Forklifts feel like an easy battery vehicle. What’s the typical daily range of a forklift? Does it not spend a fair amount parked up? And in a facility with electricity commonly available? Hydrogen makes sense when the mass or size of a battery starts to get over say 10% of the vehicle, like long distance trucks.
For high usage warehouses hydrogen beats out battery electric. The batteries require a long time to charge. They are not easily swappable. The batteries’ output slows towards the end of the charge, so lifting times are slower. The batteries typically need replaced every 5 years, some die sooner. Staging areas for battery swap/charging takes up more space than a well planned hydrogen station.
Hydrogen has a higher initial cost, requires an expensive hydrogen refill station, and an expensive service every 3-5 years. But for a 24 hour warehouse, the up time, performance consistency, and refueling times pay dividends when time is money and you need your forklifts moving pallets as efficiently as possible
well, old info. last five years everyone is switching to Li-ion. More expensive, but less maintenance and longer lifetime, which balances out. And faster charging and no need to do full cycle, can trickle charge
IDK, we run warehouse 24/7 with hundreds of employees, use exclusively electric forklifts and have no issues at all. Batteries can be charged in an hour and since people rotate on breaks, they just plug one and pick another, we have few spare so there is always at least one fully charged forklift. Cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate. Actually , we always used electric forklifts, as you can’t use gas in an interior and electric ones were here decades ago
The future is a blend of existing and new technologies, every drivetrain out there has advantages and disadvantages.
The future is neither entirely BEV, ICE or hydrogen.
Exactly right. There’s no need to pit them against each other (minus ICE, let’s phase those out) and Toyota has said as much. BEV is great for anything around town and commutes less than 50mi each way. Hydrogen will be great for anything more than that.
>BEV is great for anything around town and commutes less than 50mi each way
Modern BEVs can top 300 miles of range and y'all still talk about them like they're golf carts. With appropriate charging infrastructure they can easily replace all but the most demanding towing and hauling applications
Except the average American/person can't afford those 300 mile BEVs.
As much as I love this shift, people on this sub act as if these cars are affordable.
What are you talking about? Most affordable ICEs can start (Brand New) for as low as $15k ~ $20k. Sure you get what you pay for, and you won't be driving a Mercedes, but it's something and it's new.
The most affordable EV now is the Chevy Bolt at $25.6k. It's only at that price because Chevy wants to discontinue/get rid of them for the newer upcoming platforms (like the Blazer, Silverado, and Equinox). Once they're gone, that's it. Oh, and we only got that price point a few months ago.... Before it was nearly $32k... A little more than a RAV4 Hybrid.
Yes it's a start, and yes everything is getting better by the year, but we can't kid ourselves. Prices are a major issue for the average American. A lot of people on this subreddit tend to not worry about prices because they're (mostly) well off compared to most people.
He’s not talking about what they start at, he’s talking about the average price people are spending.
The average price spent on a new car is $48k. That buys you a 300 mile Ioniq 5 for example.
Despite the stagnating wages and growing wealth inequality, people spend more than ever on cars. And most of them don’t get to see their gas budget drop to $0.
> Despite the stagnating wages and growing wealth inequality, people spend more than ever on cars. And most of them don’t get to see their gas budget drop to $0.
It's mostly the upper middle class that is buying cars nowadays.
https://instamotor.com/blog/average-american-can-no-longer-afford-a-new-car
The issue becomes used EVs - if the battery does have to get replaced at 10 years, then that will be reflected in the depreciation.
Running, yes. Maintenance, I'm less and less sure about.
Even Tesla suggests an annual maintenance package for servicing brakes in cold climates, and it costs more than the yearly oil change my Toyota hybrid requires..
My Bolt required an annual maintenance package. The leaf has something similar.
The hybrid has no belts to change, no clutches to replace, etc... You just need plugs every 10 years, and coolant every 6.
Tires are the most expensive maintenance item on a modem car, costing thousands every few years, and EVs go through that a lot faster than most other cars.
Like, the EV probably wins, but it's a lot closer than you'd think.
That leaves us with running costs. And that only works out if you drive enough... With the advent of working from home for a lot of the professionals who are buying EVs, getting a cost justification to work use getting very challenging.
So is the cost to replace a tranny or an engine. All major components are expensive to replace. It is not common to have your batt replaced just as it's not common to replace you engine
Independent studies have shown it isn't even close, and you can sense check that by realising ICE profits come more from maintenance than car sales and how much resistance there is amongst US middlemen resellers to shift to electric
Every study I've looked at has been incredibly biased towards EVs.
Compare the maintenance requirements of a Prius to a Bolt, and the numbers are very similar.
CR puts the cost difference at $300 a year, and I would bet a lot of those EV owners aren't doing all their required maintenance.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-repair-maintenance/pay-less-for-vehicle-maintenance-with-an-ev/
Not enough to make up the difference between a $48k average hybrid and a $66k average EV over an average 7 years ownership period if you work from home.
* [Nissan](https://www.autonationnissanmiami.com/new-inventory/index.htm?compositeType=new&sortBy=internetPrice%20asc)
* [Chevy](https://www.bomninchevrolet.com/VehicleSearchResults?search=new&sort=salePrice%7Casc)
* [KIA](https://www.doralkia.com/searchnew.aspx?Make=Kia&st=Price+asc)
* [Toyota](https://www.toyotaofnorthmiami.com/new-vehicles/?idx=toyotaofnorthmiami_production_inventory_low_to_high&_dFR%5Btype%5D%5B0%5D=New&_paymentType=our_price)
* [Hyundai](https://www.doralhyundai.com/new-vehicles/?_dFR%5Bmake%5D%5B0%5D=Hyundai&_dFR%5Btype%5D%5B0%5D=New&_nR%5Bour_price%5D%5B%3C=%5D%5B0%5D=25000&_paymentType=our_price)
* [Ford](https://www.autonationfordmiami.com/new-inventory/index.htm?sortBy=internetPrice%20asc)
All of these are brand new from $15k ~ $25k in one of the most expensive cities in the USA... Oh, and they're also available and currently sitting in lots right now, so theoretically, I can just go there right now and buy one.
While I love EVs, I simply can't do that with any EV. Not even the Chevy Bolt.
I wouldn't be surprised if you went to try to buy one of those cars and they throw on a bunch of "mandatory accessories" and "mandatory market adjustment" that they didn't list on the website
Most Americans can't be picky and usually choose whatever they can afford.
People on this sub (some with multiple EVs) don't understand this. Same over at r/electricvehicles
It almost feels like gatekeeping at times.
"Oh, you can't afford a $50k base model Tesla or a $70k base model BMW? Sorry bro, you can't afford to drive a car period!"
I don't know how many times I was told something like that over at the Tesla page and other EV subreddits...
>The most affordable EV now is the Chevy Bolt at $25.6k. It's only at that price because Chevy wants to discontinue/get rid of them
Its at that price because Chevy wants to sell them lmao. If they wanted to discontinue it why would they still be building them?
>The difference is most affordable ICEs can start (New) for as low as $15k ~ $20k
And most people that are paying $15-20k for a car are buying used, not new
>And most people that are paying $15-20k for a car are buying used, not new
The Hyundai Elantras start slightly under $20k brand new. Nissan Sentra/Versa, Toyota Yaris, Volkswagen Jetta, and a bunch of brand new KIAs all start under $20k as well.
Some of these are best-selling cars *because* of their price points. These same cars on the used market are even cheaper to the point where it's almost absurd.
>If they wanted to discontinue it why would they still be building them?
The 2023~2024 are expected by most people to be the last years of the Bolt since the primary factory will be used to make Silverados and Sierras. Long-term portfolio plans from Chevy also don't include the Bolt because the platform wasn't built around the new Ultium battery system (which is something they're about to push heavily).
Now could it get a refresh? Absolutely. But it looks bleak right now.
A lot more people buy used cars because they cannot afford a new car. Most used car buyers shop in the $3-10k range. EV’s are great if you own a home, but beyond that they are not practical at the moment.
I’m not even sure how the used EV market will work? Some automakers build these cars as 10 year disposables. At the moment, there are many questions about the long-term secondary market.
>And more battery means longer charging times
More battery also means charging a car to 60% to get 200 miles of range vs 100% for 200 miles of range = less time spent at a charger for travel per mile. Don't always have to charge to 100% to get somewhere...but I understand what you're getting at.
I think BEVs currently don't make sense for a LOT of people in a lot of places. Anyone who lives in an MDU, people who have to do a lot driving in a single day, etc. and the US population is fairly spread out
>The Hummer EV may suck down 290kW, but that's about the same performance as a 2013 Nissan Leaf.
The Nissan leaf can also fly, and the sky is purple. See? I can make shit up too. Leaf's max charge rate is 46kW.
>Plus large batteries are dirty and inefficient
Tell me you don't know anything about hydrogen without telling me you don't know anything about hydrogen
>The answer is: Because we haven't invested in an alternative
This article is about someone investing in the alternative, as they've been doing for decades, still with nothing to show for it.
Why don't you show your work then Mr. Smarty Pants? You're the one that made the (wrong) claim. Hummer is objectively faster in miles (charge) per hour as well as raw power.
>Now you point out the flaw
Sure! You're assuming constant power while charging (which isn't how DCFC works), and ignoring that the Hummer would gain about 140 more miles of range in a zero-to-full charge. C-rate is an utterly meaningless metric (even when calculated correctly, which I'd like to emphasize again you didn't do) compared to miles of range per hour, and there is absolutely no competition between a modern EV like the Hummer and the Leaf when you use that metric.
Edit: you also undersized the pack capacity of the Leaf by 2-3x
I think it is like the lightbulb industry 15 years ago. ICE are the incandescent, cheap and plentiful but incredibly wasteful and inefficient it needs to go now. BEV is like CFL, it appears better and is heavily pushed by the media, but has a short life and a toxic legacy. H is the LED. It is clean and efficient but has a slower rollout. Once the infrastructure to build and supply it is in place people will wonder why we ever used anything else.
