Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[Space Lynx]

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.

There is a factory in South America that uses Electrolysis to make hydrogen fuel in mass, so I don't agree with you. It needs to be scaled up, but it's already there and working. I don't know if the factory is located near green energy like hydro or if it using fossil fuel to power it though.

 

[Shrek]

Solar would seem a good option for the source of electricity for hydrolysis.

 

[95Viper]

Stick to the topic, please.

 

[ty_ger]

There is a factory in South America that uses Electrolysis to make hydrogen fuel in mass, so I don't agree with you. It needs to be scaled up, but it's already there and working. I don't know if the factory is located near green energy like hydro or if it using fossil fuel to power it though.

If you watch the short video I provided on the previous page, I think you will find it very informative. Watch the whole thing and then tell me if you have any additional questions.

 

[KLiKzg]

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.

Well, lets not be children here in such serious topic...H2 is divided by its making on 3 ways: grey, blue & green.
You are talking about "grey H2", which can be produced from coal or methane (mostly).
Even that "grey H2" is dirty H2, it is still far better then leaving the methane out in the atmosphere...as methane (CH4) has about ~30x more "green house effect" then CO2. So either we burn the CH4 or produce the H2...either way is far better, then to leave it out in the atmosphere.

Next, CH4 has about ~55MJ/kg, while H2 has about ~130Mj/kg...so please explain it to me, how is it that we are creating a (quote) "product with lower energy density"?

Videos are great, but do not believe everything you see on internet (or what you read on news)!

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.

Germans are very pragmatical, so they do not like to have too expensive trains for a technology which is not ready (read: too expensive to maintain). Read more here: https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/tra...ectric-options-german-state-finds/2-1-1338438

Germans also decided not to consider hydrogen trains as a replacement for diesel locomotives after a study found that battery hybrid trains and electrification were more cost-effective over a 30-year period.

Solar would seem a good option for the source of electricity for hydrolysis.

& that is a whole idea from the H2 initiative, including H2 cars...to make "green energy" from solar, wind & other - one part goes into grid, rest is put into H2 reserves.

& those h2 reserves have much more energy density then batteries! & filling up H2 in a car is so much quicker then the batteries.

 

[ty_ger]

So, you assume that if they don't convert it to hydrogen, they will just vent it to the atmosphere instead? No.
Either way you want to look at it, hydrogen is not an alternative to reduce fossil fuel use. Instead it is simply a different way to drive fossil fuel use. It provides a way of using fossil fuels less efficiently; which just doesn't make sense for the intent.
If 95% of hydrogen comes from fossil fuel or is made using fossil fuel, that is not a successful alternative.

I think a lot of people could afford to switch to motorcycles instead of cars, and that would make a much more massive difference.

 

[Shou Miko]

Mean reasons where I am is the government that doesn't backup hydrogen only electric cars.

It's really sad because I would more like a hydrogen car than a electric car, it's faster to fill up, than charging.

 

[the54thvoid]

Here's an easy to read reason for poor hydrogen uptake.

How clean is green hydrogen?

It’s much cleaner, on average, than any other way of making hydrogen, but exactly how clean depends on supply chains and how consistently the equipment producing it can be run.

climate.mit.edu

I'd have to back up ty-ger on this - 95% of US H2 is grey-hydrogen. So not really clean at all. Only 1% is green.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

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.

Alstrom's PR links
So...what question do you have? This is a PR train, no pun intended. It shows up, demonstrates, then disappears like a tin shack before a category 5 hurricane. It doesn't seem to be built to actually provide service...only to demonstrate that hydrogen power on non-electrified rails is feasible. The demonstrator for this is the goal of the train, so it isn't going anywhere for any real time. It's functionally a unicorn. You can see in the various things they claim that this hydrogen train is about the concept rather than practical manufacturing (currently).

Maybe you are thinking about another train? I mean, this was a 20 second google search away...so the excuse of ignorance for something else would be reasonable. Otherwise you are looking at something clearly about publicity rather than function.



