Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[the54thvoid]

Here's another good summary of the challenges of Hydrogen: https://doomberg.substack.com/p/the...?r=f58dl&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

That linked article has nothing to do with the summary of the challenges of using hydrogen. It's solely about the Hindenberg. The piece actually talks of the merits of using hydrogen and only posts the question of what its limits are in a green future.

 

[dragontamer5788]

That linked article has nothing to do with the summary of the challenges of using hydrogen. It's solely about the Hindenberg. The piece actually talks of the merits of using hydrogen and only posts the question of what its limits are in a green future.

I can't scroll past the intro, looks like its hidden for subscribers and I don't feel like giving my email to someone else, lol.

I should note that Hydrogen flames are nearly invisible to the naked eye. The fire people saw was the paint catching on fire, not the Hydrogen

We can rest assured that the H2 on the Hindenburg caught on fire. But we also know, from physics, that no one saw those flames.

 

[Space Lynx]

I can't scroll past the intro, looks like its hidden for subscribers and I don't feel like giving my email to someone else, lol.

I should note that Hydrogen flames are nearly invisible to the naked eye. The fire people saw was the paint catching on fire, not the Hydrogen

View attachment 262760

View attachment 262761

We can rest assured that the H2 on the Hindenburg caught on fire. But we also know, from physics, that no one saw those flames.

That's all well and good, but I am pretty sure Toyota, and this Sadler train company have already through of that and designed excellent systems to prevent issues.

Personally, I am happy to see hydrogen trains in particular gaining traction.

edit: pun was not intended, just noticed it. LOL

 

[Bomby569]

i honestly think trains would be better off with electricity, it's dumb to go Hydrogen unless they cross some desert in China or something like that. It's creating an unnecessary middle step and deviating H2 from other uses

A bit like natural gas buses, when most cities removed trolley bus, makes no sense in general terms. But sounds good and "green" and whatever.

 

[Space Lynx]

i honestly think trains would be better off with electricity, it's dumb to go Hydrogen unless they cross some desert in China or something like that. It's creating an unnecessary middle step and deviating H2 from other uses

A bit like natural gas buses, when most cities removed trolley bus, makes no sense in general terms. But sounds good and "green" and whatever.

I'm sure they have run the numbers and find hydrogen to be more cost effective for their use case. Electric trains would need massive batteries or whole new infrastructure... like if you have Amtrak going from Chicago to Pennsylvania, you can't install a tram like electric structure that entire length, especially with vandals about, hydrogen makes a lot more sense, and it is easier to keep secure. Humans will never have paradise, cause humans prove time and again they can't have nice things without ruining it. You have to design systems that can be kept secure.

 

[cvaldes]

i honestly think trains would be better off with electricity, it's dumb to go Hydrogen unless they cross some desert in China or something like that. It's creating an unnecessary middle step and deviating H2 from other uses

A bit like natural gas buses, when most cities removed trolley bus, makes no sense in general terms. But sounds good and "green" and whatever.

The USA is crushingly behind the times concerning rail technology. There's no electrification on most tracks and for much of the rural right-of-ways, it's not economically feasible to erect overhead catenary system for power.

California is in the early stages of building a high-speed rail line, intended to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles. It might take decades to complete at an astronomical price. It's also not taking the most direct and logical route but going to the middle of the state. And even when it's completely, it won't run fast in populated areas because they chose to use existing grade-level tracks; in these areas, it might run 110 km/h (about 75 mph).

Japan built their first HSR line (on elevated tracks) with overhead catenary power for trains that ran at 210 km/h (130 mph). IN 1965. Today they have trains that reach 285 km/h (177 mph) on that line and have faster service on other HSR lines in the country.

Caltrain -- one of the oldest commuter rail lines in the world -- runs between San Francisco and San Jose using diesel locomotives pulling a bunch of rolling stock that's over 35 years old. BART is still using cars that are over 50 years old, way beyond their expected life.

The hydrogen-powered Stadler locomotives are a compromise since the USA isn't going to electrify most of its tracks. Hydrogen fuel is an alternative to consider when building out the infrastructure to support electric-powered transport isn't cost effective.

