WetEV
Posts: 4814
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Hydrogen is mostly a bad idea.

https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth- ... -idea.html

In a few limited applications, green hydrogen may help us decarbonize. But for ground transport and heating, which together account for the majority of energy consumption, hydrogen is a really bad idea. It’s the fossil energy industry’s last best chance for survival, and they are playing the political game accordingly.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red (Sold)
2019 eTron Blue
GRA
Posts: 13717
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: California to get Hydrogen stations - and consumers to p

WetEV wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:31 pm
GRA wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:43 pm
WetEV wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:25 pm


LOL. 120 years ago, "gas stations" were cheap and reliable. Gasoline was expensive, however, adjusted for inflation. $0.20 a gallon or so. Gasoline was sold in 5 gallon cans. Cheap. Reliable. Still used today, for remote delivery. Hydrogen has no analog. Hydrogen is expensive fuel delivered by unreliable and very expensive equipment.
Actually, I meant to write 110 years ago.
So? A "hydrogen can" doesn't exist. Gas infrastructure started cheap and reliable, not at all like hydrogen.

And you are still wrong.

Hydrogen production is still almost all from fossil fuels. Hydrogen production will be mostly from fossil fuels for more than a decade, right?

No, gas infrastructure didn't start cheap and reliable, because you never knew if the store had any (deliveries being what they were outside of major cities, as no paved roads existed outside of them. How far you were from a rail line determined how reliable deliveries were), and as I noted the quality was highly variable (gas was typically only about 50-60 octane in any case at the time, although use of an octane rating didn't come in until some years later). The proliferation of branded gas stations owned/franchised by oil companies is what made gas cheap and reliable, as they had competition and a rep to uphold.

But for a long time, the infrastructure was seriously lacking outside of major urban areas, just as it is now for H2 and to a lesser but still large extent for charging. Most rural areas lack charging competition and see only occasional use, and unlike gas stations there's still no profit to be had without construction and/or operating subsidies.

For transportation use, H2 production will be increasingly non-fossil-fueled as governments e.g. California demand that. Which is why, although California required first 33 1/3rd and more recently 40% renewable H2 for retail H2 stations, we're actually achieving 90%+. Ever tightening renewable H2 requirements will be the norm here and elsewhere, just as they will be for industrial and other uses.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.
GRA
Posts: 13717
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

WetEV wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:10 pm
GRA wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:50 pm The EV1 had as much market potential as BEVs did two decades before after the first oil crunch when they were similarly hyped, i.e. minimal.
FTM, the Spark and Fit also sold poorly, despite having much better batteries than the EV1 and not looking like someone stepped on the car. Face it, in order to move beyond the hobbyist niche you've got to have far better range than batteries could provide until recently, and they're not yet at a reasonable price. which is why I think GM got into BEVs seriously at the right time with the Bolt. And blew it with the non-AWD CUV Gen 2 Volt.
Yet the facts disagree with your opinion. The EV1 had more interest than the Spark or the Fit.

The Spark and Fit were compliance cars that had better choices for competition. GM and Honda wanted to sell a specific number of these only. These were competing against the LEAF, the Tesla Model S, the iMiEV, the Ford Focus EV (all sold nationwide) as well as other compliance cars. I never heard of any waiting lists for Chevy Spark EVs or Honda Fit EVs. Have you?

I don't recall any waiting lists for any of the 2010+ cars except the Model S, the only one of the bunch that couldn't be dismissed as a glorified golf cart. And let's not forget that the EV1 was also a compliance car, one made necessary by California's (later eased) ZEV requirement in the '90s. Unlike this century's compliance cars, the EV1 didn't have the benefit of the federal and IIRR state tax credits or subsidies either. If far more desirable 4-5 passenger compliance cars that were far cheaper thanks to subsidies sold so poorly, how would the 2-passenger non-sport car EV1's market be better?

