Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[TumbleGeorge]

infact im even gona waste ur time even more with more bullshit than you can handle
this is your little solar farm looks like. no sun to engergy.
View attachment 287486
this it how it looks like after a heavy storm
View attachment 287487
now whos going to pay for that? where ur going to get power from? dont forget wind turbines burn down. wear down. and can't turn on heavy wind need to be parked..
and all that junk is going to turn up to a landfile....

No government is going to say no to a power source that is effectively limitless, effectively free, and requires zero dependency on other nations.
you said place it in a desert where no one lives. that makes other nations DEPENDENT on OTHER Nations

It will be interesting for the colleague to be hired with a simple hand broom in the desert, sweeping dust and sand all day from the photovoltaics. For a low salary. Would he agree, just to keep his point about how nice it is to be "green" with panels and fins?

 

[KrazyT]

Back to the tpic, here's an article from BMW :
article in French
Quick resume :
In 2022, BMW will release a limited sale of BMW X5 hydrogen based.
The hydrogen strategy will grow in 2025. They will work with Toyota to improve Fuel Cell Motor

 

[Space Lynx]

Back to the tpic, here's an article from BMW :
article in French
Quick resume :
In 2022, BMW will release a limited sale of BMW X5 hydrogen based.
The hydrogen strategy will grow in 2025. They will work with Toyota to improve Fuel Cell Motor
View attachment 288369

Interesting, I knew Honda was working with Sony, but didn't know Toyota had teamed up with someone as well.

 

[KrazyT]

Yes, Toyota and BMW are working together on some project, since many years ...
The first Mini (owned by BMW) diesel version had a Toyota motor, the same as the Yaris Diesel.
When the Diesel starts to fade in popularity in EU, and regulation became harder, Toyota didn't introduce new diesel engine. (exept for the Land Cruiser and Hilux)
Instead, they've picked some 2.0 and 1.6 inline 4 from BMW, 112 and 143 hp. You can find them in Avensis, Auris, RAV4 ...
Now, everybody's know that the new Supra is a BMW Z4 clone

 

[AusWolf]

Back to the tpic, here's an article from BMW :
article in French
Quick resume :
In 2022, BMW will release a limited sale of BMW X5 hydrogen based.
The hydrogen strategy will grow in 2025. They will work with Toyota to improve Fuel Cell Motor
View attachment 288369

This is especially interesting because BMW already has a bunch of electric vehicles on the market. The fact that they're investing in hydrogen anyway says to me that the technology has more meirt than we would believe.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

This is especially interesting because BMW already has a bunch of electric vehicles on the market. The fact that they're investing in hydrogen anyway says to me that the technology has more meirt than we would believe.

Hmmm, I rather suspect that it is about absorbing some unreasonably distributed grant subsidies along the lines of European green policies.

 

[Norton]

Topic is regarding hydrogen power and its presence or absence in vehicles for the future. If you want to start a thread discussing lithium batteries or anything else unrelated to the OP then go for it.

 

[Bomby569]

My head is still spinning. Seems like we took a train from London to Paris to get to reach the final destination in Liverpool. just use hydrogen.

 

[Space Lynx]

My head is still spinning. Seems like we took a train from London to Paris to get to reach the final destination in Liverpool. just use hydrogen.

I did watch this in full, and i have to say it doesn't make much sense, considering they are making hydrogen at one point of the process... I guess I kind of understand it... maybe if you scaled it up you could make it cheap without needing a whole new car design and living side by side with regular gas. its a neat idea from a strategic perspective, but only if it can be scaled up.

I am kind of with you on this one though, if you are making hydrogen just stop there... already plenty of vehicles use hydrogen including flying planes

 

[bobbybluz]

My head is still spinning. Seems like we took a train from London to Paris to get to reach the final destination in Liverpool. just use hydrogen.

An ex-roomies son is a writer for Donut Media. He really doesn't know much about cars.

 

[KrazyT]

I think is just a smart move from Porsche, and a way to not loose their customers.
They're saying :
"Don't worry dude, you can still buy new brand 911, and use it in the future, like your old one.
We're working on synthetic fuel, the value of your car won't fall !"

 

[Bomby569]

I think is just a smart move from Porsche, and a way to not loose their customers.
They're saying :
"Don't worry dude, you can still buy new brand 911, and use it in the future, like your old one.
We're working on synthetic fuel, the value of your car won't fall !"

i think that's the problem with most of the car companies, their problem with still needing to sell old tech to survive. Porsche makes a good EV already, they should look into the future, not hold on to the past.
They will never make the final push unless someone forces them to do it.

Just like the with the catalytic converter, as soon as someone puts a barrier in front of them, the "next day" they will solve all these unsolvable problems that stops them from moving away from fossil fuels.
Tesla pushed the EV almost on their own, and we could have hydrogen cars or something else if someone had already forced them to do it.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

i think that's the problem with most of the car companies, their problem with still needing to sell old tech to survive. Porsche makes a good EV already, they should look into the future, not hold on to the past.
They will never make the final push unless someone forces them to do it.

