Dozens of Californians are part of a class action lawsuit filed in July against Toyota. They claim the carmaker's salespeople misled them about the state's unreliable hydrogen refueling infrastructure.
This is such an ignorant statement. They’re complaining about the lack of infrastructure, not the car or tech. We need as many zero emission techs as possible, not just hoping batteries eventually figure it out.
A lot of hydrogen is derived from petroleum. Combine that with hydrogen’s penchant for leaking very easily and the infrastructure would require a constant replenishment of the stuff just to keep idle. Extrapolate that to hydrogen stations being as common as gas stations and you’ll see a lot of waste. For every day car use, it’d be better to use batteries.
Hydrogen as a fuel source is terrible, regardless of the amount of infrastructure surrounding it. It leaks like literally nothing else, you need to generate it (meaning it’s essentially energy storage), and the result of the two facts mean that it’s a horribly wasteful way to propel a car. The only reasons it’s an effective rocket fuel are because NASA doesn’t need to store it long-term and the savings you get from a traditional battery are far-outweighed by the benefits of a lighter load the further along you get.
This hype around H fuel is absolutely fucking batshit.
No it’s not, this is like complaining that EVs suck back in the day because they used lead-acid batteries… that’s what you and the rest of the anti-hydrogen groups are pissy about. It’s new tech, and has it’s place in renewables.
I think you lack important knowledge about the fundamental physical limitations of storing hydrogen.
For the record, I’m a transhumanist. New tech doesn’t scare me, and lackluster present performance isn’t something I view as a bad sign when considering the potential of researching new tech. I think you’re emotionally invested in something you personally view as the future, like solar roadways or the hyperloop. In my community, it’s seen as virtuous to be able to notice and admit when you’re wrong. I think more should do the same.
Yes because it’s hard to do today, means it’s never going to happen. You do realize how many car manufacturers are quietly working on hydrogen ICE cars right?
You’re the guy who told the wright brothers that flying was physically impossible.
I think it’s extremely telling that you keep issuing sladerous ad-hominem instead of speaking on the facts, such as the advantages of hydrogen. The people who are criticizing H cite important things to consider and construct cogent arguments whereas you speak of (as far as I can tell) completely unjustified expectations for these problems to be ameliorated. Why don’t you speak on the potential advantage of a hydrogen future?
how many car manufacturers
Is effort by a company a good indicator of the potential of future technology? If so, why are there so many companies pushing against moving past fossil fuels?
I think it’s extremely telling that you keep issuing sladerous ad-hominem instead of speaking on the facts, such as the advantages of hydrogen. The people who are criticizing H cite important things to consider and construct cogent arguments whereas you speak of (as far as I can tell) completely unjustified expectations for these problems to be ameliorated. Why don’t you speak on the potential advantage of a hydrogen future?
You’ve not stated anything other than it’s hard to store, and that it’s pointless as an energy producer. You’re not saying anything new that doesn’t come from the anti-hydrogen crew. I’m guessing you’re one of those people who think evs are the only thing that should exist.
Hydrogen stations utilizing solar to pull it out of the atmosphere can be drop shipped basically anywhere their is moisture in the air.
Hydrogen ICE motors don’t really require much in the way of engineering to reconfigure the current gas ICE motors.
Hydrogen also can be refueled in minutes not hours. Travel further on a single tank, and doesn’t require the weight that evs do which destroys the roads.
It also doesn’t require sub stations to be put up literally everywhere to support evs.
Now evs have a place in the world, cities mainly, but discounting hydrogen because there are problems that need to be solved is ignorant. It’s like saying evs are worthless because all the negatives I’ve just pointed out, they’re not.
how many car manufacturers
Is effort by a company a good indicator of the potential of future technology? If so, why are there so many companies pushing against moving past fossil fuels?
The reasons I stated were sufficient for discounting H. Essentially, we should be evaluating it as a kind of energy storage mechanism, not a fuel the same way gasoline is. Any infrastructure you can build for creating and storing H should be compared to electrical energy storage. Unfortunately, when making this comparison, H is at a severe disadvantage because there are many forms of electrical energy storage with their own pros and cons.
I’m guessing you’re
This is either irrelevant or an ad hominem.