WetEV wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:10 pm The LEAF was a modest success. The Tesla Model S outsold many of the competing cars, and has been successful even where there are no rebates, subsidies, mandates or other perks for EV ownership.

Hydrogen cars don't sell without subsidies.

We've never had any disagreement that high-end BEVs can sell without subsidies, because their clientele isn't driven by economic considerations and usually has access to other cars. OTOH, I do recall when seemingly every Hollywood celebrity was vying to be the first to get a new Beetle. I forget who won that one - Leonardo di Caprio? Waiting lists for new cars are often driven by hype rather than any large potential market.

As to don't sell without subsidies , you did see where the SCE just quadrupled their subsidy for used EVs?
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.
GRA
Posts: 13717
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:40 am
GRA wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:27 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:52 pm I never saw a post detailing the root cause of the Norway hydrogen station explosion, but just came across this post recently:https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/new-ener ... ety&curl=1

"About a month after a hydrogen filling station exploded in Norway, the cause has been found: a faulty valve."

So it turns out the explosion wasn't due to explosive decompression afterall, but actual combustion of the H2 gas.

And this is why FCEV's will be a dead end. IF the number of FCEV's get large enough, all it will take is a few poorly maintained cars to cause enough collateral damage to bury the tech permanently.

Are you saying that the general public would consider unacceptable a flammable fuel that if a leak happens will rise straight up and quickly disperse, yet they will accept a flammable fuel that's responsible for hundred of thousands of cars fires and the odd explosion every year, and as it's at room temp is likely to pool beneath the vehicle before igniting? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA8dNFiVaF0

Reading your link, it says the following:
Reportedly, the issue is related only to this particular filling station, because safety standards weren’t respected during installation. It is likely that quality checks for hydrogen filling stations will be made more stringent following this incident.
Pretty much the same for every hazardous new tech, which is why gas stations now require break-away hoses and fire sprinklers among other safety improvements.
"a flammable fuel that if a leak happens will rise straight up and quickly disperse" ... yeah that industry talking point worked so well in Norway and Bay Area huh? You obviously don't have a firm grounding in physics, which is why you rely on reports and studies for your "answers" and not on any fundamental understanding of tech. An explosion from an invisible flame (or just plain decompression of the tank) is no where near equivalent to a gasoline fire. Although flammable gasoline is bad, getting hurt because your car was simply within 50 feet of someone else's poorly maintained FCEV isn't acceptable by anyone, period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLUtd10Z6F4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxYKm828QZk

I'm sure I could find others with little effort, but these were the first two links that came up. BTW, the Bay Area explosion you refer to is presumably the one at the Air Products H2 production plant. Are you claiming that oil and gas refineries don't have explosions and fires?

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:40 am
GRA wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:27 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:52 pm Green ammonia has a more viable future than green hydrogen. It has none of the drawbacks of hydrogen (liquid at -33C, therefore much lower containment temperatures and pressures and more easily dispensed), and many of the same use cases - source of hydrogen for industrial applications, as well as a feedstock for fuel cells (still in development).

Ammonia presents an obvious inhalation hazard, which is why current developments for its commercial use as a transport fuel seem to be aimed at oceanic shipping, as noted in the articles I've linked in the "AFV truck and commercial vehicles" topic. Liquid H2 will probably be limited to commercial rather than private vehicle use due to handling issues while fueling (very low temps requires protective clothing, so dedicated attendants or at least provision of safety gear with individual driver training needed), although if robotic fueling systems become available that could change. As noted uptopic, DoE awarded Nikola a contract recently ($2.1M IIRR) to develop just such a system. Alternatives for land and probably air transport strike me as more likely methanol or LOHCs rather than ammonia, if LH2 doesn't serve.
I don't have any skin in ammonia. Just pointing out that it's much easier to solve the issue of leaking ammonia at low pressures than it is to solve it for H2's extreme pressure and temperatures. And if both are to be produced using renewable energy with similiar use cases, then my bet is on the material that is easier to handle (which directly means lower costs).

