3 ms·

ICE vehicles conquered the world with abysmal efficiencies, they were around 10-15% when they already ruled the roads and the world. That is after we drill for

ICE vehicles conquered the world with abysmal efficiencies, they were around 10-15% when they already ruled the roads and the world. That is after we drill for oil, ship it, refine it, distribute it. Even today, manufacturers boast about engines with 40% efficiency in ideal conditions, which still translates to a meager 20-30% in real world driving. Looking at efficiency alone is not enough. > They're simply so much less expensive Not yet they aren't. The upfront cost of an EV still makes it more expensive than an ICE vehicle. Also, they batteries are guaranteed to degrade, so the used market has very bad prices for EVs. At some point, they will probably be less expensive for most automobiles, but hydrogen can still play a part in trucking, trains, planes, boats and specialty operations. Only about 64% of oil is used for transportation [1] and out of that, only about 50% for automobiles and light trucks [2] (even though for light trucks, motorcycles and other applications, EVs are not going to win probably). So BEVs could replace about 30% of all oil usage. The rest of 70% is up for grabs, so why not pursue hydrogen investment as a possible alternative? https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/use-of-oil.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc... https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transportation-in-depth.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transporta...

schiffern 4y ago
> more expensive than an ICE The (relevant) comparison was H2 versus BEVs — ie comparing decarbonized solutions apples-to-apples. I have edited to make that more clear. > why not pursue hydrogen investment as a possible alternative? Because hydrogen, for all its marketing, doesn't solve the problems people have with BEVs. Better BEVs do. I see a variety of BEV motorcycles and light trucks available. The same can't be said for hydrogen.
- flavius29663 4y ago
  > Because hydrogen, for all its marketing, doesn't actually solve the problems people have with BEVs. Better BEVs do. I guess it depends on the definition of "people". If you mean private automobile owners, then I agree that batteries will eat hydrogen's lunch. For everything else(70% of oil use), it's an open question. In the future, you might even see a migration of H2 technology from large applications to small automobiles, like we've seen with diesel engines.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    > I guess it depends on the definition of "people". If you mean private automobile owners I'm just following your lead. You were the one who brought up "gas stations." >For everything else(70% of oil use), it's an open question Not really. Road use is ~50% .[1] It's all going BEV, like it or not. Agriculture is another 10%. Ditto. The technology improvement curves speak for themselves. ICE and H2 have both plateaued near their theoretical limits. I intentionally said "ground vehicles," not private cars. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming-sectors-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming...
    - WorldMaker 4y ago
      Even for non-ground vehicles my understanding is that the future of H2 is very murky: small aircraft have proven some efficiencies with battery electric that H2 cannot match, other than possibly as a generator to top up a large battery and if the large batteries themselves hit certain densities (which seems increasingly likely as BEV car production picks up and economies of scale start to take effect) it won't be worth the weight for an H2 generator and liquid H2 tanks. I've heard at least one scientist flat out state that carrying liquid H2 is about the dumbest efficiency possibility for air travel because if you are going to carry all that H2 anyway at least carry it as a gas and get free ballast from it. The only efficient H2 air travel is exactly the one we've known about for centuries: dirigibles. But we know that's a PR minefield in current popular culture to even suggest. (Which yes, we probably should have more dirigibles for other efficient air travel options.) If battery densities end up meeting the needs of airplanes they meet the needs of ships easily enough. Plus, there's interesting new research on wind power for ships, which I find is a lovely irony to see ships return to wind power after all these years (though it may look quite different than the classic age of sail with primary propulsion still being electric turboprops).
