[Tejas1836]

Originally Posted by jad03060

Legislation passed this year will require CCS stations, at least four units every 50-miles, along the US interstates, but they have 2-3 years to achieve that density.

There have been numerous advances in the catalysts that speed up the production of hydrogen, and it is fairly easy to transport as ammonia (NH3) as a liquid, and catalysts to strip the hydrogen out are becoming more evolved. There are plans to utilize excess solar, wind, hydrothermal, and potentially current power production as hydrogen. Some of those work quite well into the night when the power load tends to be lowest and otherwise, they disable or disconnect from the network - might as well use it for something. There's a prototype solar mirror installation that, with the high temperatures involved, is much more efficient producing hydrogen. IOW, there has been some significant advancements even this year, so old news may not be very representative of today's realities.

Fuel cells tend to be sized smaller than the peak output needed for maximum performance, so there is usually some battery capacity onboard to allow for larger peak current capabilities. FWIW, hydrogen can work well when added to NG pipelines to extend their capacity with less greenhouse gas emissions, so there's ways to use it, if it ever became plentiful. IT is the most plentiful element in the universe, and when used it becomes water, so is recoverable as opposed to burning fossil fuels that at least today, isn't as easy to reformulate back into a fossil fuel.

This will never happen in that time frame. Production of the 150 kW chargers will have to dramatically increase. Even if the chargers are available, reliability is likely to be poor, a new study found that about 27% of San Francisco’s electric charging stations do not work. On top of that, the legislation only requires “at least one charger per station needs to be working more than 97 percent of the time—and that they will limit their impact on the electric grid.” How are they going to limit impact on the electric grid? They won't. Power companies will need an estimated $5,800 in upgrades for every new EV for the next eight years in order to compensate for the demand for power. Right now there are about 20 million American families who are behind in their electric bills.

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

This will never happen in that time frame. Production of the 150 kW chargers will have to dramatically increase. Even if the chargers are available, reliability is likely to be poor, a new study found that about 27% of San Francisco’s electric charging stations do not work. On top of that, the legislation only requires “at least one charger per station needs to be working more than 97 percent of the time—and that they will limit their impact on the electric grid.” How are they going to limit impact on the electric grid? They won't. Power companies will need an estimated $5,800 in upgrades for every new EV for the next eight years in order to compensate for the demand for power. Right now there are about 20 million American families who are behind in their electric bills.

It appears sensible people do still exist

[adc]

Originally Posted by jad03060

Legislation passed this year will require CCS stations, at least four units every 50-miles, along the US interstates, but they have 2-3 years to achieve that density.

There have been numerous advances in the catalysts that speed up the production of hydrogen, and it is fairly easy to transport as ammonia (NH3) as a liquid, and catalysts to strip the hydrogen out are becoming more evolved. There are plans to utilize excess solar, wind, hydrothermal, and potentially current power production as hydrogen. Some of those work quite well into the night when the power load tends to be lowest and otherwise, they disable or disconnect from the network - might as well use it for something. There's a prototype solar mirror installation that, with the high temperatures involved, is much more efficient producing hydrogen. IOW, there has been some significant advancements even this year, so old news may not be very representative of today's realities.

Fuel cells tend to be sized smaller than the peak output needed for maximum performance, so there is usually some battery capacity onboard to allow for larger peak current capabilities. FWIW, hydrogen can work well when added to NG pipelines to extend their capacity with less greenhouse gas emissions, so there's ways to use it, if it ever became plentiful. IT is the most plentiful element in the universe, and when used it becomes water, so is recoverable as opposed to burning fossil fuels that at least today, isn't as easy to reformulate back into a fossil fuel.

All this may be correct, but why not use the clean electric energy production you describe to charge EVs? It’s still a more overall efficient process than producing hydrogen, transporting it, storing it, and then filling a tank in a fuel cell automobile.

[adc]

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

This will never happen in that time frame. Production of the 150 kW chargers will have to dramatically increase. Even if the chargers are available, reliability is likely to be poor, a new study found that about 27% of San Francisco’s electric charging stations do not work. On top of that, the legislation only requires “at least one charger per station needs to be working more than 97 percent of the time—and that they will limit their impact on the electric grid.” How are they going to limit impact on the electric grid? They won't. Power companies will need an estimated $5,800 in upgrades for every new EV for the next eight years in order to compensate for the demand for power. Right now there are about 20 million American families who are behind in their electric bills.