Which is why I expect methanol and/or LOHCs will play a major role for commercial transport, as they are liquid at reasonable temps, but it will be a balance between cost and capability. LH2 doesn't have the pressure issues of gaseous H2, although as noted temp is a problem. For passenger car use, if H2 storage in nanotubes or adsorption can be commercialized, that will eliminate the need for high pressure tanks.
Last edited by GRA on Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.
GRA
Posts: 13717
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Both GCC:
Kongsberg launches first full-scale hydrogen-based marine propulsion system; HySeas III
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/1 ... sberg.html

Kongsberg has tested and verified a full-scale, full-size, zero-emissions drivetrain powered by hydrogen fuel cells designed for ships and ferries. The program is the third and final part of the EU-funded project HySeas (HySeas III) which has been running since 2013 to prepare and demonstrate a scalable hydrogen system for ships and ferries. Kongsberg has been the technical lead of the project, which has involved participants from Scotland, Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and England.

Such testing (string testing) involves assembling all of the key powertrain components and testing them as a system, usually on the factory floor and prior to the commencement of any ship building. This process is used to mitigate risk by fully validating the vessel’s powertrain prior to committing to full vessel build cost. Both stress and durability testing can be carried out with minimal risk.

The HySeas III string test consists of the following components:

Fuel cell system (consisting of 6 100kW Ballard HD-100 fuel cells)
Lithium-ion batteries
2 Multidrives
Transformers
Switchboards
Variable load banks to simulate azimuth and bow thrusters
Hydrogen storage and piping
Cooling system
Safety, Alarm and detection systems
Battery firefighting systems
Energy management and control system
Data logging system

In this final stage, Kongsberg has built a full-scale electric propulsion system based on hydrogen-powered fuel cells at Ågotnes outside Bergen. The system will now undertake a 4-month testing program for validation purposes with the aim of verifying the final design for an H2-powered RoPax ferry.

The testing mirrors the operational loads which would be experienced by a vessel on a route between Kirkwall and Shapinsay in Orkney. It will confirm safe operation and power and fuel capacity requirements, together with other valuable information to feed back to the vessel design team at Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd (CMAL) in Scotland.

CMAL plans to complete the design in March 2022. Hydrogen fuel will be generated through wind power at the ferry port.


Aramco to explore hydrogen-powered vehicle business with Gaussin
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/1 ... ramco.html

The Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco) signed five agreements with leading French companies, including an agreement to explore a hydrogen-powered vehicle business with Gaussin, a pioneer in clean and intelligent transport solutions.

The agreement between Aramco and Gaussin aims to establish a modern manufacturing facility for on-road and off-road hydrogen powered vehicles in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As a first step, Gaussin and Aramco will study the feasibility of a manufacturing facility and a hydrogen distribution business to serve the Middle East region.

The two companies also agreed that Aramco’s Advanced Innovation Center (LAB7) will be closely involved in Gaussin’s development of hydrogen-powered vehicles and the development of a remote controlled/autonomous hydrogen racing truck.

LAB7 aims to integrate Aramco’s composite materials into Gaussin’s existing range of products to reduce the weight, energy consumption and cost of these vehicles.

Aramco will also be sponsoring the world’s first hydrogen-fueled racing truck, which has been developed by Gaussin and which will compete in the 2022 Dakar Rally in Saudi Arabia.

Additional MoUs. The other agreements seek to further Aramco’s research and development in the areas of carbon capture technology, artificial intelligence and local manufacturing. The MoUs include:

Air Liquide – Non-binding MoU to evaluate low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia production, logistics, and backcracking technology and an additional non-binding MoU to evaluate Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) opportunities. . . .
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.
GRA
Posts: 13717
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Both GCC:
Iberdrola and H2 Green Steel to build 1GW green hydrogen plant to fuel DRI furnace for green steel; €2.3B investment
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/1 ... drola.html

Iberdrola and H2 Green Steel (H2GS, earlier post)have signed an agreement to build a plant with an electrolysis capacity of 1 GW. Green hydrogen from the new plant will power a direct reduced iron (DRI) furnace with a capacity to produce around 2 million tonnes per year of pure pig iron, which would allow the production of green steel with a 95% reduction of CO2 emissions. The estimated investment is €2.3billion.

