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

331–340 of 503 posts

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

#331

Post by chrisco255 »

kergonath wrote: post #322
calibas wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about electric cars wasn't "viable" in 2003? That was the year Toyota released their all electric RAV4 in California... Unlike hydrogen, there was already whole highly-developed system for production and distribution of electricity. Also, you're mistaken about my "made up narrative". I'm not claiming electric cars were mass market, I'm strongly implying there were forces at work fighting against that very thing!

> What about electric cars wasn't "viable" in 2003? That was the year Toyota released their all electric RAV4 in California Musk was very effective in pushing the narrative that there was nothing before Tesla.

I was alive in 2003. There were no mass market electrics on the road. The RAV4 nickel-metal hydride plug-in hybrid from 97-03 sold a grand total of 1400 units. Nickel MH batteries were notorious for losing range quickly, having a memory if recharged frequently from only partial discharge, losing 20-50% of their charge per month on self-discharge alone, having far less energy density than lithium, only lasting for 500-1000 cycles etc. Electric vehicles only became viable with the advent of cheap lithium ion batteries due to mass market laptop and cell phone production of said batteries in the late-00s.

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

#332

Post by tim333 »

jimnotgym wrote: post #262
jandrese wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lowest short term maintenence cost. Until the battery is destroyed in a couple of years. Charging a fleet of 100 buses overnight looks like a huge infrastructure issue to me. 100 charging ports, huge grid connection, substation etc. That is if the local grid even has capacity. Anyone who has tried to open a factory will know that is not always the case.

>Until the battery is destroyed in a couple of years

BYD are doing one guaranteed for a million km.

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

#333

Post by [deleted] »

wordofx wrote: post #286
xbmcuser wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of people miss the fact that China did not get to electric out of the blue it invested heavily in all these techs Hydrogen, Nuclear, Wind, Solar and batteries the cheapest and easiest to scale turned out to be Solar, Wind and then batteries. Even today China is still building more hydrogen and nuclear plants than most of the world combined but those technologies have not scaled or gotten cheaper at the…

That must be why China is building so much nuclear power.

[deleted]

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

#334

Post by [deleted] »

wordofx wrote: post #286
xbmcuser wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of people miss the fact that China did not get to electric out of the blue it invested heavily in all these techs Hydrogen, Nuclear, Wind, Solar and batteries the cheapest and easiest to scale turned out to be Solar, Wind and then batteries. Even today China is still building more hydrogen and nuclear plants than most of the world combined but those technologies have not scaled or gotten cheaper at the…

That must be why China is building so much nuclear power.

[deleted]

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

#335

Post by chrisco255 »

retetr wrote: post #197
chrisco255 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

See the EV1, a popular, mass produced electric vehicle that was controversialy "discontinued" in 1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1?wprov=sfla1

Sales figures for this "popular" car:

1997 (Gen I): 660 units 1999 (Gen II): 457 units

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

#336

Post by belorn »

kergonath wrote: post #321
originalvichy wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany is not the same as other countries. They have a culturally different view towards nuclear power.

Italy used to be similar (though they have seemed to be softening their stance recently). Austria is even more anti-nuclear than Germany ever was.

Sweden was also on the same german track, shutdown some of the nuclear fleet, but is now going back and forth on the issue. They are also investing in new natural gas fueled thermal plants, with similar "future" plans of using green hydrogen.

The national debate in Sweden is also similar. The right is arguing that the future is nuclear, and the left is arguing that green hydrogen is the future and natural gas is the stepping stone to get there. It is a miniature copy of the general energy discussion in EU.

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

#337

Post by chrisco255 »

timschmidt wrote: post #232
ch4s3 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A sun-compact with a 58 mile range that was only available for lease in 3 states is not exactly what I’d call viable, and I doubt it was popular.

It was a car engineered to satisfy California's short lived requirement for auto manufacturers to make a zero emissions vehicle, hence the availability. Despite that, drivers loved it, and didn't want to give them back when GM cancelled the program (after lobbying the law repealed).

The car was engineered with 90s battery tech so it was plagued with problems that anyone who used such batteries in the 90s know existed: high self-discharge, memory effect, low energy density, voltage depression over time, and limited cycle life. These cars wouldn't last 2 years without needing their batteries replaced. That's why they never sold more than 600 of them.

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

#338

Post by rco8786 »

psd1 wrote: post #325
rco8786 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hard to imagine it not. And also kudos and crazy respect for all the thousands of engineers that poured their work into making combustion engines as efficient and reliable as they are. A true marvel of humanity, and something to be respected even as we leave it behind.

I see your point, but at best you're getting 40% thermal efficiency with IC. It's not great.

Relative to EVs it’s not. But relative to ICE engines from 50 years ago it’s great. EVs are obviously going to take over ICE, my only point is that we shouldn’t discount all the work and ingenuity that went into ICE engines simply because a disruptive technology came about.

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

#339

Post by timeon »

ch4s3 wrote: post #213
retetr wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See the EV1, a popular, mass produced electric vehicle that was controversialy "discontinued" in 1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1?wprov=sfla1

A sun-compact with a 58 mile range that was only available for lease in 3 states is not exactly what I’d call viable, and I doubt it was popular.

Just to stay on topic: but was it more than hydrogen alternative?

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

#340

Post by chrisco255 »

dangus wrote: post #205
chrisco255 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 la…

No, the auto industry had been envisioning a switch to hydrogen since the 60s, but particularly in the 90s, tons of concept cars were pitched by various automakers, including Toyota and Honda.

Battery technology still sucked in the early 00s and it wasn't obvious yet that lithium ion batteries would lead to the first truly viable mass market all-electric cars. Easy to say in hindsight, but there were still many possible futures and the path that had the most research behind it at that point was hydrogen.

Post reply on HN