Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[Space Lynx]

What's nice is that you're still with us. I was afraid you were in some trouble. Didn't see ya in a while.

I just think it's healthy to unplug for awhile sometimes. Also, I have three jobs now, so between that and wanting to focus on my hobbies (reading/gaming/youtubers I like to watch) I am a bit drained after all that.

 

[mb194dc]

Hydrogen isn't dead? I am so confused by this decision by BMW. Even Germany did a hydrogen powered train recently, but took it out of commission after its first few runs, just no market for it I guess. Seems like companies keep trying their hardest though... I don't get it really.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/bmw-plans-bring-its-first-hydrogen-car-onto-market-2028-2024-09-05/

View attachment 364385

Not exactly going well for BEV either. Registrations down 40% + y/y in the EU:

New car registrations: -18.3% in August 2024; BEV market share down by almost one third

In August 2024, new EU car registrations saw a sharp decrease (-18.3%) with negative results across the region’s four major markets: double-digit losses were witnessed in Germany (-27.8%), France (-24.3%), and Italy (-13.4%), with the Spanish market declining by 6.5%.

www.acea.auto

The replacement for ICE needs to not be massively inferior in practical terms and also not insanely expensive... That's what buyers see.

Hydrogen certainly a possible option, or maybe something else.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

I just think it's healthy to unplug for awhile sometimes. Also, I have three jobs now, so between that and wanting to focus on my hobbies (reading/gaming/youtubers I like to watch) I am a bit drained after all that.

Welcome back!

 

[Shrek]

Hydrogen isn't dead? I am so confused by this decision by BMW. Even Germany did a hydrogen powered train recently, but took it out of commission after its first few runs, just no market for it I guess. Seems like companies keep trying their hardest though... I don't get it really.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/bmw-plans-bring-its-first-hydrogen-car-onto-market-2028-2024-09-05/

View attachment 364385

What is the octane rating for hydrogen? i.e. can an ICE use a higher compression rating for improved efficiency? it would be a pity not to take advantage of this.

 

[Deleted member 242843]

What is the octane rating for hydrogen? i.e. can an ICE use a higher compression rating for improved efficiency? it would be a pity not to take advantage of this.

130ish. Hydrogen storage is tricky. Leaches into practically everything and makes it brittle or worse. That's ignoring the whole "splodey" problem. Still, explosion proof tanks have come a long way, and I think hydrogen as a fuel makes a lot of sense in the long run.

 

[natr0n]

Maybe cause everyone who comes up with something dies of "natural causes" of course.

 

[KLiKzg]

What is the octane rating for hydrogen? i.e. can an ICE use a higher compression rating for improved efficiency? it would be a pity not to take advantage of this.

No higher compression...but look at the ICU Otto now, going with 13~14:1, with direct injection.

Something similar is probable for H2.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Good point, it is possibly just fluff because "that money has to go somewhere" so people can pat themselves on the back, well, that was dissappointing.

EVs got government grants for decades for development. Hydrogen will likely follow the same trajectory, especially as EVs prove to be....troublesome over a certain size.

I wish we could get some details on why Germany had a working and running hydrogen powered train, but decided to stop using it. It just would be nice to know why.

Reasonably educated guess: Because it was totally worthless. Since trains use the same path, you can easily electrify them with overhead wires or 3rd rail electricity, no batteries or fuel required, so the cost of doing hydrogen conversion and R+D was seen as a waste. Of course, this is Germany, they consider coal to be a green renewable energy, so......

 

[DOA]

EVs got government grants for decades for development. Hydrogen will likely follow the same trajectory, especially as EVs prove to be....troublesome over a certain size.

I find this discussion strange. The problem with hydrogen as an energy carrier is efficiency, yet many still consider it viable for transportation. Electricity up to train size is well proven (trans Siberian is a long standing example).

Toyota and fossil fuels push hydrogen as an answer purely to divert funding and delay electrification (Mirai, hydrogen corridor). Yes, these can work, but they are not the best solution. The price difference is huge, yet we still see hydrogen as a consideration. This may change if "white hydrogen" is ever found and developed but probably not due to transportation and distribution costs.

 

[GhostRyder]

I find this discussion strange. The problem with hydrogen as an energy carrier is efficiency, yet many still consider it viable for transportation. Electricity up to train size is well proven (trans Siberian is a long standing example).

Toyota and fossil fuels push hydrogen as an answer purely to divert funding and delay electrification (Mirai, hydrogen corridor). Yes, these can work, but they are not the best solution. The price difference is huge, yet we still see hydrogen as a consideration. This may change if "white hydrogen" is ever found and developed but probably not due to transportation and distribution costs.

