Hypx_

Those do exist now. Those probably not advanced enough to be widely available just yet.

Large tanks do not cost that much. It will be no worse than compressed natural gas. This entire argument is an imaginary one with very little reasoning backing it up.

The argument that hydrogen is inefficient is itself a massive exaggeration. Fuel cells are more efficient than anything except batteries, and come with the upside of much less weight and resource requirements. For hydrogen to be cheaper than electricity, all it needs is an infrastructure that is moderately cheaper than the grid, as energy costs are only a minor portion of the total cost. It is not even that far off as cost per mile between EVs and hydrogen cars is around 50-75% in most places. Fuel cell cars are cheaper than diesel cars now in many countries, and will get cheaper as hydrogen infrastructure expands.

I don't know where you come from, but electricity costs has skyrocketed in countries that are trying to switch to renewable energy, and still going up by 10-20% annually. The low cost of electricity was entirely due to cheap existing sources, mainly coal or natural gas, with some regions with hydro or nuclear. Take away the reliable and dispatchable power generate and the grid becomes a nightmare of unpredictable power. In fact you need hydrogen to balance out the grid and make it stable. In all likelihood electricity will be expensive enough such that EVs no longer have any kind of cost advantage. Especially if they start to tax EVs like they tax other cars.

A lot of that is due to a lack of investment. As countries fall into the battery fad while ignoring real green energy (like nuclear), green policy in a lot of countries have become a joke. Sweden is an example of this as they are shutting down their nuclear power. They will use coal or natural gas as a replacement. EVs will actually get more polluting and not less. Although Sweden has ignored hydrogen for the last 5 years, they will have no choice but to invest billions in hydrogen now because they have other path to zero emissions.

The biggest event in green energy investment is the massive surge in hydrogen investment: https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/hydrogen-project-ann...

It's pretty obvious that the world is moving past batteries in the same way it moved past previous obsolete green ideas like biofuels or diesel engines.

It's a fact. Pressurization is a very simply physics problem and it's just delusion to think this will always be slow. The simplest solution is just have bigger or more tanks.

Again, it's a solved problem.

As electricity prices are still going up, and with hydrogen coming down we're not far off from cost parity. People really need to foresee a day where FCEVs are cheaper than BEVs.

EVs in general are heavily subsidized. By the time we switch to hydrogen fuel taxation it's likely gasoline will have already been displaced. Many German manufacturers are making hydrogen vehicles, albeit not passenger cars. That said, this is the most obvious disruptive event in recent memory. It wouldn't be a surprise if all of them went bankrupt due to the arrival of hydrogen cars. It's also something of a surprise as many UK companies are investing in hydrogen cars.

Green hydrogen will be cheaper than petrol. The goal is to make it from curtailed renewable energy which will cost <$0.02/kWh. You can't go around talking about cheap solar and not realize it means cheap hydrogen too.

It will be a significant fraction of the year that will be powered by hydrogen as the primary energy source. Just creating more green electricity will mostly end up wasting it as there is no other way of capturing and storing it.

All regions must have hydrogen available. For things like industry, shipping, trucking, grid energy storage, etc., it is basically unavoidable for a country to not hydrogen. BEV islands will be small and not an alternative to widespread deployment of hydrogen-related infrastructure. But the reverse is not true, as it is fully possible for a country to reach zero emissions with no BEVs.

The biggest change in environmental policy is the widespread deployment of hydrogen and related technologies. Many countries now like the UK, Germany, Australia, Japan, etc., have very significant hydrogen expansion policies. These policies will accelerate rapidly going forward.

Which is going to be hydrogen, not charging from the grid, for long stretches of time if not all the time. The cost of solar panels plus batteries will add significant cost and make it less cost effective than large-scale production of hydrogen. Not to mention that only a minority of people will have access to this.

Plug-in FCEVs exist. They can react flexibly to energy costs if hydrogen suddenly gets more expensive. They make more sense than a car that only runs on electricity.

If by "fraction of the time" you mean upwards of 100% of all grid energy for weeks on end, then yes it is a fraction of the time. In reality this is such a large factor that it will drive hydrogen costs to below grid electricity for very long periods and over large areas. Some communities might even think of getting off the grid and generate all electricity from hydrogen directly. In such cases hydrogen will always be cheaper.

While it will make sense for some communities to stick with direct electrification, this is going to be the rare case where dependable renewable electricity exist. It will also likely force BEVs into driving "islands", as it would not make sense to drive a BEV outside those specific regions. Ultimately, BEVs will end up mostly as commuter cars intended for short range trips. This will also drastically reduce the problem of battery e-waste and eliminates the need for vast numbers of fast charging stations.

No. How hard is it to have faster pressurization and/or extra tanks? For any of the newer stations this is solved.

Gasoline is approaching 7€ per gallon in Germany. Cost per mile is cheaper with a hydrogen car. Public charging is more like 0.40€/kWh in Germany too. Cost per mile is is not that different between EVs and hydrogen cars.

The Mirai starts at 50,000€ before subsidies in Europe. It is nearly as cheap as the cheapest Model 3. Depending on the subsidies you get it could be even cheaper.

