Everfuel is quite the ironic name…
....but, but, but hydrogen is the future!1!!
Found the Toyota CEO.
Where does all of the anti hydrogen rhetoric come from? Hydrogen has its issues for sure but so does electric. Hydrogen has advantages to electric, namely range and refueling time, which may make it a better choice, at least for certain applications.
What's so horrible about Toyota investing in it? At least someone is giving it a shot and they actually have a production automobile that uses it.
Here we are going all in on electric with a grid that can't support it, charging times that are too slow, driving range that's too low and housing that can't accommodate it but hydrogen is somehow a crazy idea?
I get the feeling the same people who were anti nuclear are now pushing anti hydrogen without realizing they're falling right into fossil fuel's division.
Because there's no real attempt to roll out hydrogen infrastructure and almost all the attempts we're seeing to paint hydrogen as the future are actually just anti-EV FUD. Hydrogen is the future! ... but it isn't ready yet, so keep buying gas cars for now.
Same goes for nuclear, at least in my country - the political party that's now talking up nuclear while in opposition didn't say a word about nuclear while they were in government. They were trying to fund new coal plants. They're talking about nuclear to slow down renewables, they don't actually plan to build new nuclear plants. They want to protect their big donors in the coal industry.
Hydrogen fuel cells probably have a future somewhere, but it isn't in cars. The filling stations are too expensive and the hydrogen itself is too expensive.
Battery EVs are about to pass the range of fuel cell EVs, you know? They can't actually hold that much hydrogen. And they only fill faster if the filling station has a long break between vehicles - fill a couple of cars in a row and you'll be there for 20 minutes.
Unfortunately capitalism will keep killing things that are good for the environment while we spend 7 trillion subsidizing fossil fuels.
Hydrogen really isn't good for the environment. You have to spend electricity to make it, then storing it is a massive issue just to turn it back into electricity. There's some advantage to it with very large and heavy vehicles, but not for cars. Batteries make a lot more sense for cars, and you can charge them almost anywhere (theoretically). I can see shipping and maybe trucking moving towards hydrogen at some point, especially since shipping in particular is an extremely convenient location to produce hydrogen.
I wish more people understood this. We aren't going to find a one size fits all replacement for oil. It's going to be using all the different renewable sources in different applications where they excel.
It's because people dont understand that hydrogen is a energy carrier and if we want to produce it in e green way it is more comparable to batteries than petroleum.
Agreed. We're going to see hydrogen being used in industrial scaled uses in the future more than transportation.
However, I just watched the video a few days ago about the Canadian mining company that is switching all of their mining equipment to battery electric. I thought that was pretty interesting - The mine operator flatly said that hydrogen wasn't financially viable.
So I'm thinking hydrogen being used for steel manufacturing, chemical manufacturing and other major large scale materials processing.
Hydrogen won't go anywhere as long as storage is a problem.
And transportation... and production...
Ironically hydrogen works well as a storage solution for the variability of wind and solar. When you have a large excess of them, you can run electrolyzers to generate green hydrogen. And then when the grid needs some more supply, we can use that hydrogen to make up the gap.
This is my main problem with hydrogen cars. I think it's a very cool concept that might eventually overtake pure electric cars but there's almost no places to get hydrogen yet.
It isn't going to overtake electric cars, too inefficient.
But it might be the future for airplanes, which need a lot more energy density.
But it might be the future for airplanes, which need a lot more energy density.
Specifically density by weight. By volume, which is more important to cars, hydrogen also loses.
Yes also cargo ships and possibly American sized semi trucks. Although semis are right on border of battety vs hydrogen.
It also requires dedicated infrastructure. EVs can have charging stations at basically anywhere with a power hookup (or a genset. A grocery store here puts small VAWTs to charge off of in their parking lots. And every new-ish building has added charging stations to some of their spaces.
Hydrogen cars would need refueling stations with dedicated pressurized gas hookups, tanks, and fill machines. And the tanks and the tankers to keep the tanks full.
Finally the ultimate problem is it’s rather low energy density.
And all that infrastructure is a problem that doesn’t need solving with EVs. An entire industry we don’t need to build/rebuild
Something else no one has said yet (I think) is that most hydrogen is produced from natural gas, so this is in no way a climate solution. It's been sold as one and it's bullshit.
