this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
107 points (93.5% liked)
Electric Vehicles
3147 readers
196 users here now
A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No self-promotion
- No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
- No trolling
- Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IDK why hydrogen just hasn't captured any mind share. Seems like a great technology.
Someone will be along in a moment to tell me all about embrittlement and blue hydrogen, yet conglomerates are pouring many billions into water cracking infrastructure right now.
Huge energy losses in the conversion of electricity to hydrogen. Also for passenger cars there are no clear benefits. 350kW chargers provide hundreds of kilometers of range in under 20 minutes.
In some places (like Western Australia), solar electricity is very cheap, making the inefficiencies of conversion economically viable.
The benefit is storage and transport of energy.
Edge case, but a good one. So different energy carriers per geographical region.
We're rolling out production capability so that we can export green hydrogen to South East Asia. Not so regional.
I've always considered hydrogen cool but ive also assumed it needs huge infrastructure changes so it can be supplied to the general population. Some EVs you can plug in an outlet and putting up charging station is super easy.
I want to get off gas yesterday and EV is simply the quickest way imo.
Sure ok, but we're building infrastructure right now.
Hydrogen is great on paper until you start looking into the details.
hydrogen cars have to store the fuel in 70000 PSI tanks. theres only 2 stations in my major city area that sell it, and they are often unavailable due to maintenance or supply issues. if the car needs service the only place that will touch it is an hour drive away.
It's almost as though you need infrastructure.
It’s great science but it’s hard technology.
It almost requires extremely high pressure or cryogenic storage and it diffuses through everything.
Put a 10,000 psi tank of hydrogen in your car, or a tank of heavy, reactive metal hydride. Also, while hydrogen isn't a greenhouse gas, releasing unburned hydrogen into the atmosphere causes more GHG to be formed. Humans are terrible at keeping unburned gasses from leaking.
We can go back and forth about which ought to be a better technology, but one is practical now while the other isn’t. One has much smaller infrastructure requirements than the other. One let’s us refuel at home while the other doesn’t
I personally will be happy to see almost the entires gasoline industry disappear. Imagine making such an impact on ground and air pollution, when the goal is simply to reduce carbon emissions. Imagine how much it simplifies all of our lives to just plug in every night
EVs only have smaller infrastructure requirements if you ignore power production.
One may be practical now but, according to this article, we're approaching the limits of practical applications.
Article is paywalled so I only see the beginning.
-- if these limits are from the ceo of Toyota, they’re not worth the bits they’re printed with. Toyota has a huge investment in Hydrogen they don’t want to lose
— everything else indicates Batteries about the current level can cover all personal vehicles and many commercial ones. Clearly there are limits for things like shipping, aircraft, construction vehicles, but one of the things those have in common is they go back to a large depot. You don’t need to replace the tens of thousands of gas stations and their distributors but might have to replace infrastructure at hundreds of central depots
— power generation is sufficient for now but clearly needs to grow with adoption. Other countries with much higher BEV adoption rates have demonstrated this really isn’t a problem. Compare that to hydrogen infrastructure which is almost non-existent and you’d have to build out quite a bit before vehicles become practical
— charger infrastructure is adequate at the moment but clearly needs to grow with adoption. Compare to hydrogen infrastructure which is almost non-existent
Why ask the question if you already know the answer?
The reason it hasn't taken off is because it's a fundamentally very difficult technology to safely build. Embrittlement is a fact of physics, and it's extremely difficult to design around, especially at scale.
And the fact that there is almost zero global capacity to manufacture green hydrogen means that there is little point in subsidising it from an environmentalist point of view.
Hydrogen will have its uses, maybe in niches like aviation fuel where requirements are very specific and it's possible to exercise much tighter control of the infrastructure chain. But it's just not a competitive technology for replacing petrol and diesel in general purpose road vehicles.
Because these problems are not prohibitive. Any tech has challenges.
A brief perusal of anything about embrittlement suggests that it's very manageable. There are hydrogen powered vehicles driving around right now. How is it that their tanks to not crumble or shatter?
Imagine saying "There's not a lot of computers around, therefore this internet isn't going to be viable". In Western Australia there are three large scale hydrogen production facilities under construction. The one nearest me will cover 15,000 km^2 and produce 3.5 million tonnes of hydrogen per annum. Do you really want to bet against mining consortiums contributing many billions of dollars to hydrogen production?
The short answer is that they do. They have a relatively short lifespan (around 10 years) with regular inspections.
Replacing car tanks is not really the tricky bit though- it's everything else. Pipelines, filling station infrastructure, transport trucks, and so on. All of which ends up having a similarly short lifespan. The ongoing cost (both in cash terms and in terms of environmental impact) of continually replacing huge amounts of the associated infrastructure at a much higher rate than you need to for petrol is a factor in why the technology isn't competitive.
Green hydrogen makes up a tiny fraction of the global hydrogen supply because so-called blue hydrogen (produced from fossil fuels) is so abundant. Green hydrogen amounts to only 1% of global production, and blue hydrogen isn't going away. Individual electrolysis plants might manage to turn a profit, but for the foreseeable future anyone filling up their car with hydrogen will almost certainly be filling up with fossil fuels, not renewable fuels.
Maybe at some point in the distant future when all the natural gas wells have been capped then the arithmetic will be different. But as of 2024, subsiding hydrogen vehicles is not a viable way of decarbonising.
That's just BS. The longevity of everything is comparable to that of natural gas related equipment. It will be much cheaper than massively expanding the grid and build batteries for everything. Not to mention that you can reuse much of the natural gas infrastructure.
Green hydrogen is growing exponentially in the same way wind and solar grew. The upside of something that isn't dependent on finite fossil fuels. It will eventually be available in vast quantities and at a very low price.
Hydrogen cars have limited performance, are overly complex and there's no infrastructure. For an average consumer they make zero sense
This is a pretty vanilla statement. You could say this about literally any new tech.