Electric motors are great for Torque and power, its definitely proven on bigger vehicles like trains. Its problem always was and is storage which I do find a similar problem in Hydrogen. It seems Hydrogen powered big rigs could be an interesting solution on the large size while battery vehicles for cars and small SUV's/trucks could be fine. The big problem is neither really work well in the middle with vehicles at a size like a Ford Explorer/Expedition or a F-150 (And bad on F-250+). Only one company has shown a concept I might be able to get behind on those sizes.

Cummins is investing heavily in Hydrogen engines I have seen/heard.

 

[user112]

I find this discussion strange. The problem with hydrogen as an energy carrier is efficiency, yet many still consider it viable for transportation. Electricity up to train size is well proven (trans Siberian is a long standing example).

Toyota and fossil fuels push hydrogen as an answer purely to divert funding and delay electrification (Mirai, hydrogen corridor). Yes, these can work, but they are not the best solution. The price difference is huge, yet we still see hydrogen as a consideration. This may change if "white hydrogen" is ever found and developed but probably not due to transportation and distribution costs.

the efficiency is about 70% which may not be as good as a battery but we have a nearly limitless supply with less need to increase industrial mining. I can't say the same for moden lithium batteries or oil. the key thing hydrogen atoms are small enough to slip through gaps of just about any normal material so you ether need bond them into something like a H3+ molecule or make a tank where layers of atoms are arranged in a tight formation that few if any hydrogen atoms can escape. it might also be possible to use magnets to contain it under the right conditions. as far as production the cheapest/easiest method should be to genetically modify bacteria.

 

[KLiKzg]

Electric motors are great for Torque and power, its definitely proven on bigger vehicles like trains. Its problem always was and is storage which I do find a similar problem in Hydrogen. It seems Hydrogen powered big rigs could be an interesting solution on the large size while battery vehicles for cars and small SUV's/trucks could be fine. The big problem is neither really work well in the middle with vehicles at a size like a Ford Explorer/Expedition or a F-150 (And bad on F-250+). Only one company has shown a concept I might be able to get behind on those sizes.

Cummins is investing heavily in Hydrogen engines I have seen/heard.

H2 is only transient thing, as it is currently developing & emerging.

There are other liquids which are going to ne next-gen after H2.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

H2 is only transient thing, as it is currently developing & emerging.

There are other liquids which are going to ne next-gen after H2.

Please, let us know. I, of course, like the sense of suspense, but at the same time I have a sense of some kind of conspiracy and why for so many years governments and oil companies have prevented us from getting cars that run straight on tap water as fuel.

 

[ty_ger]

Please, let us know. I, of course, like the sense of suspense, but at the same time I have a sense of some kind of conspiracy and why for so many years governments and oil companies have prevented us from getting cars that run straight on tap water as fuel.

Because breaking the hydrogen bond is energy intense. It requires a lot of energy to break the bond, and once you have harnessed the power of the hydrogen after all inefficiencies in that process, you end up with a net negative. It's not a conspiracy, it is chemistry and reality. You can't market a terrible product to anyone other than those who want to believe. All you get then is investor money and a product that mysteriously never exists.

As the video states, hydrogen production and consumption is a net negative, and since most hydrogen production comes from fossil fuels, at the moment, it is more environmentally friendly just to use the fossil fuels directly instead of inserting hydrogen as an inefficient in-between storage mechanism.

The famous water-powered car still exists. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't work. Ever since the scam-artist builder was apparently killed by his investors who realized it was a scam, no one else has gotten the car to work.

And another controversial reference:
Inventor Of ‘Water-Powered Car’ Died Screaming ‘They Poisoned Me’ - UNILAD

Interesting..... If true at all.

It makes a nice story. Problem is that the facts ruin the fun. The people who he believed poisoned him are the investors who met with him who were concerned about a lack of progress and transparency. As I said, his car was passed on after his death, and has never been proven by anyone to work. The science and chemistry ensures that it never could have worked.

 

[DOA]

the efficiency is about 70% which may not be as good as a battery but we have a nearly limitless supply with less need to increase industrial mining. I can't say the same for moden lithium batteries or oil. the key thing hydrogen atoms are small enough to slip through gaps of just about any normal material so you ether need bond them into something like a H3+ molecule or make a tank where layers of atoms are arranged in a tight formation that few if any hydrogen atoms can escape. it might also be possible to use magnets to contain it under the right conditions. as far as production the cheapest/easiest method should be to genetically modify bacteria.

Don't we all wish it was 70%.

