Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[Shrek]

Then how about a heat-engine that works on the temperature difference between the surface sea and deeper down?

Or simply a shaft and boil water with the heat down deep? It gets real hot as one goes down a few miles.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Hydrogen cars aren't going to be a thing as hydrocarbon bonds have so much more energy.

I mean, I'm not against people trying biodiesel or ethanol. In fact, I filled up my car on E85 the other day. I'm more than willing to experiment with these technologies.

But synthetic hydrocarbons are one more step compared to synthetic hydrogen. True, we can make synthetic hydrocarbons out of the plants we eat, but we have some farming issues as it is, I'm not too keen on depleting our topsoil reserves.

H2 + CO2 + energy == syngas, which also can be converted into "clean" synthetic-hydrocarbons with further processing. But your efficiency drops yet again. Alternatively, H2 + CO2 + Coal looked promising as a coal-liquefaction strategy for making high quality synthetic gasoline IIRC, but we're back into "burning coal" and that doesn't solve the climate issue. Its probably still worth researching (we have a lot more coal than other fossil fuels), but this isn't green anymore.

Well, the whole Sahara desert and the Arabian peninsula, together with large regions of South Europe are all under direct sunlight during the most of the year.

What they need to plan and construct is a global network of such solar panel farms in order to substitute each other during downtimes.

Actually, those are terrible areas for solar energy. Solar panels lose efficiency the hotter they get. It turns out that the ideal areas are temperate + grassy areas like Germany, rather than deserts.

There's a different set of technologies for making solar work in deserts: Solar Mirror salt plants. Instead of using solar panels, you use mirrors to heat up salt, and then use the salt to boil water and run a steam engine. Its a bit experimental right now but concept projects exist and are being studied.

Then how about a heat-engine that works on the temperature difference between the surface sea and deeper down?

If you're interested in this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project

"Heat-engine" is just steam, possibly superheated steam. There's also no need to do the temperature underground, because solar energy is more than enough to cause the salt to reach 550C+ temperatures. The "cold" side of your heat engine is just the ambient air (ie: 40C or so in the desert)

Hot steam pushes the piston when attached to 550C temperature source. As the steam cools down (attached to 40C ambient), it pulls on the piston. Bam. 100MW of power and 1GW-hr of stored heat-energy to provide power for about an hour or two after the sun sets.

 

[Shrek]

The geothermal gradient is about 25°C for every kilometer of depth, so one doesn't have to go so deep.

Some mines are over 3km deep, and some bore holes go over 12km down.

 

[Steevo]

I mean, I'm not against people trying biodiesel or ethanol. In fact, I filled up my car on E85 the other day. I'm more than willing to experiment with these technologies.

But synthetic hydrocarbons are one more step compared to synthetic hydrogen. True, we can make synthetic hydrocarbons out of the plants we eat, but we have some farming issues as it is, I'm not too keen on depleting our topsoil reserves.

H2 + CO2 + energy == syngas, which also can be converted into "clean" synthetic-hydrocarbons with further processing. But your efficiency drops yet again. Alternatively, H2 + CO2 + Coal looked promising as a coal-liquefaction strategy for making high quality synthetic gasoline IIRC, but we're back into "burning coal" and that doesn't solve the climate issue. Its probably still worth researching (we have a lot more coal than other fossil fuels), but this isn't green anymore.



Actually, those are terrible areas for solar energy. Solar panels lose efficiency the hotter they get. It turns out that the ideal areas are temperate + grassy areas like Germany, rather than deserts.

There's a different set of technologies for making solar work in deserts: Solar Mirror salt plants. Instead of using solar panels, you use mirrors to heat up salt, and then use the salt to boil water and run a steam engine. Its a bit experimental right now but concept projects exist and are being studied.



If you're interested in this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project

Farming is getting better not worse, the biggest thing we could do for our topsoil now is to stop making ethanol for fuel until we can do it without the soil. the energy input to raise a ton of crop and the output of ethanol is a net loss and only done due to subsidies and tax breaks, its worse for the environment as the inputs all release carbon, and when the ethanol is burned it releases the carbon that was stored. Much like DEF/AdBlue is a failure due to the high energy cost of producing the urea, distilling the water, packaging, transport, and waste stream created. Bureaucrats with pet projects are not the answer to our problems but they are making the laws that merely move the pollution stream elsewhere.

