Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[dgianstefani]

The big concept / theory seems doable. But in terms of "will this survive a California Earthquake", you'd never draw just 3 pylons and call it a structural analysis of the concept.

When you consider the actual issue that California was worried about (ie: California Earthquakes), there's a level of analysis that requires more than like, 3-hours on a computer to figure out. (IE: I'd probably replicate that level of analysis within 3 hours, with the first 2 hours remembering how to use FEA programs and 1 hour to draw the thing). Its an incredibly shallow level of discussion / analysis in that document. Incredibly shallow, relying upon nearly the default materials/default settings of the program.

-----

Thanks to playing traffic simulator games (IE, OpenTTD), I've also become a bit better with throughput vs latency vs traffic when it comes down to analyzing mass transit proposals. Single-car designs (like Philadelphia TRAMS) can work, but you lose throughput significantly. Since throughput / people moved per hour is lower, such a proposal is seemingly designed as a boutique option, rather than a serious mass transit solution. I dunno how much traffic the SF to LA corridor has (I'm no civil engineer), but I have my doubts that Hyperloop, with a low throughput design as discussed, would make a dent in that traffic.

I admit this is video-game knowledge instead of real life knowledge though. But I can't imagine that fundamental laws of throughput/latency would change between real life and simulations (at least, from the simplistic model of throughput vs latency). That is to say: a singular train of eight cars will have fewer delays in the aggregate than 8x single-cars individually stopping at each location. You can't beat the fundamental traffic problem of throughput vs latency (individual pods are better latency, but far worse throughput).

Where I can see hyperloop or the generic equivalent being useful is between towns and cities, to avoid flying. No more big airports taking space, just a next generation tube/underground equivalent, with much less noise and vibration, and much faster transit times, entry/egress points being more convenient. This could eliminate need for cars and planes, where you just have the London system of underground, but scaled up in distance and speed, commute by foot or bike at either end.

Obviously for earthquake zones anything underground is problematic and your analysis is correct there. I'm in the middle re ol' Musky, he is a salesman, but he also stimulated great advances, quickly.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Where I can see hyperloop or the generic equivalent being useful is between towns and cities, to avoid flying. No more big airports taking space, just a next generation tube/underground equivalent, with much less noise and vibration, and much faster transit times, entry/egress points being more convenient. This could eliminate need for cars and planes, where you just have the London system of underground, but scaled up in distance and speed, commute by foot or bike at either end.

Obviously for earthquake zones anything underground is problematic and your analysis is correct there. I'm in the middle re ol' Musky, he is a salesman, but he also stimulated great advances, quickly.

But the issue here is that Musky is trying to kill the California High Speed Rail project, by pretending this fake system (which he has no interest in actually building Hyperloop) is an alternative option. I'm not against mass transit proposals. I'm against fake-mass transit proposals being presented to kill other mass-transit ideas.

The California high-speed line between SF and LA is ready to go. The entire argument by Musk is "Don't build it, I might build Hyperloop instead" (except he doesn't plan to build Hyperloop. He just wants to kill the rail project).

-------

If Hyperloop was in fact, a serious proposal, that had serious throughput metrics and real analysis behind it, then yes, it'd be worthy of discussion. But otherwise, its just a thinly veiled political ploy to distract us from serious projects. That's why I bring up the Hyperloop proposal's "analysis", to show how shoddy it is and how blatantly it is just a political tool. No serious engineer would sign off on a document like that.

EDIT: If someone wants to experiment with cool new technologies, then cool. I'm not against that. But if someone wants to pretend to experiment with technologies, to kill real useful projects, then I'm going to have some major issues. If Musk wants to build Hyperloop, there's plenty of locations around the country that need high-speed transit that I'm sure would be willing to accept. I don't understand why he needs to do it in this way that jeopardizes the California SF to LA line.

 

[Space Lynx]

Well, going to the on-topic part of your post, H2 trucks look economically viable today.

현대자동차그룹

현대자동차그룹은 ‘안전하고 자유로운 이동과 평화로운 삶’이라는 인류의 꿈을 실현해 갑니다. 현대자동차그룹의 활동과 최근 소식을 만나보세요.

www.hyundaimotorgroup.com

This is current news, more freshly deployed Hyundai Xcient trucks hitting German roads. The Xcient trucks also hit California roads sometime last year IIRC. This is no longer a "someday" or "theoretical" thing. H2 is happening, albeit in small deployments. But real, long-distance semi-truck level hauling applications.

