Insideevs should stop covering hydrogen

Discussion in 'Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles' started by 101101, Sep 26, 2020.

  1. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    It is so clear hydrogen is a technological dead end that IE should stop covering it.
    Presumably IE covers EVs because EVs are clean tech that helps address climate change and the long term cummulative externalities of fossil fuel's impact on politics(democracy) health and externalities.

    Its so crystal clear now that hydrogen is just a function of corruption at this point. Ditch it. Don't cover it. And get rid of the FCEV section. Covering it is condoning it. This isn't censorship, its in the way noise. Covering it is akin to false advertising. To lend it apparent legitimacy by covering it is wrong- at least at this point.

    cmwade77 likes this.
  2. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Keep InsideEV readers ignorant of hydrogen, natural gas, propane, bio-fuels, and any other approach will insure no one will remain to read your postings:
    Instead, you can accomplish the same effect by putting any posters about hydrogen on your "Ignore User" list. For example, the practical effect is hydrogen miles are 3x the cost of electric charging. Would you have someone else accede to you're call against hydrogen and block my post?

    Bob Wilson
    DaleL likes this.
  3. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    He's not just referring to light duty vehicles. This guy thinks the entirety of the fuel cell industry is some evil scam and is clearly hysterical about it.
    DaleL likes this.
  4. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Yea, he gets a little 'excited' and often posts poorly. I had him on my ignore list a year or so ago and improved the 'signal-to-noise' level. We had a worse troll so he fell below my threshold. Any more, I scan the first sentence to see if there will be any technical content and I've not had any success finding some.

    Bob Wilson
    DaleL likes this.
  5. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    I just don't like it when people irrationally hate some type of technology - especially if it's a strawman of how it's intended to be used. Calling hydrogen fuel cells some type of 'long tail pipe scam' because the current mode of hydrogen production involves natural gas is no different than calling EVs a 'long tail pipe scam' because the current mode of electricity production still involves a around 50-60% fossil fuels. Its just dumb and doesn't further any healthy discussions about the merit of any given technology for any any given application.
    DaleL likes this.
  6. I think this site should continue to keep an eye on all non-ICE technologies and accurately report their advantages and drawbacks. I can't imagine anything to be gained by closing your eyes and covering your ears.
    bwilson4web likes this.
  7. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    All bs responses. This isn't a game. Hydrogen is a total con at this point. Covering hydrogen makes about as much sense as only covering ICE and ignoring EVs. Trillions could be spent on hydrogen and it will never get better. Its not even viable as a stationary auxilary energy storage. This isn't something the market will sort out this is a ploy to create another "too big to fail" set up to continue to suck down massive austerity inducing public resources and avoid actually addressing climate change.

    You can't call hydrogen vehicles EVs they are more like super weak hybrids and the site stopped covering those. Hydrogen itself can be run in adapted ICE engines- would IE cover those? Its still hydrogen. Its part 2 of the bridge fuel bs. Have to get NG out of the utility system. Have to get CA to end its recognition of FCEVs as 'clean' and eligible for credits because they are dirtier in practice than running on coal and only represent corruption. Gray hydrogen is dirtier than coal. There no argument on this.

    The issue with Nikola was not its CEO or his claimes the issue was hydrogen doesn't get any better than that because its not legitimate to begin with. Look at who is supporting it- recalcitrant ICE makers and fossil fuel companys and look at the bias in the 'sponsored' media trying to prop it up as
    the case of Nikola shows. No way CA or Fed tax money should be spent on trying to prop this crap up. It doesn't get any better than Nikola because its broken on a first principles level. Calling it fool cells is way too kind.
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2020
  8. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    I agree. Its beneficial to be knowledgeable on what's happening.

    If anything, I wish that Insideevs would do more pointed coverage on charging infrastructure. I appreciate that they allow Grizzl-E to do sponsored articles that shows their tech. I think it would be great if they could do some interviews with some of the gas station/convenience store chains that have recently made deals with ChargePoint or any of the other network charging companies. Maybe ask those chains what led them to make the decision to make deals to install the DCFC infrastructure as well as advice for how us enthusiasts can get more involved. ( hint hint @Domenick :)). I tried getting in touch with NATSO because of their deal with ChargePoint, but could never get in touch with them. Was able to get in touch with ChargePoint and they really didn't give any additional information.
    Bruce M. and Domenick like this.
  9. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    I used "Report" to suggest to the moderator that this thread probably belongs in the "Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles" forum.

