5 ms·

10% is pretty what the losses of long distance HVDC will be. You are at the point of diminishing returns in terms of efficiency at that point. Not to mention t

by _hypx 3y ago

10% is pretty what the losses of long distance HVDC will be. You are at the point of diminishing returns in terms of efficiency at that point. Not to mention that this is recoverable energy. Liquid hydrogen is literally cryogenic energy storage. You can easily find methods of shrinking losses ever further. Considering Toyota is literally making a hydrogen powered Corolla to go racing, your claim about cost is pure Ludditism. It time for you to stop living in the past. Hydrogen cars will be cheaper than BEVs to build and likely no more expensive to run. Perhaps its time you ask yourself a simple question: Once all of the facilities have been built, what is the margin cost of further production? It is in fact basically zero. This is for both wind and solar, but also anything made exclusively from it like green hydrogen. In fact, hydrogen could be the cheapest of them all, since it is not limited by the problems of intermittency and long-duration storage. As a result, it is a matter of when, not if you'll see hydrogen for $1.5/kg. And eventually even less than that. PS: Your post is just pure anti-progress. Imagine being so offended by the idea of advancements in green energy. So many of your type are just brainwashed BEV fanatics. It's pure short-sightedness.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
I hope I don’t have to describe the chasm that exists between a 10% real loss in the whole of a process, versus a theoretic minimal loss of one step in a process. It is not anti-progress to point out obviously impossible things. > will be cheaper than BEVs to build and likely no more expensive to run. Please explain to the luddites in the room how it will cost the same. How it could ever cost the same. Both would start with electricity. The BEV would charge directly on that. The hydrogen car would require an electrolyzer, cleaning of the gas, compressing it, transmission, distribution, refueling stations, then a fuel cell. Each step along the way being costly and not 100% efficient. Hint: you can’t. Even if you hook up a perfect fuel cell to a perfect electrolyzer, for each kW you put into the electrolyzer you’ll be getting less than 1 kW from the fuel cell. Except the marginal costs is not zero. The marginal cost of the next kg of hydrogen is not zero. Electricity is not free, and each kg of hydrogen requires the same amount of electricity as the previous. Toyota making one car for their racing circuit is very different from them making it cheaply and people buying it on mass. Again, real operating costs of the vehicle they sell on the market today are 5x higher the BEVs, so why would anyone buy it? The only way you’ll reach green hydrogen for less 1.5$/kg is if you have an army of volunteers working on donated equipment for >0.02$/kWh. There are few of any places that even have electricity that cheap. It is not me that’s living in the past, it’s the hydrogen hype that has come back for its third crack at things. On the hope that maybe this time around thermodynamics will be different.
- dmbche 3y ago
  Very enlightening writeup - thanks for being thorough. I'd like to mention that Toyota is playing with syntetic fuels as well, and that some in the car market see this more as an option for car enthusiasts to keep running their cars when gas will be "obsolete". Much of the marketing of the corolla is about how "the engine is not not-green, it's the fuel that's the issue". Seeing how gas powered engines are much less efficient (just from the heat waste) than electric ones, I have a hard time expecting hydrogen to become a normal fuel for cars - especially with the risks associated. Can you imagine a transparent flame in your car? This seems more like rnd into syntetic fuels and alternatives for enthusiasts than their actual horse in the race.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    Fuel cells are not combustion engines. They are electrochemical systems. Their theoretical efficiency is the same as li-ion batteries. And this is why it is a 100% guarantee that they will displace li-ion batteries. Why on Earth would anyone choose a very expensive and unsustainable battery technology when there is another system that is just as good but does not have any of those weaknesses? It's pure BEV brainwashing that people even think that way. So my advice to you is stop believing in these lies and accept that cars of the future will be hydrogen powered.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      This is highly misleading. The theoretical efficiency for a fuel cell car and a battery electric car are absolutely not the same when you look at well-to-wheel. Not even close. As for unsustainable. People make a big deal about cobalt in the batteries. Fine, the cobalt is being removed, all that’s left is abundant minerals. Can you say the same about the platinum-group metals in electrolyzers and fuel cells?
      - _hypx 3y ago
        But the fact that they are the same should mean something to you. It also helps not to spam FUD about efficiency, and in the real-world they are much closer than you are thinking. In fact, hydrogen cars are the second most efficient form of transportation possible, and far less resource dependent than batteries. You do not need platinum in a fuel cell. There are several types of them, and only one of them require platinum. Also, the amount required is comparable to a catalytic converter and only grams per fuel cell is needed: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-platinum-week-bosch-fuelcells-exclusi/exclusive-bosch-goes-for-platinum-light-fuel-cells-idUSKCN1SJ0FG https://www.reuters.com/article/us-platinum-week-bosch-fuelc...

