3 ms·

One of the hardest parts about hydrogen is bootstrapping the infrastructure. You need new production facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, pumps, and probably a

One of the hardest parts about hydrogen is bootstrapping the infrastructure. You need new production facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, pumps, and probably a lot more. All of which need to handle hydrogen, an extremely flammable gas that likes to squeeze through any material you contain it in due to its tiny size. In terms of switching away from oil, the only options are biofuels (which have their own major issues) or electricity (which already has a distribution system across much of the world). If we run out of Lithium in the ground, we'll start recycling it a lot more efficiently. While mining isn't ideal, at least mining and using Lithium isn't causing climate change. The fact you can charge you EV at home (from your own solar panels if you have then) is a massive added bonus that's going to be hard to convince people away from once its established. Thinking about what comes after battery cars (assuming there's a Lithium shortage) - I'd be very surprised if Hydrogen can scale up; I think it's much more likely we move to other battery tech, or perhaps novel liquid fuels. Hydrogen was always a greenwashing ruse by petrolchem companies.

_hypx 4y ago
There's only one element above lithium on the periodic table. If there's a replacement for lithium, it is hydrogen. Most of what you say is not that different than what people said about batteries. Let's not forget that li-ion batteries are really hard to make and have their own major challenges, and for a long while seemed like a terrible idea. The story is basically repeating with anti-hydrogen arguments. This includes the dumbest of them all: that it is just a conspiracy by oil companies. Last I checked, there is no carbon in hydrogen, and "novel liquid fuels" will imply adding carbon to it. So either it is not a conspiracy by the oil companies, or the oil companies were right all along.
- askvictor 4y ago
  Given your seeming misunderstanding of chemistry, I'm not going to debate any further, but for the sake of others reading, I'll point out that there are two elements above Lithium (Hydrogen and Helium), and that Lithium is a (solid at room temperature) metal makes all the difference. And the fact that Lithium not being burnt as a fuel like H2 (thus requiring fuel storage and refueling), but instead as part of a compound that is used for energy storage.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    You are misreading my statement. There is literally only one element directly above lithium on the periodic table. I was not referring to atomic mass. Hydrogen is not burned in a fuel cell. It works the same way as lithium does in an li-ion battery. However, you can use hydrogen in a combustion engine, also as a compound for energy storage. Also, "fuel storage and refueling" is a huge advantage because you don't need to worry about slow recharging. This is often seen as an advantage.
    - CydeWeys 4y ago
      What argument do you think you're making here by referring to the layout of the periodic table? You might rather refer to a color-coded periodic table which shows which elements are gases and which are solids at room temperature. That's a much more relevant concern than whatever you're trying to say.
      - _hypx 4y ago
        The point is that any material below lithium on the periodic table will likely result in a lower energy density battery chemistry. If you want something fundamentally superior than li-ion, there's really only one option. Hence why any replacement for li-ion is likely to heavily emphasize hydrogen.
sbradford26 4y ago
I don't think most people truly appreciate how difficult hydrogen is to work with. It is nothing like fossil fuels which can happily sit in a regular tank for extended periods of time and be fine.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  Way too many people advocating for hydrogen vehicles seriously have an idea in their mind where they just pour hydrogen into a their current vehicle, and it'll still make the comforting brr-brr sounds they're used to. They don't actually want a hydrogen vehicle, they just don't want an EV and use "hydrogen is coming Soon(tm)" as justification for it.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    People have actually looked seriously at what a world of only EVs would look like. It is basically a disaster of unsustainable resource consumption. Hence the need for hydrogen cars. EV believers have their own misperceptions about what is a good idea and what isn't.
    - theshrike79 4y ago
      These "People" tend to have an agenda. Like the one report that warned us that the earth didn't have enough lithium to electrify everything. Turns out they calculated that we need, for some reason, enough batteries to store a full month's worth of global electricity production in batteries. No wonder they got the fancy headline :D Battery tech is constantly evolving. There are cobalt-free and lithium-free batteries in the pipeline already. We even have wood-based batteries on experimental stage: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221215-the-batteries-made-from-wood https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221215-the-batteries-ma...
      - _hypx 4y ago
        Should be noted that fuel cells are batteries. We can already eliminate this problem right away. But we must "wait" for future batteries for no reason at all.

_hypx 4y ago

There's only one element above lithium on the periodic table. If there's a replacement for lithium, it is hydrogen. Most of what you say is not that different than what people said about batteries. Let's not forget that li-ion batteries are really hard to make and have their own major challenges, and for a long while seemed like a terrible idea. The story is basically repeating with anti-hydrogen arguments. This includes the dumbest of them all: that it is just a conspiracy by oil companies. Last I checked, there is no carbon in hydrogen, and "novel liquid fuels" will imply adding carbon to it. So either it is not a conspiracy by the oil companies, or the oil companies were right all along.

askvictor 4y ago
Given your seeming misunderstanding of chemistry, I'm not going to debate any further, but for the sake of others reading, I'll point out that there are two elements above Lithium (Hydrogen and Helium), and that Lithium is a (solid at room temperature) metal makes all the difference. And the fact that Lithium not being burnt as a fuel like H2 (thus requiring fuel storage and refueling), but instead as part of a compound that is used for energy storage.
- _hypx 4y ago
  You are misreading my statement. There is literally only one element directly above lithium on the periodic table. I was not referring to atomic mass. Hydrogen is not burned in a fuel cell. It works the same way as lithium does in an li-ion battery. However, you can use hydrogen in a combustion engine, also as a compound for energy storage. Also, "fuel storage and refueling" is a huge advantage because you don't need to worry about slow recharging. This is often seen as an advantage.
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    What argument do you think you're making here by referring to the layout of the periodic table? You might rather refer to a color-coded periodic table which shows which elements are gases and which are solids at room temperature. That's a much more relevant concern than whatever you're trying to say.
    - _hypx 4y ago
      The point is that any material below lithium on the periodic table will likely result in a lower energy density battery chemistry. If you want something fundamentally superior than li-ion, there's really only one option. Hence why any replacement for li-ion is likely to heavily emphasize hydrogen.

sbradford26 4y ago

I don't think most people truly appreciate how difficult hydrogen is to work with. It is nothing like fossil fuels which can happily sit in a regular tank for extended periods of time and be fine.

theshrike79 4y ago
Way too many people advocating for hydrogen vehicles seriously have an idea in their mind where they just pour hydrogen into a their current vehicle, and it'll still make the comforting brr-brr sounds they're used to. They don't actually want a hydrogen vehicle, they just don't want an EV and use "hydrogen is coming Soon(tm)" as justification for it.
- _hypx 4y ago
  People have actually looked seriously at what a world of only EVs would look like. It is basically a disaster of unsustainable resource consumption. Hence the need for hydrogen cars. EV believers have their own misperceptions about what is a good idea and what isn't.
  - theshrike79 4y ago
    These "People" tend to have an agenda. Like the one report that warned us that the earth didn't have enough lithium to electrify everything. Turns out they calculated that we need, for some reason, enough batteries to store a full month's worth of global electricity production in batteries. No wonder they got the fancy headline :D Battery tech is constantly evolving. There are cobalt-free and lithium-free batteries in the pipeline already. We even have wood-based batteries on experimental stage: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221215-the-batteries-made-from-wood https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221215-the-batteries-ma...
    - _hypx 4y ago
      Should be noted that fuel cells are batteries. We can already eliminate this problem right away. But we must "wait" for future batteries for no reason at all.