[HN Gopher] Hyundai rolls out 27 heavy-duty hydrogen trucks in G...
___________________________________________________________________
Hyundai rolls out 27 heavy-duty hydrogen trucks in Germany
Author : clouddrover
Score : 116 points
Date : 2022-08-04 11:54 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thedriven.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (thedriven.io)
| Zigurd wrote:
| There is a long list of reasons why hydrogen might fail as a
| truly clean fuel, but it makes sense to get real world use cases
| in place. 20 years ago it was far from certain that solar power
| could ever be practical for diverse applications.
|
| Still, I would estimate it will take 20 years to learn if we will
| be casually storing wind power in the form of hydrogen for random
| consumer use cases the way we now use solar panels.
| vardump wrote:
| We might also casually transfer it around the world in very low
| loss UHVDC transmission lines.
|
| As well as storing it short term in water reservoirs (or other
| gravitational storage), massive battery banks and in a bit
| longer term (like between seasons) as heat.
|
| Not saying that hydrogen can't have a role, but due to a low
| roundtrip efficiency it might just have a niche.
| tmikaeld wrote:
| What really hits me here is the weight of the fuel cells, at only
| 31kg (+ container) for 400KM range.
|
| Compare that to battery cells which are usually >400kg.
|
| Edit: There is ALSO a 73.2 kW battery.. geesh.
| edhelas wrote:
| How much energy do you need to compress this H2 ?
| [deleted]
| kUdtiHaEX wrote:
| Not nearly as much as required to produce batteries.
| eis wrote:
| Apples and oranges. You would need to compare energy needed
| to produce the tank and fuel cell to the production of
| batteries.
| kUdtiHaEX wrote:
| Sure but in that case please add energy costs for
| recycling the batteries bs recycling tanks for hydrogen.
| And I do not see how batteries can win in this race.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| Hydrogen embrittled metal isn't very recycling friendly.
| msh wrote:
| And how long is the lifetime?
|
| A battery lasts for many years. H2 is used more or less
| immediately.
| tmikaeld wrote:
| Around 7% of the energy will be lost when refueling a 700-bar
| container (If i remember correctly)
| HPsquared wrote:
| How much of that is recoverable? With a heat engine on the
| compression side to reclaim the heat, and a turbine on the
| expansion side to reclaim the work.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| A promising development is physical-chemical storage that
| doesn't require compression for storage, that seems to make
| hydrogen powered vehicles far more likely to win out over
| current battery-based EV technologies.
|
| One of the technologies metal organic frameworks (MOF) seems
| to have been creating some buzz recently.
|
| General overview:
| https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/materials-based-
| hydrog...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > far more likely to win out over current battery-based EV
| technologies
|
| As a BEV owner, I'll tell you right now that until the H2
| can be filled at my house, I'm not willingly giving back
| the portion of my life I used to spend at a fuel station.
|
| At the rate batteries and charging are improving year-over-
| year, compared with the practically non-existent hydrogen
| infrastructure (how many states have -any- hydrogen fueling
| stations? Two?), I can't see hydrogen ever taking over. We
| have a grid already which delivers electricity far more
| extensively than any liquid fuel infrastructure ever will.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Even with zero storage costs, hydrogen cars can't compete
| with batteries, since it's electricity -> battery ->
| electric motor vs electricity -> hydrogen -> battery ->
| electric motor and that extra step takes energy.
|
| It's only on longer distances that it begins to make sense
| as a tradeoff but even there it's not clear there's much
| room for it in the market.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Surely with hydrogen it's a fuel cell (and relatively v.
| small battery for regenerative braking and such), not a
| battery like a BEV? And as the hydrogen, using a tech
| like MOF, would be cheaper to store, and easier to store
| longer term ... the extra energy expense seems _a priori_
| to remove a lot of e- waste and reliance on mining in
| developing nations.
|
| I'm not sure how the life-cycle overall energy usage
| compares, would be interested in reading a study of
| someone wants to link one.
|
| I'm hoping that hydrogen storage will become easy enough
| that we'll use that for large scale excesses like those
| from nation-size grids during excess production. So we
| can do seasonal shifting at scale.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Hydrogen Fuel Cell is about 4x less efficient than BEV
| because you lose about half the initial energy making the
| hydrogen and half of that going back to electricity
| again. It's just very hard to come back from that if you
| have an alternative that uses the electricity directly.
|
| They're still better than conventional ICE (as long as
| the hydrogen is made from renewable energy) but just on
| energy alone BEVs are about 88% efficient, FCEVs 22% and
| ICE 18% efficient.
| adrianN wrote:
| I read it as 31kg of hydrogen. You probably need quite a bit of
| steel around that and a fuel cell.
| hnov wrote:
| I believe the outer shell is usually fiber reinforced.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| 31kg of H2, the tanks themselves will be much heavier than
| that.
| eis wrote:
| That is the weight of the hydrogen fuel. It does not include
| the weight of the tank nor the fuel cell so is not comparable
| to battery weight in a regular EV.
|
| The trucks also have 72kWh worth of batteries in them and it is
| not clear if a 400km range includes a fully charged battery
| pack at the start.
|
| Interestingly Hyundais page has slightly different specs for
| both fuel capacity as well as battery.
|
| https://trucknbus.hyundai.com/global/en/eco/hyundai-hydrogen...
| goethes_kind wrote:
| Battery fanbois choose to ignore why batteries suck so much:
| they weigh too much, they take up a lot of space, and they take
| forever to recharge. They see hydrocarbon based fuels are
| dirty, but you cannot really beat that energy density.
| MafellUser wrote:
| All good but you know that every single hydrogen car contains
| a generator that powers an electric motor, right?
|
| If batteries take so much space how comes EVs have FRUNKs
| while no ICE does? Oh because there's no need for a massive
| engine block, center diff, etc.
|
| If you want to beat the efficiency, why not have everything
| nuclear powered?
| goethes_kind wrote:
| The advantage of batteries is that you can manufacture them
| into any form and in case of cars, you can just hide them
| under the floor. Fine, works well enough in that particular
| use case. Does not discredit the what I said at all. There
| are many other applications where the volume and weight of
| the battery would make it unfeasible.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _The advantage of batteries is that you can manufacture
| them into any form_
|
| Can you really though? For EVs they're all using the
| classic cylindrical shape as far as I've seen.
| vel0city wrote:
| Its largely Tesla that is using the cylinder shape
| batteries. It seems to me most of the other manufacturers
| are using prismatic cells.
| bluGill wrote:
| You are confusing cells with batteries. A battery is a
| collection of cells. This difference is rarely important
| and so few people ever make it. In this context is
| matters as a EV has many small cells in the battery. You
| can put those cells anywhere they fit. You can't split an
| engine up like that. Thus while the battery itself needs
| more volume and weight than an engine (or at least that
| is the claim, depending on range desired this might or
| might not be true), you can put them in empty space where
| an engine cannot fit.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Batteries, not cells
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Battery.. _packs_? The cells are the batteries.
|
| It's like conflating gasoline with gasoline tanks.
| HPsquared wrote:
| A battery is a bunch of cells. Etymology is from an
| earlier meaning, artillery battery (a bunch of cannons
| together acting as a unit).
| jsight wrote:
| A lot of trucks have even more available space and
| headroom for excess weight.
|
| The biggest applications where the volume and weight come
| into play aren't on the roads.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Hydrogen is missing one vital thing to be classed as a
| hydrocarbon based fuel.
|
| You can extract Hydrogen from hydrocarbons, but you probably
| don't want to do that, for multiple reasons, if the carbon is
| fossil carbon.
