3 ms·

Was that ever controversial in the last fifteen years or so?

fnord77 3y ago
there's some still clinging to fuel cells despite the numbers showing the edge to BEVs I can think of one major car maker...
jillesvangurp 3y ago
Only to those without a firm grasp on the laws of thermodynamics. There are a lot of those people. They fall into two categories: - those genuinely confused about this (most of the general public) - those representing oil and gas lobbies that have been using hydrogen lobbying as a way to stay in the fossil fuel industry a bit longer. Because most hydrogen is made from natural gas and they love the idea of growing the market for that. In short, there's a lot of waffle about stored energy by people who don't get (or refuse to acknowledge) that most of that 1) needs to come from somewhere (which is a lossy process) and 2) needs to be transformed into a usable form of energy (which is also a lossy process). That's before you take into account the logistics of moving hydrogen around, which is challenging because it takes up a lot of space. You can either compress it to a few hundred bar (which takes energy) or cool it to a few degrees of kelvin (which takes energy, and keeping it there costs you more energy). And once you do that, you need to keep it contained for extended periods of time (which isn't 100% efficient, especially in liquid form), and use about 18x more trucks for hydrogen in gas form compared to methane in liquid form; or only about 3x more trucks is you actually do cool it down to liquid form. In short, you end up loosing a lot of energy in various lossy energy transformations, compression, storage, and transport of hydrogen before you even get to extract energy from it. All these inefficiencies multiply to a very significant cost disadvantage over simple battery electric. And even if you do all go down this path you end up charging a battery with a hydrogen fuel cell. Because fuel cells suck at producing variable output that you would need for a vehicle. Which is why most hydrogen vehicles today that use a fuel cell are fully functional battery electric vehicles that happen to have a tiny battery. You could just rip out the hydrogen bits and replace them with a bigger battery and you end up with a vehicle that's cheaper to operate. By about 2-3x. A better vehicle in other words. Vehicles like the ones BHP produces are huge. So, shoving a few mwh of battery in them is not going to be that big of a deal. Charging them is a logistical challenge but also a solvable one. Multi mw charger technology already exists. And of course not having to truck in lots of diesel/hydrogen trucks to the remote places where these things are used might also be a benefit. The main challenge for companies like this is access to enough battery and electricity.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  Funnily enough, if you mine underground you spend an incredible amount of electricity trying to keep the air fresh down there, mostly due to whatever combustion reaction is powering your vehicles. I’ve seen reports claiming you break even or even use less electricity when operating electric vehicles since your ventilation requirements are significantly reduced.
- _hypx 3y ago
  > Only to those without a firm grasp on the laws of thermodynamics. You are the one completely confused by the laws of thermodynamics. A hydrogen fuel cell is an electrochemical system. So are electrolyzers. They represent the equivalence of charging and discharging a battery. There is no fundamental reason why this must be less efficient. You can potentially reach 100% efficiency at least in theory. What people really are saying is that “in practice,” it is less efficient than a battery setup. But this is also mostly made-up and filled with exaggeration. Electrolyzers are reaching 98% efficiency. Fuel cells, at least in large installations, can already reach 85% efficiency or battery (assuming heat recapture). In short, it is already pretty close to what batteries can do. Future advancements will eliminate the efficiency gap almost entirely. Furthermore, it is actually more efficient to store and move around hydrogen than it is with electricity. Energy storage at scale is very difficult, and enough of a problem that we are looking at using hydrogen for long-duration energy storage. That alone basically kills the argument that batteries have any advantages in this respect. Finally, as the economics of hydrogen production scale up, we can expect cost to approach zero. That’s because it is very much like wind and solar: We’re using a basically free resource (wind, sunlight and water) and turning it into a fuel. People criticized the efficiency of photovoltaics in the past, but the fundamental advantage of not having to pay for fuel means that costs can drop to nearly zero, and it did. This is the same story again. Except nearly free green hydrogen in the long-run.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    > Fuel cells, at least in large installations, can already reach 85% efficiency or battery (assuming heat recapture). Heat recapture is great, but we care about electricity output. > Finally, as the economics of hydrogen production scale up, we can expect cost to approach zero. That’s because it is very much like wind and solar: We’re using a basically free resource It will never reach zero because the equipment, transportation, and people involved are not free. Further solar panels and wind turbines got cheaper due to learning effects. These effects are not present for over half of the things involved in a hydrogen fuel system. Pumps and tanks and valves and pipes are already mass produced. And while the sunlight might be free, the electricity from it is now, and never will be since the equipment isn’t free.
local_issues 3y ago
[flagged]
_aavaa_ 3y ago
It’s controversial now. There are many people smoking the hopium pipe claiming that fuel cell vehicles are the solution of the future.

