The wasserstoff revolution

I have made my point on the topic of hydrogen abundantly clear. I'm not restating it any more.

I'd also like to think I don't take 'sides' against a person specifically because of their views on a particular topic. Now let's say this chap and I disagree on something, why would that make it so that I should take the side against everything he says? Simply shooting down everything he says because I disagree with him on something else would make me argumentative. And argumentative on a forum site just leads to escalated back and forth. And escalated back and forth is bad for the forum and keeps the person around because often that's what they want. I'm not saying any of this pertains to him for me, but I feel like it does for you to him, and yeah you come across as very argumentative to everything he says and now I think it's because you just disagree with him fundamentally. That's fine, you can, and you can respond however you want. You're entitled to your opinion afterall .

I come across people I disagree with on the daily. One fellow I work with is an ardent Trump supporter and Breitbart enthusiast. I'm quite the liberal. But he's a fun guy when we don't discuss those topics. And honestly even when those topics do come up it can be light sparring and doesn't devolve into a disaster. I'm not going to shun him wholly just because we disagree on some stuff. That's pretty childish imo.

Dude. Almost had it. Yes about throughput, but it wasn't about 'easier to increase throughput'. Nowhere did I even mention 'easier to increase'.

I'm sorry but this seems like a classic case of reading what you want and then arguing what you wanted to read, vs. reading for comprehension. I wrote 2 simple sentences and you just ran wild with them.

 

No, Hydrogen costs will not fall anymore than petrol costs because the two are the same except hydrogen makes already inefficient and chosen for its in-efficiency petrol even more in-efficient and expensive. Petrol has reached a floor. Martin go study it, the global financial collapse was because petrol collapsed once again- such collapses in the past were covered by phony wars as petrol bailouts but the 07 collapse was the result of insuring petrol debt or derivatives and those derivatives are blind debt and as blind debt they get insured redundantly almost without limit and its blind debt in the first place because petrol is such a bad investment in the first place (requiring subsidies to 150 of revenue and still incurring massive debts) that no one would ever insure it without that fraud. It is literally there to drive scarcity in the economy, make most people work more and protect the non contributing rich from deflation. Its pure crap. What hydrogen is about is more money and retained power for people we should be incriminating and putting in jail- petrol is already the biggest scam of structural violence in history and hydrogen is even bigger.

Hydrogen is not new- fuel cells are as old as the space program, but hydrogen will never get cheaper not without tech so advanced it would obviate the need for it. Petrol is built out, at scale and mature tech it won't fall under $13 a KWH at retail, almost every where in the world you can already get battery backed solar for 1/4 that but battery backed solar will go much lower than even 3 cents a kwh, may well drop to another 17000x in price reduction as it already has relatively quickly. Petrol was dead years ago its all stranded assets. Investment is hydrogen is not investment its crime and money given to the Kochs and Bushes and other welfare queen dynasties, we are trying to flush that BS down toilet of history not keep letting wrong kind of technocrat drive things. You want another Bush or Clinton figurehead? Enough of this Royalistic crap. Cant wan't for Corbyn to dissolve the useless Brit monarchy. Voltare was right on Monarchy.

 

Interesting subject, thanks! I had not encountered this before.

I hope the following will be taken as adding to the conversation, rather than nit-picking; you did say you were citing from memory, and I certainly am in no position to throw stones about having an infallible memory for figures:

From prehistory through the 1700s and early 1800s, wood was the world’s most common fuel. Wood has a carbon-to-hydrogen ratio (C:H) of 10 to 1. That is, it has about 10 carbon atoms for every hydrogen atom. But as the Western world industrialized, wood lost its dominance to coal. Coal was a dramatic improvement over wood with a C:H ratio of about 2 to 1. But coal was destined to lose out to oil, particularly for transportation, thanks to oil’s greater energy density and a C:H ratio of 1 to 2. Over the coming decades, natural gas will be the big winner, a result of its 1 to 4 C:H ratio. Thus, when compared to wood, natural gas has 40 times as many hydrogen atoms as carbon atoms.​

Quoted from the Poppypundit blog (July 2008): "Carbon vs. Hydrogen"

I hadn't really thought about wood or coal in terms of being carbohydrate fuels, like gasoline or methane, before reading your comments on the subject. Thanks, Martin!
-

 

All this is perfectly true. But as has been pointed out repeatedly, and you refuse to acknowledge: Even if producing the hydrogen took zero energy, the inefficiency of the entire supply/usage chain from well to wheel would still make hydrogen fuel impractical for widespread use. Even if you could magically handwave away the energy costs for compression, storage, transportation, re-storage, and dispensing, you'd still run up against the hard reality that the fuel cell itself is only ~50% efficient. I think theoretically you might be able to improve that to ~60% -- perhaps there have been laboratory demos of fuel cells working at that efficiency in ideal (but hopelessly impractical) conditions -- but it still will never compete with the ~90-92% efficiency of an electric motor.

It's a result of those highly inconvenient Laws of Thermodynamics which you keep pretending will go away if you wish hard enough.
-

 

I guess the broader question I have for you is why do you approach this as such a Boolean issue? Even if hydrogen cars never muster more than a fraction of what a BEV, would you not prefer those drivers to be on it instead of gas? If it's hydrogen or gasoline (or diesel) then why not hydrogen? Each driver that chooses that option is for the better. Arguing against is is arguing FOR gas and oil to remain the source.

