Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[ARF]

Again, hydrogen is not a fuel source, you have to use some source of energy to create the hydrogen. Hydrogen is functioning as energy storage. It only serves to complement the renewable fuel sources, on itself it solves nothing. It's important for things like storing solar during the day, to be used on planes or ships that can't use batteries, etc...
If we burn coal, gas, to create hydrogen we are going nowhere, that's the problem.

Hydrogen is an energy source in the same way you burn gasoline. Educate yourself..

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Hydrogen is an energy source in the same way you burn gasoline. Educate yourself..

Not exactly. We get gasoline from refining crude oil, which we pump from the earth. That refinement does take energy, but it's energy that one can hypothetically get from the crude itself once the process is established. The production of gasoline is thus net energy-positive. If one wants to produce hydrogen from non-fossil sources, the only option is electrolysis AFAIK, which is HUGELY energy intensive. The net energy loss is so great that once you include all the other losses in the H2-as-vehicle-fuel chain, you're better off using that energy for basically anything else. This will remain true until we somehow manage to have a significant global energy surplus from renewable/sustainable sources.

 

[Bomby569]

If one wants to produce hydrogen from non-fossil sources, the only option is electrolysis AFAIK, which is HUGELY energy intensive. The net energy loss is so great that once you include all the other losses in the H2-as-vehicle-fuel chain, you're better off using that energy for basically anything else. This will remain true until we somehow manage to have a significant global energy surplus from renewable/sustainable sources.

that's not the point, when you build a battery it's also a "net energy loss", so should we use that energy for "basically anything else"?

This is not that complicated, you produce solar only during the day, but that's not when consumption is higher, so you need to storage it to use in peak hours (it's a simplification, it usually involves a lot more planing, other energy sources), it can be hydrogen.
You can't fill a plain with batteries or it wouldn't fly with the weight, so you need some other type of storage, like hydrogen).
Etc...

Your point of energy net positive would be valid if burning fossil fuels wasn't a net negative for the environment, life on earth, and even economically speaking with external costs like droughts, floods, etc...

 

[mechtech]

Wow 31 pages.

answer is short and simple when it comes to personal vehicles anyway
Money - cost more compared to other alternatives
Safety - high pressure, explosive and other materials science stuffs
Needs - cheaper alternatives readily available

But ya dirty. People are dumb about stuff when it comes to money health and environment. Look how long corporations ran leaded gas cause profits.

the closest cheapest/economical thing one could use/adapt to internal combustion engines would be propane and or with a bit more effort natural gas.

 

[ARF]

I am afraid that the reason why they haven't allowed hydrogen to become mainstream is the same reason why they didn't allow any Nikola Tesla technology to become mainstream.
Lack of support and investment by the bankers, which are probably with blue blood, anyways...

Hydrogen is renewable, and should be the cheapest fuel because it is the most widely spread chemical element in the Universe!

Hydrogen: up to $1.80 per kilogram, miles per kilogram: 81.
Gasoline: more expensive, less milage.

Hydrogen Fuel Cost vs Gasoline (heshydrogen.com)

I guess there should be a strong public pressure on the likes of Elon Musk, Volkswagen, Toyota... and this will become mainstream sooner rather than later.

 

[Bomby569]

The carbon footprint of Hydrogen is "no" and the source is "water", it's also "cheaper", and some conspiracy doesn't want this magical abundant cheap energy source to be a thing. May i ask how you go from water to hydrogen? What magical cheap process is that?

The problem with this conspiracy theory that people aren't allowing hydrogen to become mainstream is that you have no idea what you are talking about. To go from water to Hydrogen you need a fuel source like idk crude oil

 

[Aquinus]

Not exactly. We get gasoline from refining crude oil, which we pump from the earth. That refinement does take energy, but it's energy that one can hypothetically get from the crude itself once the process is established. The production of gasoline is thus net energy-positive. If one wants to produce hydrogen from non-fossil sources, the only option is electrolysis AFAIK, which is HUGELY energy intensive. The net energy loss is so great that once you include all the other losses in the H2-as-vehicle-fuel chain, you're better off using that energy for basically anything else. This will remain true until we somehow manage to have a significant global energy surplus from renewable/sustainable sources.

Did you know that most hydrogen produced today comes from cracking hydrocarbons? Unless that changes, hydrogen will never be a green option.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Did you know that most hydrogen produced today comes from cracking hydrocarbons? Unless that changes, hydrogen will never be a green option.

I did know that, and addressed that issue.

