/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10631299]

Are hydrogen fuel cells a meme?

[Anonymous No.10631348]

>>10631299
For the most part, yes. The only advantage they have over battery electric vehicles is that they can be refueled faster. They are worse in every other way. Hydrogen is much more expensive to run a car off of than even gasoline, much less BEVs. A Toyota Mirai costs ~21 cents per mile to fuel; meanwhile a standard Camry cost 9 cents per mile, and a Tesla Model 3 3.4 cents per mile. (From fueleconomy.gov)

Hydrogen also requires new, expensive infrastructure to be built. And since hydrogen has such poor energy density per unit of volume, you would need several trucks to replace each gas truck, much larger storage tanks, that are more expensive to build due to pressure requirements for each gas tank, and so on. Electric cars can largely piggyback off the existing grid. Look at how Tesla has been able to build a charging network that covers most of North America, Western Europe, and a nice hunk of East Asia. Meanwhile, much larger companies like Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai have been unwilling/unable to do the same for the hydrogen vehicles they sell.

And finally, the price of batteries has been dropping faster than the price of a fuel cell + the high pressure storage tanks you need. A long range Tesla Model 3 is more than $10k cheaper than a Toyota Mirai, for example.

[Anonymous No.10631478]

>>10631299
No. Hydrogen is the future. In terms of energy density you just can't be hydrogen. Plus fuel cells can be more efficient than heat engines. The future may be far away though. The alternative is direct conversion of chemical energy to mechanical energy.

[Anonymous No.10631763]

>>10631478
Hydrogen cells look more complex though. Complexity=malfunctions and costly repairs.

[Anonymous No.10631793]

>>10631299
Electric charging prices are currently skyrocketing
Hydrogen fuel stations are already using a single international standard

Hydrogen is a good meme, batteries are not an option for long distance travel

[Anonymous No.10631822]

>>10631299
For transportation, fuel cells are more efficient than batteries for med to long range (>= 150km).
The real challenge comes with the way H2 is produced/stored: it's either not energy efficient, or not sustainable if it's produced from natural gas.

FC tech is very promising but it still needs to overcome many hurdles before being competitive.
Fortunately progresses in the field are made quite regularly.

[Anonymous No.10631836]

>>10631763
Blow it out your ass. You just can't beat the energy desnity of hydrogen. Batteries can't even get close.

[Anonymous No.10631866]

>>10631348
We just need more R&D, electric cars were not developed over night and hydrogen cars were not, and cannot, be either.

[Anonymous No.10631926]

An alternative technology could be artificial methane produced in high temperature nuclear reactors.
Then you can have cheap conventional cars with no toxic fumes and no CO2.

[Anonymous No.10632140]

Hydrogen is the future but even if the technology is better its not necessarily the one that is going to win. It all matters on infrastructure and where the industry is going. Asian countries are going more towards hydrogen but NA and Europe are going towards full EV. Which ever has the upper hand in the end will win regardless of which one is superior since both are better than gasoline.

[Anonymous No.10632156]

>one day there are going to be neglected shitheap cars on the road with 30 year old high pressure hydrogen vessels getting into crashes

nooooo thanks

[Anonymous No.10632229]

>>10632156
Where I live there are already a lot of cars running on methane, which is very similar.
The numbers are big enough to be statistically significant and they say clearly there is no more danger.
In practice gas tanks are quite sturdy and positioned in the most protected zone of the vehicle.
If an accident was powerful enough to break those, occupants would be already dead anyway because of the impact.

[Anonymous No.10632234]

>>10631478
>>10631836
Hydrogen has very poor energy density per unit of volume, which is the usual constraining factor. Then add in the weight of the high-pressure storage tanks you need and it doesn't look so hot on energy per mass either. The Toyota Mirai ends up being a 120 kg heavier than a RWD Tesla Model 3 LR, and the Tesla has a slightly longer range. So whatever theoretical energy density advantage hydrogen has doesn't translate into real world use.

