Why is California wasting millions on hydrogen fuel pumps?(canarymedia.com)
canarymedia.com
Why is California wasting millions on hydrogen fuel pumps?
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/why-is-california-wasting-millions-on-hydrogen-fuel-pumps
138 comments
One hypothesis: While Battery Electric Cars seem to have won out in California, it is still unclear what the longer term trend for Trucks will be. Some postulate that Hydrogen might be useful for quick refueling of trucks, and to lower the mass needed to carry (as the trip goes on, increasing mileage), etc.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNgZ6xL_An4
That's a decent attempt at a back-justification, but to my knowledge the hydrogen program is running purely on momentum from many years ago when the economic superiority of battery-electric cars was not yet perfectly clear.
Hydrogen is not something that could work, it already does work. Battery EVs make a lot of tradeoffs making them unsuitable for a lot of workloads. Hydrogen solves them and does not need much development to make it useful for consumer vehicles.
You can look at hydrogen almost as a propane replacement as well.
Nuclear to hydrogen is workable and the way I'm imagining it going. There's also options to create hydrocarbons from air using the heat of a reactor.
You can look at hydrogen almost as a propane replacement as well.
Nuclear to hydrogen is workable and the way I'm imagining it going. There's also options to create hydrocarbons from air using the heat of a reactor.
BEV solve 99% of the problem and hydrogen is not worh investing in for the rest. The battle is already over, and just like with cars 10 ago its totally clear but it will be another 5 years until the hydrogen defenders admit it.
And claiming that hydrogen doesnt need much development is an insane claim given the money put in and the total lack of success.
And claiming that hydrogen doesnt need much development is an insane claim given the money put in and the total lack of success.
We will always need a portable liquid fuel to meet needs like emergency vehicles, construction equipment, and emergency generators.
Not everything is a consumer car and truck. Being a battery maximalist prolongs the time everything else runs on dead dinosaurs.
Not everything is a consumer car and truck. Being a battery maximalist prolongs the time everything else runs on dead dinosaurs.
Why can't that stuff just remain diesel? We can synthesize it, no problem.
As I said, 1%. And in those cases using hydrogen makes little sense.
Emergency vehicles of most types don't need that however. And in many of the cases you mention swappable battery packs are an option as well.
But we have to realize that compared to all consumer and fleet cars, 99% of all trucking is the vast majority of fuel use in transportation.
Extreme long range trucking is the exception.
In most cases you would make the hydrogen into methanol and you can keep mostly the same engines.
Emergency vehicles of most types don't need that however. And in many of the cases you mention swappable battery packs are an option as well.
But we have to realize that compared to all consumer and fleet cars, 99% of all trucking is the vast majority of fuel use in transportation.
Extreme long range trucking is the exception.
In most cases you would make the hydrogen into methanol and you can keep mostly the same engines.
Most hydrogen is produced from methane and is actually worse than gasoline for global warming because methane leaks and is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
It makes indeed more sense to just use renewable gasoline, e.g. using the Fischer-Tropsch process like VW's eFuel.
It makes indeed more sense to just use renewable gasoline, e.g. using the Fischer-Tropsch process like VW's eFuel.
I know, but its easier to go from renewable hydrogen to methanol then eFuel.
Tell that to the person with the Tesla who is trying to drive from one side of Australia to the other and is completely dependent upon the generator powered charging station in the middle of the Nullarbor Plane to complete the trip.
Yep, BEV are great for commuting, but very difficult to use if you need to travel long distances in remote areas or tow a caravan or trailer.
Yep, BEV are great for commuting, but very difficult to use if you need to travel long distances in remote areas or tow a caravan or trailer.
Yeah like the huge % of the population who crosses Australia or the Sahara. Please be series in these discussions.
Long distances are no problem unless you you are traversing unpopulated area free of infrastructure, and that is likely 0.000001% of all driving.
Long distances are no problem unless you you are traversing unpopulated area free of infrastructure, and that is likely 0.000001% of all driving.
Or we can just use hybrid technology where needed and pure EV elsewhere?
Not much development except for developing generation capacity that doesn't exist (and electrolysis is wildly inefficient, by the way), a distribution chain that doesn't exist, familiarizing everyone from consumers to service staff with a fuel system unlike anything they've used before (CNG only ever took off in mass transit, and only to a limited degree), and oh by the way, it's centered around a gas that is so prone to leaking it leaks through metals and embrittles them in the process.
I can plug in an EV into the wall in my garage and charge it every night without a single change to my house. An L2 charger installation is an hour or two's work for an electrician.
Not much development except for developing generation capacity that doesn't exist (and electrolysis is wildly inefficient, by the way), a distribution chain that doesn't exist, familiarizing everyone from consumers to service staff with a fuel system unlike anything they've used before (CNG only ever took off in mass transit, and only to a limited degree), and oh by the way, it's centered around a gas that is so prone to leaking it leaks through metals and embrittles them in the process.
I can plug in an EV into the wall in my garage and charge it every night without a single change to my house. An L2 charger installation is an hour or two's work for an electrician.
I suspect with enough R&D focused on ease of use the CNG fuel system won't require more consumer intervention than the 1500lb battery pack under the car.
> You can look at hydrogen almost as a propane replacement as well.