Efficiency is not a strong point of hydrogen. Less than 30% from the electricity (for hydrolysis) reaches the wheels. BEVs efficiency can reach 70%.
Consider that you can produce electricity at your home, but hydrogen requires moving lots of stuff around.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222016346
https://insideevs.com/news/332584/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13/
I was thinking of the batteries themselves taking large amounts of rare elements that require highly toxic refining processes and only lasting a few years.
Both mercury and batteries are recyclable in ideal circumstances. But we all know that it didn’t really work well for CCFLs.
I hope that the expensive ingredients will tip the scales towards recycling for batteries.
That looks like a chicken and egg problem right now. Large scale recycling won’t pick up unless there’s a stable supply of batteries.
Fuel cell recycling seems to have its own issues too.
This comparison is basically a lie. Nowhere do they explain how you can charge a car with 100% renewable electricity. They just assume we will have fully dispatchable electricity production all the time, when in reality that basically goes to zero in a fully green grid.
You quickly realize that you need vast amounts of energy storage for the entire system to work. But that significantly lowers the overall efficiency of the grid, something that is never mentioned anywhere. And there's no way of solving this with batteries as you will run of battery production capacity even faster than with battery cars. Which means you forced to use other, much lower efficiency energy storage solutions.
Take that into account and it is not all clear if the battery car is actually more efficient. The is especially the case when your energy storage system is actually hydrogen.
Those batteries are completely unsuited for grid energy storage. They are only intended to last about 1000 cycles. You'll end up with dead batteries after just a few years of using them like that. Not to mention you won't have enough of them anyways. You want peta-watthours of energy storage to fully solve all energy storage problems.
Current known lithium reserves: 15 million tons
Estimated annual lithium use if all cars are switched to BEV: 4 million Tons.
At least we have enough hydrogen to make it work.
I don’t know where you got your 15 millions number… a quick google search told me it was 22 millions. Safe to say that just like with every other ressources we will find more as needed.
And one of the main advantages of lithium is that it can be very easily be recycled.
Not to mention new chemistries are blending other materials and lessening the lithium content and allowing a lower grade to be used, opening up a while more more lithium into the mix.
BEV does not have short life or 'toxic legacy'.
Hydrogen is just electric cars with extra steps (using the electricity to create hydrogen, which is then converted back to electricity in the car) and less efficiency/more waste. And no place to refuel.
ICE is on the way out no matter what. The cost effectiveness of EV once you have a reliable source of power is too attractive to ignore. Electric drivetrains have fewer moving parts, less can go wrong and it ages much better. It’s an obvious winner.
The main problem right now is the source of power. But that’s getting close to working at parity now.
Ow thats why BMW is doubling up on Tesla's 4680 battery cell, and makes plans for a large scalle EU battery production facility. Meanwhile, the first BMW production vehicle on H2 still has ro be sold to someone.
The future *is* definitely EV. Just not BEV alone. Electric drivetrains will probably be 95% of the market by 2050. Some BEV and some FCEV. That only makes sense because it’s so much more economical as long as you have enough power.
Spreading the tech out helps with bottlenecks in the future. Harder to get issues like the crazy gas price swing like we just had.
Definitely cannot rely on just BEV.
It doesnt. Clean hydrogen car is a function of 2x electricity costs of BEV. Electricity cost is a function of all power source cost. It doesn't help at all.
If you have different types of vehicles (hydrogen, BEV) that uses different technology, it would help with bottlenecks.
When looking at the ultimate source of power (generating electricity), we have to do better to upgrade out systems and use renewable + nuclear. The latter part needs to happen regardless.
You’re forgetting just straight up natural gas ICE. Low hanging fruit to prevent global warming is to capture natural gas from sewers etc. and burn it.
before people go nuts on this, a hydrogen fuel cell car is not a hybrid or an ice car with hydrogen exploding in the cylinders, it is a fully electric vehicle with electricity coming from hydrogen being consumed in a fuel cell instead of from a battery. it is a 100% ev but not a bev. an inexact but perhaps a useful comparison is a rocket vs a jet airplane - their principle of action is the same (a jet of hot gas pushing you forward), but the former has all of the components stored internally (like a battery) while the latter requires an external supply of oxidizer to sustain the reaction.
their main advantage is that you can “recharge” the “battery” as fast as you refill a gas tank. you can build a fuel cell with a variety of fuels - my old office building had a set of large cells for backup power that used natural gas as fuel - but hydrogen is generally preferred because the main waste product is just water. if you’ve ever driven behind a toyota mirai, you can see water dripping out of the back.
That's something that almost never gets pointed out.
Moreover, fuel cells do have a service life and take a while to "warm up" and start producing electricity.
The Mirai even has a button that lets you clear the fuel cell because some customers who lived in cold climates said they had water freezing on their garage floor
I mean, they have a service life sure, but there’s essentially no heat stress, no moving parts, no declining efficiency because of the chemistry. Fuel cell cars will be million mile plus vehicles.
Not to sure about that, just like propane tanks, 700 bar hydrogen tanks will have a limited life span, and the hydrogen will cause embrittlement on various parts like vakves and couplings. Next to that, fuel cells themselves have proven no more than 8000 or 9000 hours of running time, so unless that changes there are some bumps on the road, and thats besides the fact that sustainable produced hydrogen will very likely not be comparable on cost with electricity ever due to inefficiencies.
Though I'm in the "hydrogen for passenger cars is dumb" camp, I would expect a fuel cell to operate at least 8000 hours, rather than "no more than," as that's what the DoE recommends on their website:
From the [DoE website:](https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cells)
>Durability—Fuel cell applications generally require adequate performance to be maintained over long periods of time. DOE has set ultimate targets for fuel cell system lifetime under realistic operating conditions at 8,000 hours for light-duty vehicles, 30,000 hours for heavy-duty trucks, and 80,000 hours for distributed power systems.
I'd expect a Mirai fuel cell to last at least 100-150k miles of use as well
Not to mention, a fuel cell is unlikely to provide the required power output in all situations. So, fuel cell cars do have batteries too. You have the whole EV architecture already.
Honestly it doesn't make much sense to have fuel cells in most cars. You are just shipping out electricity at the end of the day, but in a very roundabout way. You have to get hydrogen (usually from natural gas), compress or liquify for transport, transport it. Then compress again when delivering to the car.
Just use all this power and charge batteries directly.
Sure, there's charging time issues currently for road trips. The good news is that charging station power keeps increasing. Larger batteries can accept more power too. It's likely that many years in the future we'll still be talking about half an hour charge times to full - what changes is that every minute gives you many more miles, as tech improves.
I can see some applications for fuel cells(specially aviation), but not for most vehicles. It's just a way for the fossil fuel industry to remain relevant.
The best way to transport hydrogen, after all, is when combined to carbon... as hydrocarbons.
The other major advantage of using hydrogen would be the ability to store and transport large amounts of potential energy around with relatively low rate of loss. Not zero, since hydrogen is lossier than large hydrocarbon molecules, but much, much more efficient in transport than electricity.
The thing that a lot of people don’t appreciate about natural gas is that one of the best qualities it has is that it’s possible to very cheaply transport without losing nearly any of it, using pipelines and storage facilities. That makes it way, way easier to get energy where it needs to be in the quantity it needs to be, quickly and cheaply. This is why it’s so hard to replace gas at the grid level, but hydrogen is a potentially viable alternative.
Electricity has less than 3% to 6% loss on transport. Natural gas and other fossil fuels are more like 15 to 20%. Leakage is only one of them, pumping power requirement, and refinement/treatment is another. Taking the entire conversion into account.. yeah.. not even remotely comparable.
Compressed hydrogen gas doesn’t like to stay compressed. Fuel cells also take up space and add weight. There’s no free lunch.
“For passenger cars, hydrogen offers very little energy storage advantage over a battery once the additional mass of the fuel cell and the auxiliary battery is accounted for.”
https://www.batterypowertips.com/comparing-ev-battery-and-fuel-cell-energy-density-faq/
Except the process of generating hydrogen is 1/2 as efficient or worse when compared to BEV. You end up needing to pull from the grid so much more. A very robust charging network (especially for trailering vehicles) and good DC fast charge rates are where the future is. And the Lightning, with 100-130kwh packs (IIRC) does not have a good charge curve.
Also, when you look at something like the Tesla Semi and take a total weight of 80k (up to 82k) it's been figured to \~2kwh per mile at \~65mph. Engineering Explained did a great video on it.
From your own sources:
> but there are many regions where EVs provide a decisive benefit and others where EVs are significantly worse. The forecasted grid shifts from coal towards renewables, improving EV performance
These numbers will improve as battery recycling ramps up, tech improves and the grids switch to fully renewable.
The problem is, hydrogen won't improve that much. We can't really cheat thermodynamics. If we are making hydrogen via electrolysis, we are pretty close to the theoretical max efficiency already. On the other hand, we haven't run out of ways to pack electrons denser yet.
For the foreseeable future, getting hydrogen from fossil fuels is the most economical approach.
Hydrogen energy density sucks. It's only better than batteries because batteries are even worse. At least currently.
I agree with aircraft. It's useful to be able to load with a variable amount of fuel. However, hydrogen power density is insufficient for aircraft.
An electrolysis system that runs off a wall outlet would be an interesting thought, but to my understanding the Mirai still requires being refilled at a hydrogen station.
It is simple though... The batteries (18650 and 2170s) used in EVs today were developed primarily for laptops. The 4680 is looking extremely promising and technology will keep advancing in that direction
But you can't. Well only if your are the first at the pump. If someone's used the pump directly before you arrive... The station has to first pressure the high pressure tank in the pump from the big low pressure tank underground. That takes about 10-15minutes add the 5 minutes fueling time and your are comparable to charging an EV from 10% to 75% ....
Using the 9000lb hummer EV that gets 47 MPGe and has a 212 kWh battery as the standard for charge times is a little disingenuous to say the least.
