21 ms·
Hyundai rolls out 27 heavy-duty hydrogen trucks in Germany
- socialdemocrat 4y agoHydrogen makes sense for long haul, ships, trucks and possibly airlines. Ideally we just bring back hydrogen airships. Hindenburg was primarily caused by flammable paint, not hydrogen.
- quijoteuniv 4y agoAirships!
- seqastian 4y agomoving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though. It would have to be produced right where you fill the tank of those ships, trucks and planes.
- BlackSwanManZ 4y agoHave you never heard of pipelines?
- nojito 4y ago>moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though This hasn't been true for years. Not sure where you're getting your information from.
- adrianN 4y agoA megawatt electrolyser fits in a cargo container, so that's not as impractical as it sounds. But personally I think at least for ships ammonia is the nicer fuel.
- jessaustin 4y agoAmmonia is so much more practical than elemental hydrogen that a hydrogen-based project inherently has the appearance of a toy. This is especially true in agricultural areas where existing infrastructure already produces and distributes ammonia in massive quantity for use as fertilizer.
- b112 4y agomoving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though. No, no it isn't inefficient.
- CodeSgt 4y agoI mean, I think we know what they meant. Let's not be pedantic when the meaning of their comment is clear.
- JonChesterfield 4y agoWhat do you propose storing it in? It leaks through most materials and makes steels unusably brittle while doing so.
- oconnore 4y agoThe new tanks are fiber wrapped composite, not steel.
- b112 4y agoBut ignoring this, allows the anti-h2 crowd to continue to deride h2 tech. The heart of this often claims that h2 is polluting, based upon the fact that currently, we source a lot of h2 from Ng. Of course this disregards that electricity is often derived from dirty sources too, meaning, all the same arguments should be levied against battery based power sources too. What we need, is to get non polluting engine/point of use tech out there, asap! And h2 is the only tech which provides the range, due to refueling speed, to replace many applications. Without end of use clean tech, we have zero hope. Any environmentalist should be happy, joyful, exuberant with h2. Sadly, endless division exists.
- luplex 4y agoIt is inefficient to produce and store, but do we have a more efficient alternative that can be rolled out at global scale? Batteries are more efficient at storing energy, but I'm not convinced we can build enough of them as quickly as we need to.
- Zigurd 4y agoRe "do we have a more efficient alternative that can be rolled out at global scale?" Possibly ammonia.
- parkingrift 4y agoBatteries aren’t an answer for anything but cars. Honestly even for cars they still aren’t a great answer. They are way too heavy and take up too much space. There are all sorts of problems to solve with hydrogen, but I think we’re closer to solving those problems than we are to increasing battery density by an order of magnitude.
- empyrrhicist 4y ago> They are way too heavy and take up too much space. Can you clarify? Currently have a Chevy Bolt and it is great...
- parkingrift 4y agoSure. Electric vehicles have enormous batteries which weigh thousands of pounds and take up a substantial portion of interior volume. We’re at the bleeding edge of battery tech and the best we’re able to achieve is 300ish miles of range. We can’t realistically expand this to 500 to 1,500 miles anytime in the next decade or so. As example compare the Model 3 and a CRV. This is an absurd example because the CRV is an SUV, but the comparison is telling given the weight differences. The Model 3 weighs 4,200 pounds with 97 cubic feet of interior passenger space. A Honda CRV weighs 3,500 pounds and 103 cubic feet of interior passenger space. So we have a smaller car that is quite a bit heavier and it’s almost exclusively due to the battery. Tesla can’t cram more battery into that car so the only option is to dramatically increase energy density. There is nothing in the horizon except incremental improvements.
- closedloop129 4y agoIf you transport it with airships, is transport still inefficient?
- danans 4y ago> moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though. It would have to be produced right where you fill the tank of those ships, trucks and planes. Exactly! I see hundreds of H2 generation facilities adjacent to trucking routes near the massive wind resources of the US great plains. Each would have a fuel stop with high efficiency H2 electrolyzers and tanks that buffer H2 using wind piwer when it's available, so intermittency won't matter, since stationary hydrogen storage is a solved problem. Hydrolysis is also a solved problem, and getting more efficient constantly (currently up to 70%). Oh, and the facility's only exhaust is oxygen. Substitute wind with the locally abundant source of renewable energy, and presto, no shipping of hydrogen needed.