| onethought wrote:
| Not just dirty but also relatively finite (on earth).
| Hydrogen is generally manufactured from fossil fuels.
| goethes_kind wrote:
| So are batteries and the energy they are charged with.
|
| That is such a dishonest argument. Of course the intention
| is not to dig up hydrocarbons to then transform them into
| hydrogen to then later transform them back into
| hydrocarbons.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Even if you assume ample clean electrical energy as a
| given, breaking up hydrocarbons is still the easiest way
| to get hydrogen.
|
| Together, solar/wind/nuclear/hydro produce about a third
| of all the world's electrical generation. Despite this,
| only 4% of hydrogen production in 2020 used electrolysis;
| 95% was produced from fossil fuels.
| erichocean wrote:
| > _Together, solar /wind/nuclear/hydro produce about a
| third of all the world's electrical generation._
|
| Including nuclear and hydro in the 1/3 is kind of
| deceptive since both sources are actively been phased out
| (c.f. Germany).
|
| Wind and solar generate just over 1/10 of global energy,
| although it's increasing every year.
| sgift wrote:
| > Including nuclear and hydro in the 1/3 is kind of
| deceptive since both sources are actively been phased out
| (c.f. Germany).
|
| Uh .. who has phased out hydro?
| erichocean wrote:
| The US and the Europe are both phasing out hydro:
|
| > _Dams are now being removed at a rate of more than one
| a week on both sides of the Atlantic._
|
| > _The building of dams in Europe and the US reached a
| peak in the 1960s and has been in decline since then,
| with more now being dismantled than installed._
|
| A major reason why:
|
| > _Many large-scale hydropower projects in Europe and the
| US have been disastrous for the environment._
|
| Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-
| environment-46098118
| sgift wrote:
| Interesting, thanks. Hadn't heard about any plans to
| phase out hydro here in Germany. I knew we didn't build
| new ones (for the reason you've stated + at some point
| there's not enough space left), but don't remember any
| discussions to remove existing ones.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Deceptive? I'm comparing sources of hydrogen that don't
| produce CO2, to those that do. The supply of carbon
| neutral electrical power _far_ surpasses the supply of
| carbon neutral hydrogen power. It 's not even close.
|
| I don't know why you're bringing Germany specifically
| into this (misdirection? deception?) The overwhelming
| majority of hydrogen production comes from fossil fuels
| no matter what country you look at. If you replaced all
| the nuclear and hydro in the world with solar power, most
| hydrogen production would _still_ be coming from
| hydrocarbons. Germany produces about 10% of their
| electrical energy with solar power, so do you think they
| produce 10% of their hydrogen with solar powered
| electrolysis? Hell no they don 't.
|
| Electricity -> hydrogen sucks even if you have a 100%
| solar grid. "Green hydrogen" cannot compete with
| batteries. Hydrogen only looks _kinda_ okay relative to
| batteries if you 're getting the hydrogen cheap by
| breaking apart hydrocarbons instead of water (aka "gray
| hydrogen"), and even then it sucks and has gotten out
| competed.
| erichocean wrote:
| > _I don 't know why you're bringing Germany specifically
| into this (misdirection? deception?)_
|
| Neither, here's why:
|
| > _Germany shut down three of its six nuclear power
| stations last year [i.e. 2021] and is due to close the
| remaining trio by the end of 2022._
|
| Source: https://www.politico.eu/article/gas-crisis-
| germany-nuclear-p....
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Looking over the steady increase in energy density and steady
| decrease in recharge time, the future of batteries still
| looks pretty bright. Another 20 years and we'll see parity
| with liquid fuels for effective energy density.
| jjk166 wrote:
| For context, diesel would be about 70kg for the same range.
| Batteries have very poor specific energy.
| danans wrote:
| > Edit: There is ALSO a 73.2 kW battery.. geesh
|
| All hydrogen fuel cell vehicles use small batteries to buffer
| charge to actually drive the electric motors because the fuel
| cell power output isn't high enough.
|
| 73kWH isn't huge for a large truck, equivalent to current small
| passenger EVs.
|
| For a vehicle whose fundamental purpose is to haul heavy
| freight, the excess weight imposed by batteries is
| uneconomical, which is a why fuel cells make sense - especially
| when the H2 is renewably generated.
| mtgx wrote:
| HeyItsMatt wrote:
| Pantographs and catenary wires long ago solved the energy supply
| problem for heavy transport. They are 99% efficient and cheap to
| build.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg
|
| Diesel and hydrogen is only needed on extremely long and thin
| routes like road trains in northern Australia or Alaska. This is
| greenwashing.
| Tyndale wrote:
| There is plenty of oil until Jesus Christ returns.
| slater wrote:
| So, never?
| pessimizer wrote:
| According to Matthew 16:27-28, we only need about -2,000 years
| worth of oil to last until the second coming.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Electric and Hydrogen trucks today struggle because _a truck
| needs a huge amount of energy to go somewhere_.
|
| If that energy could be reduced, the problem would be far easier.
|
| Here is a free idea for anyone working on this problem:
|
| Make it more aerodynamic. EU trucks today have flat fronts and
| flat back. They're super aero-inefficient. US is better but not
| much. The flat front and back are primarily to meet maximum
| length regulations, which are to allow them to navigate small
| streets. Bypass all this by having an _inflatable_ front and back
| that auto-inflate to make a pointed front and back when going
| over 40 mph on a straight road. Use the same kind of construction
| as a SUP-paddleboard - ie. 15 psi air and thousands of cords for
| shape. When the truck slows down, have the whole lot deflate to
| leave a flat front /back.
|
| This will ~halve energy requirements for long distance trucking,
| which, considering fuel/energy is ~30% of the cost of shipping
| goods, is a massive financial win, as well as being good for the
| environment!
|
| The main barriers will be regulatory. You'll have to persuade
| lots of government agencies to let you run trials of such things
| on the road. Trucks have pretty strict regulations, and you can
| bet 'stick a massive inflatable on the front' is going to mean
| you can't meet some of them, so will need exceptions to those
| regulations. That in turn will mean your truck can only drive in
| some states or regions, which will reduce its utility.
| anon_cow1111 wrote:
| Inflatable parts will need a way to ensure they can't obscure
| the windshield after a catastrophic failure, e.g. hitting a
| deer at 70mph.
|
| (Of course you could just over-build to withstand the impact,
| though it would make for an interesting liability case (and
| interesting dashcam video) the first time a deer gets bounced
| off the highway and through someone's roof)
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| I think that's exactly what the likes of Nikola and Tesla are
| doing with their trucks.
|
| From what I understand, battery electric trucks exist in pretty
| much every size and weight class right now ranging from huge
| dump trucks used in the mining industry, long range trucks to
| more medium and small size trucks. Hydrogen may have a role to
| play with some of these.
|
| But the decision as to use hydrogen is more a cost
| consideration than it is a functional necessity. The reason
| there are not a whole lot on the road is that cost wise, it
| doesn't make that much sense to go for hydrogen. Hydrogen is
| expensive to source, difficult to handle, there hardly any
| fueling stations, you need complex systems on the truck, heavy
| tanks, etc. It adds up to a lot of cost and limitations for not
| a whole lot of benefit.
|
| As for this particular truck, it does not look like it's
| particularly impressive in terms of torque, range, etc. 400km
| range is well below the 500 mile range that Tesla is
| advertising for the Tesla Semi (with a ~500kwh battery). That's
| 2x the range (and a bit). The normal range also has a better
| range with about half the battery.
