Father; husband; mechanical engineer. Posting from my self-hosted Lemmy instance here in beautiful New Jersey. I also post from my Pixelfed instance.

  • 33 Posts
  • 490 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 29th, 2023

help-circle




  • That is a possibility but they have already corrupted hydrogen. Between the two, I will go with the one that can go either way. There’s also the fact that EVs are being produced now while hydrogen car production is still a way off, so it’s a stall tactic as well

    How is the battery industry not corrupted? How does hydrogen production not go “either way”? I’m aware that lots of subsidies have already gone to BEVs, but it’s giving in to the sunk cost fallacy if that’s the reason to abandon hydrogen.

    They can also be set up anywhere and are much more convenient, I’ve seen quite a few in residential streets, companies can set them up in their parking lots, etc.

    That’s crazy to me. BEVs are so slow to refuel that we’re going to need many more “fast” charging stations and they’ll need to be put everywhere. A 20 minute charge time, or whatever it is, is not convenient. That’s especially so if you need to park longer than that, effectively putting that charging station out of service for someone else. Maybe someone will figure out battery swapping, but then every swap station will need extra space to safely warehouse the batteries while they charge. A hydrogen station doesn’t need to store hydrogen on site, but even if it does at least it’s not a potential environmental contamination hazard. Pushing BEVs beyond the use case of slow overnight or workday charging is a mistake.


  • There is no clean, cheap, efficient source of hydrogen. You still need to transport it around burning more fuel to transport it all around.

    That’s just not true. Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen can be accomplished with electricity from any source and it even makes intermittent renewable sources feasible without massive, enviromentally unfriendly batteries or fossil fuel fired peaking plants. It is even possible to get hydrogen from natural gas by way of pyrolysis, which avoids CO2 emissions. Hydrogen can of course be safely and efficiently transported by pipeline, probably significantly more safely than overhead power transmission lines can “transport” electricity.

    There are already multiple ways to get clean electricity for BEVs and the supply chain is cleaner… Plant, grid, sometimes a grid storage battery, battery, car.

    Fixed it for you. All these batteries are going to be a problem. Meanwhile, hydrogen just requires pressure vessels and pipelines for storage and transport, which are much safer for the environment.

    Also coal is already a TINY TINY % of US power production, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

    As we have seen in Germany, the permanent reduction of coal fired electricity is not a sure thing. Regardless, the point is that whether you are driving a BEV or an FCEV, it will be running on an overall energy mix that is determined by separate national policies.




  • Most of the hydrogen on market is made with methane.

    EVs use whatever source is being given, and most of these sources are converting to renewables.

    Not comparable imo.

    As I explained in this reply, you can’t count on the grid’s energy mix improving or not getting worse as the vehicle fleet transitions to BEV. What you identify as a problem with FCEVs is really just bad energy policy that BEVs don’t solve either.

    I actually kind of agree with you that the ideal BEV requires barely any new infrastructure. It should have a small battery that can support a daily commute and errands with slow charging at home overnight or during the day at work. Yet somehow these “fast” charging stations, which aren’t as fast or convenient as regular gas stations (and still run at least partially on fossil fuels anyway), have to get built everywhere. If we can’t get rid of these stations then let them be hydrogen stations.