4 ms·

Those can already run on batteries. Australia has some electrified road trains that are 165 tonnes, way more than is allowed on roads in most countries. Brutal

Those can already run on batteries. Australia has some electrified road trains that are 165 tonnes, way more than is allowed on roads in most countries. Brutally simple solution with batteries that can be swapped in a few minutes. https://thedriven.io/2023/04/18/australian-miner-to-trial-worlds-first-electric-triple-road-train-with-swappable-battery/ https://thedriven.io/2023/04/18/australian-miner-to-trial-wo... Hydrogen is likely never going to be very popular for road transport. It's way more costly than battery electric to operate and most transport companies deeply care about their margins. Besides that, the infrastructure simply isn't there for hydrogen (never mind green hydrogen). And the battery equivalents are already being used on roads right now in pretty much any weight class. High speed megawatt chargers are already being developed. And with swapping batteries the whole argument against having to wait goes away.

_hypx 3y ago
Economics of road trains plus battery swapping will be disastrous. You will need many times more batteries than even other large BEV trucking ideas. In reality, it's pretty much a guarantee that hydrogen displaces batteries for most cases, and likely all of heavy transport. The mistake critics are making is assuming that this must be expensive. But just like other types of renewable energy, this is actually heading towards nearly zero.
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  The road trains I mentioned are diesel truck conversions. It's that simple. Get rid of the original drive train, put an electrical drive train in. Shove in some battery where the fuel used to go. Actually works. On a 165 tonne road trains. Not a hypothetical but in commercial operation right now defying your notions of what is and isn't feasible. Imagine what a truck that is designed from the ground up to do that could do. Probably would do quite a bit better. Paying 2-3x for hydrogen and depending on infrastructure that simply does not exist yet doesn't even sound like the beginnings of a plan. It doesn't make any economical sense whatsoever. It's a pipe dream financed by companies reluctant to get out of the diesel truck business. By the time energy really gets that cheap, battery electric trucks will have been dominating the roads for decades and there won't be any point in replacing them with less efficient hydrogen trucks. There isn't one now. There won't be one a few decades from now.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    A hydrogen truck is basically the same idea just economically sane and doesn’t have a huge weight penalty. You’re mostly repeating BEV propaganda and it is mostly just close-mindedness. The point is that hydrogen trucks are actually economically viable in this setting. Not to mention that BEVs are a >100 year old technology, and the idea that something that old can maintain a permanent cost advantage over all possible alternatives is a completely delusional idea. This even ignores the fact that fuel cells are electrochemical systems and don’t have any fundamental disadvantages compared to li-ion batteries. FCEVs are literally just a cheaper type of EV.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  Except hydrogen is not a renewable source of energy. It’s at best a carrier. And it’s a really bad carrier at that. Hydrogen will never be cheaper than the electricity you make it from. The electrolyzers are expensive and the rest of the equipment for them is already mass produced and as cheap as it’s going to get. The transportation and production is expensive and inherently difficult. As for the certainty that they will go hydrogen, the only certainty is that they will not go hydrogen. Here’s from only 2 days ago, news of actual mines explicitly choosing electric over hydrogen for the obvious concerns: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/07/05/australian-mining-companies-chose-battery-electric-over-hydrogen-fuel-cell-mining-trucks/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/07/05/australian-mining-compa...
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    It also tends to leak out through its high pressure tanks and it's a way worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      The first claim is not true. The second claim is a dishonest distortion of facts. It is an "indirect" greenhouse gas whereby it extends the life of methane in the atmosphere. This is a pretty meaningless thing to say because it is directly replacing methane. So the more hydrogen we use, the less global warming there will be.
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        Euh yes it's true. There is no tank which can contain hydrogen at the pressue we store it. The atoms are so small they migrate directly through the material and cause chemical changes as a result that weaken the tank over time (hydrogen embrittlement). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement It happens quite fast, a tank will lose most of its capacity over a month. As most tanks will be full most of the time (after all where else are you going to store the hydrogen for your car?) they will lose significant amounts to the atmosphere. Regardign the methane it's already there and is also expelled by natural resources (e.g. meat industry and marshes for example). So even if we would stop burning fossil, there is no end of it. I don't think Hydrogen is a bad option for some usecases by the way. I just wish people wouldn't view it as a magic bullet.

