8 ms·
Why is California wasting millions on hydrogen fuel pumps?
- toomuchtodo 5y ago> The California Energy Commission (CEC) has invested nearly $166 million and plans to invest a total of $279 million through its Clean Transportation Program to build a network of more than 100 hydrogen filling stations to support the increasingly unlikely surge of zero-emissions fuel-cell electric cars. For comparison, it has cost Tesla ~$600 million to build out its global supercharger network. https://supercharge.info/map https://supercharge.info/map
- deadmutex 5y agoOne hypothesis: While Battery Electric Cars seem to have won out in California, it is still unclear what the longer term trend for Trucks will be. Some postulate that Hydrogen might be useful for quick refueling of trucks, and to lower the mass needed to carry (as the trip goes on, increasing mileage), etc.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNgZ6xL_An4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNgZ6xL_An4
- jeffbee 5y agoThat's a decent attempt at a back-justification, but to my knowledge the hydrogen program is running purely on momentum from many years ago when the economic superiority of battery-electric cars was not yet perfectly clear.
- R0b0t1 5y agoHydrogen is not something that could work, it already does work. Battery EVs make a lot of tradeoffs making them unsuitable for a lot of workloads. Hydrogen solves them and does not need much development to make it useful for consumer vehicles. You can look at hydrogen almost as a propane replacement as well. Nuclear to hydrogen is workable and the way I'm imagining it going. There's also options to create hydrocarbons from air using the heat of a reactor.
- panick21_ 5y agoBEV solve 99% of the problem and hydrogen is not worh investing in for the rest. The battle is already over, and just like with cars 10 ago its totally clear but it will be another 5 years until the hydrogen defenders admit it. And claiming that hydrogen doesnt need much development is an insane claim given the money put in and the total lack of success.
- dsl 5y agoWe will always need a portable liquid fuel to meet needs like emergency vehicles, construction equipment, and emergency generators. Not everything is a consumer car and truck. Being a battery maximalist prolongs the time everything else runs on dead dinosaurs.
- jeffbee 5y agoWhy can't that stuff just remain diesel? We can synthesize it, no problem.
- panick21_ 5y agoAs I said, 1%. And in those cases using hydrogen makes little sense. Emergency vehicles of most types don't need that however. And in many of the cases you mention swappable battery packs are an option as well. But we have to realize that compared to all consumer and fleet cars, 99% of all trucking is the vast majority of fuel use in transportation. Extreme long range trucking is the exception. In most cases you would make the hydrogen into methanol and you can keep mostly the same engines.
- fmajid 5y agoMost hydrogen is produced from methane and is actually worse than gasoline for global warming because methane leaks and is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It makes indeed more sense to just use renewable gasoline, e.g. using the Fischer-Tropsch process like VW's eFuel.
- russdill 5y agoThe pumps being installed are sized for passenger vehicles
- dsl 5y agoHydrogen is like gasoline. Trucks and cars use the same gas pumps.
- russdill 5y agoYou sure can, but it takes a very long time to fill a class 8 truck from a consumer gasoline pump. Doubly so for hydrogen given the slower speed.
- dsl 5y agoDepartment of Energy regulations require hydrogen fuel stations to be able to fuel vehicles at 8-12 gallons per minute equivalent. Gas and diesel pumps (even the hi-flow truck stop ones) are capped at 10 gpm for safety.
- russdill 5y agoTruck stop pumps have much larger nozzles and pump 6-10 times faster than the limit for light vehicles "and that refueling facilities are exempt from the 10gpm requirement if used exclusively to refuel heavy-duty vehicles, boats or airplanes" https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-1996-06-26/96-16205 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-1996-06-26/96-16205 Right now the lack of standardization of high pressure, high flow rate pumps for large trucks is a problem that Nikola is working very hard to solve. The pumps that are standardized and in use right now are a major bottleneck.
- russdill 5y agoIt looks like current pumps fill hydrogen at a rate of about 1kg/minute. A class 8 truck would take more than an hour to fill. At they point just go BEV. https://www.nrel.gov/news/features/2020/nrel-research-fueling-big-rigs-help-hydrogen-vehicles-hit-road.html https://www.nrel.gov/news/features/2020/nrel-research-fuelin...
- devman0 5y agoI think what they are trying in Europe with overhead wires for charging on the move allowing trucks to carry lighter batteries will be more successful.
