Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[silentbogo]

Just so happened, one of my favorite youtubers posted some stuff for his new project a couple of weeks ago.

Gotta be very interesting to see how this is going to end up. I loved all of his previous DIY turbine projects and all of the fun gimmicky stuff, but this is the whole another level.

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.

While the tech is in its infancy, it doesn't matter that much. Even for a foreseeable decade or so you can either use cheap excess power from conventional power plants, or partly offset it by renewables to generate hydrogen. E.g. same approach that's been promised for today's EVs, e.g. using wasted or cheap power to do at least something useful, like satisfy the needs of early adopters.

The biggest issue with FCs is the complexity/price of hydrogen fuel cells. ATM just a naked 100kW cell costs x10 more than an equivalent automotive lithium battery, and the fuel cost is almost . And while the newer stuff looks good on paper with ~100kg weight at 100-150kW and more compact design, it's gonna get bigger and heavier once you start adding up stuff like uber-heavy hydrogen tank(~50-100kg depending on size), separate big-ass active cooling loop(FC runs very-very hot and requires tons of cooling for consistent operation), pressure reductors, lots of thermal insulation, etc. etc. etc.
It's good for stationary installations, like an emergency power backup (instead of conventional generators), or for hybrid transport (where it's used alongside lithium battery), but on it's own - not so much.
There are some cool cutting-edge compact FCs designed specifically for transport (AIO enclosure w/ integrated water loop and pressure regulators), but those are still a bit far from mass-production.
Tank issues are also in the process of being resolved. Carbon sponge went nowhere, but there are some new developments in MOF-based mesh: same approach but cheaper to produce.
Methane fuel cells can also be used as a transitional measure. It's not carbon-neutral, but much cleaner comparing to internal combustion and can greatly benefit from existing infrastructure. LPG fuel cells are also on the rise, and these can be filled up basically at your nearest gas station (at least in EU and CIS). Power output is much lower, but the convenience factor is the highest of them all.

Hydrogen heated homes under development in the UK.

U.K. Setting Its Sights Too Low for Hydrogen Heating in Homes

The U.K. should move faster to replace gas with hydrogen in domestic heating, as the country’s pipes will be ready to make the switch in just two years, according to the head of a pilot project.

www.bloomberg.com

Hydrogen heating campaign launches to promote benefits for UK homes

A hydrogen heating campaign is underway as the UK energy sector strives to make households aware of hydrogen's home heating benefits

www.homebuilding.co.uk

At first glance I thought it was gonna be something interesting like BloomBox, but that... That makes little to no sense.... especially after contemplating on the fact that at the endpoint it's not pure H2, but essentially a "watered-down" methane. Just remove the middle man, and it's already much better. EVs are a bit different in this aspect, cause there is an issue of refueling time (faster and cheaper to pump tankfull of H2 than wait several hours near the charging station). For homes and mass consumption - stupid. Just provide incentives for electric heating and call it a day. Even our less than stable govt. managed to put together set of incentives to get people off natural gas(mostly due to shortages and rising prices). Right now according to official stats over 30% of houses have electric heating, and realistically it's a lot more, since the vast majority is moving to hybrid setups (electric heating, but gas-powered boilers and stoves) as a temporary solution on the way to full electric.

if batteries don't advance fast enough I could see hydrogen taking over with the growth of nuclear power.

Assuming there'll be any growth at all. After Fukushima incident most governments got an excuse to cancel or indefinitely delay new powerplant constructions (though in most cases it was a rising cost that killed it). The only countries making strides are China, India, and Turkey. Even in US and Russia everything is suspended, and very few reactors that are being built are only there for maintaining some resemblance of balance and offset a dozen closed reactors, while the total generation and nuclear share of it has remained stagnant for over 20 years.
France - the poster-child for nuclear power - is in the process of downsizing even more. Now they have a plan to reduce nuclear to under 50% by 2025 from current 70% and peak ~80%, which is probably going to happen a lot sooner due to old age.

Lockheed Martin said about 7 years ago that they would have a fusion reactor within 10 years. I haven't seen anything more on the progress but fusion is definitely the future of electricity generation if they can pull it off.

