7 ms·

I keep waiting for everyone to wake up to the hydrogen scam. Do you see any practical consumer hydrogen infrastructure going up? Has it even been invented yet?

by gary_0 3y ago

I keep waiting for everyone to wake up to the hydrogen scam. Do you see any practical consumer hydrogen infrastructure going up? Has it even been invented yet? Electrical infrastructure is a solved problem, we need to scale it up anyways, and it hooks into everything (industry, consumer use, consumer solar panels, public transport, renewable generation) because it just wires together and there are lots of electricians and engineers you can hire. There is electrical infrastructure almost everywhere there is human settlement! But hydrogen is a bunch of exploding leaking embrittling bullshit, and it will only ever have niche uses. Fun fact: currently 95% of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. This might be a clue as to why such a dumb idea is still around.

nicholassmith 3y ago
> Do you see any practical consumer hydrogen infrastructure going up? Has it even been invented yet? It has been invented, the majority are in China and Japan if I remember rightly.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  Yeah, my Canadian girlfriend works there.
  - turbobooster 3y ago
    We don't care that she's Canadian
Manuel_D 3y ago
Hydrogen becomes more attractive once electricity is decarbonized. It's really the only fuel that has both the energy density to power flight and transoceanic travel and does not emit carbon. Batteries are fine for cars, and trains can be electrified. But you'll never fly across the Atlantic on a battery powered passenger plane. Synthetic methane and other hydrocarbons are also ideas that are floated. But those need hydrogen as an input anyway. They also need a source of carbon, which is too difficult to extract from the atmosphere. So using the hydrogen directly may be more feasible.
- gary_0 3y ago
  Long-haul flights are the one possible exception, but they're not the saving grace the fossil fuel companies are trying to manufacture. Tanks of hydrogen at the airport are not a "hydrogen economy". And since it's looking like air travel will be one of the last things to decarbonize, there's no guarantee hydrogen will be relevant. Long-distance flights don't account for a large portion of global CO2 emissions[0] which leaves room for various options. Short-range aircraft will probably switch to batteries in the coming decades, because the prototypes are already flying[1] and battery and electric motor tech is ever-increasingly ubiquitous and mature. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions#Aviation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions#Aviat... [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-electric-seaplane-test-flights-1.5884479 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-el...
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    It's not just long haul flights, it's really anything longer than a hundred miles or so. Battery powered aircraft are also very small and light with little passenger or cargo capacity. Then there's the issue of charging. Planes can't just sit idle for hours at th gate as they charge. Faster charging reduces the lifespans of the batteries, and a plane needing a new set of batteries after a few hundred flights due to aggressive wear from fast charging is unacceptable. It's not just long haul flights out of reach of battery powered aircraft. Even a regional flight like Seattle to San Francisco cannot be feasibly done with batteries. This is fundamentally due to the energy density of lithium ion batteries, no amount of engineering can change the chemical limitations at hand: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File%3AEnergy_density.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File%3...
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      > Faster charging reduces the lifespans of the batteries As far as I understand, the problem is not just the speed, but the thermal management. IIRC the impact on battery life is not as bad if cooled properly. > and a plane needing a new set of batteries after a few hundred flights due to aggressive wear from fast charging is unacceptable. That's an economics question. How much does it cost to get that battery replaced and charged over its lifetime versus the alternative. > This is fundamentally due to the energy density of lithium ion batteries, no amount of engineering can change the chemical limitations at hand That's the beauty of battery technology, you can substitute. Cobalt a problem? Fine we can make batteries with out it. Lead-acid not suitable, fine here's lithium ion. Lithium ion not good enough, find we'll find a better battery. Hydrogen however is just that: hydrogen. Notice how low it is on the energy per volume scale. You can't substitute it out for anything. The volume requirement is what's going to kill you with hydrogen.

Gibbon1 3y ago

A point if and I seriously mean if in the I'm exceptionally dubious about hydrogen powered aircraft. If aircraft were hydrogen powered you'd generate the hydrogen on site at the airport. Will point out takes a decade now to produce a blue print aircraft. So if we started designing one now it would be flying when 2033? China rolled out a high speed rail network in ten years. You could do that in the US and other places. Notable point. The complaints I hear about high speed rail in Europe is tickets cost more than airplane tickets and the trains are always full. The explanation is the ergonomics and logistics of passenger aircraft sucks.

_hypx 3y ago
You'd likely send via pipelines or tanker trucks instead.
- c_o_n_v_e_x 3y ago
  Hydrogen doesn't make sense to transport. You contend with cryogenics / boil-off for tanker trucks or ships. Pipelines you're dealing with poor volumetric energy levels (you use comparatively more units of energy to move one unit of h2).
  - _hypx 3y ago
    Boiloff is not that big of a deal if you are using the fuel right away. It is the same story as with LNG.
    - c_o_n_v_e_x 3y ago
      I replied to your comment that was talking about transportation... i.e. not using it right away. H2 has a daily boil off 5 times greater than LNG. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772656822000276 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277265682... Not only that, liquid H2 has worse energy density than LNG. So again, you're spending more units of energy to comparatively more less units of energy.
      - _hypx 3y ago
        You can liquefy hydrogen on the spot. You don't need to move LH₂ around. If that does become necessary, the solution is improved insulation. Modern materials can reduce boil-off to that of LNG's. In fact, LNG was once seen as impossible because of its boil-off concerns at one point. You will need bigger tanks but the fuel is much lighter. It is a solvable problem.
        c_o_n_v_e_x 3y ago
        >Boiloff is not that big of a deal if you are using the fuel right away. >You can liquefy hydrogen on the spot. You don't need to move LH₂ around. Why are you liquefying H2 if you are using it right away and or not transporting it? Liquefaction is to optimize for storage. You're all over the shop.
        _hypx 3y ago
        You liquefy H₂ for the density advantage, not for storage. You actually want to store hydrogen as a gas since it won't boil off.