Hydrogen, baby!
- Thread starter Marcozi
- Start date
MolaKule
Staff member
This in my opinion is just another technology demonstration rabbit hole.
Tech demonstration? Yes! Rabbit hole? No. This is actually the prefect environment for using hydrogen as the trucks aren't driven far from the refueling facility and California has excess electricity primarily because the widespread adoption of solar energy.
The economics of hydrogen generation just simply don’t work. It’s way too expensive to make any economic sense.
Plus, there’s that Hindenburg possibility…
If this were true, explain the rolling brown/blackouts and the highest electricity prices in the country, please…
Ok, let me try to be open to this idea...
Does hydrogen avoid the heavy battery weight that BEV's have? That seems to be a hindrance to large trucks. Drop the weight, perhaps it has an advantage.
But ultimately... what is the CO2 per mile? and on everyone's mind, cost/mile, since that is usually the main running cost? Initial cost is important too but if this doesn't make less CO2/mile then what was the point (other than looking good)?
Does hydrogen avoid the heavy battery weight that BEV's have? That seems to be a hindrance to large trucks. Drop the weight, perhaps it has an advantage.
But ultimately... what is the CO2 per mile? and on everyone's mind, cost/mile, since that is usually the main running cost? Initial cost is important too but if this doesn't make less CO2/mile then what was the point (other than looking good)?
Rolling black/brown outs were caused by transmission lines and other infrastructure not being able to deliver the necessary power. The latest article I read (within the last 30 days) is that on sunny days the level of renewable energy generated in CA basically drives the cost of electricity below $0.00. The issue here is storage. That's the big issue.
California’s net electricity imports from other states are the largest in the country.
Yes, these trucks don't rely on batteries. The H2 is stored at high pressures (>200X atmospheres) in truck tanks. The trucks are able to drive about 400 miles on a single refill/charge. Refilling takes not much longer than filling the fuel tank on a diesel rig. These truck produce water and not CO2. So, the issue of CO2 is in the generation of H2. California has an excess of renewable energy production thanks to widespread installation of solar cell on roof tops. The cost is likely very high, at this point. The trucks are in production in Korea by Hyundai. But as the adoption of hydrogen fuel increase, the cost of the hydrolyzers and the related equipment will shrink.
I beg to differ with you. I read an article in the last 30 days that California produced excess electricity on sunny days. This is due to the widespread adoption of solar panels. The issue is there isn't enough storage of that excess electrical power.
California’s net electricity imports from other states are the largest in the country.
It will never gain traction imo for reasons best not discussed on the forum.
The cost of producing hydrogen will decrease drastically as the adoption of renewable energy becomes more widespread. A university in Australia has developed a process and equipment that is almost 100% efficient in the separation of oxygen from hydrogen.
The Hindenburg's hydrogen was stored in gas bags. The pressure of the hydrogen was about equal to the local atmospheric pressure. The hydrogen in these trucks is stored at pressures in excess of 200 atmospheres. The vid didn't say what the tanks are made of, but other vehicles have used glass re-enforced plastic tanks. With modern vehicle designs the tanks are well protected.
That would be interesting. I've read that compression is less than 50% efficient, not my area of expertise though.
But that's the thing. If the electricity to make H2 was free then who cares what the losses are. Problem is, is anything for free? Does the stack of losses wind up with less CO2 and less money per mile?
This is an oft-repeated fallacy. @OVERKILL has posted why… the sunk & ongoing costs of maintenance of the green technologies far outstrips any Financial benefits. I believe overkill’s chart showed nuclear was about 1/25 the cost of solar and wind. Sure, the individual rate may come down, but as generation expands, so do costs to maintain.
Is that why they tell us not to use our AC so that people can charge their cars?
I'm happy to see other technologies for vehicles come to fruition. I'm all for alternative's & this might give companies more options to reduce emissions while potentially saving money. Good video!
Isn't it better to fail & learn from something that may not work rather than just throwing the idea in the trash for fear of it not working...This is progress & this is what evolution looks like.
Isn't it better to fail & learn from something that may not work rather than just throwing the idea in the trash for fear of it not working...This is progress & this is what evolution looks like.
Those drivers get home everyday. That truck has a long wheelbase to accommodate the fuel cell and also uses a cabover with no legit sized sleeper for the North American driver. How long would a truck need to be in the OTR segment with a proper sleeper?
There is a lot more to CA energy problems (and crazy costs!) than just generating it. Distribution is a mess and many of the providers have a monopoly.
California’s net electricity imports from other states are the largest in the country.
We are way far off from that.
My career path for the past 27yrs has been "making" hydrogen in cryogenic liquid form and trucking it all over the country. One cryo tanker truck holds enough liquid to vaporize into ~1.3 million cubic feet of gas. The electricity needs to produce usable volumes of H2 gas are staggering. Distribution costs are extremely costly.
You could conceivably have a home electrolysis "plant" to extract H2 out of water and fill a gas receiver, but the volumes would be very small at a high electrical load/cost.
Similar threads
