Hydrogen waste way more energy than batteries.
Also the infrastructure for EV is built on the electric grid, and is way easier to expand, than building a universally accessible hydrogen infrastructure.
Finally you can charge your EV at home, no such chance with hydrogen.
Hydrogen may have a place in the future, but I don’t think it’s in personal cars.
Maybe in planes, trucks, and ships. That all have more specialized infrastructure. But probably not until we have very cheap renewable and surplus energy, so the wasteful method isn’t as much an issue.
But storage remains an issue, because you can’t contain hydrogen 100 %, which has a nucleus of only 1 proton, making it able to permeate every material in existence.
Edit:
Added the emphasis, because someone interpreted it as if it can’t be contained at all.
Of course hydrogen tanks exist, but you are very naive if you don̈́’t recognize there’s an issue with storing hydrogen.
Hydrogen has extremely low density and requires very high pressure for storage, and the fact that Hydrogen permeates EVERYTHING, there is obviously leakage from ANY tank!!
There are of course technical issues which we have overcome. We used to struggle with storing water until we invented pottery, too, but that doesn’t mean that indoor plumbing isn’t viable, does it?
Batteries also self-discharge, btw, far more than hydrogen leaks – and batteries are considerably heavier, more dangerous, and less energy dense.
You obviously don’t understand the difference between hydrogen and every other form of gas. Another issue with hydrogen is that it is extremely chemically active, and will make steel brittle.
But you just continue your arrogant ignorance.
Of course there will always be a “best” form of container, but you can never make a perfect container that actually contains it completely, like you can with everything else.
There is no point in discussing this further with you. You are firmly in denial about the facts of the matter. Have fun in your alternate reality where hydrogen storage isn’t a solved problem.
storage remains an issue, because you can’t contain hydrogen
I’m glad you’re walking your claim back, at least, but the fact you made it tells me that you are arguing to defend a pre-held position, rather than discussing the matter with me to find consensus. Your persistent need to claim I do not understand the complexities of hydrogen storage underscores that fact.
There is one disadvantage hydrogen has over battery electrics, and that is the matter of efficiency, which I freely admit, I just don’t see it as a major problem, because we can generate it completely cleanly from renewable energy, which makes it significantly cleaner and cheaper in the long run compared to the highly extractivist BEVs.
But yeah, anyways, I’m sure you’ll come up with any number of rationalizations to justify your pre-existing beliefs, change is hard, I get it.
OK, obviously I mean you can’t contain it 100% like with other things. Hydrogen will always slowly seep out of any container.
I have edited the post to reflect the 100%, specifically in your honor.
Transport will always be necessary, and we’ve done it with oil based fuels for more than a century.
Even electricity requires transportation through wires, to charge an EV, and when charged the car needs to transport the electricity with it in a battery.
AFAIK the waste transporting electricity in the electric grid is about 10% on average.
But I agree that the way we transport electricity is way more elegant and practical.
There are a number of advantages to hydrogen fuel - recharging is easier and much, much faster, a full charge gets you much further, it allows for usage of vehicles in areas without an functioning or reliable electrical grid, it’s considerably more energy-dense meaning that vehicles can be lighter, and it’s considerably safer - fires caused by thermal runaway in EVs have been deadly.
I’m not saying you have to agree with me, there are obviously pros and cons to both technologies, but acting like there are no reasons beyond “idiots want to buy a liquid”, is just incorrect, and rude.
I honestly don’t think you’re going to move the aviation industry from hydrocarbons.
Unless there is some MASSIVE breakthrough in battery technology in terms of power density, you’re not going to see battery electric aircraft. There are a few hilariously pathetic ones in development or small volume sale, I saw James May fly one, it had an endurance of less than an hour. Maybe you’ll get a BEA to match the performance of a Skyhawk and those will be suitable for personal aircraft or primary trainers. Maybe.
In the transport category? Not a chance. Aircraft much larger than a Beech C90 and maybe even then, the max takeoff weight is greater than the max landing weight. For shorter hops, they load less fuel, for longer hops they assume the plane will burn enough fuel to be below max landing weight on arrival. Batteries don’t get lighter as they are discharged.
Another thing: liquid fuel is extremely convenient for airplanes, because the fuel tanks are just…the inside volume of the wings. They seal the internal volume of the structure and there you go, fuel tank. Who cares exactly what shape it is, liquid conforms to the shape of its container. Gaseous fuels require pressure tanks, which are going to add significant empty weight, and offer less internal volume. And we’re just not going to deal with cryogenic fuels in civilian aviation; they only put up with that shit in rocketry because they outright have to.
Not for main propulsion of aircraft; to do the work of a jet airliner, you’d need electric motors driving ducted fans and fuel cells plus transmission cables and such capable of handling 5 to 10 megawatts. You’d also need to figure out a source of hot high pressure air for deicing systems and cabin pressure as that’s usually taken from the compressors of the main engines. You’ll see hydrogen burning turbofans before you see fuel cell powered airliners. I could see a fuel cell replace a turbine APU if you did build a hydrogen powered jet though.
And exactly how do you conclude that? That quad propeller Airbus design is at least 100 passengers, and Airbus say you can also burn Hydrogen directly in jet engines.
Hydrogen waste way more energy than batteries.
Also the infrastructure for EV is built on the electric grid, and is way easier to expand, than building a universally accessible hydrogen infrastructure.
Finally you can charge your EV at home, no such chance with hydrogen.
Hydrogen may have a place in the future, but I don’t think it’s in personal cars.
Maybe in planes, trucks, and ships. That all have more specialized infrastructure. But probably not until we have very cheap renewable and surplus energy, so the wasteful method isn’t as much an issue.
But storage remains an issue, because you can’t contain hydrogen 100 %, which has a nucleus of only 1 proton, making it able to permeate every material in existence.
Edit:
Added the emphasis, because someone interpreted it as if it can’t be contained at all.
Your blind adherence to the status quo goes so far as to deny the existence of hydrogen tanks, for fucks sake.
Of course hydrogen tanks exist, but you are very naive if you don̈́’t recognize there’s an issue with storing hydrogen.
Hydrogen has extremely low density and requires very high pressure for storage, and the fact that Hydrogen permeates EVERYTHING, there is obviously leakage from ANY tank!!
There are of course technical issues which we have overcome. We used to struggle with storing water until we invented pottery, too, but that doesn’t mean that indoor plumbing isn’t viable, does it?
Batteries also self-discharge, btw, far more than hydrogen leaks – and batteries are considerably heavier, more dangerous, and less energy dense.
You obviously don’t understand the difference between hydrogen and every other form of gas. Another issue with hydrogen is that it is extremely chemically active, and will make steel brittle.
But you just continue your arrogant ignorance.
Of course there will always be a “best” form of container, but you can never make a perfect container that actually contains it completely, like you can with everything else.
There is no point in discussing this further with you. You are firmly in denial about the facts of the matter. Have fun in your alternate reality where hydrogen storage isn’t a solved problem.
I never claimed you can’t store Hydrogen, it’s not a big problem for short term storage, but you can’t store it like you can everything else.
I’m glad you’re walking your claim back, at least, but the fact you made it tells me that you are arguing to defend a pre-held position, rather than discussing the matter with me to find consensus. Your persistent need to claim I do not understand the complexities of hydrogen storage underscores that fact.
There is one disadvantage hydrogen has over battery electrics, and that is the matter of efficiency, which I freely admit, I just don’t see it as a major problem, because we can generate it completely cleanly from renewable energy, which makes it significantly cleaner and cheaper in the long run compared to the highly extractivist BEVs.
But yeah, anyways, I’m sure you’ll come up with any number of rationalizations to justify your pre-existing beliefs, change is hard, I get it.
OK, obviously I mean you can’t contain it 100% like with other things. Hydrogen will always slowly seep out of any container.
I have edited the post to reflect the 100%, specifically in your honor.
It makes no sense to use energy to transport and store energy, just because idiots want to buy a liquid.
Transport will always be necessary, and we’ve done it with oil based fuels for more than a century.
Even electricity requires transportation through wires, to charge an EV, and when charged the car needs to transport the electricity with it in a battery.
AFAIK the waste transporting electricity in the electric grid is about 10% on average.
But I agree that the way we transport electricity is way more elegant and practical.
There are a number of advantages to hydrogen fuel - recharging is easier and much, much faster, a full charge gets you much further, it allows for usage of vehicles in areas without an functioning or reliable electrical grid, it’s considerably more energy-dense meaning that vehicles can be lighter, and it’s considerably safer - fires caused by thermal runaway in EVs have been deadly.
I’m not saying you have to agree with me, there are obviously pros and cons to both technologies, but acting like there are no reasons beyond “idiots want to buy a liquid”, is just incorrect, and rude.
I honestly don’t think you’re going to move the aviation industry from hydrocarbons.
Unless there is some MASSIVE breakthrough in battery technology in terms of power density, you’re not going to see battery electric aircraft. There are a few hilariously pathetic ones in development or small volume sale, I saw James May fly one, it had an endurance of less than an hour. Maybe you’ll get a BEA to match the performance of a Skyhawk and those will be suitable for personal aircraft or primary trainers. Maybe.
In the transport category? Not a chance. Aircraft much larger than a Beech C90 and maybe even then, the max takeoff weight is greater than the max landing weight. For shorter hops, they load less fuel, for longer hops they assume the plane will burn enough fuel to be below max landing weight on arrival. Batteries don’t get lighter as they are discharged.
Another thing: liquid fuel is extremely convenient for airplanes, because the fuel tanks are just…the inside volume of the wings. They seal the internal volume of the structure and there you go, fuel tank. Who cares exactly what shape it is, liquid conforms to the shape of its container. Gaseous fuels require pressure tanks, which are going to add significant empty weight, and offer less internal volume. And we’re just not going to deal with cryogenic fuels in civilian aviation; they only put up with that shit in rocketry because they outright have to.
So…airliners are going to run on kerosene.
I clearly wrote hydrogen Fuel cells.
Not for main propulsion of aircraft; to do the work of a jet airliner, you’d need electric motors driving ducted fans and fuel cells plus transmission cables and such capable of handling 5 to 10 megawatts. You’d also need to figure out a source of hot high pressure air for deicing systems and cabin pressure as that’s usually taken from the compressors of the main engines. You’ll see hydrogen burning turbofans before you see fuel cell powered airliners. I could see a fuel cell replace a turbine APU if you did build a hydrogen powered jet though.
Fuel cell planes:
https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/energy-transition/hydrogen/zeroe-our-hydrogen-powered-aircraft
https://zeroavia.com/
The ZeroAvia is an actually working plane:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeroAvia
So they’ve existed for years now, and the concept is proven.
Those are small, short range aircraft, the technology does not scale.
And exactly how do you conclude that? That quad propeller Airbus design is at least 100 passengers, and Airbus say you can also burn Hydrogen directly in jet engines.