 

[mechtech]

The real question is why did we abandon horses so quickly??

Cheaper and greener than any car

I'm sure they have run the numbers and find hydrogen to be more cost effective for their use case. Electric trains would need massive batteries or whole new infrastructure... like if you have Amtrak going from Chicago to Pennsylvania, you can't install a tram like electric structure that entire length, especially with vandals about, hydrogen makes a lot more sense, and it is easier to keep secure. Humans will never have paradise, cause humans prove time and again they can't have nice things without ruining it. You have to design systems that can be kept secure.

Hmmmmmm

Aren't the bullet trains in Japan electric? Make it high voltage............no more vandals

 

[Bomby569]

I'm sure they have run the numbers and find hydrogen to be more cost effective for their use case. Electric trains would need massive batteries or whole new infrastructure... like if you have Amtrak going from Chicago to Pennsylvania, you can't install a tram like electric structure that entire length, especially with vandals about, hydrogen makes a lot more sense, and it is easier to keep secure. Humans will never have paradise, cause humans prove time and again they can't have nice things without ruining it. You have to design systems that can be kept secure.

I was never thinking of batteries, more like overhead electric lines. The US has another problem, a old power grid and lacking connections (as far as i know anyway), you could just invest in the 2 in parallel.

My point was hydrogen will always be in high demand in the future (unless something better comes along, and i doubt it, at least in the near future), that will make it's price go up, not exactly the best for trains that never really meant nothing to Americans, unless you subsidise them (not a American think i guess), or just keep them as the current ones, eccentricities i guess.

H2 should used only for things that don't have a better solution i would say. Trains go down that one path, perfect for the lines. It's my view anyway.

The hydrogen-powered Stadler locomotives are a compromise since the USA isn't going to electrify most of its tracks. Hydrogen fuel is an alternative to consider when building out the infrastructure to support electric-powered transport isn't cost effective.

like i replied to the other user, knowing the electric grid needs massive investment, is putting some lines over the train tracks that much of a difference to a budget like the US.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

We can rest assured that the H2 on the Hindenburg caught on fire. But we also know, from physics, that no one saw those flames.

Hydrogen burns other stuff, like the skin of the blimp:

Well documented that it went up in flames.


The problem with rail in the USA is that it's backwards. Infrastructure projects need to start with making communities walkable, then connecting walkable communities via bus/tram, then connecting bus/tram between cities via rail. Each step creates a strong revenue base to expand to the next step. Instead, they're doing it backwards begging taxpayers for investment money on a project that is designed to not have any users. Mass transit only works when it's the fastest, easiest, and cheapest way to get from start to destination.

Because USA is so far behind on long distance infrastructure, hydrogen is the only feasible zero emission answer for ships, trucks, trains, and aircraft. I have no faith that USA will revolutionize long distance infrastructure in the next century that permits electrification.

For the record, Atlanta is actually the closest to pulling off a mass transit system designed from the bottom up the right way, but it's having difficulty securing funding/permission to build streetcars connecting walkable parts of the city. Video about the project here:

Electrified rails are definitely the ideal way to move a lot of people cleanly and efficiently.

 

[Bomby569]

Because USA is so far behind on long distance infrastructure, hydrogen is the only feasible zero emission answer for ships, trucks, trains, and aircraft. I have no faith that USA will revolutionize long distance infrastructure in the next century that permits electrification.

For the record, Atlanta is actually the closest to pulling off a mass transit system designed from the bottom up the right way, but it's having difficulty securing funding/permission to build streetcars connecting walkable parts of the city. Video about the project here:

Electrified rails are definitely the ideal way to move a lot of people cleanly and efficiently.

Near me the train stations are still far away from people. Only in the major cities you have a big train stations in the middle of the city and subway to get there. But 95% of the stations don't work like that, we have buses (no one likes those, it's mostly for poor people or young people) to the train station or big car parks (the preferred method) very close to the train station.
Lines are mostly electrified by now, even the ones that only do cargo. There are still some old style tracks but on older lines it little use.
And we are a poor country.

