Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?
-
@BernieTheBernie It's not solely "virtue signalling". It's also the petrol / gas industry trying desperately to stay relevant. As evidenced by the massive lobbying by the usual suspects for that - Wissing, for example.
-
@Rhywden Still trying to pretend lithium batteries in cars don’t have massive drawbacks?
-
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@BernieTheBernie It's not solely "virtue signalling". It's also the petrol / gas industry trying desperately to stay relevant.
Sadly, it's not enough to have the best and most economical technology.
-
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden Still trying to pretend lithium batteries in cars don’t have massive drawbacks?
FYI: Sodium is also a thing. Also, the development potential for accumulators in general is very far from being exhausted. Combustion is pretty much a dead end by now. The issues with accumulators aside, BEVs also have massive upsides: You can easily charge them at home. They're way less complex. They're way more efficient with the energy they're given.
The gap between the upfront energy investment between a BEV and a gasoline car is shrinking every year. Currently it sits at 20,000 km after which the BEV comes out ahead.
-
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Combustion is pretty much a dead end by now.
Yes, but only for purely political reasons, which will hopefully evaporate when they crash against reality.
-
@Rhywden “Yes” would’ve sufficed.
-
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden Still trying to pretend lithium batteries in cars don’t have massive drawbacks?
How do you store hydrogen in lithium batteries?
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden Still trying to pretend lithium batteries in cars don’t have massive drawbacks?
How do you store hydrogen in lithium batteries?
Very fucking carefully? or perhaps, very fucking temporarily?
-
@Arantor Likely best in the form of deuterium or tritium.
And then surround that mess with a thick layer of uranium 235 or plutonium.
-
@BernieTheBernie and it has the benefit of being proven 20th century technology!
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Combustion is pretty much a dead end by now.
Yes, but only for purely political reasons, which will hopefully evaporate when they crash against reality.
The Carnot cycle limit is a thing.
-
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden “Yes” would’ve sufficed.
Sorry, but could you keep your trolling to the Garage? I gave you an answer, please don't make yourself look more ignorant than you already are.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden Still trying to pretend lithium batteries in cars don’t have massive drawbacks?
How do you store hydrogen in lithium batteries?
That's where the
came from.
-
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Combustion is pretty much a dead end by now.
Yes, but only for purely political reasons, which will hopefully evaporate when they crash against reality.
The Carnot cycle limit is a thing.
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Combustion is pretty much a dead end by now.
Yes, but only for purely political reasons, which will hopefully evaporate when they crash against reality.
The Carnot cycle limit is a thing.
Shall I explain it to you or is that yet another area of science you want to stay ignorant of?
-
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Combustion is pretty much a dead end by now.
Yes, but only for purely political reasons, which will hopefully evaporate when they crash against reality.
The Carnot cycle limit is a thing.
Shall I explain it to you or is that yet another area of science you want to stay ignorant of?
I would love to hear it along with your justification for why you said it in the first place.
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Combustion is pretty much a dead end by now.
Yes, but only for purely political reasons, which will hopefully evaporate when they crash against reality.
The Carnot cycle limit is a thing.
Shall I explain it to you or is that yet another area of science you want to stay ignorant of?
I would love to hear it along with your justification for why you said it in the first place.
Naw, I didn't really mean it. I'm not even sure why I respond to you in the first place. You've already demonstrated time and again that you're not willing to listen to actual science, instead clinging to your ignorance because you desperately need things to not be true because you cannot allow them to be true.
You're not an honest debater.
-
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Combustion is pretty much a dead end by now.
Yes, but only for purely political reasons, which will hopefully evaporate when they crash against reality.
The Carnot cycle limit is a thing.
Shall I explain it to you or is that yet another area of science you want to stay ignorant of?
I would love to hear it along with your justification for why you said it in the first place.
Naw, I didn't really mean it. I'm not even sure why I respond to you in the first place. You've already demonstrated time and again that you're not willing to listen to actual science, instead clinging to your ignorance because you desperately need things to not be true because you cannot allow them to be true.
I admit that I sometimes make jokes. Those should be pretty obvious. I definitely do not do what you're accusing me of.
You're not an honest debater.
That's not a healthy way to react to disagreement.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden Still trying to pretend lithium batteries in cars don’t have massive drawbacks?
How do you store hydrogen in lithium batteries?
Roll it up in that Jump To Conclusions mat you used to get from my comment to yours.
After Rhywden is done with it, of course.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden “Yes” would’ve sufficed.
