Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[Count von Schwalbe]

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.

Portable storage?

 

[dragontamer5788]

Portable storage?

If they're talking about "nuclear" energy, I don't think that's very portable.

But in regards to transportation energy storage, Hyundai XCIENT Hydrogen trucks are traveling pretty far, and only taking 10 to 20 minutes to refuel. I think we're already in a regime where H2 for truckers is superior over electric.

 

[Steevo]

If they're talking about "nuclear" energy, I don't think that's very portable.

But in regards to transportation energy storage, Hyundai XCIENT Hydrogen trucks are traveling pretty far, and only taking 10 to 20 minutes to refuel. I think we're already in a regime where H2 for truckers is superior over electric.

Where does the Hydrogen come from? Most from Natural Gas, and CO2 is a byproduct. Its worse for the environment than just burning the natural gas to create electricity. There is no way around the laws of thermodynamics. Hydrogen cells are 40-60% efficient about the same as burning the natural gas directly for electricity, but without the carbon emmissions from compressing, cooling, transporting, storage, and then only getting 50% of that energy back.


If we had stable nuclear fission as a base load and used excess electricity to break down water for clean hydrogen it would make more sense, but even then, it would be better for everyone to plug in their car and charge off peak, or make hot water.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

If they're talking about "nuclear" energy, I don't think that's very portable.

But in regards to transportation energy storage, Hyundai XCIENT Hydrogen trucks are traveling pretty far, and only taking 10 to 20 minutes to refuel. I think we're already in a regime where H2 for truckers is superior over electric.

For trucks at current tech levels, electric is a terrible choice.

I believe the nuclear comments were as to the original generation of power, to be used for generation of H2 or direct battery storage.

I think that battery tech will move beyond Lithium before the infrastructure and portability issues of hydrogen are worked out for general transportation.

Personally, my opinion is that ICE vehicles running on "green fuel" are much more likely to gain widespread acceptance, and would be able to reuse existing infrastructure.

 

[dragontamer5788]

There is no way around the laws of thermodynamics. Hydrogen cells are 40-60% efficient about the same as burning the natural gas directly for electricity, but without the carbon emmissions from compressing, cooling, transporting, storage, and then only getting 50% of that energy back.

When energy is free, it won't really matter if your methodology is 50% effective or 100% effective. Or alternatively: if the cost is "only" double, but allows something to become possible, its well worth the price.

Solving energy storage GW-hrs at a time, rather than MW-hrs at a time, is probably worth the loss of efficiency.

it would be better for everyone to plug in their car and charge off peak

Doesn't work for apartment dwellers. Meanwhile, we can run H2 plants at off peak hours or other times which is more convenient.

 

[Steevo]

When energy is free, it won't really matter if your methodology is 50% effective or 100% effective. Or alternatively: if the cost is "only" double, but allows something to become possible, its well worth the price.

Solving energy storage GW-hrs at a time, rather than MW-hrs at a time, is probably worth the loss of efficiency.



Doesn't work for apartment dwellers. Meanwhile, we can run H2 plants at off peak hours or other times which is more convenient.

I see you believe in perpetual motion.......

 

[TumbleGeorge]

When energy is free

In science fiction? Even if you don't have to pay money for energy, that doesn't mean it's free. The point of view from the bottom of the wallet is infinitely wrong and arrogant.

 

[dragontamer5788]

In science fiction? Even if you don't have to pay money for energy, that doesn't mean it's free. The point of view from the bottom of the wallet is infinitely wrong and arrogant.

Nuclear, Wind, and Solar are effectively free energy, but costly capex. This leads to a very different economic model than your math is concerned about.

On a daily basis, the USA roughly doubles its electricity consumption to peak hours, and halves it during off-hours. Furthermore, electricity usage during the summer (for air conditioning) can be 2x more than winter (heating costs). So our day-to-day peak/off-peak cycles are roughly on a 1-to-4 ratio. We are already seeing this effect in practice. In states with severe amounts of solar deployment, the price of energy drops to negative, which is even "better than free". That's just the free market and the realities of our energy market talking.