That's exactly it, but maybe not in the way you meant.
Industries want to push hydrogen because the most economical way to produce it is by using fossil fuels. So they can pretend they are 'green' while keeping business as usual.
That's exactly it, but maybe not in the way you meant.
Industries want to push hydrogen because the most economical way to produce it is by using fossil fuels. So they can pretend they are 'green' while keeping business as usual.
> Industries want to push hydrogen because the most economical way to produce it is by using fossil fuels. So they can pretend they are 'green' while keeping business as usual.
This is not the case, at least over here in Australia. Whenever hydrogen is mentioned as a fuel, it is implicitly Green Hydrogen. It only became necessary to explicitly start saying Green Hydrogen after the fossil fuel spokespeople were using existing production to belittle green initiatives and pilots.
The actual reason hydrogen is being pushed here is because of what happens when you shut down large, centralized coal power plants and shut down coal mining capacity. You end up with rural towns with no jobs, or in the eyes of a politician an electoral district who isn't going to vote for them. Hydrogen means big solar and wind farms connected to hydrogen plants and jobs and votes linked to those jobs, and you can guess where they are going to be built. The elephant in the room is who is going to buy all this hydrogen when in most cases it seems batteries are the better choice for consumers.
This is not the case, at least over here in Australia. Whenever hydrogen is mentioned as a fuel, it is implicitly Green Hydrogen. It only became necessary to explicitly start saying Green Hydrogen after the fossil fuel spokespeople were using existing production to belittle green initiatives and pilots.
The actual reason hydrogen is being pushed here is because of what happens when you shut down large, centralized coal power plants and shut down coal mining capacity. You end up with rural towns with no jobs, or in the eyes of a politician an electoral district who isn't going to vote for them. Hydrogen means big solar and wind farms connected to hydrogen plants and jobs and votes linked to those jobs, and you can guess where they are going to be built. The elephant in the room is who is going to buy all this hydrogen when in most cases it seems batteries are the better choice for consumers.
Or we could Just go back to trains.
Go back? We never left trains. The US rail network moves a tremendous volume of cargo. But it can never be competitive with trucks for really time sensitive goods.
Your not wrong, but we sort of did. Road infrastructure gets the funding. We need to nationalize our train infrastructure. And change our zoning laws to prioritize rail freight instead of trucks.
The amount of land saved from this alone would be huge. Trains are also just way more energy efficient
The amount of land saved from this alone would be huge. Trains are also just way more energy efficient
The pumps being installed are sized for passenger vehicles
Hydrogen is like gasoline. Trucks and cars use the same gas pumps.
You sure can, but it takes a very long time to fill a class 8 truck from a consumer gasoline pump. Doubly so for hydrogen given the slower speed.
Department of Energy regulations require hydrogen fuel stations to be able to fuel vehicles at 8-12 gallons per minute equivalent. Gas and diesel pumps (even the hi-flow truck stop ones) are capped at 10 gpm for safety.
Truck stop pumps have much larger nozzles and pump 6-10 times faster than the limit for light vehicles "and that refueling facilities are exempt from the 10gpm requirement if used exclusively to refuel heavy-duty vehicles, boats or airplanes"
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-1996-06-26/96-16205
Right now the lack of standardization of high pressure, high flow rate pumps for large trucks is a problem that Nikola is working very hard to solve. The pumps that are standardized and in use right now are a major bottleneck.
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-1996-06-26/96-16205
Right now the lack of standardization of high pressure, high flow rate pumps for large trucks is a problem that Nikola is working very hard to solve. The pumps that are standardized and in use right now are a major bottleneck.
It looks like current pumps fill hydrogen at a rate of about 1kg/minute. A class 8 truck would take more than an hour to fill. At they point just go BEV.
https://www.nrel.gov/news/features/2020/nrel-research-fuelin...
https://www.nrel.gov/news/features/2020/nrel-research-fuelin...
This assumes that trucks and cars will continue to use "nozzles" and "hoses" rather than the evolution of swapping cannisters of hydrogen.
If Tesla can build a mostly-robotic factory, we can make robotic hydrogen bottle-swapping refueling stations.
Of course, this is a future thing, not a now thing.
Of course, this is a future thing, not a now thing.
I think what they are trying in Europe with overhead wires for charging on the move allowing trucks to carry lighter batteries will be more successful.
Those have existed for a while, complete with a small local battery and all: https://www.google.com/search?q=trolleybus
So... worse electric trains?
If by worse electric trains you mean electric trains that can solve the last mile problem all in one mode of transit, then yes.
Visual a bus that picks you up at its regular stops, but when it enters the highway of uses a long stretch of overhead wire to use nil battery.
You get the benefits of scale and flexibility of a bus, but at a reduced cost than train infrastructure while still moving many, many more people than a car.
Visual a bus that picks you up at its regular stops, but when it enters the highway of uses a long stretch of overhead wire to use nil battery.
You get the benefits of scale and flexibility of a bus, but at a reduced cost than train infrastructure while still moving many, many more people than a car.
I think you drastically underestimate how vast the American last mile is.
It’s time to stick a pin in the suburbia ponzi scheme and call this failed experiment done. Separating people from their place of work by a forced commute was a great subsidy for the automotive and petroleum industries, but that is over now.
