[staticautomatic]

I would not underestimate the amount of weight behind the development and commercialization of hydrogen technology. Everyone in the oil and gas industry, including natural gas utilities, has a strong incentive to figure out how to make it work.

[_hypx]

Literally everyone has a massive incentive to make green hydrogen work. It is pretty fundamental to industry, manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, etc. There is no path to zero emissions without it. In reality, just a handful of vocal BEV fans oppose this technology on purely personal grounds.

[theluketaylor]

I'm one of those vocal opponents for hydrogen cars, but I do like the technology in general. I'm a huge fan of hydrogen for agriculture, forestry, and other big applications where grid access is really challenging and even small gaps to recharge are unacceptable. Personal transport just doesn't make the list.

Hydrogen won't ever make sense for personal transportation since the cost of batteries has come down way too far. Green hydrogen under perfect conditions has way too many efficiency penalties to compete with pure battery vehicles, so the cost per unit distance just won't ever make sense compared to the tiny losses for batteries.

I don't even care that much if companies like Toyota want to waste their development dollars on personal hydrogen transport that won't ever happen. I just want to make sure subsidy dollars are spent correctly. Use government money on decarbonizing farms and long distance heavy transport with hydrogen. Don't waste that money on cars that will always be too expensive to operate compared with BEVs.

[_hypx]

That’s absurd. Hydrogen cars will drop to costs comparable to ICE cars. It is a massive reduction in raw material needs. Not to mention the millions of people who need fast public refueling since they do not have access to home chargers.

People are stuck in an innovation trap with BEVs. It is pretty much what Clay Christensen wrote about in his book Innovator’s Dilemma. You cannot just linearly improve a single idea until it surpasses all other ideas, now and forever. Especially one that has many limits as BEVs. It is inevitable that there will be step functions in change, i.e. disruptive changes, coming to the market. Forward thinking companies will plan for that inevitability, not pretend BEVs are the final destination of personal transportation.

The world has already squandered billions of dollars on every kind of green technology. That could easily imply BEVs themselves. It is the biggest of double standards to not insist on hydrogen subsidies. If you truly oppose the idea, then oppose all subsidies for all green energy. If not, then accept hydrogen subsidies as a good idea.

[theluketaylor]

There was a time 150 years ago national grids didn't even exist as a concept. Now you're never more than 10 ft from a plug at any given moment when inside a city. A current lack of places to charge is easy to build out of.

I'm for hydrogen subsidies, just not for personal transport. Use the money for heavy transport, agriculture, and forestry. If that also happens to make fuel cells cheaper all around and changes the economics of fuel cell vehicles, that's fine, just don't subsidize hydrogen personal cars directly because it's deeply unlikely they will ever be more than a curiosity.

Thermodynamics means green hydrogen always has to pay the round trip conversion loss, so it will always be more expensive than raw electricity. I do agree there is opportunity to soak up excess renewable generation with hydrogen, but if you're right about hydrogen demand that won't ever affect the price more than a few %. Raw, direct electricity use will always be cheaper, so people will figure out ways to make that arbitrage work for them in ways other than hydrogen storage.

The lack of losses with batteries will mean there is a huge incentive to shoehorn them into anything where it possibly makes sense. That doesn't necessarily mean current lithium chemistry and that's where your innovation will come from.

[_hypx]

The grid was not designed for everyone to charge large BEVs with them. Nor are there DC fast chargers on every block. And I’m not sure what 150 years ago had to do with anything. Today, we will build whatever infrastructure will allow for cheap transportation. Which technically is mass transit, but because of other factors we chose a much more expensive route with cars. But if we insist on having cars, it makes more sense to have a system that allows for rapid refueling all the time. That will enable everyone to have a single refueling system. So basically the gas station model, which implies hydrogen cars as the future.

Again, hydrogen cars can be as cheap as ICE cars to manufacture. Your argument here is pure shortsightedness and is insisting on a double standards. What was the cost of BEVs when they first came out? It took subsidies to drive cost down in the early days. Same is true for hydrogen cars. As mass production expands, hydrogen cars will get cheaper until they are cheaper than BEVs.

