I doesn’t happen nearly enough to be worth the effort. Electricity is cheap, and these mobile services are only worth it if they can charge a premium. And they can only charge a premium when a car is literally stranded. And that happens infrequently enough that you may as well just use a tow, which is readily available.
When my wife and I went to Italy on our honeymoon, and subsequently decided to use carbonated water as a way of dropping our coke addictions, the next few months felt like I was a drug fiend breaking an addiction.
Vegetables tasted so good. Vanilla added to our Starbucks coffee started to taste awful. It felt like a world of taste opening up. Food started to satisfy so much more. It was easier to identify when I was full and avoid overeating.
The sugar industry has so evil and has done so much damage to this country and to the world.
Exactly this. Hydrogen is like crypto. It has just enough interesting tech to attract (using D&D terminology here) high INT, low WIS people.
Hydrogen will probably never work unless someone comes up with a stable molecule that includes hydrogen, is large enough to not move through solid objects, and still retains enough chemical energy to be useful. Ammonium is one option, but it is highly toxic. Only really practical in cargo ships.
Hydrogen also can be useful for inherently expensive things like rockets and jet planes. But never cars.
It was never going to compete with electric. EVs have been slandered for so long that people just assumed we would come up with something better. But EVs are great. Driving an ICE car after being in a Tesla feels like playing a first-person shooter over dial-up.
I would not underestimate the amount of weight behind the development and commercialization of hydrogen technology. Everyone in the oil and gas industry, including natural gas utilities, has a strong incentive to figure out how to make it work.
Literally everyone has a massive incentive to make green hydrogen work. It is pretty fundamental to industry, manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, etc. There is no path to zero emissions without it. In reality, just a handful of vocal BEV fans oppose this technology on purely personal grounds.
I'm one of those vocal opponents for hydrogen cars, but I do like the technology in general. I'm a huge fan of hydrogen for agriculture, forestry, and other big applications where grid access is really challenging and even small gaps to recharge are unacceptable. Personal transport just doesn't make the list.
Hydrogen won't ever make sense for personal transportation since the cost of batteries has come down way too far. Green hydrogen under perfect conditions has way too many efficiency penalties to compete with pure battery vehicles, so the cost per unit distance just won't ever make sense compared to the tiny losses for batteries.
I don't even care that much if companies like Toyota want to waste their development dollars on personal hydrogen transport that won't ever happen. I just want to make sure subsidy dollars are spent correctly. Use government money on decarbonizing farms and long distance heavy transport with hydrogen. Don't waste that money on cars that will always be too expensive to operate compared with BEVs.
That’s absurd. Hydrogen cars will drop to costs comparable to ICE cars. It is a massive reduction in raw material needs. Not to mention the millions of people who need fast public refueling since they do not have access to home chargers.
People are stuck in an innovation trap with BEVs. It is pretty much what Clay Christensen wrote about in his book Innovator’s Dilemma. You cannot just linearly improve a single idea until it surpasses all other ideas, now and forever. Especially one that has many limits as BEVs. It is inevitable that there will be step functions in change, i.e. disruptive changes, coming to the market. Forward thinking companies will plan for that inevitability, not pretend BEVs are the final destination of personal transportation.
The world has already squandered billions of dollars on every kind of green technology. That could easily imply BEVs themselves. It is the biggest of double standards to not insist on hydrogen subsidies. If you truly oppose the idea, then oppose all subsidies for all green energy. If not, then accept hydrogen subsidies as a good idea.
There was a time 150 years ago national grids didn't even exist as a concept. Now you're never more than 10 ft from a plug at any given moment when inside a city. A current lack of places to charge is easy to build out of.
I'm for hydrogen subsidies, just not for personal transport. Use the money for heavy transport, agriculture, and forestry. If that also happens to make fuel cells cheaper all around and changes the economics of fuel cell vehicles, that's fine, just don't subsidize hydrogen personal cars directly because it's deeply unlikely they will ever be more than a curiosity.
Thermodynamics means green hydrogen always has to pay the round trip conversion loss, so it will always be more expensive than raw electricity. I do agree there is opportunity to soak up excess renewable generation with hydrogen, but if you're right about hydrogen demand that won't ever affect the price more than a few %. Raw, direct electricity use will always be cheaper, so people will figure out ways to make that arbitrage work for them in ways other than hydrogen storage.
