How to Promote the Hydrogen Economy Hoax

I can’t take you seriously with remarks likes this. Millions of BEV have already been sold and are on the road. There are thousands of charging stations already deployed and thousands more each year. Can there be improvements? Yes, and the tech is here today, but it takes time to deploy new models of cars.

Hydrogen is not “here already” there’s been maybe 3000 HFCV sold in the US and only 100 filling stations, all in California. And they have sold that many only because they are giving away the fuel that would otherwise cost $100 to fill a tank. Hydrogen Filling stations are not as simple as gasoline pumps.


Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs

 

By 'here' I meant they now exists as a fully developed workable technology. I don't believe battery cars are quite there yet, and this is supported by a general hope and belief that 'batteries will improve' in various ways. The current generation of batteries is only marginally adequate.

There is, of course, every chance that both technologies will improve as the manufacturers find better ways of building them, but FCEVs seem to match ICE cars in every way now, with similar range, speedy filling, and the ability to operate over a wide temperature range. BEVs don't quite match them yet. They also require lots of charging facilities which don't exist in any number in the UK. I can think of only two public charging bays - installed by a store that prides itself on building a huge new 'green' store - within 20 miles of where I live. I have only ever seen one being used, once, and it is clear from the moss growing on the surface that they are hardly ever used. In other words there is no demand (outside of London which heavily penalises ICE ownership). Without demand they will not appear. The same is true of hydrogen filling stations of course, but the difference is that a single filling station means that owning and FCEV is a practical proposition for everyone within perhaps ten miles of it. That is a lot of cars, and means even a mild level of demand will provide financial viability for such a station.

As to only 3000 or so FCEVs sold in your country, you are correct, but I would point out that despite there being really only one very expensive model from one manufacturer being available there, and as you point out, being sold only in one state, it is - monthly - selling more than two-thirds of the plug-ins listed, and sales are growing at about 150% a year. The implications of this have not been lost on manufacturers, and a number of new, less expensive, FCEVs are coming soon.

I think FCEVs will prove more popular in Europe than in the USA, but we shall see. It is quite possible that both will coexist. As far as I am concerned, there are excellent reasons not to consider either yet. I will wait to see which approach suits my lifestyle best when I eventually abandon the ICEs. In the absence of a huge breakthrough in battery technology, however, I suspect it might be an FCEV.

 

No, no, no.

We need to encourage every hydrogen advocate to buy a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle and live with the reality.

Bob Wilson

 

I have already explained that the cost of hydrogen is almost 100% due to the energy cost of manufacturing it - the capital cost of the equipment is low and amortised over decades. You can even - when domestic electrolyser equipment is produced - make it at home, at ZERO cost or pretty near, producing and stockpiling hydrogen whilst you are driving your car. What makes the difference here is that energy is cheap and plentiful. Once you have paid for the equipment needed to collect it, any further costs approach zero.

All the science needed for this is in place for this. Now. There are no 'breakthroughs' or widescale deployment of public wireless charging equipment needed. The economic implications of this are that hydrogen at the pumps will be - in effect - price capped. If the cost of it rises above a certain level, customers will simply buy the domestic equipment and make it themselves.

So I would anticipate that in the short term, the hydrogen would be produced in refineries from petrochemicals and would be expensive as oil or more so. However, as pointed out, 'electrolytic' hydrogen can be produced from renewable power for lower cost and will gradually replace the petrochemical product.

One further point is that wireless charging is rather inefficient. The best figure I've seen is a claim of 90% by Oak Ridge Labs. but that was under optimum circumstances. 75% to 80% is a more realistic figure for what would be achieved in practice. It might be even lower if metallic rubbish such as a crushed coke can or two has found its way into the magnetic circuit, or there are rebars in the concrete of which the road is composed The impact of this would be reduced charging rate and increased charging time, and I am unsure where the unused radiated energy ends up either. 25% of 50kW is 12.5 kW which is rather a lot to sweep under the carpet! Wireless charging is not, as seems to be implied, without its problems.

I hope the science and economics involved in this is clear to all. As you have observed, they are sadly not for everyone.