Lockheed says it'll make a truck-sized fusion reactor within 10 years

Lockheed Martin, the US government's largest contractor, says it has made a technological breakthrough in nuclear fusion power. The breakthrough will apparently allow Lockheed to build a 100-megawatt 'compact fusion reactor' (CFR) that can fit on the back of a truck within 10 years. If Lockheed...

www.extremetech.com

I remember that one. Apparently they are still actively working on it, but now it's not much of a CFR, but more of a BFR and each iteration it only gets bigger and bigger.

 

[KSA2030]

Hi,

So this post got my attention and i though someone might be interested to see there are on going research and project for hydrogen. Saudi Arabia already shipped a hydrogen to japan.

The Saudi Move into Hydrogen: A Paradigm Shift - KAPSARC

Saudi Arabia is moving ahead with its diversification plan, Saudi Vision 2030, by adopting hydrogen. The Kingdom is keen to enable the circular carbon economy (CCE) by producing and utilizing clean hydrogen. On September 27, Saudi Aramco announced its first shipment of hydrogen from Saudi Arabia...

www.kapsarc.org

and this is the project if you are interested to read about it

Saudi Arabia and the Hydrogen Economy: Domestic Developments and International Opportunities - KAPSARC

www.kapsarc.org

 

[defaultluser]

This is why we abandoned Hydrogen so quickly - because of inefficiencies in the drive train, you get much more wasted energy.

Media

On the media page of the Volkswagen Group you will find the latest news and contacts of our brands and companies, dates and publications.

www.volkswagenag.com

And even though Fuel cells have been around for 60 years, they still add an appreciable cost to every Hydrogen vehicle (they still haven't found a way to make them cheaply). This is in-additional to the ludicrous costs of producing Hydrogen cleanly through Electrolysis, instead of just putting the electricity directly in your battery (once again, nobody has a "miracle fix" for this, outside flashy press releases).

The difference in economics is this: Tesla going BEV is much easier to make a profit on than Hydrogen will ever be. Toyota loses money on every Marl sold. (even with the cost improvements in the latest model).

Here is how much they lost on the 2016 model:

As originally reported by Autoblog Green, Cox said Toyota is "probably taking a hit of 50,000 to 100,000 euros per unit" on each 2016 Mirai it sells.


That would be $62,000 to $124,000 each, after its U.S. purchase price of $57,500 (before any Federal or state incentives).

How Much Money Does The 2016 Toyota Mirai Lose? A Lot, Perhaps

All automakers expect to lose money at first when they launch expensive new powertrain technologies. But if one European official with deep experience in alternative-fuel infrastructure is right, the 2016 Toyota Mirai hydrogen fuel-cell sedan may be losing its maker quite a lot of money indeed...

www.greencarreports.com

That's massively more money than they lost on the original Prius (to put this in-context). The only places that can make Hydrogen fuel work are government-funded-enterprises (like that German Train, which likely ran on diesel before.)

See here:

Germany has rolled out the world’s first hydrogen-powered train, signalling the start of a push to challenge the might of polluting diesel trains with costlier but more eco-friendly technology.

Germany launches world's first hydrogen-powered train

Two trains built by the French train maker Alstom are now operating on a 62 mile stretch of line in northern Germany

www.theguardian.com

We will have to wait and see on this, but don't expect it to mass-produced outside Germany (the cost of electrification may end-up being cheaper than the aded cost for H2 infrastructure + running costs)!

Petroleum works because you don't need a electric generation plant anywhere nearby - it was also surprising;y stable at 1atm of pressure; The insane cost of long-distance H2 transit is going to mean you will have to build Hydrogen plants nearby (either with reforming Methane, which requires a gas supply or Electrolysis from a power plant). Might as well run your train directly on BIOMethane, or just bypass the Hydrogen and run an electric line to the train.

