Remix.run Logo
bombcar 3 hours ago

My understanding is most hydrogen fueling stations produce the hydrogen onsite via electrolysis of water.

EDIT: My understanding was wrong - it's produced locally onsite but via steam-methane reforming: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-na...

jasonwatkinspdx 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Completely wrong.

Globally over 95% of hydrogen is sourced from fossil fuels, particularly natural gas wells. Electrolysis is very limited to niche applications or token projects.

bombcar an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe that's what it was - produced onsite via steam extraction from piped in natural gas (which means you could just as easily burn the natural gas in the vehicle).

Either way there aren't many trucks full of hydrogen zipping around.

mmooss an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The electrolysis needs power and could be fueled by fossil fuels.

hvb2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you can do that at a meaningful rate you might as well install ev charging and just not electrolyse when cars are charging

b112 3 hours ago | parent [-]

He didn't say it doesn't have local tanks. Only that it makes h2 local. You can still make h2 to replenish, and have storage.

This is akin to how almost all power used to charge cars, is not-green. For example, there are still Ng, coal, and other types of power plants. If cars switched to gas, instead of electric charging, then some of those could be shut down.

But the true point, is as we convert to more and more solar, we'll eventually shut down the last of the fossil fuel burner plants, and eventually the cars will all be green power sourced.

Same with h2. Getting non-polling cars out the door and into people's hands, is key. Eventually, where the power comes from will be clean. And really, we're already having issues with power infra, even before AI, so re-purposing Ng pipelines for H2 would be a great thing.

estimator7292 2 hours ago | parent [-]

We won't get rid of natural gas any time soon. Ng pipelines are not in any way similar to H2 pipelines except the word 'pipe'. You can't just put hydrogen in them. You can't even retrofit them. You're looking at laying an entirely new pipeline either way.

Furthermore, most H2 is produced by fossil fuel extraction. We aren't cracking water to get H2, we're pulling it out of the ground. Cracking water is hideously expensive.

All in all, combustion engines are more efficient than green hydrogen. That's the core problem. We simply don't have the absurd amounts of unused energy required for green H2 production. If we did, we'd be pumping fully half of that energy into the atmosphere as waste heat.

Hydrogen cars aren't going to happen. We won't have grid-scale hydrogen. It's just a terrible idea. Hydrogen is too difficult to handle and incredibly dangerous to store. The efficiency is so ludicrously bad that you would genuinely do better to create syngas from captured atmospheric carbon and burn it in regular combustion vehicles.

Avoiding carbon emissions is not the only concern in regards to the climate. Focusing on carbon and nothing else leads you to really dumb and bad ideas like piping hydrogen gas across the continent.

fsh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is not quite true. The original gas pipes in most cities were built for "town gas" which was produced from coal and is 50% hydrogen by volume. The infrastructure could handle hydrogen just fine, but the low conversion efficiencies make it impractical.

b112 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

h2 can be co-mingled with Ng and extracted with a molar filter at the other end.

Ng pipelines are everywhere, so it makes perfect sense.

adastra22 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

None of the pipes or valves are designed for hydrogen. It will steal leak. And leaking a very flammable gas isn’t great.

mike50 a minute ago | parent [-]

Let alone the compressors or the flow measurement equipment. Also significant portions of the pipesline (especially in neighborhoods / last mile) aren't metal anymore.

reamaer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

blibble 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

this is the case while they're in the hype building phase, when people are paying attention

if hydrogen even gained widespread adoption, it would be mass produced via steam reforming of natural gas

(which is why the oil majors are the ones desperately pushing it)

toast0 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Natural gas vehicles make way more sense than hydrogen. But they didn't survive in the (US) market outside specific fleet applications.

Turns out compressed gas fuel is a big PITA.

seanmcdirmid 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

They were popular in Thailand and Cambodia for awhile due to domestic natural gas reserves. But after those wells began to dry up Thailand at least decided EVs were the future instead.

b112 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That makes no sense. If the oil companies were pushing H2, every car would be H2 by now.

H2 can be generated anywhere there is power. Any power that can be used to charge a car's battery, can be used to make H2. Yes, I'm sure you have 1000 reasons, but I don't really care, it's just not reasonable to discredit h2 because of made up paranoia.