 

Lets speculate that electricity is free and makes "X" kWh per day. Use half of that for making highly compressed, hydrogen gas, for a fuel cell car and the other half for a battery powered car and take them for a drive:

• 100 mi in hydrogen powered vehicle
• 400 mi in battery powered vehicle

This is roughly the ratio of miles delivered with each technology.

Bob Wilson

 

But do I care if I am only doing (on average) 40 miles a day? This is what most of us do

The point is that hydrogen can be stockpiled, very easily. It just needs a bigger tank which lasts indefinitely. Electricity needs a battery from which the car will be later charged. Batteries are expensive, need to be kept at about room temperature and don't last very long. Moreover, if I want to charge a car with electricity it takes far too long. Hydrogen means that I can use my car for a long journey with almost no notice, and fill up en route if needed in minutes.

These advantages far outweigh the fact that the battery-powered car is allegedly four times as efficient.

Efficiency is only important if the source of energy is limited or expensive. Battery cars HAVE to worry about efficiency. The amount of energy they carry is only just adequate, and takes ages to replace. This is not so of an FCEV.

For these reasons, I don't think the efficiency argument carries much weight with most folk I'm afraid. The gain in convenience is overwhelming.

 

We can scale the numbers:

• 40 mi hydrogen
• 160 mi battery

I'm patient and look forward to unlimited, free electricity. Perhaps you might hold your breath until it arrives.

Bob Wilson

 

HAH! Well there it is... PuPu is calling people who want more research science deniers. You really are incapable of handling a conversation without name calling and labeling aren't you?

I'm not suggesting changing a 22 to 25, perhaps if you stopped looking for ways to cast aspersions on others you could keep up.

Ah there it is again, the Pu-Pu we all... know.

(Yet) again, going back to oil & gas research where they're finding ways to get carbon out of gas for things we else wise need, the more they do that (and don't burn it to put the carbon in the air) then great! We want CF for lighter stronger cars and nano tubes for higher tech devices. So why do you care so deeply that they may find other ways to get hydrogen? Why is this such an affront on you? Is it because it deletes your silly chart that nobody is talking about?

And (yet) again, nobody is really saying hydrogen will be the primary fuel source, only you are. This is the other Pu-Pu tactic, straw man. I personally have said it may be a great source for city bus fleets, not all people all places. 1 filling station and a fleet. Seems great. It may also suit the needs of people with really no other means of a BEV charging that's reliable. So, great again.

Now try this... if you're just cant bring yourself to not banter about with names and labels and strawmen or other forms of general silliness then try this... write out your feels, select all, delete, and try again. Or Pu-Pu.[/QUOTE]

 

Feedstock is water - substantially free, and electrolytic cells are cheap and simple. A compressor is expensive, but probably costs little more than a battery pack for a BEV.

I'd be most interested to see what other costs you imagine might inflate the price significantly. Perhaps you'll kindly list them for us?

 

If you are only doing 40 miles a day. Then a battery electric vehicle is more than capable of dong that for you today.

 

Danke. You prove my point. Appreciated.

I say there may be worthwhile applications and other methods so why get all salty, and you get all salty. Pepper in some labeling and straw men to go with the salt and -bam!- Pu-Pu salad.

 

I agree and think it may be time to test the ignore user option. On other forums it has improved the 'signal-to-noise' ratio.

Bob Wilson

 

Calm my friend. I put two on my ignore user list and now the discussion has:

• Pushmi-Pullyu
• Cypress
• bwilson4web

A lot of silly postings have disappeared. I admire your energy trying to explain the facts and data. The ones on my 'ignore' list remind me of:

Sometimes we have to brush the dust from our sandals as we walk away.

The best 'troll be gone' is ignoring them. So I typically wait ~3 months and review my ignore list. The majority, ~75% stop posting and go away. Some, the abusive ones, are uninvited by the moderators. About 15% continue their nonsense and remain on my list. Less than 10% get a clue and rejoin the rational universe.

Kudos to the moderators and/or the forum software designers because once on the ignore list, even their quoted nonsense disappears.

Bob Wilson