|
| What is interesting is that hydrogen fueling takes a bit of
| time. It's not like fueling a truck with diesel. You need to
| squeeze a lot of hydrogen through some heavy duty pipes at very
| high pressure. That takes time.
|
| People always complain that charging batteries takes so long.
| Well, 20 minutes of fueling time for hydrogen is also
| substantial and at the lower end of the scale of what a lot of
| EVs can do in terms of 0 to 80% charging already. There are
| already chargers being designed that will charge trucks at over
| 1MW. So, if you have 500kwh of battery, you might get it
| charged in about 30-40 minutes. That's a lot of range depending
| at what rate you are cruise (typically nowhere near the maximum
| capacity of the motor).
|
| Another interesting aspect is that these hydrogen trucks have a
| 72 kwh battery. That's because fuel cells are not that easy to
| throttle up and down. So, instead it's basically a battery
| electrical truck with a smallish battery and a complicated
| hydrogen generator. Swap it out for a diesel or petrol engine
| and you have a hybrid truck. Swap that out for a proper battery
| and you have a proper battery electric truck. Same engine, just
| a larger battery and lot less complexity.
|
| The reason the battery is relatively large is because they are
| powering a 350kw motor with a 160kw hydrogen setup. It would
| not be able to operate that engine at its full power. And when
| you are driving up a mountain, you need a bit of a buffer since
| you are depleting faster than you can charge it so it needs to
| be able to sustain high power levels for a bit.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _As for this particular truck, it does not look like it 's
| particularly impressive in terms of torque, range, etc. 400km
| range is well below the 500 mile range that Tesla is
| advertising for the Tesla Semi_
|
| Ah yes, the classic comparison of a real product versus
| something Tesla says on a website splash page.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I have a hybrid with a little battery and a small gasoline
| engine like this... The 'mountain problem' is real. If I
| drive up a long hill when fully loaded, the electric bit runs
| out, and the gasoline engine is really undersized. You end up
| limping along on the highway at 25 mph with the engine
| revving like crazy and your foot on the floor.
|
| I could imagine the trucking industry might even have
| different models with different ratios of battery to fuel
| cell to motor depending on the terrain of the places it's
| likely to drive.
| Kye wrote:
| This is why big rigs have so many gears. It lets them
| maintain maximum power in a wider range of situations. That
| way they can actually reach the level of power that gets
| them up to speed (and more efficient RPMs) in situations
| like that.
| Kye wrote:
| I was wrong, but in a way that brought out interesting
| and informative conversation. So in a way, I was actually
| right.
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| I've driven big rigs. I've driven up mountains fully
| loaded (80,000lbs total). MOST trucks will struggle to
| drive up a moderate incline at that weight.
|
| I've been in the Smokey Mountains and crawling up a hill
| at under 20mph.
| algo_trader wrote:
| As a long haul driver, what is your opinion on
| replaceable battery packs?
|
| Assume we had these stops every 500-400km (or miles..),
| and you could do 4-5 hours driving per pack, and the on-
| site replacement process takes like 2 minutes (excluding
| the detour and approach time, of course..)
| bombcar wrote:
| People do not realize how _little_ horsepower many trucks
| have - they 're often comparable to mid-size sedans!
|
| Tons of torque, of course, but getting up a grade is a
| function of total energy, not just torque.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-xqfqcgNAE
| kube-system wrote:
| No, this is why big rigs make the same amount of maximum
| power at all points along the hill.
|
| The reason hybrids have less power mid way up a hill is
| that they use the _combined_ output of two power sources:
| the engine and motor(s). When hybrids deplete their
| battery, the only power remaining is the output from the
| engine. This mode of operation is unique to hybrids. The
| state-of-charge management software in hybrids attempt to
| mitigate this, but their batteries are only so big.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > Well, 20 minutes ... a lot of EVs can do in terms of 0 to
| 80% charging already
|
| How long will the battery last if you do that cycle twice per
| day every day though ?
| jsight wrote:
| 3-5 years at best? Depreciation on the battery over that
| lifetime is a meaningful issue, tbh.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > Make it more aerodynamic. EU trucks today have flat fronts
| and flat back. They're super aero-inefficient
|
| Since you obviously haven't driven on the roads these trucks
| need to navigate, I'll just say it: they're flat because they
| have to navigate lots of tight roads and turns...
|
| Edit - obviously missed part of the comment but still, long-
| distance trucking is less significant in the EU. Rail networks
| take goods much closer to the final destination than in the
| US... That's why it actually makes sense, now.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Didn't the person you're replying to say:
|
| > which are to allow them to navigate small streets
| tass wrote:
| > The flat front and back are primarily to meet maximum
| length regulations, which are to allow them to navigate small
| streets.
| simlevesque wrote:
| Please continue reading the comment, the sentence right after
| says the exact same thing you do, without your unnecessary
| snark.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Still silly considering their solution is a large amount of
| complexity for limited benefit. Most roads have lower speed
| limits (thus aerodynamic drag is not nearly as significant)
| and long-haul trucking isn't really a thing in the American
| or Aussie sense... Far more rail networks, less distances
| to drive.
|
| Like, they're being rolled out now... Electric vehicles
| actually make sense in Europe (distances between most
| places are short).
| seltzered_ wrote:
| I too used to have fun googling the scores of patents
| envisioning these ideas:
| https://patents.google.com/?q=inflatable+aerodynamic+truck&o...
| - the fun part is figuring out which energy crisis or recession
| they emerged from (post-1971, post-9/11, post-2008, etc.)
|
| here's a few:
|
| - https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2013182618A1/en
|
| -
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170158260A1/en?q=B62D3...
|
| - https://patents.google.com/patent/US4088362A/en
| kingkawn wrote:
| There is no way that aerodynamics account for 50% of energy use
| when doing long haul trucking and moving tens of tons of stuff.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Assuming your truck does 60 mph, it appears it does[1]. 80Hp
| for rolling resistance, electrical and all other losses,
| 120Hp for aerodynamic drag.
|
| Of that, cars modified to be super efficient (eg. [2]) can
| get the Cd down to about half (from about 0.31 to 0.17).
| Trucks could probably achieve an even greater improvement,
| because production cars already have a slanted windscreen and
| rear trunk.
|
| So, overall, I stand by my claim that energy use of trucking
| could be reduced by about half with aerodynamic techniques.
|
| [1]: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/AER
| O_RR... (figure 2)
|
| [2]: https://www.aerocivic.com/
| jjk166 wrote:
| If you cut half the air resistance and air resistance is
| 120 out of 200 hp, that's only a 30% total reduction.
| lm28469 wrote:
| halving aero drag != halving fuel consumption at the speed
| EU trucks are limited (55mph):
| https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-11-Fuel-
| Economy-w...
| rr888 wrote:
| Trucks in Europe are not allowed to travel 60mph.
| bombcar wrote:
| True, they have to do kilometers per hour over there.
| lallysingh wrote:
| After you've accelerated the truck to highway speed, the
| weight only matters due to friction. The friction and aero
| costs are large enough that the acceleration cost doesn't
| dominate.
| jacquesm wrote:
| All these assume flat terrain. As soon as you start adding
| hills things look completely different. That's the one
| reason why I think e-trucks make sense, the ease of
| regeneration rather than burning off the momentum as heat.
| scratcheee wrote:
| You're right because internal combustion engines are so
| inefficient that more than 50% of energy is wasted before it
| can even contribute anything. But in terms of useful energy
| leaving the engine it's a different question.
|
| Once you get to long-haul speeds, the energy cost is almost
| entirely split between air resistance and rolling resistance,
| but air resistance has the edge, (about 50%), rolling (30%),
| drivetrain (5%), and everything else (10%).