Then how about a heat-engine that works on the temperature difference between the surface sea and deeper down?

Or simply a shaft and boil water with the heat down deep? It gets real hot as one goes down a few miles.

Offshore nuclear reactors that also distill water for consumption and irrigation (irrigation leaves salts behind that build up in the soil due to evaporation). Provide stable base load and electric vehicles for the majority of the high population areas, electric heating and cooling using more heat pumps and some moderate use of solar to supplement.

 

[dragontamer5788]

The geothermal gradient is about 25°C for every kilometer of depth, so one doesn't have to go so deep.

Some mines are over 3km deep, and some bore holes go over 12km deep.

When your hot-source is 550C like the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, going from 40C (cold-side) to 15C is a difference of like 5% power generation... miniscule when you consider the difficulty of transferring that temperature a km away.

In contrast, the 550C target of the mirrors can be placed somewhere convenient and close to the cold-source of your heat engine and simplify the design.

Bureaucrats with pet projects are not the answer to our problems but they are making the laws that merely move the pollution stream elsewhere.

The alternative seems to be billionaires with pet projects asking bureaucrats for money. Unlike bureaucrats, these billionaires pollute our airwaves and Facebook feeds with propaganda to try to turn the minds of our population towards their pet projects.

Don't get me wrong, we need billionaires to make these big energy projects. I fully understand that we live in a capitalistic society, and that the wealth is concentrated upon these individuals. Collaborating with billionaires is the only way to move forward. But we shouldn't let them set the terms of the debate. We need to make ourselves smarter on the subject so that we can properly evaluate everyone's pet projects and see which ones have the highest chance of actually working.

In the absence of the smarts, we can also just fund everyone's project and come back and revisit the subject in 10 years. Fortunately, the USA has a lot of money, so we can afford some waste and inefficiency.

 

[Shrek]

Geothermal is 24/7 and does not take up much surface area.

 

[Steevo]

When your hot-source is 550C like the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, going from 40C (cold-side) to 15C is a difference of like 5% power generation... miniscule when you consider the difficulty of transferring that temperature a km away.

In contrast, the 550C target of the mirrors can be placed somewhere convenient and close to the cold-source of your heat engine and simplify the design.



The alternative seems to be billionaires with pet projects asking bureaucrats for money. Unlike bureaucrats, these billionaires pollute our airwaves and Facebook feeds with propaganda to try to turn the minds of our population towards their pet projects.

Don't get me wrong, we need billionaires to make these big energy projects. I fully understand that we live in a capitalistic society, and that the wealth is concentrated upon these individuals. Collaborating with billionaires is the only way to move forward. But we shouldn't let them set the terms of the debate. We need to make ourselves smarter on the subject so that we can properly evaluate everyone's pet projects and see which ones have the highest chance of actually working.

In the absence of the smarts, we can also just fund everyone's project and come back and revisit the subject in 10 years. Fortunately, the USA has a lot of money, so we can afford some waste and inefficiency.

No one forces us to give billionaires our money, bureaucrats however have the government to point a gun at us and jail us for failing to provide the correct amount that they prescribe they should get for their pet projects. They are essentially lords and we are their peasants.

Billionaires also only get there by making companies more productive or making a product that more people want, but they should not be making any laws or rules for the rest of the population or involved in its shaping without agreement from the masses.

At the end of the day we have an infrasturture for electricity that can be easily expanded, as coal and natural gas plants are retired the existing infrastructure can be converted to nuclear power easily. There is no other alternative that provides the reduction in carbon, stable base load, and reliability. We don't have the batteries or the storage technology and won't have it in time to make the "renewable" tech we have no feasible on scale before its going to be obsolete, and the demand for clean energy isn't going to reduce.


And no, we don't have the money, we are spending money borrowed from China and inflating our currency so fast right now we are headed for a Venezuela style crash where we will be eating pets and society may break down until we reign in our corrupt politicians.

 

[dragontamer5788]

No one forces us to give billionaires our money, bureaucrats however have the government to point a gun at us and jail us for failing to provide the correct amount that they prescribe they should get for their pet projects. They are essentially lords and we are their peasants.

The typical bureaucrat is like, your Post Office worker. They ain't got no power. Even a powerful "lord" of bureaucrats, like the Postmaster General, ain't got much to do with you.