> but that is over now
What gives you this impression? What happens to the tens of millions of people who live in suburbia? What happens for those who enjoy living in suburbia?
What gives you this impression? What happens to the tens of millions of people who live in suburbia? What happens for those who enjoy living in suburbia?
Maybe the age of American sprawl powered by cheap gas and high incomes is over.
[deleted]
Electric is a complete non-starter for emergency vehicles. They need to be able to refuel in a grid-down situation, and fill up in minutes instead of hours. Hydrogen isn't as portable as gasoline, but it can be trucked to disaster areas easier than electricity.
If EVs really take off and we start to see gas stations shutting down, it would be nice to have the infrastructure already in place to keep fire trucks and ambulances rolling.
If EVs really take off and we start to see gas stations shutting down, it would be nice to have the infrastructure already in place to keep fire trucks and ambulances rolling.
Solar + big batteries can provide electricity when the grid is down.
If you need a backup plan, then a regular gas station and perhaps hybrid emergency fire trucks seems to make more sense. Since all the infrastructure is available for that right now.
If you need a backup plan, then a regular gas station and perhaps hybrid emergency fire trucks seems to make more sense. Since all the infrastructure is available for that right now.
Realistically, we're not gonna have enough batteries. Passenger vehicle electrification so far has been paid for by optimism and subsidies. Renewables are great but they require batteries, that we won't have enough nuclear to provide a baseline of energy once we decommission all fossil burning plants is a foregone conclusion at this point.
In short we're approaching things from the wrong end IMO, burning more fossil fuels for energy generation and moving things that need power density and quick refueling to slow, heavy batteries.
In short we're approaching things from the wrong end IMO, burning more fossil fuels for energy generation and moving things that need power density and quick refueling to slow, heavy batteries.
That is the gotcha. Do you let peoples houses burn down while your fire truck charges? What happens when 50 fire trucks need to be charged at once? Or the giant battery is the thing on fire?
Liquid fuel (hydrogen, gasoline, etc) is essential. So as EVs take over and gas stations shut down, we either need to provide government subsidies to keep some gas stations operational, or invest in a clean alternative.
Liquid fuel (hydrogen, gasoline, etc) is essential. So as EVs take over and gas stations shut down, we either need to provide government subsidies to keep some gas stations operational, or invest in a clean alternative.
Or just provide the infrastructure to charge 50 trucks at once, like we already do with massive fuel stations that have a dozen pumps and the driveways to handle the traffic.
[deleted]
Trucks have a higher duty cycle than cars so a battery pays for itself quicker.
Truckers have legally mandated breaks that largely mitigates charging time.
Charging infrastructure is cheaper than hydrogen infrastructure.
Truckers have legally mandated breaks that largely mitigates charging time.
Charging infrastructure is cheaper than hydrogen infrastructure.
The energy density of a battery is so low though. That means a lot of capacity must be dedicated to batteries instead of cargo. Meaning you need more trucks.
[deleted]
One could also say "Subsidies for electric vehicles are clearly beating subsidies for hydrogen vehicles."
All the more reason to tax what you don't want and not subsidize specific solutions. The government should focus on the problem, not on specific solutions to the problem.
Because politically deciding what should succeed is not science. Politicians may not even be aware of a better solution. Or it may not be lobbied as hard as poorer solutions.
All the more reason to tax what you don't want and not subsidize specific solutions. The government should focus on the problem, not on specific solutions to the problem.
Because politically deciding what should succeed is not science. Politicians may not even be aware of a better solution. Or it may not be lobbied as hard as poorer solutions.
Hydrogen vehicles ARE electric vehicles. Complete with electric motors and batteries. It's just that one gets most of its power in a more roundabout way.
Hydrogen had more government support for longer. And EV started to establish themselves with very little support and continued growing once they were over.
In the consumers got tax benefits only for the first 250k cars. Tesla blew past that many,many years ago and it didnt stop their growth in the least.
And clean air credits would count for Hydrogen vehicles too.
BEV won because its quite simply far better almost any way you look at it. Fiancial, infrastruce , conviniance, mass production and so on. And its not even close.
In the consumers got tax benefits only for the first 250k cars. Tesla blew past that many,many years ago and it didnt stop their growth in the least.
And clean air credits would count for Hydrogen vehicles too.
BEV won because its quite simply far better almost any way you look at it. Fiancial, infrastruce , conviniance, mass production and so on. And its not even close.
If you're of limited means, you could get around 13k off your Model 3 in California as of last year, courtesy of the tax payer. Then don't discount the hype, cool millenials and Gen Z in particular are not about driving, but when they do they prefer a Tesla. I think a BEV was a lot easier to bootstrap because with 0 infrastructure you could at least make trips around town, but that doesn't mean that it's going to work at planet scale (at least not with current battery tech).
Also, the market deciding what should succeed is not science.
I believe we have many examples.
The market doesn't pretend that it is science. But it doesn't keep alive things that clearly don't work when there are alternatives that do.
The market values many dimensions, not just a few considerations or what someone decides is "science". Like switching costs. Or failure to get the product into people's hands, even if it is better.
Even setting the price too high matters. Or setting it too low to pay the bills.
And many other things. Including the preferences of millions of people.
A scientist couldn't design an experiment that replicates what the market already is.
