Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?

cleantechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 503 posts

Re: Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?

#201

Post by nyokodo »

xbmcuser wrote: post #186
pjscott wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have actual knowledge of their motives? Or is this speculation, confidently stated as fact? Another possible motive, mentioned in the the paragraph you quote, is that the oil companies see an energy transition coming and are trying to get aboard the hydrogen train to diversify their future revenue sources. And that sounds like a reasonable motive; the sort of thing that people who don't see themselves as evil…

The current US administrations moves against renewables should make you realize how powerful the oil gas lobby is. They got some pushback from local politicians so were slowed down but the way they started they were looking to end all wind and solar for a false promise of nuclear tomorrow.

[flagged]

Re: Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?

#202

Post by jandrese »

manquer wrote: post #191
fraserharris wrote: post #119

AC Transit (eg: East San Francisco Bay) performed a detailed 2 year study (July 2020 - June 2022) comparing newer Hydrogen Fuel Cell & Battery -powered buses to existing Diesel, Fuel Cell, & Hybrid -powered buses, 5 of each type. The key results are the Hydrogen Fuel Cells have significantly more expensive infrastructure, fuel, and maintenance costs than Battery. However, both technologies are still less reliable tha…

The maintenance costs are only marginally higher per the report at $1.33 FCEB vs $1.15 BEB , $2.37 for Hybrids and $1.28 for Diesel (with additional public health costs for respiratory illnesses), the sample size(5x5) is too small to draw any meaningful conclusion on infrastructure costs or even reliability given the limited experience in operating anything not diesel. Economics of hydrogen in CA are also complicated…

If I'm reading that right the Battery Electric busses had the lowest maintenance costs? The need to charge is a potential issue, but at the same time busses do lots of low speed stop and go where battery systems are most efficient. As long as the bus has enough capacity for an entire day and can be recharged overnight it seems like an ideal solution, minus of course the up-front cost of the bus. Lower fuel costs, no noxious pollutants, less noise, lower maintenance, there is a lot to love.

Re: Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?

#203

Post by gibolt »

nyokodo wrote: post #201
xbmcuser wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current US administrations moves against renewables should make you realize how powerful the oil gas lobby is. They got some pushback from local politicians so were slowed down but the way they started they were looking to end all wind and solar for a false promise of nuclear tomorrow.

[flagged]

We are already on the path to have the grid converted to majority green energy over the next decade. Solar is by far the largest of New deployments and growing annually.

Grid batteries are just starting to scale up.

These are cheaper than any other option by far, with the shortest payback period.

Re: Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?

#204

Post by gibolt »

jandrese wrote: post #202
manquer wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The maintenance costs are only marginally higher per the report at $1.33 FCEB vs $1.15 BEB , $2.37 for Hybrids and $1.28 for Diesel (with additional public health costs for respiratory illnesses), the sample size(5x5) is too small to draw any meaningful conclusion on infrastructure costs or even reliability given the limited experience in operating anything not diesel. Economics of hydrogen in CA are also complicated…

If I'm reading that right the Battery Electric busses had the lowest maintenance costs? The need to charge is a potential issue, but at the same time busses do lots of low speed stop and go where battery systems are most efficient. As long as the bus has enough capacity for an entire day and can be recharged overnight it seems like an ideal solution, minus of course the up-front cost of the bus. Lower fuel costs, no…

It is likely that new models had higher costs, including maintainers becoming familiar. Long-term, electric is unquestionably cheaper to fuel and maintain, assuming they are built to the same standards and scale as outgoing diesel models

Re: Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?

#205

Post by dangus »

chrisco255 wrote: post #182
calibas wrote: post #109

Back in 2003, President George W. Bush announced the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. At the time, people criticized the effort as an attempt by the oil industry to shift attention away from electric cars. The oil industry knew that hydrogen power wasn't going to be viable anytime soon, while electric cars were already a direct threat to their profits, so they pushed the US government towards hydrogen power. Not to disparag…

In 2003 there were no viable or mass market electric cars at all. What a made up narrative.