Negative Power Prices? Blame the US Grid for Stranding Renewable Energy

Bottlenecks are preventing cheap wind and solar energy from reaching high-demand areas.

www.bloomberg.com

So the economic reality is... grossly different... than what you seem to understand.

------

So some areas of our country, at certain times, are facing a huge amount of negative electricity prices. My answer: build a H2 plant there to take advantage of free (or even negative-cost) electricity. It doesn't matter if its 50% efficient or 100% efficient, you just benefit from the excess solar power / renewables that already exist in this country. And as more-and-more renewable energy is deployed, we will see more-and-more of these economic activities pop up.

This economic mismatch happens because grid stability is exceedingly complex in practice. We will not be able to "fix" negative electricity prices, because we need perfect weather prediction to do that. (If the weather is 5F cooler than expected, AC won't spin up as much and bam, excess electricity will be generated). This combined with unpredictable (on a day-to-day basis) solar or wind means that the price of electricity will swing on an hour-to-hour basis as we deploy more renewables. Having plants that can spin up and take advantage of these effects (like H2) is a serious possibility. (Kind of like a reverse-peaker plant: a plant that will consume electricity on demand to stabilize negative, free, or low electricity prices)

 

[Steevo]

Nuclear, Wind, and Solar are effectively free energy, but costly capex. This leads to a very different economic model than your math is concerned about.

On a daily basis, the USA roughly doubles its electricity consumption to peak hours, and halves it during off-hours. Furthermore, electricity usage during the summer (for air conditioning) can be 2x more than winter (heating costs). So our day-to-day peak/off-peak cycles are roughly on a 1-to-4 ratio. We are already seeing this effect in practice. In states with severe amounts of solar deployment, the price of energy drops to negative, which is even "better than free". That's just the free market and the realities of our energy market talking.

Negative Power Prices? Blame the US Grid for Stranding Renewable Energy

Bottlenecks are preventing cheap wind and solar energy from reaching high-demand areas.

www.bloomberg.com

So the economic reality is... grossly different... than what you seem to understand.

------

So some areas of our country, at certain times, are facing a huge amount of negative electricity prices. My answer: build a H2 plant there to take advantage of free (or even negative-cost) electricity. It doesn't matter if its 50% efficient or 100% efficient, you just benefit from the excess solar power / renewables that already exist in this country. And as more-and-more renewable energy is deployed, we will see more-and-more of these economic activities pop up.

This economic mismatch happens because grid stability is exceedingly complex in practice. We will not be able to "fix" negative electricity prices, because we need perfect weather prediction to do that. (If the weather is 5F cooler than expected, AC won't spin up as much and bam, excess electricity will be generated). This combined with unpredictable (on a day-to-day basis) solar or wind means that the price of electricity will swing on an hour-to-hour basis as we deploy more renewables. Having plants that can spin up and take advantage of these effects (like H2) is a serious possibility. (Kind of like a reverse-peaker plant: a plant that will consume electricity on demand to stabilize negative, free, or low electricity prices)

All those people who have solar they were promised they could "sell" to the grid and not have a bill didn't realize "the grid" isn't free and they were duped. The grid needs a upgrade to help carry the base load that small pockets of unreliable power that have "negative value" that only cause planning problems and the need for larger upgrades to the grid to balance out the distribution, and have caused the installation of multiple natural gas high demand stations. One is being built in Laurel MT for this very reason, the wind power that is "replacing" stable base load needs a large, noisy, gas turbine install to remain reliable.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

In

The point of view from the bottom of the wallet is infinitely wrong and arrogant.

states with severe amounts of solar deployment, the price of energy drops to negative, which is even "better than free".

 

[dragontamer5788]

All those people who have solar they were promised they could "sell" to the grid and not have a bill didn't realize "the grid" isn't free and they were duped. The grid needs a upgrade to help carry the base load that small pockets of unreliable power that have "negative value" that only cause planning problems and the need for larger upgrades to the grid to balance out the distribution, and have caused the installation of multiple natural gas high demand stations. One is being built in Laurel MT for this very reason, the wind power that is "replacing" stable base load needs a large, noisy, gas turbine install to remain reliable.

