Submitted by redingerforcongress t3_z79qfo in Futurology
Fit_Manufacturer_444 t1_iy7acur wrote
Reply to comment by Ubericious in Hyperion plans to kickstart a H2 fuel network with mobile stations by redingerforcongress
Very naive to just say "it'll never ever happen" when crazier alternatives were introduced before in history. Like the combustion engine to the horse, people just thought "that's a massive waste of energy just to move" just to have everyone using cars and discarding their wagons for radios the coming decades after. I'm not saying hydrogen will overturn the gas and oil market right now, I hope it does, all I'm saying is we shouldn't blatantly point at alternatives being ineffective while coal and oil is just as inefficient, you have to burn millions of tons of it just to manufacture and produce.
Timbershoe t1_iy7edam wrote
You can’t use the existence of the internal combustion engine to say all automotive inventions are going to take off in the same way.
Hydrogen engines are inefficient. It is more efficient to use them to generate electricity, and run electric cars.
The physics isn’t going to change.
As electric cars exist and are more efficient, Hydrogen engines are completely redundant technology. The time for Hydrogen vehicles was 20 years ago, before electric was really viable, it’s far too late to propose then today.
SubsequentBadger t1_iy7nt9o wrote
They're not completely redundant yet, but the next 20 years will decide their fate.
Timbershoe t1_iy7oj0g wrote
The previous 20 years already decided their fate.
It’s the Betamax vs VHS debate all over again. Yes, Betamax was the better format, but they were too late to the table and VHS took the lead.
If hydrogen vehicles were going to take a market share, the time was 20 years ago and we’re laughably far past that now.
To make any inroads now, hydrogen would need to be both more efficient and significantly cheaper than either electric or gas vehicles. It’s neither.
SubsequentBadger t1_iy7orz9 wrote
You could have said the same about petrol in 1899 when electric was so clearly dominant. Even then steam took another 50 years or so to completely die out for road transport. Don't write it off so soon.
Timbershoe t1_iy7p82k wrote
This isn’t 1899.
It’s not Carl Benz knocking together 10 horseless carriages a year from a shed, trying to work out if his electric engine or petrol engine was better.
Trillions of dollars have already gone into electric vehicles, development, infrastructure, technology, manufacturing plants. There has to be a fucking serious reason to write off that investment in favour of hydrogen vehicles.
And what is that seriously compelling reason? Hydrogen vehicles are both more expensive and less efficient, so there is literally no reason to switch.
It’s a simple choice, and the choice was made 20 years ago.
Maybe in 30/40 years when electric vehicles run out of key metals for battery production. But not today, hydrogen is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
SubsequentBadger t1_iy7ryfu wrote
The key reasons I say it's not dead are twofold
-
Major companies are still investing in hydrogen as a fuel for other uses. Rolls Royce in jet engines for example.
-
Japan generates a lot of hydrogen as a byproduct of other industries, so there are situations in which it becomes cheaper and the Japanese manufacturers have always kept it in the system as a concept for this reason.
Now I'm no great hydrogen evangelist, I know it has some fundamental flaws, but it's not yet dead. If there is a solid reason to build large scale hydrogen infrastructure it may yet come back for cars, or possibly commercial vehicles. However the next 20 years will certainly be the age of battery EVs for personal transport.
DonQuixBalls t1_iybsyyf wrote
> 1. Major companies are still investing in hydrogen as a fuel for other uses.
Oil companies. Most commercial hydrogen is made from natural gas. The fossil giants have the most to gain by miles.
Reddit-runner t1_iy88775 wrote
>Very naive to just say "it'll never ever happen" when crazier alternatives were introduced before in history.
If you look at the energy loss chain from "wind turbine to wheel" you will see why hydrogen makes no finacial sense where you could use batteries instead.
So for cars batteries are a no-brainer. That's what people usually refer to when they say "H2 will never happen".
However for planes, ships and the chemical and mining/refining industry things look quite differently.
Ubericious t1_iyafio8 wrote
Thank you for making my point
brett1081 t1_iy7r86e wrote
Oil was literally coming out of the ground when you dig a deep enough hole. Where are all the hydrogen wells? It’s not remotely the same, you spend a lot of energy generating hydrogen, get a fraction of it back converting it, and every time you do so you take a massive penalty. Why does everyone in this sub not understand even basic thermodynamics? FFS
Fit_Manufacturer_444 t1_iy81t31 wrote
People can understand fine. We don't just understand when people whine "just stop using alternatives and just burn coal and oil, despite us already letting millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and heating up the Earth" sounds counterintuitive.
The reason people are even considering EV or hydrogen cell is to stave off climate change warming effect (might be too late) not to wave their money and or act like they are leagues smarter than anyone else because.... GREEN. "Oil was literally coming from the ground" So does Geothermal power and water. "You spend a lot of energy for so little" a combustion engine releases just as much energy and as for hydrogen production being expensive, I assume that will go down overtime as technology advances, where as hydrogen can be just as energy efficient as a coal and oil, it's expensive, but that's why people are considering it because the latter pollutes the Atmosphere and environment so much.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments