70 points

Hydrogen is a dead end. Always has been. But a bunch of people are stuck with sunk costs now.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

Its just not aiming for the right markets. Its perfect for replacing heavy fuel user where fueling up is already restricted to limited locations like diesel generator trains, massive 18 wheelers and boats, but not for individual car market.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

And any number of industrial processes. It’s great for smelting steel from ore, for example.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Or injecting into natural gas. Up to 10% hydrogen is generally tolerated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Hydrogen is already in development in commercial vehicles.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s already in production in industrial vehicles such as fork lifts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

It would’ve been a great transition from fossil fuel, had we embraced it before EV tech was consumer ready. Now it’s just a step backward.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

Hydrogen was never and will never be a viable and efficient transportation fuel

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Special exception maybe for aviation and rocketry. But even then, methane (if made using green energy and the Sebatier process).

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Pshh you haven’t seen the peaks of blimp technology. On May 6th when they launch the Hindenburg we’ll see who gets the last laugh.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Why do you think that? The fuel production side or the fuel consumption side?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Honestly, this is probably the best utility out of FCEB I’ve seen so far. It was always a dead-end for cars, but for short-term portable uses, this is great. There’s actually a HUGE industry around portable butane that could be replaced with something like this.

Recreational, Construction, Culinary, Aviation…imagine replacing all of that with this as a solution, and you’ve got something. We’d obviously need to see some specs to see if it’s possible. It’s not going to make as much money as millions of cars on the road, but perhaps useful enough it will get uptake.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Including culinary in there doesn’t help your cause.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Every post about hydrogen gets a negative reaction, like someone has proposed using coal to power cars.

There are different suitable applications for different types of energy, it’s not a situation where you have to pick one solution and that’s it. I notice the same happens to some degree with posts about nuclear power.

Hydrogen has potential in things like shipping, aviation, trains and industry. Even if the exact concept in the article doesn’t work, the lessons learned might advance technology in other projects.

permalink
report
reply
24 points
*

The negative reaction comes from the fact that most hydrogen is produced by an energy intensive process that uses steam to crack petroleum products, and oil companies like BP have invested millions in greenwashing it to sound good.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I understand there is green hydrogen and blue hydrogen and considered adding a paragraph on that in my comment, but didn’t.

I know most hydrogen isn’t green, but there isn’t a reason it couldn’t be some day.

It makes some sense to me to use the currently more economically viable blue hydrogen in developing technology, but I do agree it is far from perfect.

Considering all this, I still think the negativity to hydrogen progress isn’t proportional.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

This is why the negativity is not proportional enough… why are the oil companies pushing for this? It’s not so the wind and solar farms can split water in the future and cut them out of the equation, it’s to delay BEV adoption and try to create a future where they are needed to supplement the horrible efficiencies of hydrogen production, and the need to transport it all over the world.

None of these companies are trying to be altruistic, they are actively destroying the environment and buying influence, to continue making money by doing it.

Batteries are more efficient, more energy dense, cheaper, last for decades and can be 97+% recycled after those decades of service to produce batteries that are even more efficient.

Hydrogen has lost the battle for transport power.

I will cheer any Hydrogen progress that is not attempting to be applied to something that already has a greener alternative.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

I think it’s the knowledge that hydrogen tech is being pushed so hard by the oil lobbies because it’s currently most cheaply made by refining it out of oil using massive amounts of electricity which they can generate by burning more oil.

The astroturfing of hydrogen as a green fuel is disgusting, and straight out of the “Natural gas” playbook that got it piped to virtually every home in the western world over the last 200 years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I replied to the person above you who made essentially the same comment.

I understand that part and somewhat agree, but still think progress is cool. Especially in a futurology post.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I’ll agree that learning how to better work with and contain hydrogen could have some future benefits, and research should absolutely be made in those directions. Until those key issues are dealt with, hydrogen isn’t useful as a consumer energy source/store since it has been surpassed by batteries/electricity in almost every area it would be useful (and isn’t mature enough to be competitive in the areas it hasn’t been surpassed),

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

The “problem” is that hydrogen is an extremely complicated way for some people to save like 40 minutes per year over charging an EV in a handful of very specific circumstances, which really highlights just how fucked we actually are in terms of direct climate action.

Like, as it stands an EV already means you get to wake up every morning with a fueled vehicle instead of needing to divert to a disgusting gas station every other week. The only circumstance where charging time is an issue is on long trips, where it adds roughly 20 minutes for 4 hours traveled. and we are supposed to believe that the solution to this is handling a pressurized gas which readily defuses through solid steel containment vessels? Because that is somehow the solution to the one trip per year you take which requires highway charging? The information space here is literally “owning an EV means you can only watch 137 reruns of House in 2025 instead of 138,” but you actually think people are going to be fine with an 800psi hydrogen tank which leaks at a rate of $1 per day?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

If you only want to talk about EVs, current technology and specific circumstances, sure.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

Sigh…

  1. Still haven’t solved the problem of hydrogen being developed with less than ideal energy e.g. fossil fuel.
  2. No one wants to build the infrastructure to push all of that hydrogen around.
  3. Creating hydrogen still is too costly.

So nice to see a portable solution but still does nothing to address what’s actually keeping hydrogen as a viable alternative.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

FFS Japan . . stop this noise. Do the hard (and right) thing and go fix your grid. Yes, you got rather screwed post war. Deal with it - and sort it out.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Sounds life a waste disposal nightmare

permalink
report
reply
8 points

They’re reusable and we don’t have a problem with 5 gallon propane tanks so I don’t see why these gas cylinders would be worse.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Hydrogen. I don’t know how Toyota has handled it and didn’t read the article yet, but those molecules are so tiny they get into everything and cause problems.

Edit: Article says nothing of use on the subject, and it sounds like this is at the concept phase anyway, so it’s probably vapourware.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Community stats

  • 1.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 614

    Posts

  • 2.7K

    Comments