3 ms·

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 fos

by _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.

by _hypx 3y ago

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.