Because of how little we use it. If we didn’t jump on totally wrong tech and used it in electric cars instead of batteries, we’d be producing an abundance of it using green energy.
Water is non issue since it doesn’t have to be too close to generators. We kinda figured out how to transfer electricity where we need it.
Transporting it is a small issue but we’re already transporting a lot of liquid gasses and other flammable stuff like gasoline.
If nothing else it could be used by millions of semis for which current battery tech is absolutely fucking useless and likely will remain that way for decades.
But really if we didn’t jump on completely wrong tech years ago and just switched to hydrogen instead of batteries, we would have cars with zero emissions, zero range issues and zero charging problems a decade ago.
Water is non issue since it doesn’t have to be too close to generators. We kinda figured out how to transfer electricity where we need it.
If you can transport the electricity then you can find better, more efficient uses for it (e.g. EV charging)
Transporting it is a small issue but we’re already transporting a lot of liquid gasses and other flammable stuff like gasoline.
So, you want to liquefy hydrogen? Below 20 kelvin? As a gas it’s much more difficult to contain than methane. It’s nothing like gasoline.
If nothing else it could be used by millions of semis for which current battery tech is absolutely fucking useless and likely will remain that way for decades.
All it takes is an additional, interchangeable, battery trailer.
But really if we didn’t jump on completely wrong tech years ago and just switched to hydrogen instead of batteries,
Nah. Hydrogen is very inefficient to produce and difficult to store. It does have niche use cases like for ammonia and methanol products
we would have cars with zero emissions, zero range issues and zero charging problems a decade ago.
I think you have a point here. Hydrogen was mature enough a decade ago. If a distribution network existed, backed by a cheap source of electricity production then EV tech wouldn’t get a foothold.
We already transport electricity and then it is just wasted because we don’t need that much of it during peak green energy generation. You would use this otherwise wasted energy and store it in hydrogen.
You have no real argument here so you’re bringing in useless semantics. We’re already transporting and storing hydrogen in liquid form without any issues.
You have to realize just how idiotic the idea of a battery trailer is. Current, garbage batteries barely able to achieve 250 mi of range are 25% of car’s weight.
It doesn’t matter how inefficient hydrogen is to produce because we’d be using energy that is currently just wasted.
We already transport electricity and then it is just wasted because we don’t need that much of it during peak green energy generation.
There are 2 types of waste, one where prices are negative. These are is best captured by efficient storage, like EV and pumped hydro NOT inefficient hydrogen. Long term, if there is a huge excess of electricity for long periods of time, then investment in hydrogen equipment may be economical.
The second type is from grid congestion. Here hydrogen production has a role because it can be co-located
You would use this otherwise wasted energy and store it in hydrogen.
Better to invest in batteries than electrolyzers.
We’re already transporting and storing hydrogen in liquid form without any issues.
There is the issue of needing, for equivalent energy, 30 tube trailers of hydrogen to replace one tanker of diesel. Extending the electricity grid is a better option than building hydrogen pipelines.
You have to realize just how idiotic the idea of a battery trailer is.
And that’s how they successfully programmed everyone to think hydrogen is bad. Green hydrogen, if it becomes successful, can compete with oil/gas. Unlike batteries, you can transport/import/export the energy.
I’m not really following. I don’t think anybody would complain if green hydrogen were more available, people are only complaining because Petrol Hydrogen is 98% of the market or more.
Yup, that’s the exact talking point they want spread all over the media. Notice how we’re no longer talking about “petrol”. They want people to associate “Petrol” and “Hydrogen”. The “petrol” can go unnoticed while the “hydrogen” gets all the bad press. And after all, you can’t not use petrol if green hydrogen were more available.
Oil companies really made hydrogen sound evil. Maybe that’s what they wanted all along.
Exactly. Hydrogen can be produced easily with all the green energy produced during off peak that is otherwise wasted.
But it’s usually produced by processing oil instead.
Because of how little we use it. If we didn’t jump on totally wrong tech and used it in electric cars instead of batteries, we’d be producing an abundance of it using green energy.
You need water and transport, and someone to use it once it’s made.
Water is non issue since it doesn’t have to be too close to generators. We kinda figured out how to transfer electricity where we need it.
Transporting it is a small issue but we’re already transporting a lot of liquid gasses and other flammable stuff like gasoline.
If nothing else it could be used by millions of semis for which current battery tech is absolutely fucking useless and likely will remain that way for decades.
But really if we didn’t jump on completely wrong tech years ago and just switched to hydrogen instead of batteries, we would have cars with zero emissions, zero range issues and zero charging problems a decade ago.
If you can transport the electricity then you can find better, more efficient uses for it (e.g. EV charging)
So, you want to liquefy hydrogen? Below 20 kelvin? As a gas it’s much more difficult to contain than methane. It’s nothing like gasoline.
All it takes is an additional, interchangeable, battery trailer.
Nah. Hydrogen is very inefficient to produce and difficult to store. It does have niche use cases like for ammonia and methanol products
I think you have a point here. Hydrogen was mature enough a decade ago. If a distribution network existed, backed by a cheap source of electricity production then EV tech wouldn’t get a foothold.
We already transport electricity and then it is just wasted because we don’t need that much of it during peak green energy generation. You would use this otherwise wasted energy and store it in hydrogen.
You have no real argument here so you’re bringing in useless semantics. We’re already transporting and storing hydrogen in liquid form without any issues.
You have to realize just how idiotic the idea of a battery trailer is. Current, garbage batteries barely able to achieve 250 mi of range are 25% of car’s weight.
It doesn’t matter how inefficient hydrogen is to produce because we’d be using energy that is currently just wasted.
There are 2 types of waste, one where prices are negative. These are is best captured by efficient storage, like EV and pumped hydro NOT inefficient hydrogen. Long term, if there is a huge excess of electricity for long periods of time, then investment in hydrogen equipment may be economical.
The second type is from grid congestion. Here hydrogen production has a role because it can be co-located
Better to invest in batteries than electrolyzers.
There is the issue of needing, for equivalent energy, 30 tube trailers of hydrogen to replace one tanker of diesel. Extending the electricity grid is a better option than building hydrogen pipelines.
https://www.fastcompany.com/91014866/this-trailer-can-turn-diesel-semi-trucks-into-hybrids-in-just-5-minutes
Hydrogen energy per volume is equivalent to an EV battery, and volume is what is most important in transportation.
First you need to invest in hydrogen electrolysis, large scale storage, transport and a fleet of hydrogen vehicles and stations.
Or avoid all that expense and just use batteries.
Technically, the majority of Hydrogen is produced as a petroleum steam cracking byproduct. More of a Coal/Coke Company stance to hate hydrogen.
And that’s how they successfully programmed everyone to think hydrogen is bad. Green hydrogen, if it becomes successful, can compete with oil/gas. Unlike batteries, you can transport/import/export the energy.
I’m not really following. I don’t think anybody would complain if green hydrogen were more available, people are only complaining because Petrol Hydrogen is 98% of the market or more.
Yup, that’s the exact talking point they want spread all over the media. Notice how we’re no longer talking about “petrol”. They want people to associate “Petrol” and “Hydrogen”. The “petrol” can go unnoticed while the “hydrogen” gets all the bad press. And after all, you can’t not use petrol if green hydrogen were more available.