 

[Hachi_Roku256563]

I think regadless of how bad hyrogen is we are going to come running back to it
because no matter what tesla says they are TERRIBLE for the enviroment
worse even then a actual car
those battery packs have rare metals and dangerous acids

 

[Space Lynx]

I think regadless of how bad hyrogen is we are going to come running back to it
because no matter what tesla says they are TERRIBLE for the enviroment
worse even then a actual car
those battery packs have rare metals and dangerous acids

Yeah I have never understood the love for EV's personally. It would be interesting to see where all these EV car companies source their metals, complete transparency from mine it was mined in to factory it was forged in, etc.

I have a feeling the reason there is no transparency on this is because... well an answer we don't know want to know about.

Same as the rare mineral cobalt/tantalum being in all smartphones, yet 70% of the worlds tantalum is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo where warlords rule and do horrible things to people for decades now, at least last time I read up on it, which was awhile ago.

 

[Hachi_Roku256563]

Yeah I have never understood the love for EV's personally. It would be interesting to see where all these EV car companies source their metals, complete transparency from mine it was mined in to factory it was forged in, etc.

yes i almost certain evs are just a stepping stone to somthing truly clean
possibly hydrogen

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

So....this is a question that is fundamentally demonstrating why Hydrogen is not a current option with the available technologies. The discussion of alternatives is also interesting.

You fundamentally don't yet have an answer for energy density and safe storage of the components.


Let me explain this in fundamental bits. The three competing current technologies are fossil fuels, hybrid drive systems, and electric systems. The one thing you can immediately remove from the table is hybrid technologies...but I'm already hearing people state the stupidity in this. Hybrids aren't a perfect solution, but they are friendlier. Well, no. They do slightly decrease emissions, but they also effectively double what you've got to carry in your drivetrain. A standard engine, transmission, multiple electrical motors, switching between the systems, and enough sensors to make it all work.
So, electric works....right? Well, no. It's great for short term travel, but the energy density of a battery is fractions of what can be found in conventional fossil fuels. Anyone wonder why electric semi-trucks don't exist? Hint, it's because moving a couple of tons, versus 40, means a complete change in the magnitude of energy storage needed. Imagine for a moment that same 300 mile distance limitation, needing 20 times more batteries. Just utterly nuts.
Finally, fossil fuels. These are currently our most stale source of energy, and they contain the greatest energy per unit mass. Add in that they can be nearly instantly replenished, and you see what value they bring to the table. Please note, this is an argument not about the environmental impact, but the sheer amount of energy that can be provided per unit of weight.


Now, let's talk about the solution you cited. How did it get done with the demonstration vehicle? Let me start by asking you some fundamental questions. What was the energy storage capacity of the relative power sources, how long did the demonstration vehicle sit idle, and exactly how much usage was demonstrated?

To the first question, let's compare the energy density of liquid hydrogen (its greatest density) versus gasoline. That's 141.85 MJ/kg versus 46.4 MJ/kg. That means the hydrogen has much more energy, right? Well, assuming pure hydrogen and of course you have to assume the fantastic pressures involved to liquify, but once you then look at the actual liquid densities it's different. Hydrogen is 70.85 grams/Liter, while gasoline is 755 grams/Liter. That's 10 times as much mass in the same volume, with one third the energy. Yeah, 10>3. This means that before you even start figuring out the safe storage, the energy density is a literal non-starter.

Now we get to the less fun, explodey bits. People can literally have their cars sit for weeks on end, store many cars in close proximity, or even store their cars in an enclosed space. That's great...except all of these things have a tendency to make things bad. You're dealing with hydrogen...so even a 0.1% loss rate per hour (something insane considering the permeability of hydrogen through basically everything) at the pressures required to maintain a liquid hydrogen is basically a ticking time bomb. In stark contrast to this, if you display the thing in huge open rooms and have constant airflow it "appears" to be free of leaks because something like sulfur compounds are impossible to include in the hydrogen because they'd either create emissions or foul reactionary membranes, thus the hydrogen loss is functionally odorless and undetectable by human olfactory senses. If you let the thing constantly slow leak into a sealed one or two car garage, this would be an invitation to destroy your garage and potentially yourself.