There are a couple of bureaucrats that matter, but only in very specific circumstances. An ICE agent can deport you under certain circumstances. A health-inspector can shutdown your production lines. Etc. etc. But I don't work in production, so there's nothing an FDA-agent can do to me... and I'm not the skin-color of what ICE agents typically care about.

The only "Bureaucrat" that seems to match up with your discussion point is the IRS, except we all know that the IRS is largely powerless to stop the corporate world from abusing tax loopholes (ie: Apple leaving their money in Ireland and therefore out of reach of our tax system).

---------

In the case of green energy, I think I support most DARPA and Department-of-Energy projects, even the really weird stuff. ARES (Rail-energy storage) probably won't work but I love the idea. CAES (turning mines into giant steel balloons and inflating them to store energy as air-pressure) is surprisingly useful, albeit needing some natural gas to counteract the cooling problem (compressed air cools down, so to get all the energy back you need a little bit of heating). Etc. etc.

I honestly can't think of an energy project made by government officials that I disagreed with as far as experimentation goes. Do you have any specific government-sponsored energy project that pissed you off? Or are you just talking about abstract talking points?

------

I think there are plenty of corporations that are doing the right thing btw. Shell's jumping into green energy. The Saudis (as a country), also seem to be on the right track. Armaco (aka: Saudi Arabia) is investing into tech, green energy, etc. etc. Many corporations do the right thing on the average.

But there's a couple of companies that have crap practices, fake inventions, and are just out to steal government subsidies without properly competing or developing technology. So while I expect most billionaires to do the right thing, there's clearly a couple of bad actors in there who we need to more carefully keep our collective eyes on.

Tesla / Solarcity completely screwed New York / city of Buffalo for example. Completely immoral what they did, hyping fake "solar shingles" and never delivering the jobs, or green energy, that they promised. Most of the injustices I can think of are of this form, a company making lavish promises, a local naive bureaucrat getting tricked into accepting the corporation's deal, and then everyone getting screwed while the corporation/billionaire makes tons of money. Wisconsin and Foxconn as another major problem. And there was a big discussion about Intel / government subsidies the other day too.

 

[Steevo]

I support the funding of research into better energy storage and more efficient production. Solar is still meh, the number of panels produced VS the total need has not scaled and doesn’t seem to be a 10 or 20 year fix VS the ability to move to nuclear. Nuclear is more green.

I don’t support the funding of companies with such huge subsidies like Solar and wind have received without more oversight, but there again we create lossy jobs where corruption can abound and the real check against corruption is the free market.

Specifically carbon credits for solar and wind are BS, I live in MT where I pay for solar arrays to be built not 10 miles from a coal plant. The solar array is less than 50% utilized and the coal plant is powering a huge crypto farm. If the government were responsible they would outlaw the crypto and solve two issues. My home has geothermal heat pump heating and cooling but the subsidies I get are 0 despite using it and less than 500 gallons of propane a year for cooking and hot water production when the heat pump can’t keep up at -10F. But my neighbor can install half the solar that would run my heat pump and get paid to burn 2000+ gallons of propane a year.

The free market with less regulation and more authority over fewer aspects will create the most efficient system when people are educated. Now people think solar will save them but don’t know nuclear is a far better option.

 

[dragontamer5788]

when people are educated

Except not really. Because money buys education. I've got plenty of political examples if you want them. But I think we can all safely agree that the ConstitutionDAO project was completely a dumbass move that only proves how easily you can manipulate sheeple on Facebook.

If you can convince thousands of people that you can "Buy a piece of the US Constitution" by investing into a crypto-coin / NFT smart contract, there's pretty much no hope that the general population is smart enough / educated enough to make decisions like "Nuclear vs Natural Gas vs Solar". There are some bigger, more widespread... but highly political myths / misinformation out there, but I'm not trying to start an argument here, so I'll try to stay away from that flamebait.

But the fact of the matter is: you can buy people's opinions through a couple of easy moves. ConstitutionDAO did it, but so do so many other people these days.

1. SEO -- Search Engine Optimization to get your "facts" to the top of Google, maybe pay a bit more money and also get it to the top of Bing/DuckDuckGo/Yahoo (which use the same engine). Perform A/B tests with the crowds to see which discussion points go viral or not, and leverage "viral" / "memes" to spread lies. For example:

2. "Influencers" -- Pay off a few Youtubers to shill your idea on the cheap. Shill on forums, Reddit, Youtube comments, and more.