_hypx 3y ago

Economics of road trains plus battery swapping will be disastrous. You will need many times more batteries than even other large BEV trucking ideas. In reality, it's pretty much a guarantee that hydrogen displaces batteries for most cases, and likely all of heavy transport. The mistake critics are making is assuming that this must be expensive. But just like other types of renewable energy, this is actually heading towards nearly zero.

jillesvangurp 3y ago
The road trains I mentioned are diesel truck conversions. It's that simple. Get rid of the original drive train, put an electrical drive train in. Shove in some battery where the fuel used to go. Actually works. On a 165 tonne road trains. Not a hypothetical but in commercial operation right now defying your notions of what is and isn't feasible. Imagine what a truck that is designed from the ground up to do that could do. Probably would do quite a bit better. Paying 2-3x for hydrogen and depending on infrastructure that simply does not exist yet doesn't even sound like the beginnings of a plan. It doesn't make any economical sense whatsoever. It's a pipe dream financed by companies reluctant to get out of the diesel truck business. By the time energy really gets that cheap, battery electric trucks will have been dominating the roads for decades and there won't be any point in replacing them with less efficient hydrogen trucks. There isn't one now. There won't be one a few decades from now.
- _hypx 3y ago
  A hydrogen truck is basically the same idea just economically sane and doesn’t have a huge weight penalty. You’re mostly repeating BEV propaganda and it is mostly just close-mindedness. The point is that hydrogen trucks are actually economically viable in this setting. Not to mention that BEVs are a >100 year old technology, and the idea that something that old can maintain a permanent cost advantage over all possible alternatives is a completely delusional idea. This even ignores the fact that fuel cells are electrochemical systems and don’t have any fundamental disadvantages compared to li-ion batteries. FCEVs are literally just a cheaper type of EV.
_aavaa_ 3y ago
Except hydrogen is not a renewable source of energy. It’s at best a carrier. And it’s a really bad carrier at that. Hydrogen will never be cheaper than the electricity you make it from. The electrolyzers are expensive and the rest of the equipment for them is already mass produced and as cheap as it’s going to get. The transportation and production is expensive and inherently difficult. As for the certainty that they will go hydrogen, the only certainty is that they will not go hydrogen. Here’s from only 2 days ago, news of actual mines explicitly choosing electric over hydrogen for the obvious concerns: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/07/05/australian-mining-companies-chose-battery-electric-over-hydrogen-fuel-cell-mining-trucks/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/07/05/australian-mining-compa...
- wkat4242 3y ago
  It also tends to leak out through its high pressure tanks and it's a way worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    The first claim is not true. The second claim is a dishonest distortion of facts. It is an "indirect" greenhouse gas whereby it extends the life of methane in the atmosphere. This is a pretty meaningless thing to say because it is directly replacing methane. So the more hydrogen we use, the less global warming there will be.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      Euh yes it's true. There is no tank which can contain hydrogen at the pressue we store it. The atoms are so small they migrate directly through the material and cause chemical changes as a result that weaken the tank over time (hydrogen embrittlement). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement It happens quite fast, a tank will lose most of its capacity over a month. As most tanks will be full most of the time (after all where else are you going to store the hydrogen for your car?) they will lose significant amounts to the atmosphere. Regardign the methane it's already there and is also expelled by natural resources (e.g. meat industry and marshes for example). So even if we would stop burning fossil, there is no end of it. I don't think Hydrogen is a bad option for some usecases by the way. I just wish people wouldn't view it as a magic bullet.