Finally, let's discuss usage. A membrane to membrane conversion could create electricity, and have the vehicle be an otherwise standard electric car. An infusion of hydrogen gas and ambient oxygen could effectively replace fossil fuels in combustion. Why did they decide on the combustion route, rather than the membranes? Well....converting a vehicle to use one form of explosions to another is dead easy. They knew this, and simply needed to design controls for it. If you simply drive a round a bit, this is great. The funny bit here is that the demonstrations assumed none of this. They drove closed tracks and pre-designed courses. Why? Well, you know most gasoline systems are regulated and built such that a spill has some assurances not to cause an explosion. Hydrogen doesn't. You puncture a pressurized tank, and things get ugly fast. You don't have a pressurized tank, and you can't get any real range. So...none of the options are good.





So, what do we actually need to make hydrogen work?
1) Electrolysis stations to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen.
2) A fuel storage solution capable of taking damages, without sudden decompression and rapid oxidation (boom).
3) A fuel storage system stable enough to prevent all but the most insubstantial leaks.
4) All of the above, at a cost savings or break-even point.
5) All of the above, and a break-through in either storage density (3x or more) or dramatic increases in efficiency to make up for fossil fuels greater storage potential per unit mass.

This is why the hydrogen fuel vehicles can be demonstrated, but are not market present in any real volume (but natural gas and liquid propane solutions do exist).. The belief that it's just a logical leap with technology is Elon Musk levels of insane...and this is the man who repackaged a "flamethrower" and sold it to the public as his only either not governmentally funded or failed project since Paypal.

For those counting, Paypal, Tesla (huge subsidies and funding), SpaceX (less financially viable, and huge NASA developmental grants), the Boring Company (slower and more expensive than current technologies), the Hyperloop (mechanically impossible, due to physics, but "demonstrated" without and viable lines years after a model was promised), the Las Vegas conference loop (not automated, not at promised speed, and not carrying the promised volume, and my personal favorite Starlink (which now exists, but is indistinguishable from current offerings, and has such spotty current reception as to be a joke). Eventually you just assume the things coming out of Musk's mouth are lies, just like hydrogen cars for the masses with current technology are equally impossible in any commercial sense. This is the difference between robot helpers, and Asimo. This is why hydrogen cars can exist, but are not possible with current market realities as a viable replacement to fossil fuels.

 

[Caring1]

More work being done towards Hydrogen vehicles.

Are Kia and Hyundai about to crack the clean, 'green' hydrogen code? Collaboration with Canadian specialists a big step towards holy grail of economic production - Car News

Kia and Hyundai have confirmed their determination to bring hydrogen fuel cell power into the automotive mainstream, signing a memorandum of understanding with Canada’s Next Hydrogen, the goal being large-scale, economic production of ‘green’ hydrogen.

www.carsguide.com.au

 

[defaultluser]

I think regadless of how bad hyrogen is we are going to come running back to it
because no matter what tesla says they are TERRIBLE for the enviroment
worse even then a actual car
those battery packs have rare metals and dangerous acids

No, hydrogen has just as many potential issues when used at as massive a scale as gasoline. See Ozone Layer Depletion here.,

Hydrogen fuel cells could damage ozone layer

The leaked hydrogen from fuel cells could cause as much as a 10% decrease in the ozone layer if it accumulates in the atmosphere, new research shows.

www.edie.net

Hydrogen leakage Contributes 60% of the same Greenhouse Effects as the system it replaces.

AGAGE - Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment

The Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) and its predecessors (the Atmospheric Life Experiment, ALE and the Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment, GAGE) have been measuring the composition of the global atmosphere continuously since 1978.

agage.mit.edu

And finally

Since fuel cells require rare-earth metals just like Lithium Ion Batteries, , such as platinum, to use as catalysts, they can not only be expensive, but they can also be detrimental to the environment as mining is often cited as a cause of biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, and large-scale pollution.