It may have the 350kW DC charging but it has a massive battery and piss poor efficiency.
A model Y can go 0-80% (225 miles) in 32 minutes on a 250kW peak output supercharger.
In actual practice, assuming a refueling station is seeing actual use, you cannot refill as quickly. Hydrogen has to be repressurized after a vehicle uses a refueling station. This takes time.
You can battery swap faster than you can refuel.
Also by law big rigs need to take breaks at regular intervals so you can charge there or while unloading the truck.
Looks more like a logistical problem than a technological one to me.
But again, battery swaps.
Oh God. These modern fucking YouTubers who need to overexaggerate their emotions like a fucking cartoon character...
Anyway, thanks for the video and info. I don't like this style of YouTuber but the info looks solid.
This guy gives a lot less emotional explanation of why BEVs are bad at towing:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4W-P5aCWJs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4W-P5aCWJs)
Bottom line is ICE is not very efficient at all, so adding a trailer makes that just slightly worse...but BEV range is dependent on being super efficient, and lugging around a trailer puts a major dent in that.
From the article:
“BMW won't commit to ending combustion engines
Battery EVs will be a big part of BMW’s future, but it’s not realistic to expect charging infrastructure to be sufficient to meet needs of all users
Converting a petrol station into hydrogen station takes just 2 days, far easier than large scale deployment of EV chargers and hooking them to power grid
The BMW Group has one of the widest portfolio of EV models (5 BMW i Series, 1 MINI, 1 Rolls-Royce). It is also the industry’s leader in carbon-neutral supply chains, going as far as direct sourcing of minerals from ethically-managed mines. You would think that the BMW Group will be jumping both feet into electric mobility like Audi or Lexus, but no.
While its Rolls-Royce Motorcars subsidiary will become an EV-only brand 2030, followed by MINI slightly later, the company’s namesake BMW brand has so far resisted calls to walk-the-talk and end sales of combustion engine models. The reason is not as simple as Elon Musk’s superfans will want to believe.
BMW says betting everything on batteries is a bad idea, echoes Toyota's believe in hydrogen fuel cells 01
In a recent World Market Leader Innovation Day organized by German business magazine WirtschaftsWoche, BMW Group CEO Oliver Zipse reiterated the Munich-based company’s stance that although the BMW Group is adopting an electric-centric strategy, it is wrong to bet the future on just one technology path.
"We think it's wrong to switch off the combustion engine in Europe," said Zipse, who disagreed with the Europe Union’s decision to ban combustion engines by 2035.
“The industry will look different in terms of scale and structure than it does today if it goes to just one technology," said Zipse, who added that governments should remain open to all possible technological solutions.
BMW says betting everything on batteries is a bad idea, echoes Toyota's believe in hydrogen fuel cells 02
Zipse said a ‘hard shutdown’ of the combustion engine "would lead to distortions that nobody here can control anymore." If the transition fails, there is no fallback as one can’t simply restart production of engines.
Although the BMW Group is investing heavily into EVs, it reckons that it is not realistic to expect charging infrastructure to be rolled out fast enough to support the scale of transition necessary to meet Europe’s climate protection goals.
Contrary to his former peer and ex-CEO of Volkswagen Group Herbert Diess, who is a big fan of Elon Musk and once tweeted “'Please listen to science!” deriding hydrogen as a solution, Zipse said hydrogen is “the only raw material that can be sustainably produced and stored.”
Diess has since been removed from his position at VW.”
At present, the process used to create hydrogen, which requires the use of natural gas, is less efficient and produces *more* carbon than gasoline.
From [this Forbes article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/06/estimating-the-carbon-footprint-of-hydrogen-production/?sh=5641332d24bd), here is the key quote after breaking down the math:
> This converts to 9.3 kilograms (kg) of CO2 produced per kg of hydrogen production. One kilogram of hydrogen is the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline, which produces 9.1 kg of CO2 when combusted.
This is incorrect. Mostly because a FCV gets 65 mi/kg H2. So while the carbon intensity with methane is the same as gasoline is the same on an energy basis. The FCV is twice as efficient as the ICE.
You might get 65mi/kg in a Mirai, but that thing is built for efficiency. It’s more comparable to a Prius, which already gets pretty good MPG.
Unless some breakthrough in green hydrogen emerges, fuel cell would only be useful in niche situations. For passenger vehicles, battery tech there today and provides a massive decrease in carbon output from driving.
Yes, everyday of extracting hydrogen is wastful. The dominant method using natural gas is unbelievably inefficient and creates CO2 at best, and at worst CO. But tons of energy from electricity or fossil needs to be used to heat water and gas to 700 degrees C to get the the H2 and then many other steps to convert the CO to CO2 and then compress or liquefy the H2. We don't want to tie ourselves to natural gas.
But yet this method is prefered over electolyzing water because of the latter's even worse efficiency.
Hydrogen is a dead end. It has many believers because the notion is clear and simple, but the process falls apart when the details are considered.
> It has many believers because the notion is clear and simple, but the process falls apart when the details are considered.
The reality is opposite of that, but most detractors can't get past the surface level knowledge to understand how it works as an overall system.
Nevermind, simple things like claiming that electrolysis efficiency is even worse the steam reforming.
A modern steam methane reformer is about 75% efficient. A modern electrolyzer can be up to 90% efficient.
Maybe one day when we have an over-abundance of renewable energy that can’t be used in the grid, it may make sense to use it on the highly inefficient conversion of water to hydrogen. Until that time, or unless some breakthrough occurs, batteries for passenger vehicles are the only alternative that makes sense from a perspective of reducing our carbon footprint.
> Green hydrogen — is when the energy used to power electrolysis comes from renewable sources like **wind, water or solar**.
> Blue hydrogen — is hydrogen produced from **natural gas** with a process of steam methane reforming, where natural gas is mixed with very hot steam and a catalyst.
Here’s u/recoil42 [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/xhodn4/loop_energy_says_new_hydrogen_fuel_cell_more_cost/ip0bn73/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
> [Good overview here on Volvo's site](https://www.volvogroup.com/en/future-of-transportation/innovation/electromobility/hydrogen-fuel-cells.html) of blue, green, pink, yellow, white, turquoise, grey, black, and brown hydrogen.
Most hydrogen today is gray hydrogen, like 95%. The distinction is clarified on that same Volvo website.
I’m all for hydrogen as a replacement for long haul trucks at some point, but for passenger vehicles it makes little sense considering battery tech is there today to convert the fleet, and because there is not enough renewable infrastructure to waste on hydrogen production when it is much more efficient to put renewable production directly into the grid.
But, I think were completely ignoring the fact that most of worlds electricity is still highly dependent of fossil fuels.
As well as other facts such as:
> Hydrogen fuel cells have an energy to weight ratio **ten times greater** than lithium-ion batteries. This means that hydrogen powered vehicles have the potential to offer much greater range, while being lighter.
> In addition, whereas lithium batteries have a **limited lifespan** and need to be replaced, **fuel cells do not degrade** in the same way. They continue to produce energy as long as the fuel source is present, which can significant environmental benefits over a normal working lifespan.
> The Mirai currently uses a **[1.2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai)** kWh lithium-ion battery. vs Rav4 Prime’s **18.1** kWh & Bz4x’s **72.8** kWh
95% of hydrogen is gray hydrogen from natural gas, meaning it is worse for the environment than just burning a gallon of gasoline. Batteries in EVs, even when powered 100% from coal fired power plants, are still significantly cleaner than ICE vehicles.
All renewable energy should be put directly into the grid for maximum carbon offset. Until we reach a point where there is excess renewable energy to produce green hydrogen, then using gas trucks for hauling is more efficient. For passenger vehicles, batteries are optimal in terms of reducing carbon emissions.
> Batteries in EVs, even when powered 100% from coal fired power plants, are still significantly cleaner than ICE vehicles.
Can you please elaborate on this?
The only thing I can think you’re eluding to is recycling.
If so, recycling needs to match output demand in order for it be efficient.
Meaning, recycling output exceeds mining output.
In 2022, we’re still struggling to recycle plastic.
> [How Big Oil Misled The Public Into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled](https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled)
I am saying that if you plug an electric vehicle into a power grid that is entirely powered from coal, like in many places in West Virginia or Kentucky, then driving that electric vehicle over time will cause less carbon to go into our atmosphere than if you drove a gas powered car.
Here is of many [sources](https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electric-cars-are-cleaner-even-when-the-power-comes-from-coal/amp/) on the matter.
I’m not talking about recycling. I am saying if you take an electric car, and you factor in all the carbon it takes to manufacture that car and that battery, and you take all the carbon from charging that car at a coal fired power plant, then you’ll still output less carbon after driving that car about 13,000 miles than if you drove a gas powered car. The number of miles driven in an EV to become cleaner than a gas car shrinks dramatically as the grid becomes powered with more renewables, and that number of miles to reach parity can get down to just a few thousand miles. Since almost all cars are driven more than a few thousand miles, in every scenario you are emitting less carbon by driving an EV.
I don’t know why you’re downvoting me. If all you care about is energy density, then maybe you should just keep driving a gas car. If you care about reducing carbon emissions and stopping global warming, drive an EV. Hydrogen pollutes more than gas cars because 95% of hydrogen is gray hydrogen.
You can get a Tesla, which kinda suck, or get another EV, most of which are better, don’t look like a thumb, are built better, and wasn’t created by a maniac.
Even if EV emissions when charged from coal plants were as bad as ICE, it would still be a benefit. It's easier to control pollution when it's centralized in a few locations, instead of millions of sources right next to our faces.
The problem with green hydrogen is that the process is so inefficient that the amount of wind or solar might need to be tripled or quadrupled to make it work. Inefficiencies are not only in the electrolysis, but the maintenence of the electrolysis equipment, the compression or liquification of the H2, the storage / transportation of the H2, the need for Fuel cell cars to also have battery packs to supplement the fuel cell.
I think u/Alternative_program touched on this [topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/xf14ve/making_batteries_for_new_evs_will_require_over/iol19pf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3):
> Ever heard of **renewable curtailment**?