3. "Attack" -- create conspiracies against your rivals and diminish public opinion of them. If you're making electric cars, demonize Hydrogen. If you're making solar panels, demonize nuclear. This builds up your cult by creating a shared external enemy, and makes #1 and #2 more powerful. Make sure your followers are scared of some boogieman, to make sure they listen to you more safely. Literally invent a great "Satan" for them to join your techno-religion over.

USA is one of the most highly educated populations in the world. No, we're not the best, but if the last few years have taught me anything, these 3 moves still affect us as a population incredibly. They are highly effective means at propaganda, and plenty of the Billionaires are using these techniques (aka: "Reputation services") to their benefit.

--------

You'll see it time and time again. A few years ago it was all about essential oils for example, or other forms of multilevel marketing. Do you think your friends / family are smart enough to figure out that they've been swindled on their own?

That whole "Democracy works if we're educated" idea is a fun fantasy, but that statement didn't exist in today's period of incredibly powerful, and relatively cheap, mass-influence / propaganda / marketing abilities.

-------

EDIT: Also market failures, such as externalities, monopolies, cartels, and the like, always will form in the absence of government action. At a minimum, we need a watchdog to prevent the common / well known market failures (again: monopolies or cartels) from forming.

In the case of green energy, there's clearly an externality problem, but no one seems to agree on how to solve it. I think its clear that the free market isn't good enough for the job though, and some kind of regulatory system on top is needed.

 

[95Viper]

Let's stay on topic.
If you wish to carry on a discussion of some other form of energy topic, please, create your own thread in the appropriate forum section.

 

[Bomby569]

The key question with hydrogen: Is there any viable option to store energy right now besides hydrogen?

No matter what source of energy you use, there will always be the need to store it and batteries have not reach a point to be the solution, they are expensive, they need large quantities of scarce materials, and they are either heavy or the amount you require for certain uses makes them impractical.

 

[KLiKzg]

I don't know. With these so low ranges of 200-250 kilometers, you can't really rely on them, at least just yet.

I am not sure as of when they will release an affordable sedan with 800-900 kilometers of range.
An affordable means $25,000 or less.

Sooner then you might think.

Just my 2 cents worth from Rimac Automobili.

 

[R-T-B]

Or simply a shaft and boil water with the heat down deep? It gets real hot as one goes down a few miles

I mean that's pretty much what geothermal is.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Because the best-case efficiency of H20 to H2 is 70% (using expensive catalysts), plus the efficiency of that Fuel Cell is only 50%. Add in the losses to transport H2 from a big electrolysis factory to your local gas station (15% higher losses than just sending it over power lines), and you get a final efficiency of around 30%

Cause you choose to disbelieve reality. Over-and--over again!

!. There is no weight advantage, because the steel carbon-fiber reinforced fuel tanks weigh as much as Lithium ION battery packs.
2. There is no distribution advantage, because there is no real H2-rated gaspipelines infrastructure already built in the US - we already have a proven efficient electric grid.

The difference is that hydrogen is dispatchable meaning that it can be converted to and from electricity on demand. It simultaneously solves grid problems (excessive renewable) and transportation problems (fuel to drive jets, planes, trucks, and trains). When you add to that the fact that hydrogen can generally be produced where it is needed, it eliminates most of the transportation costs that we currently incur via the oil and gas industries.

#1 is false. The fuel cell and tanks are very, very light compared to battery packs. It's more comparable to ICE and fuel tank. Remember that 20 gallons of gasoline/diesel weigh a lot too. In terms of energy, 1 kg of hydrogen is about equal to 1 gallon of gasoline (2.766913 kg). The fuel itself is almost a third of the weight by energy density. Some of that difference is lost because of the more robust tanks.

#2 is also false. Electricity is easily transmitted and generally can be produced wherever it is needed (solar, wind, nuclear). All hydrogen production needs in addition to electricity is a supply of water. Nuclear power plants also require access to water: the two technologies complement each other very well. There's really no reason to transport hydrogen via means that aren't consumed (tankers). With fossil fuels, transportation is required.


