Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[Shrek]

The battery life is too short? Teslas at 100,000 mi still have a lot of life left in the battery.

And a battery can be swapped out at a charging station to extend range.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

It was mentioned already, and at the risk of belaboring the point, the largest issue is production. Hydrogen forms bonds extremely easily. That means there is no free terrestrial hydrogen. It's all bound up in water and hydrocarbons, which means those bonds need to be broken, and hydrogen bonds are VERY strong. The most abundant source is water, but that's also an extremely energy-intensive bond to break. The easier alternative is getting it from natural gas, but now we're back at fossil fuels. The remaining technical challenges (storage, delivery, etc.) are surmountable with time and investment, but clean production probably isn't possible without a separate abundant source of clean energy to drive it.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Just doing a quick look around I found some definite negatives for using hydrogen as fuel:

• Investment is Required. ...
• Cost of Raw Materials. ...
• Regulatory Issues. ...
• Overall Cost. ...
• Hydrogen Storage. ...
• Infrastructure. ...
• Highly Flammable.
• There's virtually no pure hydrogen on Earth because it's so reactive. Most hydrogen is made from methane [natural gas] in a process that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The reason we are still using fossil fuels to power our cars is because it's a cheaper and simpler means of energy production. One day when we are running out of cheap fossil fuels that will change. Hopefully at that time Fusion will be cheap enough and simple to use and practical for transportation.

The majority of your negatives apply to EVs as well. With the exception of the last one.

EVs have seen daramtically more funding and pulic support then hydrogen, yet hydrogen and other alt fuels make a lot more sense then pure electricity for vehicle drivetrains. Battery density is just not there yet, and isnt going to be for some time.

The battery life is too short? Teslas at 100,000 mi still have a lot of life left in the battery.

There are also teslas waiting on new battery packs after 7-8 years of use, to the tune of $20-25k. Ther eis a shop in claifornia that can do it cheaper by reconditioning the failed packs, only $3K roughly, that's still a major cost, and cant be done just anywhere. Most places int he country dont have such repairs available.

And a battery can be swapped out at a charging station to extend range.

Tesla abandoned that idea, there is nwohere in the US where this can be done. It's as realistic as swapping out an engine at the side of the road.

 

[Ferrum Master]

The battery life is too short? Teslas at 100,000 mi still have a lot of life left in the battery.

And a battery can be swapped out at a charging station to extend range.

Rolfopter.

Dig up the datasheet of the Panasonic 21700 cells and see the numbers not the marketing rubbish shoveled in our mouths.

Also for latest Tesla's batteries are glued up together like in a tank. Even the Chinese refurbers have problems splitting them and then selling again the rubbish into the gray market.

 

[tabascosauz]

VW and many other companies were very good at making their Diesel engines more efficient, because regulation forced them to.

We know what happened next. Subsidize it? No - we already swung the banhammer and it was a better idea apparently to take billion dollar fines the world over (and massive damage to brands and ICE vehicles in general) than improve something that already exists for decades. Its impossible to defend the idea that there isn't enough incentive to actually improve it. Its a massive target market and it screams for environmentally friendly solutions while 'we keep doing as we do'.

Note how the same VW is now turning the whole business 180 degrees within several years. So it was more profitable for them to stop doing what they've always done, than to improve that ICE further. If they could have made a better platform with ICE in it, they would've done so ages ago.

You give VW and other diesel powertrain makers way too much credit......the only thing anyone's been doing in the past 13 years since commonrail became a thing is cranking up the rail pressure to get more power. The first and only page in Modern Diesel for Dummies. And in the light duty segment they haven't even been doing much of that.

VW wasn't idiotic enough to continue down that road because the kind of diesels that they make don't have any future at all.

• VW doesn't make large displacement diesels for medium or heavy duty / off-highway applications, where diesel still has a legitimate place.
• "Clean diesel" is a myth. You start with a disadvantage on NOx and PM emissions. Use all the emissions tricks possible, and diesel is still behind.
• Regen is inevitable and kills efficiency to the tune of 30-50%. So not even efficiency exists anymore, emissions is diametrically opposed.
• Torque is no longer an advantage for light duty, modern gas with DI and turbos easily match diesel below 400lb-ft.
• Diesel reliability and durability no longer exists due to emissions equipment.
• Euro 7 is just around the corner. There are simply no more quick-and-easy tricks left to help diesels meet stricter standards.
• Light duty diesel basically stopped improving on power/torque/efficiency since they discovered commonrail, while gas continues to innovate every year.

And that's without mentioning their unmitigated PR disaster. If you were in their shoes, what conclusion would you come to? I'm not sure how it could be any clearer that light duty diesel has become wholly obsolete.

 

[Shrek]

Slightly off topic but the first SMART cars were diesel to meet the inflammability requirements.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I don't get the issue here.

If Toyota thinks they can make money creating Hydrogen cars, why not let them try? Alternative fuel methodologies can only be a benefit to society. If it doesn't work, its Toyota's money that's wasted. If it does work (and its more efficient than gasoline or whatever), then society benefits. Win/Win either way.

Its not like anyone in this topic actually knows if H2 cars are going to win or not. It seems unlikely right now, but I don't see any problems investing into the technology. Not all investments pay off (lol Intel Xeon Phi), but generally people learn from those failures. That's how progress is made, you gotta be brave enough to take on a few potential failures if you want to eventually make a breakthrough.

There's clearly major issues with Lithium Ion technology. The weight, the explosiveness, etc. etc. I mean, just a few weeks ago, this happened: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...details-revealed-in-texas-fire-marshal-report

Yeah, its not like Lithium-Ion is very safe either. Remember Samsung's exploding batteries? Think about what happens when a giant car battery catches fire, its not pretty. Still, we're giving the Lithium-Ion fans plenty of money and opportunity to try out their technology. I'm personally a bit bearish on Li-Ion overall but its worth "checking out".

Similarly, its worth checking out Hydrogen (or other fuels as well: Bio-diesel, E85, Redox-flow batteries, or whatever). If its got some degree of feasibility, build a bunch and lets figure out if its worthwhile later.

 

[Vayra86]

VW also got caught cheating on emissions standards

Volkswagen emissions scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes. Maybe an /S should have been added but I thought the sarcasm was obvious. Not to mention the entire post is about exactly that, too....

"VW and many other companies were very good at making their Diesel engines more efficient, because regulation forced them to.

We know what happened next"

 

[Steevo]

More efficient and cleaner are two different things; I thought the regulations were after the later.

My Honda VTEC-E gets 45 mpg and would get even more if it didn't have to run a catalytic converter.

If you burn the mixture leaner to gain mechanical and thus fuel efficiency you produce significantly more nitric oxides, which would require the use of a Urea based catylyst system to break down, causing the addition of a whole extra module, transporting 68% water to refill urea tanks making the system as a whole less efficient, meaning higher fuel prices, and more emissions overall.

Hydrogen isn't energy dense enough, and isn't available readily in its pure form.
You can't get more energy out of system than you put in, so say we use electrolysis to split water to get the hydrogen instead of breaking it off carbon bearing existing fuels, you would easily expend 10X the electrical energy equal in a battery powered car, and then there is the whole storage, transportation, and lack of energy density that makes it unfeasible.


Why have car companies built and produced "clean cars" like this?

Carbon credit tax write offs. If they can offset their tax liability or sell a few hundred of these and get the offset to sell 10,000 normal cars without paying a penalty they will as long as it makes $$$$$$$

Tesla really doesn't care about the enviroment, they care about their carbon credits https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/tes...ntal-credits-help-drive-to-profitability.html and making money.

 

[moproblems99]

There's clearly major issues with Lithium Ion technology. The weight, the explosiveness, etc. etc. I mean, just a few weeks ago, this happened: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...details-revealed-in-texas-fire-marshal-report

That's nothing.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/509...ing-cp-as-supercar-flips-and-rolls-down-hill/

The Rimec One Concept car is all-electric. Hammond's model was left destroyed and took five days to fully extinguish

Not bad for no gas.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Not bad for no gas.