The market values many dimensions, not just a few considerations or what someone decides is "science". Like switching costs. Or failure to get the product into people's hands, even if it is better.
Even setting the price too high matters. Or setting it too low to pay the bills.
And many other things. Including the preferences of millions of people.
A scientist couldn't design an experiment that replicates what the market already is.
Electric is clearly the future of consumer cars but there's definitely a future for hydrogen in industries like shipping. Whether it's container ships or 18 wheelers, hydrogen has many benefits including the ability to fuel up faster. We already have a dual system for two kinds of fuels, gasoline/diesel, I can see a future where the two main types become electric/hydrogen.
Hydrogen is unlikely to see widespread marine use due to engineering costs and safety risks. It's more likely that merchant ships will run on ammonia, biodiesel, methanol, or LNG.
What safety risks exist that do not exist for other forms of fuel and energy?? Wouldn't marine be the perfect use of hydrogen? The only output is water. Energy storage of hydrogen is cheaper by weight then battery. If there are some solar panels and/or wind generators on part of the vessel then couldn't it technically stay adrift from shore forever (temporarily forget food for humans or degradation of the boat without maintenance).
Liquid fuels are generally less flammable, and minor leaks don't present a serious problem. Batteries will never have the capacity needed by long distance merchant ships. Fuel weight isn't very relevant, it's tankage volume that matters more. Ships don't have enough free surface area to generate much useful power from solar panels. Wind generators are counterproductive if you actually want to go anywhere because the extra drag exceeds any power they generate.
Long term I expect we'll primarily use nuclear and renewable power plants on shore to drive manufacturing of synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuels for marine and aviation markets. That appears to be the safest option and won't require rebuilding entire major industries.
Long term I expect we'll primarily use nuclear and renewable power plants on shore to drive manufacturing of synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuels for marine and aviation markets. That appears to be the safest option and won't require rebuilding entire major industries.
All the people commenting in support of hydrogen here have no idea of the logistical challenges in handling a fuel that is so thin it leaks through metal.
Well “leaks through metal” sort of misconstrues things, “dissolves in metal” or “diffuses in metal” would be a better phrasing.
I think a more relevant issue is hydrogen embrittlement, it is definitely a problem for many alloys. I don’t think it’s a show stopper for fuel cells though, and it’s an important research topic that’s been worked on a long time
I think a more relevant issue is hydrogen embrittlement, it is definitely a problem for many alloys. I don’t think it’s a show stopper for fuel cells though, and it’s an important research topic that’s been worked on a long time
The only benefit Hydrogen had over BEV was refueling time. I think what we've learned in the last few years is that charging at home overnight makes up for the perceived disadvantage BEVs have, and we're seeing rapid improvement in DC fast charging times (18 minutes for the 800v Hyundai Ioniq5 and it's platform cousins, for example) for longer road trips. In fact I just drove 450 miles across california in an EV and the car was always done charging before I could get my kid out of the car for a bathroom break and a quick snack and then back in the car.
So if refueling time isn't as big a deal as it was 5-10 years ago, and will be even less of an issue in another 5-10, Hydrogen starts to look pretty lousy actually. For those who own BEV's, having to stop at some point in your day to go to a fuel station feels archaic. Home charging is a game changer.
So if refueling time isn't as big a deal as it was 5-10 years ago, and will be even less of an issue in another 5-10, Hydrogen starts to look pretty lousy actually. For those who own BEV's, having to stop at some point in your day to go to a fuel station feels archaic. Home charging is a game changer.
What about people living in apartment buildings that can't charge at home?
It's cheaper to give apartment buildings and nearby properties tax incentives to install chargers that are used 30 minutes at a time than to install hydrogen stations for apartment dwellers...
In the SE united states, our Power Companies are actively partnering with our Gas Stations to add chargers.
(this is in addition to Tesla's massive Super Charger network that gets people from coast to coast, generic charges installed at state parks, and local and federal tax benefits to install chargers)
In the SE united states, our Power Companies are actively partnering with our Gas Stations to add chargers.
(this is in addition to Tesla's massive Super Charger network that gets people from coast to coast, generic charges installed at state parks, and local and federal tax benefits to install chargers)
Buses, taxis, delivery vans - there are loads of vehicles that need to be running all day and can't stop for a charge.
If buses ever go Lithium they may figure out a way to do large battery swap-n-charge systems at the main station.
Taxis are already solved via Uber and so it's likely that people are already interested in buying EVs and that's no different for Uber drivers.
Delivery vehicles are often carrying only so much cargo and so it's likely the single night charge can handle everything. Mountain deliveries may see problems if we don't have a liquid fuel however.
Taxis are already solved via Uber and so it's likely that people are already interested in buying EVs and that's no different for Uber drivers.
Delivery vehicles are often carrying only so much cargo and so it's likely the single night charge can handle everything. Mountain deliveries may see problems if we don't have a liquid fuel however.
I suspect all those applications are, in fact, stopping at some point. There are taxi drivers on EVs today. They have to stop to eat sometime.
Taxis and delivery vans do fill up during the day.
Exactly, and with Hydrogen its quick, just like gas.