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| I suspect flat fronts and backs are driven by length
| restrictions?
|
| IIRC this is why cab over designs decreased in the US (length
| requirements were relaxed): https://www.quora.com/Why-are-
| Cabover-trucks-for-the-most-pa...
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Bypass all this by having an inflatable front and back that
| auto-inflate to make a pointed front and back when going over
| 40 mph on a straight road_
|
| In the U.S., many tractor trailers have something similar, but
| they fold out on the back and underneath the trailer to make
| the rig more aerodynamic.
|
| Example: https://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2015/03...
|
| I've never seen any fold-out attachments for the front, so
| there's probably not much to be done there, except for the roof
| of the cab, which often has a built-in fin/wing/whatever to
| help air get over the trailer.
| bombcar wrote:
| A flat front isn't a major issue at all - the most
| aerodynamic shape is roughly a teardrop - and the "front" of
| a teardrop is mostly flat anyway.
|
| It's the backend and the wake you cause that is the major
| problem.
| jubjubbird wrote:
| Seems like more often than not I see them folded up, not in
| use. Even with the price of diesel. I wonder how much they
| save?
| jsight wrote:
| Maybe 5% at best? Probably less, given that there's always
| some time spent at lower speeds too.
| bluGill wrote:
| They are not allowed in all states/areas. So you might be
| someplace where they are not allowed, or close enough that
| there isn't a good place to stop and put them back out. I
| see them in use all the time, but that is a reflection of
| where I live.
| BlackSwanManZ wrote:
| This is completely wrong.
|
| Energy isn't the problem. A small corner(100mix100mi) of the
| Nevada desert, or Spain can power the entire United
| States/Europe. The problem is storage and transport. Hydrogen
| solves that.
|
| People are so obssessed about efficiency. They're completely
| missing the point. You don't need to be that efficent when your
| source of electricity of effectively unlimited.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Isn't hydrogen pretty hard to store and transport? It's
| pretty corrosive and escapes through seals readily, and needs
| to be compressed.
| stewbrew wrote:
| You don't have to store and transport it in pure form as
| gas. You could use e.g. some carrier medium (or whatever is
| the right English term).
| ch4s3 wrote:
| You mean a liquid hydrogen carrier pathway like liquid
| ammonia. That seems possible, but requires extra plants
| and equipment, and obviously you still have to store H2
| if you want to burn it in an engine in a vehicle.
| MayeulC wrote:
| I was thinking about this yesterday. We should probably start
| allowing active aerodynamics in racing, especially electric
| racing like Formula E.
|
| Active aerodynamics are under-utilized. We start to see them,
| but they could be used much more, as break or turn assist, etc.
|
| Imagine a car with retractable wheels. Only have a couple (or
| single) "bike" (narrow) wheel(s) for propulsion at highway
| speed, rely on aerodynamic controls for the rest, and on lift
| if necessary. Deploy aerobrakes and lower both the body and
| wheels in case of an emergency braking.
|
| Such a system would be much more complex, but it could probably
| be engineered to be as safe as current cars (with aditionnal
| self- checks, attention to failure modes, etc).
|
| I am not sure how much energy could be saved, but it's probably
| substantial. Plus people would finally have their "flying" cars
| (make them jump over detected obstacles too!).
|
| There probably are some low-hanging fruits too, like deployable
| wheel covers for people who do not want to sacrifice low-speed
| aesthetics.
| mulmen wrote:
| There was some truly fantastical stuff imagined in the 1950s
| [1]. I'm particularly fond of the GM "Firebird" self-driving
| jet-turbine cars [2]. They prominently featured various
| winglets. Not sure if they were there just for futuristic
| looks and jet-age appeal or if they were intended for the
| kind of use you describe.
|
| [1]: https://youtu.be/cPOmuvFostY
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Firebird
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| Meh, no. Essentially all the aero stuff you see in racing,
| including active aero and fans and stuff, is to increase
| downforce. Which is absolutely useless, unless you're going
| more than 150 km/h (90 mph) while cornering hard.
|
| Take the active spoiler on a Tesla Model X for instance - it
| is 100% a toy for people who enjoy the Transformers
| aesthetic. I don't think there are published numbers for it,
| but the Porsche Panamera which has a substantially more
| agressive spoiler is reported to produce a whopping 7 kg
| downforce at 250 km/h (150 mph), decreasing substantially at
| lower speed.
|
| In the ordinary cars that actually need spoilers - famous
| example is the Audi TT - it's in order to fix crappy airflow
| giving lift at high speed, that is caused by the design of
| the car being optimized for looks rather than aero.
|
| And aerobrakes?? Anything that's not big enough to cover 4
| highway lanes is completely ineffective at speeds below 100
| km/h (60 mph). It would be substantiallt more useful to
| install boat anchors.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| So, not exactly the ideas you're talking about, but the
| racing world is increasingly exploring outside of the aero
| that FIA/F1 et all have allowed.
|
| Check out this fancar that set a new course record at
| Goodwood this year:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtvT2XYlcOY
|
| For anyone unfamiliar, a fan car uses motor driven fans to
| actively create a low pressure zone under the car, while also
| reducing the low pressure drag bubble behind the car. This
| particular one is all electric and quite compact.
|
| It's _very_ fast, and yes footage of it looks weird, almost
| artificial, because its sustaining grip through corners that
| rivals F1 cars, with the torque of electric. Running full
| tilt the fan system creates about 2000 kg of downforce. But
| the neat thing is you can flip a switch and then the thing
| just becomes a Nissan Leaf with a really crazy body kit. So
| some future "track day" car based on this concept would be
| surprisingly practical.
|
| I think the future of auto racing in a pure electric era is
| going to be surprisingly bright.
|
| Anyhow, not really relevant to talking about making big
| trucks more efficient, but thought you'd find it interesting.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| > But the neat thing is you can flip a switch and then the
| thing just becomes a Nissan Leaf with a really crazy body
| kit. So some future "track day" car based on this concept
| would be surprisingly practical.
|
| This car is really cool, I'm not going to argue against
| that for a single second. But your suggestion of a
| "practical track day car" is missing the fact that there
| are two things making this crazy fast: huge downforce _and
| ridiculously low weight_. It weighs less than half of what
| a Nissan Leaf does, has a single seat, no storage for
| anything, no aircon etc. etc.
|
| If you tried to make it approach the practicality of a
| Nissan Leaf while still being performant, you would not
| just need more space and weight for the practicality, but
| you'd end up tripling the weight since you would also need
| a much bigger battery pack to keep the runtime at the
| current ~30 minutes on a track, bigger motors to keep the
| acceleration high when you're dragging that weight, much
| wider tyres to enable cornering at these speeds, etc. etc.
| Then you're no longer killing hypercars but rather maybe
| matching a Bugatti Veyron, and you might as well just go
| for standard aero so you don't have the 120 dB (!!) fan
| noise inside the cabin.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| Nope. There's already a variety of track cars in this
| weight class, including road legal ones. Check out
| Palatov motorsports for example. This compact but high
| performance format is indeed very practical and in fact
| in very high demand, at least for race car crap. If you
| can spend the same amount of money as you would on a
| track built 911 for something considerably higher
| performance, a lot of people will.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| Sure you can get very lightweight two seater road legal
| track cars. You can even slap an Exocet kit on an MX-5
| and get that for very cheap.
