Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[Count von Schwalbe]

I'm hearing a lot of words like this. You have to remember the poster I was replying too was claiming it was "impossible" outright, NOT impractical or any variant of that.

Yes, I was agreeing with you
I am not sure it would be possible to construct a passenger jet replacement at current tech though.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I was by no means promoting battery storage. I was merely remarking that things like Tesla Powerwall exist.

I just can't see how H2 electrolysis and fuel cells will be the best method of energy storage no matter how distributed.

Because in 2030, we're looking at 250GW of worldwide H2 power capacity, which probably correlates to ~2500 GW-hrs of H2 energy storage (assuming 10 hours of operation).

There's no battery technology with any plan over the next 8 years that takes place on the same scale. Sure, H2 has all sorts of disadvantages. But if we're talking about grid-scale electricity, tiny 13kW-hr installations are a blip, a billion or even trillion times smaller than what we need.

Tesla Powerwall is irrelevant. Its too small to matter. We need a technology that's far larger. California alone needs hundreds of GW-hrs, let alone the rest of the world.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

I just can't see how H2 electrolysis and fuel cells will be the best method of energy storage no matter how distributed.

All depends on how we change current processes. IF we went purely into renewables then the amount of battery we would need would be unsustainable either electrochemical or other methods like gravity based water storage.

If we went purely nuclear focused for the next decade plus then we miss out on what the baseline of the plants COULD put out vs utilisation. Without investing heavily in things like H2 production, mass areas dedicated for water gravity systems or insane amounts of things like Tesla Megapacks.

H2 integrates into already existing infrastructure especially in Europe where we have far more reliance on gas for heating and cooking vs America. Let alone power generation via powercells in cars or perhaps backup generators. On top of the already existing industiral uses of Hydrogen.


Its going to be a combination I believe going forward that is going to the be the best in the short-mid term. Then the encouragement/enforcement of say Solar being require on ALL new builds in beneficial areas can remove demand off the central grid with the increasing useage of energy especially in the next 10-25 years. If EVs become adopted en mass on top of every one having more and more electrical devices in the household which only seems to be growing year on year.

We are also going to need mass investment into new battery technologies to try and use less rare materials when possible. Some speculations are thinking that with current growth of lithium usage in batteries we would be exhausting "known" lithium reserves in around 2070 on top of the extreme ecological problems mass Lithium mining causes.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Yes, I was agreeing with you
I am not sure it would be possible to construct a passenger jet replacement at current tech though.

CO2 + Hydrogen synthesizes into kerosene. Kerosene is standard jet fuel.

We can capture the CO2 from coal plants or something as a temporary measure, at last until carbon sequestration becomes reasonable.

There is a lot of cool stuff we can do with Hydrogen gas.

 

[ShiBDiB]

This thread just needs to die already

 

[claes]

Like our species and planet?

sorry off-topic

 

[Bomby569]

Drones quite readily illustrate this to be false. It would require a redesign sure but it would not be "impossible."

just answer me this, how many batteries would a NY to London plane need and the weight? or to illustrate this point better, how many batteries would one of those container ships need to go from China to Europe?

 

[dgianstefani]

The efficiency of hydrogen in terms of cost in electricity to generate it is almost irrelevant. As many others have said, Nuclear is the answer, and night production is the ideal time.

 

[Bomby569]

There's this insane push for nuclear everywhere, i have no idea were this is coming from.

Building nuclear power plants is costly, insanely complex, requires specialised workforce, a very stable country to be able to acess the technology even if they want to use it, and it takes a lot of time to build a power plant. Rarely does a nuclear power plant not go over budget and over timeline by 2x and more. Not to mention were to put it, in many smaller countries if there were an accident, a large portion of the country would be inhabitable. People will protest. You have to deal with storage of waste, and when it gets to end of life the decommissioning it's insanely costly.

I bet more then half the countries on Earth have no possibility to use nuclear.

Why not just build solar farms, wind farms, wave power farms, etc...

 

[dgianstefani]

There's this insane push for nuclear everywhere, i have no idea were this is coming from.

Building nuclear power plants is costly, insanely complex, requires specialised workforce, a very stable country to be able to acess the technology even if they want to use it, and it takes a lot of time to build a power plant. Rarely does a nuclear power plant not go over budget and over timeline by 2x and more. Not to mention were to put it, in many smaller countries if there were an accident, a large portion of the country would be inhabitable. People will protest. You have to deal with storage of waste, and when it gets to end of life the decommissioning it's insanely costly.

I bet more then half the countries on Earth have no possibility to use nuclear.

Why not just build solar farms, wind farms, wave power farms, etc...

Because all of those have a useful lifespan of less than 20 years. Are insanely unreliable, irregular in power generation, often producing power at times it's not needed, and being idle when it's critical, require rare earths and complex manufacturing and maintenance (more difficult especially when offshore), and expensive to recycle. Nuclear is the only logical option for our energy demands in any kind of green manner at scale.

For reference, UK nuclear plants produce 20% of the nations energy and is reliable in producing that consistently. Plans have been drawn to build more, despite the babbling of green activists.

https://www.energyforhumanity.org/en/briefings/energy/nuclear-power-and-safety-the-facts/ For those concerned about other risks, such as safety, please educate yourselves.

For every non nuclear plant that's been built since the conception of the technology, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of CO2, if not millions, has been released into the atmosphere, and pollutants have damaged the quality of life of those in the region.

If a country doesn't have the tech to build a reactor, outsource. Even the UK does that with it's reactors.

 

[Bomby569]

Because all of those have a useful lifespan of less than 20 years. Are insanely unreliable, irregular in power generation, often producing power at times it's not needed, and being idle when it's critical, require rare earths and complex manufacturing and maintenance (more difficult especially when offshore), and expensive to recycle. Nuclear is the only logical option for our energy demands in any kind of green manner at scale.

For reference, a single UK nuclear plant produces 20% of the nations energy and is reliable in producing that consistently. Build 5 of those, and you don't worry about energy for the next few decades.View attachment 255960

https://www.energyforhumanity.org/en/briefings/energy/nuclear-power-and-safety-the-facts/ For those concerned about other risks, such as safety, please educate yourselves.

For every non nuclear plant that's been built since the conception of the technology, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of CO2, if not millions, has been released into the atmosphere, and pollutants have damaged the quality of life of those in the region.

If a country doesn't have the tech to build a reactor, outsource. Even the UK does that with it's reactors.

The UK has 6 nuclear power plants producing 20% of the total energy output of the country, not one. I'm sure i'm the one that needs to be educated. Sure mate.

 

[dgianstefani]

Yeah pick on that one typo instead of the actual point of the post - well done.

 

[Bomby569]

Yeah pick on that one typo instead of the actual point of the post - well done.

i'm also sure you don't know what a typo is.

"a single UK nuclear plant produces 20% of the nations energy" for "UK nuclear plants produce 20% of the nations energy" it's not a typo, at most it would be a cluster of typos coherently forming a completely different sentence.

 

[dgianstefani]

Still ignoring the point I see. Well done.

Keep focusing on correcting grammar! I'm sure the world's energy problems can be solved that way.

 

[Bomby569]

i'm not ignoring anything, i explained my point, i don't see anything relevant on your post for me to comment, i just corrected the wrong information on yours.

 

[dgianstefani]

The UK has 6 nuclear power plants producing 20% of the total energy output of the country, not one. I'm sure i'm the one that needs to be educated. Sure mate.

It's actually 11 reactors at five locations, if you want to be pedantic.

 

[Bomby569]

It's actually 11 reactors at five locations, if you want to be pedantic.

you quoted "nuclear plants" not "reactors". Was that another typo?

 

[dgianstefani]

Pedantic it is I see.

You're still wrong by the way.

 

[Aquinus]

@Bomby569 how about actually providing some tangible argument other than the indirection you keep adding to the discussion. @dgianstefani has made some pretty good points, you however, have not.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

There's this insane push for nuclear everywhere, i have no idea were this is coming from.

Building nuclear power plants is costly, insanely complex, requires specialised workforce, a very stable country to be able to acess the technology even if they want to use it, and it takes a lot of time to build a power plant. Rarely does a nuclear power plant not go over budget and over timeline by 2x and more. Not to mention were to put it, in many smaller countries if there were an accident, a large portion of the country would be inhabitable. People will protest. You have to deal with storage of waste, and when it gets to end of life the decommissioning it's insanely costly.

I bet more then half the countries on Earth have no possibility to use nuclear.

Why not just build solar farms, wind farms, wave power farms, etc...

These are not your grandfather's nuclear reactors. Look at the ones X-Energy is building for example - a 400 yard safety factor vs 10 miles, focusing on lowering cost and maintenance, like SpaceX did for the space industry. They are also building a portable reactor that fits into a ISO sized container. If a country can't build or safely use a nuclear power plant, let the UN administer portable reactors, to prevent proliferation.

Solar power is far less environmentally friendly than most people think. Old solar panels are threatening to dwarf the e-waste problem for m consumer electronics, and the production is not squeaky clean either. I like hydro power - wave, river, tidal - but those are strongly location-specific.

 

[dgianstefani]

Bear in mind most new reactors aren't designed to produce plutonium as a by product (for weapons in cold war), making them inherently safer, alongside all of the other advantages from modern designs.

These are not your grandfather's nuclear reactors. Look at the ones X-Energy is building for example - a 400 yard safety factor vs 10 miles, focusing on lowering cost and maintenance, like SpaceX did for the space industry. They are also building a portable reactor that fits into a ISO sized container. If a country can't build or safely use a nuclear power plant, let the UN administer portable reactors, to prevent proliferation.

Solar power is far less environmentally friendly than most people think. Old solar panels are threatening to dwarf the e-waste problem for m consumer electronics, and the production is not squeaky clean either. I like hydro power - wave, river, tidal - but those are strongly location-specific.

 

[Bomby569]

Pedantic it is I see.

You're still wrong by the way.
View attachment 255961

Great so we went from a SINGLE nuclear power plant produces 20% of the countries needs, amazing. To 8 power plants to produce 20%. I think you made your point.

These are not your grandfather's nuclear reactors. Look at the ones X-Energy is building for example - a 400 yard safety factor vs 10 miles, focusing on lowering cost and maintenance, like SpaceX did for the space industry. They are also building a portable reactor that fits into a ISO sized container. If a country can't build or safely use a nuclear power plant, let the UN administer portable reactors, to prevent proliferation.

Solar power is far less environmentally friendly than most people think. Old solar panels are threatening to dwarf the e-waste problem for m consumer electronics, and the production is not squeaky clean either. I like hydro power - wave, river, tidal - but those are strongly location-specific.

I already said, even if it was the solution, for the most part of the countries in the world, nuclear is not even an option. What problem will it solve exactly?
The countries that can do it, how many NPP went over budget and over the timeline lately? billions.

The controversial future of nuclear power in the U.S.

As the climate crisis worsens, the discussion intensifies over what role nuclear power should play in fighting it.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Hinkley Point C delayed by a year as cost goes up by £3bn

The revised operating date for the Somerset site is June 2027 and is expected to cost up to £26bn.

www.bbc.com

Focus: EDF hopeful end in sight for long-delayed, budget-busting nuclear plant

At a sprawling nuclear site in north western France, a banner next to a crane and a still-under-construction water reservoir confidently states: "Final stretch to get Flamanville 3 started safely and securely."

www.reuters.com

Solar panels can be recycled, that e-waste argument makes no sense. Everything can be e-waste if you don't care Nuclear costs billions of dollars to decommission a plant, if you don't do it you'll have even a bigger problem of waste.

 

[defaultluser]

Eh. not really anymore, propellor tech has came on a long ways since 1945 as well as engine tech. A400m (latest cargo plane for NATO) for example cruisers around mach 0.65 (485 Mph)

Jets still hold the advantage at around 0.8-85 mach cruise speeds but this is where things like the unducted fan technology could be translated to electric motors.