Gasoline fires are literally easier to extinguish.

Hummer Erupts in Flames Just Feet From Gas Pump After Stockpiling Fuel in the Trunk

Fire crews found roughly 20 gallons of gas stored inside the vehicle, though the cause of the fire has yet to be released.

www.thedrive.com

When what looks to be a Hummer H2 went up in flames in Homosassa, Florida on Wednesday, Citrus County Fire Rescue discovered the exact scene everyone's been warned about. The vehicle's driver had just filled up multiple containers of gasoline during what looks to be a panic-buying spree but didn't make it far from the pumps before the fuel ignited. Emergency personnel had the fire contained in roughly 10 minutes after arriving and although an injury was reported, the person refused medical transport against the advice of on-scene workers.

In contrast...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/19/tesla-texas-driverless-crash/

Just before midnight Saturday, a Tesla drove swiftly around a curve, veered off the road, struck a tree and burst into flames in The Woodlands, Tex., a suburb north of Houston, police said.

It took four hours for fire officials to put out the flames.

Officials in Houston said the battery inside Tesla ignited after the collision, causing a fire that burned for four hours and required more than 30,000 gallons of water to put out.

“Our office has never experienced a crash scene like this,” Herman told KHOU. “Normally, when the fire department arrives, they have a vehicle fire under control in minutes, but this went on for hours.”

 

[ShiBDiB]

The issue isn't so much that the batteries are hard to extinguish, it's that a lot of fire departments aren't equipped correctly to do so. Water is not the most effective way to put out the fire in this situation. But right now there's not enough of a risk to warrant these departments spending their limited budget on specialized electric car firefighting equipment when water will eventually get the fire out.

If these batteries become more wide spread you'll see fire departments dedicating a truck to this particular type of fire and equipping it with something besides straight water.


Also considering this is a thread about hydrogen, everything I read is more the lack of infrastructure makes them a hard sell. Electric is much more easily implemented in even the most remote places.

 

[80251]

Compressed H gas certainly made for an explosive situation w/the Hindenburg. What could H gas compressed considerably more do if it began leaking? Or if the tank containing the H gas were to be crushed in a car accident and rupture?

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Compressed H gas certainly made for an explosive situation w/the Hindenburg. What could H gas compressed considerably more do if it began leaking? Or if the tank containing the H gas were to be crushed in a car accident and rupture?

The H2 on the Hindenburg was not compressed. It couldn't have flown if it was.

 

[Fourstaff]

I think Hydrogen is stuck in a bad position: on one hand the costs needed to build the infrastructure costs a lot of money, on the other hand electric is fast providing enough range for 90% of the users. Maybe it will develop a niche on its own, but I think only planes have a chance of using them as the primary fuel of choice.

 

[Caring1]

The issue isn't so much that the batteries are hard to extinguish, it's that a lot of fire departments aren't equipped correctly to do so. Water is not the most effective way to put out the fire in this situation. But right now there's not enough of a risk to warrant these departments spending their limited budget on specialized electric car firefighting equipment when water will eventually get the fire out.

In fact fire fighting specialists are warned NOT to use water on Lithium fires due to the explosive effect it can have, much the same as water on a Magnesium fire, it flares up even more.

 

[moproblems99]

Yes. Maybe an /S should have been added but I thought the sarcasm was obvious. Not to mention the entire post is about exactly that, too....

"VW and many other companies were very good at making their Diesel engines more efficient, because regulation forced them to.

We know what happened next"

Also, I will be the first to admit I didn't see that. Apologies sir. I still want a diesel so I can have an excuse for my french fry addiction.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I think Hydrogen is stuck in a bad position: on one hand the costs needed to build the infrastructure costs a lot of money, on the other hand electric is fast providing enough range for 90% of the users. Maybe it will develop a niche on its own, but I think only planes have a chance of using them as the primary fuel of choice.

Electric is unlikely to ever make sense in fully loaded semis.