The only people continuing this "never-ending Hydrogen Parade" are the ill-informed like yourself. By the time you take into account the greenhouse gasses produced by Methane Reforming, plus the environmental impact of the materials inside each Fuel Cel (similar to making Lithium), plus the unavoidable 10-20% H2 leakage Global warming impact of pumping Hydrogen gas into everything has pretty much killed all enthusiasm.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

No, hydrogen has just as many potential issues when used at as massive a scale as gasoline. See Ozone Layer Depletion here.,

Hydrogen fuel cells could damage ozone layer

The leaked hydrogen from fuel cells could cause as much as a 10% decrease in the ozone layer if it accumulates in the atmosphere, new research shows.

www.edie.net

As of the publishing date (2003), the specifics of the hydrogen cycle weren't well enough understood to draw firm conclusions, but the researchers seemed believe that a 100% shift from petroleum to H2 would be a net benefit.

Atmospheric researchers present new findingson the natural hydrogen cycle

imported placeholder

www.caltech.edu

Hydrogen economy might impactEarth's stratosphere, study shows

imported placeholder

www.caltech.edu

Hydrogen leakage Contributes 60% of the same Greenhouse Effects as the system it replaces.

AGAGE - Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment

The Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) and its predecessors (the Atmospheric Life Experiment, ALE and the Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment, GAGE) have been measuring the composition of the global atmosphere continuously since 1978.

agage.mit.edu

0.6%, not 60%, according to the abstract in your link, which is definitely a massive reduction:

If a global hydrogen economy replaced the current fossil fuel-based energy system and exhibited a leakage rate of 1%, then it would produce a climate impact of 0.6% of the current fossil fuel based system.

And finally


Since fuel cells require rare-earth metals just like Lithium Ion Batteries, , such as platinum, to use as catalysts, they can not only be expensive, but they can also be detrimental to the environment as mining is often cited as a cause of biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, and large-scale pollution.

The only people continuing this "never-ending Hydrogen Parade" are the ill-informed like yourself. By the time you take into account the greenhouse gasses produced by Methane Reforming, plus the environmental impact of the materials inside each Fuel Cel (similar to making Lithium), plus the unavoidable 10-20% H2 leakage Global warming impact of pumping Hydrogen gas into everything has pretty much killed all enthusiasm.

The CalTech study (2003) assumed 10-20% leakage, while MIT (2006) based their numbers around a 1% value. Not convinced that 10-20% is "unavoidable."

 

[Hachi_Roku256563]

he only people continuing this "never-ending Hydrogen Parade" are the ill-informed like yourself. B

So what about the people on the never ending lithium iron parade which kills the environment once the car is dead

 

[R-T-B]

So what about the people on the never ending lithium iron parade which kills the environment once the car is dead

Whats killing us in immediacy is co2, not ground level pollutants.

Granted, people don't seem to understand most of the grid is still fossil fuel based and EVs without doing away with that is pointless.

 

[Operandi]

Whats killing us in immediacy is co2, not ground level pollutants.

Granted, people don't seem to understand most of the grid is still fossil fuel based and EVs without doing away with that is pointless.

No its not. ICE engines are pretty much maxed out. They've had over 100 years of engineering refinement to get them where they are and at best are sub 40% efficient in the best example. Modern EVs are just getting started and EV motors and modern battery tech are beyond 80% efficient today. So even if you start with dirtiest coal source and account for grid loss EVs are clean and more efficient and cleaner. Moreover EVs (and hydrogen I suppose) give you a way to transition off of coal, oil and natural gas.

 

[Hachi_Roku256563]

E

EVs are clean and more efficient and cleane

xcept Evs are NOT clean
They have battery packs..

 

[R-T-B]

No its not.

I'm presently baking in the second record setting heatwave in my region this month. Yes, it is.

EDIT: I misunderstood, appologies.

I'm not saying the efficiency is not a benefit, but when you consider a coal power station is basically a centralized steam engine.... we still have work to do.

E

xcept Evs are NOT clean
They have battery packs..

And ground level pollutants are like "medium" on our warning sphere while I have actively cooked from 100 range temps co2 influences twice this month, so maybe "oh god make it stop" level of concern?

