Right. Couldn’t be the monopolies protected in the fossil fuel & auto industries. Just a totally organic, politically backed opposition to cheap fueling with one of the most abundant resources on the planet.
It’s not abundance that matters, it’s availability. It takes a ton of energy to separate (usually from fossil fuels) and then compress (to seven fucking hundred atmospheres). By the time you’re done it’s barely more efficient than gas itself, just with no local emissions. And it’s anything but cheap, it’s similar price to gas.
I haven’t charged my car at a “station” since my last road trip, almost a year ago. Plug it at home, ready next day. In summer, for free, and with green energy from solar panels.
If monopolies had so much power, BEVs and hybrids wouldn’t exist. Or they would support Toyota and launch H2 cars themselves.
Hydrogen is just inferior to batteries for passanger cars. Could be a solution for long haul where batteries start to be too heavy.
Hydrogen is not created by electrolysis powered by fossil fuels. Most is created by SMR directly from methane.
But since you insist:
charging a battery is about 90% efficient. You put 10 kWh in, you get 9kWh in. Discharching is more than 90% efficient, let’s say 80% source to motor. Pulling 10 kWh from the socket gives the motor 8kWh to work with.
electrysis of water has a typical efficiency of 70%, in lab conditions 80%. Then you need to compress it, creating heat and losing another 10%. Finally, fuel cells are about 50% efficient, leaving you around 30% of the original energy. So pulling 10kWh from the socket leaves you with 3kWh to drive with.
That’s (among others) how batteries are superior to hydrogen.
My point is you’re gaslighting to pretend that fossil fuels burnt to power EV’s are better fossil fuels burnt to power electrolysis.
They both need the energy source to be made clean, but hydrogen will be cleaner at that point, regardless of the efficiency issues (which are already being addressed).
I just wrote why fossil fuels burnt for charging EVs are better than electrolysis. Not gaslighting, just math. Almost triple better in fact. Did you read it or just plugged you ears and sang very loudly?
And again, if you have fossil fuels you don’t do electrolysis, there’s better, more efficient methods to reform methane into hydrogen. Not close to the efficiency of batteries, but better than electrolysis. Use better arguments to defend your opinion, man.
And on top of that, think about the infrastructure. Compressing, transporting and even storing hydrogen requires complex equipment. I can generate green energy at home and charge my car with it, right now. We’ll, not right know as it almost midnight, but I did it earlier today. Not at some point in the future, not addressing issues and maybe and perhaps. Literally today. No transport, other than the cables from my roof to my car.
And if I didn’t have solar panels I could buy a generator for 300 bucks and create my electricity at home with some gasoline.
Right. Couldn’t be the monopolies protected in the fossil fuel & auto industries. Just a totally organic, politically backed opposition to cheap fueling with one of the most abundant resources on the planet.
It’s not abundance that matters, it’s availability. It takes a ton of energy to separate (usually from fossil fuels) and then compress (to seven fucking hundred atmospheres). By the time you’re done it’s barely more efficient than gas itself, just with no local emissions. And it’s anything but cheap, it’s similar price to gas.
I haven’t charged my car at a “station” since my last road trip, almost a year ago. Plug it at home, ready next day. In summer, for free, and with green energy from solar panels.
If monopolies had so much power, BEVs and hybrids wouldn’t exist. Or they would support Toyota and launch H2 cars themselves.
Hydrogen is just inferior to batteries for passanger cars. Could be a solution for long haul where batteries start to be too heavy.
Please explain how a battery charged from fossil fuels is superior to electrolysis powered by fossil fuels.
Hydrogen is not created by electrolysis powered by fossil fuels. Most is created by SMR directly from methane.
But since you insist:
That’s (among others) how batteries are superior to hydrogen.
My point is you’re gaslighting to pretend that fossil fuels burnt to power EV’s are better fossil fuels burnt to power electrolysis.
They both need the energy source to be made clean, but hydrogen will be cleaner at that point, regardless of the efficiency issues (which are already being addressed).
I just wrote why fossil fuels burnt for charging EVs are better than electrolysis. Not gaslighting, just math. Almost triple better in fact. Did you read it or just plugged you ears and sang very loudly?
And again, if you have fossil fuels you don’t do electrolysis, there’s better, more efficient methods to reform methane into hydrogen. Not close to the efficiency of batteries, but better than electrolysis. Use better arguments to defend your opinion, man.
And on top of that, think about the infrastructure. Compressing, transporting and even storing hydrogen requires complex equipment. I can generate green energy at home and charge my car with it, right now. We’ll, not right know as it almost midnight, but I did it earlier today. Not at some point in the future, not addressing issues and maybe and perhaps. Literally today. No transport, other than the cables from my roof to my car.
And if I didn’t have solar panels I could buy a generator for 300 bucks and create my electricity at home with some gasoline.
You can also create hydrogen at home. Which is why companies oppose it.
Please tell me you top 5 favorite hydrogen compressors. Oh, you mean putting a 9v battery in salt water to create bubbles? How fun!
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2024/july/green-hydrogen-via-water-electrolysis/
I don’t understand this obsessive commitment to larger batteries, and anti-hydrogen tech. It’s not an either-or. The technologies work together.