    Glad to see you're consistent with the content of this thread. As for:

    Bob Wilson
  10. cmwade77

    cmwade77 Active Member

    It actually is an evil scam, fuel cells are dirtier than fossil fuels and always will be.
  11. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    Yeah, that's a nonsense claim.
  12. cmwade77

    cmwade77 Active Member

    Actually, it isn't, it takes an incredible amount of fossil fuels to produce hydrogen, not to mention you have to build the stations, pipelines, storage, figure out how to get the hydrogen vehicles to work at all in snow, there are many, many issues both from an environmental and logistical standpoint. Some can be overcome, but many cannot, particularly the amount of resources needed to generate hydrogen.
  13. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    The end goal of hydrogen production is to use onsite electrolysis to generate hydrogen.
  14. cmwade77

    cmwade77 Active Member

    It will never happen in the end and even if it does, what generated the electricity? And how much electricity is needed per mile? If it takes more per mile than powering am EV, even if you can make it from clean energy, what's the point? Especially as charging times on EVs continues to drop dramatically.
  15. There are definitely pros and cons with FCVs. The hydrogen can be entirely produced by electricity, no need for NG, although it is cheaper. However, since the CA grid (and the US in general) is not 100% renewables, any additional electricity usage whether for EVs or FCVs means additional fossil fuel burning. And given the lack of electrical grid infrastructure, might as well just use NG instead of further stressing the electrical grid.

    Another advantage is that refuelling an FCV takes only 3 min to go 400 kms vs at least 30 min for an EV to charge. The EV battery required for that range is about 500 lbs, vs 150 lbs for the FC. And of course less cost and environmental damage than the production of EV batteries. Also, only 1/10th as many FCV stations as EV stations will be needed.

    The main disadvantage of FCVs is the lack of fuelling infrastructure, and high cost of such installations. And you can't refuel at home. In the end, I think EVs will win out, and I would say that is pretty well a foregone conclusion at this point. Having said that, I don't think the Japanese and Koreans have given up on that just yet, and will have to see if they will continue to persist with that technology.

    Ultimately, we need to find ways to produce more electricity from renewables. Again, I hate to suggest nuclear, but how else is it going to happen? Solar and wind can't do it on their own, even with battery storage. And not enough hydro opportunities in the US. Canada, yes, but that is a whole different story.
  16. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    You are assuming that the only application being discussed here is light duty vehicles. Batteries outcompete fuel cells for light duty vehicles. That's not even questionable anymore. In the future, any light duty vehicles that are FCVs will just be hobby cars.

    I highly doubt that batteries will ever be suitable for large container ships or for commercial jets. Long distance freight is still questionable too, so I'd rather let the market sort that out.
  17. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    There aren't many non-geographic dependent options for long term grid storage. It's basically just flow batteries and hydrogen really. Unless you consider biogas or biofuels acceptable. I doubt that non-geological compressed air storage would have enough energy density to make long term storage feasible.
  18. len zaifman

    len zaifman New Member

    I think fcevs do have a place in the future. In Canada a huge amount of electricity is hydro - carbon cost has been prepaid - i don't know about the carbon cost for new projects.

    Carbon (oil,gas) pipelines are a political hot potato. Coming up with green hydrogen pipelines may help solve that problem. The land issues would still remain.

    There are huge projects on hydrogen in europe for home heating, vehicles, home emergency power backup. IF hydrogen supply issues can be resolved it would be a huge economic driver for new jobs to replace carbon based jobs. In short : I disagree entirely with the premise of this thread and there may be more fcevs by 2025, not less.
  19. cmwade77

    cmwade77 Active Member

    Hydrogen takes a lot of fossil fuels to produce, in fact more per mile than the least efficient ICE vehicles and there is no real way around that en mass.

    Another issue is they can only be refueled at stations, where as full electric (not fuel cell vehicles, yes they are technically EVs as well, but for purposes of conversation we must distinguish them) can be refueled literally at any power outlet....meaning charging stations are literally everywhere, as long as you have an EVSE that can use the circuit. This is the primary reason I think full cell vehicles aren't viable and will disappear, especially as more vehicles come out that can accept 350 kW charging or higher where you can add 100 miles in a couple of minutes. The environmental issues conch it as not viable for fuel cell vehicles to continue. Add in the inability to drive in snow and such and it's even worse.

Share This Page