Regarding the syngas...it's still expensive. Synthetics are difficult to make, they use processes that are...not environmentally nice (pyrolysis of organic matter produces some very scary gasses that tend to eat through many things), and at present the volume of production is insanely low without subsidies that will not appear when you can always point to a stalk of corn and state that for literal pennies on the dollar you can ferment that corn into ethanol for roughly the same fuel output and without having to go through anything substantive. This is why syngas hasn't caught on...especially when it's 3x more expensive than crude and at this point ethanol is actually being sold at $2.16 per gallon. That's in areas where the cost of gasoline is $2.86 per gallon. Scaling isn't the issue here...it's the standard NIMBY explanation, along with an unsustainable cost. Scaling is something that would become viable if your only concern was producing things within reasonable price differential of the current alternative...and that isn't really the current market.

I refer back to the previous statements on why ethanol is currently cost effective.

This isn't a thread about syngas or ethanol though, it's about hydrogen. Why it's failed, in relation to syngas and ethanol, is safety.

 

[Shrek]

I would argue that one cannot judge hydrogen as a fuel without comparing it to competing alternatives.

 

[DOA]

I still see the "hydrogen cars fill faster" argument. I am guessing these people don't have a Mirai like my neighbor.

Every morning I wake up to a full charge, no time spent. Every other day he has to fill up. Normally a 30 minute drive/fill/drive, but sometimes there is a line or the nozzle freezes (common on rainy days). Overall he hates the time it takes to fill. The 10x price is not good either. Then there are the times the station will not fill him up. He could go every third day, but filling is just not that reliable.

When he had a free fuel card he would take trips in his Mirai. Every 250 miles or less he had to find a station, fill, then go find a place to eat. I plan my charging at eating places. The only time the Mirai is faster is if you cannonball it - pee in a bottle, take snacks and eat in the car.

 

[KLiKzg]

So, you assume that if they don't convert it to hydrogen, they will just vent it to the atmosphere instead? No.
Either way you want to look at it, hydrogen is not an alternative to reduce fossil fuel use. Instead it is simply a different way to drive fossil fuel use. It provides a way of using fossil fuels less efficiently; which just doesn't make sense for the intent.
If 95% of hydrogen comes from fossil fuel or is made using fossil fuel, that is not a successful alternative.

I think a lot of people could afford to switch to motorcycles instead of cars, and that would make a much more massive difference.

Well, if you have lived in a previous century, you would see methane released or burned up in the atmosphere - from refinery. That was a normal process, as they do not want or need methane for anything.
21st century use of methane is another story...

Back OT. Why would H2 be less efficient? I know some NGP cars with engines who produce more kW on NGP, then on gasoline. Engines, such as ICE can be optimised for combustion!
If we are talking about H2-cell car: again, that thing is better then a electric car. Weights less, needs less materials to be built & you do not carry around you tank always full (in weight).

OK, so 95% comes from grey & blue H2...so what? What is the alternative? What are you going to use that CH4 or coal for? Is there some other better solution you want to use CH4 & coal for? I can't think of any better then H2.

If you are a "green-leftard" you would say bicycles right now...but motorcycles?!
Yes, it works in some countries...not in all! Central & Northern Europe is a no for the reason of rainy days...South depends on a traffic culture: in Italy is great, but not so in France or Croatia. to use bikes.

Regarding the syngas...it's still expensive. Synthetics are difficult to make, they use processes that are...not environmentally nice (pyrolysis of organic matter produces some very scary gasses that tend to eat through many things), and at present the volume of production is insanely low without subsidies that will not appear when you can always point to a stalk of corn and state that for literal pennies on the dollar you can ferment that corn into ethanol for roughly the same fuel output and without having to go through anything substantive. This is why syngas hasn't caught on...especially when it's 3x more expensive than crude and at this point ethanol is actually being sold at $2.16 per gallon. That's in areas where the cost of gasoline is $2.86 per gallon. Scaling isn't the issue here...it's the standard NIMBY explanation, along with an unsustainable cost. Scaling is something that would become viable if your only concern was producing things within reasonable price differential of the current alternative...and that isn't really the current market.

I refer back to the previous statements on why ethanol is currently cost effective.

This isn't a thread about syngas or ethanol though, it's about hydrogen. Why it's failed, in relation to syngas and ethanol, is safety.

Please, don't call synthetic gasoline a "syngas". As syngas is a gas fluid, made after some processes like pyrolysis.

Synthetic gasoline is a liquid substitute for gasoline. While syngas is not a liquid, but a gas & not every syngas can be used in ICE.