|
| But you said "Nissan Leaf". A five-seater car that can
| fit a full baby stroller plus a bit of luggage in the
| trunk. That is fully incompatible with being a
| lightweight track car.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| Can you not understand I was being figurative vs so
| literal? This behavior is so common and so very tiresome
| here. Read charitably.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Honestly, why not just use trollys. Adding that infrastructure
| would be expensive but it is more efficent then battery or
| hydrogen.
| whatever1 wrote:
| At the very minimum every truck should have an energy
| recuperation system for braking.
|
| Truck brakes are wasting energy and they are dangerous because
| they frequently catch fire and become non operational.
| thesimp wrote:
| The EU is already on this with new regulations. As of 2022
| european trucks can be upto 90cm longer if the extra space is
| used for aero bodywork. The DAF XG+ is the 1st truck that uses
| a 60cm longer nose to get improved aero. It will be interesting
| to see what other truck manufacturers will do with these new EU
| rules.
|
| https://www.daf.com/en/news-and-media/news-articles/global/2...
| bshipp wrote:
| The lowest hanging fruit is likely going to be adding a
| second trailer behind the first and increasing the horsepower
| while simultaneously reducing speed.
|
| Ontario, Canada made this tradeoff a couple years back on
| very specific motorways. There are dedicated places for
| super-long road trains to lash-up, drive, pull over, and
| disassemble between London, Toronto, and Montreal. These
| combinations are only allowed to drive a max 90km/h speed
| which further reduces fuel use and permits easier passing by
| standards trucks and cars.
| freemint wrote:
| An absolutely horrible idea for safety outside of the
| autobahn. There are many distributive roads where over
| taking safely is impossible with two trailers in front of
| you.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| The autobahn??? The highway between London and Montreal
| is 4-8 lanes, what's the issue?
| TrueSlacker0 wrote:
| Sounds like trying to convert a truck to work like a train.
| Why not just more trains?
| yardstick wrote:
| Trains require dedicated rails, and increasing traffic on
| rails requires modern signalling infrastructure, both
| which are a lot more expensive to build and take decades.
| At least if the UK is anything to go by.
|
| Road trains use existing infra, aren't as constrained in
| destinations, and don't take decades to roll out.
|
| Don't get me wrong. More rail is a good thing. But we
| also need more road trains too.
| stewbrew wrote:
| Roads don't just emanate out of nowhere either. They must
| be built and maintained, or they become useless. I doubt
| building new highways really takes much less time than
| building new railways.
| nicoburns wrote:
| We wouldn't need to build _new_ highways for this. We 'd
| just be changing how we use existing ones (replacing
| existing road traffic with more efficient road traffic).
| bshipp wrote:
| It's all of this but mostly the flexibility. Rail is a
| centralized service with unpredictable schedules. Once a
| truck is full it can be shipped, but rail poses an
| additional bottleneck. Plus then you also need a driver
| on the other end anyway to pick up and deliver the
| trailer.
|
| Rail should absolutely be used more frequently. It just
| isn't well integrated with trucking right now.
| e3bc54b2 wrote:
| In India we have Ro-Ro (or whatever it is called now)
| where trucks are loaded onto trains and transported over
| long distance, fast and cheap. Then the roads take them
| last 100 km or so, in the heartlands (or wherever the
| destination). Best of both worlds.
| nicbou wrote:
| As far as I know, German trucks are already limited to 90
| km/h
| zeeZ wrote:
| Above 7.5t on the Autobahn 80km/h, outside cities 60km/h.
| Fines start at 10km/h over, so they're usually going 89
| and 69 though...
| golergka wrote:
| How will this impact braking distance?
| moomoo11 wrote:
| Deployable parachute behind the truck and for super
| emergencies the front backwards facing rocket engages, duhh
| delecti wrote:
| Why would it impact braking distance? Aside from "everything
| affects everything" of course. I can't see this majorly
| affecting the overall vehicle's momentum or braking ability
| at any given speed, and speed limits wouldn't change.
| jstanley wrote:
| It would impact braking distance because if the air isn't
| slowing the truck down as much then it will take longer for
| the brakes to slow the truck down.
| delecti wrote:
| Oh that's a great point. It reduces drag, which would
| normally help braking distance. Thanks for explaining, I
| was genuinely having trouble thinking of how it could
| affect things.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| That doesn't matter much for slowing a truck down due to
| the high inertia. Really good low rolling resistance
| tires (Super Singles) should actually reduce stopping
| distance as they generally have a bit more contact area.
| You want low amounts of slippage on the tires while
| driving as slippage is wasted energy, which should give
| you more margin when you need to slow down.
|
| Electric trucks also have a massive advantage in
| mountainous terrain due to ability to dump energy into
| the battery instead of the brakes which can and do
| overheat.
| spurgu wrote:
| Who cares about braking, the cone acts as an airbag!
| glitchc wrote:
| Okay buddy, how about you let your car/truck/SUV be hit by
| a 150,000 lbs "airbag" and I will watch from afar to see
| what happens. I'm thinking pinball and the lanes as
| bumpers, yeah?
| orangepurple wrote:
| If you want to be as green as possible with today's technology
| the holy grail is probably LPG derived from nuclear reactor
| powered atmospheric carbon capture. Existing fueling
| infrastructure is used, low vehicle emissions since it's not a
| liquid when injected, retrofit is possible for every vehicle on
| the road today with existing and proven technology, compact
| fuel storage, familiarity in much of the world, the works. It's
| great.
| Retric wrote:
| Electrified highways (over head or in road) is vastly more
| efficient and covers the vast majority of truck pollution.
| Ex: https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/07/elec
| tri... or https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1127520_world-
| first-in-...
|
| After that using bio or synthetic fuels, batteries, hydrogen
| etc are more reasonable because they need to supply vastly
| less energy per trip.
| abakker wrote:
| I don't think this is true if you factor in the Total
| carbon from the process of actually electrifying the roads.
| Its a ton of cabling made out of a ton of metal that needs
| to be mined.
| Retric wrote:
| In comparison to building 5 or more times as many nuclear
| reactors, vastly more of whatever fuel creating facility
| you want etc it's a clear win.
| orangepurple wrote:
| I don't think it's a clear win. Because the scale of
| either initiative seems to be massive it warrants further
| study. Regardless, electrified freeways are a very
| interesting concept and I have never seen them anywhere
| yet.
| elil17 wrote:
| Alternate idea (which could be enabled by tele-op trucks) -
| make trucks go slower. Make them stick in the right couple
| lanes and give them a lower speed limit.
| bluGill wrote:
| Turns out many cars and trucks are more efficient at 65mph
| (120km/h) than 55mph (100km/h). There are a lot of fixed
| losses, and ideal engine RPM is critical for efficiency.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Really? The graphs I have seen put the optimal ICE car
| speed at about 30-50 mph depending on car aerodynamics. For
| EVs it is probably even lower as drag dominate earlier.
| elil17 wrote:
| Going too slow is definitely inefficient for non-hybrid
| cars and trucks, but the optimal speed for most vehicles is
| certainly not higher than 55 MPH.
|
| Average fuel economy for cars and light trucks decreases
| 12% going from 50 to 60 MPH: https://www.energy.gov/eere/ve
| hicles/fact-982-june-19-2017-s...
|
| Heavy trucks are the exception, they are typically designed
| for an operating point of 65 MPH. However, there are huge
| losses above that speed. No reason for a heavy truck to be
| going 70 or 75 MPH.