The lack of losses with batteries will mean there is a huge incentive to shoehorn them into anything where it possibly makes sense. That doesn't necessarily mean current lithium chemistry and that's where your innovation will come from.
The grid was not designed for everyone to charge large BEVs with them. Nor are there DC fast chargers on every block. And I’m not sure what 150 years ago had to do with anything. Today, we will build whatever infrastructure will allow for cheap transportation. Which technically is mass transit, but because of other factors we chose a much more expensive route with cars. But if we insist on having cars, it makes more sense to have a system that allows for rapid refueling all the time. That will enable everyone to have a single refueling system. So basically the gas station model, which implies hydrogen cars as the future.
Again, hydrogen cars can be as cheap as ICE cars to manufacture. Your argument here is pure shortsightedness and is insisting on a double standards. What was the cost of BEVs when they first came out? It took subsidies to drive cost down in the early days. Same is true for hydrogen cars. As mass production expands, hydrogen cars will get cheaper until they are cheaper than BEVs.
You do not understand the thermodynamics of the subject matter. Again, electrolyzers/fuel cells are an electrochemical systems. It basically doesn’t have “thermal-dynamics”. Theoretical efficiency is the same as li-ion batteries. A fuel cell car is effectively the equivalent of a battery car whose battery is made from water. Although there are practical issues to deal with in reality, so this isn’t totally the case, but it is much closer to being true than what you’re imagining.
If you can understand that electrolyzers/fuel cells are functionally the same thing as li-ion batteries, and are subject to the same basic physics, then the real conclusion is to replace li-ion batteries with hydrogen systems wherever possible. After all, if the long-term level of efficiency will be parity between the two, then why insist on the one that is much more resource dependent?
I have no issues with the efficiency of fuel cells. It's the overall efficiency of producing hydrogen in the first place. The "well-to-wheel" efficiency (though with green hydrogen there isn't an actual well). It's very energy intensive to create green hydrogen, far more so than charging a battery. Losses on green hydrogen are 50-60% of total energy used compared to <5% on a battery. That's a huge energy deficit to overcome that will always result in an opex difference. That's why I'm bearish on hydrogen for personal transport, but bullish on it for things like very long distance trains and farm use.
The whole wells-to-wheels efficiency is theoretically the same as doing it with a li-ion battery. The whole process is electrochemical. So there's no hard rule why this can't be as efficient as batteries.
This also ignores the realities of renewable energy. The first thing to point out is that renewable energy is terribly inefficient. Solar panels are only 20% efficient and have terrible load factors. And even then, you'll lose most of it without energy storage. As it turns out, a hypothetical system with just renewable energy and li-ion batteries is actually wasting a lot of energy. These problems shrink dramatically with hydrogen since you now have a huge amount of available energy storage. In fact, you can't even reach 100% zero emissions without hydrogen, since long periods of low sunlight and wind occur fairly often, requiring a backup energy source.
Long story short, the efficiency argument is just FUD. People who promote it have no idea what the realities of energy production will actually look like. It's just something people say to block innovation or maintain the status quo.
Your statements conflate a number of unrelated elements. Solar panels not converting 100% of the sunlight that hits them has no impact on the "well to wheel" number for either batteries or hydrogen.
Right now it takes ~53kWh to make 1 kg of h2, which stores ~34 kWh of energy. Right away a fuel cell vehicle operator needs to pay for an additional 20 kWh of energy for every kg of h2 before they can move an inch. Toyota Mirai consumes about 0.8 kg/100 km, so those 53 kWh of energy move the car about 125 km. That's 42 kWh/100km. My Model 3 SR+ recently consumed 35 kWh to travel 258 km or about 14 kWh/100km. The Mirai takes 3 times as much energy to move as I used on a recent trip. That efficiency gap is a gulf; no matter how cheap creating and distributing hydrogen gets it will always use a lot more power than just putting that power in a battery. I agree hydrogen has a place in the economy, but only where batteries are too large/heavy for the application or the grid is too far away.
You are guilty of your own accusation. You are conflating many things together. For starters, you are completely ignoring all upstream losses like charging losses, transmission losses, or energy storage losses. You do not magically get energy from a solar panel to the wheels in a BEV. You need to include all of the losses it took to get it there. But the reverse is rarely true, since critics of hydrogen are always including those upstream losses.
Another thing is that you cannot just make up a number and say this is the only possible outcome. Electrolysis efficiency is a moving target, and depending on circumstances, can be dropped to as low as 39 kWh/kg for water electrolysis and even to 33 kWh for steam electrolysis. Note that there are electrothermal processes gives you effectively free steam (like solar thermal or nuclear), so the latter number is fully possible. In the long run, you have to assume that it will not be that inefficient.
Same is true of BEV efficiency. 14 kWh/100km is pretty low of a figure. Not realistic in normal driving for most people. Not to mention you are comparing a compact car to a much larger car. If people are buying SUV sized BEVs, you won't get those numbers. And no, it is not guaranteed that a BEV will always be more efficient. Fuel cells are continuously getting more efficient and if the goal is have big cars with long ranged batteries, battery weight becomes a real problem. There are scenarios where BEVs will lose in efficiency.
Also, a lot of the upside of hydrogen is that you avoid all of the cost associated with batteries. It take less money and resources to make a hydrogen car compared to a battery car. These need to be accounted for in some way. Finally, one major problem is the huge and unpredictable surplus production of renewable energy. There are reasons why we see zero and negatively priced electricity on the grid. There is no realistic way of capturing it all using batteries. But you can capture most of it via hydrogen. That effectively gives you free hydrogen, and is functionally a way to reduce waste.
Ultimately, hydrogen production just continues the logic of wind and solar economics. Neither wind nor solar are particularly efficient, but it doesn't matter because you are using effectively infinite resources. It cost nearly nothing to keep renewable energy farms going. And likewise, it will cost nearly nothing to use that power to drive water electrolysis. The costs will trend towards zero.
Charging my car doesn't require more than my A/C, or oven, or clothes dryer. Good thing my car charges overnight, when I'm not drying clothes or cooking, and my A/C does quite a bit less work.
> it makes more sense to have a system that allows for rapid refueling all the time
I don't need that. That is a very rare need for me, and it's so infrequent that I'm ok with it taking a little longer than a gas pump.
And those are a tiny fraction of the cars on the road. Even then, there are police departments and delivery services using electric vehicles. I don't advocate 100% removal of ICE cars. A variety of solutions will likely be needed.
Time is money is great when you’ve waiting at the hydrogen refueling stating for the chillers to be ready again after the person in front of you just used them.
> Literally everyone has a massive incentive to make green hydrogen work.
There is also the reality that certain company have taken a lot of money for a long time without producing many results. Specially if its fossil fuel companies that rubs people the wrong way. Just as giving money to Ford and GM wasn't the solution to get EV going. So its understandable that many people don't love the promotion of it.
I am as anti-hydrogen as anybody but I do believe it has a place. However, it should be limited and only used in places where you really need it. So instead of using it in transportation, using it in the chemical industry makes much more sense. Its simply not needed for the overwhelming majority of transportation applications. And even for the the stuff that is left over its often questionable if its worth developing the new infrastructure. Using it for personal vehicle and most cargo transport is utterly idiotic. Using it for most trains is idiotic. The list goes on.
Some people believe the massive steel CO2 use will be solved with hydrogen, but as with transport, there are better ways forward then that in my opinion. But again, hydrogen is getting the lions share of investment there too.
In general I am much more against they 'hydrogen economy' idea and concept, rather then hydrogen. Using energy to split water is reasonable, but most of the time hydrogen is just a short temporary state until it gets turned into something else. Very different from the hydrogen economy people in-visioned.
Another question is if electrolysis of access renewable production is really a great path forward.
These are opinions based on profound ignorance. Many sectors can never reach zero emissions without hydrogen. Things like airplanes and ships. You must invest in the infrastructure no matter what.
And how can you have hydrogen for steel production without necessarily reducing the cost to the ballpark of coal or natural gas? If you can grasp that part, you should realize that it must be a cheap fuel in the future. Cheap enough that it can be easily affordable for transportation purposes. And for those who can't afford BEVs or don't have access to chargers, that is major motivation to pursue hydrogen cars.
Ultimately, you're left with many unsolvable problems if you try to tackle climate change without looking at hydrogen where it is applicable. You also need to think seriously about the downside of alternative ideas, and not pretend they are magically perfect. Batteries are heavy and expensive, nor are they environmental friendly to produce. If you see hydrogen as a far greener type of energy storage, then you will see there are upsides too. In other words, you are only looking at the cons, not the pros and the cons.
The waste majority of ships will be battery powered, even cargo ships, as most cargo transport is local and short route. Same goes for planes. For the rest hydrogen is just a in between product, directly turning it into things like methanol or jet fuel.
