• CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    If Biden really wanted to stick it to the Chinese auto industry, he’d fund a national build out of hydrogen refueling infrastructure and substantial subsidies for fuel cell production.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Hydrogen weakens the metals that it touches and it explodes. Now you want to have tax dollars install time bombs across the country? Let’s skip hydrogen for safety reasons and use electric. The grid is there and getting charging stations is infinitely easier to install than hydrogen infrastructure.

      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Hydrogen embrittlement is a solved problem. You just design for it. And the grid is not there to support a transition of ICE vehicle fleet to battery electric. A significant build out of infrastructure is required especially for recharging battery powered long haul trucks within reasonable times.

    • dgmib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Hydrogen doesn’t make sense and never did as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in vehicles.

      Most hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, and has a lot of emissions during manufacturing. But even green hydrogen, which is made by using carbon free generated electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen doesn’t make sense.

      If you’ve build new renewable power it’s more efficient to use it to charge batteries than to use it to generate hydrogen.

      There might be a case for compressed hydrogen, In vehicles where batteries are too heavy like aircraft.

      But for road vehicles, batteries are more effective at reducing emission.

      If you’re building any new renewable power, you’ll reduce more emissions by using it to displace coal power, the to generate green hydrogen.

      Some day when we’ve eliminated fossil fuel based electricity generation, Green hydrogen might start to make sense. But anybody trying to do it right now is not being as helpful as they could be.

      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        You’re not really describing a problem with hydrogen powered vehicles. You’re describing the problem with the way we’ve been trying to generate power free of greenhouse gas emissions. As long as the policy makers keep myopically insisting that we only do it with certain renewables, it doesn’t matter if battery electric vehicles are actually more efficient or not. So, on balance, the relative inefficiency of a hydrogen powered fleet is more than made up for by avoiding a massive stream of battery waste that everyone seems to be ignoring.

        • dgmib@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes you’re correct. I will qualify my previous statement as hydrogen powered road vehicles don’t make sense for now.

          The problem at the moment is that electricity generation is not carbon free and in most countries not even close.

          Unfortunately the transition to a carbon free electric grid is being significantly retarded by policymakers that are, as you say, myopic. As a result it will be at least two more decades before hydrogen makes sense.

          The carbon footprint of lithium battery manufacturing, is small compared to the carbon footprint of electricity generation. Until that changes significantly lithium batteries will continue to be a better choice than hydrogen fuel cell.

          Hydrogen may make sense in a future where we’ve eliminated all fossil fuel electricity generation and there’s an abundance of carbon free electricity that can be used to create green hydrogen as a form of energy storage. Though by the time that point comes, we may have developed battery technology or some other energy storage technology that doesn’t carry the same carbon footprint that lithium ion does today.

          • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m not so concerned about the carbon footprint of battery manufacturing as I am with the broader externalities associated with the battery lifecycle. This article is a few years old, but it provides a relevant, sobering assessment of the problem. Hydrogen powered vehicles make sense now because they avoid that problem. They’re also a better choice for anyone whose driving needs would outpace overnight charging of a BEV at home (or anyone with a living situation that precludes it). The current policy of exclusively transitioning the fleet to BEVs is at best a kludge for bad energy policy.

      • Kata1yst@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Nope! And most hydrogen is fossil fuel (methane) derived and horribly energy inefficient. At this point it’s green washing at best.

        Edit: adding data:
        Steam-Methane Reforming (SMR) accounts for about 95% of all hydrogen production on earth. It uses a huge amount of heat, water, and methane to produce hydrogen.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SMR%2BWGS-1.png

        For inputs:

        • 6.2MWh of Heat
        • 2.2 tons of Methane
        • 4.9 tons of pure water

        The outputs are:

        • 6 tons of CO2
        • 1.1 tons of H2

        The overall energy in vs energy out is at most 85% efficient. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016236122001867

        Hydrolysis, the main competing method, and the one most touted by hydrogen backers, accounts for about 4% of hydrogen production.
        This method takes in only pure water and electricity, but it’s efficiency is abysmal at some 52%. In every case, a modern kinetic, thermal, or chemical battery will exceed this efficiency.

        Other methods are being looked into, but it’s thermodynamically impossible for the resulting H2 to produce more energy than it takes to create the H2. So at best today we could use H2 as a crappy battery, one that takes a lot of methane to create.

      • ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yes but hydrogen has storage problems in that it messes with storage containers making long term storage potentially hazardous. How much of that last part is bullshit I am not qualified to answer but it sounds fucky to me.

        • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          That is not true. I’m working on a hydrogen refueling project right now with a steel, ASME code storage vessel. I asked the manufacturer specifically and they confirmed that hydrogen embrittlement is not a concern and does not affect the lifetime of the vessel.

  • Crikeste@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Gotta be great for the economy. Gotta be great for his ‘obligated’ reelection. Gotta be great for the average American. Because America is:

    Racist, xenophobic & capitalistic.

    Sorry Biden voters. You won’t change anything.

  • intelshill@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    BYD made the most rich white suburban mom car in the world (Yangwang U8, look it up) and immediately got kicked out of the market lmao