You do not understand the thermodynamics of the subject matter. Again, electrolyzers/fuel cells are an electrochemical systems. It basically doesn’t have “thermal-dynamics”. Theoretical efficiency is the same as li-ion batteries. A fuel cell car is effectively the equivalent of a battery car whose battery is made from water. Although there are practical issues to deal with in reality, so this isn’t totally the case, but it is much closer to being true than what you’re imagining.

If you can understand that electrolyzers/fuel cells are functionally the same thing as li-ion batteries, and are subject to the same basic physics, then the real conclusion is to replace li-ion batteries with hydrogen systems wherever possible. After all, if the long-term level of efficiency will be parity between the two, then why insist on the one that is much more resource dependent?

[theluketaylor]

I have no issues with the efficiency of fuel cells. It's the overall efficiency of producing hydrogen in the first place. The "well-to-wheel" efficiency (though with green hydrogen there isn't an actual well). It's very energy intensive to create green hydrogen, far more so than charging a battery. Losses on green hydrogen are 50-60% of total energy used compared to <5% on a battery. That's a huge energy deficit to overcome that will always result in an opex difference. That's why I'm bearish on hydrogen for personal transport, but bullish on it for things like very long distance trains and farm use.

[frumper]

Charging my car doesn't require more than my A/C, or oven, or clothes dryer. Good thing my car charges overnight, when I'm not drying clothes or cooking, and my A/C does quite a bit less work.

> it makes more sense to have a system that allows for rapid refueling all the time

I don't need that. That is a very rare need for me, and it's so infrequent that I'm ok with it taking a little longer than a gas pump.

[panick21_]

> Literally everyone has a massive incentive to make green hydrogen work.

There is also the reality that certain company have taken a lot of money for a long time without producing many results. Specially if its fossil fuel companies that rubs people the wrong way. Just as giving money to Ford and GM wasn't the solution to get EV going. So its understandable that many people don't love the promotion of it.

I am as anti-hydrogen as anybody but I do believe it has a place. However, it should be limited and only used in places where you really need it. So instead of using it in transportation, using it in the chemical industry makes much more sense. Its simply not needed for the overwhelming majority of transportation applications. And even for the the stuff that is left over its often questionable if its worth developing the new infrastructure. Using it for personal vehicle and most cargo transport is utterly idiotic. Using it for most trains is idiotic. The list goes on.

Some people believe the massive steel CO2 use will be solved with hydrogen, but as with transport, there are better ways forward then that in my opinion. But again, hydrogen is getting the lions share of investment there too.

In general I am much more against they 'hydrogen economy' idea and concept, rather then hydrogen. Using energy to split water is reasonable, but most of the time hydrogen is just a short temporary state until it gets turned into something else. Very different from the hydrogen economy people in-visioned.

Another question is if electrolysis of access renewable production is really a great path forward.

[_hypx]

These are opinions based on profound ignorance. Many sectors can never reach zero emissions without hydrogen. Things like airplanes and ships. You must invest in the infrastructure no matter what.

And how can you have hydrogen for steel production without necessarily reducing the cost to the ballpark of coal or natural gas? If you can grasp that part, you should realize that it must be a cheap fuel in the future. Cheap enough that it can be easily affordable for transportation purposes. And for those who can't afford BEVs or don't have access to chargers, that is major motivation to pursue hydrogen cars.

Ultimately, you're left with many unsolvable problems if you try to tackle climate change without looking at hydrogen where it is applicable. You also need to think seriously about the downside of alternative ideas, and not pretend they are magically perfect. Batteries are heavy and expensive, nor are they environmental friendly to produce. If you see hydrogen as a far greener type of energy storage, then you will see there are upsides too. In other words, you are only looking at the cons, not the pros and the cons.

[panick21_]

The waste majority of ships will be battery powered, even cargo ships, as most cargo transport is local and short route. Same goes for planes. For the rest hydrogen is just a in between product, directly turning it into things like methanol or jet fuel.