Future hydrogen will be cheaper and so will be fuel cell costs. People's mentality on this subject is entirely out of date.

If you're making grid electricity with hydrogen, it will be as expensive or more so than something that directly uses the hydrogen. You also are going to be forced to charge during the day, the exact opposite of how people use their EVs. Finally, hydrogen will make up the majority of power production for those long stretches of low wind and cloudiness. In all likelihood, grids will be built around the existence of hydrogen storage, not the other way around.

People need to question whether Tesla bet on the wrong technology. No one is even asking that question; instead they are just assuming it is correct. Assumption often leads to disasters later on.

FCEVs will end up being far cheaper than BEVs. Hydrogen production doesn't not have the same uptime requirements that directly electrification requires. It's quite likely that green hydrogen will be cheaper than grid electricity pretty soon. I think people will find out that make green hydrogen is easy, but green electricity is not.

Most of the those problems are fully solved. In fact the the biggest event in green energy is pushing back from the anti-hydrogen nonsense and just start investing. A good example of this is Fortescue industry and JCB. They've pretty much stopped caring about the criticisms and have begun investing billions of dollars.

You're stuck in the world of ten years ago. Absolutely none of that is true. Refueling is the same as a gasoline car. A fuel cell car also costs about the same as a SUV to own and run. It fully makes sense to begin the transition to hydrogen cars now.

People who looked at that strategy have realized that you need way more energy storage than originally thought. Especially in places that need winter heating.

The only way we can get there at a reasonable cost is via hydrogen energy storage. The other ideas are orders of magnitude too expensive.

For the UK, the solution might look something like this: https://hydrogeneast.uk/study-explores-uks-geological-hydrog...

There's only two viable paths to a zero emissions society. One is nuclear and the other is hydrogen. We have to pick one or the other (or both) as all other ideas have fallen far short of the goal.

2 PWh is not really a challenge other than scaling it up. We have many orders of magnitude more wind and solar energy that the world needs. Water won't run out either, especially when you realize that salt water can be used for this process.

People have made the comparison and concluded that hydrogen is the answer. This is why there is now tens of billions of dollars in investment in hydrogen related technology. The naysayers are already proven wrong and now its turning into outright denial of current events.

You have to be careful with the calculation here: The airship must also include the weight of the structure, and aerographene could potentially need much less structure than giant gas balloons.

All of this is part of a large program by the UK to switch to hydrogen: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-hydrogen-strat...

What you're doing is just concern trolling, and suggesting that just because a program won't instantly get to zero emissions it is somehow not real. Meanwhile, electric cars are still being charged up mostly by fossil fuels, a fact that cannot change on the large scale without green hydrogen. Somehow, this fact is never brought up in every anti-hydrogen attack.

A gas turbine can get you up to 60% efficiency BTW. While fuel cells are arguably the better idea in the long run, it is not a huge problem to use gas turbines for now.

It's basically the "hydrogen-air" battery or hydrogen fuel cell. Although a short cut is to burn the hydrogen in gas turbines. We can store many GWh for months on end: https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/equinor...

Hydrogen could potentially offer a solution to this: https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/equinor...

Such projects could scale to a large enough size to solve the intermittency problem.

It's the only one with real notoriety right now. But there are many projects. For example: https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/equinor...

I don't think you are even trying to read what they are saying. All they're testing is how well the hydrogen will stay underground and how tight the seal is for all of the various formations. We already know it works.

It's advantage is that fact that it stores multiple orders of magnitude more energy than anything else, at a cost level that is orders of magnitude cheaper too. It's a matter of when, not if, hydrogen becomes the primary energy storage mechanism.

Storing hydrogen underground has existed for decades. It's already been accepted by people in the industry that this is a solved problem.

It should be noted that using hydrogen for steel or fuel production lead almost directly leads to some kind of hydrogen storage. If you can make that much hydrogen, it just becomes a natural step to use it as a energy storage system.

Also, the scale of hydrogen storage facilities far exceeds anything else ever proposed: https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2021/10/23/weekend-rea...

It's clear that obsessing over the last step is unnecessary. As soon as you have the hydrogen available, there will be many obvious solutions available.

Iron-air batteries are literally just fuel cells that involve iron instead of hydrogen. THe odds on favorite is hydrogen fuel cells and it probably can’t be anything else (short of some kind of nuclear solution).

If you do one you can easily do both.

Even a 110V plug still counts as a public charger. The point is that you still care about them. Even if you go out of your way to not think about them, you're still forced to use them from time to time.

NiMH is around 90% efficient too. Lead-acid around 85%. Also, li-ion don't do well under high discharge rates and can drop to <70%. It's not a perfect cell technology by any means.

This is very short sighted thinking then. They could end up disrupting the car industry. Especially in heavy industry where they might clean house against companies that haven't invested correctly.

Also, all of the cost is R&D. The cost of building fuel cell cars is probably very low.

Yes, all of the above.

You have a big tank of fuel that can be stored up until you need it. It also takes a few minutes, not the hours you have to wait until a battery is full.