The site will be located on the Iberian Peninsula, where several possible locations are currently being considered, with the intention of production starting in 2025 or 2026. All locations that H2 Green Steel and Iberdrola are evaluating will have access to renewable energy, as well as all the infrastructure necessary to operate a successful hydrogen, green steel business.

The electrolyzer will be jointly operated by Iberdrola and H2 Green Steel. Iberdrola will supply renewable energy to the plant, while the production of green molten steel and all downstream metallurgical processes will be operated and owned by H2 Green Steel. Both companies will also explore the possibility of locating a steelmaking facility capable of producing between 2.5 and 5 million tonnes of green steel plate per year on the same site.

The project in Boden in northern Sweden has shown that there is a strong demand for green steel from a broad customer base. The collaboration with Iberdrola will strengthen and refine our Boden platform, infrastructure and project execution. With two European locations, we will make an even greater impact, be closer to customers and be able to meet the demand of a growing market. Together with Iberdrola, we are creating a broader European platform for the green hydrogen economy.

—Kajsa Ryttberg-Wallgren, EVP Head of Business Unit Hydrogen at H2 Green Steel

The project will be financed through a combination of public funds, green project financing instruments and own funds. With a budget of approximately €2 billion, the large-scale production of green hydrogen will contribute to the transition of heavy industry towards sustainable operations. . . .

The decarbonization of the steel production industry is a great growth opportunity for Iberdrola, as it could mean an additional demand of around 5,000 TWh/year, equivalent to almost twice the current electricity generation in Europe, as well as 40 million tonnes of green hydrogen. The company is therefore accelerating the implementation of the entire hydrogen value chain.

The project will be financed through a combination of public funds, green project financing instruments and own funds. With a budget of approximately €2 billion, the large-scale production of green hydrogen will contribute to the transition of heavy industry towards sustainable operations. . . .


Alstom and MOL to explore use of hydrogen technologies for rail transport in Hungary
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/1 ... lstom.html

Alstom and MOL, Hungary’s leading oil and gas company, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to structure cooperation in examining the use of hydrogen technology in rail transportation. MOL Group already produces and utilizes almost 150,000 tonnes of hydrogen per year.

As part of its National Hydrogen Strategy, Hungary has been investigating the feasibility of introducing hydrogen technology to rail transportation.

Alstom is a pioneer of hydrogen technology, having introduced the Coradia iLint to the German market in September 2018 (earlier post). The Coradia iLint trains have run more than 200,000 km with zero CO2 emission in passenger service in Germany and Austria and has been successfully tested in the Netherlands. Alstom’s hydrogen technology has also been purchased by SNCF (France) and FNM (Italy).

Coradia iLint hydrogen trains are electric trains with a hydrogen-powered fuel cell for onboard electricity generation. The battery is used to store braking energy, to boost acceleration and for auxiliary supply. An intelligent energy management system constantly supervises the energy usage of the train, taking into consideration the track ahead, including slopes, and thus allowing for a range of up to 1000 km. . . .
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.
Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

GRA wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:42 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:40 am
GRA wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:27 pm


Are you saying that the general public would consider unacceptable a flammable fuel that if a leak happens will rise straight up and quickly disperse, yet they will accept a flammable fuel that's responsible for hundred of thousands of cars fires and the odd explosion every year, and as it's at room temp is likely to pool beneath the vehicle before igniting? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA8dNFiVaF0

Reading your link, it says the following:

