Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[dragontamer5788]

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

Given the amount of misinformation on Youtube, Documentaries, and overall the visual medium... I'd rather not watch a video.

If you have a legitimate point to make, you can find it in the written form of communication. Which is both easier to verify and easier to digest. There's still misinformation in blogs / articles / newspapers / whatever, but its much easier to evolve our ideas in the written form.

 

[Sybaris_Caesar]

1) Creating H₂ is energy-intensive process. Plus even storing and transit is dangerous. I think you'd need heavy investment, the likes of gas pipelines to properly transport it.
2) Creating battery-based products is quite easier I presume. There's electric car start-ups coming out every few week or so. And the basic layout is quite simple. You have battery bay and motors spinning the wheels. That's why you can make electric cars even at home.
3) People like the instant torque. It'd be interesting in the future how or if Toyota and other mainstream carmakers try to make their budget electric cars as slow as possible.
4) There is a consensus that big rigs might be the home of H₂ powertrain since battery-electric range is so-so. But I think it's gonna be an uphill fight. It can be tackled by smart transit planning (i.e. short trips instead of long ones) and the one thing big rigs need in abundance is torque, which the electric motors have in spades.

 

[mb194dc]

Looks like hydrogen fuel cell cars are still being developed, by BMW and others. It's just very difficult and expensive. Plus all the hype is with electric. So they haven't been abandoned.

From a practical and cost perspective both are very poor relative to good old fashioned gasoline.

Importantly countries simply don't have the electricity generation infrastructure in terms of charging points, generation, load balancing and more for a very significant take up of electric cars as it stands.

My base case would be the likely incoming economic crisis puts EV and hydrogen on the back burner due to the costs. My guess is ultimately some other technology comes along that is as practical as gasoline but without the emissions. Could take decades or more though. A crisis might speed that up though.

 

[freeagent]

This is not something I have read about lately, thanks for the interesting read.

 

[dragontamer5788]

1) Creating H₂ is energy-intensive process. Plus even storing and transit is dangerous. I think you'd need heavy investment, the likes of gas pipelines to properly transport it.
2) Creating battery-based products is quite easier I presume. There's electric car start-ups coming out every few week or so. And the basic layout is quite simple. You have battery bay and motors spinning the wheels. That's why you can make electric cars even at home.
3) People like the instant torque. It'd be interesting in the future how or if Toyota and other mainstream carmakers try to make their budget electric cars as slow as possible.
4) There is a consensus that big rigs might be the home of H₂ powertrain since battery-electric range is so-so. But I think it's gonna be an uphill fight. It can be tackled by smart transit planning (i.e. short trips instead of long ones) and the one thing big rigs need in abundance is torque, which the electric motors have in spades.

1. Lithium Ion is extremely dangerous, and is only held "safely" thanks to a myriad of conservative computer chip based monitoring systems. Every consumer Li-ion battery has a BMS (battery management system), carefully reading the voltage and current into/out of the battery. This BMS is somewhat cheaper on a large-scale battery pack (since you can have maybe 50 to 400 cells monitored at a time by one chip), but its still an ad-hoc / modeling process.

2. Lithium-Ion is somewhat unique as a source of fire. It is simultaneously a "source of ignition" (the electricity itself stored chemically), as well as a combustable material (the electrolyte is currently combustable). Furthermore, the oxydizer is inside the battery pack already. This results in a fire that does NOT need external oxygen to continue, as well as fires that can start "spontaneously" (should the battery pack fail. See Samsung)

3. Lithium-Ion cells require cobalt right now, a material that's only being mined manually in Africa, often by children, in regions controlled by warlords. The amount of rare-earth metals (or other unfavorable raw materials) needed in Hydrogen Fuel cells is much lower. ICE cars are the best from a mass production / supply chain perspective: the engine is made out of simple Steel, a highly abundant material that can be manufactured anywhere in the world. (Iron mines are cheap and plentiful).

Ultimately, I think hybrid-ICE makes the most sense. I admit that I'm highly ignorant of Hydrogen Fuel Cells: I don't really know how they work, but I find it unlikely that Hydrogen Fuel Cells are as hard to make as Lithium-Ion. Furthermore: Hydrogen Fuel externalizes the charging / discharging process. So I feel like the issues with "putting ignition sources next to flamable materials" is avoided (a current issue with Li-Ion designs).