Or alternatively, you build massive Solar Panels for production. Instead of turning off the solar panels in times of negative energy prices, you build an H2 plant to absorb the excess electricity and turn it into Hydrogen Fuel (which can be saved for next season, when the price of electricity increases again). Seasonal-scale electricity storage. Or the H2 could be used as an intermediate step to Ammonia / Fertilizer, generated with 100% green energy.

My point: "cost of electricity" is more complex than you might believe. There's numerous amount of opportunities here if we start getting creative. And H2's use manages to fit into this situation, at least in theory. Maybe we'll come across practical issues, but Europe is already beginning to create Solar+Hydrogen plants for this reason. It seems like H2 production could very well be a better storage mechanism than Solar+Li-ion batteries in practice.

The future of energy is discovering how to use this "free" electricity, as well as "free" sources of energy storage (ex: asking the various plants out there to spin up or spin down depending on grid load).

-----------

EDIT: One example of a commissioned plant in 2022. The experiment has begun.

Puertollano green hydrogen plant - Iberdrola

Iberdrola has commenced construction on the largest plant producing green hydrogen for industrial use in Europe. The Puertollano (Ciudad Real) plant will consist of a 100 MW photovoltaic solar plant, a lithium-ion battery system with a storage capacity of 20 MWh and one of the largest...

www.iberdrola.com

 

[Steevo]

Or alternatively, you build massive Solar Panels for production. Instead of turning off the solar panels in times of negative energy prices, you build an H2 plant to absorb the excess electricity and turn it into Hydrogen Fuel (which can be saved for next season, when the price of electricity increases again). Seasonal-scale electricity storage. Or the H2 could be used as an intermediate step to Ammonia / Fertilizer, generated with 100% green energy.

My point: "cost of electricity" is more complex than you might believe. There's numerous amount of opportunities here if we start getting creative. And H2's use manages to fit into this situation, at least in theory. Maybe we'll come across practical issues, but Europe is already beginning to create Solar+Hydrogen plants for this reason. It seems like H2 production could very well be a better storage mechanism than Solar+Li-ion batteries in practice.

The future of energy is discovering how to use this "free" electricity, as well as "free" sources of energy storage (ex: asking the various plants out there to spin up or spin down depending on grid load).

-----------

EDIT: One example of a commissioned plant in 2022. The experiment has begun.

Puertollano green hydrogen plant - Iberdrola

Iberdrola has commenced construction on the largest plant producing green hydrogen for industrial use in Europe. The Puertollano (Ciudad Real) plant will consist of a 100 MW photovoltaic solar plant, a lithium-ion battery system with a storage capacity of 20 MWh and one of the largest...

www.iberdrola.com

A 2018 Study shows a average of 173Kwh per ton at large scale to create urea the most common and stable fertilizer we need.
2019 we needed 177 Million tons.

30,621,000,000 Kwh needed per year, or 3.5Mwh per day. Assuming 100% efficiency, current 1Kw systems take up 5.5Sqm and cost roughly 1K. So we only need 62 Trillion for panels, and slightly less than the whole surface area of the earth (3/4 the surface) to put them on. Genius idea. prevents global warming by blocking our ALL the sun. Also would be hard to grow crops to feed people, but with no food or sun people would die quickly.


My math may have been slightly off here, I was using my phone. I used Excel to do the math and we only need 39,000 Sq Km of solar panels. So cover China or Switzerland or someplace and we will call it good.

I love your passion, but it needs a tempering of reality. Also Urea production represents 10-15% of our total global energy need, so we just need 20 more planets to cover in solar panels to make it all come together.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I'm also a big proponent of nuclear energy. But that's probably off topic?

My point stands in any case. The unreliable solar panels pair up nicely with H2 production, which needs to be solved. Green Hydrogen might be more important than green transportation, as H2 directly leads to our food supply in practice.

Our grids have a sizable amount of free energy that's currently being wasted, and this wasted energy is going to only grow as more solar panels are made. We might as well take advantage of these free energy effects where we can.

 

[Steevo]

I'm also a big proponent of nuclear energy. But that's probably off topic?

My point stands in any case. The unreliable solar panels pair up nicely with H2 production, which needs to be solved. Green Hydrogen might be more important than green transportation, as H2 directly leads to our food supply in practice.

