3 ms·

You are just repeating the marketing spiel of battery car makers. Of course, it would be very convenient for them if the problems of the competition are insurmo

by _hypx 3y ago

You are just repeating the marketing spiel of battery car makers. Of course, it would be very convenient for them if the problems of the competition are insurmountable and the upside totally pointless. There’s enormous incentive for them to convince people of that. The basic problem here is that fuel cells EVs literally are EVs. They work in incredibly similar ways. Any sort of fundamental analysis would lead you to the conclusion that if BEVs are possible, then so are FCEVs. Any differences are going to be minor, not substantial. Also, a lot of the criticisms are just pure FUD, like claiming hydrogen is more dangerous than lithium (both are very flammable materials). And finally, battery car makers really want you to think that every single car in the future will be a BEV, with not a single exception. That’s a pretty crazy claim, and people should recognize how ridiculous it sounds.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
A lot of driving is local, BEVs excel at that since people can charge at home. Hydrogen has a chance in long distance trucking and maybe aviation, where the lightweight energy density is a big win, although they’ll need to do something about volume for aviation. Unless we figure out fusion, producing hydrogen is going to primarily come from hydrocarbons, mainly natural gas. For Europe, that means they need to get it mostly from Russia, and Japan has to boat all their supply of that in.
- defrost 3y ago
  In recent news (past five years), Australia mining magnates have invested in doubling the current global hydrogen production via green means (no hydro carbons) and have formed partnerships with Germany (part of Europe) to supply hydrogen. https://germany.embassy.gov.au/beln/hydrogen.html https://germany.embassy.gov.au/beln/hydrogen.html https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/media-releases/growing-australias-hydrogen-supply-chain-germany https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/media-releases/growing-... and other links from the Fortescue Metals sibsidiaries and other involved companies abound.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    If they can do it, it might be a nice replacement for NG. Transportation of both is about the same (assuming it can only be compressed so much?). Nuclear power might be ideal for hydrogen production as well (using excess of peak power to make hydrogen to store in huge tanks rather than charging a battery or pumped reservoir?).
    - defrost 3y ago
      You queried the economics. Those involved are making bank on some 800 million tonnes of iron ore sales per annum shipped to China and hold leases on significant (as a percentage of global supply) Lithium deposits and Australian land in the millions of acres (a lot of sunlight). They understand industry at scale, the use of automation to deliver volume, the draw of large economies to sunlight abundant areas for processing and refining, etc. Transport is planned via Ammonia (hydrogen + nitrogen) - with an excess of sunlight and rapid improvements in domain of electrolysis making seawater as a basis economical, energy losses due to conversion can still be covered to turn a profit delivering bulk ammonia for fertilizer, power generation, and other applications to Europe. FFI (offshoot of FMI (Fortescue Metals)) has a handwaving set of web pages: https://ffi.com.au/technology/green-hydrogen/ https://ffi.com.au/technology/green-hydrogen/ and have lodged more detailed tech reports for their shareholders via the Sydney, London, and Canadian Exchanges (IIRC).
- _hypx 3y ago
  People are repeating the same kind of rhetoric that was used against wind or solar. That we will never have cheap green energy and the future will always be fossil fuels. Those claims are now the source of mockery. Green hydrogen will be one of the cheapest energy sources available in the near future. It will be made from excess wind or solar and will cost nearly nothing to produce. This will be the next big fundamental error by anti-green energy skeptics.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    It primarily comes from natural gas now because it is easy to extract from it. Refining via electricity alone is incredibly expensive (20-30% lost), and that is in top of 10% lost due to compression and 30% lost going back to electricity again (assuming a fuel cell vehicle). If the energy isn’t cheap (coming from natural gas), then how does this make sense economically? BEV is attractive because electrify goes straight to the battery, energy is only lost once. But hydrogen can make sense for some applications given its weight (but it’s volume is a problem and compression only goes so far).
    - _hypx 3y ago
      Same story as solar still. People accused solar of being too inefficient, but it got extremely cheap anyways. That is the upside of something with almost zero input cost. Hydrogen is the same. BEVs need huge batteries to function. It is easy to see how that totally undermines the value of BEVs.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        If you have a cheap source of hydrogen, sure. BEVs need huge (and more importantly heavy) batteries to function, but those are at least cheaper than the fuel cell and even huger compression tank needed to make a hydrogen car viable. Also, forget about having a frunk.
        _hypx 3y ago
        > BEVs need huge (and more importantly heavy) batteries to function, but those are at least cheaper than the fuel cell and even huger compression tank needed to make a hydrogen car viable. Wrong. Fuel cells and tanks will be vastly cheaper than batteries once produced at scale. They have very low resource requirements. They will likely match or beat internal combustion cars at cost. This is an unbeatable advantage compared to BEVs with any sort of range.
- kcplate 3y ago
  > A lot of driving is local, BEVs excel at that since people can charge at home Some people can charge at home.