Steel and other metals can be made with direct Molten Oxide Electrolysis. That is a far better path forward then hydrogen.
> You also need to think seriously about the downside of alternative ideas, and not pretend they are magically perfect.
Given your absurd defense of hydrogen cars, I will just say, look in the mirror.
> Batteries are heavy and expensive, nor are they environmental friendly to produce. If you see hydrogen as a far greener type of energy storage, then you will see there are upsides too.
As a complete engineering solution end to end, batteries are far more environmentally friendly, far more efficient and far cheaper. Let alone if you also include infrastructure cost. Anybody who seriously investigates these things will come to the same conclusions.
Globally, annually, there is roughly 850 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) worth of containerized goods handled at ports worldwide.
Aside from container shipping there is raw bulk material shipping, eg: Western Australia ships > 800 million tonnes of raw ores to China annually (not local, not light).
Looking at just container shipping and the major major routes; there is
* 42 million TEU's intra asia (within asia, 'local' but not necc. 'short')
* 42 million TEU's 'far east' to Europe + North America.
and then a long tail of lesser volume routes, many quite lengthy (asia -> south americas, north | south americas, etc.)
Point being by "vast majority" are you talking raw ship numbers (there are many small ships) or cargo volumes | weights?
There is a truly vast amount of heavy tonnages being moved long distances and these consume the majority of shipping energy.
If this is your line of argument then it deserves some refining to move past a handwave.
First up, I'm pro energy transition, so I'm essentially 'on your side'.
I'd still like to see you make better arguments and work on the real world details (if you can be bothered) which will take time if you apply yourself.
eg: batteries
Sure .. somewhere there is the future.
Right now, though, the largest installer of city scale battery parks in the world Neoen has yet to crack 10 GW installed:
As at 31 December 2021, the company's total capacity was 5.4 GW, made up of 50% solar, 38% wind and 12% battery storage. Neoen aims to attain 10 GW in operation and under construction by 2025.
That's total globally after successively installing the three successive "biggest battery parks in the world" each larger than the other.
For a comparison point, Germany (a single mid sized European country) has a lowest overnight baseload minimum draw of 40 GW (all night long .. an then it ramps up).
Realistically batteries must scale to being able to provide 40 GW for an hour (or more!) .. which is provision of power x length of time.
And from there to scale out by a 100 and more locations.
So, there's some way to go here.
As for hydrogen and steel .. before you wave that away it might be worth looking into the concrete plans by the largest raw material providers for the largest steel plants globally.
These are the concrete plans of those who are committed to climate action, have access to world class engineers, and already provide 100's of millions of tonnes of raw iron ore per year to steel production already.
You don't have to agree with them, but they are taking action with several billion in capital backing them, so it pays to understand what they intend.
That said, I am against using batteries, specifically lithium batteries for grid stabilization. I much rather not have grids that need that, sadly politically this is where we are going. To actually have grid stabilizing on a large scale with batteries, new battery technologies will have to come online. Things like 'Form Energy' and stuff like that. Neither batteries nor hydrogen currently are actually good solutions. Hydrogen has a bunch of issues in this application and if you look at totally deployed vs batteries its tiny. Again, reality doesn't seem to believe hydrogen is this great grid stability solution.
I rather have nuclear and not need anything other then maybe some Lithium for peak shaving and grid stabilization. But sadly we don't live in that reality, specially in Germany.
Germany has the delusional believe that they will get cheap hydrogen from Australia and Canada. Lots of plans and 'understanding' in reality Australia doesn't even have enough green electricity to make its own grid green, and they are way behind on things like electrification for cars, trains and trucks. Australia has a very, very, very long way to go, the idea that there will be some large cheap export of Green Hydrogen from Australia in my opinion is just fantasy pushed by some politically connected people in both countries who are selling a fantasy to get government money.
The claims from 2021 that by 2023 there will be all this green hydrogen from Australia, mmmhh we are in 2023 and I like to see some data on how much import there is from Australia right now. Again, lots of announcements, lots plans, lots of 'understanding' but tiny actual numbers.
Politically steel companies are under pressure to do something. They can mix hydrogen into their existing processes and make them slightly greener. Its kind of like Hybrid cars. It will make steel more expensive and many of the plans to really scale this relay on cheap green hydrogen to really be competitive. I'm not against it but I think moving to MOE is gone both cheaper and greener.