I think empty trailers or lightweight trailers are good for electric. But as soon as you put rolling resistance (mainly due to weight deforming the wheels, increasing friction), electric loses an outstanding amount of range.

ICE, diesel in particular, has advantages in that scenario. Hydrogen also has superior range under load compared to electric (but it seems really hard to displace diesel in the truck scenario regardless)

Electric range really suffers severely with rolling resistance (aka weight), gravity / hills, and air resistance (highway speeds). There seems to be a massive hole for a fuel of tomorrow for the trucking industry. I think hydrogen makes a lot of sense for truckers.

 

[Space Lynx]

I think Hydrogen is stuck in a bad position: on one hand the costs needed to build the infrastructure costs a lot of money, on the other hand electric is fast providing enough range for 90% of the users. Maybe it will develop a niche on its own, but I think only planes have a chance of using them as the primary fuel of choice.

I was reading about a new breakthrough in a new kind of lithium battery just three days ago, its way better than lithion-ion, i forget what kind it is, but its lithium something just not ion, but it seems like this time its not just a hyperbole breakthrough but a legit will be scaled breakthrough.

so maybe something like that or this itself, will solve all the problems anyway mostly.

 

[thesmokingman]

In contrast...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/19/tesla-texas-driverless-crash/

That's really bad linking. If you looked into that texas incident, the reporting is all wrong not to mention the cops just flat out making up facts about it being driverless.

Tesla Fire in Texas Crash Was Not How It Was Reported, Says Fire Chief

Persistent news reports that the 2019 Model S burned for hours and stymied fire officials are wrong, he says.

www.caranddriver.com

The initial fire was quickly put out, he said, but the vehicle smoldered and continued to ignite after that, which is why firefighters used a small-diameter hose to keep water running onto the area, to deal with any small flames that started. Pine sap from the trees also caused some flare-ups, Buck said. The bottom of the car, where the battery pack is located, was in contact with the ground, which made it more difficult to get water where it needed to go. When the firefighters finally managed to raise the car, they were also able to stop the chain reaction.

I didn't see much mention of big oil and its future rotation to dirty hydrogen. If they stop making gas, they gotta make something instead... right?

 

[80251]

The H2 on the Hindenburg was not compressed. It couldn't have flown if it was.

The gas bladders in the Hindenburg were inflated with H, the mere fact of they're inflating the bladders would result in some compression wouldn't it?

 

[R-T-B]

The gas bladders in the Hindenburg were inflated with H, the mere fact of they're inflating the bladders would result in some compression wouldn't it?

I mean... gas expands to fit/fill an empty container by definition. But the only thing really compressing it is the atmospheric pressure against the bladder walls, so in general terminology, no, they were not "compressed."

 

[The red spirit]

Overall less efficient than electricity and is almost sidegrade to existing petrol, diesel or lpg. This video explains everything:

It would be a better idea to switch to ethanol before going full electric, as it burns on already existing engines and burns cleaner. It doesn't burn in all cars and is still somewhat sidegrade to typical fuels, but at least something would be done.

 

[80251]

I mean... gas expands to fit/fill an empty container by definition. But the only thing really compressing it is the atmospheric pressure against the bladder walls, so in general terminology, no, they were not "compressed."

Wouldn't the walls of the container apply pressure? Because if they didn't the H gas would just continue expanding. I'd say the walls of the containing bladder are applying force to the H gas contained because H gas has a much lighter molecular weight than air. Then of course that force is, in turn, being applied to the dirgible itself through the webbing attached to each gas bladder. The partial pressures of the component gases of air and H are not the same either.

 

[Caring1]

Wouldn't the walls of the container apply pressure? Because if they didn't the H gas would just continue expanding. I'd say the walls of the containing bladder are applying force to the H gas contained because H gas has a much lighter molecular weight than air. Then of course that force is, in turn, being applied to the dirgible itself through the webbing attached to each gas bladder. The partial pressures of the component gases of air and H are not the same either.

You're arguing an invalid point.
The hindenburg's fuel was not pressurized.