The parent commenter to you never claimed that electric cars were already viable or mass market, I would say the implication is that it was very obvious to the car industry at the time that EVs would be viable and even affordable extremely soon.

The Nissan Leaf was only 7 years away in 2003. In automotive technology terms that's like a single generation's worth of refresh for a typical vehicle. The Chevy Volt also launched the same year as the first mass-market plug-in hybrid.

As an example, the current 2025 Honda Odyssey is essentially the same car that began deliveries in 2017 with only minor changes.

So really what we are talking about here is an auto industry that knew that EVs were going to hit the market, like, really soon. Nissan sold over 100,000 Leafs between 2010 and 2019 which is pretty amazing for a first generation mass market new drivetrain product.

Re: Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?

#206

Post by marshray »

somat wrote: post #174
askvictor wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just to delay, but they're hope is that they'll be able to control it when it happens. Oil companies move fluids, using pipes and tankers. Hydrogen is a fluid. They want to keep doing what they've been doing. Electricity doesn't fit into their M.O.

I don't know what you are talking about, electricity is a fluid.

The only sense in which "electricity" could be said to be fluid is in its definition. There's no such physical quantity, it's just a vague term for a variety of phenomena.

Re: Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?

#207

Post by andrepd »

whalesalad wrote: post #185
pjscott wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have actual knowledge of their motives? Or is this speculation, confidently stated as fact? Another possible motive, mentioned in the the paragraph you quote, is that the oil companies see an energy transition coming and are trying to get aboard the hydrogen train to diversify their future revenue sources. And that sounds like a reasonable motive; the sort of thing that people who don't see themselves as evil…

Oil companies, vehicle manufacturers, tire companies and other powerful lobbyists have been doing this for decades so it’s an unsurprising theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... It’s why we don’t have rail in the US like you see in Europe. At one point in time we had a ton of rail and streetcar networks but these groups destroyed it all because it was a threat to their business. For o…

Plenty of this in Europe. In my country there's less km of rail now than there was in 1910.

Re: Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?

#208

Post by kelipso »

marshray wrote: post #206
somat wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you are talking about, electricity is a fluid.

The only sense in which "electricity" could be said to be fluid is in its definition. There's no such physical quantity, it's just a vague term for a variety of phenomena.

Maybe he was talking about aether theory of electricity lol.

Re: Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?

#209

Post by dalyons »

scojjac wrote: post #161

Battery is silly for buses, IMO. Invest in streetcars (electrified fixed-route buses) and be done with it. Streetcar lines represent continued investment, and are therefore more attractive to developers, unlike bus routes that can be changed on a whim. And they've been around for longer. Cut the red tape on building them and on zoning if you want to see serious results.

The lines are very expensive to install and maintain. You could just buy double or triple the number of “silly” EV buses and be way ahead.

Re: Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?

#210

Post by dangus »

bombcar wrote: post #14
rsynnott wrote: post #6

Huh. I kind of thought that batteries had comprehensively won in this market, tbh. I still can't quite get used to the electric buses. A 20 tonne double-decker bus should sound like it might explode at any moment; it is unnatural for them to move around more or less silently.

Batteries have won this so hard (if you ignore CNG busses, which have existed forever and are "almost as good as hydrogen could be") - because even when they hadn't won it, you just needed more busses. Is it nice if the bus can do a driver's entire shift without a recharge? Sure! But if it can't, you just design the route so that the driver can switch busses and buy another bus. That means the technology problem is n…

https://apnews.com/article/chicago-electric-bus-cold-weather...

Good article on this topic.

It's a lot of infrastructure investment but the per-mile running costs are so much lower that it should eventually pay off, especially as buses get cheaper when volume ramps up.

As someone who has witnessed EV buses in person, I think the local pollution and to a lesser extent noise benefits are really great for cities that have or want to move more toward human-friendly streetscapes. They just eliminate so much bus engine stench that just can't be good for breathing in.

It also seems to me that they have to be a lot more reliable. I have seen so many broken down buses with the engine compartment open on the side of the road in my lifetime.

Post reply on HN