We should embrace any way to get a clean running car on the road.

matthewdgreen 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

H2 from electrolysis is wildly expensive. H2 from natural gas is more affordable. Both are alternatives to BEVs, which are the better approach to electrifying transport. If Toyota had gone all in on BEVs when it began its H2 strategy, it would be selling more EVs than Tesla. Instead it entirely ceded the field to others, first Tesla and BYD.

BadBadJellyBean 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But isn't that a counter point? Just putting the electricity directly into a car seems sensible instead of converting it to H2 and then back to electricity. Especially now that wo don't usually have a huge oversupply of green energy. We can think of ways to use the oversupply when it really becomes a problem. But I'd assume then BEV will be so dominant the no one will go through the hassle of supporting H2.

Dylan16807 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> We should embrace any way to get a clean running car on the road.

Only if it's also feasible to fuel that car in a clean way.

And looking at where the hydrogen would come from is not "made up" or "paranoia".

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
Tade0 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's no point. EVs go 50% further on the same amount of energy, are easier to charge and are, of course, cheaper.

blibble 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

say you're Shell

you are vertically integrated, you have billions invested in oilfields, refineries, distribution, and the retail channel ("gas stations")

if transport switches to electric, what's your role?

answer: there isn't one, you are completely redundant

but what if hydrogen took off instead?

if you produce via electrolysis, you only keep the retail channel

but if you can get H2 established, then you can do a switcheroo and feed in H2 produced from your existing natural gas infrastructure, and massively undercut everyone's electrolysis business

at which point you're back to the old days, just instead of selling gasoline from your oilfields, you're supplying hydrogen produced from their gas

... and that's exactly what they're trying to do

constantcrying 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>We should embrace any way to get a clean running car on the road.

No. We should embrace the technically most feasible, which opens up new technology to the most people.

EVs are the clear winners. Every cent spent on hydrogen infrastructure is a cent wasted, because it could go to making the one feasible technology better. Arbitrary openness to technology long after it has been clearly established that the technology is inferior is not a good thing, it is a path to stay on ICEs forever.

Hydrogen is a bad idea. The only way to defend it is by pretending modern EVs do not exist, since they solved all the existing problems and offer numerous benefits over hydrogen.

Additionally the customer has already chosen and he has chosen the right technology, because the value proposition of an EV is far greater than that of a hydrogen car.

hannob 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your understanding is entirely wrong.

Most hydrogen fueling stations receive it from the next steam reformer, which will make it from fossil gas.

aunty_helen 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s not a thing. Anyone who’s seen hydrogen being split from electrolysis knows it takes a lot lot lot of electricity and is very slow. If two people needed to fill up in the same day it would run the well dry.

BadBadJellyBean 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Okay not driving it around then. But somehow it's worse. You still have to build the special tank and the special pump and also get an electrolysis device that is big enough to create enough hydrogen and also you have to get heaps of power somewhere that could instead be just straight put into a battery in a car. Make it make sense. What's the point? Who is willing to do that?

MBCook 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Don’t forget keeping everything cold enough.

On the vehicle side, you can make a gasoline tank in pretty much any shape you want. We have lots of experience making batteries in different shapes thanks to cell phones.

High-pressure tanks only want to be in one shape. And it’s not especially convenient.

BadBadJellyBean 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Is the shape round? I bet it's round.

flir 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ultimately, it's shrapnel-shaped.

BadBadJellyBean 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Is that shrapnel arranged in a roundish pattern?

mmooss an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> battery

Batteries create a lot of toxic waste. I'm willing to live with that if it doesn't cause climate change but there is an advantage to hydrogen? What is the impact of H2 fuel cells?

XorNot an hour ago | parent [-]

Batteries do not create a lot of toxic waste and are essentially fully recyclable.

The lead in automotive lead acid batteries today is almost entirely recovered and remanufactured into new batteries.

deadbabe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn’t this bad? This means H2O molecules are being destroyed and the water is not returning to the water cycle to be reused. We will literally run out of water if everyone did this.

dxdm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Water gets split into oxygen and hydrogen using energy. The hydrogen then gets burned to release usable energy, which creates water. At least as far as I remember from chemistry class ages ago.