- dmitrygr 5y agoThose have existed for a while, complete with a small local battery and all: https://www.google.com/search?q=trolleybus https://www.google.com/search?q=trolleybus
- R0b0t1 5y agoSo... worse electric trains?
- lightbritefight 5y agoIf by worse electric trains you mean electric trains that can solve the last mile problem all in one mode of transit, then yes. Visual a bus that picks you up at its regular stops, but when it enters the highway of uses a long stretch of overhead wire to use nil battery. You get the benefits of scale and flexibility of a bus, but at a reduced cost than train infrastructure while still moving many, many more people than a car.
- nomel 5y agoI think you drastically underestimate how vast the American last mile is.
- llampx 5y agoMaybe the age of American sprawl powered by cheap gas and high incomes is over.
- manicdee 5y agoIt’s time to stick a pin in the suburbia ponzi scheme and call this failed experiment done. Separating people from their place of work by a forced commute was a great subsidy for the automotive and petroleum industries, but that is over now.
- dsl 5y agoElectric is a complete non-starter for emergency vehicles. They need to be able to refuel in a grid-down situation, and fill up in minutes instead of hours. Hydrogen isn't as portable as gasoline, but it can be trucked to disaster areas easier than electricity. If EVs really take off and we start to see gas stations shutting down, it would be nice to have the infrastructure already in place to keep fire trucks and ambulances rolling.
- juliushuijnk 5y agoSolar + big batteries can provide electricity when the grid is down. If you need a backup plan, then a regular gas station and perhaps hybrid emergency fire trucks seems to make more sense. Since all the infrastructure is available for that right now.
- dsl 5y agoThat is the gotcha. Do you let peoples houses burn down while your fire truck charges? What happens when 50 fire trucks need to be charged at once? Or the giant battery is the thing on fire? Liquid fuel (hydrogen, gasoline, etc) is essential. So as EVs take over and gas stations shut down, we either need to provide government subsidies to keep some gas stations operational, or invest in a clean alternative.
- manicdee 5y agoOr just provide the infrastructure to charge 50 trucks at once, like we already do with massive fuel stations that have a dozen pumps and the driveways to handle the traffic.
- hnov 5y agoRealistically, we're not gonna have enough batteries. Passenger vehicle electrification so far has been paid for by optimism and subsidies. Renewables are great but they require batteries, that we won't have enough nuclear to provide a baseline of energy once we decommission all fossil burning plants is a foregone conclusion at this point. In short we're approaching things from the wrong end IMO, burning more fossil fuels for energy generation and moving things that need power density and quick refueling to slow, heavy batteries.
- lowercase1 5y agoTrucks have a higher duty cycle than cars so a battery pays for itself quicker. Truckers have legally mandated breaks that largely mitigates charging time. Charging infrastructure is cheaper than hydrogen infrastructure.
- cottager2 5y agoThe energy density of a battery is so low though. That means a lot of capacity must be dedicated to batteries instead of cargo. Meaning you need more trucks.
- trainsarebetter 5y agoOr we could Just go back to trains.
- nradov 5y agoGo back? We never left trains. The US rail network moves a tremendous volume of cargo. But it can never be competitive with trucks for really time sensitive goods.
- trainsarebetter 5y agoYour not wrong, but we sort of did. Road infrastructure gets the funding. We need to nationalize our train infrastructure. And change our zoning laws to prioritize rail freight instead of trucks. The amount of land saved from this alone would be huge. Trains are also just way more energy efficient
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jedberg 5y agoIt makes some sense. The electric grid will not be able to support everyone going electric for many decades until the wires are upgraded, so there will need to be a good stopgap so the state can reach its emission goals. Hydrogen is one of those stopgaps. My friend just bought a fuel cell car. Between the tax incentives, tax rebates, dealer incentives, and $15,000 fuel card, the car is almost free.
- sxates 5y agoIt's not free, it was just paid for by other people. If it has to be nearly free for someone to take it, not sure that really supports these being commercially viable.
- jedberg 5y agoI never said it was commercially viable. All I said was that it makes sense for California to subsidize the technology to reach the state's emission goals until the electrical grid can be upgraded to support electrification of all vehicles.
- hnov 5y agoEVs have been getting at different times up-to and beyond 10k in incentives paid for by others, which also points to not-yet being viable. Between renewables being chosen over nuclear and the onslaught of EVs, we're gonna need a couple orders of magnitude more battery capacity in the coming years. Maybe subsidies for alternative forms of energy storage a smart hedge.
- sxates 5y agoThe number one selling EV make (in the US) sells every car they can build (hundreds of thousands) with no incentives.
