5 ms·

Serious question: Why electricity and not hydrogen? I really wanted to buy an electric car as our main (and only) family car but the technology is not there ye

Serious question: Why electricity and not hydrogen? I really wanted to buy an electric car as our main (and only) family car but the technology is not there yet. And it never may be, because the metals required for batteries will probably become the next oil - unevenly distributed around the world with huge ecological impact. So, seriously, why not hydrogen?

abenga 4y ago
Because the generate electricity => use it to create Hydrogen => fill your car => Hydrogen fuel cell creates electricity => electricity used in electric motor chain is massively less efficient than the generate electricity => charge your battery => electricity used in electric motor chain.
bjelkeman-again 4y ago
From energy source to wheel, hydrogen is not very efficient. Battery electric vehicle: 73% Fuel cell vehicle: 22% Internal combustion engine: 13% https://insideevs.com/news/332584/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13/ https://insideevs.com/news/332584/efficiency-compared-batter... Add do this that most of the distribution network for electricity is already in place, large scale, which for hydrogen you have to build it. We have had an electric car as our only vehicle since 2016 without any issues. We drive about 20 000 km/year. Our relatively small solar panel installation (7 kWp, 59 degrees north) generates about the electricity our car uses on a yearly basis.
neverminder 4y ago
Hydrogen is difficult to contain in practical volumes. Hydrogen embrittlement is a thing.
ryandvm 4y ago
Because hydrogen is a real pain in the ass to store/transport since it needs to be kept under extremely high pressure or very low temperature. That said, you can take hydrogen and some carbon and make hydrocarbon / long-chain hydrocarbon molecules (e.g. gasoline, diesel, methane, etc.), which we already have infrastructure in place to move, store, and use. I'm not sure why nobody takes synthetic generation of hydrocarbons seriously. It's carbon-neutral, and seems like it would be a pretty good stop-gap until we figure out better storage of electric charge.
- pintxo 4y ago
  Aren’t synthetic hydro-carbons even worse from an efficiency point of view then pure hydrogen? That should wholly explain why it’s not done.
michael1999 4y ago
Many reasons. To start: - Hydrogen is even less "there" than battery tech. It is basically still in the research phase. Nothing but a few demonstrations yet, while battery cars are here. - We already have a power grid. We do not have a hydrogen grid. A new hydrogen network would cost billions. Charging at home is super cool. Home hydrogen filling sounds much too exciting. - Efficiency is substantially worse. Most sources will be dispatched electrical (solar, wind), so the round trip through hydrogen wastes most of your capital. Toyota is still plugging away, and Germany seems committed. So we'll probably see hydrogen trains, and other specialist deployments. But personal transport will be electrical.
clouddrover 4y ago
> Why electricity and not hydrogen? Why not both? It doesn't need to be exclusively one or the other. Hydrogen fuel cells will probably end up seeing more use in heavy duty vehicles (trucks, buses, planes, trains) for better range and a lighter powertrain. Light duty vehicles will be BEVs. Building out the hydrogen infrastructure to fuel many, many light duty vehicles is expensive, but building out hydrogen infrastructure to support heavy duty vehicles is less of an issue because there are fewer of them.

abenga 4y ago

Because the generate electricity => use it to create Hydrogen => fill your car => Hydrogen fuel cell creates electricity => electricity used in electric motor chain is massively less efficient than the generate electricity => charge your battery => electricity used in electric motor chain.

bjelkeman-again 4y ago

From energy source to wheel, hydrogen is not very efficient. Battery electric vehicle: 73% Fuel cell vehicle: 22% Internal combustion engine: 13% https://insideevs.com/news/332584/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13/ https://insideevs.com/news/332584/efficiency-compared-batter... Add do this that most of the distribution network for electricity is already in place, large scale, which for hydrogen you have to build it. We have had an electric car as our only vehicle since 2016 without any issues. We drive about 20 000 km/year. Our relatively small solar panel installation (7 kWp, 59 degrees north) generates about the electricity our car uses on a yearly basis.

neverminder 4y ago

Hydrogen is difficult to contain in practical volumes. Hydrogen embrittlement is a thing.

ryandvm 4y ago

Because hydrogen is a real pain in the ass to store/transport since it needs to be kept under extremely high pressure or very low temperature. That said, you can take hydrogen and some carbon and make hydrocarbon / long-chain hydrocarbon molecules (e.g. gasoline, diesel, methane, etc.), which we already have infrastructure in place to move, store, and use. I'm not sure why nobody takes synthetic generation of hydrocarbons seriously. It's carbon-neutral, and seems like it would be a pretty good stop-gap until we figure out better storage of electric charge.

pintxo 4y ago
Aren’t synthetic hydro-carbons even worse from an efficiency point of view then pure hydrogen? That should wholly explain why it’s not done.

michael1999 4y ago

Many reasons. To start: - Hydrogen is even less "there" than battery tech. It is basically still in the research phase. Nothing but a few demonstrations yet, while battery cars are here. - We already have a power grid. We do not have a hydrogen grid. A new hydrogen network would cost billions. Charging at home is super cool. Home hydrogen filling sounds much too exciting. - Efficiency is substantially worse. Most sources will be dispatched electrical (solar, wind), so the round trip through hydrogen wastes most of your capital. Toyota is still plugging away, and Germany seems committed. So we'll probably see hydrogen trains, and other specialist deployments. But personal transport will be electrical.

clouddrover 4y ago

> Why electricity and not hydrogen? Why not both? It doesn't need to be exclusively one or the other. Hydrogen fuel cells will probably end up seeing more use in heavy duty vehicles (trucks, buses, planes, trains) for better range and a lighter powertrain. Light duty vehicles will be BEVs. Building out the hydrogen infrastructure to fuel many, many light duty vehicles is expensive, but building out hydrogen infrastructure to support heavy duty vehicles is less of an issue because there are fewer of them.