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

441–450 of 503 posts

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

#441

Post by chrisco255 »

culi wrote: post #416
chrisco255 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Tesla succeeded because heavy and intense government subsidies and investment into making electric cars a thing The fact that an EV failed without that kind of publicly funded support is only evidence that furthers the point GP was making

Tesla succeeded because it focused on the luxury market first by building the Roadster (and then later the model S). It succeeded because they showed that electric cars can be cool and not associated with lame-looking and performing Priuses and Leafs. It succeeded because people bought billions of laptops and cell phones powered by lithium ion batteries, which finally produced the economies of scale and had the right properties that made electric vehicles viable in the first place. Subsidies came later, and Tesla would have done fine without subsidies. Its the trad automakers that are attempting electrics that need the subsidies.

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

#442

Post by chrisco255 »

calibas wrote: post #369
chrisco255 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The RAV4 nickel-metal hydride plug-in hybrid from 97-03 sold a grand total of 1400 units. FYI, it wasn't a hybrid. And your statement is a bit misleading. 1400 sales sounds pathetic, until you realize that means they completely sold out. 1400 was all they ever made.

It was a plug-in hybrid. Which is why they later consulted with Tesla on an all-electric RAV4 in 2010.

1400 sales over 6 years is worse than pathetic. They didn't run out of materials to produce them. Good lord, this is Toyota we're talking about, they've manufactured hundreds of millions of vehicles. It was an utter flop.

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

#443

Post by chrisco255 »

TrexArms wrote: post #371
chrisco255 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, they achieved it in 2003, that's why they signed an agreement in 2010 with Tesla to produce an all-electric RAV4: https://archive.nytimes.com/wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07...

You understand that GM sold the patent to Chevron and they forced Toyota to quit making the vehicle right?

Toyota reached a settlement with Chevron and licensed the tech through 2010:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040717233048/http://www.ovonic...

Nevertheless, Toyota sold less than 1400 of the plug-in hybrid RAV4s (they were NOT all-electric) over 6 years, so they ceased the model's run.

It still holds that NiMH batteries were not practical for EVs. They had terrible range, memory problems and needed replacement after just 2 years. Anyone who used a cell phone or laptop from the 90s or early 00s understands this: batteries didn't last, that's why they were often engineered so that you could replace the batteries easily. Compared to today's electronics like iPhones and Macbooks that have internal lithium ion batteries embedded on device. This is because they work for years and years and lose very little maximum charge over that tme.

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

#444

Post by 486sx33 »

MayeulC wrote: post #312
jasonkester wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you define your hydrogen colors for us? It sounds like you have something interesting to say, but I can’t parse what it is out of your company’s jargon.

These are common terms. A random link: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/07/clean-energy-green-h... * Green: produced from surplus renewable capacity (electrolysis) * Black, brown, grey: convert various fossil fuels to hydrogen via steam reforming. Basically strip carbon from hydrocarbons, emitting a lot of CO2. * Blue: same as black/brown/Greg but with carbon capture. There are other (less common) shades as well.

Sure, but as long as we are burning natural gas, hydrogen is a bonus. Either use it or let it be wasted.

Using it to power public transportation is a great idea, if only we can get some better hydrogen fueling infrastructure. It should have a fair shake against electrics as electric vehicle power generation is using a lot of natural gas stations to charge up those cars !

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

#445

Post by 486sx33 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #394
AlexandrB wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Green is a huge efficiency loss. I suppose if the energy used to do it truly "green" and "surplus"... > As of 2022, commercial electrolysis requires around 53 kWh of electricity to produce one kg of hydrogen, which holds 39.4 kWh (HHV) of energy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

When the energy is free (solar) efficiency doesn't matter, or at least not nearly as much. Same reason the mob could sell their hijacked goods under wholesale prices... it was all profit no matter what.

Then force all electric cars to be charged only by solar!

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

#446

Post by dendrite9 »

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…

I wonder about the added wear on roads that comes with so much added weight. That is the kind of cost that is easy to put in someone else's bucket until it impacts everyone. One of the roads near here was closed for a while putting a large amount of truck traffic on another road. It is impressive how quickly ruts have formed in a relatively short period of time from what I assume is a combination of increased traffic and the increased weight.

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

#447

Post by chrisco255 »

syncsynchalt wrote: post #409
chrisco255 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Memory effect" in the 1990s is an old wives' tale. It's a real condition discovered in the 1980s on satellite platforms with computer-controlled charging, but was identified and fixed quickly. It never existed in consumer applications of NiCd batteries, especially as late as 1996.

It was not an old wives tail. I worked in wireless retail 23 years ago and saw these problems first hand. NiMH phone batteries from that era would scarcely last two years. Of course, it mattered less then because the tech was improving so rapidly that most people wanted a new phone every 2 years anyways. NiMH was an improvement over NiCd, but it still had memory problems nonetheless in its first few generations (modern NiMH batteries are better at this).

It could be mitigated by fully discharging a battery before recharging, and I'm certain that in applications such as satellites , they engineered the charging cycles to mitigate this. However, consumers powering phones and laptops can't be expected to maintain such discipline. Certainly people driving cars over variable distances can't be expected to uphold such requirements either, out of absolute necessity to travel a fixed distance between charges.

Lithium ion ultimately won because it solved these problems altogether. Modern NiMH has caught up a little bit, but Lithium has meanwhile improved as well.

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

#448

Post by chrisco255 »

timschmidt wrote: post #411
chrisco255 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And? I own an EV Pickup which originally ran on lead acid. It was a great truck then, and it's still a great truck today with LiFePo4.

Cool, can you tow a 20K pound trailer with your lead acid truck and let me know how far you get.

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

#449

Post by bluGill »

vel0city wrote: post #199
bluGill wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a lot more destinatians available will make people use the bus.

You're not necessarily making more destinations available. You're potentially just requiring more changes to go to the same destinations. Imagine a metro area with somewhat grid-like streets (or at least common paths) that go on for an hour+ in each direction. People still generally cluster to 20-30min from the destinations they care to go to, so it doesn't break that standard. Breaking it up into four 15-minute stre…

Your system makes destinations on only one line easy. Mine brings in many more lines.

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

#450

Post by satiric »

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.

Seattle's streetcars have been changed on a whim, check out the Broadway extension. Just because they've laid tracks doesn't mean nimbys can't prevent them from running.
Post reply on HN