Hydrogen - what do you guys think?

[chardog]

I think obviously we are talking about green hydrogen here.

hard to tell because hydrogen is hydrogen. The only way to create the element is via green method is water electrolysis.

it is extremely inefficient, something like 40% of energy is lost in the creation of said energy. On top of that, another massive waste in energy is getting those molecules into storage. On top of that, converting fuel cell into electric is another highly wasteful transfer of energy.

it is an exercise in futility. The majority of hydrogen that is currently derived is from fossile fuels.

 

[Joe_Armstrong]

I don't think it's wise to release mini hydrogen tanks in cars into the population,
with the religion of peace guys.

 

[Cid]

If we're talking excess wind/solar there's probably 50 odd "batteries" with various strengths and weaknesses in various stages of use/production/research/testing etc.

Large scale excess will probably employ 2-4 different types of "batteries" per site that can cover the weaknesses of each other.

I used quotations because large scale energy storage the "batteries" can differ from what people generally think of i.e pumped hydro, compressed air etc.

 

[Cid]

The production of lithium batteries is actually not all that clean an operation. Specifically the mining of lithium and the global logistics of transporting these raw materials. Then when the battery is is kicked you still have this big box of chemicals welded into the body of a vehicle you have to figure out how to dispose of. In many cases that means disposing of the entire vehicle even if it would otherwise have a usable life. Then you still have the input of electricity to charge the batteries.

If we went with hydrogen we would have to scale up local production and compression facilities. But once that's done your inputs are electricity and water, both of which you have and can produce cleanly locally. Charging batteries will use less electricity but I still think electricity plus water is easier than electricity plus lithium. Since it's being produced locally it can be made "just in time" and scaled to market conditions relatively easily, and since it won't be in the bottle long you won't lose the same volume you would in long distance transportation or long-term storage.

A compressed gas tank is inexpensive to manufacture can be swapped out for another tank of approximately equal value in seconds. They take the empty tank they give you a full tank and you're back on the road. The exhaust is warm air and moisture, and when a compressed tank has reached the end of its serviceable life it's as simple as recycling scrap steel to dispose of it.

TLDR: The raw materials are simpler, cleaner, more abundant, and cheaper. Refueling is faster. End of life/recycling is much simpler, quicker, cleaner, and cheaper.

Have to disagree with a lot of this.

Batteries are extremely recycle friendly in particularly car battery recycling is quite a profitable industry.

Better yet they can be re-used and then recycled. Moving heavy ass cars isn't easy so they're obsolete for their primary role early in their potential life. IIRC correctly they're replaced at 70% capacity.

The second life potential then kicks in and they can be used in different areas. These batteries might end up running for another couple of decades in a secondary role before they're recycled.

2-3 decades is a long time.


Battery cars have such a massive first mover advantage it's really hard to see them not resolving their obstacles substantially faster than hydrogen can resolve theirs.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

In which case it would take around 500 nuclear generating plants to supply all the electricity needed to make the hydrogen that's required for running the US vehicle fleet. The US currently has about 55 nuke plants.

And how much solar capacity do these 450 plants translate into?

 

[fungi]

I'm predicting it will be a big thing but only really in Italy. Does anyone want to invest in my new hydrogen power company for the Italian market? It's called Hydrogenitalia.

The US has a bigger opportunity called "Wet Pussy".
Cardi B stars in their global ad campaign "WAP".

 

[jx820]

Have to disagree with a lot of this.

Batteries are extremely recycle friendly in particularly car battery recycling is quite a profitable industry.

Better yet they can be re-used and then recycled. Moving heavy ass cars isn't easy so they're obsolete for their primary role early in their potential life. IIRC correctly they're replaced at 70% capacity.

The second life potential then kicks in and they can be used in different areas. These batteries might end up running for another couple of decades in a secondary role before they're recycled.

2-3 decades is a long time.


Battery cars have such a massive first mover advantage it's really hard to see them not resolving their obstacles substantially faster than hydrogen can resolve theirs.

In regards to the first mover advantage I agree. We will be moving to electric vehicles in large part. And most likely we will not be moving to hydrogen.

I was mostly speaking about what is a better solution.

 

[aerius]

And how much solar capacity do these 450 plants translate into?

A bit under 1000 GW. Which is pretty close to the full generating capacity of the entire US power grid.

 

[jefferz]

Dangerous?