- MichaelCollins 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents The popular narrative that airships were ended by the Hindenburg disaster is a misleading oversimplification; the truth is the Hindenburg was only the final straw and helium airships had already proven themselves to be very dangerous as well. They were marginally safer, but not substantially so. Even when they didn't burn, airships were prone to being destroyed by a stiff breeze. The deadliest airship disaster of them all was a helium airship broken up by the wind, the USS Akron: 73 dead, 3 survivors. Compared to the Hindenburg's 36 dead, 62 survivors. This said, in some of those accidents the hydrogen's flammability played a larger role in the fatalities. When R101 crashed, a lot of people survived the crash to the ground but subsequently perished in the hydrogen fire. Contrast that with the USS Shenandoah, which broke up midair in the wind. 14 men were killed but 29 survived by riding pieces fragments of the destroyed airship down to the ground.
- rr888 4y agoI'm thinking Solar is going to be our main renewable energy resource. It sucks for heating in winter and transportation. Hydrogen definitely is a great solution for these problems, just need to improve the efficiency of turning electricity into H.
- baq 4y agois this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement solved?
- luplex 4y agoseems like it would be easily solvable with a plastic coating, right?
- HPsquared 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement#Prevention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement#Prevent... is a good start. It seems to be mostly a solved issue if you use the right materials and design: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_pipeline_transport#Piping https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_pipeline_transport#...
- edhelas 4y agoSure :) https://solaredition.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2.png https://solaredition.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2.png 96% of H2 produced from carbon sources. How far do you think we can stretch electrolysis efficiency ? So far we are at 50% https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/actual-efficiency-electrolysis-hans-noordsij https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/actual-efficiency-electrolysi... And you need to compress H2 even more to make it interesting to transport, making it even less efficient. But lets follow our technical dreams where we will have 90% of H2 produced by solar panels (that doesn't have any impact on their own).
- Zigurd 4y agoThere is a long list of reasons why hydrogen might fail as a truly clean fuel, but it makes sense to get real world use cases in place. 20 years ago it was far from certain that solar power could ever be practical for diverse applications. Still, I would estimate it will take 20 years to learn if we will be casually storing wind power in the form of hydrogen for random consumer use cases the way we now use solar panels.
- vardump 4y agoWe might also casually transfer it around the world in very low loss UHVDC transmission lines. As well as storing it short term in water reservoirs (or other gravitational storage), massive battery banks and in a bit longer term (like between seasons) as heat. Not saying that hydrogen can't have a role, but due to a low roundtrip efficiency it might just have a niche.
- Zigurd 4y agoFuel cells might be better than batteries for semi trucks, which is a pretty big niche.
- tmikaeld 4y agoWhat really hits me here is the weight of the fuel cells, at only 31kg (+ container) for 400KM range. Compare that to battery cells which are usually >400kg. Edit: There is ALSO a 73.2 kW battery.. geesh.
- edhelas 4y agoHow much energy do you need to compress this H2 ?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kUdtiHaEX 4y agoNot nearly as much as required to produce batteries.
- eis 4y agoApples and oranges. You would need to compare energy needed to produce the tank and fuel cell to the production of batteries.
- kUdtiHaEX 4y agoSure but in that case please add energy costs for recycling the batteries bs recycling tanks for hydrogen. And I do not see how batteries can win in this race.
- snovv_crash 4y agoHydrogen embrittled metal isn't very recycling friendly.
- msh 4y agoAnd how long is the lifetime? A battery lasts for many years. H2 is used more or less immediately.
- londons_explore 4y agoElectric and Hydrogen trucks today struggle because a truck needs a huge amount of energy to go somewhere. If that energy could be reduced, the problem would be far easier. Here is a free idea for anyone working on this problem: Make it more aerodynamic. EU trucks today have flat fronts and flat back. They're super aero-inefficient. US is better but not much. The flat front and back are primarily to meet maximum length regulations, which are to allow them to navigate small streets. Bypass all this by having an inflatable front and back that auto-inflate to make a pointed front and back when going over 40 mph on a straight road. Use the same kind of construction as a SUP-paddleboard - ie. 15 psi air and thousands of cords for shape. When the truck slows down, have the whole lot deflate to leave a flat front/back. This will ~halve energy requirements for long distance trucking, which, considering fuel/energy is ~30% of the cost of shipping goods, is a massive financial win, as well as being good for the environment! The main barriers will be regulatory. You'll have to persuade lots of government agencies to let you run trials of such things on the road. Trucks have pretty strict regulations, and you can bet 'stick a massive inflatable on the front' is going to mean you can't meet some of them, so will need exceptions to those regulations. That in turn will mean your truck can only drive in some states or regions, which will reduce its utility.
