3 ms·
I think hydrogen does still have potential, just not for regular consumer vehicles. In cases where weight matters like flight, batteries just aren't near good e
by AngryData 2y ago
I think hydrogen does still have potential, just not for regular consumer vehicles. In cases where weight matters like flight, batteries just aren't near good enough now or anytime in the near future due to weight. In cases where you need monstrous amounts of energy between fueling/charging like ocean going cargo ships, batteries are again not anywhere near now or in the near future even close to sufficient. And in scenarios where there aren't safety concerns because consumers simply have no access to it and crashes/accidents are extremely rare, like with trains or large energy storage, hydrogen doesn't really have any real downsides compared to batteries but has plenty of upsides.
I still have hope for hydrogen fuel usage, but to me it has never made sense to try and push for consumer level hydrogen powered devices and cars. You can't just ignore an old hydrogen fuel tank in like an old junker car even if it is 99% empty, eventually that tank will pop and is a safety hazard. Where someone might accidentally damage or crash a vehicle with a hydrogen storage tank, it won't be just a localized fire, it is just a straight up massive bomb. And the extremely high pressures and/or cryogenic temperatures are not and never will be fool-proof enough for just the regular joe blow to have control over or easy access to it for refueling.
- sandworm101 2y agoIn such high-energy situations, the green alternative is most likely air-to-diesel, fuels derived from captured CO2 recombined with H into hydrocarbons. Compressed/liquified H2 can theoretically power an airliner, but for all that effort they could just use "green" manufactured hydrocarbons running though normal turbofan engines.
- calmbonsai 2y agoThis is precisely the approach that Terraform is taking with their fuels: https://www.terraformindustries.com/ https://www.terraformindustries.com/
- calmbonsai 2y agoThe deal-killer with hydrogen in flight is specific energy storage. At the moment, we have no hydrogen fuel storage technology that can even get a single-digit-percentage of a hydrocarbon fuel storage specific energy density. Additionally, none of the current hydrogen storage tech is flight-worthy from an aviation systems management (weight, balance, on-boarding, jettisoning) and safety perspective.
- why_at 2y agoI'm not an expert, but from what I can find it looks to me like hydrogen has a higher specific energy (energy/mass) than gasoline, but a lower volumetric energy density (energy/volume). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_material_energy_densities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_materi...
- calmbonsai 2y agoYou're correct. The sentence, specifically ;) was referring to "specific energy storage". We don't have ANY suitable hydrogen storage tech that's even envisioned, let alone prototyped or practical, that can compete with liquid hydrocarbons for flight. The closest alternative is ammonia, but for reasons mentioned later in the discussion, ammonia combustion is a very poor match for aviation engines.
- vanviegen 2y ago> [...] hydrogen doesn't really have any real downsides compared to batteries but has plenty of upsides. How about inefficiency? Conversion from electricity to hydrogen and back will get you only about 35% of the original energy. When using a hydrogen combustion engine instead of a fuel cell, comparison gets a little trickier, but at least the hydrogen generation will cost you about 35%.