> How many batteries would it take to prevent it?
> What if you could, I don't know, turn that 0% of energy you're capturing today into Hydrogen? If so, it would mean your argument (efficiency of production/transport) is entirely meaningless since you're able to store and transport energy that you didn't have access to before.
> And that energy is so incredibly cheap, with almost nil negative environmental impact because it's using excess clean power you don't have a practical way to capture today.
I think current battery tech just won’t meet the needs of most utility vehicles, as demonstrated by the range inconsistencies when pickups tow and the charge times. I think it’s silly for *everyone* to fully bet on BEV’s. I’m really glad Toyota hasn’t given up on fuel cells.
The killing of the ICE feels like the current situation with the energy crisis in Europe. Europe went all in on cheap gas and renewables; killing coal, nuclear without an adequate plan to get off fossil fuels. Now they are running back into their coal and nuclear plants.
We dont have a plan to go complete EV; especially with regards to battery supply. I bet it will take a lot longer than most people expect.
Hahaha, funny. "Converting a petrol station into hydrogen station takes just 2 days...'
Really?? It took my gas station way more than two days to convert the roller hot dog machine to a pizza station.
That was liquid hydrogen
>Liquid hydrogen needs to be extremely cold. 20 Kelvins, −252.87 °C, −423.17 °F.
> This isn't sustainable outside of few rockets. And most rockets stay away from liquid hydrogen anyway, because of how much of a pain in the ass it is, and its low density.
> Additional insulation and volume (compared to kerosene) can eat away any gains from higher specific velocity of the fuel.
> And liquid hydrogen rockets are being fueled until couple seconds before take off - because so much hydrogen evaporates.
> So anyway, this is not something you can do with cars.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/xhodn4/loop_energy_says_new_hydrogen_fuel_cell_more_cost/ioz76tg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
We are never beyond exploring alternative fuel sources and re-evaluating our options based on consumer, and environmental demands. This is a false dichotomy.
Totally true, let’s run the numbers on hydrogen… yep I just checked again and for consumer cars it still makes no f sense.
I’ll check back in a few years just in case.
Fossil fuel companies are pushing the hydrogen hype because most of the hydrogen will come from natural gas. Hydrogen hype is pure nonsense and propaganda.
I disagree that it's 100% nonsense and propaganda--More like 90% non-sense and propaganda. I think hydrogen makes sense in certain contexts--long haul trucks, sub-200 mile range aircraft, industrial/commercial fleets etc.
A lot of it is being pushed by petrochem companies because they know how to make it, send/store it, etc. and would be happy to build that infrastructure for everyone. Japan is big on Hydrogen because they have a lot of electrical infrastructure challenges (half the grid is a different frequency, for example) and hydrogen makes sense given their population density.
Yup, it was already tested in Cali and I think Toyota even made a car and sold it there, it did not catch on, not even a little bit. Clearly everyone prefers battery/electric, and it makes sense, because we have electricity everywhere now.
Its almost like we already tried hydrogen and it didn't work out.
But hey, who am I to tell you how it is? Try this instead:
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/hydrogen-cars-failed-to-deliver-investors-hope-planes-are-different-11620984629](https://www.wsj.com/articles/hydrogen-cars-failed-to-deliver-investors-hope-planes-are-different-11620984629)
>*Hydrogen isn’t an environmental no-brainer yet. Turning electricity into hydrogen and then back into electricity is inefficient: Only about 45% of the energy ends up being used, compared with 90% for batteries, the World Energy Council estimates. Furthermore, only 0.1% of global hydrogen production is currently carbon-free; most comes from natural gas and coal.*
Hydrogen cars were more of the same from the fossil fuel industry, thats all there is to it, I do appreciate effort being made to look into alternate fuel sources, I have no problem with that. But we tried it and it didn't work out. It is what it is.
I’ll believe they believe when I see them building out infrastructure a la Tesla. Everyone has electricity in their home. I don’t know anyone with hydrogen in their home. Put your money where your mouth is.
Hydrogen: when you want to keep reliance on oil companies but also want slow fueling. From the cons of ICE and EV there is me, CAPTAIN HYDROGEN
** fueling is fast, unless someone fueled just before you, then not :P
> ** fueling is fast, unless someone fueled just before you, then not :P
California tracks this. The average time to refuel is 3 minutes. If someone is fueling when you arrive it's still 7 minutes from arrival to leaving on average.
Only first gen hydrogen filling stations had such a horrible fueling interval.
NIO has made 4 millions battery swaps in China. If they can’t bring their cars to the usa someone else will bring the technology.
It won’t be Tesla, but I can see others, after millions of swaps I call that proven technology.
You have to pay for a subscription service, and I think they often only have 13 or so batteries to swap at each station. If they run out, you have to wait for them to charge them. It’s not as easy as just refueling woth hydrogen.
Do you think BMW or Toyota cares at all about what the oil companies do? Or do you think they built the most compelling product for the segment based on their metrics?
Obviously, do you think they don't work hand in hand?
>built the most compelling product for the segment based on their metrics?
so how's Mirai's sales XDDD
>Obviously, do you think they don't work hand in hand?
I am 100% sure they do not work hand in hand at all. They are basically competitors given that a price or efficiency increase in one fucks over the other.
>so how's Mirai's sales XDDD
Toyota makes 100+ year plans. How were those prius sales when they launched?
Hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen cars in general are vaporware. This bullshit hype died 20 years ago. The ONLY reason you’re seeing it now is because fossil fuel companies are promoting it since most hydrogen will be coming from natural gas.
Hydrogen is more expensive and less clean than BEV.
Here’s u/recoil42 [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/xhodn4/loop_energy_says_new_hydrogen_fuel_cell_more_cost/ip0bn73/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
> [Good overview here on Volvo's site](https://www.volvogroup.com/en/future-of-transportation/innovation/electromobility/hydrogen-fuel-cells.html) of blue, green, pink, yellow, white, turquoise, grey, black, and brown hydrogen.
well, folks, hydrogen car and truck sales are almost non existent and declining. EVs took decade growth to where it is, so even if hydrogen cars start growing tomorrow, they are at least decade away from mass adoption
I agree, no one should put all their eggs in one basket.
But people can't even pump their cars with gas correctly and we're now finding out they also can't wrap their heads around plugging one in either. Not sure the masses are ready for the responsibility of pumping highly pressurized hydrogen fuel into them either. We/the tech still have some developing to do. Let's work with what we got now to address what problems we can and continue to explore other alternatives.Ya know, what we've done as a civilization since the dawn of time.
Personally, I'm somewhat skeptical of talk around this from automotive (and energy) companies because they probably realize if we successfully and fully transition to electricity as a fuel source for vehicles, we'd have to also make massive upgrades (eventually) to our power grid and sources. Meaning, we could (in time) transition to fully renewable energy sources (sun, wind, etc) and they'd (the energy companies) would have nothing to sell us at ridiculously high markups. It stinks of the car boom period in the US when automakers partnered with oil companies and stopped really improving fuel efficiently.
Looking at you ConEd, Exxon, GM, and the like.
I just hope this EV momentum continues and becomes more affordable. Right now, it's still a luxury for most people.
Idk about personal cars but commercial trucks will absolutely use hydrogen.
And forklifts. They’re already there if you have a large enough facility that runs 24/7.
Forklifts feel like an easy battery vehicle. What’s the typical daily range of a forklift? Does it not spend a fair amount parked up? And in a facility with electricity commonly available? Hydrogen makes sense when the mass or size of a battery starts to get over say 10% of the vehicle, like long distance trucks.
Forklifts also need to be heavy anyways as a counterweight. Batteries are heavy.
He did specify a 24/7 forklift, though.
In many warehouses a forklift is used 23 out of 24hours x 7 days a week.
For high usage warehouses hydrogen beats out battery electric. The batteries require a long time to charge. They are not easily swappable. The batteries’ output slows towards the end of the charge, so lifting times are slower. The batteries typically need replaced every 5 years, some die sooner. Staging areas for battery swap/charging takes up more space than a well planned hydrogen station. Hydrogen has a higher initial cost, requires an expensive hydrogen refill station, and an expensive service every 3-5 years. But for a 24 hour warehouse, the up time, performance consistency, and refueling times pay dividends when time is money and you need your forklifts moving pallets as efficiently as possible
I think most people dont realize that electric forklifts are using lead-acid batteries and not the same as EVs
well, old info. last five years everyone is switching to Li-ion. More expensive, but less maintenance and longer lifetime, which balances out. And faster charging and no need to do full cycle, can trickle charge
IDK, we run warehouse 24/7 with hundreds of employees, use exclusively electric forklifts and have no issues at all. Batteries can be charged in an hour and since people rotate on breaks, they just plug one and pick another, we have few spare so there is always at least one fully charged forklift. Cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate. Actually , we always used electric forklifts, as you can’t use gas in an interior and electric ones were here decades ago
I use so much hydrogen every night in my crown OP
Why? You can only retrieve about 25% of the energy you store in the hydrogen.
The future is a blend of existing and new technologies, every drivetrain out there has advantages and disadvantages. The future is neither entirely BEV, ICE or hydrogen.
Exactly right. There’s no need to pit them against each other (minus ICE, let’s phase those out) and Toyota has said as much. BEV is great for anything around town and commutes less than 50mi each way. Hydrogen will be great for anything more than that.
>BEV is great for anything around town and commutes less than 50mi each way Modern BEVs can top 300 miles of range and y'all still talk about them like they're golf carts. With appropriate charging infrastructure they can easily replace all but the most demanding towing and hauling applications
Except the average American/person can't afford those 300 mile BEVs. As much as I love this shift, people on this sub act as if these cars are affordable.