[Anonymous No.10632236]

>>10632156
You are supposed to stop using fuel cell vehicles 15 years after the manufacturer date. Or have the fuel system completely overhauled. People listen to the stickers, right?

[Anonymous No.10632270]

>>10631478
>you just can't be hydrogen
it's actually surprisingly lame when you crunch the numbers
https://youtu.be/xU-LDZ0HTGc?t=2m50s

[Anonymous No.10633412]

>>10631478
It still has a higher energy density by mass. Pic related. It's the fucking space shuttle. You see that big orange tank? That's got fucking hydrogen in it. That shit's going into space. Can fucking batteries propel themselves into orbit? Didn't fucking think so.
>>weight of the high-pressure storage tanks
we can make better tanks and ways to store hydrogen. I do think this future is far off. And before you shit on hydrogen again get a load of this:
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/637123main_Silvera_Presentation.pdf
How's that for volumetric energy density? I will admit that this is fucking crazy. But who fucking knows where matsci will be in 50 years. Ok, so maybe lithium air batteries could theoretically do better than hydrogen, but the problem with air batteries is that they get heavier as you run them. The nice thing about hydrogen is that the end result is just water which you can easily exhaust. Hydrogen really is the future of energy though. You are forgetting that there's another way you can produce energy from hydrogen: fusion. Sure the reaction rate is fucking low in nature, but hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Perhaps we can find a way to convert hydrogen from mass directly to energy? And I mean hydrogen not deuterium or tritium, because we can do that already.
>>1063227
fuck you faggot. I ain't watching all that shit just to argue with you. Give me some fucking text rather than a goddamn youtuber who's probably just making up stuff just to get views.

[Anonymous No.10633416]

[Anonymous No.10633488]

>>10631348
This. Hydrogen and fuel cells are not suitable for transportation now or in a near future. Eletric cars will be the standard and (hopefully) promote more efficient energy conversion technologies (e.g. FC). Probably in the future both technologies will co-exist and methane (NG/syngas/biogas) will fill the gaps in the transition to hydrogen economy.

[Anonymous No.10633537]

>>10631348
>this
The *only* thing they could feasibly be used for, is long haul trucking. But that's only if you assume a perfect storm of electricty prices, carbon taxes, and poor battery charge time gains. And even if those three factors aligned and God smiled down upon you so that hydrogen OTR trucks penciled out without considering infrastructure costs, it would probably still be better to build overhead lines over interstates and run the trucks off of electricty that way, or build new rail infrastructure to replace them as medium speed transport. But there is at least a possibility that hydrogen infrastructure, which would essentially mirror our current oil infrastructure but less efficient, might by cheaper than interstate catenary. But again, it only makes sense if electricity prices plummet, we start significantly taxing carbon, and batteries remain shitty at recharging. End even then, the most you'd ever see is long haul trucks using it.

[Anonymous No.10633658]

>battery electric cars for passenger vehicles, buses and other short-range trips
>hydrogen fuel cells for trucks, ships, and military vehicles

Why can't they coexist? Is there no future where lithium and hydrogen dab on fossil fuels together and save the human race?

[Anonymous No.10633751]

>>10631926
>methane
>no toxic fumes and no CO2
pick 1
>>10631299
Hydrogen is the future. Make it from water. Burn it, e-cell it, fuse it.

[Anonymous No.10634052]

>>10631299
Cities are build wrongly if you need to transport that much as avg. human need today. It's whole fucked up.

[Anonymous No.10634199]

>>10633537
>The *only* thing they could feasibly be used for, is long haul trucking.
Shipping is probably the best-case scenario for hydrogen. Short refuelling times are a requirement, the low density doesn't matter much, and the enormous size of the tanks makes the insulation and pressure vessel less of a concern. I suspect methane would be more practical though.

>>10633658
The military aren't going to go near hydrogen.