While producing hydrogen from natural gas is cheaper, this company claims to produce it with electrolysis
But IMHO at the moment is a waste of energy
Yes but not for long.
As (generally climate denying) people love to point out, wind and solar is erratic power generation. For this reason you need triple capacity Vs requirements.
This means that for a huge amount of time you'll have excess energy, once we start to be predominantly renewables, battery storage is expensive. One of the solutions is to create hydrogen, also pumped hydrogen, etc.
Why do you think it'll overtake electric cars? The energy efficiency of hydrogen cars is significantly worse, as they introduce some extra steps in pipeline of energy-generation -> movement.
The only major advantage they have is "ICE-like" fuelling, which has a bunch of major caveats attached to it (as in: it's nowhere near as simple a system as ICE refuelling. Everything from generation, to transport to getting-it-in-the-car is way more complex and thus expensive and error-prone).
I dunno, everything I've always seen on it made it seem like a hyper-specific solution that's more suited to a few edge cases that could have their specific infrastructure.
For the average consumer, the recharging of EVs is actually Not A Big Deal™️. It seemed like one at first. Now all it does is ensure I take hourly short breaks which I should have been doing anyways, basically. The only big upside of Hydrogen is the ability to refill very quickly, but you pay with a whole bunch of downsides like inefficient generation, inefficient transportation, secondary infrastructure, energy inefficiency, etc.
You also can’t fill up at home!
Hydrogen also only manages fast refills with a break between vehicles. If you try and fill a lot of cars in a row like gas pumps do, you have to wait much longer while it compresses and cools the hydrogen.
So the number of hydrogen pumps you need to support fuel cell EVs winds up being similar to the number of fast chargers BEVs need, and hydrogen pumps are very expensive.
They're still electric cars at their base. They just use a hydrogen reactor in lieu of a battery to power the motors.
I don't see a future where hydrogen supplants electric cars, unless there's some revolution in storage technology for it. In that case, progress in battery tech is more likely.
Same problem with gas waaaaay back in the day.
True, but "gas" is not a gas in the way that hydrogen is a gas. Hydrogen presents some unique storage and distribution issues.
Another problem to the already mentioned ones (expensive, expensive dedicated infrastructure needed) is the range. Hydrogen is not very energy dense. For example the Toyota Mirai has a range of 500 km (310 miles) and its a pretty big, fuel-efficient car and the fuel storage is as big as the vehicle allows it.
So while you can refuel faster than electric, you need to do it more frequently and its less convenient.
What's wrong with that range? It's bigger than my bladder.
Just spitballing here, please pretend I'm some rando on the Internet and not some kind of expert.
On its own, there's not much wrong with it. It takes a little longer to fill than a normal gas dispenser, but not bad. But you'll still need to put hydrogen fuel stations everywhere similar to gas stations now.
Hydrogen's biggest competitor is pure electric. I love my EV in part because I can charge at home. There's just something really nice about waking up to a full battery every day, and realizing you haven't been to a gas station in months (I have an ICE as well, but it's not my daily driver). Having to go to a fueling station every week or so again would feel like a big step backward, especially if we need to create a from-scratch infrastructure for it. We already have power lines pretty much everywhere, and can generate power relatively easily, so much of the hard part is done.
Going back to range: in theory this problem could be alleviated if the range were enough that one had to refuel less often, but going through all that trouble to be in a similar situation to what you've had, when a better alternative exists? Nah.
500km is pretty close to the typical range for gas vehicles(500-600 usually).
The same will happen to EVs after them libs still all the electricity with their solar panels. /s
Did you mean "steal"?
Shhhh, that's exactly how the accent sounds!
Weird that this hasn’t been on the local news. I see Drivr cars all the time.
Relevant bits:
"According to the Danish Car Importers association, there were 147 fuel-cell cars on Danish roads at the end of last year, with only one sold so far this year — all of which now have no means to refuel."
"He added: “There is no doubt that hydrogen cars are not an option in the short term and that electric cars will win the vast majority of the passenger car market."
As a former Betamax owner, even I could see that hydrogen wasn't going to win this one.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/