This article was just posted today. It's like I said earlier in this thread, I think the answer is simple, a combination of all the new technologies based on geographical location. If you live in SouthWest USA you should probably have something like an Aptera solar powered car, or whatever other cars embrace that, in other places, hydrogen, in other places EV, and so on and so forth. The answer is a medley, and I think it is important we try to think of it this way. Unless government intervenes anyway like in a trillion dollar way, I don't see a universal blanket answer, and I don't see them doing that.

The world's first hydrogen-powered passenger trains are here | CNN

The Coradia iLint trains, which have debuted in Lower Saxony, Germany, are emissions-free and run on one tank of hydrogen per day.

edition.cnn.com

 

[dragontamer5788]

This article was just posted today. It's like I said earlier in this thread, I think the answer is simple, a combination of all the new technologies based on geographical location. If you live in SouthWest USA you should probably have something like an Aptera solar powered car, or whatever other cars embrace that, in other places, hydrogen, in other places EV, and so on and so forth. The answer is a medley, and I think it is important we try to think of it this way. Unless government intervenes anyway like in a trillion dollar way, I don't see a universal blanket answer, and I don't see them doing that.

The world's first hydrogen-powered passenger trains are here | CNN

The Coradia iLint trains, which have debuted in Lower Saxony, Germany, are emissions-free and run on one tank of hydrogen per day.

edition.cnn.com

The main issue with trains is that an electrified line seems to make more sense. In theory. Why carry batteries or H2 at all when you can just run off grid power?

Then again, H2 is stored energy and could have come from non-peak times. Furthermore, the 3rd rail is expensive (copper, transformers, etc. etc.). So maybe it is a good application of H2.

 

[Space Lynx]

The main issue with trains is that an electrified line seems to make more sense. In theory. Why carry batteries or H2 at all when you can just run off grid power?

Then again, H2 is stored energy and could have come from non-peak times. Furthermore, the 3rd rail is expensive (copper, transformers, etc. etc.). So maybe it is a good application of H2.

Our opinion is irrelevant though, the hydrogen train is already here, in southern Germany anyway.

 

[Aquinus]

The main issue with trains is that an electrified line seems to make more sense. In theory. Why carry batteries or H2 at all when you can just run off grid power?

A lot of trains are hybrid in the sense that they run off grid power when they're attached to rails or overhead lines that are electrified, but then switch to diesel generators when they're off grid. I was on a train out of London that worked like this and it was really interesting because the diesel engines would only start if it needed power, would charge something, then turn off, just to start the cycle over again some time later. Either way, mass transit is economy at scale. It costs less to move a ton of people at once than everyone moving themselves.

 

[Bomby569]

Or, ya know, excess Solar Power / Nuclear Power which has no where else to go in the grid.

Its economically infeasible to temporarily turn off a Nuclear Power plant, or solar power. Solar's "fuel" is free, and Nuclear-fuel is almost free (it takes very, very little Uranium to create lots-and-lots of power. Even if Uranium is expensive, there's so little of it used in the nuclear power process).

The problem with today's electrical grid, and tomorrow's electrical grid, is that we're getting literally free sources of energy, but they're coming in at the wrong time. We need to invent storage devices that can absorb the free power. H2 is one such option.

ya know it

that's a band-aid, it doesn't solve the big problem, there is no conspiracy like the user was saying and that's what i was replying to. i'm sorry, no conspiracy, no contry has that much excess to solve their problems. But sure hydrogen is the way to go to store extra energy, it's been discussed several times before here.

 

[dragontamer5788]

that's a band-aid, it doesn't solve the big problem, there is no conspiracy like the user was saying

Hmm. Lemme go back and read that post.

I am afraid that the reason why they haven't allowed hydrogen to become mainstream is the same reason why they didn't allow any Nikola Tesla technology to become mainstream.

Wait a second. I'm using radio to talk to my cell phone, and alternating-current to power up my computer. Last time I checked, we're using a lot of Nikola Tesla techs in the mainstream.

That being said: H2 Fuel Cells have been tried before. The issue 10 years ago was that we didn't have cheap, good tanks to contain the highly pressurized H2. Today, we have more options and we're beginning to see a revitalization of H2 technologies. Furthermore, electrolysis is getting much cheaper and scaling to 10MW and 100MW plants. After languishing for a long time, H2 technologies have seen a huge spur of innovations in the past couple of years. Its exciting to see.

I still have my personal hype on Redox Flow Batteries though, lol. Talking about some cool "theoretical" techs that haven't had much discussion recently. (Ex: Redox Flow is a liquid, so you can "recharge" batteries by transferring the "used up" liquid out, and replacing it with "fresh, charged" liquid). Alas, it seems like H2 + Fuel Cell technologies are reaching critical mass over the ol' Redox Flow concept. Maybe in like 20 years, we can get a good anime on the retro-concept (like how steampunk reimagines society with more 1800s era steam tech, we can get a retro Sci-fi flick about Redox Flow )

 

[KLiKzg]

Burning coal, oil and fossil gas is dangerous for our future because it causes climate change - for example western europe is now hot and dry, when it used to be cooler and wetter.

We have to move to hydrogen, all the oceans wait for it.

Actually no...it is far better to burn fossil fuel, then to burn wood-coal. Considering emissions of CO2!

So do not listen to Green, better listen to engineers & chemists, which actually do know what the heck they are speaking off!

that's not the point, when you build a battery it's also a "net energy loss", so should we use that energy for "basically anything else"?

This is not that complicated, you produce solar only during the day, but that's not when consumption is higher, so you need to storage it to use in peak hours (it's a simplification, it usually involves a lot more planing, other energy sources), it can be hydrogen.
You can't fill a plain with batteries or it wouldn't fly with the weight, so you need some other type of storage, like hydrogen).
Etc...

Your point of energy net positive would be valid if burning fossil fuels wasn't a net negative for the environment, life on earth, and even economically speaking with external costs like droughts, floods, etc...

Except the "peak electrical power usage" is in the afternoon, when everybody comes home, cooks or orders lunch & turns on TV & climate. & has been for years!

Tesla is the reason we (Earthers) have an AC electric grid system.

I find it very ironic that a DC battery powered car company is called Tesla.

It has the AC motors, when you think about it.

But not many people are so intelligent to invent an AC battery. Just wait for it, comes from Europe.

 

[Bomby569]

Except the "peak electrical power usage" is in the afternoon, when everybody comes home, cooks or orders lunch & turns on TV & climate. & has been for years!

completely lost, did i said anything opposite to that?

 

[ARF]

We definitely don't need trains run by hydrogen, as have already been said those are best run on electricity.

What about airplanes, to retire the old kerosene ones?

 

[Bomby569]

We definitely don't need trains run by hydrogen, as have already been said those are best run on electricity.

What about airplanes, to retire the old kerosene ones?

in most places trains still run on diesel, no electric lines. It's probably cheaper to buy new hydrogen locomotives (if that was a thing) then electrifying all the lines, and we know this things are all about money

i'm no train expert but i think they aren't much of the issue anyway compared to all the other means of transport and all other fuel uses. They probably represent such a small percentage of the total carbon emission that they can be an afterthought

 

[KLiKzg]

As I have promised, info about batteries is public now. So this is going to be the future of batteries:

With this, Hydrogen is going to be pushed back. Especially with advancement of new chemistry in batteries & their availability.

 

[Bomby569]

As I have promised, info about batteries is public now. So this is going to be the future of batteries:

With this, Hydrogen is going to be pushed back. Especially with advancement of new chemistry in batteries & their availability.

i can't see the video now but the problem is energy density, it's still far away from replacing Lithium. But there are other promising replacements for lithium.

 

[InVasMani]

Solid state batteries is what I look forward to improving and price getting better.

 

[ARF]

I am not looking at all forward to any batteries. The batteries are as bad or even worse than the fossil fuels.

 

[mb194dc]

Solid state batteries is what I look forward to improving and price getting better.

Solid state batteries are vapoware? Massive challenges to get them in mass production at reasonable cost.

 

[InVasMani]

For now, but it might sort itself out in the future AI can already surpass humans at many things give it time they'll do batteries better too.

