• Hypx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The “practical constraints” are mostly just lies from competing industries. Case in point, a hydrogen tank is both volumetrically and gravimetrically denser than batteries. Loosely speaking, it is about 2000 Wh/kg and 1333 Wh/L. That’s better than any li-ion battery.

    It is plenty good enough to replace both BEVs and ICE cars. As long as it is zero emissions, it works.

    Finally, FCEVs exist right now. Hypothetical magical batteries of the future don’t. So this is a meaningless comparison.

    • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      mostly just lies from competing industries

      My Master’s Thesis and PhD Dissertation were focused on fuel cells as an energy storage system of the future - I’ve got more first hand experience than most with no influence “from competing industries”. I want this technology to work - badly.

      That said, you’re right that fuel cell cars exist today, but so do batteries, and with today’s technology any “meaningful comparison” will quickly point out that today’s batteries are:

      More efficient, cheaper to manufacturer, much cheaper to operate (have you checked the price per kg for (mostly fossil-produced) hydrogen recently? YIKES!), more user friendly for most (not all) drivers, and (a little more subjective) way more fun to drive.

      Yes, batteries do have their problems (long haul & heavy duty applications, refueling time, cobalt sourcing, flammability, …) But so do PEMFCs (fuel cost, platinum sourcing, reliability & safety of ultra high pressure fueling infrastructure, fuel cost, complete lack of availability for green hydrogen, fuel cost, relatively rapid chemical degradation of electolyzers through catalyst poisoning, forever chemicals involved in the production use and disposal of Teflon/Nafion, …)

      Again, I WANT fuel cells to win this contest, but today? They’ve got a lot of catching up to do before they overtake the leader, and unlike batteries, in their current state I could not in good conscience recommend purchasing an FCEV to anyone I care about.

      • Hypx@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have two things to point out: I don’t have to believe you on your claims of expertise. And the second is that I can easily accuse you of being decades out of date on your knowledge.

        None of what you said is true anymore. FCEVs are a mature technology, and will cost very little to build. Green hydrogen is plunging in cost, and will be one of the cheapest energy sources out there. None of you claims about “catalyst poisoning” is true anymore.

        So what you are doing is basically being one of those “experts” who attack a revolutionary new technology just as it is taking off. It mirrors solar skeptic just before solar power took off. All your doing is setting yourself up for total embarrassment.

        • Nudding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          don’t have to believe you on your claims of expertise.

          I’m glad you finally understand. That being said, the quality of the content of the other guys comment, compared to your 30 comments, really should be an eye opener to you.

          • Hypx@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re just like some of the others here: Stuck in 2015 and accusing everyone else of being paid by the oil companies.

            Literally no one on the left support these kinds of fanatical anti-hydrogen positions anymore. Just this one Fascist is left. And just a bunch of conspiracy theories as the basis of reasoning. Not even a single coherent counterargument…

            • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Says the person with no actual experience on the matter, unlike the person you are arguing with.

              I am left, and I don’t support hydrogen because it pales compared to the electrical solutions we have and will have in the future. So don’t pretend your viewpoint is universal with the left, because it isn’t far from it.

              I also don’t support Elmo in any way shape or form for your information.

              Hydrogen would only be viable for airplanes, since they require higher density fuel at the lowest weight possible.

              But other than that, hydrogen just isn’t viable in the applications you name. Your EV information is also from 2015, so all your arguments are just projection. Plain and simple.

              • Hypx@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Not only are you wrong, it’s you guys that are just repeating one debunked myth after another. There’s nothing being said hear that I haven’t heard already.

                This is why you guys are stuck in 2015. It’s just a bunch of obsolete drivel that originated from Tesla and other BEV companies.

                If you are really politically left, then why not starting acting politically left? No one on the left opposes hydrogen anymore. This is quickly turning into an extreme political position. Possibly, a far-right position in the near-future.

                If you don’t support Elmo, then stop repeating his lies. It’s like everyone here hasn’t realized that Elmo has been lying for well over a decade. It didn’t just begin with Twitter.

                In the end, FCEVs are also EVs. They are also zero emissions cars. You cannot come up with a coherent reason to oppose them. It is the same style of argument as those that opposed wind, solar, even BEVs too. So there’s only one reason conclusion, and that is to support FCEVs like any other green technology.

            • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              ROFL at your stuck in 2015 comment, I wish I were!

              In 2015, hydrogen was ~$20/kg and trending down to ~$13-16/kg by 2017, with the DOE claiming it to be “about the same cost as gas today” despite the fact that 1 kg H2 is roughly 1 gge, so the costs were about 4x gas costs, and 4x their target of $4/kg at the pump.

              Fast forward to today and guess what, that price kept dropping, and it hit the DOE targets!

              Just kidding - prices this year are up to $36/kg, making the Toyota Mirai one of the highest TCO cars on the market.

              Take me back to 2015 when that hydrogen fuel was half the price!

              • Hypx@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s a local supply issue. It reminds me of the polysilicon shortage of late-2000s. Plenty of people came out of the woodwork to proclaim the solar panel as a dead technology. But the physics of the idea, namely that it’s all made from sand, meant that cost will eventually plunge and it did.

                Hydrogen is the same story. Investment has recently skyrocketed across the world. No one except a few BEV fanatics are still opposed to hydrogen. That is why guys like you are stuck in the past. You are repeating the same story as what people said about wind, solar, even the BEV itself in its early days. It is guaranteed to be wrong.