this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
434 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
59582 readers
3910 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
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
As two major manufacturers double down on developing hydrogen cell cars.
The complaints about electric infrastructure not being ready for widespread adoption but people championing hydrogen cell just boggles my mind.
I was excited for hydrogen back in the day but it seems like we’ve known for years that it isn’t the way to go. Why is anyone still fucking with it? Do these cars get 2,000 mile range or something?
Hydrogen was the future in the 90s, when the alternative was lead acid batteries. Nowadays hydrogen fuel cell cars don't actually top the charts on range, battery EVs have taken the crown.
Hydrogen promised to be a drop-in replacement for fossil fuels. You still needed big industry to make and distribute it, you still needed filling stations to sell it to end users, you still took your car somewhere to fill it up. Everyone could just keep doing their thing. But it was going to be so expensive to switch over that everyone dragged their heels and kept using fossil fuels, so now we're entering the post-hydrogen car era without it ever arriving.
If we'd had hydrogen fuel cell cars 30 years ago, today we'd have manufacturers putting bigger batteries and charging plugs on them to make plug-in hybrids and move away from expensive hydrogen.
I think this highlights it perfectly. The other reason teasing hydrogen was so popular with the established fuel companies, is that it meant we'd still "need" them, because it used similar distribution networks.
But the other side of their money making systems meant that they didn't move quickly enough, and we may have just moved on past now.
Hydrogen will be a big chunk of the future but probably not in cars, or generally car-sized vehicles, unless we're talking stuff like catastrophe relief (and with that ambulances, fire trucks etc) because it's a good idea to be able to fuel those things even if the grid is down.
We'll need hydrogen infrastructure and production anyways for steel smelting as well as the chemical industry, those are things that just don't run on electricity, no way. With that in place hydrogen is going to be available pretty much all over, similar to how you get natural gas anywhere nowadays. And then you have an unelectrified railway somewhere, electrifying it would cost a fortune and not amortise, but a fuel cell locomotive? Sounds easy and reasonable. Flow batteries are also an option in that kind of operation but you really need a lot of space to get power output from those so they wouldn't work for an ambulance.
So if you're a car manufacturer with your head screwed on right you're probably not developing and selling hydrogen cars now because they believe they're the future, you're doing that to have affluent liberals pay for your ticket to play in the future market of hydrogen utility vehicles.
Also of note: European car manufacturers at least seem to be completely fine with there being fewer cars on the streets. First, they can also make money off building public transport infrastructure and running car shares, secondly, cheap everyday cars aren't that profitable, if the cars they then do get to sell are fancy with high profit margin that's completely fine with them. Their suppliers care even less, a seat manufacturer doesn't care whether the seat ends up in a car or a train.
Because batteries suck for any application where weight (ie. energy density) matters. Running long haul semis off batteries is not a super practical thing. Even with consumer cars, there are people for whom hydrogen will be a better fit.
Basically we've been in a world where the happy medium of energy density and efficiency (gasoline) was used for everything. Now we likely need to split those things up into what energy density is more important for, and what energy efficiency is more important for.
Yea it’s such a weird direction to go right night. Manufacturing and delivery of hydrogen for fuel cells is complex, expensive, and poses some unique dangers with the temps and pressure of the hydrogen. It’s cleaner, assuming manufacturing of the hydrogen uses green energy, but right now most energy production isn’t green.
It has its advantages but some pretty big disadvantages too. I don’t think it’s the way to go just yet. Maybe eventually but not today I don’t think.
I could see it being used to power ships and aircraft, but it is way too complicated to deal with it for Joe average and his SUV. The stuff has to be at cryogenic temperatures to be usable, do you really want your average idiot dealing with cryogenic liquids when they are absolutely going to spill it on their foot?
It's too dangerous, you need serious people in hard hats and yellow fluorescent jackets to deal with it safely.
The problem we have is energy density. Gasoline is pretty damn dense energy-wise. Storing 20-30 gallons of gas in a tank That's easy and safe to refill is hard to replace.
Lithium ion and lithium iron phosphate batteries are slow to refill.
Hydrogen is kind of neat. You can make it from splitting water with solar or nuclear. It's also a byproduct of the oil industry. And you can fill a tanker up or even an entire train and move fuck ton of hydrogen from one place to another. You can pipe it, people can generated for themselves and get a byproduct of pure oxygen.
But alas, it's still hydrogen. Give it access to the air in a little bit of fire and it makes a big boom. The infrastructure is very expensive to build out, and we're not swimming so much and renewables then it makes sense to bottle it up and sell it to people.
It can make sense for limited uses like cross country trucking (or maybe airlines) where battery will probably never have the range and you live and die by the schedule and refuel stops need to be relatively quick. Refilling semis at a limited number of truck stops with hydrogen stations can be useful if you can also get non petro-derived hydrogen. But for soccer moms and commuters it makes zero sense. Just charge smaller batteries at home and work and have a good interstate charging network for longer trips. We just need to normalize taking breaks on a road trip. It’ll help make more relaxing drives anyway and people already drive angry.
What, you don't see how great it is to have two separate sets of infrastructure with little overlap in order to have a less efficient solution pushed by the oil industry?
That's it of course isn't it the hydrogen is generated through fracking so they're just trying to maintain the existing business model.
That alone is the reason that no one should have ever paid attention to it. It wasn't ever intended to actually work it was supposed to just look like it might work so that they would continue to get some money.
Yeah. There was a time, 10 or 20 years ago, where I would have said we should invest into all possible solutions, including batteries and hydrogen. It would have been nice to have it all be funded 10 times more than they were, but they were funded.
And then batteries won. The pseudo-reasonable argument "we should fund every possible avenue" no longer applies. We did that, and now is the time to go all in on the winner.
I am not familiar with it, would you mind telling me how much works? Why would Hydrogen not be sourced from ocean water and then compressed/stored? How did fracking come in, it seems like a chore to have made it so
Because electrolysis requires ungodly amounts of electricity in order to work on industrial scales in theory it's doable but no one does it. We would practically have to crack nuclear fusion to make it viable, which sort of defeats the point.
However you can get it from shale gas quite easily because it's just in there mixed in with the gas, I assume some geological process creates it, so you just need to separate it from the gas. The trouble is it involves doing the actual fracking, even if you don't actually ever burn the gas, which they also do because of course they do.
It's just a totally stupid system all around.
Namibia is set to produce 15Mt/a of hydrogen by 2050, using about 15TWh/a of renewables, mostly wind. Germany is estimating an approximate need for 2Gt/a for its industry which is why we're also tapping e.g. Canada, they're planning on scaling to 20Mt/a by 2050. Transport will be in the form of hydrous ammonia.
Yes it's still a steep climb and the numbers are staggering but remember that this is replacing oil not just as fuel but also chemical feedstock and BASF Ludwigshafen alone consumes more resources than several small countries combined.
There's literally no alternative to that, same goes with steel smelting. Application in vehicles are going to be an insignificant blip compared to the overall hydrogen economy.
It can be through electrolysis, but it is almost never done that way. It's less efficient than simply using the grid to charge batteries, in that usecase the ONLY benefit it has its energy density (and that might not last either).
In practice the main source is as a byproduct from refining fossil fuel like oil or gas which is separated and collected.
I got the infrastructure argument when EV battery range sucked and charge times took hours. But now that EV range is getting close to gasoline cars, and charging can be done in minutes with a super charger, hydrogen doesn’t make much sense.
It could’ve been dope if only a company like Toyota made some desirable cars and built out a great station network.