- hnov 5y agoIncentives as in tax incentives, subsidies, rebates and credits, not manufacturer incentives. On Tesla's own website they still factor "incentives" into the price for states that still offer them. At some points in time , incentives were so wild, you could lease a Chevy Volt for $100/mo with nothing down, a Fiat 500e for about $90.
- jl6 5y agoNot sure about cars, but I find the idea of hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas in home heating to be more plausible than heat pumps. The efficiency of hydrogen electrolysis seems low, but potentially not an issue if the absolute cost of wind/solar continues to drop - and it's a storage solution for smoothing renewable production too.
- m1sta_ 5y ago"storage solution for smoothing renewable production too" This is underappreciated.
- nradov 5y agoHow would you propose to solve the leakage and embrittlement problems that make hydrogen unsuitable for home heating today?
- jl6 5y agoReplace the metal pipes with plastic pipes, which is already underway in the UK: https://piperepair.co.uk/2020/08/04/pipe-replacements-to-cut-britains-gas-networks-carbon-footprint-by-two-thirds/ https://piperepair.co.uk/2020/08/04/pipe-replacements-to-cut...
- outworlder 5y agoWhy is it more plausible than heat pumps? We don't have infrastructure to ship hydrogen the way we do natural gas. It's not like one can use the same pipes. Why are heat pumps not plausible? You can get them today.
- jl6 5y agoThe UK is replacing its metal pipes with plastic pipes: https://piperepair.co.uk/2020/08/04/pipe-replacements-to-cut-britains-gas-networks-carbon-footprint-by-two-thirds/ https://piperepair.co.uk/2020/08/04/pipe-replacements-to-cut... Aside from the cost (which might come down), heat pumps have some inherent disadvantages - reliance on insulation, and slow ramp up time. So no more opening the windows at night for fresh air, then getting the house back up to temperature in the morning.
- mistrial9 5y agowhy is diversity of fueling bad in a gilded age?
- WalterBright 5y agoBecause of economies of scale, critical mass, etc.
- mistrial9 5y agothe Biggest Gorilla Theory might be part of this..
- isaiahg 5y agoElectric is clearly the future of consumer cars but there's definitely a future for hydrogen in industries like shipping. Whether it's container ships or 18 wheelers, hydrogen has many benefits including the ability to fuel up faster. We already have a dual system for two kinds of fuels, gasoline/diesel, I can see a future where the two main types become electric/hydrogen.
- nradov 5y agoHydrogen is unlikely to see widespread marine use due to engineering costs and safety risks. It's more likely that merchant ships will run on ammonia, biodiesel, methanol, or LNG.
- KennyBlanken 5y agoAll the people commenting in support of hydrogen here have no idea of the logistical challenges in handling a fuel that is so thin it leaks through metal.
- rsfern 5y agoWell “leaks through metal” sort of misconstrues things, “dissolves in metal” or “diffuses in metal” would be a better phrasing. I think a more relevant issue is hydrogen embrittlement, it is definitely a problem for many alloys. I don’t think it’s a show stopper for fuel cells though, and it’s an important research topic that’s been worked on a long time
- 0ldskool 5y agoWhat safety risks exist that do not exist for other forms of fuel and energy?? Wouldn't marine be the perfect use of hydrogen? The only output is water. Energy storage of hydrogen is cheaper by weight then battery. If there are some solar panels and/or wind generators on part of the vessel then couldn't it technically stay adrift from shore forever (temporarily forget food for humans or degradation of the boat without maintenance).
- 5y ago
- sxates 5y agoThe only benefit Hydrogen had over BEV was refueling time. I think what we've learned in the last few years is that charging at home overnight makes up for the perceived disadvantage BEVs have, and we're seeing rapid improvement in DC fast charging times (18 minutes for the 800v Hyundai Ioniq5 and it's platform cousins, for example) for longer road trips. In fact I just drove 450 miles across california in an EV and the car was always done charging before I could get my kid out of the car for a bathroom break and a quick snack and then back in the car. So if refueling time isn't as big a deal as it was 5-10 years ago, and will be even less of an issue in another 5-10, Hydrogen starts to look pretty lousy actually. For those who own BEV's, having to stop at some point in your day to go to a fuel station feels archaic. Home charging is a game changer.
- Naac 5y agoWhat about people living in apartment buildings that can't charge at home?