BEVs are also a better way of economizing wide scale distribution of storage throughout the grid. With one battery per car, you do run into load shifting issues (everyone generally charging at home during the same night time interval, even if that interval is half a day), but as it's not that hard to take the same tech in the car and strap it to the wall, as opposed to hydrogen, you get what is probably a way bigger ROI per cell.
Of course that requires some coordination from the same kind of entity that is apparently wasting money already on energy transportation and storage.
Of course that requires some coordination from the same kind of entity that is apparently wasting money already on energy transportation and storage.
Hydrogen might still represent a superior source of carbon-free fuel. It's more energy dense than batteries, by a long shot. Containment for hydrogen fuel is a challenge, but they scale better at larger volumes.
Definitely, lithium ion batteries make the most sense for sedans. But for cross-country trucks, trains, and maritime shipping hydrogen has greater potential. You're not crossing the pacific on a battery powered cargo-ship.
Definitely, lithium ion batteries make the most sense for sedans. But for cross-country trucks, trains, and maritime shipping hydrogen has greater potential. You're not crossing the pacific on a battery powered cargo-ship.
Not related to the article - but it's my understanding that liquid or compressed hydrogen are the only viable alternatives to jet fuel for commercial flights. So I'm definitely on board with big H. But not so interested in the few hydrogren fuel cell cars I've seen.
Carbon neutral synthetic kerosene is a more viable alternative to current jet fuel. Unlike hydrogen, it has no additional safety risks and won't require any changes to aircraft design or infrastructure.
Synthetic kerosene is probably the real answer. Compatible with existing infrastructure, aircraft, and engines.
> cross-country trucks, trains, and maritime shipping hydrogen has greater potential.
On your list of things where hydrogen has potential, "trains" has got to surely be typo?
On your list of things where hydrogen has potential, "trains" has got to surely be typo?
The total number of individual plants to replace is small (usually one or two per train, some tens of thousands across North America), and some existing propane/natural gas fired turbine-electric trains are probably suitable to retrofit. The US rail grid is almost entirely unelectrified, and electrification of long rural routes is both a large project and has high upfront costs, especially relative to the low utilization of some routes. Basically, hydrogen would be attractive for trains in North America for the same reason why most trains in North America are diesel, not electric.
I suspect the answer for this niche is probably synthetic diesel though, as with synthetic jet fuel. If you already have the hydrogen, fixing it to some carbon is a relatively simple additional step.
I suspect the answer for this niche is probably synthetic diesel though, as with synthetic jet fuel. If you already have the hydrogen, fixing it to some carbon is a relatively simple additional step.
> The US rail grid is almost entirely unelectrified
Now the GP comment makes sense. I am certainly surprised but at least now it makes some sense.
Now the GP comment makes sense. I am certainly surprised but at least now it makes some sense.
Also, I think they were talking about freight trains, not passenger trains. Is rail freight powered by electric locomotives anywhere in the world?
Right. Freight and passenger rail are basically inverted in the USA and Europe. A large % of European passenger traffic is by rail, with only a tiny proportion of freight by rail. Across the Atlantic, the majority of US freight by tonne-km is by rail, while passenger rail is tiny.
And yes. Electrified rail for freight is seen in small pockets in Western and Central Europe, even smaller pockets of North America [1]. It is widely used on the major lines in Russia and the majority of freight is electric. India has some electric freight. As does China, and the Chinese government has announced a project to, eventually, electrify all their freight lines.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Power_Railway
And yes. Electrified rail for freight is seen in small pockets in Western and Central Europe, even smaller pockets of North America [1]. It is widely used on the major lines in Russia and the majority of freight is electric. India has some electric freight. As does China, and the Chinese government has announced a project to, eventually, electrify all their freight lines.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Power_Railway
Batteries don't have the energy density to support hauling large masses of cargo over long distances [1]. Trains could be electrified, eliminating the requirement to carry fuel at all, but that requires building new infrastructure which may not be as economic in low-density regions in North America.
Hydrogen gas has the best energy density per unit of mass of any chemical fuel source (nuclear blows it out of the water, mind you), and could prove to be the best option for decarbonizing freight trains.
1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File:Ene...
Hydrogen gas has the best energy density per unit of mass of any chemical fuel source (nuclear blows it out of the water, mind you), and could prove to be the best option for decarbonizing freight trains.
1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File:Ene...
Battery powered locomotives are being sold today and expected to be in operation soon, moving freight. https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/fmg-purcha... details one deal in the news here recently, and there were also recently other stories about a sale to the US.
Why would you put a battery in a train?
Not sure about cars, but I find the idea of hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas in home heating to be more plausible than heat pumps.
The efficiency of hydrogen electrolysis seems low, but potentially not an issue if the absolute cost of wind/solar continues to drop - and it's a storage solution for smoothing renewable production too.
The efficiency of hydrogen electrolysis seems low, but potentially not an issue if the absolute cost of wind/solar continues to drop - and it's a storage solution for smoothing renewable production too.
"storage solution for smoothing renewable production too"
This is underappreciated.
This is underappreciated.
How would you propose to solve the leakage and embrittlement problems that make hydrogen unsuitable for home heating today?
Replace the metal pipes with plastic pipes, which is already underway in the UK:
https://piperepair.co.uk/2020/08/04/pipe-replacements-to-cut...
https://piperepair.co.uk/2020/08/04/pipe-replacements-to-cut...