I still see the "hydrogen cars fill faster" argument. I am guessing these people don't have a Mirai like my neighbor.

Every morning I wake up to a full charge, no time spent. Every other day he has to fill up. Normally a 30 minute drive/fill/drive, but sometimes there is a line or the nozzle freezes (common on rainy days). Overall he hates the time it takes to fill. The 10x price is not good either. Then there are the times the station will not fill him up. He could go every third day, but filling is just not that reliable.

When he had a free fuel card he would take trips in his Mirai. Every 250 miles or less he had to find a station, fill, then go find a place to eat. I plan my charging at eating places. The only time the Mirai is faster is if you cannonball it - pee in a bottle, take snacks and eat in the car.

Do not confuse the lack of tank stations for H2, which will get larger...with charging times, which are horrible on EVs.

You know, 20y ago, we joked about charging stations for you EV lovers...so we still drive ICE cars!

Call me old fashioned...but I do not care anymore how much my car spends...everybody who asks me, gets the same answer!

 

[ty_ger]

Hydrogen production from electrolysis is around 60% efficient. Not good when the majority is powered by fossil fuels. You use nealy 100% fossil fuel to get 60% hydrogen. That's what I mean by a less efficient use of fossil fuel.

Hydrogen production from fossil fuel conversion is around 80% efficient. Better? No, probably worse since it maintains fossil fuel demand and the majority of the side product of conversion is CO2. At least with electrolysis there is a chance that green energy will grow and fossil fuel consumption will decrease.

95% of hydrogen production comes from fossil fuel in a conversion process that is less than 100% efficient. That's what I mean by a less efficient use of fossil fuels. Neither hydrogen ICE or hydrogen fuel cell have a big efficiency advantage over traditional fossil fuel ICE.

How is hydrogen better than just using the fossil fuel in the vehicle directly? The energy source is the same, but you just make it more convoluted and difficult to reach the same general end-result.
It seems like a green-washing for consumers. With hydrogen, you pay more for the storage, more for the product, have more losses in storage, and create an additional huge carbon demand (embodied carbon) when trying to build the hydrogen infrastructure that doesn't yet exist.

We already have a big demand for methane. We don't need a niche hydrogen demand to keep us from venting methane to the atmosphere.

 

[DOA]

Back OT. Why would H2 be less efficient? I know some NGP cars with engines who produce more kW on NGP, then on gasoline. Engines, such as ICE can be optimised for combustion!
If we are talking about H2-cell car: again, that thing is better then a electric car. Weights less, needs less materials to be built & you do not carry around you tank always full (in weight).

Have you looked at the Mirai and Model 3 figures at all? Consider what it would take for the Mirai to accelerate/handle like a Model 3. The Model 3 wins any efficiency contest by a LOT and ICE burning H2 are even worse than fuel cells for efficiency. BTW, the Mirai is 300lbs heavier with less HP. H2 cars are heavier in general. H2 trucks can be lighter but that did not help Project Portal going over the Grapevine.

H2 stations are closing. Slow, expensive, hard to service cars are not winning. I assume you have compared BEV maintenance with FCV maintenance.

 

[KLiKzg]

Hydrogen production from electrolysis is around 60% efficient. Not good when the majority is powered by fossil fuels. You use nealy 100% fossil fuel to get 60% hydrogen. That's what I mean by a less efficient use of fossil fuel.

That is why it is suggested that solar & wind, can be put into H2 - when there are surpluses in the area. As you can't make solar at night, but you might need some energy.

Hydrogen production from fossil fuel conversion is around 80% efficient. Better? No, probably worse since it maintains fossil fuel demand and the majority of the side product of conversion is CO2. At least with electrolysis there is a chance that green energy will grow and fossil fuel consumption will decrease.

OK, this is simply not truth at all! & it could not be wrong, with this statement at all!

95% of hydrogen production comes from fossil fuel in a conversion process that is less than 100% efficient.

How can sthg be "less then 100% efficient"? Does anyone understand this guy at all?

Have you looked at the Mirai and Model 3 figures at all? Consider what it would take for the Mirai to accelerate/handle like a Model 3. The Model 3 wins any efficiency contest by a LOT and ICE burning H2 are even worse than fuel cells for efficiency. BTW, the Mirai is 300lbs heavier with less HP. H2 cars are heavier in general. H2 trucks can be lighter but that did not help Project Portal going over the Grapevine.