Just like the with the catalytic converter, as soon as someone puts a barrier in front of them, the "next day" they will solve all these unsolvable problems that stops them from moving away from fossil fuels.
Tesla pushed the EV almost on their own, and we could have hydrogen cars or something else if someone had already forced them to do it.

Tesla succeeded in creating a status symbol. The tech was already developed for viable BEVs. One can't as easily say that for hydrogen.

 

[Bomby569]

Tesla succeeded in creating a status symbol. The tech was already developed for viable BEVs. One can't as easily say that for hydrogen.

Hydrogen isn't as sexier as ev's, that's the truth. It has problems but so does EV's.
I'm not sure but that big loan Musk got for the US couldn't even be for hydrogen cars, could it? Charging stations is the same, way before Tesla was a thing we already had charging stations for EV's near me, i never seen a hydrogen charging station in the wild myself.

Wasn't the status symbol route the only one to take to be honest? rich educated people with disposable income are more likely to overspend on a new unproven EV. Tesla couldn't compete on low cost, mass market EV's, they didn't have the capacity or even know how to do it. They still struggle with it.

 

[AusWolf]

Hydrogen isn't as sexier as ev's, that's the truth. It has problems but so does EV's.
I'm not sure but that big loan Musk got for the US couldn't even be for hydrogen cars, could it? Charging stations is the same, way before Tesla was a thing we already had charging stations for EV's near me, i never seen a hydrogen charging station in the wild myself.

Wasn't the status symbol route the only one to take to be honest? rich educated people with disposable income are more likely to overspend on a new unproven EV. Tesla couldn't compete on low cost, mass market EV's, they didn't have the capacity or even know how to do it. They still struggle with it.

That's the problem with EVs, and that's why alternatives like hydrogen exist and are in development. The masses (myself included) need something that can be manufactured, fueled and serviced cheaply and quickly. I doubt we'll ever be able to say this about battery EVs - good ones, at least. They'll always be a rich kid's toy. In layman's terms: a £35k Tesla that needs a new battery pack every X years will never compete with a £12k Ford Fiesta.

 

[Space Lynx]

will never compete with a £12k Ford Fiesta.

this is true, my fiance and I are considering going half in half on a cheap little Kia or Ford that gets about 60 mpg highway (the UK models get about 60 mpg, just fyi for American consumers who eyes might boggle at this number) and they are really cheap to buy. plus we will be able to go everywhere without hindrance or planning charging times, which is a massive bonus. We would never be able to afford going half in half on an EV, and buying new batteries for it in 9 years or so (sooner if its the Nissan Leaf, which I read some batteries needing replaced after 6 years on that)... plus we get limited vacation time... so if we have a 4 day weekend to sight see, we don't want to be wasting any of that time stuck at a charger for 3 hours, when we could fill up for 30 seconds and be on our way.

imo hydrogen is the only way forward. or some kind of universal battery swap system that would take 30 seconds to swap, but I doubt engineers or greedy corporations ever become that innovative in American markets.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

this is true, my fiance and I are considering going half in half on a cheap little Kia or Ford that gets about 60 mpg highway (the UK models get about 60 mpg, just fyi for American consumers who eyes might boggle at this number) and they are really cheap to buy. plus we will be able to go everywhere without hindrance or planning charging times, which is a massive bonus. We would never be able to afford going half in half on an EV, and buying new batteries for it in 9 years or so (sooner if its the Nissan Leaf, which I read some batteries needing replaced after 6 years on that)... plus we get limited vacation time... so if we have a 4 day weekend to sight see, we don't want to be wasting any of that time stuck at a charger for 3 hours, when we could fill up for 30 seconds and be on our way.

imo hydrogen is the only way forward. or some kind of universal battery swap system that would take 30 seconds to swap, but I doubt engineers or greedy corporations ever become that innovative in American markets.

This is your thread, but it sounds like you haven't been reading it particularly closely. Hydrogen as an energy source has massive challenges that are non-trivial to overcome, and they all stem from the nature of hydrogen itself: Extremely low density, and extremely high reactivity. We're still on petroleum fuels because they score high where hydrogen scores low: Availability, density and stability.

Availability. While it's getting harder to find and extract as time goes on, petroleum is ultimately just hanging out waiting to be distilled into useful forms, forms it will stay in without much trouble. All H2 is bound to other molecules, and it really doesn't want to let go, and also really wants to hook back up with something as soon as possible (which is of course why FC tech even works). What this means is that we spend a lot more energy per unit of stored energy to produce H2 fuel than petroleum fuel. This is due to the nature of molecular chemistry and, barring a huge shift in our understanding thereof, will not change.

