Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Business Insider"
channel.
-
11
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vibesanm
So many things factually wrong in your post:
First and foremost, Hydrogen powered car are EV FCEV stand for hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle .
"there isn’t enough data to conclude that hydrogen wouldn’t work,"
There is enough data to know it won't work . We know the amount of enegy needed to break the molecular bond of H2O, we know the theoretical limit of a fuel cell efficiency (which is far from what is achievable with today' tech) , w also knew that cost of bukdin a hydrogen logistics network compared to simply upgrading the electricity grid. By those facts alone we know that hydrogen can never compete with batteries for consumer vehicles.
"Evs are barely better than ice cars "
In what metric? If we talking about environmental impact than then EVs ( batteries and hydrogen powered) are much , much better for the environment than ICE cars.
We are never going to power our ridiculous lifestyles by solar and win"
This is factually wrong, both solar and wind alone is more than enough to support our current and near future(10-30 years ) energy needs
"Most of electricity generated doesn’t even get used"
Hence the need for energy storage facilities. This is where hydrogen can shine.
" fluid form of fuel is not only convenient, but efficient."
Again, factually incorrect. Havin electricity through the grid is far, far more efficient than managing thousand (hundreds of thousand if we go global ) of miles of complex piping network, this is true for any liquid. Even more so for extremely hard to transport fluid like hydrogen.
"The only way evs are the future is if the future is all about everyone virtuesly driving evs to feel superior even though the overall impact to environment is the same"
"Evs are a joke, it’s been proven, there is barely any difference in the overall carbon emissions and water pollution and so on and so forth if you consider everything that goes into it from manufacturing to consumption. I like how we change nothing other than drive evs, and they are indirectly powered by the same source, and everyone wants to pleasure themselves thinking about how awesome they are for driving that crap instead of an ice crap"
Again this is factually incorrect. Multiple peer reviewed studies have concluded that EV ( batteries and hydrogen powered) are much , much better for the environment than ICE cars. They found that even in n the worse case scenario where all the energy needed to charge a BEV only come form fossil fuels( natural gas or coal plant), the BEV would still be less than half as polluting as the ICE vehicle within both of the vehicle's lifetime. Increase the percentage of electricity grid energy sourced from green power (nuclear, solar , wind etc) and no ICE vehicle can even compete with EV on the environmental front.
I don't know where you get your false information from , but they can easily be debunked even with some cursory research.
Evs are a joke, it’s been proven, there is barely any difference in the overall carbon emissions and water pollution and so on and so forth if you consider everything that goes into it from manufacturing to consumption.
1
-
1
-
@angellestat2730
So many of what you said is factually not true,
"Also fuel cells or any hydrogen technology is increasing much faster than batteries technologies because only now that field is getting money and interest around the world."
This is completely false. There is far more money currently being poured into battery research than it is for fuel cells.
"Besides.. no everyone lives in a house with garage in where you can charge your car... Most people live in cities, it is way more cheaper to have 1 hydrogen station every 100 blocks than having 30 electric chargers on each block, not only that, it is one order magnitude cheaper to transport hydrogen than electricity by wires"
Both are wrong on so many account. Firstly a hydrogen refilling station cost a lot , lot more (up to millions more) to set up than a supercharger station because of the complexity involved in making , transporting and storing hydrogen.
Secondly it cost more to transport hydrogen than any other fluid due to how hard is is to contain it. Yiu either need to freeze it, keep it is hig pressure in specialised containera or convert it into NH3 or other chemical compound (you need to convert it back into H2). All these drives the cost up where ae transferring electricity just needed some good wiring.
"For last.. the electric grid only represents the 15% of the energy consumption of the world, if you want to solve all the co2 emissions, you have to deal with all those areas in where batteries can never be a solution, like the utility transport sector (ships, airplanes, trucks, no electrify rails, etc), then the natural gas grid, for that you need more solar and wind energy and transform all that to hydrogen, because the world needs energy in chemical form."
While hydrogen is a good choice for aplication such as aircraft. ships and energy storage. You are wrong in saying that battery can never be a solution for some of these problems. For example batteries can provide solid choice for energy storage.