H2 stations are closing. Slow, expensive, hard to service cars are not winning. I assume you have compared BEV maintenance with FCV maintenance.

Well, when I do compare them...I know, that Model 3 is not a quality built, depreciate hugely on a SoC, needs a battery replacement every 5y or 200.000km (which costs as much as almost complete vehicle), for which battery is not replaceable nor are the battery modules replaceable (according to official Tesla manufacturing), needs to charge for na 1h for at least 80% on a fast charger (if it works), needs planning to go to any far trips, drops range by sitting in cold winter or heated summer....do you want me to go on?

Yes, compared to Model 3, Mirai is a fresh air...but it is as early developed as the Tesla Roadster 1gen - the one that burned on Grand Tour...or as early developed in technology as a Toyota Prius 1gen.

But look at this way, there are 25yo Toyota Priuses 1gen still running out there...& there is almost none of Tesla Roadster 1gen, anywhere to be seen!

 

[ty_ger]

One method is around 80% efficient. Another method is around 60% efficient. Both numbers are less than 100%, right?

What is so hard to understand?

"Not true at all"? What are you talking about?


In some dream world, whatever you want to be produced by green energy is produced by green energy. This isn't that world. There are too many different causes that people wish were green, to go around.

 

[KLiKzg]

One method is around 80% efficient. Another method is around 60% efficient. Both numbers are less than 100%, right?

What is so hard to understand?

That is not how Statistics work...I should know, have passed it with flying colors!

Did you even do Statistics at your Uni or Collage?

"Not true at all"? What are you talking about?

Statement at question: "Hydrogen production from fossil fuel conversion is around 80% efficient. Better? No, probably worse since it maintains fossil fuel demand and the majority of the side product of conversion is CO2. At least with electrolysis there is a chance that green energy will grow and fossil fuel consumption will decrease."
1st and foremost, H2 is generated from CH4 (methane) or from coal with some processes. These are the products that do not have much of fossil fuel demand at all.
2nd CH4 is actually a blind end, waste gas in refineries. So making a clean fuel as H2 or making electricity from CH4 is making some product out of waste.
3rd coal is mostly banned as a heater in homes, heater in thermal-electrical plants or some other burning use. Making a clean fuel, such as H2 out of it, is beneficial & adding value to the product & society.
4th, the H2 produces this way can be grey if CO2 is released into atmosphere or as blue if H2 is dumped into the ex-oil or ex-gas well. So there is also solution with CO2.
5th, yes the CO2 is made, but that is not a big deal. CO2 is not a thing we need to worry about, for a long time runs - no matter what media tells you!

So there, 5 statements, which can be backed up by science. Please, do your homework better next time!

In some dream world, whatever you want to be produced by green energy is produced by green energy. This isn't that world. There are too many different causes that people wish were green, to go around.

My country does not have much windfarms nor solar...but we have been producing 50~60% of renewables in electrical power.

Maybe it would be beneficial, if you actually check any of data, before posting statements online?!

 

[ty_ger]

If you know statistics, why are you confused about how 60% and 80% are less than 100%? You use 95 to 100% fossil fuel in order to obtain 60 to 80% hydrogen. And then use that hydrogen in a method that is not significantly more efficient than a standard fossil fuel ICE. And with all the other storage overhead and weight and embodied carbon, it is even worse. You are way better off just using the 100% fossil fuel in the engine directly. You are using more fossil fuel to create a product with less energy. Or, in other words, you are wasting energy in the conversion process for no apparent reason.
What is hard to understand?

I don't know where you live, but in American, there is plenty of demand for coal and methane. And if there weren't, is your goal to create more demand for fossil fuel?

CO2 isn't a big concern? I thought it was. Hmm


Weird discussion, this one...

 

[DOA]

Well, when I do compare them...I know, that Model 3 is not a quality built, depreciate hugely on a SoC, needs a battery replacement every 5y or 200.000km (which costs as much as almost complete vehicle), for which battery is not replaceable nor are the battery modules replaceable (according to official Tesla manufacturing), needs to charge for na 1h for at least 80% on a fast charger (if it works), needs planning to go to any far trips, drops range by sitting in cold winter or heated summer....do you want me to go on?

