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

341–350 of 503 posts

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

#341

Post by johnofthesea »

tirant wrote: post #169
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #23

Because people are allergic to hybrids and I don't know why "Electric is short range, fuel is expensive, guess I have to pick one" The ideal drivetrain was invented over 20 years ago by Toyota and apparently nobody but me and Honda noticed it!

I’ve been riding electric buses for almost 10 years, and no hybrid comes close to them. The experience as a passenger or as a citizen living next to a bus stop is far way superior: smooth, silent, non-smelly, no hot motor heating the back of the bus in summer… I hate riding any diesel bus after having got used to electric ones.

Same for me with boats in Oslo (but less than 10 years).

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

#343

Post by vvillena »

jrussino wrote: post #131
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.

> A 20 tonne double-decker bus should sound like it might explode at any moment I hope you're using "should" as in "that's what I'm accustomed to" rather than "that's how it ought to be"... right? :-D Personally I feel like quieting buses would be a huge step toward making day-to-day city life more pleasant.

This process happened in Madrid a few years ago. It's an incredible quality-of-life improvement for everyone in the city. Diesel buses were phased out a few years ago. The newer hybrid CNG buses are uncannily quiet, and some lines in the city core, where distances are smaller and speed is slower, are fully electric.

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

#344

Post by progbits »

Smithalicious wrote: post #320
neves wrote: post #125

Why? Because Oil Companies are lobbying for inefficient hydrogen to delay a green revolution: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/carbon-notes-5-green-hydrog... > The members of the hydrogen coalition are all obviously incumbent fossil fuel and petrochemical interests looking for a bridge to the new era. If realized, their ambitious hydrogen projects may overload the available supply of green power, for little real bene…

It seems to me like green fundamentalist see nothing but enemies and subterfuge everywhere. Hydrogen, biofuel, nuclear, switching from oil to natural gas where possible, the list goes on. I don't have enough of an opinion to comment on anyone of them individually, but I notice a really striking pattern where every time the idea of alternative energy sources are brought up that are not wind or solar, whoever brings it…

Maybe because there is evidence of fossil companies doing exactly that since the sixties?

Benefit of doubt has it's place but this is just naivety or outright trolling.

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

#345

Post by iamthemonster »

jasonkester wrote: post #299
krisoft wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blue hydrogen is produced from natural gas. Green hydrogen is produced from electrolysis of water where the energy is comming from a renevable source. (Imagine solar panels which are directly connected to an electrolysis plant.) “Green-ish” hydrogen is produced from electrolysis of water where the energy is comming from the grid. (And thus as green as your grid is.)

Thanks. Any idea what “grey” would mean in this context?

Grey hydrogen is produced from natural gas

Blue hydrogen is produced from natural gas with carbon capture

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

#347

Post by rocqua »

Retric wrote: post #261
jimnotgym wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vastly more efficient at storing electricity. Vastly more expensive to construct, using rare materials. Have a Vastly shorter lifespan than a hydrogen tank and much lower energy density. Everything is a compromise

Many batteries actually last significantly longer than common hydrogen storage tanks, hydrogen embrittlement is a major issue. Type III and IV tanks have a life cycle of 10 years. https://www.awoe.net/Hydrogen-Storage-LCA.html Hydrogen has also terrible volumetric energy density. It’s also really heavy until you scale to huge tanks.

How expensive, big, and heavy would a hydrogen tank (farm) be if it had to supply a whole winter for, say, 1million people. I ask because one of the bigger transition issues I see in Europe is load shifting from summer surplus to winter deficits, specifically for heating.

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

#348

Post by sebstefan »

sholladay wrote: post #214

They keep falling for it because fixed route busses are the one use case where hydrogen could theoretically make sense. The bus can fill up far faster than it could recharge an equivalent battery. The bus gets lighter and more efficient as it uses fuel. And crucially, it can always fill up at the same place, which really ought to be the central depot where all the buses in that network return to. But inevitably with…

Would it be so hard to manufacture your own hydrogen on-site with the $20k plug and play electrolysis setups they sell to labs and industries? You can just plug into a high wattage outlet and let it work when the grid is at low demands

You can't drill for oil & refine it at a bus depot but for the case of hydrogen maybe the assumption that fuel has to come from a supplier can be challenged

I don't see any benefits from economies of scale for electrolysis

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

#349

Post by rocqua »

baq wrote: post #314
m463 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not really cheap either. I remember natural gas vehicles (busses and cars, like the honda civic). You could actually fill up at home if you had natural gas, but the electricity just to compress the natural gas for the car cost as much or more than the compressed fuel in the car. For hydrogen, it is even harder. take a look at cars running compressed hydrogen. I remember $17 for the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline.…

Dollars are fake, or more accurately, a social construct, remember that. You can always tax the cheaper fuel and subsidize the more expensive one.

Dollar costs of physical things (pre tax) quite accurately measure how much effort it takes to produce/acquire that thing. Hydrogen being more expensive than X quite stronly suggests that it is much more effort to get than X.

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

#350

Post by _ph_ »

rocqua wrote: post #347
Retric wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many batteries actually last significantly longer than common hydrogen storage tanks, hydrogen embrittlement is a major issue. Type III and IV tanks have a life cycle of 10 years. https://www.awoe.net/Hydrogen-Storage-LCA.html Hydrogen has also terrible volumetric energy density. It’s also really heavy until you scale to huge tanks.

How expensive, big, and heavy would a hydrogen tank (farm) be if it had to supply a whole winter for, say, 1million people. I ask because one of the bigger transition issues I see in Europe is load shifting from summer surplus to winter deficits, specifically for heating.

Why would you want to store enough energy to supply for a whole winter? Wind energy delivers most power during the winter and even solar contributes a bit. The actual amounts to store would be a fraction of that. Of course, that might be the one single good use of hydrogen as a means of storage, but way less storage is needed than most would think.
Post reply on HN