The 2nd is probably going to be more efficient since you pretty much get out all the electricity you put into a battery. Making hydrogen isn't very efficient.
This stood out to me as I just watched a video from Harry's Garage where he covers the new BMW i5 M60 X-Drive. Cliffs on the video, "Do not buy, BMW has lost their way", but one thing -- not specific to BMW -- is what he talks about at 19:00 referring to the energy you think you're putting into the battery versus what you actually get. It's about a 10% loss from what you take out of the socket versus what you put into the battery.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Even if a FCEV magically went from the current 40% efficiency to 85% of an EV the platform still sucks. 2-3 huge tanks, fuel cells, electronics, battery pack etc. all take up so much space. Overall packaging is terrible you have a big car with not much room.
You would add the same to the front of the hydrogen chain too, hydrogen is plentiful but tied up and suffers from the same issue of how green the electricity (or process) to get at it is.
But yeah hydrogen might make sense for trucking or airplanes or boats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
It's about a 10% loss from what you take out of the socket versus what you put into the battery.
Ah cool I didn't have an exact number. Will check out the video, thanks!
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Haha he says the loss when charging is like spilling petrol on the ground.. I guess in a way, but in the same way driving a petrol car is like spilling 75% of the gas on the ground
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
That's not the worst part. If all we had to do was split the atom and call it day then it could be viable. But we have to split the atom, pressurize, transport, pressurize again. Then pressurize again into a car. And hope nothing leaks along the way.
It's a bad system. Maybe, maybe one day it be viable for extremely large transport vehicles.
You would add the same to the front of the hydrogen chain too, hydrogen is plentiful but tied up and suffers from the same issue of how green the electricity (or process) to get at it is.
But yeah hydrogen might make sense for trucking or airplanes or boats.
Ah cool I didn't have an exact number. Will check out the video, thanks!
Ah darn, you're right.
I think what is also a described issue is that currently for power grids, we're sorta required to produce power on demand. Power storage isn't really economically appropriate long term because it will be hit by that same resource bottle neck that is currently projected. I've read some comment about how the storage could be the cars themselves one day where we can send that stored power from a car back into the system, but it seems just dumb.
The difficulty with understanding hydrogen is that it is intentionally complicated because in the long run, we need a flexible system to address complicated differences in possible scenarios produce and store electricity in a more environmentally conscious way. What's also often confusing is how the skipping of explaining how hydrogen is the energy, fuel and the storage like traditional oil and gas currently is. It's kinda glossed over that an EV concept is actually separating the lines between energy, fuel and storage. By trying to make the assumption that the EV cycle is the simple one, it makes all of the other ones more confusing and complicated by default.
I think it's also confusing because in the hydrogen "cycle", it's obviously not as efficient as the EV storage "cycle" and is unlikely to be that way for a long, long time. But the EV battery storage "cycle" is only for motor vehicles and doesn't address other things that would need electricity like hydrogen cells potentially could (housing, heating etc.). It's like saying a car headlight isn't as efficient as a hand held flash light and missing the point that a car can do more than just shine light like a flash light, but I'm not totally sure.
Although it takes a ton of power to produce hydrogen, in the super long term, hydrogen cell part actually can split into two where it's converted into electricity for cars, or electricity for other electrical grid needs. So for instance, I think we could use solar and wind and store it into hydrogen/cells when output is plentiful and then use the cells to keep things stable when there's less solar/wind or those units are down for maintenance. Hydrogen cells would replace more than just motor vehicle energy requirements, they might end up replacing LNG/Propane etc. type concepts as well.
The renewable and non-renewable part is also convoluted because it will address the concepts of green, turquoise, blue and grey hydrogen based on the source used to produce it. That's its own confusing chaos, but I'm also assuming it means that it allows different countries with different access to power generation different means to reach a planned ubiquitous "hydrogen cell standard" in the long run.
"Colored hydrogen wise" I think it'd be kinda cool to have something like a nuclear reactor that powers a grid and puts excess into hydrogen cells. When demand is higher, it produces less hydrogen cells and vice versa. But I also believe that not all hydrogen can and should be green/turquoise and that we need to intentionally have grey hydrogen. Grey hydrogen would be like producing energy by incinerating garbage. Looking bigger, I don't know if it's sustainable to be burying disposable #### in the ground that takes 30+ years to break down. IMO we should burn and store small concentrated volumes of this stuff in the ground or figure out how to utilize the created carbon in a more intentionally cyclical manner... but that's a different topic. In theory those things could be like your furnace at home vs trucking that stuff to a centralized location... but that's also a different topic.