So I guess I am truly mystified by your insistence against it. It's never going to supplant BEV but it may supplant some gasoline. Do you not want that?

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/591141384/americas-oil-boom-is-fueled-by-a-tech-boom

Super interesting read, and aligned with my belief that you can trigger some really unintended consequences when you tinker with policies. Other areas like the US start producing oil as prices are soaring. OPEC doesn't like this and floods the market with oil getting us into that crash we saw. It worked, it got rid of almost all the production.

But like a bacteria when you don't finish all your medicine, the few leftover adapt. Those that adapted started embracing technology, robots, and smart systems. Now when they had to be at $100 to get into the oil business they can break even at prices under $40.

Stunning reversal. The US is now about to become the biggest producer of oil and the prices can go DOWN even more and it will be okay. Not only is O&G surviving in the low priced market, they're actually thriving.

 

You have to be a fool to believe that- what is happening is you are being taxed and it is being given to them under the table. Their is not drop in their production price. They are simply stealing from you and lying about their results.

 

I completely, utterly, 100% disagree with every single point you made.

Hydrogen fuel is not significantly "better" than gasoline or diesel. Comparing emissions on a well-to-wheel basis, it's almost three-quarters as polluting; and when comparing energy and resources spent producing the fuel, it's far more wasteful than gasoline or diesel.

Citing NREL data comparing emissions from comparable cars, each with a 100 kW motor or engine or fuel cell stack:

An "average case" fuel cell vehicle emits 73.5% of the emissions of a gasmobile

A "U.S. grid average" BEV emits 35% of the emissions of a gasmobile

A BEV in California (for a PG&E customer) emits 14% of the emissions of a gasmobile.

Emissions comparisons are based on total well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions, with 100% being a reference 23 MPG gasmobile.

(source)

* * * * *

More importantly, "fool cell" cars are promoted only by Big Oil & Gas companies and legacy automobile makers. The reason they promote "fool cell" cars is that they know something you apparently refuse to recognize, despite all the facts you have presented with: They know that "fool cell" cars will never, ever challenge gasmobiles as a widespread means of transportation. Big Oil companies are using fool cell cars as a distraction, safe in the certainty that they won't ever challenge the obscene levels of profit that Big Oil makes from selling gasoline and diesel. Similarly, legacy auto makers are safe in the certainty that fool cell cars -- unlike plug-in EVs -- will never, ever be practical enough for widespread adoption.

Furthermore, both Big Oil and legacy auto makers are using greenwashing propaganda to promote the idea that fool cell cars are "good for the environment", a claim which is -- clearly and demonstrably -- factually incorrect.

The real question here, for the present discussion, is this: Why do you, "Feed The Trees", keep advocating for a tech which is being used to divert money and attention away from the technology which is -- slowly -- in the process of replacing gasmobiles? The EV revolution is already going far too slow for my satisfaction; why are you supporting a tech which is being promoted only for the purpose of slowing it even more?

At best, you are being used as what is called a "useful idiot" by those whose agenda is to stop or at least slow the EV revolution. At worst, your agenda is the opposite of advocacy for the "green" cause suggested by your screen name.
-

 

I think you should be less insulting in your post. However I agree with most of your points and want to add mine.

The Hydrogen fuel for cars has been promoted for about 20 years now with massive grants from many governments. Now that the fuel cell has reached a point where it can be seriously considered for mass production the next step is the H2 production and distribution infrastructure. The main point here is that the governments spent much much less on promoting BEVs, mostly by tax incentives, pollution mandates, and almost no grants. Now we are told that a H2 infrastructure for the US would cost over $1T and it almost seems to be a forgone conclusion that this will be paid for by the taxpayer. So why have governments spent so much money on fuel cell development and installing H2 stations? Because of successful lobbying of oil companies. It is oil companies that will benefit as they are the ones planning to sell us the hydrogen.

I don't have anything against FCVs per se, I just don't want to pay for it. Oil companies are rich, they can well afford to pay the full cost, and I think they should, since they are the ones who will profit from it. As I have argued before, most people when given the choice will choose the cheaper BEV vs FCV (and most of the "cheaper" is in the fuel cost). That means the massive tax burden for the H2 infrastructure will benefit a minority of people, but be paid for by all.

 

Hmmm, well, it certainly is insulting to have someone say you're being used as a "useful idiot" by companies opposing what your apparent political position is. (In this case, the politics of environmentalism vs. industries which want to be able to freely pollute.) But it's the term actually used by propagandists; it's not like I went out of my way to find something insulting to say. However, I suppose I could have found a way to refer to that term without directly equating it with pro-fool-cell posts from "Feed The Trees".

But as far as what you actually quoted there, Roy... I never considered strongly opposing -- or even refuting -- someone else's argument to be "insulting", but I'll think about how that might come across to others. Certainly I could have worded it to be less confrontational.

Anyway, I thank you for your viewpoint; it's always good to know when others see what I wrote differently than what I intended.
-