Hydrogen stations utilizing solar
This isn’t an advantage of Hydrogen, this is describing an area where H as an energy storage can be compared to generic energy storage. Now let’s consider the following: we have a place that we can put a solar panel that will produce a surplus of electricity, and we want to store this energy. When it comes to vehicle technology, how advantageous storing it as H is depends on the saturations of HVs vs EVs in the area. If there is a high saturation of HV in the area, that can give a compelling reason to store H. However, if this is not the case, then H microproduction is strictly infirior to other forms of storage. For example, batteries are all around cheaper, more accessible, and more efficient. If you want something more industrial-grade, flywheel energy storage is all-around better as well. Want something on the level of several towns? Pump water up to a reservoir and capture the energy on descent. Now what are some potential hard limitations to doing this? For one, it doesn’t work in the desert, as you alluded to. This means there are parts of the world where this simply isn’t an option. Furthermore, if you have electricity production, you can also sell it to EVs if you’re selling H. This means in situations where EVs and HVs have near-parity, and infrastructure for both exist, EVs will be able to be recharged more reliably than HVs would be able to be refueled.
Hydrogen ICE motors don’t really require much in the way of engineering to reconfigure the current gas ICE motors.
This would only be relevant if EVs and HVs had parity, and we were deciding which should occur. However, that’s simply not how things panned out. EVs are currently set to replace ICVs, and current ICVs don’t last long enough for this to be a big consideration. Most people replace their old cars instead of upgrading them. Not saying that’s good, just that’s how things go nowadays.
Hydrogen also can be refueled in minutes not hours. Travel further on a single tank
Here’s the part where H actually has an edge, for now. You keep talking about how technology is going to advance, but you’re ignoring the fact that better EV batteries are coming out constantly, while hydrogen energy storage is stagnant. EVs capable of charging in 20 minutes were the new hotness 7 years ago. range has improved since then as well. Furthermore, this assessment uses the at-home numbers, which HVs notably can’t do. so if you were preparing apples to apples, it’d be 20 minutes vs 5 minutes and several hours vs Literally never. The range problem is a confluence of 2 considerations, assuming they never reach parity: the distance between stops, the time and cost it takes to recharge/refuel compounding. Of these, only the second one is relevant. Furthermore, the afore-mentioned advantage of being able to recharge at home makes it difficult to assess if this is an advantage over all. Which considering that this particular assessment assumes that EVs are stagnant (they’re not) it doesn’t speak well to the advantages.
doesn’t require the weight that evs do which destroys the roads.
S u r e
It also doesn’t require sub stations
Yes it does. H is a form of storage, not production; situations where you need fewer substations necessitate less efficient ways of transporting power. So either you get more substations or you have more infrastructure in other ways. This is a bullshit point.
I’m not even going to answer this…
Not admitting to being wrong isn’t virtuous. It just demonstrates your weakness.
Conclusion: HVs have more downsides than upsides when it comes to EVs.
This is such an ignorant statement. They’re complaining about the lack of infrastructure, not the car or tech. We need as many zero emission techs as possible, not just hoping batteries eventually figure it out.
A lot of hydrogen is derived from petroleum. Combine that with hydrogen’s penchant for leaking very easily and the infrastructure would require a constant replenishment of the stuff just to keep idle. Extrapolate that to hydrogen stations being as common as gas stations and you’ll see a lot of waste. For every day car use, it’d be better to use batteries.
Ftfy.
It’s absolutely possible to get hydrogen through electrolysis. There is effectively 0 being produced this way today.
Hydrogen is and has always been a way to greenwash natural gas consumption.
Hydrogen as a fuel source is terrible, regardless of the amount of infrastructure surrounding it. It leaks like literally nothing else, you need to generate it (meaning it’s essentially energy storage), and the result of the two facts mean that it’s a horribly wasteful way to propel a car. The only reasons it’s an effective rocket fuel are because NASA doesn’t need to store it long-term and the savings you get from a traditional battery are far-outweighed by the benefits of a lighter load the further along you get.
This hype around H fuel is absolutely fucking batshit.
No it’s not, this is like complaining that EVs suck back in the day because they used lead-acid batteries… that’s what you and the rest of the anti-hydrogen groups are pissy about. It’s new tech, and has it’s place in renewables.
I think you lack important knowledge about the fundamental physical limitations of storing hydrogen.
For the record, I’m a transhumanist. New tech doesn’t scare me, and lackluster present performance isn’t something I view as a bad sign when considering the potential of researching new tech. I think you’re emotionally invested in something you personally view as the future, like solar roadways or the hyperloop. In my community, it’s seen as virtuous to be able to notice and admit when you’re wrong. I think more should do the same.
Yes because it’s hard to do today, means it’s never going to happen. You do realize how many car manufacturers are quietly working on hydrogen ICE cars right?
You’re the guy who told the wright brothers that flying was physically impossible.