But your argument makes it worse for a hydrogen economy. The global need for electricity required to produce hydrogen will challenge power companies the same way, except demand will be higher because the end to end efficiency of transforming electricity into motion at the wheels of a car is lower than with EVs.

Plus the demands of building a hydrogen infrastructure basically from scratch.

I just don’t see it, it makes no sense other than potential niche applications.

[Tejas1836]

Originally Posted by adc

But your argument makes it worse for a hydrogen economy. The global need for electricity required to produce hydrogen will challenge power companies the same way, except demand will be higher because the end to end efficiency of transforming electricity into motion at the wheels of a car is lower than with EVs.

Plus the demands of building a hydrogen infrastructure basically from scratch.

I just don’t see it, it makes no sense other than potential niche applications.

I wholeheartedly agree, H2 powered vehicles will be niche product for the wealthy, paid for by subsidies from taxpayers, just like Tesla is

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by adc

All this may be correct, but why not use the clean electric energy production you describe to charge EVs? It’s still a more overall efficient process than producing hydrogen, transporting it, storing it, and then filling a tank in a fuel cell automobile.

Many folks forget, there are a few ways electricity is produced, most common of which are;

1. Gas turbines
2. Coal-fired powerplants
3. Hydroelectric
4. Wind turbines
5. Solar (domestic and commercial)
6. Thermal

Other than thermal and hydro, all other sources of electricity pollute to done degree, and are a net drain on resources.

Hydrogen production is becoming a lot more mainstream and cheaper - it's also less polluting than many alternatives.

Solar panels, and wind turbines are largely not recyclable as readily as most people would like to think. Neither are spent batteries from millions of EVs.

We need a wholesale change in our mode of transportation than just EVs

disclaimer: This is a personal opinion and is not intended to start WWIII

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by adc

But your argument makes it worse for a hydrogen economy. The global need for electricity required to produce hydrogen will challenge power companies the same way, except demand will be higher because the end to end efficiency of transforming electricity into motion at the wheels of a car is lower than with EVs.

Plus the demands of building a hydrogen infrastructure basically from scratch.

I just don’t see it, it makes no sense other than potential niche applications.

You can use hydrogen at sub-atomic level to create electricity, after all, that's almost how the Sun does it

[adc]

Originally Posted by MadBimmeRad

You can use hydrogen at sub-atomic level to create electricity, after all, that's almost how the Sun does it

Of course and the by product is helium, so we can have all the free birthday balloons we could ask for.

Using hydrogen for sustained fusion reaction is the only way you’ll get more energy out than you’ve put in. Maybe for your grandchildren.

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by adc

Over 500, check out Lucid.

IMO, and I don’t want to start a political debate about it, hydrogen is a non starter for individual transportation. It is more dangerous and more complicated to store than gasoline, it requires (a lot of) electric energy and/or hydrocarbons to produce, why bother.

Perhaps it will be a niche for heavy transportation.

Starting at 89K yeah, these are not what your average consumer needs. A lot of electricity? oh wait what does an electric car use. I get it it may not be as much and this hydrogen powered car lacks the infrastructure but we don't need to strip mine the earth to extent for the lithium batteries.

Right now I would not be buying a new car, in say 5-7 years when the industry has standardized the system would be a better thought.

[Canuck335]

In the end, hydrogen is a just a form of energy carrier.
You're taking the original form of energy - fossil fuel, solar, whatever and converting that to potential in hydrogen.

You then have to store, transport, and fill the vehicle with it at high pressures.
Then when you're finally ready to use it, you burn it or use it to produce electricity to power the vehicle.

Each one of those steps results in a 20%-30% loss of energy.
Total waste.

It's better to start with electricity at the source and keep it that way until used.

[Tejas1836]

Either way, with battery or H2 fuel cells, Breeder reactors for energy production to charge EVs and produce H2 are the way to go. I think it will be a combination of both EV and fuel cells depending upon geographical location, re:extreme heat and cold or temperate environments. Until we get on point with the reactors, our energy grids will not handle anything except fossil fuels.

[MadBimmeRad]

Try this

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/sc...-cent-hydrogen