Pretty much the same for every hazardous new tech, which is why gas stations now require break-away hoses and fire sprinklers among other safety improvements.
"a flammable fuel that if a leak happens will rise straight up and quickly disperse" ... yeah that industry talking point worked so well in Norway and Bay Area huh? You obviously don't have a firm grounding in physics, which is why you rely on reports and studies for your "answers" and not on any fundamental understanding of tech. An explosion from an invisible flame (or just plain decompression of the tank) is no where near equivalent to a gasoline fire. Although flammable gasoline is bad, getting hurt because your car was simply within 50 feet of someone else's poorly maintained FCEV isn't acceptable by anyone, period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLUtd10Z6F4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxYKm828QZk

I'm sure I could find others with little effort, but these were the first two links that came up. BTW, the Bay Area explosion you refer to is presumably the one at the Air Products H2 production plant. Are you claiming that oil and gas refineries don't have explosions and fires?
The one in russia, did you see that the building was ALREADY ON FIRE before the explosion?

And that second video was hardly an explosion, since the guy standing next to it was completely unharmed.

Anyway, the point wasn't "hydrogen fire bad, gasoline fire good". The point is "gasoline fire bad, hydrogen explosion worse", because there's no warning signs.

GRA wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:42 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:40 am
GRA wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:27 pm


Ammonia presents an obvious inhalation hazard, which is why current developments for its commercial use as a transport fuel seem to be aimed at oceanic shipping, as noted in the articles I've linked in the "AFV truck and commercial vehicles" topic. Liquid H2 will probably be limited to commercial rather than private vehicle use due to handling issues while fueling (very low temps requires protective clothing, so dedicated attendants or at least provision of safety gear with individual driver training needed), although if robotic fueling systems become available that could change. As noted uptopic, DoE awarded Nikola a contract recently ($2.1M IIRR) to develop just such a system. Alternatives for land and probably air transport strike me as more likely methanol or LOHCs rather than ammonia, if LH2 doesn't serve.
I don't have any skin in ammonia. Just pointing out that it's much easier to solve the issue of leaking ammonia at low pressures than it is to solve it for H2's extreme pressure and temperatures. And if both are to be produced using renewable energy with similiar use cases, then my bet is on the material that is easier to handle (which directly means lower costs).

Which is why I expect methanol and/or LOHCs will play a major role for commercial transport, as they are liquid at reasonable temps, but it will be a balance between cost and capability. LH2 doesn't have the pressure issues of gaseous H2, although as noted temp is a problem. For passenger car use, if H2 storage in nanotubes or adsorption can be commercialized, that will eliminate the need for high pressure tanks.
Still relying on the talking points without seeing the reality. When you hope for future tech to solve current problems, that should have been your reality check.

And if you think it's just around the corner, do you even know how H2 storage in nanotubes would work? Do you know how much it costs to make those nanotubes? You can't talk commercialization until you actually have cost structures detailed. Until then, it's all hopium. Stop parroting propaganda.
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
:: Model 3 LR (Turo) :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Model Y LR AWD (wife's) :: acquired 30 Dec '20
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!
GRA
Posts: 13717
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:12 am
GRA wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:42 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:40 am

"a flammable fuel that if a leak happens will rise straight up and quickly disperse" ... yeah that industry talking point worked so well in Norway and Bay Area huh? You obviously don't have a firm grounding in physics, which is why you rely on reports and studies for your "answers" and not on any fundamental understanding of tech. An explosion from an invisible flame (or just plain decompression of the tank) is no where near equivalent to a gasoline fire. Although flammable gasoline is bad, getting hurt because your car was simply within 50 feet of someone else's poorly maintained FCEV isn't acceptable by anyone, period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLUtd10Z6F4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxYKm828QZk

I'm sure I could find others with little effort, but these were the first two links that came up. BTW, the Bay Area explosion you refer to is presumably the one at the Air Products H2 production plant. Are you claiming that oil and gas refineries don't have explosions and fires?
The one in russia, did you see that the building was ALREADY ON FIRE before the explosion?

And that second video was hardly an explosion, since the guy standing next to it was completely unharmed.