"But this video is wrong in one thing, hydrogen is not the enemy of batteries, both technologies shine for different task.
"
This is the only thing you said that is true.
1
-
@angellestat2730
"There are many different concepts that you need to learn to understand why most country powers are investing hard on hydrogen."
Just like failed projects (solar roadway eg) and misguided ones( anti nuclear energy eg ) , those countries will learn the hard way why their political driven decisions (intead of a a practical one) to back the wrong horse
for consumer vehicles will be a white elephant .
"You need energy in chemical form one way or another for several reasons, because some sectors can never be replaced by any future battery tech meanwhile the definition of battery remains the same, like:
1-natural gas grid."
You can't transport hydrogen using the natural gas grid without significant infrastructure upgrade . Transporting pure hydrogen would cause the pipes and tank to go brittle (which requires replacement) and a large portion of the H2 would even escape (because hydrogen is hard to contain). You need to significantly overhaul the entire natural gas grid for this or invest in huge infrastructure to convert H2 into more manageable compound (like NH3).
Both would be far, far more expensive than setting up charging networks.
"2-utility vehicles that require to operate for longer than 5 hours (2 hours for flying applications), this include ships, trucks, airplanes, trains with no electrify rails, etc)
"
Again, this have nothing to do with consumer vehicles. My point was consumer vehicles.
"3-to store solar and wind power or to deliver power for longer than 4 to 8 hours (depending the case), side note: solar and wind are the cheapest source of energy, even cheaper than extracting oil at equal energy value, they just need a way to store it.
"
Again, this have nothing to do with consumer vehicles. My point was consumer vehicles.
In fact most of your points have nothing to do with what I wrote at all.
"You can split water with only a 10%"
If you look at most electrolysis methods you notice that the current real world most lost around 20-30% of power . Even if they manage reach a 10% energy loss , it is still more than twice the current energy loss for batteries (at around just 5%),
" and inject that to the natural gas grid (main pipe only needs 30 bar, or 0.5 bar for resident grid.
"
You do know that doing so is a compromise that greatly reduces the efficiency of hydrogen right? There is reason why hydrogen are usually stored and transported in their pure state .
Again, building a natural gas grid alone is more expensive and more complex than setting up all the wiring to provide electricity for homes (which is why far more t homes have electricity than piped in in nataural gas. .
"Storing at 700 bar you lost a 12% of the energy content, in liquid a 30%, but today we can reduce that to 8% for 700 bar electrochemical hydrogen compression, or to 15% at liquid just scaling the current plants (which we would need).
"
Again, that is huge energy loss compared to simply transporting electricity and would require huge capital to build new infrastructure.
"Even without the help of the natural gas grid, transporting power over new hydrogen gas pipes vs a new power line, the gas pipe is 10 times cheaper than by wires at equal power. (there are a lot of papers and studies about that).
"
There are a lot of paper that have studies that and they find that the energy loss is still far greater than transporting electricity is most cases and all of them found that it would cost a lot, lot more to set up such infrastructure.
"Trying to add so many chargers to the current electric grid, would require a lot of extra lines, this mean add infrastructure over infrastructure which is even more expensive"
It is still a lot cheaper to upgrade the network than setting up piping network for natural gas let alone refuelling infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles. There is a reason why there is huge growth in fast charging network over the decades compared to new hydrogen fuelling stations.
Heck, even setting up slow charging networks at city parking spaces would require less money and effort than setting up H2 refuelling network ,I willing to be more municipality would opt for this option .
" you just need to let the hydrogen heat up to rise the pressure you want.
It recharge a car in 5 min, this mean 10min by car = 144 cars on a day, for a single hose. "
You forgot to add that repressuring after a refuel takes 20-230 minutes (based on experience by H2 vehicles users) on top of the 5 minute refuel so a single hose can 't only continuously refuel 40-57 car a day and not 144 as you claim. Of course BEV user don't even need to wait for refuelling as they can charge at home or at work .