Sorry, but could you keep your trolling to the Garage? I gave you an answer, please don't make yourself look more ignorant than you already are.
How many cows must I sacrifice to atone for my blasphemy, lest Science be angered and send a snowstorm or forest fire to punish my insolence?
-
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
You're not an honest debater.
And you're such a master debater.
Filed under:
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Combustion is pretty much a dead end by now.
Yes, but only for purely political reasons, which will hopefully evaporate when they crash against reality.
The Carnot cycle limit is a thing.
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Combustion is pretty much a dead end by now.
Yes, but only for purely political reasons, which will hopefully evaporate when they crash against reality.
The Carnot cycle limit is a thing.
Shall I explain it to you or is that yet another area of science you want to stay ignorant of?
I would love to hear it along with your justification for why you said it in the first place.
It's been decades since I
studiedtook a class in Thermodynamics, so this is a very simple explanation, because I don't remember a whole lot more than this.The Carnot cycle represents the maximum theoretical efficiency of a heat engine. Anything that involves combustion necessarily falls far short of this theoretical maximum.
However, there's a big difference between saying an ICE is about as efficient as it can get and there isn't much room for further improvement, and calling it a dead end. The fact that ICE efficiency can't be improved much doesn't change the fact that what we have now is and will continue to be pretty damn useful for a long time.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
However, there's a big difference between saying an ICE is about as efficient as it can get and there isn't much room for further improvement, and calling it a dead end. The fact that ICE efficiency can't be improved much doesn't change the fact that what we have now is and will continue to be pretty damn useful for a long time.
Right. When he mentioned the Carnot cycle, I took his comment to be about the physics, hence the
. I wasn't commenting on the physics but on its utility to humans.But of course, he's accepted that they need to go and won't justify that position when he can call me anti-science and ignorant.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
However, there's a big difference between saying an ICE is about as efficient as it can get and there isn't much room for further improvement, and calling it a dead end. The fact that ICE efficiency can't be improved much doesn't change the fact that what we have now is and will continue to be pretty damn useful for a long time.
Do we even have anything close to comparable? And by that I mean: not just superior on whatever metric is most expedient to score points in an argument, but actually capable of competing with the ICE on equal terms - because nothing really comes to mind.
-
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Do we even have anything close to comparable?
Depends on exactly what you're doing, but some of the very best efficiencies (i.e., closest to the Carnot maximum) are found in modern power stations, where they have multiple stages of turbines to capture as much of the energy as possible. I think they also try to make the combustion temperature be really high, which also helps with the thermodynamic efficiency.
-
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
actually capable of competing with the ICE on equal terms
If we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We'd all agree (
) on switching; and the discussion would instead be focused on the economics of replacing the old technology with the new (e.g., at what point does it become desirable to replace a still-serviceable old vehicle with a new one?), not the viability of the technology.
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
I admit that I sometimes make jokes. Those should be pretty obvious.
You do realize who you're interacting with, don't you?
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
won't justify that position when he can call me
It's all about efficiency!
-
@dkf said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Do we even have anything close to comparable?
Depends on exactly what you're doing, but some of the very best efficiencies (i.e., closest to the Carnot maximum) are found in modern power stations, where they have multiple stages of turbines to capture as much of the energy as possible. I think they also try to make the combustion temperature be really high, which also helps with the thermodynamic efficiency.
I really look forward to the day when I can drive a modern power station around town!
INB4 Mr Fusion
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@dkf said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Do we even have anything close to comparable?
Depends on exactly what you're doing, but some of the very best efficiencies (i.e., closest to the Carnot maximum) are found in modern power stations, where they have multiple stages of turbines to capture as much of the energy as possible. I think they also try to make the combustion temperature be really high, which also helps with the thermodynamic efficiency.
I really look forward to the day when I can drive a modern power station around town!
INB4 Mr Fusion
Can't wait for Solar Generators to use a real star!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
real star
Sol would like a word with you.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
real star
Sol would like a word with you.
Why would I use such a large one when the tiny pin-pricks will do? :flerf:
-
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
BEVs also have massive upsides: You can easily charge them at home.
Sure, if you live in a house. Those who live in apartments and condos, etc. do not have it so easy.
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
They're way less complex.
I take issue with this. Mechanically they may be less complex, but overall they are significantly more complex. There are tons of systems in them that significantly increase their complexity beyond a standard ICE vehicle.
-
@Polygeekery said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
There are tons of systems in them that significantly increase their complexity beyond a standard ICE vehicle.