Electricity>electrolysis>compression (and cooling)>storage>storage maintenance>use in generator>electricity

The full cycle to store electricity as hydrogen as a compressed gas or liquid is costly and very inefficient. You can see most of the steps' efficiency here.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032121004688

Unless hydrogen is stored in salt domes which is unproven, then it theoretically rivals hydro. The losses and quality of hydrogen stored in domes is not known. But even if those are not problems, the price of equipment is much greater than hydro. There is a reason no one is using Hydrogen unless the government pays for it.

 

[Shrek]

How does this compare to making synthetic gasoline?

 

[leonavis]

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?

Switzerland uses H2-trucks and builds up a network of hydrogen-pumps all over the country.

I guess with cars it's not cost-efficient compared to electricity, while with trucks it can be. They are much bigger anyway, making the logistics easier, and electrically charging your truck regularly just isn't really an option when they need to transport goods as fast as possible through the country. So cost-wise it just works. With cars, it's different. If we're able to make batteries cheap and long-lasting, electric cars with a range >500km for an affordable price is not illusionary.

 

[Athlonite]

How does this compare to making synthetic gasoline?

You mean like ethanol yeah problem with that is you need far to much crop growth area to make it worth its while doing ie: It would take 10x the current area just used to produce food
We had a synfuel start up here and it failed as it was too costly to run and didn't produce enough to make a difference vs petroleum based fuels

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

What is the octane rating for hydrogen? i.e. can an ICE use a higher compression rating for improved efficiency? it would be a pity not to take advantage of this.

Not applicable. An octane rating is actually the tendency for a fuel to not auto-ignite under pressure. IE, the mix of hydrocarbons that you are getting acts like 100% pure octane. It doesn't give you anything more than that.

What I think you are asking is something more along the lines of complete combustion. In an ICE engine you need an abundance of air, because you're going from a long chain hydrocarbon and trying to dissolve it into CO2 and H2O. The problem is that you have many partial reactions, as C8H18 (Octane) and 17 O2 don't just make 8 CO2 and 9 H2O. They make shorter hydrocarbons as they oxidize. As such different ratios of fuel and oxygen have differing levels of combustion.

With hydrogen you're going from 2 H2 + O2 to 2H2O, so it's a single step process. You don't have to burn for any time to get it done. Regarding the actual octane number...hydrogen is extremely combustible and volatile...it's likely far lower rating than any gasoline. You can definitely increase power output if you're combusting it by adding more H2 and O2 for a greater temperature (and pressure) delta....but some of the solutions also use a membrane to convert the combustion directly from components to electrical potential energy.

How does this compare to making synthetic gasoline?

I'd assume you mean ethanol, instead of synthetic diesel.

Right now the world's largest ethanol supplier is the US. It shouldn't be. It's a supplier because the corn lobby is as strong as it is...and after a few great harvests we actually needed a way to use all of our corn. The problem is that it's government grants that make this profitable, not market forces. By offering large subsidies to grow corn, and subsidies to process it into ethanol, we have the current situation where ethanol shows up in most standard fuel.

That said, ethanol sucks. It's got a lot less energy than octane, so it provides less energy per volume. It also has a tendency to dissolve certain oxides...like aluminum...meaning it can increase engine wear. Combine that with the net negative cost...and ethanol in the US sucks.

That said....if you could make ethanol from a better sugar source, it might be viable. Saw grass in Brazil is one of the up and coming replacements, as it's much higher and faster yielding than corn, and actually breaks even on production cost for ethanol. I only hesitate because there aren't a lot of places like Brazil, and Saw Grass is not easy to grow everywhere. It's therefore a solution waiting to discover its problem....when Brazil is right next door to huge petroleum deposits.

 

[KLiKzg]

Don't we all wish it was 70%.

Electricity>electrolysis>compression (and cooling)>storage>storage maintenance>use in generator>electricity

The full cycle to store electricity as hydrogen as a compressed gas or liquid is costly and very inefficient. You can see most of the steps' efficiency here.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032121004688

Unless hydrogen is stored in salt domes which is unproven, then it theoretically rivals hydro. The losses and quality of hydrogen stored in domes is not known. But even if those are not problems, the price of equipment is much greater than hydro. There is a reason no one is using Hydrogen unless the government pays for it.

Well, yes...it has up to 70% efficiency as a machine (car).
No, we are not talking about all other stuff...

'cause, if you were talking about all those other stuff...then the Otto or Diesel does not go up to 30 or 40% respectively.
As you, or other scientists you like to get smart & are paid by oil money, like to take into account all other stuff...but they do not take into account all the previous processed for getting gas...you know:

drilling oil -> making it a oil well -> pumping oil out -> 1st transport to refinery (lets say only by ship) -> 1st storage -> processing in refinery -> 2nd transport to country (also ship) -> 2nd refinery processing -> 2nd storage -> 3rd transport by land -> 3rd storage -> pumping on a gas station to your car

H2 is not inefficient, as ti has some nice benefits...like most energy per kg of material.
& there are many things to deal with this new technology...some gels & other materials, which like to absorb H2 in certain conditions...everything does not need to be so crude, as a pressure tank!