The Following User Says Thank You to DoubleF For This Useful Post:
That's not the worst part. If all we had to do was split the atom and call it day then it could be viable. But we have to split the atom, pressurize, transport, pressurize again. Then pressurize again into a car. And hope nothing leaks along the way.
It's a bad system. Maybe, maybe one day it be viable for extremely large transport vehicles.
The thing is is that everyone looks at everything based on pure efficiency vs also figuring out the excess and losses outside of those systems. Hydrogen isn't the most efficient at all times for just motor vehicles, but it makes the most sense big picture for more than motor vehicles. Especially if you one day think of a more energy/fuel topography/geography or even energy seasons (ie: Summer v Winter for solar).
Imagine a world where you 3D print what you need regularly and stop inefficient transport of heavy ubiquitous things like water. Kinda like shipping shipping a condensed syrup vs bottles and cans of a product.
IMO the next path that some people are envisioning is basically 3D print your own stored power/fuel from a power line in a power grid and transporting electricity is cheaper than transporting fuel like an O&G pipeline/plane/truck etc.
TBH, when it was first described to me, it sounded super weird. But the more I think about it, it feels like a spin on the "old is new" some things previously considered inefficient, is more efficient or effective on a larger scale.
Like, ignoring whether or not you want people being able to produce their own hydrogen on a large scale, isn't it more efficient to send electricity to a house that has a module that can store that energy in a hydrogen fuel cell vs millions of people spending energy and fuel to get to centralized locations to get that hydrogen/hydrogen fuel cell and transport that fuel + storage device back home? The motor vehicle part might be more inefficient for electricity to hydrogen + cell container then vice versa before using, but everything else combined in these "cycles" might be more efficient than using battery blocks (ie: Lithium) and electricity. I think that's what the picture people are envisioning and the rest of us are struggling to understand.
That's not the worst part. If all we had to do was split the atom and call it day then it could be viable. But we have to split the atom, pressurize, transport, pressurize again. Then pressurize again into a car. And hope nothing leaks along the way.
It's a bad system. Maybe, maybe one day it be viable for extremely large transport vehicles.
can't help but be reminded of the last major hydrogen based large transport vehicle
Feel like I'm missing something, if you 3D print what is the print media? Where does it come from?
The bizarre part of the cycle, which I get why it's so confusing, is that you're using electricity to print something that later will be converted back to electricity.
I'm saying that perhaps in the future you use electricity to convert (ie: Print) hydrogen to store electricity, but also need another container obtained in some other manner to store the hydrogen (ie: fuel cell).
Long story short, I wouldn't be offended if you think I'm blowing hot air.
I personally think some companies perceive the future means we need to take something we had before and complicate it at a certain level to simplify or condense it in ways we couldn't before. Like transitioning from vacuum tubes to micro chips. Some companies perceive we have to look beyond just the basics of the consumer level with their vehicles for a more sustainable future and to simplify their conclusion, hydrogen fuel cell + conversion + smaller battery. Others don't think that it is necessary to go to that level and to simplify their conclusion, electricity + larger battery. The remainder will mostly be the same.
It's confusing using the word print when it is entirely inappropriate. You are converting one energy source to another, that's all. And in that conversion you have losses. And for hydrogen, it is probably more efficient to do at scale, as with most things.
The bizarre part of the cycle, which I get why it's so confusing, is that you're using electricity to print something that later will be converted back to electricity.
I'm saying that perhaps in the future you use electricity to convert (ie: Print) hydrogen to store electricity, but also need another container obtained in some other manner to store the hydrogen (ie: fuel cell).
This is simply electrolysis and fuel cell, a battery. We already have batteries that do this, far cheaper than hydrogen. Right now you can buy home storage and solar for pretty cheap compared to even 10 years ago.
Unless you're talking about somehow converting anti matter into matter. We can do that but not in the way you're thinking, grow a tree.
Quote:
Long story short, I wouldn't be offended if you think I'm blowing hot air.
I don't think that I'm open minded to any new tech, if it's real or possible.
The problem with hydrogen is simply cost, it doesn't matter how great it might potentially be if the cost per unit of energy is high it will never be viable. Transport costs alone are very high.
