• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Good, hydrogen cars shouldn’t be a thing in the first place, hydrogen as fuel should only be used for heavy transport that fuels at the location where the hydrogen is produced.

    • Hypx@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      Nearly all cars will switch to hydrogen (or e-fuels). Using giant batteries to power cars is insanity. If you want to power cars directly with electricity, use mass transit systems with overhead powerlines.

      • Moonrise2473OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 days ago

        hydrogen cars are electricity cars with extra steps, the gas isn’t burned but converted to electricity in a fuel cell to recharge a tiny battery

        the monetary and environmental cost of a 50kwh battery (people shouldn’t want/need SUVs with 200 kwh batteries) is quickly offset when in order to make hydrogen you have to reform methane and deliver it all over the country via trucks

      • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        No they won’t, because you will soon be able to get a 1000km charge BEV and charge it at home. Hydrogen is a joke and this is like my tenth response to you on this subject which makes me think you’re here astroturfing for big oil. Every day hydrogen becomes a worse and worse alternative for the true winner.

        • Hypx@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          23 days ago

          You are imagining BEVs with ever larger and ever less cost effective batteries.

          The problem is that the BEV was never intended to replace all cars. To even push this idea just means extremely expensive and non-environmental friendly batteries. You are just wasting your time on pushing greenwashing.

          In reality, hydrogen is the only possible solution for most of transportation. Electricity should be reserved for directly electrified vehicles like trains or trolleybuses. Batteries powered vehicles only happened due to massive subsidies. It will revert back into a tiny niche or disappear entirely once those subsidies go away.

          • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            23 days ago

            Apparently you missed the news of Samsung shipping their first solid state batteries that have 600 miles of range. The tech is still accelerating. You think we should instead build and maintain an entire hydrogen distribution network, similar to the gas stations of today, when I can have my BEV plug into my solar panels and give me free power at home? It’s way easier to scale microdistribution and also less harmful than leaking unburned hydrogen.

            • Hypx@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              23 days ago

              This sounds like more magic batteries from the future rhetoric. An endless loop of fantasy ideas that never materializes into something usable. Right off the bat, you suspect it will be expensive to be viable for BEVs: https://www.goldenstatemint.com/blog/samsungs-silver-solid-state-battery-technology-1-kilogram-of-silver-per-car/

              Note that you can build an entire energy storage system using hydrogen. People are simply refusing to accept that this is effectively a type of battery. People have a misplaced loyalty to existing technology, even though they would’ve laughed at its limitations just 15 years ago.

              • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                23 days ago

                You need a hydrogen distribution system! Stations, pipelines, everything! Insane amounts of infrastructure!

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        25 days ago

        Wrong

        Hydrogen production and transportation doesn’t make sense unless it’s done locally (ex: produce it at a port, transport it to fuel the ships stationed at the port). Hydrogen is pretty much impossible to transport long distance without wasting so much energy that it doesn’t make sense to do it in the first place, then think about how hard it is for us to prevent leaks of petrol of all things, now think about the leaks if we’re transporting hydrogen instead.

        • Hypx@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          25 days ago

          You have inverted reality here. It is much easier to transport hydrogen long distances versus electricity. Pipelines are cheaper than HVDC cables. You can actually ship hydrogen across oceans if necessary. It is electricity that has to be made locally, but hydrogen can made anywhere it is cost effective.

          • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            25 days ago

            Hydrogen gas will leak though steel since the molecule is so small while making it brittle and incapable of handling pressure through hydrogen entitlement. It’s not trivial to ship. Power lines are cheap and transport extremely high power density.

            • Hypx@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              25 days ago

              Only for certain types of steel. And there are many materials that are impermeable to hydrogen. This is mostly a marketing argument rather than one based on fact. Pipelines are far cheaper and send far more energy than high voltage wires.

              • Laborer3652@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                24 days ago

                So why not send hydrogen from a production location to (essentially) an electrical sub-station where it can generate power that can be used to charge electric vehicles. Why does a gas that burns invisibly need to be involved in transportation?

                • Hypx@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  23 days ago

                  That’s just an indirect way of power a car via hydrogen. Sure, it can work. But it just implies that having cars directly powered by hydrogen are the better idea.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            25 days ago

            We transport electricity over thousands of kilometers without any hiccups, hydrogen leaks through every-fucking-thing.

            • Hypx@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              25 days ago

              We do not send much electricity over that amount of distance. More than several hundred km, and most conventional wires are cannot send much power through them. For thousands of km, we have to use HVDC, but that is very expensive. In reality, we tend to switch to pipelines instead of wires for long distance energy transfers.

              Put it this way, if wires could really send power thousands of km without any hiccups, then why do natural gas pipelines exist in quantity? After all, most of them are just delivering natural gas to a gas turbine to make power. So why not put all the gas turbines in one area, and use wires instead? Because in reality, pipelines are much better at moving energy than wires over long distances.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                25 days ago

                Wow, you truly are misinformed…

                Quebec’s main line is over 1000km long, extending from northern Quebec all the way to Montreal, from the 54th parallel to the 45th it goes through the tundra and it just works! The longest one in the world is 2500km long.

                You know what’s expensive? Transporting a gas that leaks through solids. Current hydrogen production is done in ways that release more emissions than burning burning coal for heating for fuck’s sake! Green hydrogen? You’re taking electricity to produce hydrogen to produce electricity to move cars… Sooooo skip the middle part and use electricity to move cars? Right?

                • Hypx@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  25 days ago

                  Which is about the upper limit of a reasonable powerline. I’m pretty sure they had to resort to HVDC to get it that long. Note that I did not say it was impossible, only impractical. You lose a lot of energy when it gets very long.

                  I also know that Quebec is making hydrogen with their hydropower. Clearly, they know something you don’t.

                  Pipelines go for thousands of km too, and send far more energy with smaller losses than wires. This is due to physics: A pipe is a hollow tube and scales up better the larger the diameter of the tube. Wires do not scale up as well.

                  A battery car does not “skip the middle part.” It relies on a huge and resource intensive battery to store energy. This is electrochemical energy storage, and works the same way as how a hydrogen car stores energy. As a result, there is no fundamental advantage to using a battery. As costs comes down and as fuel cell technology advances, it is likely that there will be zero or next to zero efficiency advantage for the battery car.