- smileysteve 5y agoIt's cheaper to give apartment buildings and nearby properties tax incentives to install chargers that are used 30 minutes at a time than to install hydrogen stations for apartment dwellers... In the SE united states, our Power Companies are actively partnering with our Gas Stations to add chargers. (this is in addition to Tesla's massive Super Charger network that gets people from coast to coast, generic charges installed at state parks, and local and federal tax benefits to install chargers)
- rr808 5y agoBuses, taxis, delivery vans - there are loads of vehicles that need to be running all day and can't stop for a charge.
- daniel-cussen 5y agoTaxis and delivery vans do fill up during the day.
- foobarbecue 5y agoFlying cars are going to need H2!
- unnamed76ri 5y agoBecause government, whether federal or state, never misses an opportunity for wasteful spending.
- readthenotes1 5y agoThe author apparently doesn't know that there's a high speed train that's going to refuel at that station.
- munk-a 5y agoThat's a really great argument for never subsidizing renewable energy or investing in electric cars or, you know, the wheel. Research is never the optimal strategy in the short term but it pays off in the long term. Every once in a while we get a lemon, but it's the cost of doing science.
- jupp0r 5y agoThe physics of hydrogen powered vehicles just don't make sense. Insane tank sizes at extremely high pressures are needed to get into practical range territory [1]. This is fundamental physics and won't improve over time, as opposed to battery energy density and charging speeds. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ajq46qHp0c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ajq46qHp0c
- hnburnsy 5y agoDid you see 9000 pound Hummer EV with 3000 pounds of battery? Wonder what would be the weight of a hydrogen powered equivalent would be.
- jupp0r 5y agoWhat's the problem with that weight? Road damage?
- freeone3000 5y agoLarge size, yes, but low weight. Americans seem absolutely thrilled to drive around giant cars, so why not give them what they want?
- jupp0r 5y agoAerodynamics, usable cargo space, road width, existing parking infrastructure, safety in case of an accident, terrorism, ...
- smileysteve 5y agoCompressed Hydrogen in even composite tanks is not particularly low weight.
- semi-extrinsic 5y agoWhat do you mean? You can just go and buy a Toyota Mirai today, and you could in 2016. The hydrogen tank is 27 gallons in volume and weighs 193 lbs, for a range of 312 miles. How big is a Model 3 battery pack again?
- Manuel_D 5y agoHydrogen might still represent a superior source of carbon-free fuel. It's more energy dense than batteries, by a long shot. Containment for hydrogen fuel is a challenge, but they scale better at larger volumes. Definitely, lithium ion batteries make the most sense for sedans. But for cross-country trucks, trains, and maritime shipping hydrogen has greater potential. You're not crossing the pacific on a battery powered cargo-ship.
- teaearlgraycold 5y agoNot related to the article - but it's my understanding that liquid or compressed hydrogen are the only viable alternatives to jet fuel for commercial flights. So I'm definitely on board with big H. But not so interested in the few hydrogren fuel cell cars I've seen.
- nradov 5y agoCarbon neutral synthetic kerosene is a more viable alternative to current jet fuel. Unlike hydrogen, it has no additional safety risks and won't require any changes to aircraft design or infrastructure.
- throwawayboise 5y agoSynthetic kerosene is probably the real answer. Compatible with existing infrastructure, aircraft, and engines.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago> cross-country trucks, trains, and maritime shipping hydrogen has greater potential. On your list of things where hydrogen has potential, "trains" has got to surely be typo?
- retrac 5y agoThe total number of individual plants to replace is small (usually one or two per train, some tens of thousands across North America), and some existing propane/natural gas fired turbine-electric trains are probably suitable to retrofit. The US rail grid is almost entirely unelectrified, and electrification of long rural routes is both a large project and has high upfront costs, especially relative to the low utilization of some routes. Basically, hydrogen would be attractive for trains in North America for the same reason why most trains in North America are diesel, not electric. I suspect the answer for this niche is probably synthetic diesel though, as with synthetic jet fuel. If you already have the hydrogen, fixing it to some carbon is a relatively simple additional step.
- QuikAccount 5y ago>The study also finds that battery and charging advances will obviate the advantage that fuel-cell vehicles are presumed to have in long-haul logistic operations and the road transport of very heavy goods. Despite this blurb, I still believe the primary use for hydrogen will be in trucking not in cars. Further more, there are times when some turbines in a wind farm are turned off because consumption has met demand. We could keep those going full time and just convert excess to hydrogen.