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Neither solution is really decarbonized. It is also wrong to say only carbon leaves an ecological imprint. Recycling of batteries will be a huge logistical challenge or leave a high ecological impact itself. Still, either a vehicle is more or less drives continuously or batteries will be the better alternative. But that is only for that sector.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    Fossil fuel transport is fundamentally carbonized. BEVs are currently about 50% better, but at least it's feasible to achieve full decarbonization. Recycling of batteries is very efficient at >95%[1], and will only get better with time. As for addressing only one sector, welcome to the world of high-complexity problems. Climate change is a "1000 cuts" type, not a "magic bullet" type. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/14/jb-straubels-redwood-materials-is-expanding-into-the-battery-materials-business/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/14/jb-straubels-redwood-mater...
    - glenstein 4y ago
      >Fossil fuel transport is fundamentally carbonized. Exactly, and I wish I understood why people thought this was a smart point. EVs are a link in the chain that in and of themselves have no fundamental energy dependence on fossil fuels. They have an incidental reliance on fossil fuels to the extent that electricity is generated from fossil fuels. But they're a piece of the infrastructure puzzle that in and of themselves is fully solved and compatible with decarbonized infrastructure. I would like to think that one goal in advancing public understanding of EVS should be educating people to the point that this particular talking point never gets used ever again.
glenstein 4y ago
>Looking at efficiency alone is not enough. In general I would say I actually agree with this. It can be perfectly feasible to use an energy source that's terribly inefficient in some intuitive sense, but as long as it's economical to do so, poses no environmental harm, and you're getting significantly more energy out than you're putting in, you can be as inefficient as you want. Now that said, I don't think that this kind of general truism is terribly responsive in this particular case, because it's nevertheless going to be true that inefficiency, and whatever sense you construe it, can indeed be a deal breaker and I think that's what GP is intending to communicate with respect to h2, biofuels, etc.
SigmundA 4y ago
>ICE vehicles conquered the world with abysmal efficiencies, they were around 10-15% when they already ruled the roads and the world. Fossil fuel comes out of the ground with the energy already in it, hydrogen doesn't exist in a free form and the energy must be put into it coming from somewhere else. Most hydrogen now comes from natural gas at maybe 75-80% efficiency through reforming, then it must be compressed, then it must be burned at similar efficiencies to fossil fuel or used in a fuel cell with slightly better efficiency than ICE. It's way worse in efficiency than fossil fuels, you could just use the natural gas directly in a combustion engine and be way ahead. Solar/wind/nuclear to electrolysis is even worse, just charge a battery. Hydrogen is a energy storage mechanism like a battery not a source of energy like fossil fuel. Look at well to wheel efficiency BEV are far ahead of hydrogen.
- schiffern 4y ago
  Ulf Bossel got it right ~16 years ago. No significant change since then, other than steady improvement in BEVs. https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.amp https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.amp
  - _hypx 4y ago
    Battery technology has utterly stagnated. There has been basically no changes in energy density in over a decade. All "progress" has been in the form of reduced cost, but even that has ended. PS: Please don't post some Bloomberg article about this. They are wrong and did not correctly reference the state of battery technology back in 2010.