Our grids have a sizable amount of free energy that's currently being wasted, and this wasted energy is going to only grow as more solar panels are made. We might as well take advantage of these free energy effects where we can.

You keep using the term Free Energy, and it makes sense in the context that you are using it if there wasn't capex, carbon and other costs associated with it and someday there needing to be a replacement and maintenance cost. You are making the same argument that people who think Insulin and other products should be free use, but fail to consider that its cost covers so much more, and that nothing is free, its just the future or taxpayers that pay for it, and everyone needs paid to buy food, make house payments, buy the new cars, pay doctors, taxes etc......

 

[80-watt Hamster]

A 2018 Study shows a average of 173Kwh per ton at large scale to create urea the most common and stable fertilizer we need.
2019 we needed 177 Million tons.

30,621,000,000 Kwh needed per year, or 3.5Mwh per day. Assuming 100% efficiency, current 1Kw systems take up 5.5Sqm and cost roughly 1K. So we only need 62 Trillion for panels, and slightly less than the whole surface area of the earth (3/4 the surface) to put them on. Genius idea. prevents global warming by blocking our ALL the sun. Also would be hard to grow crops to feed people, but with no food or sun people would die quickly.


I love your passion, but it needs a tempering of reality. Also Urea production represents 10-15% of our total global energy need, so we just need 20 more planets to cover in solar panels to make it all come together.

Something's off with either your math or notation. Or my math. Probably that, cuz what I get from your numbers is: 30.6B kWh/yr = 84M kWh/d = 84k MWh/d. Sticking with kW scale since you used 1kW systems as an example, 12h of max production gets 12 kWh of electricity. 84M kWh / 12 kWh = 7M systems. 7M x $1k = $7B and would cover ~40M sqm, or 40 sqkm. Which doesn't seem like nearly enough, so I must have screwed up somewhere. Even cutting daily output in half again only doubles cost and area to $14B and 80 sqkm. Which ain't nothin', but also isn't $62T and 3/4 earth's landmass.

 

[Space Lynx]

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.

my argument is still the same on this, I mean if Toyota can already provide a 400 mile + range Mirai hydrogen car (and it costs the same as most EV's btw), than that can be scaled if it gets proper investments.

 

[mb194dc]

Looks like the EV bubble is finally popping.... It won't be long before hydrogen takes over.

There are massive insurmountable challenges to mass EV adoption.

Hydrogen fuel can be produced off peak with renewable and nuclear energy.

Existing fuel stations can be converted to use it. In time.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

amazing to see how far

I don't see anything significant compared to the last 30 years, except raising a fuss by interested individuals and companies.

 

[Shrek]

I am still at a loss as to what is meant by a hydrogen car

• Internal combustion engine
• Fuel cell electric

The first is inherently inefficient and does not gain much.

 

[mb194dc]

Fuel cell electric hydrogen would be the future.

If it's also possible to run hydrogen fuel in existing combustion engines, then you've got a bridge that leads to mass adoption of the former.

It's been done with diesel:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319922036771

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I am still at a loss as to what is meant by a hydrogen car

• Internal combustion engine
• Fuel cell electric

The first is inherently inefficient and does not gain much.

Well so far every hydrogen car has been a fuel cell design.

Looks like the EV bubble is finally popping.... It won't be long before hydrogen takes over.

There are massive insurmountable challenges to mass EV adoption.

Hydrogen fuel can be produced off peak with renewable and nuclear energy.

Existing fuel stations can be converted to use it. In time.

I dont see the EV bubble popping for cars anytime soon. For big vehicles, like heavy duty trucks, trains, and airplanes, hydrogen make a LOT more sense due to density.

 

[Vayra86]

Looks like the EV bubble is finally popping.... It won't be long before hydrogen takes over.

There are massive insurmountable challenges to mass EV adoption.

Hydrogen fuel can be produced off peak with renewable and nuclear energy.

Existing fuel stations can be converted to use it. In time.

Oh? What looks like it?