|
| The American Trucking Association actually endorses a
| nation 65 MPH speed limit for trucks, which they say would
| save 280 million gallons of diesel per year:
| https://www.fleetowner.com/emissions-
| efficiency/article/2166...
| ct0 wrote:
| Momentum is a massive benefit that trucks try to leverage. I
| fully support truck lanes though, as cars are generally the
| cause for losing momentum on on ramps etc.
| jessaustin wrote:
| Separating different types of traffic could be a good idea,
| but there's no free lunch in physics. Higher speeds require
| more energy, period. Heavier loads require more energy,
| period. Wasting momentum due to curvy roads or traffic is
| inefficient, but higher speeds don't somehow make up for
| that.
| elil17 wrote:
| Maybe speed limits are the wrong idea - you probably do
| want trucks to be able to speed up above their cruising
| speed before going up a hill. But dedicated lanes and tele-
| op could set up an incentive structure that favors a lower
| speed without any laws.
| nradov wrote:
| No thanks. Try driving on highway truck route like I-5 where
| there are only 2 lanes in each direction. Even when the
| trucks stick to the right lane that still results in long
| delays as everyone else tries to pass on the left. Slowing
| the trucks down even more will just cause further delays,
| road rage, and dangerous driving.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Oh, don't worry. We'll add more sensors and real-time
| monitoring to passenger cars so we'll becable to punish
| those doing road rage. We'll also put a hard speed limit in
| place which will be enforced electronically by the car
| itself.
|
| We will then eliminate all old cars by raising taxes on
| them beyound what any sane person would pay.
|
| It's coming. Total control.
| lostapathy wrote:
| > Even when the trucks stick to the right lane that still
| results in long delays as everyone else tries to pass on
| the left.
|
| I'm always amazed in the midwest what a difference there is
| between traffic in states that have (and actually enforce!)
| a "get out of the left lane" law vs states that don't.
|
| I-80 across the eastern half of Iowa in particular is
| exhausting to drive on, because a lot of people camp in the
| left lane and clog up traffic. That leads to desperate and
| aggressive driving to get around these silly bottlenecks,
| which kills fuel efficiency and makes the roads more
| dangerous.
| elil17 wrote:
| Or just do it where it makes sense and don't do it on two
| lane roads. Doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing policy.
| Many roads already have lower speed limits and lane
| restrictions for trucks. That could easily be expanded
| where it makes sense.
| andbberger wrote:
| or or, hear me out, become switzerland and get serious about
| doing freight logistics with trains
| exabrial wrote:
| > Make it more aerodynamic. EU trucks today .... and flat back
|
| Definitely go touch up your aerodynamics :) The flat back is
| actually not as bad as you think for speed these trucks moving
| at. It creates a circular vortex that makes a high pressure
| zone.
|
| * Asterisks apply. Ask representative for details. Commentors
| on HN will comment that I over-simplified.
| bshipp wrote:
| Aerodynamics are important but unless all the roads are flat
| like a railway (which, of course, is infeasible) they really
| only impact trucks driven at high speeds with light loads. Of
| course any 5 or 10% savings on fuel is very helpful, and most
| North American companies have used aerodynamic skirts and
| shapes to minimize resistance, but when you're hauling
| 80,000lbs the density of air in front of you is dwarfed by
| the rolling resistance of the load behind you.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > when you're hauling 80,000lbs the density of air in front
| of you is dwarfed by the rolling resistance of the load
| behind you.
|
| Isn't this only true up until around 50-55 mph? IIRC, at
| the speeds truckers see in the US, especially on rural
| highways, aero dominates.
| bshipp wrote:
| Where I live, trucks are governed to 105km/h (approx 65
| mph) and frequently companies cap them lower than that,
| so it's not like they are driving around at 75mph. No
| company could afford the fuel bill.
|
| I'm not saying aerodynamics isn't important, but only
| that significant changes need to be made that smooth the
| transition between road and rail so that single
| truck/trailer combinations aren't being used for stupid
| trips across the continent that could easily be
| accomodated by rail and are only used for local
| deliveries.
|
| However, making rail responsive enough to tie into the
| just-in-time manufacturing sector is more difficult than
| it should be.
| lostapathy wrote:
| > so it's not like they are driving around at 75mph.
|
| Plenty are in the US. A lot of people from other
| countries don't appreciate just how much open space there
| is to cover here.
| sojournerc wrote:
| I wonder about engine cooling. The radiator is at the front to
| catch as much of that air flow as possible. You don't really
| want to block it.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Modern aerodynamic designs have mechanical flaps to allow in
| just the necessary airflow for however much cooling is
| required. Hot day going up a hill - the flaps open. Cold day
| lightly loaded going downhill - the flaps close to reduce
| drag.
|
| An inflatable cone could use the same type of mechanism
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Hydrogen especially has this problem because the produces a
| LOT more waste heat than a pure battery-electric powertrain.
| One person familiar with the matter once told me the cooling
| system (fan, coolant pump, etc) on the heat exchanger of a
| fuel cell hydrogen semi truck prototype used about as much
| power as a Nissan Leaf.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| > Electric and Hydrogen trucks today struggle because
|
| ...pollution and carbon emissions haven't been priced correctly
| for decades.
|
| Now that's changing, and ICE trucks are starting to struggle,
| starting at the last mile, low weight, urban end of the scale,
| but inevitably expanding outwords.
|
| It also explains why the 50% savings you mention haven't
| already been taken advantage of with ICE trucks. The costs of
| developing and deploying that technology (mostly related to a
| political fight with the people who sell the fuels and
| therefore really dislike efficiency and clean air) hasn't been
| worth the savings available.
| nradov wrote:
| The people who sell the fuels have approximately zero
| influence over the people who sell the trucks. Truck
| manufacturers try to optimize overall operating costs because
| that's the primary metric their customers look at. Adding
| active aerodynamic surfaces to trucks would cut fuel
| consumption slightly, but nowhere near in half (as
| londons_explore suggested); that's simply not plausible. And
| it would be another thing to break.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| >The people who sell the fuels have approximately zero
| influence over the people who sell the trucks
|
| I wish that were the case:
|
| https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2022/05/gas-war-
| republican...
|
| > Last week, a group of Republican attorneys general
| decided to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
| over its decision to reinstate the waiver allowing
| California to set its own limitations on exhaust gasses and
| zero-emission vehicle mandates that would exceed federal
| standards.
| nradov wrote:
| What's your point? That article isn't relevant to my
| previous comment. Nothing is stopping truck manufacturers
| from increasing fuel efficiency. They're free to do so,
| regardless of whether or not California imposes emissions
| requirements that are stricter than the federal standard.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| Republican attorneys concerned about the EPA overstepping
| its authority (right or wrong) don't sell the fuels or
| sell the trucks.
| DoneWithAllThat wrote:
| Somehow I have a hard time trusting
| "thetruthaboutcars.com" as a trustworthy, unbiased
| source.
| jsight wrote:
| That site isn't too bad, but the article is almost
| completely unrelated to the point that was raised.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| I'd argue they do.
|
| Big Oil lobbies government _hard_ to not price in
| externalities (carbon tax).
|
| Therefore diesel is cheaper than it might be under a carbon
| tax. Truck manufacturers optimise max length & volume, so
| flat front and back, rather than diesel efficiency.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _Truck manufacturers optimise max length & volume, so
| flat front and back, rather than diesel efficiency._
|
| I don't think they _do_ optimize volume, because they
| could certainly have larger trailers.
|
| The correct metric seems to be diesel consumed per
| kg/cargo mile.