Density. Liquid petroleum fuels have significantly higher recoverable energy per unit mass and volume than H2, even taking combustion losses into account. This could conceivably change with advancement in tech, however.

Stability. Petroleum fuels, while definitely volatile, can be stored and transported easily. You can keep petrol or diesel in a container in your garage at atmospheric pressure. Gaseous fuels like NG require compression for efficient storage, but nowhere near the pressures required to make H2 viable. H2 also wants to bond with everything it touches, so it's not even easy to make a vessel to contain it.

We can hypothetically work around the density and stability problems, but not in an as easy or inexpensive way as you seem to think. It's convenient to blame greed or social inertia (and that's certainly a potential factor), but a guiding principle in my life of late is thus: If a problem hasn't been solved, it's most likely because that problem is really difficult. Hydrogen as a motor vehicle fuel is absolutely one of those problems, if for no other reason than it's devilishly hard to efficiently produce.

 

[The King]

Interesting video I watched a few days ago.

 

[Space Lynx]

This is your thread, but it sounds like you haven't been reading it particularly closely. Hydrogen as an energy source has massive challenges that are non-trivial to overcome, and they all stem from the nature of hydrogen itself: Extremely low density, and extremely high reactivity. We're still on petroleum fuels because they score high where hydrogen scores low: Availability, density and stability.

Availability. While it's getting harder to find and extract as time goes on, petroleum is ultimately just hanging out waiting to be distilled into useful forms, forms it will stay in without much trouble. All H2 is bound to other molecules, and it really doesn't want to let go, and also really wants to hook back up with something as soon as possible (which is of course why FC tech even works). What this means is that we spend a lot more energy per unit of stored energy to produce H2 fuel than petroleum fuel. This is due to the nature of molecular chemistry and, barring a huge shift in our understanding thereof, will not change.

Density. Liquid petroleum fuels have significantly higher recoverable energy per unit mass and volume than H2, even taking combustion losses into account. This could conceivably change with advancement in tech, however.

Stability. Petroleum fuels, while definitely volatile, can be stored and transported easily. You can keep petrol or diesel in a container in your garage at atmospheric pressure. Gaseous fuels like NG require compression for efficient storage, but nowhere near the pressures required to make H2 viable. H2 also wants to bond with everything it touches, so it's not even easy to make a vessel to contain it.

We can hypothetically work around the density and stability problems, but not in an as easy or inexpensive way as you seem to think. It's convenient to blame greed or social inertia (and that's certainly a potential factor), but a guiding principle in my life of late is thus: If a problem hasn't been solved, it's most likely because that problem is really difficult. Hydrogen as a motor vehicle fuel is absolutely one of those problems, if for no other reason than it's devilishly hard to efficiently produce.

Toyota has already made a vessel to contain, so I don't really understand this. With more and more small nuclear power plants being built, hydrogen will become viable in 10-50 years time, assuming it gets proper funding, which it won't sadly. The energy doesn't matter if we solve the nuclear energy problem, and it does seem like we are getting closer to that.

I am not saying hydrogen tomorrow, but it does seem to be the answer in the end for very long term sustainability.

 

[dragontamer5788]

We're still on petroleum fuels because they score high where hydrogen scores low: Availability, density and stability.

Petroleum is "just" a Hydrocarbon, that is, Carbon + Hydrogen molecule, in various forms.

H2 + CO (Carbon Monoxide), aka SynGas, has been proven to be a stepping stone to a number of synthetic fuels. Of course, any syngas research is dependent upon finding a way to mass produce hydrogen (thereby turning electricity into a fuel).

Its a good tech if we can figure it out... and we _are_ figuring it out right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_to_liquids#Methanol_to_gasoline_(MTG)_and_methanol_to_olefins

For the most part, the science has been figured out. All of these pathways between Hydrogen, Carbon, and Oxygen, which eventually could lead to
C8H18 (aka: Gasoline), or other fuels. Well... we can actually do this today, but not in a way that's economically viable. So its just engineering + business that needs to be figured out now.

---------

In any case, H2 is the first step that needs to be made. All of these Hydrocarbons require... well... Hydrogen. Carbon can be captured from CO2 (well, once we figure out carbon capture anyway). H2 production must accelerate because its immediately necessary for the creation of Ammonia / aka Fertilizer. So one way or the other, we're running into the Food Crisis and must figure out green H2 synthesis.

Will H2 as a fuel (or fuel-cell / battery thing) be useful? I don't know. But since we're figuring out how to mass produce H2 right now for our crops / fertilizer, we might as well experiment with H2. If it turns out to be a dead end, no biggie. We use H2 + Carbon and proceed to synthetic hydrocarbons / aka Electricity-to-Gasoline kinds of production.