Not exactly. We get gasoline from refining crude oil, which we pump from the earth. That refinement does take energy, but it's energy that one can hypothetically get from the crude itself once the process is established. The production of gasoline is thus net energy-positive. If one wants to produce hydrogen from non-fossil sources, the only option is electrolysis AFAIK, which is HUGELY energy intensive. The net energy loss is so great that once you include all the other losses in the H2-as-vehicle-fuel chain, you're better off using that energy for basically anything else. This will remain true until we somehow manage to have a significant global energy surplus from renewable/sustainable sources.

 

[Aquinus]

I did know that, and addressed that issue.

It was rhetorical. It was more for the greater audience, I figured that you did. The only feasible way to produce hydrogen at scale is with nuclear power. Between the waste heat and power that's generated, it's really the best green option; high temperature and pressure electrolysis. The only problem is that people get real bent out of shape when talking about nuclear because of the past when I personally think, that with modern technology, it should be a no brainer.

 

[Frick]

If one wants to produce hydrogen from non-fossil sources, the only option is electrolysis AFAIK, which is HUGELY energy intensive. The net energy loss is so great that once you include all the other losses in the H2-as-vehicle-fuel chain, you're better off using that energy for basically anything else. This will remain true until we somehow manage to have a significant global energy surplus from renewable/sustainable sources.

I live in a place with pretty significant renewable energy surplus (because nobody has wanted to expand the big lines going south until now) and there are large scale projects going on for making steel using hydrogen instead of coal.

 

[Bomby569]

I live in a place with pretty significant renewable energy surplus (because nobody has wanted to expand the big lines going south until now) and there are large scale projects going on for making steel using hydrogen instead of coal.

can't you just cut the middle man and produce steal from the renewables as usually a steel mill works 24/7? I actually live close to one to.

 

[1freedude]

I am afraid that the reason why they haven't allowed hydrogen to become mainstream is the same reason why they didn't allow any Nikola Tesla technology to become mainstream.
...
I guess there should be a strong public pressure on the likes of Elon Musk, Volkswagen, Toyota... and this will become mainstream sooner rather than later.

Tesla is the reason we (Earthers) have an AC electric grid system.

I find it very ironic that a DC battery powered car company is called Tesla.

 

[Steevo]

Wow 31 pages.

answer is short and simple when it comes to personal vehicles anyway
Money - cost more compared to other alternatives
Safety - high pressure, explosive and other materials science stuffs
Needs - cheaper alternatives readily available

But ya dirty. People are dumb about stuff when it comes to money health and environment. Look how long corporations ran leaded gas cause profits.

the closest cheapest/economical thing one could use/adapt to internal combustion engines would be propane and or with a bit more effort natural gas.

Leaded gas or ANY additive to raw gasoline is a cost and reduces the profit. Stop thinking it was gas companies that forced lead onto people, and by the way, Aviation fuel (gas) is leaded still, think about that every time any person with a private plane wants to talk to the average person about how bad they are for the environment.

Lead was removed from fuel once cars were forced to burn unleaded fuel.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

can't you just cut the middle man and produce steal from the renewables as usually a steel mill works 24/7? I actually live close to one to.

It is the refining of the ore that takes the coal (as coke). The hydrogen is burned with the ore to remove the oxygen from the ore.

 

[MaddoggMiranda]

This is a Lithium leach field.

This is what Electric Car batteries are made of.

It is so neuro-toxic that a bird landing on this stuff dies in minutes.

Chile, 2nd largest lithium producer, is having water-scarcity problems as this technology takes so much water to produce battery-grade lithium.

Lead, nickel, lithium, cadmium, alkaline, mercury and nickel metal hydride.

Batteries are a collection of things that are extremely deadly.

So i fully Support the research of Hydrogen or any other energy to power cars because more EV's we have i personally think the more issues we are going to have globally in the future far worse than the CO'2 Produced by our Current ICE engines.

 

[mechtech]

Leaded gas or ANY additive to raw gasoline is a cost and reduces the profit. Stop thinking it was gas companies that forced lead onto people, and by the way, Aviation fuel (gas) is leaded still, think about that every time any person with a private plane wants to talk to the average person about how bad they are for the environment.

Lead was removed from fuel once cars were forced to burn unleaded fuel.

Lead was added long ago as a miracle anti-knock agent. It was taken out after 50 years or more of evidence of how toxic it is. And yes I am aware of av-gas.
A short history on it

View attachment 259185

This is a Lithium leach field.

This is what Electric Car batteries are made of.

It is so neuro-toxic that a bird landing on this stuff dies in minutes.

Chile, 2nd largest lithium producer, is having water-scarcity problems as this technology takes so much water to produce battery-grade lithium.