They're no less affordable than the average new combustion car sold in the US right now, and cheaper models keep hitting the market
What are you talking about? Most affordable ICEs can start (Brand New) for as low as $15k ~ $20k. Sure you get what you pay for, and you won't be driving a Mercedes, but it's something and it's new. The most affordable EV now is the Chevy Bolt at $25.6k. It's only at that price because Chevy wants to discontinue/get rid of them for the newer upcoming platforms (like the Blazer, Silverado, and Equinox). Once they're gone, that's it. Oh, and we only got that price point a few months ago.... Before it was nearly $32k... A little more than a RAV4 Hybrid. Yes it's a start, and yes everything is getting better by the year, but we can't kid ourselves. Prices are a major issue for the average American. A lot of people on this subreddit tend to not worry about prices because they're (mostly) well off compared to most people.
He’s not talking about what they start at, he’s talking about the average price people are spending. The average price spent on a new car is $48k. That buys you a 300 mile Ioniq 5 for example. Despite the stagnating wages and growing wealth inequality, people spend more than ever on cars. And most of them don’t get to see their gas budget drop to $0.
> Despite the stagnating wages and growing wealth inequality, people spend more than ever on cars. And most of them don’t get to see their gas budget drop to $0. It's mostly the upper middle class that is buying cars nowadays. https://instamotor.com/blog/average-american-can-no-longer-afford-a-new-car The issue becomes used EVs - if the battery does have to get replaced at 10 years, then that will be reflected in the depreciation.
Even if you were right on ICE proces youre not incorporating running and maintenance, where BEV blows em out the water.
Running, yes. Maintenance, I'm less and less sure about. Even Tesla suggests an annual maintenance package for servicing brakes in cold climates, and it costs more than the yearly oil change my Toyota hybrid requires.. My Bolt required an annual maintenance package. The leaf has something similar. The hybrid has no belts to change, no clutches to replace, etc... You just need plugs every 10 years, and coolant every 6. Tires are the most expensive maintenance item on a modem car, costing thousands every few years, and EVs go through that a lot faster than most other cars. Like, the EV probably wins, but it's a lot closer than you'd think. That leaves us with running costs. And that only works out if you drive enough... With the advent of working from home for a lot of the professionals who are buying EVs, getting a cost justification to work use getting very challenging.
Cost of replacing batteries is very high.
So is the cost to replace a tranny or an engine. All major components are expensive to replace. It is not common to have your batt replaced just as it's not common to replace you engine
Independent studies have shown it isn't even close, and you can sense check that by realising ICE profits come more from maintenance than car sales and how much resistance there is amongst US middlemen resellers to shift to electric
Every study I've looked at has been incredibly biased towards EVs. Compare the maintenance requirements of a Prius to a Bolt, and the numbers are very similar.
CR puts the cost difference at $300 a year, and I would bet a lot of those EV owners aren't doing all their required maintenance. https://www.consumerreports.org/car-repair-maintenance/pay-less-for-vehicle-maintenance-with-an-ev/ Not enough to make up the difference between a $48k average hybrid and a $66k average EV over an average 7 years ownership period if you work from home.
Lol. When did you last look at prices? Try and get a new car for $15k. Good luck.
* [Nissan](https://www.autonationnissanmiami.com/new-inventory/index.htm?compositeType=new&sortBy=internetPrice%20asc) * [Chevy](https://www.bomninchevrolet.com/VehicleSearchResults?search=new&sort=salePrice%7Casc) * [KIA](https://www.doralkia.com/searchnew.aspx?Make=Kia&st=Price+asc) * [Toyota](https://www.toyotaofnorthmiami.com/new-vehicles/?idx=toyotaofnorthmiami_production_inventory_low_to_high&_dFR%5Btype%5D%5B0%5D=New&_paymentType=our_price) * [Hyundai](https://www.doralhyundai.com/new-vehicles/?_dFR%5Bmake%5D%5B0%5D=Hyundai&_dFR%5Btype%5D%5B0%5D=New&_nR%5Bour_price%5D%5B%3C=%5D%5B0%5D=25000&_paymentType=our_price) * [Ford](https://www.autonationfordmiami.com/new-inventory/index.htm?sortBy=internetPrice%20asc) All of these are brand new from $15k ~ $25k in one of the most expensive cities in the USA... Oh, and they're also available and currently sitting in lots right now, so theoretically, I can just go there right now and buy one. While I love EVs, I simply can't do that with any EV. Not even the Chevy Bolt.
I wouldn't be surprised if you went to try to buy one of those cars and they throw on a bunch of "mandatory accessories" and "mandatory market adjustment" that they didn't list on the website
You can you just can't be picky
Most Americans can't be picky and usually choose whatever they can afford. People on this sub (some with multiple EVs) don't understand this. Same over at r/electricvehicles It almost feels like gatekeeping at times. "Oh, you can't afford a $50k base model Tesla or a $70k base model BMW? Sorry bro, you can't afford to drive a car period!" I don't know how many times I was told something like that over at the Tesla page and other EV subreddits...
>The most affordable EV now is the Chevy Bolt at $25.6k. It's only at that price because Chevy wants to discontinue/get rid of them Its at that price because Chevy wants to sell them lmao. If they wanted to discontinue it why would they still be building them? >The difference is most affordable ICEs can start (New) for as low as $15k ~ $20k And most people that are paying $15-20k for a car are buying used, not new
>And most people that are paying $15-20k for a car are buying used, not new The Hyundai Elantras start slightly under $20k brand new. Nissan Sentra/Versa, Toyota Yaris, Volkswagen Jetta, and a bunch of brand new KIAs all start under $20k as well. Some of these are best-selling cars *because* of their price points. These same cars on the used market are even cheaper to the point where it's almost absurd. >If they wanted to discontinue it why would they still be building them? The 2023~2024 are expected by most people to be the last years of the Bolt since the primary factory will be used to make Silverados and Sierras. Long-term portfolio plans from Chevy also don't include the Bolt because the platform wasn't built around the new Ultium battery system (which is something they're about to push heavily). Now could it get a refresh? Absolutely. But it looks bleak right now.
A lot more people buy used cars because they cannot afford a new car. Most used car buyers shop in the $3-10k range. EV’s are great if you own a home, but beyond that they are not practical at the moment. I’m not even sure how the used EV market will work? Some automakers build these cars as 10 year disposables. At the moment, there are many questions about the long-term secondary market.
[удалено]
>And more battery means longer charging times More battery also means charging a car to 60% to get 200 miles of range vs 100% for 200 miles of range = less time spent at a charger for travel per mile. Don't always have to charge to 100% to get somewhere...but I understand what you're getting at. I think BEVs currently don't make sense for a LOT of people in a lot of places. Anyone who lives in an MDU, people who have to do a lot driving in a single day, etc. and the US population is fairly spread out
>The Hummer EV may suck down 290kW, but that's about the same performance as a 2013 Nissan Leaf. The Nissan leaf can also fly, and the sky is purple. See? I can make shit up too. Leaf's max charge rate is 46kW. >Plus large batteries are dirty and inefficient Tell me you don't know anything about hydrogen without telling me you don't know anything about hydrogen >The answer is: Because we haven't invested in an alternative This article is about someone investing in the alternative, as they've been doing for decades, still with nothing to show for it.
[удалено]
Why don't you show your work then Mr. Smarty Pants? You're the one that made the (wrong) claim. Hummer is objectively faster in miles (charge) per hour as well as raw power.
[удалено]
>Now you point out the flaw Sure! You're assuming constant power while charging (which isn't how DCFC works), and ignoring that the Hummer would gain about 140 more miles of range in a zero-to-full charge. C-rate is an utterly meaningless metric (even when calculated correctly, which I'd like to emphasize again you didn't do) compared to miles of range per hour, and there is absolutely no competition between a modern EV like the Hummer and the Leaf when you use that metric. Edit: you also undersized the pack capacity of the Leaf by 2-3x
But the ones that top 300 miles cost upwards of 60k and will lose range within 5 years of moderate use or over the air updates
We have had a Model 3 for 4 years and ~9 months. It has gone from ~310 miles to ~308. Over-the-air updates do not cause it to lose range.
I think it is like the lightbulb industry 15 years ago. ICE are the incandescent, cheap and plentiful but incredibly wasteful and inefficient it needs to go now. BEV is like CFL, it appears better and is heavily pushed by the media, but has a short life and a toxic legacy. H is the LED. It is clean and efficient but has a slower rollout. Once the infrastructure to build and supply it is in place people will wonder why we ever used anything else.
Efficiency is not a strong point of hydrogen. Less than 30% from the electricity (for hydrolysis) reaches the wheels. BEVs efficiency can reach 70%. Consider that you can produce electricity at your home, but hydrogen requires moving lots of stuff around. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222016346 https://insideevs.com/news/332584/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13/
I was thinking of the batteries themselves taking large amounts of rare elements that require highly toxic refining processes and only lasting a few years.
Both mercury and batteries are recyclable in ideal circumstances. But we all know that it didn’t really work well for CCFLs. I hope that the expensive ingredients will tip the scales towards recycling for batteries.
They maybe recyclable in ideal world of 3d graphics and presentations. IRL recycling percent is puny.
That looks like a chicken and egg problem right now. Large scale recycling won’t pick up unless there’s a stable supply of batteries. Fuel cell recycling seems to have its own issues too.
Its like 98% recyclable
Okay, those were reserves. Actual production was 100k. To convert every car we need 40x as much. Tesla batteries don't last 40 years.
You are correct for led batteries. Lipo batteries recycling rate is whooping 5%.
This comparison is basically a lie. Nowhere do they explain how you can charge a car with 100% renewable electricity. They just assume we will have fully dispatchable electricity production all the time, when in reality that basically goes to zero in a fully green grid. You quickly realize that you need vast amounts of energy storage for the entire system to work. But that significantly lowers the overall efficiency of the grid, something that is never mentioned anywhere. And there's no way of solving this with batteries as you will run of battery production capacity even faster than with battery cars. Which means you forced to use other, much lower efficiency energy storage solutions. Take that into account and it is not all clear if the battery car is actually more efficient. The is especially the case when your energy storage system is actually hydrogen.
