• RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      On a good day… Electrolysis alone is often <60% efficient, but as someone else pointed out, you do have the advantage of ToU flexibility for minimizing costs.

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Electrical energy storage is at least viable.

            Hydrogen storage slowly releases its contents because hydrogen atoms are so small they slip through any material.

    • Hypx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not really, because fuel cells are electrochemical systems just like batteries. In the long-run, it will be the same level of efficiency as batteries.

      What you mean to say is that at a certain level of technology, it is 50% efficient. But even that is meaningless, because hydrogen’s ability to capture excess wind and solar energy let’s it be extremely cheap energy. It is the same story as photovoltaic cells. Photovoltaic cells are very inefficient, but it is irrelevant because it captures such a cheap energy source. So solar power is very cheap. Likewise, green hydrogen, made from water and extremely cheap renewable energy, will also be extremely cheap. Efficiency isn’t that big of a deal here either.

      Ultimately, the people who criticize hydrogen are doing the same thing as those that attacked solar power. It is just missing the forest for the trees, and they are basically guaranteed to be wrong.

      • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ultimately, the people who criticize hydrogen are doing the same thing as those that attacked solar power. It is just missing the forest for the trees, and they are basically guaranteed to be wrong.

        Can’t speak for everyone but my criticism of hydrogen is not on its theoretical potential to displace fossil fuels as an energy carrier, but on its practical constraints today.

        I don’t see many people criticizing hydrogen like those who “attacked solar” but people more treating it like fusion - it’s very likely the way of the future, but we shouldn’t stand around waiting for that future to materialize when we can be making changes now that will help preserve our collective future.

        Additionally, your theoretical ultra-efficient-platinum-free-corrosion-resistant-fuel-cell-and-electrolyzer future is competing against the theoretical super-energy-dense-durable-low-cost-solid-state-battery future, and I shook my Magic 8 ball asking which is more likely and all I got was “Ask again later” so… ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

        • Hypx@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The “practical constraints” are mostly just lies from competing industries. Case in point, a hydrogen tank is both volumetrically and gravimetrically denser than batteries. Loosely speaking, it is about 2000 Wh/kg and 1333 Wh/L. That’s better than any li-ion battery.

          It is plenty good enough to replace both BEVs and ICE cars. As long as it is zero emissions, it works.

          Finally, FCEVs exist right now. Hypothetical magical batteries of the future don’t. So this is a meaningless comparison.

          • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            mostly just lies from competing industries

            My Master’s Thesis and PhD Dissertation were focused on fuel cells as an energy storage system of the future - I’ve got more first hand experience than most with no influence “from competing industries”. I want this technology to work - badly.

            That said, you’re right that fuel cell cars exist today, but so do batteries, and with today’s technology any “meaningful comparison” will quickly point out that today’s batteries are:

            More efficient, cheaper to manufacturer, much cheaper to operate (have you checked the price per kg for (mostly fossil-produced) hydrogen recently? YIKES!), more user friendly for most (not all) drivers, and (a little more subjective) way more fun to drive.

            Yes, batteries do have their problems (long haul & heavy duty applications, refueling time, cobalt sourcing, flammability, …) But so do PEMFCs (fuel cost, platinum sourcing, reliability & safety of ultra high pressure fueling infrastructure, fuel cost, complete lack of availability for green hydrogen, fuel cost, relatively rapid chemical degradation of electolyzers through catalyst poisoning, forever chemicals involved in the production use and disposal of Teflon/Nafion, …)

            Again, I WANT fuel cells to win this contest, but today? They’ve got a lot of catching up to do before they overtake the leader, and unlike batteries, in their current state I could not in good conscience recommend purchasing an FCEV to anyone I care about.

            • Hypx@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              25
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have two things to point out: I don’t have to believe you on your claims of expertise. And the second is that I can easily accuse you of being decades out of date on your knowledge.

              None of what you said is true anymore. FCEVs are a mature technology, and will cost very little to build. Green hydrogen is plunging in cost, and will be one of the cheapest energy sources out there. None of you claims about “catalyst poisoning” is true anymore.

              So what you are doing is basically being one of those “experts” who attack a revolutionary new technology just as it is taking off. It mirrors solar skeptic just before solar power took off. All your doing is setting yourself up for total embarrassment.

              • Nudding@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                don’t have to believe you on your claims of expertise.

                I’m glad you finally understand. That being said, the quality of the content of the other guys comment, compared to your 30 comments, really should be an eye opener to you.

                • Hypx@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re just like some of the others here: Stuck in 2015 and accusing everyone else of being paid by the oil companies.

                  Literally no one on the left support these kinds of fanatical anti-hydrogen positions anymore. Just this one Fascist is left. And just a bunch of conspiracy theories as the basis of reasoning. Not even a single coherent counterargument…

                  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Says the person with no actual experience on the matter, unlike the person you are arguing with.

                    I am left, and I don’t support hydrogen because it pales compared to the electrical solutions we have and will have in the future. So don’t pretend your viewpoint is universal with the left, because it isn’t far from it.

                    I also don’t support Elmo in any way shape or form for your information.

                    Hydrogen would only be viable for airplanes, since they require higher density fuel at the lowest weight possible.

                    But other than that, hydrogen just isn’t viable in the applications you name. Your EV information is also from 2015, so all your arguments are just projection. Plain and simple.

                  • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    ROFL at your stuck in 2015 comment, I wish I were!

                    In 2015, hydrogen was ~$20/kg and trending down to ~$13-16/kg by 2017, with the DOE claiming it to be “about the same cost as gas today” despite the fact that 1 kg H2 is roughly 1 gge, so the costs were about 4x gas costs, and 4x their target of $4/kg at the pump.

                    Fast forward to today and guess what, that price kept dropping, and it hit the DOE targets!

                    Just kidding - prices this year are up to $36/kg, making the Toyota Mirai one of the highest TCO cars on the market.

                    Take me back to 2015 when that hydrogen fuel was half the price!