So you can leave your car at the station and take the train, that is the way we do it. You can commute or travel like that.

I'm not doing it now, but when i commuted, i did a 5/10 minute car journey and then took the train to the "big city". I also did it a lot to travel inside the country like that, if it's just 2 people for example, train is almost always cheaper.

Anyway all this to say, i know what you mean, your houses inside a population are all very spread, you can't really walk to the station, but i don't think that's a deal breaker.

 

[Sybaris_Caesar]

 

[Super XP]

Just doing a quick look around I found some definite negatives for using hydrogen as fuel:

• Investment is Required. ...
• Cost of Raw Materials. ...
• Regulatory Issues. ...
• Overall Cost. ...
• Hydrogen Storage. ...
• Infrastructure. ...
• Highly Flammable.
• There's virtually no pure hydrogen on Earth because it's so reactive. Most hydrogen is made from methane [natural gas] in a process that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The reason we are still using fossil fuels to power our cars is because it's a cheaper and simpler means of energy production. One day when we are running out of cheap fossil fuels that will change. Hopefully at that time Fusion will be cheap enough and simple to use and practical for transportation.

We may run out of oil in about 2000 years.

 

[Space Lynx]

We may run out of oil in about 2000 years.

or go 2000 kilometers in our hydrogen cars


New VW hydrogen cars can go 2000km before needing a refuel.


I can't find the article at the moment, but I remember reading about it earlier today, apparently Toyota was using a different material for its hydrogen tanks/engine, or something like that. But VW is using ceramic or some new ceramic material that was a game changer for overall distance capabilities. Can't remember. Read an article on it earlier today though, and I thought it was kind of neat.

 

[Space Lynx]

Looks like Honda and GM have not abandoned hydrogen cars... interesting development.

Honda to start producing new hydrogen fuel cell system co-developed with GM

Japan's Honda Motor Co said it will start producing a new hydrogen fuel cell system jointly developed with General Motors Co this year and gradually step up sales this decade, in a bid to expand its hydrogen business.

www.reuters.com

 

[mb194dc]

Hyrdrogen will win eventually, it's the VHS to Electric Betamax... Electric has huge problems, battery range is terrible, they wear out and cold weather is a range and battery killer. If they catch fire they can't be put out easily. Most importantly, charging them en mass is a huge logistical problem.

Ultimately, people will realize hydrogen is a better solution. You can replace existing petrol (gas) station infrastructure with Hydrogen instead, or have dual stations whilst the switch over takes place. Hydrogen is as good as we'll get until we figure out quantum tunneling to make fusion viable, which could be a while...

 

[Space Lynx]

Hyrdrogen will win eventually, it's the VHS to Electric Betamax... Electric has huge problems, battery range is terrible, they wear out and cold weather is a range and battery killer. If they catch fire they can't be put out easily. Most importantly, charging them en mass is a huge logistical problem.

Ultimately, people will realize hydrogen is a better solution. You can replace existing petrol (gas) station infrastructure with Hydrogen instead, or have dual stations whilst the switch over takes place. Hydrogen is as good as we'll get until we figure out quantum tunneling to make fusion viable, which could be a while...

yep, I think we need more small nuclear power plants like the ones Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are building in Wyoming, and use that power to make hydrogen in strategic locations - then have hydrogen cars in those areas.

in other areas where it is super sunny like Southwest USA, have solar powered cars like Aptera

and use gas in other areas that hydrogen is harder to do. needs to be a variety of solutions, that is the only answer really.

 

[AusWolf]

yep, I think we need more small nuclear power plants like the ones Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are building in Wyoming, and use that power to make hydrogen in strategic locations - then have hydrogen cars in those areas.

in other areas where it is super sunny like Southwest USA, have solar powered cars like Aptera

and use gas in other areas that hydrogen is harder to do. needs to be a variety of solutions, that is the only answer really.

I completely agree.

I can't see the reasoning behind the (UK) government's "everybody go electric like there's no tomorrow" propaganda campaign. If there was one single option that's good for everybody, then we would have never had petrol (gasoline) and diesel dividing people's opinions for the last 50 or so years.