I didn't check the 19 pages of this thread but if it has been posted, it's worth posting again:

2021 Toyota Mirai

2022 Hyperion XP-1

Nikola

Everything we need to completely do away with fossil fuels is available today. The only problem is big oil (for obvious reasons) and politics (government money is behind battery electric) standing in the way of the revolution.

Koch is the only company I know of in the USA that is starting to ramp up green hydrogen production:

Green Hydrogen: Koch Engineering & Fidelis Infrastructure Invest $9.2 Billion In Renewable Energy Ecosystem In Louisiana - Fuelcellsworks

Fidelis Portfolio Company Grön Fuels to Produce Green Hydrogen, Renewable Diesel, Bio-plastics Feedstocks and Sustainable Aviation Fuels HOUSTON -- Koch Enginee...

fuelcellsworks.com

TL;DR: All the technology pieces are here; all that's left is investment to propagate it across the economy.

 

[Space Lynx]

@FordGT90Concept holy ******* ****, you came out of nowhere. been a long time no see.

welcome back!!!

 

[defaultluser]

The difference is that hydrogen is dispatchable meaning that it can be converted to and from electricity on demand. It simultaneously solves grid problems (excessive renewable) and transportation problems (fuel to drive jets, planes, trucks, and trains). When you add to that the fact that hydrogen can generally be produced where it is needed, it eliminates most of the transportation costs that we currently incur via the oil and gas industries.

It's only dispatchable if you are willing to pay the insane costs of build an entirely new storage infrastructure on-site (no, you can't reuse methane tanks, because they can't handle the pressure)

If you want local generation, then you need local storage (in case your H2 consumer is not constant, or just in case you have H2 production downtime):!

THE COST ESTIMATES ARE MUCH HIGHER, ACCORDING TO THIS STUDY:

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/08/f36/hdtt_roadmap_July2017.pdf

#1 is false. The fuel cell and tanks are very, very light compared to battery packs. It's more comparable to ICE and fuel tank. Remember that 20 gallons of gasoline/diesel weigh a lot too. In terms of energy, 1 kg of hydrogen is about equal to 1 gallon of gasoline (2.766913 kg). The fuel itself is almost a third of the weight by energy density. Some of that difference is lost because of the more robust tanks.

The tanks have to be much heavier than a Gas tank, because of 10k PSI pressure; if you think they weigh less, can you tell me why the 2021 Mirai (4,255lb )has almost the same curb weight as the Tesla Model 3 LR (4,250lb)? Both Energy Supply Systems are virtually the same weight!

#2 is also false. Electricity is easily transmitted and generally can be produced wherever it is needed (solar, wind, nuclear). All hydrogen production needs in addition to electricity is a supply of water. Nuclear power plants also require access to water: the two technologies complement each other very well. There's really no reason to transport hydrogen via means that aren't consumed (tankers). With fossil fuels, transportation is required.

You can make a case for Jet fuel coming from Green Hydrogen - the price premium on H2souurced fuels for ships will be too high to be absorbed by the shipping industry!

The cost of creating H2 delivery infrastructure for trains is much more than the cost of universal track electrification! And as the density of batteries increases, the advantages of going full-BEV on trucks will be obvious!

I didn't check the 19 pages of this thread but if it has been posted, it's worth posting again:

2021 Toyota Mirai

2022 Hyperion XP-1

Nikola

Everything we need to completely do away with fossil fuels is available today. The only problem is big oil (for obvious reasons) and politics (government money is behind battery electric) standing in the way of the revolution.

Koch is the only company I know of in the USA that is starting to ramp up green hydrogen production:

Green Hydrogen: Koch Engineering & Fidelis Infrastructure Invest $9.2 Billion In Renewable Energy Ecosystem In Louisiana - Fuelcellsworks

Fidelis Portfolio Company Grön Fuels to Produce Green Hydrogen, Renewable Diesel, Bio-plastics Feedstocks and Sustainable Aviation Fuels HOUSTON -- Koch Enginee...

fuelcellsworks.com

TL;DR: All the technology pieces are here; all that's left is investment to propagate it across the economy.

When two of your "Must-have- testimonials" include a crook (Nikola), and a whiny TV Reviewer who first reviewed BEVs back in 2011, and since then has made damn sure that he never gives them another shot (Top Gear never reviewed another BEV until he and Jeremy left, becausre he's already made-up his mind, much like you!)