Small but mighty: The Netherlands’ leading role in electric vehicle adoption - International Council on Clean Transportation

Favorable electric vehicle policies such as tax incentives are driving the market in the Netherlands.

theicct.org

No issues here whatsoever, the issues wrt solar panels on roofs and EVs on the network is talked about though. Energy transfer is more decentralised in every way. You need to adjust your network for it. That is all. But once you drive electric... hard to go back imho. The only caveat is range, which will fix itself in due time.

Hydrogen has a place, I think its perfect for heavier duty vehicles than personal transport. Also there is no doubt in my mind its not matter of which - we just need everything to remove fossil. Including nuclear - renewable on its own is never going to satisfy demands. And is a way too influential pressure on land mass/space. Nuclear will be the tool to save space, it will be its primary unique selling point. The energy you can actually provide per square meter is going to be huge on a planet that is slowly overpopulating.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

We are already 2023, hydrogen has been trying to impose itself safely for a whole century. Meanwhile, supercomputers with teraflops of performance like The Earth Simulator (First Generation 2002), are already outclassed by a single cut-down Nvidia Lovelace graphics chip in your RTX 4090, and even more cut-down in the RTX 4080...
What I want to say. If hydrogen were a road, we would have walked it.

 

[dragontamer5788]

We are already 2023, hydrogen has been trying to impose itself safely for a whole century. Meanwhile, supercomputers with teraflops of performance like The Earth Simulator (First Generation 2002), are already outclassed by a single cut-down Nvidia Lovelace graphics chip in your RTX 4090, and even more cut-down in the RTX 4080...
What I want to say. If hydrogen were a road, we would have walked it.

We are walking it.

XCIENT Fuel Cell Tractor | Hydrogen Tractor | Hyundai Motor Company

XCIENT Fuel Cell Tractor features hydrogen-powered technology, performance, safety, interior and exterior design with zero-emissions.

trucknbus.hyundai.com

This is, right now, a commercially available semi-truck being used across real life routes.

 

[LabRat 891]

Well so far every hydrogen car has been a fuel cell design.

Incorrect.

The Familiarity of Sound, Sensation Without all of the Carbon: Toyota Refines its Hydrogen Engine Corolla Concept - Toyota USA Newsroom

From the noise coming out of the tailpipe, one would never guess that this car is not powered by gasoline. Spectators attending its debut race were also likely to not have known that the vehicle speeding around the raceway was […]

pressroom.toyota.com

BMW Hydrogen 7 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Those are but 2, from major manufacturers.

H2ICEs would be 'the ideal' solution to all parties' desires *if* storage and transfer of the fuel can be made both safe and affordable. To my knowledge, there are 'safe' tanks; well-tested, and highly-resistant to catastrophic failure. The problem: very expensive.
Since even 'shelved' technologies like Hydride-storage haven't demonstrated meeting the need, I do not blame those that think Hydrogen-powered automobiles (Fuel Cell or ICE) are just another pipe dream.
To me though, the concept still seems more viable than mass-proliferation of EVs (under current and near-future battery technologies and mains/grid power generation)

We are walking it.

XCIENT Fuel Cell Tractor | Hydrogen Tractor | Hyundai Motor Company

XCIENT Fuel Cell Tractor features hydrogen-powered technology, performance, safety, interior and exterior design with zero-emissions.

trucknbus.hyundai.com

This is, right now, a commercially available semi-truck being used across real life routes.

Toyota (and others?) also offer Hydrogen-powered fork-lifts and other 'warehouse-industry' utility vehicles.
There's even industrial systems for on-site production of H2. Apparently, Toyota (and/or others?) have made an electrolysis system that's more affordable than Propane.

Fuel cell electric hydrogen would be the future.

If it's also possible to run hydrogen fuel in existing combustion engines, then you've got a bridge that leads to mass adoption of the former.

It's been done with diesel:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319922036771

H2 will run in an unmodified 'Petrol' ICE.
However, Issues arise:
A. 'flashback' in carburation/air-fuel mix (a 'backfire' becomes a potentially very damaging event)
B. The computerized monstrosities on the road today being inadaptable, due to decades of regulation-reactionary engineering.

MythBusters was far from the first, but is the most public proof of an unmodified gasoline ICE running on Hydrogen.
(of course they purposely did it purely for entertainment, but the concept has been proven many times over)