Why is it more plausible than heat pumps? We don't have infrastructure to ship hydrogen the way we do natural gas. It's not like one can use the same pipes.
Why are heat pumps not plausible? You can get them today.
Why are heat pumps not plausible? You can get them today.
The UK is replacing its metal pipes with plastic pipes:
https://piperepair.co.uk/2020/08/04/pipe-replacements-to-cut...
Aside from the cost (which might come down), heat pumps have some inherent disadvantages - reliance on insulation, and slow ramp up time. So no more opening the windows at night for fresh air, then getting the house back up to temperature in the morning.
https://piperepair.co.uk/2020/08/04/pipe-replacements-to-cut...
Aside from the cost (which might come down), heat pumps have some inherent disadvantages - reliance on insulation, and slow ramp up time. So no more opening the windows at night for fresh air, then getting the house back up to temperature in the morning.
Everything you described would be a problem with hydrogen as well if not more so. You would need much much more insulation + special pipes for hydrogen usage. I don't know about slow ramp up times, I've never heard this. It takes mine about 10-30seconds for a 3 story house to start up. "So no more opening the windows at night for fresh air, then getting the house back up to temperature in the morning." I don't understand, how does hydrogen solve this problem? How is this not a problem for other sources?
Random note: I'm all for heat pumps & all for hydrogen. They just aren't for the same use cases. Heat pumps are good for heating+cooling of spaces. Hydrogen is good way to store electricity when care about energy-to-weight and/or need quick fuelling.
Random note: I'm all for heat pumps & all for hydrogen. They just aren't for the same use cases. Heat pumps are good for heating+cooling of spaces. Hydrogen is good way to store electricity when care about energy-to-weight and/or need quick fuelling.
How long does it take your house to get from cold to hot? Surely 10-30 seconds is the system startup time, not the time taken to heat up the house?
>The study also finds that battery and charging advances will obviate the advantage that fuel-cell vehicles are presumed to have in long-haul logistic operations and the road transport of very heavy goods.
Despite this blurb, I still believe the primary use for hydrogen will be in trucking not in cars. Further more, there are times when some turbines in a wind farm are turned off because consumption has met demand. We could keep those going full time and just convert excess to hydrogen.
Despite this blurb, I still believe the primary use for hydrogen will be in trucking not in cars. Further more, there are times when some turbines in a wind farm are turned off because consumption has met demand. We could keep those going full time and just convert excess to hydrogen.
The biggest drawback of hydrogen as well as gasoline is the fire / explosion risk. I'm curious how the hydrogen will be stored for transport as the fuel source.
Batteries at least types used in vehicles have similar risks. Actually gasoline and diesel are relatively safe and easy to handle fires comparatively.
Will this really produce enough hydrogen to power all the long-haul trucks in the US?
It makes some sense. The electric grid will not be able to support everyone going electric for many decades until the wires are upgraded, so there will need to be a good stopgap so the state can reach its emission goals. Hydrogen is one of those stopgaps.
My friend just bought a fuel cell car. Between the tax incentives, tax rebates, dealer incentives, and $15,000 fuel card, the car is almost free.
My friend just bought a fuel cell car. Between the tax incentives, tax rebates, dealer incentives, and $15,000 fuel card, the car is almost free.
It's not free, it was just paid for by other people. If it has to be nearly free for someone to take it, not sure that really supports these being commercially viable.
EVs have been getting at different times up-to and beyond 10k in incentives paid for by others, which also points to not-yet being viable. Between renewables being chosen over nuclear and the onslaught of EVs, we're gonna need a couple orders of magnitude more battery capacity in the coming years. Maybe subsidies for alternative forms of energy storage a smart hedge.
The number one selling EV make (in the US) sells every car they can build (hundreds of thousands) with no incentives.
Incentives as in tax incentives, subsidies, rebates and credits, not manufacturer incentives. On Tesla's own website they still factor "incentives" into the price for states that still offer them. At some points in time , incentives were so wild, you could lease a Chevy Volt for $100/mo with nothing down, a Fiat 500e for about $90.
I never said it was commercially viable. All I said was that it makes sense for California to subsidize the technology to reach the state's emission goals until the electrical grid can be upgraded to support electrification of all vehicles.
> It makes some sense. The electric grid will not be able to support everyone going electric, so there will need to be a good stopgap. Hydrogen is one of those stopgaps.
This is simply not true. The DOE produced a report several years ago demonstrating that 70% of light vehicles could be electrified immediately and existing electrical generation capacity would be sufficient. As that scenario is impossible, the growth of EVs in lockstep with the rapid uptake in renewables (and natural gas/batteries to a lesser degree) ensures that there will be no generation shortfall. A more recent citation is provided below.
https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-...
This is simply not true. The DOE produced a report several years ago demonstrating that 70% of light vehicles could be electrified immediately and existing electrical generation capacity would be sufficient. As that scenario is impossible, the growth of EVs in lockstep with the rapid uptake in renewables (and natural gas/batteries to a lesser degree) ensures that there will be no generation shortfall. A more recent citation is provided below.
https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-...
Going to renewables doesn't change the fact that the physical wires running across the state cannot move enough electricity fast enough to meet everyone's charging needs. It will take decades to upgrade all the wires in the state.