Especially when you try to reinvent the wheel in software.
-
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden “Yes” would’ve sufficed.
Sorry, but could you keep your trolling to the Garage? I gave you an answer, please don't make yourself look more ignorant than you already are.
I think the proper term here is "gaslighted".
-
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@HardwareGeek said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
However, there's a big difference between saying an ICE is about as efficient as it can get and there isn't much room for further improvement, and calling it a dead end. The fact that ICE efficiency can't be improved much doesn't change the fact that what we have now is and will continue to be pretty damn useful for a long time.
Do we even have anything close to comparable? And by that I mean: not just superior on whatever metric is most expedient to score points in an argument, but actually capable of competing with the ICE on equal terms - because nothing really comes to mind.
Do you mean "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are theoretically capable of" or "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are actually used for"? If the task at hand is "go from Canada to Argentina with all of your earthly belongings in tow and without more than a pee break", the answer is "definitely not". If it's "carry a person and their lunch for an average commute of 60 km a day plus the occasional trip to the grocery and movies", it's "something should have been coming to mind for at least the last couple of years and that something is called a BEV".
-
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden “Yes” would’ve sufficed.
Sorry, but could you keep your trolling to the Garage? I gave you an answer, please don't make yourself look more ignorant than you already are.
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Combustion is pretty much a dead end by now.
Yes, but only for purely political reasons, which will hopefully evaporate when they crash against reality.
The Carnot cycle limit is a thing.
Shall I explain it to you or is that yet another area of science you want to stay ignorant of?
Pot, kettle, black.
-
@Polygeekery said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
BEVs also have massive upsides: You can easily charge them at home.
Sure, if you live in a house. Those who live in apartments and condos, etc. do not have it so easy.
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
They're way less complex.
I take issue with this. Mechanically they may be less complex, but overall they are significantly more complex. There are tons of systems in them that significantly increase their complexity beyond a standard ICE vehicle.
Yeah, compare a BEV with a single 2stroke with carburetor. And there still are standard ice vehicles with that configuration. Although it is a bit dishonest, or a stretch. But they are extremely simple vehicles that can be repaired by a village blacksmith.
They will probably also still work after an EMP.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
real star
Sol would like a word with you.
So, better call Sol?
-
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Rhywden said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Combustion is pretty much a dead end by now.
Yes, but only for purely political reasons, which will hopefully evaporate when they crash against reality.
The Carnot cycle limit is a thing.
One of many.
When we have fuel cells that work with hydrocarbons, have better efficiency than internal combustion and comparable power-to-weight ratio, and all materials needed to make them are available in sufficient quantity, they'll replace internal combustion engines. Otherwise the high energy density (density, so by volume; that's what hydrogen is much worse for) of hydrocarbons or weight restrictions demanding high power-to-weight or the high cost (ultimately in human labor) of whatever fuel or materials for the alternative engine will mean internal combustion remains optimal for many uses.
Because it is the overall efficiency of the operation including procuring the device or vehicle that matters, and efficiency of the engine is just a small fraction of that.
-
The question also remains about pollutant by-products. I’m not going to get into the wide question of climate change and the effects thereof, I don’t own nearly enough flame-proof gear for that.
But I don’t think it’s possible to argue that the amount of ICE vehicles in use today produce a lot of airborne pollutants that, in quantity, may be hazardous to health. I remember the pictures that were circulating in various places around April 2020 when basically everyone had gone into lockdown and that meant only a minimal level of traffic was on the streets, and the “before” and “now” pictures were striking for the lack of smog in the air.
That is one push away from classic ICE vehicles, to figure out a cleaner method of travel, and the question then becomes much more complex as a trade-off between efficiency+price and cleanliness+health.
Certainly Europe takes the view (and whether they are correct is not up for debate here, merely the factual take of “this is what they are doing”) that phasing out ICE vehicles is a net positive ecologically if not economically. History will judge if they were right.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Do you mean "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are theoretically capable of" or "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are actually used for"? If the task at hand is "go from Canada to Argentina with all of your earthly belongings in tow and without more than a pee break", the answer is "definitely not". If it's "carry a person and their lunch for an average commute of 60 km a day plus the occasional trip to the grocery and movies", it's "something should have been coming to mind for at least the last couple of years and that something is called a BEV".
It's not merely a question of whether there exists an alternative, but whether the alternative is - if not better - then at least not obviously worse.