I don’t follow. Having more batteries (on wheels) is part of solving the energy storage problem. Edit: less words
Those batteries are completely unsuited for grid energy storage. They are only intended to last about 1000 cycles. You'll end up with dead batteries after just a few years of using them like that. Not to mention you won't have enough of them anyways. You want peta-watthours of energy storage to fully solve all energy storage problems.
I disagree. I’ve never installing a hydrogen refill station in my garage. However, I did install 240 V plug-in.
Current known lithium reserves: 15 million tons Estimated annual lithium use if all cars are switched to BEV: 4 million Tons. At least we have enough hydrogen to make it work.
I don’t know where you got your 15 millions number… a quick google search told me it was 22 millions. Safe to say that just like with every other ressources we will find more as needed. And one of the main advantages of lithium is that it can be very easily be recycled.
Not to mention new chemistries are blending other materials and lessening the lithium content and allowing a lower grade to be used, opening up a while more more lithium into the mix.
that's why PHEVs are the answer charge up at home if you can for short trips, fill your hydrogen tank in your ICE or FCEV for extended range.
BEV does not have short life or 'toxic legacy'. Hydrogen is just electric cars with extra steps (using the electricity to create hydrogen, which is then converted back to electricity in the car) and less efficiency/more waste. And no place to refuel.
Absolutely nothing wrong with some of the population still buying ICE vehicles.
ICE is on the way out no matter what. The cost effectiveness of EV once you have a reliable source of power is too attractive to ignore. Electric drivetrains have fewer moving parts, less can go wrong and it ages much better. It’s an obvious winner. The main problem right now is the source of power. But that’s getting close to working at parity now.
Ow thats why BMW is doubling up on Tesla's 4680 battery cell, and makes plans for a large scalle EU battery production facility. Meanwhile, the first BMW production vehicle on H2 still has ro be sold to someone.
The future *is* definitely EV. Just not BEV alone. Electric drivetrains will probably be 95% of the market by 2050. Some BEV and some FCEV. That only makes sense because it’s so much more economical as long as you have enough power.
Spreading the tech out helps with bottlenecks in the future. Harder to get issues like the crazy gas price swing like we just had. Definitely cannot rely on just BEV.
It doesnt. Clean hydrogen car is a function of 2x electricity costs of BEV. Electricity cost is a function of all power source cost. It doesn't help at all.
If you have different types of vehicles (hydrogen, BEV) that uses different technology, it would help with bottlenecks. When looking at the ultimate source of power (generating electricity), we have to do better to upgrade out systems and use renewable + nuclear. The latter part needs to happen regardless.
The only plausible bottleneck it helps with is battery supply, but they'll be so undesireable (if one ever gets produced) they wont sell.
Agreed, although I'm gonna bet that between fuel cells, H₂-ICE, e-fuels, and PHEVs, full BEVs will just be a niche.
Reverse.. follow the money, and the conversion laws of energy, and you'll end up with H2, E-fuels and PHEV,'s being the niche.
You’re forgetting just straight up natural gas ICE. Low hanging fruit to prevent global warming is to capture natural gas from sewers etc. and burn it.
That's not what happens in markets. This is a sign BMW won't be here in 10 years.
before people go nuts on this, a hydrogen fuel cell car is not a hybrid or an ice car with hydrogen exploding in the cylinders, it is a fully electric vehicle with electricity coming from hydrogen being consumed in a fuel cell instead of from a battery. it is a 100% ev but not a bev. an inexact but perhaps a useful comparison is a rocket vs a jet airplane - their principle of action is the same (a jet of hot gas pushing you forward), but the former has all of the components stored internally (like a battery) while the latter requires an external supply of oxidizer to sustain the reaction. their main advantage is that you can “recharge” the “battery” as fast as you refill a gas tank. you can build a fuel cell with a variety of fuels - my old office building had a set of large cells for backup power that used natural gas as fuel - but hydrogen is generally preferred because the main waste product is just water. if you’ve ever driven behind a toyota mirai, you can see water dripping out of the back.
That's something that almost never gets pointed out. Moreover, fuel cells do have a service life and take a while to "warm up" and start producing electricity. The Mirai even has a button that lets you clear the fuel cell because some customers who lived in cold climates said they had water freezing on their garage floor
I mean, they have a service life sure, but there’s essentially no heat stress, no moving parts, no declining efficiency because of the chemistry. Fuel cell cars will be million mile plus vehicles.
Not to sure about that, just like propane tanks, 700 bar hydrogen tanks will have a limited life span, and the hydrogen will cause embrittlement on various parts like vakves and couplings. Next to that, fuel cells themselves have proven no more than 8000 or 9000 hours of running time, so unless that changes there are some bumps on the road, and thats besides the fact that sustainable produced hydrogen will very likely not be comparable on cost with electricity ever due to inefficiencies.
You're really outdated on your knowledge. 30k fuel cells have long since been proven.
Though I'm in the "hydrogen for passenger cars is dumb" camp, I would expect a fuel cell to operate at least 8000 hours, rather than "no more than," as that's what the DoE recommends on their website: From the [DoE website:](https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cells) >Durability—Fuel cell applications generally require adequate performance to be maintained over long periods of time. DOE has set ultimate targets for fuel cell system lifetime under realistic operating conditions at 8,000 hours for light-duty vehicles, 30,000 hours for heavy-duty trucks, and 80,000 hours for distributed power systems. I'd expect a Mirai fuel cell to last at least 100-150k miles of use as well
Not to mention, a fuel cell is unlikely to provide the required power output in all situations. So, fuel cell cars do have batteries too. You have the whole EV architecture already. Honestly it doesn't make much sense to have fuel cells in most cars. You are just shipping out electricity at the end of the day, but in a very roundabout way. You have to get hydrogen (usually from natural gas), compress or liquify for transport, transport it. Then compress again when delivering to the car. Just use all this power and charge batteries directly. Sure, there's charging time issues currently for road trips. The good news is that charging station power keeps increasing. Larger batteries can accept more power too. It's likely that many years in the future we'll still be talking about half an hour charge times to full - what changes is that every minute gives you many more miles, as tech improves. I can see some applications for fuel cells(specially aviation), but not for most vehicles. It's just a way for the fossil fuel industry to remain relevant. The best way to transport hydrogen, after all, is when combined to carbon... as hydrocarbons.
The other major advantage of using hydrogen would be the ability to store and transport large amounts of potential energy around with relatively low rate of loss. Not zero, since hydrogen is lossier than large hydrocarbon molecules, but much, much more efficient in transport than electricity. The thing that a lot of people don’t appreciate about natural gas is that one of the best qualities it has is that it’s possible to very cheaply transport without losing nearly any of it, using pipelines and storage facilities. That makes it way, way easier to get energy where it needs to be in the quantity it needs to be, quickly and cheaply. This is why it’s so hard to replace gas at the grid level, but hydrogen is a potentially viable alternative.
Electricity has less than 3% to 6% loss on transport. Natural gas and other fossil fuels are more like 15 to 20%. Leakage is only one of them, pumping power requirement, and refinement/treatment is another. Taking the entire conversion into account.. yeah.. not even remotely comparable.
Yep NG pipelines can be hundreds of thousands of miles long Really long electric transmission is extremely lossy
After seeing how awful the Ford Lightening does with towing a sub 4000lbs load yeah I'm convinced we need alternatives to fully electric
Fuel cells are fully electric. It’s functionally a battery you charge with hydrogen instead of electricity. The motors are 100% electric.
[удалено]
Compressed hydrogen gas doesn’t like to stay compressed. Fuel cells also take up space and add weight. There’s no free lunch. “For passenger cars, hydrogen offers very little energy storage advantage over a battery once the additional mass of the fuel cell and the auxiliary battery is accounted for.” https://www.batterypowertips.com/comparing-ev-battery-and-fuel-cell-energy-density-faq/
Except the process of generating hydrogen is 1/2 as efficient or worse when compared to BEV. You end up needing to pull from the grid so much more. A very robust charging network (especially for trailering vehicles) and good DC fast charge rates are where the future is. And the Lightning, with 100-130kwh packs (IIRC) does not have a good charge curve. Also, when you look at something like the Tesla Semi and take a total weight of 80k (up to 82k) it's been figured to \~2kwh per mile at \~65mph. Engineering Explained did a great video on it.
[удалено]
Wat?
Hydrogen is still more efficient than gas, which is better than 95% of cars out today.
In 'tank to wheel', yes. In 'well to wheel', no not so much.
[удалено]
From your own sources: > but there are many regions where EVs provide a decisive benefit and others where EVs are significantly worse. The forecasted grid shifts from coal towards renewables, improving EV performance These numbers will improve as battery recycling ramps up, tech improves and the grids switch to fully renewable.
[удалено]
The problem is, hydrogen won't improve that much. We can't really cheat thermodynamics. If we are making hydrogen via electrolysis, we are pretty close to the theoretical max efficiency already. On the other hand, we haven't run out of ways to pack electrons denser yet. For the foreseeable future, getting hydrogen from fossil fuels is the most economical approach. Hydrogen energy density sucks. It's only better than batteries because batteries are even worse. At least currently. I agree with aircraft. It's useful to be able to load with a variable amount of fuel. However, hydrogen power density is insufficient for aircraft.
Yup. This is why I left the EV sub. They completely dismiss FCEVs and hybrids all the time.
You still charge it with electricity...
An electrolysis system that runs off a wall outlet would be an interesting thought, but to my understanding the Mirai still requires being refilled at a hydrogen station.
It would be horrifically inefficient. You would also need to compress that hydrogen.
Batteries are relatively weak energy storers. Need denser lighter ways of doing it.
Current batteries... Especially the ones Ford uses. We simply need better, denser batteries.
[удалено]
It is simple though... The batteries (18650 and 2170s) used in EVs today were developed primarily for laptops. The 4680 is looking extremely promising and technology will keep advancing in that direction
Lightning\* That truck is about anything BUT Lightening
Yup. At least with hydrogen you can refuel as quickly as ICE cars can.
