this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
12 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32501 readers
772 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is another way of converting chemical energy into electricity. Basically, another way of building an EV. And since you don't need nearly as big of a battery to power an EV, it is a sensible way of reducing cost, weight, etc. while still achieving zero emissions. There are absolutely situations where those upsides significant outweigh the downsides.
If people were honestly in favor of EVs or zero emissions in general, they would definitely look at fuel cells seriously. But unfortunately, they don't, because they are mostly Tesla fanboys who want Tesla (and only Tesla) to succeed. So they demonize it, alongside everything else including PHEVs and hybrids. Which is why you see posts from "EV fans" that hate most types of EVs.
Yeah, I know what a hydrogen fuel cell is.
What I'm saying is that the cost to develop hydrogen infrastructure, the complexity of it's distribution, the risk due to its high volatility, and the uncertainty of a relatively underdeveloped technology all seem to be losing to batteries, which are very mature tech and are already in the supply chain and for which we already have a well developed electricity distribution grid.
I just don't see what investing in fuel cells will do other than slow the adoption of zero emission vehicles by another decade.
We are nowhere near capable of replacing all cars with battery powered cars. Their supporters are just handwaving away the problems. In particular, we have no straightforward way of both converting the grid to 100% renewable energy, while also massively increasingly electrical demand for things like BEVs and every other electrification proposal. In reality, it's just a big fantasy.
The "success" of battery cars right now is really due to huge subsidies and a willingness to overlook fundamental problems (such as mining challenges, child and slave labor, no way for non-homeowners to charge conveniently, etc.). If we actually looked at those problems honestly, we'd realize that they are as big or even bigger than the challenges of building a hydrogen infrastructure.
This gets much more problematic once we look at heavy transportation or industry. We have no method of electrifying airplanes or ocean-going ships and many other things. So all of the expense of electrifying cars is just one part of a much larger decarbonization process. And that larger process absolutely requires a hydrogen infrastructure somewhere. So we pretty much have to build a hydrogen infrastructure anyways. As a result, dismissing hydrogen is just not taking climate change seriously.
A much better question is asking what happens when it is not sunny? Because the scenario is always constructed in such a way that exaggerates the efficiency of battery cars. Of course, a solar powered car would be even more efficient in that scenarios, but we don't talk much about those.
The problem is that we have to store energy, often for very long periods of time. For the grid, this is called grid energy storage, and usually includes a wide variety of options. One of which is hydrogen itself, since it is the best to store energy for very long periods.
So in practice, there's not much difference in efficiency, since every idea requires some kind of compromise somewhere. BEVs will often need hydrogen to back it up. But the main point is that once you make the switch to some kind of EV, the issue of efficiency is mostly moot, since you already well beyond ICE cars in terms of efficiency. The rest of the argument is a distraction, mostly made by people who want to promote one idea specially.