In terms of the sort of personal transportation a car (as opposed to, say, a bicycle) affords, a BEV - to these eyes - looks strictly worse on just about every metric: range, time to recharge v. refill, reliability across a variety of environmental conditions, mass of batteries v. fuel tank, safety, and so on.
Sure, you can come up with scenarios where these disadvantages don't really matter - especially if you don't care about realism too much. However, an ICE car which is just as good as a BEV in those cases where a BEV is perfectly adequate, and can do all the other stuff that BEVs suck at, is going to be the strictly better choice. It's not even a contest.
-
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Do you mean "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are theoretically capable of" or "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are actually used for"? If the task at hand is "go from Canada to Argentina with all of your earthly belongings in tow and without more than a pee break", the answer is "definitely not". If it's "carry a person and their lunch for an average commute of 60 km a day plus the occasional trip to the grocery and movies", it's "something should have been coming to mind for at least the last couple of years and that something is called a BEV".
It's not merely a question of whether there exists an alternative, but whether the alternative is - if not better - then at least not obviously worse.
In terms of the sort of personal transportation a car (as opposed to, say, a bicycle) affords, a BEV - to these eyes - looks strictly worse on just about every metric: range, time to recharge v. refill, reliability across a variety of environmental conditions, mass of batteries v. fuel tank, safety, and so on.
According to insurers, safety is not significantly different, so that's a non-issue. But why are things like "mass of batteries v. fuel tank" even relevant metrics, especially when it's about realism? Who cares about that? You might worry about "mass of vehicle vs. passenger" but if you look at the development of SUV sales it should be obvious hardly anyone cares. Those who care should be riding bikes anyway.
Sure, you can come up with scenarios where these disadvantages don't really matter - especially if you don't care about realism too much.
The scenario I've come up with is most people's everyday life. Not sure what your gripe is with the realism of it.
Of course, if "runs on fossil fuel" is not among your relevant metrics, your argument makes complete sense. It's just that this is a relevant metric for most people nowadays.
-
@Arantor said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
I don’t think it’s possible to argue that the amount of ICE vehicles in use today produce a lot of airborne pollutants that, in quantity, may be hazardous to health. I remember the pictures that were circulating in various places around April 2020 when basically everyone had gone into lockdown and that meant only a minimal level of traffic was on the streets, and the “before” and “now” pictures were striking for the lack of smog in the air.
Those smogs, while not quite as bad as the pea-soupers of old, are why some places have imposed taxes/restrictions on polluting vehicles. I'm definitely in two minds about that; we're in the pain period where some providers of services outside such zones that have polluting vehicles are finding that it's becoming an expensive problem for them, but grotty air was a real problem that had to be tackled.
I don't think there is an easy answer. Is one person's slim profits worth a small contribution to someone else's ill health where neither knows directly about the other?
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
why are things like "mass of batteries v. fuel tank" even relevant metrics
Because F = ma.
-
I'd like to remind you that this thread is titled "Hydrogen Vehicles".
Hydrogen vehicles may work electrically via fuel cells (most do), or like dino burners with the Carnot cycle.
They are thus a little bit different from a standard Tesla...
-
@BernieTheBernie If that's aimed at me, then I'd like to point out that my original quesion was "do we have any technology that could conceivably displace the ICE without trying to force it", precisely because this is the hydrogen vehicles thread.
As for why I found myself discussing the question of how much batteries weigh, see upthread.
-
@Arantor said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
The question also remains about pollutant by-products. I’m not going to get into the wide question of climate change and the effects thereof, I don’t own nearly enough flame-proof gear for that.
But I don’t think it’s possible to argue that the amount of ICE vehicles in use today produce a lot of airborne pollutants that, in quantity, may be hazardous to health. I remember the pictures that were circulating in various places around April 2020 when basically everyone had gone into lockdown and that meant only a minimal level of traffic was on the streets, and the “before” and “now” pictures were striking for the lack of smog in the air.
That is one push away from classic ICE vehicles, to figure out a cleaner method of travel, and the question then becomes much more complex as a trade-off between efficiency+price and cleanliness+health.
Certainly Europe takes the view (and whether they are correct is not up for debate here, merely the factual take of “this is what they are doing”) that phasing out ICE vehicles is a net positive ecologically if not economically. History will judge if they were right.
ICEs have become hugely less polluting over the last 50 years. I grew up near LA, where the surrounding mountains like to keep all the pollutants hanging around. I remember many days where it literally hurt to take a deep breath. You just don't get those any more, even though you can still usually see the air. Plus, of course, the elimination of lead in gasoline.
Carnot cycle - Wikipedia