That's really the biggest benefit of H2. Study of Hydrogen is central to all the chemistry of the future anyway, might as well see and experiment with raw H2 and see how far we get.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

if we solve the nuclear energy problem,

...we will use small fusion reactor in the car's and will have millions miles range.

 

[AusWolf]

This is your thread, but it sounds like you haven't been reading it particularly closely. Hydrogen as an energy source has massive challenges that are non-trivial to overcome, and they all stem from the nature of hydrogen itself: Extremely low density, and extremely high reactivity. We're still on petroleum fuels because they score high where hydrogen scores low: Availability, density and stability.

Availability. While it's getting harder to find and extract as time goes on, petroleum is ultimately just hanging out waiting to be distilled into useful forms, forms it will stay in without much trouble. All H2 is bound to other molecules, and it really doesn't want to let go, and also really wants to hook back up with something as soon as possible (which is of course why FC tech even works). What this means is that we spend a lot more energy per unit of stored energy to produce H2 fuel than petroleum fuel. This is due to the nature of molecular chemistry and, barring a huge shift in our understanding thereof, will not change.

Density. Liquid petroleum fuels have significantly higher recoverable energy per unit mass and volume than H2, even taking combustion losses into account. This could conceivably change with advancement in tech, however.

Stability. Petroleum fuels, while definitely volatile, can be stored and transported easily. You can keep petrol or diesel in a container in your garage at atmospheric pressure. Gaseous fuels like NG require compression for efficient storage, but nowhere near the pressures required to make H2 viable. H2 also wants to bond with everything it touches, so it's not even easy to make a vessel to contain it.

We can hypothetically work around the density and stability problems, but not in an as easy or inexpensive way as you seem to think. It's convenient to blame greed or social inertia (and that's certainly a potential factor), but a guiding principle in my life of late is thus: If a problem hasn't been solved, it's most likely because that problem is really difficult. Hydrogen as a motor vehicle fuel is absolutely one of those problems, if for no other reason than it's devilishly hard to efficiently produce.

Sure, hydrogen is difficult, but problems exist so that we can find solutions for them. Hydrogen fuel cell might be one. I haven't read a lot about it, but I've heard it's quite viable with decent range.

Battery EVs on the other hand, will probably never be a mainstream option due to the limitations of battery technology (slow to fuel, expensive to manufacture, has a finite life, etc). For this reason, I'm more optimistic about hydrogen than I am about EVs.

Toyota has already made a vessel to contain, so I don't really understand this. With more and more small nuclear power plants being built, hydrogen will become viable in 10-50 years time, assuming it gets proper funding, which it won't sadly. The energy doesn't matter if we solve the nuclear energy problem, and it does seem like we are getting closer to that.

Even if we solve fusion power, we still need to solve battery technology. Li-ion is not suitable to be used in a car, imo. So again: hydrogen!

I am not saying hydrogen tomorrow, but it does seem to be the answer in the end for very long term susustainability.

I agree.

 

[Steevo]

Sure, hydrogen is difficult, but problems exist so that we can find solutions for them. Hydrogen fuel cell might be one. I haven't read a lot about it, but I've heard it's quite viable with decent range.

Battery EVs on the other hand, will probably never be a mainstream option due to the limitations of battery technology (slow to fuel, expensive to manufacture, has a finite life, etc). For this reason, I'm more optimistic about hydrogen than I am about EVs.


Even if we solve fusion power, we still need to solve battery technology. Li-ion is not suitable to be used in a car, imo. So again: hydrogen!


I agree.

Hydrogen has more issues than electric storage, current advances in Lithium Iron and fast charge capacitors, plus the whole thermodynamics laws makes hydrogen one step further away from the electrical energy that a battery provides and thus less efficient. Creating hydrogen from electricity, storing it under high pressure and low temperature, fuel cell recreating electricity to then power a vehicle VS Electricity from a stable nuclear base load, solar or wind, direct storage and electricity use. Fewer steps, more efficient.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

makes hydrogen one step further away from the electrical energy

Maybe more of one step? 3 steps?

 

[dragontamer5788]

Hydrogen has more issues than electric storage, current advances in Lithium Iron and fast charge capacitors, plus the whole thermodynamics laws makes hydrogen one step further away from the electrical energy that a battery provides and thus less efficient. Creating hydrogen from electricity, storing it under high pressure and low temperature, fuel cell recreating electricity to then power a vehicle VS Electricity from a stable nuclear base load, solar or wind, direct storage and electricity use. Fewer steps, more efficient.

Hydrogen storage is measured in GW-hrs or even 10s of GW-hrs.

Meanwhile, Li-ion storage is 10x smaller at best. 100MW-hrs, 10MW-hrs, or so. There simply isn't enough Lithium to handle the energy storage costs within a day (+/- 10GW time-delayed over 8 hours or so, for only the state of California. Let alone the rest of the country). Let alone for energy storage costs across a week, or across months.