The main thing is turn around times.
For the average every day driver a 2-300 mile range is perfectly adequete for 95%+ of journey made without ever having to really use a charger beyond overnight charging
300-500 miles (realisticall 270 -450 based on historical comparisons of realistic vs stated range) for the Tesla Semi where your now talking an hour+ charge time at a super charger station vs 800+ for diesel fuel which is about a 10 minute fill up

The other thing is charge cycles
How many people go from say 90-100% charge to 20-10% charge on the battery in the EV every day?
How many HGVs would do the same once or multiple times per day?

What about sleepers? Do the power everything of the main driveline batteries or keep some dedicated leisure batteries for that sort of thing?

What about pack replacements. If a Model X battery pack cost is already 10-15k how much is a semi pack going to cost? An inframe overhaul of a traditional engine is only 10-15k and thats anywhere from 500k-750k+ miles

Sure, looks promising on the propeller design

But HGVs area no-no for aircraft: there will never be enough infrastructure to handle the added complexity of cryogenics on aircraft ( slurry maybe, but why not just create carbon-neutral fuel from that same mass-produced hydrogen?)

The Air Force partners with Twelve, proves it’s possible to make jet fuel out of thin air

Air Force Operational Energy endorsed the carbon transformation company Twelve to launch a pilot program to demonstrate that their proprietary technology could convert CO2 into operationally viable

www.af.mil

its a vastly easier to make av gas at one big H2 electrolysis plant plus C0 (no massive infrastructure required, and cuts-down on the cost of having to redesign every in-production aircraft on earth)

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Great so we went from a SINGLE nuclear power plant produces 20% of the countries needs, amazing. To 8 power plants to produce 20%. I think you made your point.



I already said, even if it was the solution, for the most part of the countries in the world, nuclear is not even an option. What problem will it solve exactly?
The countries that can do it, how many NPP went over budget and over the timeline lately? billions.

The controversial future of nuclear power in the U.S.

As the climate crisis worsens, the discussion intensifies over what role nuclear power should play in fighting it.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Hinkley Point C delayed by a year as cost goes up by £3bn

The revised operating date for the Somerset site is June 2027 and is expected to cost up to £26bn.

www.bbc.com

Focus: EDF hopeful end in sight for long-delayed, budget-busting nuclear plant

At a sprawling nuclear site in north western France, a banner next to a crane and a still-under-construction water reservoir confidently states: "Final stretch to get Flamanville 3 started safely and securely."

www.reuters.com

Solar panels can be recycled, that e-waste argument makes no sense. Everything can be e-waste if you don't care Nuclear costs billions of dollars to decommission a plant, if you don't do it you'll have even a bigger problem of waste.

I encourage you to read the linked article, it is very interesting.

Also, which countries did you have in mind? Any with a port could take a berthed ship with container-sized reactors. Heck, a pair of (new) Panamax-sized ships could power the entirety of Venezuela, and if security became a concern they could just sail off. Also, modular reactors with road-transportable pieces resolve many of the issues with the nuclear power plants currently under construction.

 

[dragontamer5788]

The efficiency of hydrogen in terms of cost in electricity to generate it is almost irrelevant. As many others have said, Nuclear is the answer, and night production is the ideal time.

Alternatively, if we mass produce solar panels to the point that the 11am sun is the "cheapest energy" point in our systems, then H2 Electrolysis could be run at 11am instead of at night.

It doesn't matter. Nuclear is a bad fit for reality, because nuclear makes too much energy at night and not enough during the day. Solar is a bad fit: too much energy made at 10am (sun hasn't heated the area up yet), not enough electricity at 7pm (sun heated the roads up, our ACs are running on full blast, but the sun is setting and the solar power is disappearing). Wind is a bad fit: less wind during daytime hours than nighttime.

The only thing that matches our use correctly is Natural Gas, which is why that's so popular despite its carbon emissions. Hydro is also another thing that matches perfectly, because we can let the turbines spin whenever we want (as long as we have adequate water reserves). But Hydro is quite geography limited. We probably should maximize the Hydro we have, but it won't be long before we run out of geography.

----------

Thinking of things like H2 that we can "run when we want to" is key to making green energy work. It doesn't matter if we use nuclear, solar, or wind. All of them fail to match real-world energy usage. So instead, we can invent new devices (like H2 Electrolysis) to be run at the cheapest time, responsive to the the conditions of the grid.