeit many people try to bring up your point, but it doesn't hit home for me)
- cayleyh 5y ago
  What is the added danger? AFAIK the best research suggests hydrogen is "as dangerous" or less so than liquid gasoline: https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2017/03/17/so-just-how-dangerous-is-hydrogen-fuel/ https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2017/03/17/so-just-how-dangerous-is.... Are you specifically worried about compressed storage or something else?
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    I've seen some amusing arguments that liquid gasoline is heavier than air, and therefore dribbles on the floor and burns longer. In contrast, Hydrogen is lighter-than-air, and immediately floats up to the stratosphere. As such, you absolutely get hydrogen explosions, but no long-term burns (like you'd get from a Li-ion fire or gasoline fire). Whether or not that's "safer" is well... an interesting thought for sure. But its certainly an argument for hydrogen "safety" (or at least, mitigation of damages). If any Hydrogen fire only lasts 5 to 10 seconds before the H2 escapes to the upper-atmosphere, then your damage is surely mitigated.

masklinn 5y ago

> But if you're a fleet operator (ex: Delivery trucks or Semi-trucks), suddenly you care more about the cost of refuelling stations. The concrete and steel station of hydrogen refuelling is quite a few steps (miles) beyond petrol though, and the danger (and thus the additional security risks) are in an entirely different realm as well. > So I dunno, lets have the methodologies compete and may the best tech win? The problem is... compete how? Because currently electricity has already won (if we ignore the elephant of fossil fuels in the room).

dragontamer 5y ago
> The problem is... compete how? https://www.reuters.com/article/olympics-2022-energy-hydrogen-idCNL1N2SR0GD https://www.reuters.com/article/olympics-2022-energy-hydroge... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hydrogen-olympics-lit-a-torch-for-the-clean-fuels-future1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hydrogen-olym... By building and testing Hydrogen solutions. You may declare it over, except everyone sees the problem with electric and is continuing to try to make progress on this front.
- masklinn 5y ago
  Well done getting smoked by the fossil fuel industry and their attempt to sell their dirty hydrogen as a transition fuel. > clean-burning fuel [...] as long as you make the hydrogen from a clean source that's one hell of a footnote you've got here, because currently 95% of hydrogen production is not that.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > Well done getting smoked by the fossil fuel industry and their attempt to sell their dirty hydrogen as a transition fuel. Well done getting smoked by the electric car industry, and their attempt to sell their dirty Li-ion as a green source. Come on, we both know this argument style isn't helpful. Or at least, I hope you understand that this style of discussion doesn't help anyone. ------- EDIT: A more serious counterpoint: Japan doesn't have a fossil fuel industry, yet they are the ones pushing Hydrogen the most. I think your read on politics of this whole thing is a bit weird (albeit many people try to bring up your point, but it doesn't hit home for me)
cayleyh 5y ago
What is the added danger? AFAIK the best research suggests hydrogen is "as dangerous" or less so than liquid gasoline: https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2017/03/17/so-just-how-dangerous-is-hydrogen-fuel/ https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2017/03/17/so-just-how-dangerous-is.... Are you specifically worried about compressed storage or something else?
- dragontamer 5y ago
  I've seen some amusing arguments that liquid gasoline is heavier than air, and therefore dribbles on the floor and burns longer. In contrast, Hydrogen is lighter-than-air, and immediately floats up to the stratosphere. As such, you absolutely get hydrogen explosions, but no long-term burns (like you'd get from a Li-ion fire or gasoline fire). Whether or not that's "safer" is well... an interesting thought for sure. But its certainly an argument for hydrogen "safety" (or at least, mitigation of damages). If any Hydrogen fire only lasts 5 to 10 seconds before the H2 escapes to the upper-atmosphere, then your damage is surely mitigated.