by _hypx 3y ago

_aavaa_ 3y ago

I hope I don’t have to describe the chasm that exists between a 10% real loss in the whole of a process, versus a theoretic minimal loss of one step in a process. It is not anti-progress to point out obviously impossible things. > will be cheaper than BEVs to build and likely no more expensive to run. Please explain to the luddites in the room how it will cost the same. How it could ever cost the same. Both would start with electricity. The BEV would charge directly on that. The hydrogen car would require an electrolyzer, cleaning of the gas, compressing it, transmission, distribution, refueling stations, then a fuel cell. Each step along the way being costly and not 100% efficient. Hint: you can’t. Even if you hook up a perfect fuel cell to a perfect electrolyzer, for each kW you put into the electrolyzer you’ll be getting less than 1 kW from the fuel cell. Except the marginal costs is not zero. The marginal cost of the next kg of hydrogen is not zero. Electricity is not free, and each kg of hydrogen requires the same amount of electricity as the previous. Toyota making one car for their racing circuit is very different from them making it cheaply and people buying it on mass. Again, real operating costs of the vehicle they sell on the market today are 5x higher the BEVs, so why would anyone buy it? The only way you’ll reach green hydrogen for less 1.5$/kg is if you have an army of volunteers working on donated equipment for >0.02$/kWh. There are few of any places that even have electricity that cheap. It is not me that’s living in the past, it’s the hydrogen hype that has come back for its third crack at things. On the hope that maybe this time around thermodynamics will be different.

dmbche 3y ago
Very enlightening writeup - thanks for being thorough. I'd like to mention that Toyota is playing with syntetic fuels as well, and that some in the car market see this more as an option for car enthusiasts to keep running their cars when gas will be "obsolete". Much of the marketing of the corolla is about how "the engine is not not-green, it's the fuel that's the issue". Seeing how gas powered engines are much less efficient (just from the heat waste) than electric ones, I have a hard time expecting hydrogen to become a normal fuel for cars - especially with the risks associated. Can you imagine a transparent flame in your car? This seems more like rnd into syntetic fuels and alternatives for enthusiasts than their actual horse in the race.
- _hypx 3y ago
  Fuel cells are not combustion engines. They are electrochemical systems. Their theoretical efficiency is the same as li-ion batteries. And this is why it is a 100% guarantee that they will displace li-ion batteries. Why on Earth would anyone choose a very expensive and unsustainable battery technology when there is another system that is just as good but does not have any of those weaknesses? It's pure BEV brainwashing that people even think that way. So my advice to you is stop believing in these lies and accept that cars of the future will be hydrogen powered.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    This is highly misleading. The theoretical efficiency for a fuel cell car and a battery electric car are absolutely not the same when you look at well-to-wheel. Not even close. As for unsustainable. People make a big deal about cobalt in the batteries. Fine, the cobalt is being removed, all that’s left is abundant minerals. Can you say the same about the platinum-group metals in electrolyzers and fuel cells?
    - _hypx 3y ago
      But the fact that they are the same should mean something to you. It also helps not to spam FUD about efficiency, and in the real-world they are much closer than you are thinking. In fact, hydrogen cars are the second most efficient form of transportation possible, and far less resource dependent than batteries. You do not need platinum in a fuel cell. There are several types of them, and only one of them require platinum. Also, the amount required is comparable to a catalytic converter and only grams per fuel cell is needed: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-platinum-week-bosch-fuelcells-exclusi/exclusive-bosch-goes-for-platinum-light-fuel-cells-idUSKCN1SJ0FG https://www.reuters.com/article/us-platinum-week-bosch-fuelc...