 

[80251]

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

Fuel? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

[Ruru]

I don't know anything about cars, mut maybe the technology just wasn't ready yet?

 

[R-T-B]

Fuel? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

It was certainly combusted at one point.

I mean, re your points, you aren't wrong but in conventional speak that's not enough pressure to be considered "pressurized."

 

[The red spirit]

Given the amount of misinformation on Youtube, Documentaries, and overall the visual medium... I'd rather not watch a video.

If you have a legitimate point to make, you can find it in the written form of communication. Which is both easier to verify and easier to digest. There's still misinformation in blogs / articles / newspapers / whatever, but its much easier to evolve our ideas in the written form.

Super short version:
hydrogen itself isn't useful, you need to convert it to electricity first for it to be useful and hydrogen fuel manufacturing is just as bad as typical petrol/diesel if not worse. Making hydrogen pointless in terms of pollution.

 

[Space Lynx]

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.

thank you for posting that video, that did help, and it was a recent vid, so very interesting. this topic is not just about if it isn't possible though, its about inquiring if maybe there are things that couple improve the possibilities of it, I just thought it was neat to discuss it was all.

also Ethanol engines tend to get clogged a lot, especially if you life in a winter climate and your ethanol sits in the tank for a lengthy period of time... it ruins entire tanks. so buyer beware, they don't tell you that though at the dealership.

 

[dragontamer5788]

hydrogen fuel manufacturing is just as bad as typical petrol/diesel if not worse

We can make hydrogen out of water + electricity with a simple school-kid's experiment. (Saltwater + electric current == H2 + O2). The fact that we decide to make H2 out of petroleum products is kind of a bonus: there's easier ways to make H2 if we so choose.

The fact remains: H2 can be produced out of any body of saltwater with a 1.23V potential. The future of H2 production is electric, if we so choose.

hydrogen itself isn't useful, you need to convert it to electricity first for it to be useful

There are plenty of H2 combustion engine concepts that have been demo'd. The H2 fuel cell is more efficient, so we'll probably use fuel cells. But there's actually a myriad of designs that H2 can be used in.

 

[The red spirit]

We can make hydrogen out of water + electricity with a simple school-kid's experiment. (Saltwater + electric current == H2 + O2). The fact that we decide to make H2 out of petroleum products is kind of a bonus: there's easier ways to make H2 if we so choose.

The fact remains: H2 can be produced out of any body of saltwater with a 1.23V potential. The future of H2 production is electric, if we so choose.



There are plenty of H2 combustion engine concepts that have been demo'd. The H2 fuel cell is more efficient, so we'll probably use fuel cells. But there's actually a myriad of designs that H2 can be used in.

At that point it's salt doing the job hardly water itself.

I will believe efficiency when I will see it. Steam engines are also water engines, why not heat up water with some black object and make it run without electricity?

 

[dragontamer5788]

At that point it's salt doing the job hardly water itself.

You know that our saltwater reserves (aka: oceans) is more common than our freshwater / drinking water reserves, right?

The fact that Electrolysis of Water works on saltwater is a massive advantage for the sustainability of the solution. EDIT: There's a bit of a corrosion problem of course. Saltwater isn't very good on our tools. But electrolysis of ocean water is certainly within the realm of possibility.

 

[Hemmingstamp]

Hydrogen's real problem....Not enough filling stations according to James May.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tNutYL0h2M

 

[Space Lynx]

Ethanol has another problem, there simply isn't enough good top soil left to keep using it for fuel. Within 30-50 years it's expected we won't have enough quality level top soil for current crops we eat. So I'm not sure we should be using that precious nitrogen soaked soil for non-food.

 

[Hemmingstamp]

Ethanol has another problem, there simply isn't enough good top soil left to keep using it for fuel. Within 30-50 years it's expected we won't have enough quality level top soil for current crops we eat. So I'm not sure we should be using that precious nitrogen soaked soil for non-food.

Back to the bicycle it is then. I'm not joking. I witnessed cycle lanes being put in place, speeds reduced, and roads narrowed when Covid was all over the headlines last year.