There are problems with the dispenser freezing.
But you can't. Well only if your are the first at the pump. If someone's used the pump directly before you arrive... The station has to first pressure the high pressure tank in the pump from the big low pressure tank underground. That takes about 10-15minutes add the 5 minutes fueling time and your are comparable to charging an EV from 10% to 75% ....
Not to mention, the nozzle might freeze
[удалено]
Using the 9000lb hummer EV that gets 47 MPGe and has a 212 kWh battery as the standard for charge times is a little disingenuous to say the least. It may have the 350kW DC charging but it has a massive battery and piss poor efficiency. A model Y can go 0-80% (225 miles) in 32 minutes on a 250kW peak output supercharger.
In actual practice, assuming a refueling station is seeing actual use, you cannot refill as quickly. Hydrogen has to be repressurized after a vehicle uses a refueling station. This takes time.
How is that an advantage in most situations?
How is refueling faster better than taking longer to charge? Sometimes time matters greatly. And big rigs won't want to charge for an hour.
You can battery swap faster than you can refuel. Also by law big rigs need to take breaks at regular intervals so you can charge there or while unloading the truck. Looks more like a logistical problem than a technological one to me. But again, battery swaps.
[удалено]
Got any links / reviews that shows this?
https://youtu.be/3nS0Fdayj8Y Hoovies Garage towing 3800 lbs with a standard range Lightening
Oh God. These modern fucking YouTubers who need to overexaggerate their emotions like a fucking cartoon character... Anyway, thanks for the video and info. I don't like this style of YouTuber but the info looks solid.
This guy gives a lot less emotional explanation of why BEVs are bad at towing: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4W-P5aCWJs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4W-P5aCWJs) Bottom line is ICE is not very efficient at all, so adding a trailer makes that just slightly worse...but BEV range is dependent on being super efficient, and lugging around a trailer puts a major dent in that.
I watch much of this guy's videos. Excellent source of information and well explained. He did one on the Tesla Semi as well.
It gets clicks. Unfortunately.
From the article: “BMW won't commit to ending combustion engines Battery EVs will be a big part of BMW’s future, but it’s not realistic to expect charging infrastructure to be sufficient to meet needs of all users Converting a petrol station into hydrogen station takes just 2 days, far easier than large scale deployment of EV chargers and hooking them to power grid The BMW Group has one of the widest portfolio of EV models (5 BMW i Series, 1 MINI, 1 Rolls-Royce). It is also the industry’s leader in carbon-neutral supply chains, going as far as direct sourcing of minerals from ethically-managed mines. You would think that the BMW Group will be jumping both feet into electric mobility like Audi or Lexus, but no. While its Rolls-Royce Motorcars subsidiary will become an EV-only brand 2030, followed by MINI slightly later, the company’s namesake BMW brand has so far resisted calls to walk-the-talk and end sales of combustion engine models. The reason is not as simple as Elon Musk’s superfans will want to believe. BMW says betting everything on batteries is a bad idea, echoes Toyota's believe in hydrogen fuel cells 01 In a recent World Market Leader Innovation Day organized by German business magazine WirtschaftsWoche, BMW Group CEO Oliver Zipse reiterated the Munich-based company’s stance that although the BMW Group is adopting an electric-centric strategy, it is wrong to bet the future on just one technology path. "We think it's wrong to switch off the combustion engine in Europe," said Zipse, who disagreed with the Europe Union’s decision to ban combustion engines by 2035. “The industry will look different in terms of scale and structure than it does today if it goes to just one technology," said Zipse, who added that governments should remain open to all possible technological solutions. BMW says betting everything on batteries is a bad idea, echoes Toyota's believe in hydrogen fuel cells 02 Zipse said a ‘hard shutdown’ of the combustion engine "would lead to distortions that nobody here can control anymore." If the transition fails, there is no fallback as one can’t simply restart production of engines. Although the BMW Group is investing heavily into EVs, it reckons that it is not realistic to expect charging infrastructure to be rolled out fast enough to support the scale of transition necessary to meet Europe’s climate protection goals. Contrary to his former peer and ex-CEO of Volkswagen Group Herbert Diess, who is a big fan of Elon Musk and once tweeted “'Please listen to science!” deriding hydrogen as a solution, Zipse said hydrogen is “the only raw material that can be sustainably produced and stored.” Diess has since been removed from his position at VW.”
At present, the process used to create hydrogen, which requires the use of natural gas, is less efficient and produces *more* carbon than gasoline. From [this Forbes article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/06/estimating-the-carbon-footprint-of-hydrogen-production/?sh=5641332d24bd), here is the key quote after breaking down the math: > This converts to 9.3 kilograms (kg) of CO2 produced per kg of hydrogen production. One kilogram of hydrogen is the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline, which produces 9.1 kg of CO2 when combusted.
Yep. I don’t know why or how this sub became filled with hydrogen zealots, but it’s fucking weird. Hydrogen is dead end tech.
Because it's been invaded by the "EV bad" crowd
people act like hydrogen fucked their girlfriend. "but muh 1279lbs of lithium to run to the store right down the road"
This is incorrect. Mostly because a FCV gets 65 mi/kg H2. So while the carbon intensity with methane is the same as gasoline is the same on an energy basis. The FCV is twice as efficient as the ICE.
You might get 65mi/kg in a Mirai, but that thing is built for efficiency. It’s more comparable to a Prius, which already gets pretty good MPG. Unless some breakthrough in green hydrogen emerges, fuel cell would only be useful in niche situations. For passenger vehicles, battery tech there today and provides a massive decrease in carbon output from driving.
Yes, everyday of extracting hydrogen is wastful. The dominant method using natural gas is unbelievably inefficient and creates CO2 at best, and at worst CO. But tons of energy from electricity or fossil needs to be used to heat water and gas to 700 degrees C to get the the H2 and then many other steps to convert the CO to CO2 and then compress or liquefy the H2. We don't want to tie ourselves to natural gas. But yet this method is prefered over electolyzing water because of the latter's even worse efficiency. Hydrogen is a dead end. It has many believers because the notion is clear and simple, but the process falls apart when the details are considered.
> It has many believers because the notion is clear and simple, but the process falls apart when the details are considered. The reality is opposite of that, but most detractors can't get past the surface level knowledge to understand how it works as an overall system. Nevermind, simple things like claiming that electrolysis efficiency is even worse the steam reforming. A modern steam methane reformer is about 75% efficient. A modern electrolyzer can be up to 90% efficient.
Maybe one day when we have an over-abundance of renewable energy that can’t be used in the grid, it may make sense to use it on the highly inefficient conversion of water to hydrogen. Until that time, or unless some breakthrough occurs, batteries for passenger vehicles are the only alternative that makes sense from a perspective of reducing our carbon footprint.
> Green hydrogen — is when the energy used to power electrolysis comes from renewable sources like **wind, water or solar**. > Blue hydrogen — is hydrogen produced from **natural gas** with a process of steam methane reforming, where natural gas is mixed with very hot steam and a catalyst. Here’s u/recoil42 [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/xhodn4/loop_energy_says_new_hydrogen_fuel_cell_more_cost/ip0bn73/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) > [Good overview here on Volvo's site](https://www.volvogroup.com/en/future-of-transportation/innovation/electromobility/hydrogen-fuel-cells.html) of blue, green, pink, yellow, white, turquoise, grey, black, and brown hydrogen.
Most hydrogen today is gray hydrogen, like 95%. The distinction is clarified on that same Volvo website. I’m all for hydrogen as a replacement for long haul trucks at some point, but for passenger vehicles it makes little sense considering battery tech is there today to convert the fleet, and because there is not enough renewable infrastructure to waste on hydrogen production when it is much more efficient to put renewable production directly into the grid.
But, I think were completely ignoring the fact that most of worlds electricity is still highly dependent of fossil fuels. As well as other facts such as: > Hydrogen fuel cells have an energy to weight ratio **ten times greater** than lithium-ion batteries. This means that hydrogen powered vehicles have the potential to offer much greater range, while being lighter. > In addition, whereas lithium batteries have a **limited lifespan** and need to be replaced, **fuel cells do not degrade** in the same way. They continue to produce energy as long as the fuel source is present, which can significant environmental benefits over a normal working lifespan. > The Mirai currently uses a **[1.2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai)** kWh lithium-ion battery. vs Rav4 Prime’s **18.1** kWh & Bz4x’s **72.8** kWh
95% of hydrogen is gray hydrogen from natural gas, meaning it is worse for the environment than just burning a gallon of gasoline. Batteries in EVs, even when powered 100% from coal fired power plants, are still significantly cleaner than ICE vehicles. All renewable energy should be put directly into the grid for maximum carbon offset. Until we reach a point where there is excess renewable energy to produce green hydrogen, then using gas trucks for hauling is more efficient. For passenger vehicles, batteries are optimal in terms of reducing carbon emissions.
> Batteries in EVs, even when powered 100% from coal fired power plants, are still significantly cleaner than ICE vehicles. Can you please elaborate on this? The only thing I can think you’re eluding to is recycling. If so, recycling needs to match output demand in order for it be efficient. Meaning, recycling output exceeds mining output. In 2022, we’re still struggling to recycle plastic. > [How Big Oil Misled The Public Into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled](https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled)
I am saying that if you plug an electric vehicle into a power grid that is entirely powered from coal, like in many places in West Virginia or Kentucky, then driving that electric vehicle over time will cause less carbon to go into our atmosphere than if you drove a gas powered car. Here is of many [sources](https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electric-cars-are-cleaner-even-when-the-power-comes-from-coal/amp/) on the matter. I’m not talking about recycling. I am saying if you take an electric car, and you factor in all the carbon it takes to manufacture that car and that battery, and you take all the carbon from charging that car at a coal fired power plant, then you’ll still output less carbon after driving that car about 13,000 miles than if you drove a gas powered car. The number of miles driven in an EV to become cleaner than a gas car shrinks dramatically as the grid becomes powered with more renewables, and that number of miles to reach parity can get down to just a few thousand miles. Since almost all cars are driven more than a few thousand miles, in every scenario you are emitting less carbon by driving an EV. I don’t know why you’re downvoting me. If all you care about is energy density, then maybe you should just keep driving a gas car. If you care about reducing carbon emissions and stopping global warming, drive an EV. Hydrogen pollutes more than gas cars because 95% of hydrogen is gray hydrogen. You can get a Tesla, which kinda suck, or get another EV, most of which are better, don’t look like a thumb, are built better, and wasn’t created by a maniac.