P.S:
> Germany, the country that is leading the fight against the global warming challenge in Europe
Pretty funny claims from the country with the dirtiest energy mix in Western Europe.
> Tesla has far more then 10GW installed globally.
Good to hear - can you provide a link to back that up?
The company I linked above installed the Tesla battery parks that are the the three largest in the world and as their current total (including those) is under 10 GW I'd like to know about the others that make up your total.
> P.S: .. Germany ..
You haven't quoted me, that's not a claim I made.
I simply used Germany as an example of one Europeans's minimum overnight baseload - feel free to pick another.
About 10GW Q1 to Q1, but that number continue to go up pretty fast.
I can't name all the people they sold all this to. There are lots of individual projects from 100MW to 500MW and lots of individual batteries. I believe in California there is a 1GW project somewhere. There have announced a number of GW scale projects.
I don't have all the links to all the projects but you should track them down in various news articles.
This is seriously detached from reality. Cargo ships do not travel short routes, and "short-haul" airflight is far beyond the ranges of battery powered airplanes. You are completely ignoring physics here.
MOE has not actually been invented yet, and there is no evidence it will be either cheap nor scalable. It's currently very expensive and requires plenty of exotic materials to work even as a concept.
No one is claiming hydrogen cars are perfect. But you are making highly delusional claims about batteries. Many of them are totally impossible.
It's pretty obvious that you have never thought about these problems. It's just a serious of assertions from the marketing department of BEV companies designed to shut down critical thinking. The fact is, a hydrogen infrastructure is cheaper than a battery infrastructure. That is simply due to the nature of pipelines versus wire. A pipe is hollow but a wire is not.
You are the one making argument for hydrogen powered cars and that's totally detached from actual reality.
> Cargo ships do not travel short routes
With short I mean not crossing major oceans. Battery powered ships can do a lot of routes.
> MOE has not actually been invented yet, and there is no evidence it will be either cheap nor scalable. It's currently very expensive and requires plenty of exotic materials to work even as a concept.
Both of these claims are just plain false.
> The fact is, a hydrogen infrastructure is cheaper than a battery infrastructure. That is simply due to the nature of pipelines versus wire.
That is such a terrible and utterly idiotic oversimplification.
The reality is, one of these exists and we can make realistic estimate, hydrogen infrastructure simply doesn't exist.
A bunch of small trial projects supported by governments, that make grand claims.
You like to talk about reality, in reality of the 100s of GW of wind turbines, basically non use hydrogen as an energy transport. And the waste majority of announced new wind projects do not plan to produce hydrogen in the future.
> Reality doesn't not favor batteries or excessive electrification.
And yet in actual reality, you know the one we actually live in, electrification is happening with ever increasing speed and the hydrogen industry barley exists and as far as it does it is almost completely driven by state investments.
Its pretty fucking rich to claim 'in reality' when actual reality is suggesting the exact opposite.
Except the most important routes are about crossing oceans. Asia to Europe or Asia to North America are very important routes. You pretty much hand waved major details here.
Then show me a working MOE system. I'd love to be enlightened about a working system that went beyond lab experiment.
This is a bogus claim. Show us some hydrogen pipelines that are in operation which are thousands of kilometres in length.
And the cost is per energy. Which energy? Output energy when you get electricity at the other end? Or chemical potential energy in the H2, which is meaningless since we can’t get it all.
Are you really going to go around and dismiss properly sourced claims? Where is your counterevidence? And no, you cannot just concern troll your way around this. There are people with real credentials making these claims. You cannot dismiss them without evidence of your own.
People who make grand claims based on small trial projects that have almost no commercial traction, unless you can show a source that this technology is going to have exponential growth in the next couple years.
And 'people with credentials' also believed in hydrogen cars and wide deployment of synfuels for automotive. There are lots of claims made over the last 20 years by people with credentials. But I guess you still believe in hydrogen cars so its probably not worth having this debate.
You’re just a short-sighted naysayer. Guys like you are repeating the same garbage that anti-wind and anti-solar people said in the past. All you’re doing is proving that you have no interest in progress.
Lithium batteries and improvements in battery technology is more recent then hydrogen. You are the one holding one to an outdated relic of the past claiming it to be the future.
Wind and solar are replacing fossil fuels (or in the rare case of Germany, nuclear). Hydorgen cars by the time they could finally come about would be replacing already carbon free battery cars.