 

[mb194dc]

yep, I think we need more small nuclear power plants like the ones Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are building in Wyoming, and use that power to make hydrogen in strategic locations - then have hydrogen cars in those areas.

in other areas where it is super sunny like Southwest USA, have solar powered cars like Aptera

and use gas in other areas that hydrogen is harder to do. needs to be a variety of solutions, that is the only answer really.

In the UK there is plenty of wind power to tap out of peak demand and I'd go for nuclear as well.

It's the infrastructure that is already there essentially and the much better range that will eventually give hydrogen the edge.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Hyrdrogen will win eventually, it's the VHS to Electric Betamax... Electric has huge problems, battery range is terrible, they wear out and cold weather is a range and battery killer. If they catch fire they can't be put out easily. Most importantly, charging them en mass is a huge logistical problem.

Ultimately, people will realize hydrogen is a better solution. You can replace existing petrol (gas) station infrastructure with Hydrogen instead, or have dual stations whilst the switch over takes place. Hydrogen is as good as we'll get until we figure out quantum tunneling to make fusion viable, which could be a while...

Everything has huge problems. Wind generator blades are wearing out faster than anticipated, and we can't really do anything with the old ones. Solar panel life is also shorter than expected, and need to be kept clean. Both have consistency challenges. Hydro tends to wreck the environment around it. Nuclear is staggeringly expensive. Those are relevant to the production of hydrogen, which has a laundry list of challenges that are non-trivial to solve. In the end, though, the true issue IMO is that there are too many people requiring too many resources.

 

[Assimilator]

I completely agree.

I can't see the reasoning behind the (UK) government's "everybody go electric like there's no tomorrow" propaganda campaign. If there was one single option that's good for everybody, then we would have never had petrol (gasoline) and diesel dividing people's opinions for the last 50 or so years.

Petrol and diesel are two sides of the same coin; I don't know why you're acting as if they're comparable.

Wind generator blades are wearing out faster than anticipated, and we can't really do anything with the old ones.

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Gstorm CZE]

The more I look at what Toyota has done (and is doing) with a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine even... I just don't get it. I know storage costs of hydrogen are expensive, but if it were scaled up, wouldn't the cost dramatically lower? The Boring Company could dig giant underground storage facilities (its cold as crap if you dig far enough down)... and store the tanks of hydrogen there, and a driver will simply drive down a ramp, get the hydrogen tank replaced, and drive off.

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

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

If all world governments got on board and were like ok all... we highly miscalculated climate change, things need to change within 5 years... all mass production changed to this hydrogen idea... would it be impossible?
AFAIK hydrogen is able to be made from water too, there is some aircraft flying nonstop in high altitude running on this, using solar panels for electricity needed. I guess main killer of development is all cons currently found to be too big to make it massively used. If enough cash into this project, solutions would be found.

But dont get mistaken, there is always enough billions around to be spent for diggin into ground to keep those dirty gas refineries running, because simple fact. Fixed cost make it both dirty and dirty cheap. Quite similar story of china bottle stored liquid sodium batteries, those useable only ground stored mainly, as they heat up alot during charging, but they would be great for house charging. Instead there are used quite rare Lithium or other heavy metal batteries stored inside house.

Oh, I forgot also Lithium batteries already went into mass production, which is main reason for it to be cheap, they went down in price by ratio 1:20 vs original price. If there was used only actual cost per unit made, there would be no development at all. Flammability of hydrogen itself should be controlled with active and passive safety measures same as nuclear energy, but with far smaller costs and effect in case of accident, also car tanks for it are high safe, probably safer than car gas tanks, only problem is if hydrogen would leak slowly contaminating indoor (garage). Thats also customization of gas engines to propane trouble.



There would be nice from people to get just little bit smaller cars, maybe go back little for just cars no extra features, no conditioning, no radio, no electric windows or heating seats. Original cars in 80s and early 90s were quite low consumption, with not much useless crap installed, current cars still tend to grow, and I dont mean just making more luxury cars, main problem is those common class cars become tanks.