 

[defaultluser]

For now, but it might sort itself out in the future AI can already surpass humans at many things give it time they'll do batteries better too.

its way too complex to get solid-state lithium batteries working, and we've already been working on the problem for at least two decades:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.200502604

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359645412007811

Benchmarking the performance of all-solid-state lithium batteries - Nature Energy

Considering the interdependence of performance measures and the lack of a basic reference system for all-solid-state batteries, Jürgen Janek and co-workers analyse literature performance data for major types of all-solid-state batteries and benchmark them against minimalistic reference cells.

www.nature.com

And we still haven't found a viable solution amongst all those attempts!

And, more pressing, the fact that Lithium Iron Phosphate has most of the benefits of solid state (cheaper, wont self-ignite, no cobalt, and have a much longer lifetime), all while already being available on Tesla model 3, and Ford Lightning!

Even if Solid State were suddenly solved tomorrow, you have to almost double the capacity of iron phosphate to make any inroads - the entire cheap EV industry in China has already chosen iron.

 

[InVasMani]

The field of AI and robotics are relatively new and already quite promising. Give it another decade or two it'll probably sort itself out. We're already hearing rumblings of Volkswagen looking at solid state battery EV's. No one is going to argue that lithium isn't the easier short-term and mid-term solution that's viable for batteries.

As for China who cares they will do whatever damn well please in most instances anyway and given lithium is the cheaper and easier alternative that what they will probably do. The minute they can steal the IP to better technology and copy it and mass produce it easily guess what they'll do and pretty have always done!!?

I think you're entirely shorting the future and the advancements to come with both technology larger concentrations of people to pool their minds on idea's and solutions and research around them at the same time. Human's have learn a lot in the last 10 years alone and more than previous 10 before that one can argue.

 

[Bomby569]

China mostly drives it all, if it weren't for their solar panels and batteries we would be far off. At least in this field we need their cheap stuff and we can't afford to think of IP's and everybody should work together before it's too late. This problem doesn't stop at the border.

 

[InVasMani]

That's also in big part because everything shifted to China due to the larger work force and overlooked or tolerated at least the problems and issues surrounding any of that. It's a double edge sword, but you're not wrong about planetary concerns being a global matter to address. I'd say we're far off even in spite of, but it is what it is. I am inclined to agree though when it comes to green energy and same goes for food and medicine IP shouldn't be a barrier to the well being of the planet nor it's inhabitants and that should be universally agreed upon as better for society's well being and sustainability.

 

[Bomby569]

That's also in big part because everything shifted to China due to the larger work force and overlooked or tolerated at least the problems and issues surrounding any of that. It's a double edge sword, but you're not wrong about planetary concerns being a global matter to address. I'd say we're far off even in spite of, but it is what it is. I am inclined to agree though when it comes to green energy and same goes for food and medicine IP shouldn't be a barrier to the well being of the planet nor it's inhabitants and that should be universally agreed upon as better for society's well being and sustainability.

this is not decision made in a vacuum, they all fit together. If it hadn't shifted to China they would be more expensive and that would only have made the problem worst. Even in the cold war there were things both sides agreed on and worked together. I fear we are going on a path that makes it harder then in the cold war for as crazy as it may sound.

This is not against you specifically, because i think this is a general issue.

 

[InVasMani]

Population density rise is the elephant in the room. You can't simply expect to remain stable indefinitely with finite amounts of resources to share plus the rich and powerful aren't so great at that.

 

[Bomby569]

Population density rise is the elephant in the room. You can't simply expect to remain stable indefinitely with finite amounts of resources to share plus the rich and powerful aren't so great at that.

A 2 problem part, in some places energy is just too cheap and people don't use it as they should considering the problem we have. The same goes to water especially but other resources btw.

Energy use per person

Measured in kilowatt-hours per person. Here, energy refers to primary energy using the substitution method.

ourworldindata.org

Then there is a finite world and we use it's resources as if it was infinite, the population growth and the unreal expectation that everyone in it should increase their living standards is a impossibility, Go forth and multiply is a stupid moto.

We all have been living absurd lies. If we fix the supply part we should consider the demand too for sure, even if power is solved there will always be other issues with our approach to resources.