Hilariously enough is not only are you holding on to a relic of the past, you are also defending a technology that is far less energy efficient and is not even green, and wont be for many decades.
You can't just declare something progress because it has always been progress. Its simply a technology that has already been overtaken by something far better before it was ever deployed. That is really progress. What you are doing is declaring something the future and then holding on to it forever and claiming that its the only possible progress.
So in reality you are the one not actually looking to progress, but defending historical idea of progress.
The idea of lithium batteries dates back to the 1910s. It is not a new idea. But this is irrelevant because both had their major advancements more recently.
The fundamental problem with batteries is that they're heavy, highly resource dependent, and take a very long time to recharge. This is not going to change unless you take extreme measure like battery swapping. Furthermore, as the world shifts towards SUV sized BEVs, it becomes its own environmental and societal menace. This is a doomed idea in the long-run.
The thing about fuel cell cars is that they are also EVs. They are basically the same idea as BEVs, just without the giant batteries. This gives us far greater flexibility. You can even envision the idea of plug-in fuel cell cars, eliminate pretty much any real arguments against them as a general idea. Everything can be shifted towards zero emissions just like BEVs.
And because FCEVs do not have the huge batteries of BEVs, they are fundamentally more sustainable. And if you are aware that they are also EVs, then they should eventually close whatever efficiency gap you imagine them having. Ensuring that the long-term world will be one dominated by FCEVs.
These are all simple and straightforward bits of reasoning. It does not take much effort to see that FCEVs are the future, and the only question is when. BEV fanatics like you are just spamming FUD against them, many of which are total red herrings. These are terrible arguments and all it does is undermine the credibility of BEVs. In fact, these are signs of a technology that is running out of steam, not a technology on the rise. If you need to lie to defend your business, then you are headed down the path of Reddit and Twitter, just waiting until some disruptive event drives you out of business.
You have a source from where you heard about it, but if you open up the link the person simply states this as fact. They do not back up their claim with any facts or sources, they simply say it.
The onus is not on me to provide counter evidence for an unsubstantiated claim. The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence backing it up.
The person in question is a expert in the field and has decades of researching green energy topics. That is considered evidence. It is you who is just making shit up. You are literally expecting everyone to just accept your words. We merely want evidence instead.
Then you plainly don't know what that means. Appeal to authority means trusting someone who doesn't know the answer but you imply that that person does, or that the argument doesn't need evidence beyond the words of a person. It doesn't refer to actual experts in the field who have done actual research.
As I said from the outset, you are free to present any counterevidence. Heck, even a person of similar expertise saying otherwise. Anything more than you denying it.
That's a completely ignorant statement. Hydrogen cars actually exist and work exactly as advertised. There are no fundamental challenges. This reads like one of those anti-BEV posts from a decade ago. In both cases, the author is totally oblivious to the current state of technology.
> It was never going to compete with electric. EVs have been slandered for so long that people just assumed we would come up with something better.
Hydrogen cars are EVs. This is a deep misunderstanding of the issue.
The production and storage of hydrogen is expensive, had the downside of requiring a large tank in the car and is less efficient than just using a battery.
The cost will drop to nearly zero, just like the rest of renewable energy production. Tanks are cheaper, smaller and lighter than li-ion batteries. Fuel cell cars are also EVs, just like BEVs. The "efficiency problem" is greatly exaggerated.
Batteries will always been heavy and be dependent on large quantities of mined materials. The advantage of hydrogen is that it is made from water. So the raw materials used to make hydrogen will trend towards zero, similar to what happened with wind and solar.
> Hydrogen cars actually exist and work exactly as advertised.
And if by that you mean very badly and very impractically then you are correct.
> There are no fundamental challenges.
Except, you know building them cheap at volume. Just a small thing.
> This reads like one of those anti-BEV posts from a decade ago.
Except it also reads like anti-Hydrogen EV post from a decade ago and since then BEV have made utterly insane amount of progress and hydrogen vehicles are still in the utterly sorry and embracing state they were 10 years ago.
I probably should have said "fuel cell cars are EVs." But yes, you can make an ICE powered by hydrogen. It is likely to be a niche product, mainly sports cars and perhaps some diesel engine replacements.
Supra isn't a Toyota; it's a BMW, so it isn't exactly helping the case that Toyota is on the right development path. They have to use a partner for high performance applications since they can't be bothered to develop their own.