Steel and other metals can be made with direct Molten Oxide Electrolysis. That is a far better path forward then hydrogen.

> You also need to think seriously about the downside of alternative ideas, and not pretend they are magically perfect.

Given your absurd defense of hydrogen cars, I will just say, look in the mirror.

> Batteries are heavy and expensive, nor are they environmental friendly to produce. If you see hydrogen as a far greener type of energy storage, then you will see there are upsides too.

As a complete engineering solution end to end, batteries are far more environmentally friendly, far more efficient and far cheaper. Let alone if you also include infrastructure cost. Anybody who seriously investigates these things will come to the same conclusions.

[defrost]

Globally, annually, there is roughly 850 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) worth of containerized goods handled at ports worldwide.

Aside from container shipping there is raw bulk material shipping, eg: Western Australia ships > 800 million tonnes of raw ores to China annually (not local, not light).

Looking at just container shipping and the major major routes; there is

* 42 million TEU's intra asia (within asia, 'local' but not necc. 'short')

* 42 million TEU's 'far east' to Europe + North America.

and then a long tail of lesser volume routes, many quite lengthy (asia -> south americas, north | south americas, etc.)

Point being by "vast majority" are you talking raw ship numbers (there are many small ships) or cargo volumes | weights?

There is a truly vast amount of heavy tonnages being moved long distances and these consume the majority of shipping energy.

If this is your line of argument then it deserves some refining to move past a handwave.

[panick21_]

Maybe 'vast majority' is an overestimation but there is a quite a lot of it.

People underestimate how many routes can be done with battery powered ships.

> If this is your line of argument then it deserves some refining to move past a handwave.

My argument was not limited to that. I also said there are other solution that are not direct usage of hydrogen.

[_hypx]

This is seriously detached from reality. Cargo ships do not travel short routes, and "short-haul" airflight is far beyond the ranges of battery powered airplanes. You are completely ignoring physics here.

MOE has not actually been invented yet, and there is no evidence it will be either cheap nor scalable. It's currently very expensive and requires plenty of exotic materials to work even as a concept.

No one is claiming hydrogen cars are perfect. But you are making highly delusional claims about batteries. Many of them are totally impossible.

It's pretty obvious that you have never thought about these problems. It's just a serious of assertions from the marketing department of BEV companies designed to shut down critical thinking. The fact is, a hydrogen infrastructure is cheaper than a battery infrastructure. That is simply due to the nature of pipelines versus wire. A pipe is hollow but a wire is not.

So it is 5-10x cheaper to make and move hydrogen around compared to electricity: https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-hydrogen-offshore-wind

Reality doesn't not favor batteries or excessive electrification.

[panick21_]

You are the one making argument for hydrogen powered cars and that's totally detached from actual reality.

> Cargo ships do not travel short routes

With short I mean not crossing major oceans. Battery powered ships can do a lot of routes.

> MOE has not actually been invented yet, and there is no evidence it will be either cheap nor scalable. It's currently very expensive and requires plenty of exotic materials to work even as a concept.

Both of these claims are just plain false.

> The fact is, a hydrogen infrastructure is cheaper than a battery infrastructure. That is simply due to the nature of pipelines versus wire.

That is such a terrible and utterly idiotic oversimplification.

The reality is, one of these exists and we can make realistic estimate, hydrogen infrastructure simply doesn't exist.

> So it is 5-10x cheaper to make and move hydrogen around compared to electricity: https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-hydrogen-offshore-wind

A bunch of small trial projects supported by governments, that make grand claims.

You like to talk about reality, in reality of the 100s of GW of wind turbines, basically non use hydrogen as an energy transport. And the waste majority of announced new wind projects do not plan to produce hydrogen in the future.

> Reality doesn't not favor batteries or excessive electrification.

And yet in actual reality, you know the one we actually live in, electrification is happening with ever increasing speed and the hydrogen industry barley exists and as far as it does it is almost completely driven by state investments.

Its pretty fucking rich to claim 'in reality' when actual reality is suggesting the exact opposite.