"I think none of us has a single source that would measure that, but I check all the energy news around the world day by day in all their forms.
I see way more breakthoughts or news about hydrogen than real news about batteries."
Really? You failed to notice advancement such as Tesla battery day, Goodenough's solid state batteries, Quantum State and many other advancement in battery tech? Suffice to say that there are more news about battery breakthrough than there are about hydrogen.
1
-
@angellestat2730
"hydrogen pipeline network to connect all europe."
You do know that they is also building an fully connected electricity grid all across Europe right? It not like they are abandoning electricity transmission over hydrogen pipeline.
"Also.. I already explain you that the world needs energy in chemical form.
"
And I explain multiple times: Hydroegsn is a dead end that goes nowhere for consumer vehicles. Consumer EV do not need hydrogen when batteries can fill that function better.
"Of course, you would repeat every hydrogen misinformation "
There is no misinformation: building up the hydrogen networks take significantly more resource (ergo more costly) than upgrading the electric grid. This is a fact.
"What part of transporting energy by wires is way more expensive than in chemical form did you not understand?
"
What part of physics do you not understand? Because the need to electrolyse hydrogen from H2O , then storing and transporting it, hydrogen will never be cheaper to transport than simply transferring the equivalent amount electricity through the grid. This is the laws of physics and no amount of tech advancement will ever change this. Cheaper electricity will just make the discrepancy worse.
'20% is with hydrogen compression included, most electrolyzers already compress hydrogen between 50 to 200 bar, 50 bar is already half of the energy requirement to achieve 700 bar (is not lineal).
I mentioned that you only lost 10% without compression, this is to separate the cases in where you dont need compression, like hydrogen in the natural gas grid at residential net. Try to pay attention, I do not want to repeat.
Also, better technologies are coming, in lab was proved that 75% round trip efficiency was already possible using the waste heat of the fuel cell mode to improve the efficiency of water spliting mode, which also work with almost any hydrocarbon or hydrogen mix."
Let me repeat myself:
Again, even it their best case scenario they are still far less efficient than simply charging a battery. This is a scientific fact.
"How is that energy lost when you already need 70% of the energy you produce in chemical form.
"
Where is the problem: we do not need to set up expensive and wasteful hydrogen network for consumer vehicles because batteries are better.
Sure it might be worthwhile for application that absolutely needed hydrogen, but consumer EV do not need hydrogen .
"What?? where do you get that? from the hydrogen hate bible"
So you are denying the experience of H2 vehicle (the Toyota Mirai eg)? There have numerous complain from owners of Hydrogen vehicle about this problems .Google it.
"but the cost for such power transmission line would remain quite high."
The fact is the cost of setting up and upgrading power line to transfer electricity will never be higher than setting up/upgrading an equivalent H2 logistics network.
" If you can not discuss the basic points I presented to you, then you dont have a case, is all connected."
"So you would have hydrogen you like it or not, because there is no other solution, unless you explain me how to end with all co2 emissions without hydrogen in a cost efficient way?
"
Again , most of your point are irrelevant to the fact that hydrogen is inferior to battery for consumer EV and is wasteful dead end in this function. I never denied ( quote the part where I ever did)that hydrogen still have its place for application like ships, aircraft energy storage. Why are you arguing against point that I never made? I hope this doesn't mean that you are resorting to strawman logic.
"That is why all country powers and huge private companies are taking that path, is not a world conspiracy against Elon or against the nuclear plants.
"
I never said there is a worldwide conspiracy against Elon or against the nuclear plants. Quote the part where I ever implied this.
As for nuclear: it is the safest form of electric generation (it kill even less people than solar and wind per Kw/h ) and produce very little greenhouse emission. The decision to abandon them in favour of dangerous and polluting fossil fuel plants are one of the dumbest political decision ever made. Have we go full on nuclear we would have eliminate all the greenhouse emission form power generation years ago.
There are quite a number of ill informed decision that supposedly could reduce greenhouse gases but does' really have the intended effect (tha aforementioned solar roadway, biomass power generation etc) . Hydrogen for consumer vehicle will just be that: another mistake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1