The first-generation of Leaf sucked, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the plethora pf improvements other companies have brought in the last decade! But when you're "in-denial" like james, you tend to MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT BUYING THE UPGRADED MODEL OF "YOU ONE OPTION!"

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The tanks are made of carbon fiber (aka light and strong):

Physical Hydrogen Storage

Physical storage is the most mature hydrogen storage technology.

www.energy.gov

$10,000 for a 20 kg 700 bar tank. And these tanks can withstand 30'06 round fired at it.

The tanks have to be much heavier than a Gas tank, because of 10k PSI pressure; if you think they weigh less, can you tell me why the 2021 Mirai (4,255lb )has almost the same curb weight as the Tesla Model 3 LR (4,250lb)? Both Energy Supply Systems are virtually the same weight!

It's a much larger car with 25% more range:

Comparison Tesla Model 3 LR vs Toyota Mirai

For some car owners, the future of the car lies with a hydrogen-based propulsion rather than an electric car with a large battery. To make a technical comparison between 2 state of art comparable c…

tm3een.home.blog

 

[defaultluser]

The tanks are made of carbon fiber (aka light and strong):

Physical Hydrogen Storage

Physical storage is the most mature hydrogen storage technology.

www.energy.gov

$10,000 for a 20 kg 700 bar tank. And these tanks can withstand 30'06 round fired at it.

Then why does the car weigh exactly the same as a Model 3 Tesla LR?

The original release model had straight carbon fiber reinforced steel tanks, and this model with Polymer layers weighs almost exactly the same!

Care to explain this math for me? it seems to go the opposite of whatever you re dreaming!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Mirai is a luxury/executive mid-size sedan. Tesla 3 is a compact budget sedan. Model S is more comparative.

In the Toyota stable, Lexus GS 300h is the closest which comes in at 3,730 lbs versus Mirai 4,300 lbs.

Here's a comparative picture from the LS 500h (larger):

Remember that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are hybrids with the fuel cell replacing the internal combustion engine. Hydrogen fuel cells have all of the performance advantages that hybrids do over their non-hybrid brethren.

Hydrogen vehicles will get lighter as technology improves. Just compare the first generation Mirai to the second generation Mirai for proof of that.


Mirai caries 5.6 kg of hydrogen fuel where GS 300h carries 66l of petroleum which is 48.7 kg.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Mirai is a bad example, because 700-bar / 10,000 PSI tanks are either cheap-but-heavy, or light-but-expensive to make right now. Carbon-fiber reinforced pressure tanks do exist and have great specs, but they're just too expensive right now.

Making the tank bigger, so that there's more space inside but still the same amount of strength, is the ideal scenario.

This completely solves the weight issue. The amount of steel thickness you need to safely contain 10,000 PSI of pressure is basically the same between a small car and a large truck. In contrast, you need 100x as many Li-ion batteries (which are very, very heavy) to power a truck like that.

-------

Hydrogen as a technology should first be applied where it is "obviously good", like trucks and busses. The Xcient truck is commercial and shipping around the world in small numbers. Other trucks and busses are coming down from other car manufacturers. When those $10,000 carbon fiber tanks can be mass produced, then and only then will we consider Hydrogen for a small sedan. This technology just favors large vehicles for now.

 

[defaultluser]

Mirai is a luxury/executive mid-size sedan. Tesla 3 is a compact budget sedan. Model S is more comparative.

In the Toyota stable, Lexus GS 300h is the closest which comes in at 3,730 lbs versus Mirai 4,300 lbs.

Here's a comparative picture from the LS 500h (larger):

Remember that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are hybrids with the fuel cell replacing the internal combustion engine. Hydrogen fuel cells have all of the performance advantages that hybrids do over their non-hybrid brethren.

Hydrogen vehicles will get lighter as technology improves. Just compare the first generation Mirai to the second generation Mirai for proof of that.


Mirai caries 5.6 kg of hydrogen fuel where GS 300h carries 66l of petroleum which is 48.7 kg.

I'm sorry man, but comparing the weight of a Grandpamobile like the GS 300 series, you do understand how much more crap they add?

The Toyota Camry is a similar class of car, with similar feature set, and similar dead-quiet ride comfort.

It weighs ALMOST 1000 pounds less than the Mirai and Model 3

What kind of amazing magic tricks are you going to perform now to disqualify the Camry from the discussion? We are talking about comparing two different attempts at full EVs with a standard gas car, for comparison purposes!