there's some still clinging to fuel cells despite the numbers showing the edge to BEVs I can think of one major car maker...

jillesvangurp 3y ago

Only to those without a firm grasp on the laws of thermodynamics. There are a lot of those people. They fall into two categories: - those genuinely confused about this (most of the general public) - those representing oil and gas lobbies that have been using hydrogen lobbying as a way to stay in the fossil fuel industry a bit longer. Because most hydrogen is made from natural gas and they love the idea of growing the market for that. In short, there's a lot of waffle about stored energy by people who don't get (or refuse to acknowledge) that most of that 1) needs to come from somewhere (which is a lossy process) and 2) needs to be transformed into a usable form of energy (which is also a lossy process). That's before you take into account the logistics of moving hydrogen around, which is challenging because it takes up a lot of space. You can either compress it to a few hundred bar (which takes energy) or cool it to a few degrees of kelvin (which takes energy, and keeping it there costs you more energy). And once you do that, you need to keep it contained for extended periods of time (which isn't 100% efficient, especially in liquid form), and use about 18x more trucks for hydrogen in gas form compared to methane in liquid form; or only about 3x more trucks is you actually do cool it down to liquid form. In short, you end up loosing a lot of energy in various lossy energy transformations, compression, storage, and transport of hydrogen before you even get to extract energy from it. All these inefficiencies multiply to a very significant cost disadvantage over simple battery electric. And even if you do all go down this path you end up charging a battery with a hydrogen fuel cell. Because fuel cells suck at producing variable output that you would need for a vehicle. Which is why most hydrogen vehicles today that use a fuel cell are fully functional battery electric vehicles that happen to have a tiny battery. You could just rip out the hydrogen bits and replace them with a bigger battery and you end up with a vehicle that's cheaper to operate. By about 2-3x. A better vehicle in other words. Vehicles like the ones BHP produces are huge. So, shoving a few mwh of battery in them is not going to be that big of a deal. Charging them is a logistical challenge but also a solvable one. Multi mw charger technology already exists. And of course not having to truck in lots of diesel/hydrogen trucks to the remote places where these things are used might also be a benefit. The main challenge for companies like this is access to enough battery and electricity.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
Funnily enough, if you mine underground you spend an incredible amount of electricity trying to keep the air fresh down there, mostly due to whatever combustion reaction is powering your vehicles. I’ve seen reports claiming you break even or even use less electricity when operating electric vehicles since your ventilation requirements are significantly reduced.
_hypx 3y ago
> Only to those without a firm grasp on the laws of thermodynamics. You are the one completely confused by the laws of thermodynamics. A hydrogen fuel cell is an electrochemical system. So are electrolyzers. They represent the equivalence of charging and discharging a battery. There is no fundamental reason why this must be less efficient. You can potentially reach 100% efficiency at least in theory. What people really are saying is that “in practice,” it is less efficient than a battery setup. But this is also mostly made-up and filled with exaggeration. Electrolyzers are reaching 98% efficiency. Fuel cells, at least in large installations, can already reach 85% efficiency or battery (assuming heat recapture). In short, it is already pretty close to what batteries can do. Future advancements will eliminate the efficiency gap almost entirely. Furthermore, it is actually more efficient to store and move around hydrogen than it is with electricity. Energy storage at scale is very difficult, and enough of a problem that we are looking at using hydrogen for long-duration energy storage. That alone basically kills the argument that batteries have any advantages in this respect. Finally, as the economics of hydrogen production scale up, we can expect cost to approach zero. That’s because it is very much like wind and solar: We’re using a basically free resource (wind, sunlight and water) and turning it into a fuel. People criticized the efficiency of photovoltaics in the past, but the fundamental advantage of not having to pay for fuel means that costs can drop to nearly zero, and it did. This is the same story again. Except nearly free green hydrogen in the long-run.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  > Fuel cells, at least in large installations, can already reach 85% efficiency or battery (assuming heat recapture). Heat recapture is great, but we care about electricity output. > Finally, as the economics of hydrogen production scale up, we can expect cost to approach zero. That’s because it is very much like wind and solar: We’re using a basically free resource It will never reach zero because the equipment, transportation, and people involved are not free. Further solar panels and wind turbines got cheaper due to learning effects. These effects are not present for over half of the things involved in a hydrogen fuel system. Pumps and tanks and valves and pipes are already mass produced. And while the sunlight might be free, the electricity from it is now, and never will be since the equipment isn’t free.

local_issues 3y ago

[flagged]

_aavaa_ 3y ago

It’s controversial now. There are many people smoking the hopium pipe claiming that fuel cell vehicles are the solution of the future.