 

[tabascosauz]

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.

E85 is great on power but poor efficiency, worst of all it's highly corrosive to fuel pumps/lines.

There's a lot of talk about "all cars can run on ethanol", but if that were the case, E85 certification and fuel systems hardening wouldn't be necessary. The only people who actually use E85 are those who live a stone's throw away from a E85 gas station, people going to a race, and people testing out a new E85 tune on the dyno.

Then there's the whole debate about food vs. fuel and whether ethanol is actually tangibly better for the environment.

Given the amount of misinformation on Youtube, Documentaries, and overall the visual medium... I'd rather not watch a video.

If you have a legitimate point to make, you can find it in the written form of communication. Which is both easier to verify and easier to digest. There's still misinformation in blogs / articles / newspapers / whatever, but its much easier to evolve our ideas in the written form.

Donut definitely makes "for dummies" videos, but why not actually watch it before you write it off as being "just another misinformed Youtube video"? Pause on one of the overview frames and you'll pretty much get the gist of the video anyways.

TransLink (not to be confused with Translink in Ireland) used to operate a significant number of fuel cell buses in their fleet, coinciding with PR purposes duing the 2010 Olympics. All have since disappeared, while the other alternative fueled buses have not only lived on but are thriving (CNG, trolley electric, diesel-hybrid). They blamed it on high maintenance costs, and from what I can see there's not much reason to doubt that.

Notably, the vast majority of the articulated fleet handling the "B-lines" (basically the core commute lines) are diesel-electric now. The downtown core is served by a lot of trolleys, the smaller buses in the Vancouver region are mostly diesel, and once you venture out into the Fraser Valley you see more CNGs.

TransLink seems to believe that electric is the future, which makes sense as buses never require more than 250km range anyways, unlike semis; they've been sampling and testing various electric buses since about 2016. But it's a good demonstration of other factors preventing the adopting of H2 fuel cell in heavier vehicles. The tech is there and has been for a long time, but it doesn't always make for financially viable.

And H2 fuel cell buses don't necessarily have any more of an infrastructure burden than EV buses do. Yes, real estate is a bit of a luxury at a number of TransLink's bases, but to sustain their new LFSe buses they're going to have to build a shit ton of chargers all over the place.

Maybe semis will see a better case for H2 fuel cells, since they actually care about the range loss from EV and the performance loss from CNG. But that probably requires all the EV semis to flop spectacularly at the same time.

 

[Space Lynx]

Back to the bicycle it is then. I'm not joking. I witnessed cycle lanes being put in place, speeds reduced, and roads narrowed when Covid was all over the headlines last year.

let's just hope lithium battery tech truly does advance. then we can all do ebikes and cheap electric cars that have 15 year battery life... that's the dream i think, we just need to increase the longevity of battery tech. current charge cycles are just too swift/limited for long term sustainability.

 

[Hemmingstamp]

let's just hope lithium battery tech truly does advance. then we can all do ebikes and cheap electric cars that have 15 year battery life... that's the dream i think, we just need to increase the longevity of battery tech. current charge cycles are just too swift/limited for long term sustainability.

I think they will but with that comes the energy issue. Where is it coming from since most of the infastructure across the Western world hasn't had an overhaul in decades. We had Electric scooters in 1916, just go and search, but I'm going to assume the oil industry was favoured over it at the time. Opportunities missed....

 

[dragontamer5788]

let's just hope lithium battery tech truly does advance. then we can all do ebikes and cheap electric cars that have 15 year battery life... that's the dream i think, we just need to increase the longevity of battery tech. current charge cycles are just too swift/limited for long term sustainability.

Lithium batteries are already great (and widespread) in bicycles.

Electric cars: I'm not convinced that they're actually a net-benefit yet. The weight requirements and the huge amount of resources (mining from unsavory sources protected by literal Warlords) means that large-scale use of Li-ion in electric cars is a bit of a moral issue. The additional weight of electric cars (often 1000lbs more than a traditional car) seems to grossly hamper the technology compared to PHEVs.