Generation isn't the problem it's moving it from where it's generated to where it is needed.
Generation isn't the problem it's moving it from where it's generated to where it is needed.
Even without renewables, there is enough generation and transmission capacity today. Cars charge at homes (overnight), offices (during the day), and other locations where they can dwell for hours at a time.
These circuits are the same size as a large heat pump or induction stove, and vehicle charging can be orchestrated in the same way Nest thermostats are used to shed HVAC loads in order to sidestep infrastructure constraints (“DER” or distributed energy resources).
These circuits are the same size as a large heat pump or induction stove, and vehicle charging can be orchestrated in the same way Nest thermostats are used to shed HVAC loads in order to sidestep infrastructure constraints (“DER” or distributed energy resources).
Just last year the grid operator asked people to charge before 5pm because there wasn't enough capacity at night to charge. Also, the state grid operator has said that we can't support electrification of all vehicles today:
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-10-01/california...
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-10-01/california...
> The electric grid will not be able to support everyone going electric, so there will need to be a good stopgap
More accurately, we in California decided that "flex alerts", planned blackouts, and closing plants are the right approaches to our energy infrastructure.
I agree that our grid wouldn't support everyone having electric cars, but why do I get the feeling that it could and should?
More accurately, we in California decided that "flex alerts", planned blackouts, and closing plants are the right approaches to our energy infrastructure.
I agree that our grid wouldn't support everyone having electric cars, but why do I get the feeling that it could and should?
this is partial information.. the internals for the electrical grid were so solid, for so long.. then came the crack in the dam -- de-regulation.. while Happy Episcopalians in San Francisco planned their PC Green Energy sourcing, aggressive Texans built ENRON. Once there is so much money on the table, every day, the crack in the dam is hard to patch. Today there are now many fingers in the pie, and terrible incentives all the way down.
I have heard wise-guy finance say with a knowing look, that the "electrical infrastructure will be redesigned, and redesigned again." I believe them because, there is money to be made at each step. Repair of the forests and streams are the poverty work, not new electrical grid configurations, in California.
It is not the right time to throw the solid parts of the grid under the bus, and downplay the functional parts of the past, while pining for the workable future. A plea here (including present writer) to investigate and use fact-based analysis.
I have heard wise-guy finance say with a knowing look, that the "electrical infrastructure will be redesigned, and redesigned again." I believe them because, there is money to be made at each step. Repair of the forests and streams are the poverty work, not new electrical grid configurations, in California.
It is not the right time to throw the solid parts of the grid under the bus, and downplay the functional parts of the past, while pining for the workable future. A plea here (including present writer) to investigate and use fact-based analysis.
> "We in California"
I'm on Silicon Valley Power. None of those issues apply. PG&E needs more than a slap in the wrist.
I'm on Silicon Valley Power. None of those issues apply. PG&E needs more than a slap in the wrist.
It's not generation that's the problem, it's the wires that move the electricity from generation to where it's needed. It will take decades to upgrade all the wires to support electrification of all light vehicles.
Hydrogen may have a role to play in aviation, but it has clearly failed for passenger cars and likely trucks as well. The Shell station next to my old office in San Francisco closed for maybe 9 months to be retrofitted for hydrogen. Those lost revenues will probably outweigh the entire revenue from hydrogen over the remaining life of the station. Essentially the only hydrogen cars in California are a small fleet owned by the state itself, and unlikely to be replaced when they reach end of life.
The roundtrip efficiency in hydrogen production, starting from electricity, is pretty bad.
Quick chart here:
https://www.volkswagenag.com/content/dam/online-kommunikatio...
So with a hydrogen car you waste half your input electricity. For a gain in faster refueling?
Quick chart here:
https://www.volkswagenag.com/content/dam/online-kommunikatio...
So with a hydrogen car you waste half your input electricity. For a gain in faster refueling?
I stopped reading at "Battery EVs have won the clean car race".
No they have not. There's a couple billion ICE cars on the road. They'll have "won" when EVs far outstrip ICE engines.
No they have not. There's a couple billion ICE cars on the road. They'll have "won" when EVs far outstrip ICE engines.
You missed reading the word 'clean' in your quote. ICE means petrol and diesel, and clean replacement fuels for ICE engines have not yet entered the race being discussed.
The physics of hydrogen powered vehicles just don't make sense. Insane tank sizes at extremely high pressures are needed to get into practical range territory [1]. This is fundamental physics and won't improve over time, as opposed to battery energy density and charging speeds.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ajq46qHp0c
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ajq46qHp0c
Large size, yes, but low weight. Americans seem absolutely thrilled to drive around giant cars, so why not give them what they want?
Compressed Hydrogen in even composite tanks is not particularly low weight.
Aerodynamics, usable cargo space, road width, existing parking infrastructure, safety in case of an accident, terrorism, ...
What do you mean? You can just go and buy a Toyota Mirai today, and you could in 2016. The hydrogen tank is 27 gallons in volume and weighs 193 lbs, for a range of 312 miles.
How big is a Model 3 battery pack again?
How big is a Model 3 battery pack again?
I mean that your back seat passengers are sitting[1] on a giant tank of highly explosive (when combined with oxygen) gas at 10000(!!!) psi when full.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai#/media/File:Toyot...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai#/media/File:Toyot...