schiffern 4y ago

> more expensive than an ICE The (relevant) comparison was H2 versus BEVs — ie comparing decarbonized solutions apples-to-apples. I have edited to make that more clear. > why not pursue hydrogen investment as a possible alternative? Because hydrogen, for all its marketing, doesn't solve the problems people have with BEVs. Better BEVs do. I see a variety of BEV motorcycles and light trucks available. The same can't be said for hydrogen.

flavius29663 4y ago
> Because hydrogen, for all its marketing, doesn't actually solve the problems people have with BEVs. Better BEVs do. I guess it depends on the definition of "people". If you mean private automobile owners, then I agree that batteries will eat hydrogen's lunch. For everything else(70% of oil use), it's an open question. In the future, you might even see a migration of H2 technology from large applications to small automobiles, like we've seen with diesel engines.
- schiffern 4y ago
  > I guess it depends on the definition of "people". If you mean private automobile owners I'm just following your lead. You were the one who brought up "gas stations." >For everything else(70% of oil use), it's an open question Not really. Road use is ~50% .[1] It's all going BEV, like it or not. Agriculture is another 10%. Ditto. The technology improvement curves speak for themselves. ICE and H2 have both plateaued near their theoretical limits. I intentionally said "ground vehicles," not private cars. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming-sectors-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming...
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    Even for non-ground vehicles my understanding is that the future of H2 is very murky: small aircraft have proven some efficiencies with battery electric that H2 cannot match, other than possibly as a generator to top up a large battery and if the large batteries themselves hit certain densities (which seems increasingly likely as BEV car production picks up and economies of scale start to take effect) it won't be worth the weight for an H2 generator and liquid H2 tanks. I've heard at least one scientist flat out state that carrying liquid H2 is about the dumbest efficiency possibility for air travel because if you are going to carry all that H2 anyway at least carry it as a gas and get free ballast from it. The only efficient H2 air travel is exactly the one we've known about for centuries: dirigibles. But we know that's a PR minefield in current popular culture to even suggest. (Which yes, we probably should have more dirigibles for other efficient air travel options.) If battery densities end up meeting the needs of airplanes they meet the needs of ships easily enough. Plus, there's interesting new research on wind power for ships, which I find is a lovely irony to see ships return to wind power after all these years (though it may look quite different than the classic age of sail with primary propulsion still being electric turboprops).
raxxorraxor 4y ago
Neither solution is really decarbonized. It is also wrong to say only carbon leaves an ecological imprint. Recycling of batteries will be a huge logistical challenge or leave a high ecological impact itself. Still, either a vehicle is more or less drives continuously or batteries will be the better alternative. But that is only for that sector.
- schiffern 4y ago
  Fossil fuel transport is fundamentally carbonized. BEVs are currently about 50% better, but at least it's feasible to achieve full decarbonization. Recycling of batteries is very efficient at >95%[1], and will only get better with time. As for addressing only one sector, welcome to the world of high-complexity problems. Climate change is a "1000 cuts" type, not a "magic bullet" type. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/14/jb-straubels-redwood-materials-is-expanding-into-the-battery-materials-business/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/14/jb-straubels-redwood-mater...
  - glenstein 4y ago
    >Fossil fuel transport is fundamentally carbonized. Exactly, and I wish I understood why people thought this was a smart point. EVs are a link in the chain that in and of themselves have no fundamental energy dependence on fossil fuels. They have an incidental reliance on fossil fuels to the extent that electricity is generated from fossil fuels. But they're a piece of the infrastructure puzzle that in and of themselves is fully solved and compatible with decarbonized infrastructure. I would like to think that one goal in advancing public understanding of EVS should be educating people to the point that this particular talking point never gets used ever again.

glenstein 4y ago

>Looking at efficiency alone is not enough. In general I would say I actually agree with this. It can be perfectly feasible to use an energy source that's terribly inefficient in some intuitive sense, but as long as it's economical to do so, poses no environmental harm, and you're getting significantly more energy out than you're putting in, you can be as inefficient as you want. Now that said, I don't think that this kind of general truism is terribly responsive in this particular case, because it's nevertheless going to be true that inefficiency, and whatever sense you construe it, can indeed be a deal breaker and I think that's what GP is intending to communicate with respect to h2, biofuels, etc.

SigmundA 4y ago

>ICE vehicles conquered the world with abysmal efficiencies, they were around 10-15% when they already ruled the roads and the world. Fossil fuel comes out of the ground with the energy already in it, hydrogen doesn't exist in a free form and the energy must be put into it coming from somewhere else. Most hydrogen now comes from natural gas at maybe 75-80% efficiency through reforming, then it must be compressed, then it must be burned at similar efficiencies to fossil fuel or used in a fuel cell with slightly better efficiency than ICE. It's way worse in efficiency than fossil fuels, you could just use the natural gas directly in a combustion engine and be way ahead. Solar/wind/nuclear to electrolysis is even worse, just charge a battery. Hydrogen is a energy storage mechanism like a battery not a source of energy like fossil fuel. Look at well to wheel efficiency BEV are far ahead of hydrogen.

schiffern 4y ago
Ulf Bossel got it right ~16 years ago. No significant change since then, other than steady improvement in BEVs. https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.amp https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.amp
- _hypx 4y ago
  Battery technology has utterly stagnated. There has been basically no changes in energy density in over a decade. All "progress" has been in the form of reduced cost, but even that has ended. PS: Please don't post some Bloomberg article about this. They are wrong and did not correctly reference the state of battery technology back in 2010.