Given all of the weight issues and manufacturing problems associated with the current crop of electric, I'm interested in seeing alternatives still. Redox flow batteries would probably be great if they ever got working: a "liquid battery" which you can cycle into-and-out of cars, making battery swaps much easier. You know, lots of stuff is possible if we consider the current research projects of the world. I'm liking Li-Ion as a general PHEV solution (keeping battery packs small at 20-miles or 50-miles largely solves the mass-production issues in obtaining those rare-earth metals).

Li-Ion is also too heavy to ever be used on Aircraft in a serious manner. H2 fuel cells are probably our best bet at "electrifying" our aircraft.

 

[The red spirit]

I think they will but with that comes the energy issue. Where is it coming from since most of the infastructure across the Western world hasn't had an overhaul in decades. We had Electric scooters in 1916, just go and search, but I'm going to assume the oil industry was favoured over it at the time. Opportunities missed....

Not really an oil industry as just simple convenience of petrol.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

I think they will but with that comes the energy issue. Where is it coming from since most of the infastructure across the Western world hasn't had an overhaul in decades. We had Electric scooters in 1916, just go and search, but I'm going to assume the oil industry was favoured over it at the time. Opportunities missed....

Electric back then had a couple of big challenges: density and delivery. Electric cars beat internal combustion out of the gate, helped along by being simpler to design and construct, plus the reliability advantage that comes with simplicity. But the batteries had to be huge and heavy, and they didn't hold enough juice to go very far. Once IC beat its reliability and infrastructure issues, electric never really stood a chance.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Donut definitely makes "for dummies" videos, but why not actually watch it before you write it off as being "just another misinformed Youtube video"? Pause on one of the overview frames and you'll pretty much get the gist of the video anyways.

Because forcing people in a text-based forum to watch a 16-minute video to know what you're talking about is a bit of a hurdle to your argument. If there was something worthwhile to say, I think you'd be able to say it with your own words (or maybe find an article to copy/paste your point from).

I've "omni-slashed" youtube videos before and have provided counter-points with references. But... its really not worth the effort IMO. Switching between text-based and video-based arguments is a massive pain in the ass.

I do appreciate your discussion points on the 2010 Olympics.

 

[Totally]

The more I look at what Toyota has done (and is doing) with a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine even... I just don't get it. I know storage costs of hydrogen are expensive, but if it were scaled up, wouldn't the cost dramatically lower?

No, will always remain expensive until a method refine it that isn't energy negative is developed. To make hydrogen fuel we're spending 1.x units of fuel to make 1 unit of hydrogen fuel, that even before considering the energy cost from when the hydrogen is refined to when it is in your tank. It is never going to be cheaper than alternatives.

The Boring Company could dig giant underground storage facilities (its cold as crap if you dig far enough down)... and store the tanks of hydrogen there, and a driver will simply drive down a ramp, get the hydrogen tank replaced, and drive off.

I feel like clean energy with no messy batteries even... is staring us right in the face, why is Toyota taking a risk on it if there is no possible future for it? I don't get it. Someone educate me.

(reason I bring this up is because I was just reading recently how 5% of all electric car batteries are recycled, who knows what happens to rest... not to mention they are not good to begin with...)

If all world governments got on board and were like ok all... we highly miscalculated climate change, things need to change within 5 years... all mass production changed to this hydrogen idea... would it be impossible? Or would it scale?

The reason Toyota are still working FC vehicles is because they are behind on the battery front and with the current strict fuel economy standards regulation that are set to be tightened even further in 2030, it's much cheaper to do this as a stop gap than be raked raked over the coals.

CO₂ emission performance standards for cars and vans

Passenger cars and vans ('light commercial vehicles') are respectively responsible for around 12% and 2.5% of total EU emissions of carbon...

ec.europa.eu

 

[Hemmingstamp]

Electric back then had a couple of big challenges: density and delivery. Electric cars beat internal combustion out of the gate, helped along by being simpler to design and construct, plus the reliability advantage that comes with simplicity. But the batteries had to be huge and heavy, and they didn't hold enough juice to go very far. Once IC beat its reliability and infrastructure issues, electric never really stood a chance.

Can't argue with that. Electric science aside...Back gold came first because the economy depended on it and it was easier to produce.

Not really an oil industry as just simple convenience of petrol.

True, very true.