How does this compare to making synthetic gasoline?

Just reading these schmucks & noticing they did not get you...you're not asking about ethanol, are you? You are actually asking about synthetic gasoline.

Still, it is too expensive to make...I think it was about ~$240 per barrel, at a time I was last reading about it...wondering if they have improved on the process?

From my also keeping up with the sport...only F1 was using it, with octane ratings up to some 120 at a time...though I do not know, what is the octane rating with E10 fuel that they need to use now, as ethanol has octane rating of 105 (if I am no mistaken).

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I find this discussion strange.

I think it's because you dont understand the context of the conversation.

The problem with hydrogen as an energy carrier is efficiency, yet many still consider it viable for transportation. Electricity up to train size is well proven (trans Siberian is a long standing example).

Trains are easily electrified because you dont need BATTERIES to do so. You're comparing baseballs and oranges here. For vehicles not set on a track, like cars and trucks, this doesnt work at all. It's like saying "Well sails work on boats so why dont we put sails on cars".

Toyota and fossil fuels push hydrogen as an answer purely to divert funding and delay electrification (Mirai, hydrogen corridor).

Do you have any evidence for this conspiracy theory? Toyota is doing this solely to delay electrification and for no other reason?

Yes, these can work, but they are not the best solution. The price difference is huge, yet we still see hydrogen as a consideration. This may change if "white hydrogen" is ever found and developed but probably not due to transportation and distribution costs.

Hydrogen is being considered because batteries are not an end all solution. As seen with pickup trucks, their scaling absolutely sucks, both in power density and weight, and their capacities are becoming unrealistic, even though their capabilities still lag behind. It takes as much electricity as a euro house uses in a month to fill a single ram rEVolution pickup, and that's only good for 515 miles in perfect weather at 35 MPH.

For anything larger, like class 8 trucks, batteries are too heavy, too small, and too error prone. Look at the issues Cali has had with their EV busses and battery failures. Evs would absolutely destroy the OTR truck business and hamper every western economy out there, between cost and long recharge times. Even for local delivery, getting multi megawatt service to charge the trucks has proven impossible in many areas. Because of this, hydrogen powered vehicles have become a hot topic once again, because the ability to fuel in advanced from a central facility is crucial to our road networks. You'll also need ways to fuel things like construction equipment and boats in the future, and guess what batteries are not going to work for?

 

[ty_ger]

As you, or other scientists you like to get smart & are paid by oil money, like to take into account all other stuff...but they do not take into account all the previous processed for getting gas...you know:

drilling oil -> making it a oil well -> pumping oil out -> 1st transport to refinery (lets say only by ship) -> 1st storage -> processing in refinery -> 2nd transport to country (also ship) -> 2nd refinery processing -> 2nd storage -> 3rd transport by land -> 3rd storage -> pumping on a gas station to your car

Where do you think the majority of hydrogen comes from? Fossil fuels.
The exact same hit goes against hydrogen. They are very closely married. The bad thing about hydrogen is you take all the bad things about fossil fuel, and then convert it to a hydrogen product with lower energy density. You are worse off than just using the raw fossil fuel product you started with.
Hydrogen from electrolysis is much less common, but even if that is what you are basing your vision on, again it is very energy intensive and also mostly powered by fossil fuel. Same problem.

Watch the video I posted a little bit above.

 

[Shrek]

Still, it is too expensive to make...I think it was about ~$240 per barrel, at a time I was last reading about it...wondering if they have improved on the process?

$240 per barrel, so around $6 a US gallon.

 

[Space Lynx]

$240 per barrel, so around $6 a US gallon.

That would probably come down with volume scaling I am sure, I just wish we knew why the working and running hydrogen train in Germany was operating, but they decided to not only stop it, but canceled the order on the second hydrogen engine train that was being built.

So frustrating, feels like progress, then not only halt, but reversal.

 

[ty_ger]

That would probably come down with volume scaling I am sure, I just wish we knew why the working and running hydrogen train in Germany was operating, but they decided to not only stop it, but canceled the order on the second hydrogen engine train that was being built.

So frustrating, feels like progress, then not only halt, but reversal.

It seems like this question has been answered so many times already.
Hydrogen is produced from fossil fuel or using fossil fuel. It's an extra step and extra inefficiency which is worse in the long-run. There's no way around it at the moment.