Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Timbershoe t1_iy7edam wrote

Reply to comment by Fit_Manufacturer_444 in Hyperion plans to kickstart a H2 fuel network with mobile stations by redingerforcongress

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.

4

SubsequentBadger t1_iy7nt9o wrote

They're not completely redundant yet, but the next 20 years will decide their fate.

−1

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.

3

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.

0

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.

5

SubsequentBadger t1_iy7ryfu wrote

The key reasons I say it's not dead are twofold

  1. Major companies are still investing in hydrogen as a fuel for other uses. Rolls Royce in jet engines for example.

  2. 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.

0

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.

0