- golergka 4y agoHow will this impact braking distance?
- nojito 4y agoH2 is the future. I can't wait for it to take over the world.
- DoingIsLearning 4y agoH2 will be the future only because it gives Oil & Gas industries an exit strategy from hydrocarbon and all the logistics already invested around it. If that is the price that it takes for us to move forward without obstructionist lobbying and think-tank disinformation from Oil & gas industries so be it. I appreciate the argument of energy density but there is a handful of applications (aviation?) where there is a real need for setting up all the hydrogen generation infrastructure.
- nojito 4y agoIt doesn't make any sense not to leverage the infrastructure that already exists.
- vardump 4y agoWhat kind of hydrogen infrastructure already exists? Don't you need practically everything for it to be new, apart from some buildings perhaps? Maybe some natural gas pipes can be reused at most? You're also going to need pretty extensive safety zones around H2 infrastructure.
- smileysteve 4y agoThis. The existing infrastructure of gas stations is not comparable to hydrogen. - Consumers don't wear cryo gloves as they fill, - tanks aren't pressure vessels, - kiosks (and attendants) aren't monitoring pressure Something governments really need to consider implementing are superfund cleanups of the existing tanks. While some stations ( (especially those at highways where 100+ mile trips are likely) may convert to electric or possibly hydrogen, we have only 2-3 years before 50% of 80% of trips can be "fueled" fromm home.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y agoIs this tech subsidized? Is this tech a more effective electric alternative, without the carbon cost? Is there a logic why we keep subsidizing electric alternatives that already have a market, when new, better, innovative options are coming out?
- konschubert 4y agoWhat are the better options?
- 127 4y agoTrains
- konschubert 4y agoI’m a big train geek and I hate trucks but I also know that we don’t have time to wait for a transport revolution if we want to prevent the climate emergency.
- shepherdjerred 4y agoTrains can't replace last-mile delivery though. Afaik the US already has a fantastic freight railway system.
- freemint 4y agoCan't they? How did last mile delivery happen before cars then? The answer: Trains driving cargo through the middle of large cities.
- NoblePublius 4y agoThe hydrogen is produced by cracking H2 out of oil. The H2 is then liquified using electricity made mostly by burning carbon. The liquified H2 is then transported on diesel trucks. Don’t fall for this carbon energy fake out.
- konschubert 4y agoHydrogen is such a pain to deal with. I think we’re better off converting it to methane and then using all the existing, proven infrastructure for auto gas.
- BiteCode_dev 4y agoProblem is, burning methane releases CO2, unlike hydrogen.
- konschubert 4y agoIt’s exactly the CO2 that was captured when synthesising the methane from hydrogen. So it’s CO2 neural
- BiteCode_dev 4y agoAssuming you are getting the CO2 from capture and the methane from synthesis. Meaning you would have to make sure all companies from all the countries in the world won't try to make money by using a cheaper and easier to access source of methane once there is a huge market for it. Unlikely.
- konschubert 4y agoThat’s what carbon taxes are for. I mean, of course you have to track where the methane came from but that’s pretty easy. There are also ways ways to make hydrogen that emit lots of co2. So either way you have to track and tax.
- BiteCode_dev 4y agoThe carbon taxes haven't worked so well until now. There is no reason to believe they will in the future. And again, you need all the countries in the world to behave. The USA, China, India, Russia...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago"Hyundai – which in its release did not clarify if the fuel cells would be charged with “green” hydrogen, using 100 per cent renewables – plans to utilise the launch of these new Xcient trucks as an opportunity to further expand its business into the wider European commercial vehicle market." Yeah, newsflash, its not. Usual hydrogen trojan horse for continued fossil fuel use. Aaaand, with Russia turning off the spigot for natgas...
- Lichtso 4y agoI really don't get hydrogen. Yes, it has the highest possible energy density (for chemicals) but that is about it. That is the only thing it has going for it. Everything else is either equal or worse than other options: - It is the smallest atom so it diffuses through every other material, thus you get something similar to self discharge in batteries. Yes, you can make the walls bigger to slow down the process, but that makes it also very heavy and expensive to store. - It only reaches its advantage of the energy density at either insanely high pressure or low temperature. Both come with their own technical challenges and make it either impractical or down right dangerous (not considering its spontaneous combustion). - It is highly explosive and very easy to ignite. Should it ever leak and mix with air, it is bound to lead to a catastrophe. This is actually much worse than with regular gasoline or even batteries. Now, what would be better IMO? Small / short hydrocarbons such as methane (a gas at room temperature) or methanol (a liquid at room temperature): - Methane is still dangerous to handle, but well understood and even allowed to be used in housing. Methanol on the other hand is hard to ignite and can be mixed with water to make it inflammable, thus completely safe to store. Even this water methanol solution can still be directly used in fuel cells. - A leak of methane is still disastrous, especially if it does not burn because of its environmental impact. However, a complete spill of methanol is barely any issue at all compared to all the other options. It quickly dilutes and is bio degradable. - A downside is the reduced energy density, but storage is really easy and cheap so that should make up for that. - It can easily work with existing infrastructure. Pipelines, storage tanks and trucks all exists already and methane as well as methanol are among the most traded chemicals in the world. - Combustion engines could continue to be used, they wouldn't need a catalyst anymore and not produce any toxic gases such as carbon-monoxide. Also, the practical power efficiency of fuel cells is not that much better than that of combustion engines. Though, that might be because way more R&D optimization went into combustion engines so far. The last two are important points, people often forget the tremendous environmental impact of completely replacing all infrastructure. Just like hydrogen, most methane and methanol today comes from other hydrocarbons, in other words fossil fuels. However, that could change e.g. by using solar power and electrolysis / electrocatalysis. So my point is, the world should bury the hydrogen idea and go for methanol instead. Please correct me if I am wrong in any of these points, I am here to learn ;)
- 4y ago
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoThe solution for electric trucking has been obvious for 50 years - overhead cables on all major highways. It is the cheapest and most efficient solution, the trucks only need enough range for local delivery and transport, and since they charge from cables, they dont occupy petrol stations. https://movemnt.net/uk-trial-to-electrify-30km-of-motorway-with-overhead-catenary-power/ https://movemnt.net/uk-trial-to-electrify-30km-of-motorway-w...
- nimbleplum40 4y ago> The solution for electric trucking has been obvious for 50 years - overhead cables on all major highways. Not necessarily disagreeing, but if the solution has been obvious for 50 years, why hasn't it happened?
- _ph_ 4y agoGermany is currently testing this on some selected sections.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoI mean, we still haven't even electrified all the railways, and the proposal for IceLink, a cable to import cheap renewable power from IceLand to UK, was sitting on the shelf for 60 years. Also we had trolleybusses in many cities and got rid of them
- throwaway894345 4y agoSo why isn't it widely deployed in Europe where they do have electrified railways, etc?
- myself248 4y agoSame reason Detroit doesn't have useful mass-transit. Entrenched interests make more money by prolonging the problem. Arguably the solution would be economically superior (vastly so!), but the folks who'd profit from it aren't in power _now_, and government lacks both the technical competency to understand what to do, and the balls to do it.
- bushbaba 4y agoWhat’s the environmental impact of hydrogen production + fuel cell or EVs for long distance trucking over say algie & biodiesel. Is this really better for the environment when considering the full cost?
- bshipp 4y agoThe one (potential) benefit could be utilizing hydrogen as a sort of battery, where off-peak electrical generation capacity is used for processing hydrogen instead of being wasted or sold at a loss. My municipality was actually paying other jurisdictions to absorb excess generation capacity, so something like hydrogen generation could be a useful off-peak demand source.
- rasz 4y agothe subsidy fleet, they will manufacture blue hydrogen using russian ga... oh, wait a minute
- Tyndale 4y agoThere is plenty of oil until Jesus Christ returns.
- slater 4y agoSo, never?
- pessimizer 4y agoAccording to Matthew 16:27–28, we only need about -2,000 years worth of oil to last until the second coming.
- Tyndale 4y agoThe prophecy on Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled in Matthew 17 when Peter, James and John saw Jesus Christ transfigured in his glory. But yeah, I would be surprised if Jesus didn't come in my lifetime(I'm 48). Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
- HeyItsMatt 4y agoPantographs and catenary wires long ago solved the energy supply problem for heavy transport. They are 99% efficient and cheap to build. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg Diesel and hydrogen is only needed on extremely long and thin routes like road trains in northern Australia or Alaska. This is greenwashing.