| jsight wrote:
| Exactly, the benefits are fairly marginal. Its a bit like
| those foldout truck tails, they do have a marginal benefit
| but they cause truckers enough pain that many avoid them.
| humaniania wrote:
| Back in the day the people working to shut down electric
| street cars were the same people making and selling cars
| and buses and tires and oil for the oil changes: https://en
| .wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
| rjzzleep wrote:
| Oh yeah, because batteries and solar panels contain the long
| term pollution they create in their price right? All of these
| prices have a lot of factors involved and none of them are
| actually related to their pollution aspect. In fact pricing
| things ONLY in carbon emissions as people would like to do
| nowadays is maliciously deceiving.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Batteries and solar panels are (broadly) affected by the
| same carbon fees and pollution regulations as other
| products.
|
| Yes, those fees should be higher, and pollution regulations
| should be even stricter, but if they were, (which they
| should be!) it would only further speed the uptake of solar
| and batteries, because they are less polluting than their
| rival technologies.
|
| > In fact pricing things ONLY in carbon emissions as people
| would like to do nowadays is maliciously deceiving.
|
| I don't think anyone is suggesting this, though it may
| actually be better overall than not pricing carbon at all,
| so it's an interesting thought experiment.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| Don't let perfect be the enemy of good...
| f6v wrote:
| I was interviewing with people in Berlin who wanted to make
| trucks go in caravans to save on fuel. I don't know if it went
| somewhere beyond idea.
| jjk166 wrote:
| This is an example of bahnization - the tendency of every
| transportation method to evolve into a train.
| dfee wrote:
| I looked up bahnization hoping it was a real concept. Did
| you just coin it?
| jjk166 wrote:
| The concept is widespread, but to my knowledge there
| isn't a name for it. Bahnization is meant to be a play on
| carcinization, the tendency for things to evolve into
| crabs.
| guerby wrote:
| This is called truck platooning:
|
| https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/fleettest-
| platooning.htm...
| bombcar wrote:
| The song Convoy references this -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd5ZLJWQmss - on the US
| interstates trucks will kind of "naturally" form convoys and
| the lead truck will swap off now and then; the rest will
| "draft" behind it.
|
| It saves a small but noticeable amount of fuel.
| lm28469 wrote:
| I heard they even want to electrify them and put them on
| rails, then they'd run electrical cables on top of the rails
| so they wound't need batteries. This would be hyper
| disruptive
| f6v wrote:
| That's not web3, someone has to maintain the rails, that's
| centralized. Imagine crypto-trucks assembling into a train
| through smart contracts.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Electrified freight rail has prevailed in Europe, but
| mostly because the European rail system is optimized for
| passenger travel which favors faster and shorter electric
| trains. America freight trains are several times longer
| than European freight trains, use double stacked containers
| (which don't fit under the wires Europe uses) and run
| slower. This makes them disruptive to passenger rail, but
| also more efficient. As a consequence of these factors,
| America moves a much greater percentage of its total
| freight tonnage by rail than Europe, which relies more on
| trucks.
|
| So in short, electric freight trains are not 'disruptive';
| they don't compete with diesel freight trains unless you
| have enough political pressure to prioritize passenger
| trains above diesel freight trains.
| Symbiote wrote:
| You need to consider sea and river transport if you
| compare Europe to the USA for freight. A big chunk of the
| bulk goods market (coal, stone/ore, grain) is moved by
| water in Europe:
| https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Modal-Split-of-
| Freight-T...
|
| And India runs electric double-stack container trains,
| but of course it would be an enormous upgrade project to
| convert to this -- tunnels and bridges more than the
| wires: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNq8lP6cfL4
| bluGill wrote:
| The US freight railways have priced wiring their rails.
| It is possible to do this, and double stacked containers
| are not a problem (except for a few bridges that are
| already borderline for being high enough). Problem is it
| is only worth it if you have every rail electrified, just
| a short section in some out of the way rarely used rail
| that isn't wired is enough that they have to have diesel
| locomotives everywhere just in case they want to send
| that train to the one unwired track. And so it doesn't
| pencil out until diesel gets substantially higher and
| remains there.
|
| That is according to the railroad. There are others who
| question the math, which is a valid thing to do, though I
| don't know who is right. In any case it is possible to
| wire all US freight, but so far nobody has done it.
| bombcar wrote:
| Electrified rails don't prevent diesel locomotives
| rolling down them, so if it was _cost effective_ right
| now to electrify the most active lines, they 'd do it.
|
| So far, it is not.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| Can you give sources for the claim of how much diesel would be
| saved by an inflatable pad in the front and back?
| dieselgate wrote:
| Good question and one I'm curious to know as well. Parent
| said about "~halve" their consumption?
|
| This is only partially related but this NASA article says
| with their aerodynamic technology a truck can save almost
| 7000 gal of diesel a year.
|
| If we assume (just to get ballpark numbers) a semi gets about
| 5mpg and drives about 100k miles a year that's about 20k gal
| of fuel.
|
| Don't truckers (at least in the US) often own their truck? I
| would assume that being more of a constraint than the
| aerodynamic tech itself
|
| https://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/40-years-of-nasa-
| spinoff/tr...
| nojito wrote:
| H2 is the future. I can't wait for it to take over the world.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| H2 will be the future only because it gives Oil & Gas
| industries an exit strategy from hydrocarbon and all the
| logistics already invested around it. If that is the price that
| it takes for us to move forward without obstructionist lobbying
| and think-tank disinformation from Oil & gas industries so be
| it.
|
| I appreciate the argument of energy density but there is a
| handful of applications (aviation?) where there is a real need
| for setting up all the hydrogen generation infrastructure.
| nojito wrote:
| It doesn't make any sense not to leverage the infrastructure
| that already exists.
| vardump wrote:
| What kind of hydrogen infrastructure already exists?
|
| Don't you need practically everything for it to be new,
| apart from some buildings perhaps? Maybe _some_ natural gas
| pipes can be reused at most?
|
| You're also going to need pretty extensive safety zones
| around H2 infrastructure.
| nojito wrote:
| Far easier to convert our current gas infrastructure into
| h2 infrastructure.
|
| https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-pipelines
| InitialLastName wrote:
| So if (as per that website) you have to replace the
| pipelines themselves and much of the gear, is the value
| of using existing pipelines really just that the right-
| of-ways, permitting, surveying and meta-infrastructure
| (roads to the pipelines, supporting construction, etc)
| are already in place?
| jsight wrote:
| Because of the issues around brittling, I'm pretty sure
| "convert" will really mean "replace" in this case.
| diordiderot wrote:
| "Converting" yes but it's exponentially more effort to
| maintain.
| nojito wrote:
| Now you're just moving goalposts.
| smileysteve wrote:
| This.
|
| The existing infrastructure of gas stations is not
| comparable to hydrogen.
|
| - Consumers don't wear cryo gloves as they fill,
|
| - tanks aren't pressure vessels,
|
| - kiosks (and attendants) aren't monitoring pressure
|
| Something governments really need to consider
| implementing are superfund cleanups of the existing
| tanks. While some stations ( (especially those at
| highways where 100+ mile trips are likely) may convert to
| electric or possibly hydrogen, we have only 2-3 years
| before 50% of 80% of trips can be "fueled" fromm home.
| hedora wrote:
| What?
|
| - The fill nozzles for hydrogen cars are insulated.
|
| - Gas stations manage pressure tanks for propane already,
| with no problem.
|
| - Automated pressure monitoring has been a solved problem
| since the steam engine.