Lead, nickel, lithium, cadmium, alkaline, mercury and nickel metal hydride.

Batteries are a collection of things that are extremely deadly.

So i fully Support the research of Hydrogen or any other energy to power cars because more EV's we have i personally think the more issues we are going to have globally in the future far worse than the CO'2 Produced by our Current ICE engines.

You forgot cobalt

Let’s go back to donkeys and horses!! Then I won’t have to cut my lawn anymore either

 

[Bomby569]

Chile, 2nd largest lithium producer, is having water-scarcity problems as this technology takes so much water to produce battery-grade lithium.

Chile is a toxic/hazard waste zone, i stopped counting the amount of documentaries about them and what they allow/allowed there.

Chile: Nearly 40 years on, still no remedy for victims of Swedish toxic waste – UN experts

GENEVA (7 June 2021) - UN human rights experts* said today they were deeply concerned by the continuous devastating impact on a local community of a dumping of toxic waste by a Swedish company in the northern Chilean city of Arica nearly 40 years ago. The toxic waste - which remains outdoors...

www.ohchr.org

 

[defaultluser]

Chile is a toxic/hazard waste zone, i stopped counting the amount of documentaries about them and what they allow/allowed there.

Chile: Nearly 40 years on, still no remedy for victims of Swedish toxic waste – UN experts

GENEVA (7 June 2021) - UN human rights experts* said today they were deeply concerned by the continuous devastating impact on a local community of a dumping of toxic waste by a Swedish company in the northern Chilean city of Arica nearly 40 years ago. The toxic waste - which remains outdoors...

www.ohchr.org

they've always been short of water, given the fact that half the country is barren mountain highlands / deserts

but, we have methodologies for recycling these battery pack chemistries:

1. this old article discussing concepts ( components labeling, automation, , cobalt extraction, etc

Recycling lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles - Nature

Processes for dismantling and recycling lithium-ion battery packs from scrap electric vehicles are outlined.

www.nature.com

2: the new EPA law now requires us to do most of theses suggestions:

Battery Collection Best Practices and Battery Labeling Guidelines | US EPA

Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law the new program Battery Collection Best Practices and Voluntary Battery Labeling Guidelines is being developed.

www.epa.gov

if you don't need to extract as much metal from the ground, then you reduce the load on all these limited resources (and potentially cap the dumps that already exist around the world!)

 

[dragontamer5788]

The carbon footprint of Hydrogen is "no" and the source is "water", it's also "cheaper", and some conspiracy doesn't want this magical abundant cheap energy source to be a thing. May i ask how you go from water to hydrogen? What magical cheap process is that?

The problem with this conspiracy theory that people aren't allowing hydrogen to become mainstream is that you have no idea what you are talking about. To go from water to Hydrogen you need a fuel source like idk crude oil

Or, ya know, excess Solar Power / Nuclear Power which has no where else to go in the grid.

Its economically infeasible to temporarily turn off a Nuclear Power plant, or solar power. Solar's "fuel" is free, and Nuclear-fuel is almost free (it takes very, very little Uranium to create lots-and-lots of power. Even if Uranium is expensive, there's so little of it used in the nuclear power process).

The problem with today's electrical grid, and tomorrow's electrical grid, is that we're getting literally free sources of energy, but they're coming in at the wrong time. We need to invent storage devices that can absorb the free power. H2 is one such option.

 

[Space Lynx]

Or, ya know, excess Solar Power / Nuclear Power which has no where else to go in the grid.

This is my plan, I still live with my parents and we are going to try to save up and pool our money together to get a new solar panel roof, and then a 2023 Chevy Bolt EV car, charge our own car 8 to 9 months out of the year. We'll see how it all pans out, but that is the plan right now.

I'm also hoping for hydrogen to come through someday, but not holding my breath. Elon Musk tweeted a week or so ago about hyperloop making a comeback... but he is a troll these days, so I never know whether or not to take him seriously. I thought he had given up on hyperloop... weird.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Elon Musk tweeted a week or so ago about hyperloop making a comeback... but he is a troll these days, so I never know whether or not to take him seriously. I thought he had given up on hyperloop... weird.

Hyperloop was a project designed to kill the California High Speed Rail system. Literally a political play to kill someone else's project.

It was never a serious option. Seriously, look at how shit his original proposal was: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf

Look at page 29. Dude drew 3 popsicle sticks in an FEA program, clicked "analyze" over the default materials, and called it a "structural simulation". Its hilariously awful. Hyperloop was literally the minute I began to see Elon Musk for the fraud that he is. My undergraduate FEA class was more rigorous than the crap he wrote in that proposal, and I'm a freaking electrical engineer, not a civil engineer / mechanical engineer. I can't imagine what the actual mechanical/civil/aviation engineers think of that awful analysis.