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Haha he says the loss when charging is like spilling petrol on the ground.. I guess in a way, but in the same way driving a petrol car is like spilling 75% of the gas on the ground
No, because at least some of that waste goes to heat the cabin, and some of it is turned into glorious, beautiful sound energy.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
What gets missed in this conversation is the transportation of hydrogen. If all cars went to hydrogen, firstly we'd need to triple at least the electricity supply that you'd need for EVs. Then you'd have to store it with crazy losses at crazy cold temperatures and crazy high pressure which takes enormous revenue and infrastructure. Then, and this is the crazy part, you'd need to have 4+x as many fuel trucks because even liquid hydrogen is 4x less volumetrically dense than gasoline. It would be $$$$$$$$$$.
As for the efficiency discussion, real numbers make this make more more clear. For hydrogen fuel call vehicles it's really just a regular EV with a battery that uses hydrogen through a fuel cell to charge the battery. So with that context, here's some real numbers you can look up yourself:
Start with 100KWk of electricity from the grid or whatever.
For ev
Lose 1-2% in transmission = 98kwh left
Lose 2-3% in local distribution = 95kwh left
Lose 10-15% in charging = 80kwh left
For HFCV:
Let's assume hydrogen made right at the point of generation so there are zero losses
Lose 20-25% in electrolizing H2O to H2 = 75-80kwh
Lose 5-35% in compressing H2 for storage and transport (plus unknown H2 that must be vented due to building during storage and losses as the molecule is storage) = 49-76kwh left
Lose 7-46% in charging stations due to fueling operations = 26-70kwh left
Then, you'd have to calculate all the extra hydrogen you'd burn shipping the hydrogen around. Trucks would require 4-12x the number of vehicles due to hydrogen being so much less dense than gasoline. It's a non starter.
The only advantage to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is they're quicker to charge. That's it. Not a single other advantage. Battery capabilities are advancing so quickly that charging times will not be
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
I know I keep beating the dead horse, but total global hydrogen fuel cell vehicles fell (though a slight rise in the US). The total HFCV sales accounted for 0.02% of total vehicle sales. EVs rose considerably again and hit 16% of all vehicle sales. Like, the competition was over a decade ago
I think the market for fuel cells may be with commercial vehicles as opposed to personal passenger vehicles. I think transit buses in BC are still running in hydrogen, aren’t they?
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
It's confusing using the word print when it is entirely inappropriate. You are converting one energy source to another, that's all. And in that conversion you have losses. And for hydrogen, it is probably more efficient to do at scale, as with most things.
Yeah, sorry. My brain went weird and IDK why I used that wording. Electrolysis is the better word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
What gets missed in this conversation is the transportation of hydrogen. If all cars went to hydrogen, firstly we'd need to triple at least the electricity supply that you'd need for EVs. Then you'd have to store it with crazy losses at crazy cold temperatures and crazy high pressure which takes enormous revenue and infrastructure. Then, and this is the crazy part, you'd need to have 4+x as many fuel trucks because even liquid hydrogen is 4x less volumetrically dense than gasoline. It would be $$$$$$$$$$.
As for the efficiency discussion, real numbers make this make more more clear. For hydrogen fuel call vehicles it's really just a regular EV with a battery that uses hydrogen through a fuel cell to charge the battery. So with that context, here's some real numbers you can look up yourself:
Start with 100KWk of electricity from the grid or whatever.
For ev
Lose 1-2% in transmission = 98kwh left
Lose 2-3% in local distribution = 95kwh left
Lose 10-15% in charging = 80kwh left
For HFCV:
Let's assume hydrogen made right at the point of generation so there are zero losses
Lose 20-25% in electrolizing H2O to H2 = 75-80kwh
Lose 5-35% in compressing H2 for storage and transport (plus unknown H2 that must be vented due to building during storage and losses as the molecule is storage) = 49-76kwh left
Lose 7-46% in charging stations due to fueling operations = 26-70kwh left
Then, you'd have to calculate all the extra hydrogen you'd burn shipping the hydrogen around. Trucks would require 4-12x the number of vehicles due to hydrogen being so much less dense than gasoline. It's a non starter.
The only advantage to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is they're quicker to charge. That's it. Not a single other advantage. Battery capabilities are advancing so quickly that charging times will not be
Other than very specific scenarios and circumstances, why would you transport hydrogen vs send electricity somewhere to produce hydrogen? It'd likely cost less to transport and be a lot faster to send the electricity vs manually transporting filled fuel cells, no?