Our local club has plenty of Model 3s over 200,000 miles (320K KM), and still going. There are some of Model3s over 300,000 miles. All on the original drive train. 300 - 500 thousand miles is the normal life expectancy. Getting more Model 3s with that mileage is just a matter or time. I do agree the Mirai has better fit and finish. The Mirai drive train requires a lot more maintenance. But Tesla gets a lot of bad press for being so good. As one article correctly says "Tesla EVs get recalled more than any other car. This is largely due to the company's desire to add features that make the driving experience more fun and driving". There is a reason Teslas sell so well. BTW, charging times are generally 30 minutes on trips and take no user time when charged at home.

Read More: https://www.slashgear.com/1356350/major-ev-brand-ranked-worst-best/

"the fuel cells should reach between 150,000 and 200,000 miles"

MSN

I guess you ignore the Mirai performance problems. A loaded Mirai is a nightmare in the mountains, barely able to pass trucks. Yes, I live in US where trucks are doing 60 mph up hills.

 

[KrazyT]

Back to the topic, as many knows BMW jumps in the Hydrogen wagon (even back to 2006 with a fully fonctionnal prototype of '7 series V12 powered), hand in hand with Toyota.
As KLiKzg says, the Mirai is just the year 1 on the Hydrogen cars, Honda and Hyundai have tried too.
Toy' have some racing cars with Hydrogen (liquid this time in The Corolla GR and the Yaris GR)
It's working, it's not perfect, but who knows in 10 / 20 years ?
Even if it's don't bring something worth it, research are always good to the industry.

 

[KLiKzg]

Back to the topic, as many knows BMW jumps in the Hydrogen wagon (even back to 2006 with a fully fonctionnal prototype of '7 series V12 powered), hand in hand with Toyota.
As KLiKzg says, the Mirai is just the year 1 on the Hydrogen cars, Honda and Hyundai have tried too.
Toy' have some racing cars with Hydrogen (liquid this time in The Corolla GR and the Yaris GR)
It's working, it's not perfect, but who knows in 10 / 20 years ?
Even if it's don't bring something worth it, research are always good to the industry.

Tesla was 10ya best at batteries...not so sure now!
Also it used to have best motors...but Lucid has far more efficient motors!
Others have better ones & have broke Guiness World of Records with acceleration, speed, etc.
& Tesla is worst about: finishing trim touch & not many compartments for accessories. Not to mention that some sensors work incorrectly, like for example seats.

Thanks for speaking that H2 is a new & future try...we will se how it goes!
But for certain BEV are not the way, as Toyota made 1:6:90 rule!
To read more about it, check here (sorry, no videos...non-YouTuber here): https://www.cartoq.com/toyota-1-6-90-rule-hybrids-vs-electric-cars-environment/

 

[leonavis]

I regularly drive a Toyota Yaris Hybrid, and I do understand why - at least for now - they focus on such cars. For now, it feels like the best of both worlds. On the long run, electric vehicles will get better and more affordable. But for now, hybrid is the most sensible option for someone without a house who ain't rich.

 

[DOA]

research are always good to the industry.

NO! This is not true in the slightest.

Obama had a choice, MPG increase or %ZEV sales. He chose MPG which put millions into ICE research instead of ZEV. Those millions have been wasted as ICE is a dead end due to climate change.

Toyota constantly lobbies for more FCV research and support. Toyota is simply delaying BEV adoption to extend hybrid profits. Notice Toyota did not take Tesla's route and build infrastructure, not even filling stations at dealers, not even FCV sales in all states. Kinda shows the truth about Toyota and hydrogen.

Leonavis has it right, hybrids/PHEVs will be necessary for a while longer.

 

[mb194dc]

There is a factory in South America that uses Electrolysis to make hydrogen fuel in mass, so I don't agree with you. It needs to be scaled up, but it's already there and working. I don't know if the factory is located near green energy like hydro or if it using fossil fuel to power it though.

Indeed, hydrogen can be green. Depends how it's produced, at the moment a lot of renewable energy is wasted off peak because it can't be stored.

Then there's natural hydrogen which you don't need energy to produce, just need to extract it.

 

[KrazyT]

Hmmm, well, I hope research will do something in the future, maybe not for cars but about the hydrogen tech ?

I'm 100 % agree with you, Hybrid is good !