Hyperloop is, and always has been, an exercise in hype, fraud, and misdirection. It never was a serious engineering proposal. Even from the start.

 

[Space Lynx]

Hyperloop was a project designed to kill the California High Speed Rail system. Literally a political play to kill someone else's project.

It was never a serious option. Seriously, look at how shit his original proposal was: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf

Look at page 29. Dude drew 3 popsicle sticks in an FEA program, clicked "analyze" over the default materials, and called it a "structural simulation". Its hilariously awful. Hyperloop was literally the minute I began to see Elon Musk for the fraud that he is. My undergraduate FEA class was more rigorous than the crap he wrote in that proposal, and I'm a freaking electrical engineer, not a civil engineer / mechanical engineer. I can't imagine what the actual mechanical/civil/aviation engineers think of that awful analysis.

Hyperloop is, and always has been, an exercise in hype, fraud, and misdirection. It never was a serious engineering proposal. Even from the start.

He has dissapointed me as well, just took me longer to figure it out as I am not an engineer. Back on topic though, sorry for going into hyperloop mods, that was my bad.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I'm also hoping for hydrogen to come through someday

Well, going to the on-topic part of your post, H2 trucks look economically viable today.

현대자동차그룹

현대자동차그룹은 ‘안전하고 자유로운 이동과 평화로운 삶’이라는 인류의 꿈을 실현해 갑니다. 현대자동차그룹의 활동과 최근 소식을 만나보세요.

www.hyundaimotorgroup.com

This is current news, more freshly deployed Hyundai Xcient trucks hitting German roads. The Xcient trucks also hit California roads sometime last year IIRC. This is no longer a "someday" or "theoretical" thing. H2 is happening, albeit in small deployments. But real, long-distance semi-truck level hauling applications.

 

[dgianstefani]

Hyperloop was a project designed to kill the California High Speed Rail system. Literally a political play to kill someone else's project.

It was never a serious option. Seriously, look at how shit his original proposal was: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf

Look at page 29. Dude drew 3 popsicle sticks in an FEA program, clicked "analyze" over the default materials, and called it a "structural simulation". Its hilariously awful. Hyperloop was literally the minute I began to see Elon Musk for the fraud that he is. My undergraduate FEA class was more rigorous than the crap he wrote in that proposal, and I'm a freaking electrical engineer, not a civil engineer / mechanical engineer. I can't imagine what the actual mechanical/civil/aviation engineers think of that awful analysis.

Hyperloop is, and always has been, an exercise in hype, fraud, and misdirection. It never was a serious engineering proposal. Even from the start.

Interesting, although I'm not sure I would call the proposal shit. Seems to have reasonable scientific basis and a good concept to develop.

The basic idea of a low friction (air and rail) enclosed train fixes many of the issues with high speed railway.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Interesting, although I'm not sure I would call the proposal shit. Seems to have reasonable scientific basis and a good concept to develop.

The basic idea of a low friction (air and rail) enclosed train fixes many of the issues with high speed railway.

The big concept / theory seems doable. But in terms of "will this survive a California Earthquake", you'd never draw just 3 pylons and call it a structural analysis of the concept.

When you consider the actual issue that California was worried about (ie: California Earthquakes), there's a level of analysis that requires more than like, 3-hours on a computer to figure out. (IE: I'd probably replicate that level of analysis within 3 hours, with the first 2 hours remembering how to use FEA programs and 1 hour to draw the thing). Its an incredibly shallow level of discussion / analysis in that document. Incredibly shallow, relying upon nearly the default materials/default settings of the program.

-----

Thanks to playing traffic simulator games (IE, OpenTTD), I've also become a bit better with throughput vs latency vs traffic when it comes down to analyzing mass transit proposals. Single-car designs (like Philadelphia TRAMS) can work, but you lose throughput significantly. Since throughput / people moved per hour is lower, such a proposal is seemingly designed as a boutique option, rather than a serious mass transit solution. I dunno how much traffic the SF to LA corridor has (I'm no civil engineer), but I have my doubts that Hyperloop, with a low throughput design as discussed, would make a dent in that traffic.

I admit this is video-game knowledge instead of real life knowledge though. But I can't imagine that fundamental laws of throughput/latency would change between real life and simulations (at least, from the simplistic model of throughput vs latency). That is to say: a singular train of eight cars will have fewer delays in the aggregate than 8x single-cars individually stopping at each location. You can't beat the fundamental traffic problem of throughput vs latency (individual pods are better latency, but far worse throughput).