I think it’s extremely telling that you keep issuing sladerous ad-hominem instead of speaking on the facts, such as the advantages of hydrogen. The people who are criticizing H cite important things to consider and construct cogent arguments whereas you speak of (as far as I can tell) completely unjustified expectations for these problems to be ameliorated. Why don’t you speak on the potential advantage of a hydrogen future?
Is effort by a company a good indicator of the potential of future technology? If so, why are there so many companies pushing against moving past fossil fuels?
You’ve not stated anything other than it’s hard to store, and that it’s pointless as an energy producer. You’re not saying anything new that doesn’t come from the anti-hydrogen crew. I’m guessing you’re one of those people who think evs are the only thing that should exist.
Hydrogen stations utilizing solar to pull it out of the atmosphere can be drop shipped basically anywhere their is moisture in the air.
Hydrogen ICE motors don’t really require much in the way of engineering to reconfigure the current gas ICE motors.
Hydrogen also can be refueled in minutes not hours. Travel further on a single tank, and doesn’t require the weight that evs do which destroys the roads.
It also doesn’t require sub stations to be put up literally everywhere to support evs.
Now evs have a place in the world, cities mainly, but discounting hydrogen because there are problems that need to be solved is ignorant. It’s like saying evs are worthless because all the negatives I’ve just pointed out, they’re not.
Is effort by a company a good indicator of the potential of future technology? If so, why are there so many companies pushing against moving past fossil fuels?
I’m not even going to answer this…
The reasons I stated were sufficient for discounting H. Essentially, we should be evaluating it as a kind of energy storage mechanism, not a fuel the same way gasoline is. Any infrastructure you can build for creating and storing H should be compared to electrical energy storage. Unfortunately, when making this comparison, H is at a severe disadvantage because there are many forms of electrical energy storage with their own pros and cons.
This is either irrelevant or an ad hominem.
This isn’t an advantage of Hydrogen, this is describing an area where H as an energy storage can be compared to generic energy storage. Now let’s consider the following: we have a place that we can put a solar panel that will produce a surplus of electricity, and we want to store this energy. When it comes to vehicle technology, how advantageous storing it as H is depends on the saturations of HVs vs EVs in the area. If there is a high saturation of HV in the area, that can give a compelling reason to store H. However, if this is not the case, then H microproduction is strictly infirior to other forms of storage. For example, batteries are all around cheaper, more accessible, and more efficient. If you want something more industrial-grade, flywheel energy storage is all-around better as well. Want something on the level of several towns? Pump water up to a reservoir and capture the energy on descent. Now what are some potential hard limitations to doing this? For one, it doesn’t work in the desert, as you alluded to. This means there are parts of the world where this simply isn’t an option. Furthermore, if you have electricity production, you can also sell it to EVs if you’re selling H. This means in situations where EVs and HVs have near-parity, and infrastructure for both exist, EVs will be able to be recharged more reliably than HVs would be able to be refueled.
This would only be relevant if EVs and HVs had parity, and we were deciding which should occur. However, that’s simply not how things panned out. EVs are currently set to replace ICVs, and current ICVs don’t last long enough for this to be a big consideration. Most people replace their old cars instead of upgrading them. Not saying that’s good, just that’s how things go nowadays.
Here’s the part where H actually has an edge, for now. You keep talking about how technology is going to advance, but you’re ignoring the fact that better EV batteries are coming out constantly, while hydrogen energy storage is stagnant. EVs capable of charging in 20 minutes were the new hotness 7 years ago. range has improved since then as well. Furthermore, this assessment uses the at-home numbers, which HVs notably can’t do. so if you were preparing apples to apples, it’d be 20 minutes vs 5 minutes and several hours vs Literally never. The range problem is a confluence of 2 considerations, assuming they never reach parity: the distance between stops, the time and cost it takes to recharge/refuel compounding. Of these, only the second one is relevant. Furthermore, the afore-mentioned advantage of being able to recharge at home makes it difficult to assess if this is an advantage over all. Which considering that this particular assessment assumes that EVs are stagnant (they’re not) it doesn’t speak well to the advantages.
S u r e
Yes it does. H is a form of storage, not production; situations where you need fewer substations necessitate less efficient ways of transporting power. So either you get more substations or you have more infrastructure in other ways. This is a bullshit point.
Not admitting to being wrong isn’t virtuous. It just demonstrates your weakness.
Conclusion: HVs have more downsides than upsides when it comes to EVs.
hydrogen is just a very inefficient battery for strong electrical power.