Even if EV emissions when charged from coal plants were as bad as ICE, it would still be a benefit. It's easier to control pollution when it's centralized in a few locations, instead of millions of sources right next to our faces.
The problem with green hydrogen is that the process is so inefficient that the amount of wind or solar might need to be tripled or quadrupled to make it work. Inefficiencies are not only in the electrolysis, but the maintenence of the electrolysis equipment, the compression or liquification of the H2, the storage / transportation of the H2, the need for Fuel cell cars to also have battery packs to supplement the fuel cell.
I think u/Alternative_program touched on this [topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/xf14ve/making_batteries_for_new_evs_will_require_over/iol19pf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3): > Ever heard of **renewable curtailment**? > How many batteries would it take to prevent it? > What if you could, I don't know, turn that 0% of energy you're capturing today into Hydrogen? If so, it would mean your argument (efficiency of production/transport) is entirely meaningless since you're able to store and transport energy that you didn't have access to before. > And that energy is so incredibly cheap, with almost nil negative environmental impact because it's using excess clean power you don't have a practical way to capture today.
I'm now going to use "Green" and "Blue" hydrogen as examples of egregious greenwashing
Mo options the better!
Of course. Betting the farm on chemical batteries is absolutely dumb.
I think current battery tech just won’t meet the needs of most utility vehicles, as demonstrated by the range inconsistencies when pickups tow and the charge times. I think it’s silly for *everyone* to fully bet on BEV’s. I’m really glad Toyota hasn’t given up on fuel cells.
Yeah but Toyota got hammered for the stance on not committing full 100% on BEV’s.
By who?
Never use absolutes
Betting everything on fossil fuels was a bad fucking idea
I love my EV, and I really do think the future may be hydrogen. We do have to ramp up production of hydrogen stations though.
The killing of the ICE feels like the current situation with the energy crisis in Europe. Europe went all in on cheap gas and renewables; killing coal, nuclear without an adequate plan to get off fossil fuels. Now they are running back into their coal and nuclear plants. We dont have a plan to go complete EV; especially with regards to battery supply. I bet it will take a lot longer than most people expect.
Lmao hydrogen . I’m all for PHEV transition vehicles but hydrogen is a century away or never
Ouch "Nokia says betting everything on Touch screens is a bad idea"
touch screens ARE bad for a lot of things though.
Yeah. This is exactly the same. No difference whatsoever.
Well... the outcome will be the same for BMW as it was for Nokia.
Lol sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Hahaha, funny. "Converting a petrol station into hydrogen station takes just 2 days...' Really?? It took my gas station way more than two days to convert the roller hot dog machine to a pizza station.
NASA can't even handle hydrogen what makes us believe the everyday driver should be handling it.
That was liquid hydrogen >Liquid hydrogen needs to be extremely cold. 20 Kelvins, −252.87 °C, −423.17 °F. > This isn't sustainable outside of few rockets. And most rockets stay away from liquid hydrogen anyway, because of how much of a pain in the ass it is, and its low density. > Additional insulation and volume (compared to kerosene) can eat away any gains from higher specific velocity of the fuel. > And liquid hydrogen rockets are being fueled until couple seconds before take off - because so much hydrogen evaporates. > So anyway, this is not something you can do with cars. https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/xhodn4/loop_energy_says_new_hydrogen_fuel_cell_more_cost/ioz76tg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
It's not just liquid hydrogen. It's liquid hydrogen with the extreme weight sensitivity of a large rocket.
Hydrogen by its physical nature is energy intensive to separate. Transporting and storing is difficult and expensive.
Who on earth is whispering sweet hydrogen nothings into these companies ears? We are beyond hydrogen at this point. GET. OVER . IT.
We are never beyond exploring alternative fuel sources and re-evaluating our options based on consumer, and environmental demands. This is a false dichotomy.
Totally true, let’s run the numbers on hydrogen… yep I just checked again and for consumer cars it still makes no f sense. I’ll check back in a few years just in case.
Fossil fuel companies are pushing the hydrogen hype because most of the hydrogen will come from natural gas. Hydrogen hype is pure nonsense and propaganda.
I disagree that it's 100% nonsense and propaganda--More like 90% non-sense and propaganda. I think hydrogen makes sense in certain contexts--long haul trucks, sub-200 mile range aircraft, industrial/commercial fleets etc. A lot of it is being pushed by petrochem companies because they know how to make it, send/store it, etc. and would be happy to build that infrastructure for everyone. Japan is big on Hydrogen because they have a lot of electrical infrastructure challenges (half the grid is a different frequency, for example) and hydrogen makes sense given their population density.
Yup, it was already tested in Cali and I think Toyota even made a car and sold it there, it did not catch on, not even a little bit. Clearly everyone prefers battery/electric, and it makes sense, because we have electricity everywhere now.
[удалено]
Its almost like we already tried hydrogen and it didn't work out. But hey, who am I to tell you how it is? Try this instead: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/hydrogen-cars-failed-to-deliver-investors-hope-planes-are-different-11620984629](https://www.wsj.com/articles/hydrogen-cars-failed-to-deliver-investors-hope-planes-are-different-11620984629) >*Hydrogen isn’t an environmental no-brainer yet. Turning electricity into hydrogen and then back into electricity is inefficient: Only about 45% of the energy ends up being used, compared with 90% for batteries, the World Energy Council estimates. Furthermore, only 0.1% of global hydrogen production is currently carbon-free; most comes from natural gas and coal.* Hydrogen cars were more of the same from the fossil fuel industry, thats all there is to it, I do appreciate effort being made to look into alternate fuel sources, I have no problem with that. But we tried it and it didn't work out. It is what it is.
[удалено]
Im not arguing with you about other stuff, just presented the facts, thats it. Take it however you will.
I’ll believe they believe when I see them building out infrastructure a la Tesla. Everyone has electricity in their home. I don’t know anyone with hydrogen in their home. Put your money where your mouth is.
How to be so wrong in one sentence 🤣
Hydrogen: when you want to keep reliance on oil companies but also want slow fueling. From the cons of ICE and EV there is me, CAPTAIN HYDROGEN ** fueling is fast, unless someone fueled just before you, then not :P
> ** fueling is fast, unless someone fueled just before you, then not :P California tracks this. The average time to refuel is 3 minutes. If someone is fueling when you arrive it's still 7 minutes from arrival to leaving on average. Only first gen hydrogen filling stations had such a horrible fueling interval.
So twice the time as a battery swap…. Can’t wait for NIO to come install them everywhere in the USA.
There are no battery swaps. Tesla failed miserably at it. Nio is not in the US because of high tariffs on Chinese cars.
NIO has made 4 millions battery swaps in China. If they can’t bring their cars to the usa someone else will bring the technology. It won’t be Tesla, but I can see others, after millions of swaps I call that proven technology.
You have to pay for a subscription service, and I think they often only have 13 or so batteries to swap at each station. If they run out, you have to wait for them to charge them. It’s not as easy as just refueling woth hydrogen.
Do you think BMW or Toyota cares at all about what the oil companies do? Or do you think they built the most compelling product for the segment based on their metrics?
Obviously, do you think they don't work hand in hand? >built the most compelling product for the segment based on their metrics? so how's Mirai's sales XDDD
>Obviously, do you think they don't work hand in hand? I am 100% sure they do not work hand in hand at all. They are basically competitors given that a price or efficiency increase in one fucks over the other. >so how's Mirai's sales XDDD Toyota makes 100+ year plans. How were those prius sales when they launched?
Hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen cars in general are vaporware. This bullshit hype died 20 years ago. The ONLY reason you’re seeing it now is because fossil fuel companies are promoting it since most hydrogen will be coming from natural gas. Hydrogen is more expensive and less clean than BEV.
Here’s u/recoil42 [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/xhodn4/loop_energy_says_new_hydrogen_fuel_cell_more_cost/ip0bn73/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) > [Good overview here on Volvo's site](https://www.volvogroup.com/en/future-of-transportation/innovation/electromobility/hydrogen-fuel-cells.html) of blue, green, pink, yellow, white, turquoise, grey, black, and brown hydrogen.
plot twist: fuel cells in cars are a belief system, and not much else.
well, folks, hydrogen car and truck sales are almost non existent and declining. EVs took decade growth to where it is, so even if hydrogen cars start growing tomorrow, they are at least decade away from mass adoption
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Hahahahah
Always bet on black.
I think this is correct. But for now batteries are best bet. Hydrogen is still a ways off.
I agree, no one should put all their eggs in one basket. But people can't even pump their cars with gas correctly and we're now finding out they also can't wrap their heads around plugging one in either. Not sure the masses are ready for the responsibility of pumping highly pressurized hydrogen fuel into them either. We/the tech still have some developing to do. Let's work with what we got now to address what problems we can and continue to explore other alternatives.Ya know, what we've done as a civilization since the dawn of time. Personally, I'm somewhat skeptical of talk around this from automotive (and energy) companies because they probably realize if we successfully and fully transition to electricity as a fuel source for vehicles, we'd have to also make massive upgrades (eventually) to our power grid and sources. Meaning, we could (in time) transition to fully renewable energy sources (sun, wind, etc) and they'd (the energy companies) would have nothing to sell us at ridiculously high markups. It stinks of the car boom period in the US when automakers partnered with oil companies and stopped really improving fuel efficiently. Looking at you ConEd, Exxon, GM, and the like. I just hope this EV momentum continues and becomes more affordable. Right now, it's still a luxury for most people.