FInally passive safety is BS sold by companies, most customers simply prefer bigger-safer....which in hands of maniac or phone-tablet watching driver becomes anyway deadly....as it had been before.
Thats another reason why everybody is now trying for AI controlled cars.
There could come day, people loose any control and responsibility over danger...which is absolute mental and survival instict killer.

The more I look at what Toyota has done (and is doing) with a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine even... I just don't get it. I know storage costs of hydrogen are expensive, but if it were scaled up, wouldn't the cost dramatically lower? The Boring Company could dig giant underground storage facilities (its cold as crap if you dig far enough down)... and store the tanks of hydrogen there, and a driver will simply drive down a ramp, get the hydrogen tank replaced, and drive off.

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

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

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

AFAIK hydrogen is able to be made from water too, there is some aircraft flying nonstop in high altitude running on this, using solar panels for electricity needed. I guess main killer of development is all cons currently found to be too big to make it massively used. If enough cash into this project, solutions would be found.

But dont get mistaken, there is always enough billions around to be spent for diggin into ground to keep those dirty gas refineries running, because simple fact. Fixed cost make it both dirty and dirty cheap. Quite similar story of china bottle stored liquid sodium batteries, those useable only ground stored mainly, as they heat up alot during charging, but they would be great for house charging. Instead there are used quite rare Lithium or other heavy metal batteries stored inside house.

Oh, I forgot also Lithium batteries already went into mass production, which is main reason for it to be cheap, they went down in price by ratio 1:20 vs original price. If there was used only actual cost per unit made, there would be no development at all. Flammability of hydrogen itself should be controlled with active and passive safety measures same as nuclear energy, but with far smaller costs and effect in case of accident, also car tanks for it are high safe, probably safer than car gas tanks, only problem is if hydrogen would leak slowly contaminating indoor (garage). Thats also customization of gas engines to propane trouble.

There would be nice from people to get just little bit smaller cars, maybe go back little for just cars no extra features, no conditioning, no radio, no electric windows or heating seats. Original cars in 80s and early 90s were quite low consumption, with not much useless crap installed, current cars still tend to grow, and I dont mean just making more luxury cars, main problem is those common class cars become tanks.

Finally passive safety is BS sold by companies, most customers simply prefer bigger-safer....which in hands of maniac or phone-tablet watching driver becomes anyway deadly....as it had been before.
Thats another reason why everybody is now trying for AI controlled cars.
There could come day, people loose any control and responsibility over danger...which is absolute mental and survival instict killer.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Petrol and diesel are two sides of the same coin; I don't know why you're acting as if they're comparable.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Did not know; thanks for the heads-up.

 

[DOA]

In the UK there is plenty of wind power to tap out of peak demand and I'd go for nuclear as well.

It's the infrastructure that is already there essentially and the much better range that will eventually give hydrogen the edge.

Check in CA. The infrastructure is not there although it seems that way. Natural gas piping is not suitable nor are any burners. The cheapest H2 is $25/kg with no sign it will get cheaper when it goes green. Lastly, BEVs have more range, H2 takes large hard to package tanks.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Check in CA. The infrastructure is not there although it seems that way. Natural gas piping is not suitable nor are any burners. The cheapest H2 is $25/kg with no sign it will get cheaper when it goes green. Lastly, BEVs have more range, H2 takes large hard to package tanks.

Bev's, one point, travel with a family size load decent distances then you wouldn't be noting the range as adequate, shit the range is highly optimistic if a 8stone Nun was driving on her own round an oval on her own.


Add reality and Bev's fall to shit, sub half they're range.

You don't notice in a Ice car so much but trust me you do in a bev.

 

[defaultluser]

Bev's, one point, travel with a family size load decent distances then you wouldn't be noting the range as adequate, shit the range is highly optimistic if a 8stone Nun was driving on her own round an oval on her own.


Add reality and Bev's fall to shit, sub half they're range.

You don't notice in a Ice car so much but trust me you do in a bev.

fuel cell cars have the exact same lithium ion battery packs as full bev,so you have the exact same temp dependency on range

hydrogen pistion ebgnees wont have this problem, but that's decades of development away