Your first comment was referring to "insane tank sizes". I still don't see what is insane?
You can of course fearmonger on any topic: in any gasoline car on the market today, your back seat passengers are sitting on a huge quantity of highly flammable liquid! And it is stored in just a regular plastic container!
In fact, the Mirai only has 600 MJ of energy stored in its fuel tank, while a gasoline car has around 2200 MJ! And a gasoline leak will pool around the car, while a hydrogen leak will go safely away up into the air due to buoyancy!
Yet nobody bats an eye at the gasoline car. We engineer our cars such that fuel tank rupture is extremely unlikely in even severe accidents, with redundant safety systems all around.
You can of course fearmonger on any topic: in any gasoline car on the market today, your back seat passengers are sitting on a huge quantity of highly flammable liquid! And it is stored in just a regular plastic container!
In fact, the Mirai only has 600 MJ of energy stored in its fuel tank, while a gasoline car has around 2200 MJ! And a gasoline leak will pool around the car, while a hydrogen leak will go safely away up into the air due to buoyancy!
Yet nobody bats an eye at the gasoline car. We engineer our cars such that fuel tank rupture is extremely unlikely in even severe accidents, with redundant safety systems all around.
I don’t think you appreciate the mechanical energy stored in these tanks. The chemical energy is not the problem as you pointed out. Do you know a tire rupture can kill somebody at short distance? Well these tanks are using 200 times more pressure and multiple times the volume (stored mechanical energy increases linearly with both pressure and volume).
And yet the Model 3 weighs less than the Mirai.
Did you watch the video you linked?
Sorry I actually wanted to link to this one from the same channel, thanks for noticing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
you can't keep increasing battery capacity indefinitely either, batteries become more reactive as the electrode potential increases, so there's physical limits to what batteries can (safely) deliver too.
Unfortunately a lot of the battery capacity gains of the last 15 years have resulted from loosening these tolerances for fire/explosion, I'm thinking about lithium-ion and lithium-polymer chemistry here. Lithium-iron-phosphate is an example of a safer chemistry, but it also has significantly lower energy density, it's probably still better than NiMH but not anywhere near as much as lithium-ion or polymer types.
That means that if you are looking at an iso-safety sense, the gains have been much slower than "maximum potential even if you are ok with batteries exploding when overcharged/overloaded/punctured". We have just been ramping up our tolerance for batteries of the latter type.
Unfortunately a lot of the battery capacity gains of the last 15 years have resulted from loosening these tolerances for fire/explosion, I'm thinking about lithium-ion and lithium-polymer chemistry here. Lithium-iron-phosphate is an example of a safer chemistry, but it also has significantly lower energy density, it's probably still better than NiMH but not anywhere near as much as lithium-ion or polymer types.
That means that if you are looking at an iso-safety sense, the gains have been much slower than "maximum potential even if you are ok with batteries exploding when overcharged/overloaded/punctured". We have just been ramping up our tolerance for batteries of the latter type.
There is lots of potential in terms of safety and density in solid state batteries [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_battery
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_battery
why is diversity of fueling bad in a gilded age?
Because of economies of scale, critical mass, etc.
the Biggest Gorilla Theory might be part of this..
electric makes more sense for a dying planet with hungry capitals, they can sell expensive batteries and you can rent them, what's non recyclable will end up polluting some 3rd world country, who cares
hydrogen makes no sense, it's basically free and abundant, the lazy people can't profit from it easily, therefore it'll die
hydrogen makes no sense, it's basically free and abundant, the lazy people can't profit from it easily, therefore it'll die
Same reason as it encouraged electric cars in the early days. To encourage competition to oil.
Flying cars are going to need H2!
they should use ammonia it makes much more sense than hydrogen
Thats not wasted money, unlike for example solar roads.
Because government, whether federal or state, never misses an opportunity for wasteful spending.
The author apparently doesn't know that there's a high speed train that's going to refuel at that station.
That's a really great argument for never subsidizing renewable energy or investing in electric cars or, you know, the wheel.
Research is never the optimal strategy in the short term but it pays off in the long term. Every once in a while we get a lemon, but it's the cost of doing science.
Research is never the optimal strategy in the short term but it pays off in the long term. Every once in a while we get a lemon, but it's the cost of doing science.
Every other electric car enthusiastic never questions, why did we invest 100s of millions in hydro power plants. It's all about this exists, we can use it and it's less combustion but never about, how much does it cost me personally to charge my car vs how much does it take you to fuel a car in a gas station, how long do I have to take to make my car go forward etc.
It's always about, this is the newest invention, this is an electric car, this is the good things that is said about it, but nothing about the hell you are in when it comes to charge your car or what you pay for it.
This is why I never get into a, oh you are better off getting an electric car because it is good for the environment discussion without them understanding that you are generating electricity the best way using fuels, it's so stupid, it's bad.
It's always about, this is the newest invention, this is an electric car, this is the good things that is said about it, but nothing about the hell you are in when it comes to charge your car or what you pay for it.
This is why I never get into a, oh you are better off getting an electric car because it is good for the environment discussion without them understanding that you are generating electricity the best way using fuels, it's so stupid, it's bad.
For comparison, it has cost Tesla ~$600 million to build out its global supercharger network.
https://supercharge.info/map