 

[Operandi]

E

xcept Evs are NOT clean
They have battery packs..

Everything you do has an impact. ICE engines have a lot of the same rare earth metals in their emissions systems that are used in the batteries and motors found in EV. To the extent which has more I'm not sure but batteries and will be recycled back to raw elements used to make new batteries. Also once they are not fit for a car the batteries can be re-used for less demanding loads. I think Tesla does this with their home wall units. So yeah, not clean but cleaner.

I'm presently baking in the second record setting heatwave in my region this month. Yes, it is.

EDIT: I misunderstood, appologies.

I'm not saying the efficiency is not a benefit, but when you consider a coal power station is basically a centralized steam engine.... we still have work to do.

For sure coal is a problem but even if you charged your EV off of coal you are still coming out ahead afik. Maybe some of the best ICE cars are close emissions wise, (and diesel is actually really good too when the emissions stuff is working properly) but thats comparing best case scenario to worst case scenario and coal is fading fast (at least in the US). Where I live our grid is powered by coal and our coal plant has a generator thats around 10 years old (so pretty much state of art for coal) and they are already planning to transition to natural gas.

 

[The Von Matrices]

Keep in mind that all the current hydrogen-powered cars have large batteries because the fuel cells aren't able to produce the large bursts of power needed for acceleration.

 

[Space Lynx]

Keep in mind that all the current hydrogen-powered cars have large batteries because the fuel cells aren't able to produce the large bursts of power needed for acceleration.

Perhaps it's time for humans to consider conquering their short term greed, and going back to village life, and walking a lot. Alas, mother nature will force us to eventually, whether we want to or not.

 

[Operandi]

Keep in mind that all the current hydrogen-powered cars have large batteries because the fuel cells aren't able to produce the large bursts of power needed for acceleration.

Probably no way around that unless super capacitors become a thing. Still the battery is pretty small by car standards and I think once the car is cruising the fuel cell is doing all work.

 

[moproblems99]

Granted, people don't seem to understand most of the grid is still fossil fuel based and EVs without doing away with that is pointless.

Why? Does it have to be all or nothing or can we just celebrate whatever progress we get?

At this point, the world's dependence on oil is so encompassing, any progress should be hailed as a miracle.

Probably no way around that unless super capacitors become a thing. Still the battery is pretty small by car standards and I think once the car is cruising the fuel cell is doing all work.

Realistically, it's the starting and stopping that is so fuel intensive. It's why a Prius got great city mileage and comparably blah highway mileage.

 

[R-T-B]

Why? Does it have to be all or nothing or can we just celebrate whatever progress we get?

It's not going to stop the climate from killing us en masse, which I consider a pretty bad failure. Maybe thats a better way to put it.

 

[moproblems99]

It's not going to stop the climate from killing us en masse, which I consider a pretty bad failure. Maybe thats a better way to put it.

I mean, do you really think we can pull this off as a species? And by we I mean us, not you? Though frogs will be unhappy with the state of most things too.

But more what I meant, Doing it all at once is likely not possible or will be so painful no one will want to do it. The time remaining is debatable but ostriches bury their head in the sand when the opportunity arises.

 

[R-T-B]

I mean, do you really think we can pull this off as a species?

Haha. Stupid lobster thinks it can talk.

 

[moproblems99]

Haha. Stupid lobster thinks it can talk.

Plankton, man, plankton!

 

[Space Lynx]

It's not going to stop the climate from killing us en masse, which I consider a pretty bad failure. Maybe thats a better way to put it.

only way to stop climate change at this point is if modern civilization just came to a halt. and we all started growing our own food, no more cars, no more planes, no more ships. no more fishing ships. overnight. it all just stopped and we went back to village life, and on top of that we would still probably need to replant a lot of tree's in rapid succession, but not just any trees, there is a combo of tree species that need to be done in proximity to other certain species, to truly create proper ecosystems.

i'm afraid humans will never be capable of that level of discipline, so we most likely will keep going until mass famine/crop failures/oceans empty of fish kill masses all at once. be prepared to grow your own food in under 10-20 years is my guess.