Live data from Hacker News

Oil sector is lobbying for inefficient hydrogen cars to delay electrification

rechargenews.com

321–330 of 387 posts

Re: Oil sector is lobbying for inefficient hydrogen cars to delay electrification

#321
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries are heavy, expensive and we don’t have infrastructure to charge them at the required scale. I don’t believe hydrogen is the answer but methane cells could be… liquid energy storage is just so much more practical compared to alternatives.

_You_ don't. We do. There are 6 over 100kW charging spots under 1km of my house. Although I don't need any of them, because I can charge where I park at 2kW all day and night.

6 is a number an order of magnitude too small unless you live in a desert. If you live in a city, it's probably closer to two orders.

To support 60 assuming ~50% utilization you'll need 1MW per 1 sqkm additional power. This isn't a small number. The grid anywhere is absolutely not ready for such a rapid increase of load. There isn't enough refined copper produced worldwide to upgrade the grid. I mean setting up a copper mine on 16 Psyche is not a batshit insane idea here.

Re: Oil sector is lobbying for inefficient hydrogen cars to delay electrification

#322
post #109
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries are heavy, expensive and we don’t have infrastructure to charge them at the required scale. I don’t believe hydrogen is the answer but methane cells could be… liquid energy storage is just so much more practical compared to alternatives.

“We don’t have the infrastructure” is a temporary problem. The same could have been said about gas stations and the electrical grid capacity needed for widespread air conditioning. Weight isn’t such a crazy thing either. The Tesla Model Y long range weighs 900 pounds more than a Honda CRV. It’s a lot, but the most popular car in America is the Ford F-150 which weighs about the same as a Model Y at the low end. The we…

Weight is an air pollution problem - tires and brake pads release fines during normal usage. Regenerative braking helps, but only so much.

https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/145/1/98/1627384

Electricity is easy to transport but very hard to store and it's the storage that's the problem, see batteries.

Re: Oil sector is lobbying for inefficient hydrogen cars to delay electrification

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better option in what circumstance?

In the circumstance that we wanted to deal with climate change, local air pollution and inefficiency of ICE, but didn't have modern battery tech available. If we somehow magically knew that we'd hit a physics limit with battery tech over a decade ago, hydrogen for personal vehicles would be a good range extender option and worth rolling out the infrastructure to support. And bear in mind, basically every FCEV contain…

I thought hydrogen was still difficult to handle and store. Is that information out of date?

Re: Oil sector is lobbying for inefficient hydrogen cars to delay electrification

#324
post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steel production really needs hydrogen though. Hopefully the first test-production facilities will come online soon in Sweden. But I agree on for instance air travel. Don't faff around with hydrogen in planes. Convert the hydrogen to something liquid, like the Porsche e-fuel, then use it in regular jet turbofans.

What is the hydrogen doing chemically such that it is needed?

It replaces the massive amounts of coal that is used. It changes from (simplifying)

    2 Fe2O3 + 3 C → 4 Fe + 3 CO2
to

    Fe2O3 + 6 H2 → 2 Fe + 3 H2O
 
At the moment emissions are: 1.4 kg CO2 per kg of steel produced. And westernized countries will use 321 kg of steel per capita per year.

So switching to hydrogen could save about 500kg of CO2 per capita. Carbon capture of the fumes could help alleviate some 30% of that. Direct air capture is just not feasible, or wayy to expensive compared to just using H2.

In any case, even with H2; 321 kg of steel per capita will have to be reduced (main uses: construction, transport, industry, pipes, machines, weapons)

Re: Oil sector is lobbying for inefficient hydrogen cars to delay electrification

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydrogen for cars is dead. However long haul flights, fertilizer, green steel, etc. very difficult to find a carbon free alternative that isn’t hydrogen.

Sure, but the same companies that lobby for hydrogen for cars & heating, claiming green benefits there one day, don’t raise a finger to decarbonate hydrogen for fertilizers, which does make it seem like they don’t actually care about reducing CO₂ emissions. The article points out the hypocrisy: > Liebreich gives an example of Shell being happy to spend $12bn on a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) platform, the Pre…

Absolutely. A sane hydrogen strategy can not be left to the lobbyists. Unfortunately, these companies have a lot of money to throw around, and they have no qualms about speaking to peoples "anti-ideological" impulses. In Germany, we have seen this strategy employed a number of times now politically: There is a clear technological winner (EV, battery, heat pumps, etc...), however with enormous transition costs (new infrastructure, people changing habits). So it's inconvenient. You then simply claim that you are pro-climate, but you want a "technologically neutral" solution, claiming that the slightly inconvenient winning technologies are driven by "green" moralizing and ideology. As no alternative technologies are ready to go, and their trade-offs and inconveniences (e.g. where do you build all the wind farms to produce the electricity to get your hydrogen) are not apparent in the immediate future, you get to not inconvenience your electorate, seem pragmatic/rational (vs the "green ideologues"), while still talking pro-climate.

It's not exactly been a winning strategy electorally for those who employ it the loudest, but it's been an effective strategy to prevent political wins of the parties and politicians that actually want to make the sustainability transition happen.

