3 ms·

> 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 mo

> 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.

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.