by _hypx 3y ago

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

A lot of driving is local, BEVs excel at that since people can charge at home. Hydrogen has a chance in long distance trucking and maybe aviation, where the lightweight energy density is a big win, although they’ll need to do something about volume for aviation. Unless we figure out fusion, producing hydrogen is going to primarily come from hydrocarbons, mainly natural gas. For Europe, that means they need to get it mostly from Russia, and Japan has to boat all their supply of that in.

defrost 3y ago
In recent news (past five years), Australia mining magnates have invested in doubling the current global hydrogen production via green means (no hydro carbons) and have formed partnerships with Germany (part of Europe) to supply hydrogen. https://germany.embassy.gov.au/beln/hydrogen.html https://germany.embassy.gov.au/beln/hydrogen.html https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/media-releases/growing-australias-hydrogen-supply-chain-germany https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/media-releases/growing-... and other links from the Fortescue Metals sibsidiaries and other involved companies abound.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  If they can do it, it might be a nice replacement for NG. Transportation of both is about the same (assuming it can only be compressed so much?). Nuclear power might be ideal for hydrogen production as well (using excess of peak power to make hydrogen to store in huge tanks rather than charging a battery or pumped reservoir?).
  - defrost 3y ago
    You queried the economics. Those involved are making bank on some 800 million tonnes of iron ore sales per annum shipped to China and hold leases on significant (as a percentage of global supply) Lithium deposits and Australian land in the millions of acres (a lot of sunlight). They understand industry at scale, the use of automation to deliver volume, the draw of large economies to sunlight abundant areas for processing and refining, etc. Transport is planned via Ammonia (hydrogen + nitrogen) - with an excess of sunlight and rapid improvements in domain of electrolysis making seawater as a basis economical, energy losses due to conversion can still be covered to turn a profit delivering bulk ammonia for fertilizer, power generation, and other applications to Europe. FFI (offshoot of FMI (Fortescue Metals)) has a handwaving set of web pages: https://ffi.com.au/technology/green-hydrogen/ https://ffi.com.au/technology/green-hydrogen/ and have lodged more detailed tech reports for their shareholders via the Sydney, London, and Canadian Exchanges (IIRC).
_hypx 3y ago
People are repeating the same kind of rhetoric that was used against wind or solar. That we will never have cheap green energy and the future will always be fossil fuels. Those claims are now the source of mockery. Green hydrogen will be one of the cheapest energy sources available in the near future. It will be made from excess wind or solar and will cost nearly nothing to produce. This will be the next big fundamental error by anti-green energy skeptics.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  It primarily comes from natural gas now because it is easy to extract from it. Refining via electricity alone is incredibly expensive (20-30% lost), and that is in top of 10% lost due to compression and 30% lost going back to electricity again (assuming a fuel cell vehicle). If the energy isn’t cheap (coming from natural gas), then how does this make sense economically? BEV is attractive because electrify goes straight to the battery, energy is only lost once. But hydrogen can make sense for some applications given its weight (but it’s volume is a problem and compression only goes so far).
  - _hypx 3y ago
    Same story as solar still. People accused solar of being too inefficient, but it got extremely cheap anyways. That is the upside of something with almost zero input cost. Hydrogen is the same. BEVs need huge batteries to function. It is easy to see how that totally undermines the value of BEVs.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      If you have a cheap source of hydrogen, sure. BEVs need huge (and more importantly heavy) batteries to function, but those are at least cheaper than the fuel cell and even huger compression tank needed to make a hydrogen car viable. Also, forget about having a frunk.
      - _hypx 3y ago
        > BEVs need huge (and more importantly heavy) batteries to function, but those are at least cheaper than the fuel cell and even huger compression tank needed to make a hydrogen car viable. Wrong. Fuel cells and tanks will be vastly cheaper than batteries once produced at scale. They have very low resource requirements. They will likely match or beat internal combustion cars at cost. This is an unbeatable advantage compared to BEVs with any sort of range.
kcplate 3y ago
> A lot of driving is local, BEVs excel at that since people can charge at home Some people can charge at home.