- warmwaffles 5y agoThe biggest drawback of hydrogen as well as gasoline is the fire / explosion risk. I'm curious how the hydrogen will be stored for transport as the fuel source.
- Ekaros 5y agoBatteries at least types used in vehicles have similar risks. Actually gasoline and diesel are relatively safe and easy to handle fires comparatively.
- timbit42 5y agoWill this really produce enough hydrogen to power all the long-haul trucks in the US?
- hexo 5y agoThats not wasted money, unlike for example solar roads.
- stretchwithme 5y agoOne could also say "Subsidies for electric vehicles are clearly beating subsidies for hydrogen vehicles." All the more reason to tax what you don't want and not subsidize specific solutions. The government should focus on the problem, not on specific solutions to the problem. Because politically deciding what should succeed is not science. Politicians may not even be aware of a better solution. Or it may not be lobbied as hard as poorer solutions.
- outworlder 5y agoHydrogen vehicles ARE electric vehicles. Complete with electric motors and batteries. It's just that one gets most of its power in a more roundabout way.
- panick21_ 5y agoHydrogen had more government support for longer. And EV started to establish themselves with very little support and continued growing once they were over. In the consumers got tax benefits only for the first 250k cars. Tesla blew past that many,many years ago and it didnt stop their growth in the least. And clean air credits would count for Hydrogen vehicles too. BEV won because its quite simply far better almost any way you look at it. Fiancial, infrastruce , conviniance, mass production and so on. And its not even close.
- hnov 5y agoIf you're of limited means, you could get around 13k off your Model 3 in California as of last year, courtesy of the tax payer. Then don't discount the hype, cool millenials and Gen Z in particular are not about driving, but when they do they prefer a Tesla. I think a BEV was a lot easier to bootstrap because with 0 infrastructure you could at least make trips around town, but that doesn't mean that it's going to work at planet scale (at least not with current battery tech).
- w3ll_w3ll_w3ll 5y agoAlso, the market deciding what should succeed is not science. I believe we have many examples.
- rr808 5y agoSame reason as it encouraged electric cars in the early days. To encourage competition to oil.
- dktalks 5y agoEvery other electric car enthusiastic never questions, why did we invest 100s of millions in hydro power plants. It's all about this exists, we can use it and it's less combustion but never about, how much does it cost me personally to charge my car vs how much does it take you to fuel a car in a gas station, how long do I have to take to make my car go forward etc. It's always about, this is the newest invention, this is an electric car, this is the good things that is said about it, but nothing about the hell you are in when it comes to charge your car or what you pay for it. This is why I never get into a, oh you are better off getting an electric car because it is good for the environment discussion without them understanding that you are generating electricity the best way using fuels, it's so stupid, it's bad.
- wglb 5y agoHydrogen as a fuel is a pollution amplifier. See https://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.shtml https://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.shtml
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tempnow987 5y agoThe roundtrip efficiency in hydrogen production, starting from electricity, is pretty bad. Quick chart here: https://www.volkswagenag.com/content/dam/online-kommunikation/brands/corporate/world/presence/stories/2019/08/wasserstoff-oder-batterie/Website_Wasserstoff_vs_Batterie_Vergleich_EN_1163.png https://www.volkswagenag.com/content/dam/online-kommunikatio... So with a hydrogen car you waste half your input electricity. For a gain in faster refueling?
- exabrial 5y agoI stopped reading at "Battery EVs have won the clean car race". No they have not. There's a couple billion ICE cars on the road. They'll have "won" when EVs far outstrip ICE engines.
- stubish 5y agoYou missed reading the word 'clean' in your quote. ICE means petrol and diesel, and clean replacement fuels for ICE engines have not yet entered the race being discussed.
- MrMan 5y agothey should use ammonia it makes much more sense than hydrogen
- Shadonototra 5y agoelectric makes more sense for a dying planet with hungry capitals, they can sell expensive batteries and you can rent them, what's non recyclable will end up polluting some 3rd world country, who cares hydrogen makes no sense, it's basically free and abundant, the lazy people can't profit from it easily, therefore it'll die
- fmajid 5y agoHydrogen may have a role to play in aviation, but it has clearly failed for passenger cars and likely trucks as well. The Shell station next to my old office in San Francisco closed for maybe 9 months to be retrofitted for hydrogen. Those lost revenues will probably outweigh the entire revenue from hydrogen over the remaining life of the station. Essentially the only hydrogen cars in California are a small fleet owned by the state itself, and unlikely to be replaced when they reach end of life.