B58 is a truly great combustion engine, but the idea any turbocharged ICE can compete with an electric motor for input lag is ridiculous. B58's twin scroll turbos certainly reduce lag compared with more run-of-the-mill turbo engines, but even naturally aspirated race engines with light flywheels feel laggy after driving even low-end BEVs.
It would. Yet there is no promising tech in this field. Hydrogen is supported only to draw support away from EVs.
If hydrogen becomes inexpensive to produce, it will by by way of solar power used to generate it.
It will never be easy to store. Hydrogen is the smallest element, and can move through solid objects over time. It is violently explosive. You think these EV fires you see all the time are bad? They're nothing compared to gasoline fires. And gasoline fires are nothing compared to a hydrogen explosion.
> Hydrogen is supported only to draw support away from EVs.
I always find this false hydrogen versus batteries narrative bizarre.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are EVs. It isn't an exclusive choice between hydrogen or batteries. Choose both hydrogen and batteries, both FCEVs and BEVs.
In any case, if you want your EV to be manufactured with green steel then you want hydrogen to be used in the production of that steel:
The hydrogen-is-the-enemy-of-EVs thing comes from the way that car manufacturers in the '90s pushed hydrogen as the "fuel of the future" in order to stall the CARB EV mandate from interfering with their ICE car sales. It was a cynical bait-and-switch where they simultaneously insisted that it was impossible to build acceptable BEVs (despite both the GM EV1 and the Rav4-EV being universally lauded) and extolled hydrogen fuel cell EVs as the Bright New Future that was "only 10 years away". This let them continue business as usual in exchange for the occasional puff piece on hydrogen.
If they hadn't been allowed to get away with it, we'd have had practical EVs by 2000 instead of having to wait another decade for Tesla.
I know ammonia has safety challenges as well, but transport and storage of ammonia is routine. I believe there are new developments in using ammonia for hydrogen storage and transport, so ammonia has potential to enable hydrogen to be the fuel of the future.
> Hydrogen is supported only to draw support away from EVs.
No, or at least not by everyone. Hydrogen is seen as a replacement for natural gas. For example: https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-japan-consortium-explo... There is no fancy fuel cell converting it to electricity in this plan. They are just going t burn it for heat, just as they do for natural gas.
Now there are a few problems, such as cost. Producing hydrogen costs around 4 times what it costs to produce natural gas. Or at least it did before the Ukraine broke out. Right now, if anyone was making renewable hydrogen, they would ge getting a tidy profit.
Another is storage. You can't economically liquefy it, it literally passes through metal walls and damages them on the way through. Converting to Ammonia is well understood, but getting hydrogen back was a problem. Until: https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/fuels...
It might work. 100's of millions are being invested into finding out if it does.
Rational thinking is when you use facts and draw a conclusion.
Rationalizing is when you have a conclusion, and you work backwards to justify it with rational-sounding arguments.
Conspiracy theories start with some ridiculous conclusion, and work backwards to make it sound intelligent. It's not intelligent, but it SOUNDS intelligent.
In college we had to read Freud's Civilization and its Discontents for a literature class. The only thing I remember about that entire book was him saying that no matter what, if people wanted to do something, they would find a way to rationalize it to themselves to avoid cognitive dissonance.
That one concept has been illustrated over and over in the 30 years since!
Anger is the emotion we feel when we've run out of rational options. People only get angry when others disagree with them if they don't feel like they can argue their side. They might feel like they can't argue their side for several reasons:
- They don't have an argument
- They don't believe the other person will listen to their argument
- They don't have time to argue
- They're tired and don't want to feel like it
- They don't know why they believe what they believe
- They know their idea is wrong
Some of the reasons above are rational, some are not. But you don't usually feel anger if you feel like you have a rational path forward. (i.e., you have an argument that you enjoy explaining to people that you believe will listen to).
Most things like this are organized by bad-faith actors that know that his skit wasn't hateful. The powers-that-be have learned how to create viral movements. They know how to get would-be-activists spun up until their brains turn off. These are the left-wing equivalent of Trump-supporters.
People got up in arms about his last stand up. It was not offensive at all. But you couldn't say that, because the people had already made up their minds.
Corporations know how to get people spun up, and they're doing it with Chapelle again. They want to cancel him, because he is dangerous to the right wing, because he is charismatic and articulate. He can get points across clearly. If he became the new Jon Stewart, he could siphon a lot of control away from the right. They need to neutralize him before he decides to go political.