 

[KLiKzg]

The difference is that hydrogen is dispatchable meaning that it can be converted to and from electricity on demand. It simultaneously solves grid problems (excessive renewable) and transportation problems (fuel to drive jets, planes, trucks, and trains). When you add to that the fact that hydrogen can generally be produced where it is needed, it eliminates most of the transportation costs that we currently incur via the oil and gas industries.

#1 is false. The fuel cell and tanks are very, very light compared to battery packs. It's more comparable to ICE and fuel tank. Remember that 20 gallons of gasoline/diesel weigh a lot too. In terms of energy, 1 kg of hydrogen is about equal to 1 gallon of gasoline (2.766913 kg). The fuel itself is almost a third of the weight by energy density. Some of that difference is lost because of the more robust tanks.

#2 is also false. Electricity is easily transmitted and generally can be produced wherever it is needed (solar, wind, nuclear). All hydrogen production needs in addition to electricity is a supply of water. Nuclear power plants also require access to water: the two technologies complement each other very well. There's really no reason to transport hydrogen via means that aren't consumed (tankers). With fossil fuels, transportation is required.


I didn't check the 19 pages of this thread but if it has been posted, it's worth posting again:

2021 Toyota Mirai

2022 Hyperion XP-1

Nikola

Everything we need to completely do away with fossil fuels is available today. The only problem is big oil (for obvious reasons) and politics (government money is behind battery electric) standing in the way of the revolution.

Koch is the only company I know of in the USA that is starting to ramp up green hydrogen production:

Green Hydrogen: Koch Engineering & Fidelis Infrastructure Invest $9.2 Billion In Renewable Energy Ecosystem In Louisiana - Fuelcellsworks

Fidelis Portfolio Company Grön Fuels to Produce Green Hydrogen, Renewable Diesel, Bio-plastics Feedstocks and Sustainable Aviation Fuels HOUSTON -- Koch Enginee...

fuelcellsworks.com

TL;DR: All the technology pieces are here; all that's left is investment to propagate it across the economy.

Just do not post any more of NIKOLA, as a whole case of those truck has been (and is) a cheat. Right now NIKOLA CEO is on court for fraud!
Link: https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/29/22599726/nikola-founder-securities-fraud-charge-milton

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I'm sorry man, but comparing the weight of a Grandpamobile like the GS 300 series, you do understand how much more crap they add?

The Toyota Camry is a similar class of car, with similar feature set, and similar dead-quiet ride comfort.

It weighs ALMOST 1000 pounds less than the Mirai and Model 3

What kind of amazing magic tricks are you going to perform now to disqualify the Camry from the discussion? We are talking about comparing two different attempts at full EVs with a standard gas car, for comparison purposes!

#1 Camry is not a luxury/executive car where Mirai is. Luxury/executive cars weigh a great deal more than their non-luxury brethren due to more automation, more/better speakers, better materials (e.g. plush leather versus cloth; wood surfaces instead of plastic), and sound proofing material packed into every nook and cranny.
#2 Camry pollutes the air as it runs where the Mirai cleans it.
#3 Camry does not have instant torque like the Mirai and Lexus GS 300h.
#4 Camry is not virtually silent.
#5 Mirai is no Camry:

Just do not post any more of NIKOLA, as a whole case of those truck has been (and is) a cheat. Right now NIKOLA CEO is on court for fraud!
Link: https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/29/22599726/nikola-founder-securities-fraud-charge-milton

You obviously did not watch the video I linked. They're already shipping battery electric trucks to customers and they have seven alpha fuel cell vehicles they're testing. There is an enormous amount of demand for both of these kinds of trucks and the infrastructure to fuel them. One bad egg in a company doesn't ruin the remainder.


News today (January 21, 2022):

World's first hydrogen tanker to ship test cargo to Japan from Australia

A Japanese-Australian venture producing hydrogen from brown coal is set to start loading its maiden cargo on the world's first liquid hydrogen carrier on Friday, in a test delayed by nearly a year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

www.reuters.com

 

[Space Lynx]

The world’s biggest hydrogen fuel cell EV has started work in South Africa

Green hydrogen is made on-site to power the enormous truck’s fuel cells.

arstechnica.com

Interesting article here, this makes a lot of sense for hydrogen.