Anyway, the point wasn't "hydrogen fire bad, gasoline fire good". The point is "gasoline fire bad, hydrogen explosion worse", because there's no warning signs.

I'm so glad we cleared that up. And sure, invisible flame is a problem. The question is whether an H2 fire is more or less likely to happen than gasoline, and the likely casualties from each. it will be upon those issues that society will determine whether or not H2 is adequately safe, and in what circumstances, just as we determine acceptable risk with every other hazardous tech out there.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:12 am
GRA wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:42 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:40 am

I don't have any skin in ammonia. Just pointing out that it's much easier to solve the issue of leaking ammonia at low pressures than it is to solve it for H2's extreme pressure and temperatures. And if both are to be produced using renewable energy with similiar use cases, then my bet is on the material that is easier to handle (which directly means lower costs).

Which is why I expect methanol and/or LOHCs will play a major role for commercial transport, as they are liquid at reasonable temps, but it will be a balance between cost and capability. LH2 doesn't have the pressure issues of gaseous H2, although as noted temp is a problem. For passenger car use, if H2 storage in nanotubes or adsorption can be commercialized, that will eliminate the need for high pressure tanks.
Still relying on the talking points without seeing the reality. When you hope for future tech to solve current problems, that should have been your reality check.

And if you think it's just around the corner, do you even know how H2 storage in nanotubes would work? Do you know how much it costs to make those nanotubes? You can't talk commercialization until you actually have cost structures detailed. Until then, it's all hopium. Stop parroting propaganda.

I don't know if either will work, I'm pointing out that either method would solve the issue that you're concerned about, should it be made to work. Whether that issue needs to be solved remains to be seen (see acceptable risk above).
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.
Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

GRA wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:13 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:12 am
GRA wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:42 pm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLUtd10Z6F4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxYKm828QZk

I'm sure I could find others with little effort, but these were the first two links that came up. BTW, the Bay Area explosion you refer to is presumably the one at the Air Products H2 production plant. Are you claiming that oil and gas refineries don't have explosions and fires?
The one in russia, did you see that the building was ALREADY ON FIRE before the explosion?

And that second video was hardly an explosion, since the guy standing next to it was completely unharmed.

Anyway, the point wasn't "hydrogen fire bad, gasoline fire good". The point is "gasoline fire bad, hydrogen explosion worse", because there's no warning signs.

I'm so glad we cleared that up. And sure, invisible flame is a problem. The question is whether an H2 fire is more or less likely to happen than gasoline, and the likely casualties from each. it will be upon those issues that society will determine whether or not H2 is adequately safe, and in what circumstances, just as we determine acceptable risk with every other hazardous tech out there.
"We" don't determine jack-diddly. You're playing "daddy knows best" when you think that "we" as a society need to determine what's best for everyone. The church does this with Pro-Life and it is WRONG!

And just so I understand. Are you saying that gasoline fires are more prevalent and H2 explosions less so, and thus the occasional H2 explosion is a preferable event to more gasoline fires?
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
:: Model 3 LR (Turo) :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Model Y LR AWD (wife's) :: acquired 30 Dec '20
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!
Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

https://electrek.co/2021/12/29/hyundai- ... e-engines/

"... Hyundai has, in the past, stated that they view battery electric vehicles as a stopgap “until fuel cell vehicles take hold,” but that was in 2016.
... In September of this year, Hyundai revealed a hydrogen strategy aiming for significant penetration of both commercial and passenger markets by 2040. ... But since then, an internal audit showed that Hyundai has fallen short of virtually every target they had for fuel cell vehicles. ... cost is falling slower than expected, ... and hydrogen fuel prices are higher than expected.

Hyundai was about a year into a projected four-year development period for the Genesis hydrogen car. But these problems with their third-generation fuel cell have resulted in an indefinite pause on the project.
"
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
:: Model 3 LR (Turo) :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Model Y LR AWD (wife's) :: acquired 30 Dec '20
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”