So far, it seems to have empowered the anti-establishment populist right instead...

Re: Oil sector is lobbying for inefficient hydrogen cars to delay electrification

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the circumstance that we wanted to deal with climate change, local air pollution and inefficiency of ICE, but didn't have modern battery tech available. If we somehow magically knew that we'd hit a physics limit with battery tech over a decade ago, hydrogen for personal vehicles would be a good range extender option and worth rolling out the infrastructure to support. And bear in mind, basically every FCEV contain…

I thought hydrogen was still difficult to handle and store. Is that information out of date?

Gasoline is difficult to handle and store too. It can cost over a million to remediate a single gas station, totaling billions across the US.

See HN discussion on "The hidden cost of gasoline"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36471601

Re: Oil sector is lobbying for inefficient hydrogen cars to delay electrification

#327
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Existing gaslines" won't work because hydrogen leaks. It's literally the smallest molecule in the universe. Very different from natural gas. It works just fine. The British did studies in the early 2000s, injecting h2 into Ng lines, and separating it back out at the other end with mebranes. Also you need around 55kWh of electricity to get 11kWh of power out of a Toyota Mirai's wheels to the ground. It'd be more effic…

Direct electric is still more efficient than green hydrogen even if you take into account all the losses[0]. The amount of loses just during electrolysis and transportation make it clear. EV overall efficiency is 77% from production to engine. H2 is 33%. And this is based partially on 10 year old studies. Batteries and charging have developed since then, but as far as I know there haven't been any huge leaps in elect…

I'm in Quebec, and here we have a very modern grid. Much of that is to how well Hydro Quebec is run, providing some of the cheapest power to its citizens in all of North America, whist making billions in profit for the state.

Much of this profit comes from selling massive amounts of power the US Eastern states, which is why its long haul transmission lines are modern, high frequency, low power loss.

Some of that power comes from as far north as Hudson's Bay!

The other reason so much of the grid is modern, is from the ice storm at the turn of rhe century, which destroyed an incredible amount of the distribution network. Hydro Quebec took the rebuild as an opportunity, and modernized everything.

Point is, even with all of that, there is the need for more, more, more, as well as last mile stuff. Nimbyism isn't as big of a thing here, but it still exists.

Hydro Quebec is very green, and is building a variety of trial h2 infra. Generating H2 at the power source, and using pipes to send it through that massive network of local gasline distribution, does allow for distribution without the same power loss as sending power 2500km.

Even with high efficiency power lines, that's a long haul.

But the thing is, there should not be one solution! Frankly, long haul batteries should be prohibited in cars, we should have different solutions for different situations!

How inefficient is it to carry around 2000lb or more of batteries from long distance, when most people only need short runs?

Conversely for taxis, buses, and people who need range, h2 provides that without all that weight and battery waste.

And even better, short range battery cars are charged at home, or at office more often, and at lower power draws. Thus, having h2 and batteries means dual generation, and end point distribution methods.

We can scale with existing infra more easily.

Current ICE cars have propane, diesel, and gas. Why must there be "the true path!"? With more research, we may find h2 to be more efficient than batteries, and without all the weight and e-waste of batteries.

And this is why locales should build what infra works best. Not be forced into some cookie cutter solution.

Re: Oil sector is lobbying for inefficient hydrogen cars to delay electrification

#328
While I agree using clean electricity to make hydrogen to power things seems a bad solution compared to batteries there looks to be quite a lot of potential for "white hydrogen" which is basically drilling for naturally occuring hydrogen in the earths crust.

There seems to be a lot of it eg "huge reserves found in France". Potentially 46 million tonnes in Lorraine, 1 euro a kilo to produce https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/exc...

And elsewhere in the crust. It's just people haven't really focused on drilling for it until recently https://archive.ph/RbQwv

It might be a practical solution to use our existing equipment which is basically the same as drilling for natural gas, but with no or at least less CO2.

Re: Oil sector is lobbying for inefficient hydrogen cars to delay electrification

#329
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydrogen for cars is dead. However long haul flights, fertilizer, green steel, etc. very difficult to find a carbon free alternative that isn’t hydrogen.

> very difficult to find a carbon free alternative that isn’t hydrogen. The basic mistake you're making here is thinking that "carbon free" is key. It is not, what matters is that a given energy source is carbon NEUTRAL . Anthropogenic global warming is driven primarily by net increase in atmospheric CO2 on our timescale. When CO2 in consumed from the atmosphere, and then shortly released again (textbook example bein…

Synthetic fuels are also made from hydrogen. That's actually what i had in mind.

Re: Oil sector is lobbying for inefficient hydrogen cars to delay electrification

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydrogen for cars is dead. However long haul flights, fertilizer, green steel, etc. very difficult to find a carbon free alternative that isn’t hydrogen.

Sure, but the same companies that lobby for hydrogen for cars & heating, claiming green benefits there one day, don’t raise a finger to decarbonate hydrogen for fertilizers, which does make it seem like they don’t actually care about reducing CO₂ emissions. The article points out the hypocrisy: > Liebreich gives an example of Shell being happy to spend $12bn on a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) platform, the Pre…

Absolutely agree.
Post reply on HN