|
| - Hydrogen crackers don't create superfund sites. If they
| leak, they leak water, hydrogen and oxygen.
|
| A hydrogen cracker can just be plopped down wherever
| electricity and water are available. You probably need an
| attendant because of vandals, bathrooms, snacks, etc,
| like a current gas station. This is why current
| commercial crackers are often found at existing gas
| stations.
| smileysteve wrote:
| > Gas stations manage pressure tanks for propane already,
| with no problem.
|
| Not in most of the US
|
| > Hydrogen crackers don't create superfund sites
|
| But replacing the existing tank to dig another does
| (whether replaced by hydrogen or electric)
|
| > Automated pressure monitoring has been a solved problem
| since the steam engine.
|
| Us still have do not top off instructions at every pump
| inasio wrote:
| It's relatively common to see hydrogen Mirai cars in Vancouver
| (Seattle too?), nowadays they look similar to newer Prius, they
| used to be pretty distinctive. You can/could buy them used for
| around $20K Canadian, very nice interiors (Lexus essentially).
| Fuel costs I think were comparable to gas (3 hydrogen stations
| in metro Vancouver)
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| Is this tech subsidized?
|
| Is this tech a more effective electric alternative, without the
| carbon cost?
|
| Is there a logic why we keep subsidizing electric alternatives
| that already have a market, when new, better, innovative options
| are coming out?
| konschubert wrote:
| What are the better options?
| 127 wrote:
| Trains
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| Trains can't replace last-mile delivery though. Afaik the
| US already has a fantastic freight railway system.
| freemint wrote:
| Can't they? How did last mile delivery happen before cars
| then?
|
| The answer: Trains driving cargo through the middle of
| large cities.
| konschubert wrote:
| I'm a big train geek and I hate trucks but I also know that
| we don't have time to wait for a transport revolution if we
| want to prevent the climate emergency.
| socialdemocrat wrote:
| Hydrogen makes sense for long haul, ships, trucks and possibly
| airlines. Ideally we just bring back hydrogen airships.
| Hindenburg was primarily caused by flammable paint, not hydrogen.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents
|
| The popular narrative that airships were ended by the
| Hindenburg disaster is a misleading oversimplification; the
| truth is the Hindenburg was only the final straw and helium
| airships had already proven themselves to be very dangerous as
| well. They were marginally safer, but not substantially so.
| Even when they didn't burn, airships were prone to being
| destroyed by a stiff breeze. The deadliest airship disaster of
| them all was a helium airship broken up by the wind, the USS
| Akron: 73 dead, 3 survivors. Compared to the Hindenburg's 36
| dead, 62 survivors.
|
| This said, in some of those accidents the hydrogen's
| flammability played a larger role in the fatalities. When R101
| crashed, a lot of people survived the crash to the ground but
| subsequently perished in the hydrogen fire. Contrast that with
| the USS Shenandoah, which broke up midair in the wind. 14 men
| were killed but 29 survived by riding pieces fragments of the
| destroyed airship down to the ground.
| quijoteuniv wrote:
| Airships!
| seqastian wrote:
| moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though. It would
| have to be produced right where you fill the tank of those
| ships, trucks and planes.
| closedloop129 wrote:
| If you transport it with airships, is transport still
| inefficient?
| BlackSwanManZ wrote:
| Have you never heard of pipelines?
| nojito wrote:
| >moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though
|
| This hasn't been true for years. Not sure where you're
| getting your information from.
| adrianN wrote:
| A megawatt electrolyser fits in a cargo container, so that's
| not as impractical as it sounds. But personally I think at
| least for ships ammonia is the nicer fuel.
| jessaustin wrote:
| Ammonia is so much more practical than elemental hydrogen
| that a hydrogen-based project inherently has the appearance
| of a toy. This is especially true in agricultural areas
| where existing infrastructure already produces and
| distributes ammonia in massive quantity for use as
| fertilizer.
| danans wrote:
| > moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though. It
| would have to be produced right where you fill the tank of
| those ships, trucks and planes.
|
| Exactly! I see hundreds of H2 generation facilities adjacent
| to trucking routes near the massive wind resources of the US
| great plains.
|
| Each would have a fuel stop with high efficiency H2
| electrolyzers and tanks that buffer H2 using wind piwer when
| it's available, so intermittency won't matter, since
| stationary hydrogen storage is a solved problem. Hydrolysis
| is also a solved problem, and getting more efficient
| constantly (currently up to 70%). Oh, and the facility's only
| exhaust is oxygen.
|
| Substitute wind with the locally abundant source of renewable
| energy, and presto, no shipping of hydrogen needed.
| bbarnett wrote:
| _moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though._
|
| No, no it isn't inefficient.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| What do you propose storing it in? It leaks through most
| materials and makes steels unusably brittle while doing so.
| oconnore wrote:
| The new tanks are fiber wrapped composite, not steel.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| Sounds plausible. Is the idea to build pipes out of the
| same stuff? Might be worth mentioning that fibre
| composite essentially means epoxy with fibres in, which
| is not necessarily environmentally superb in the
| thousands of miles of pipes format.
|
| Wonder how people will deal with burying very stiff pipes
| without them breaking when the ground moves. Maybe
| sections with rubber joints, though the joints would
| leak.
| bbarnett wrote:
| But ignoring this, allows the anti-h2 crowd to continue
| to deride h2 tech.
|
| The heart of this often claims that h2 is polluting,
| based upon the fact that currently, we source a lot of h2
| from Ng.
|
| Of course this disregards that electricity is often
| derived from dirty sources too, meaning, all the same
| arguments should be levied against battery based power
| sources too.
|
| What we need, is to get non polluting engine/point of use
| tech out there, asap! And h2 is the only tech which
| provides the range, due to refueling speed, to replace
| many applications.
|
| Without end of use clean tech, we have zero hope.
|
| Any environmentalist should be happy, joyful, exuberant
| with h2.
|
| Sadly, endless division exists.
| bbarnett wrote:
| This is a solved problem, why do people persist with
| stuff repeated in the 1980s?!
|
| There are endless h2 vehicles on the road. Do you think
| the tanks used, are apt to become brittle, and leak?!
|
| There are h2 refueling stations for said vehicles, all
| over the place.
|
| Do you think these leak, and become brittle?
|
| And amusingly, your comment is redirecting from the claim
| that transporting h2 is hard. You are now poking at
| storage, instead of at transport (which can be done with
| pipelines, and is done with them).
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| In my case it's been at least a decade since I looked at
| materials science and hydrogen destroys steel isn't as
| well known as hydrogen blows up easily.
| blackoil wrote:
| Whatever Mirai tanks are made of.
| freemint wrote:
| The Mirai needs check ups and part replacement every 5000
| miles[1]. It is car sold at a huge loss (middle 5 to low
| 6 digits) because the tech is super expensive.
|
| [1] https://ds.jerrysgarageinc.com/service-
| schedule/complete/toy...
| seqastian wrote:
| I heard on a podcast that this
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suiso_Frontier new hydrogen
| tanker could only go 30 days with the hydrogen it carries.
| Which is why it runs on diesel. It's 40 days to Europe.
| CodeSgt wrote:
| I mean, I think we know what they meant. Let's not be
| pedantic when the meaning of their comment is clear.
| bbarnett wrote:
| If you see my other comments, I am not making fun of a
| space.
| CodeSgt wrote:
| Ah, my mistake then.
| luplex wrote:
| It is inefficient to produce and store, but do we have a more
| efficient alternative that can be rolled out at global scale?
|
| Batteries are more efficient at storing energy, but I'm not
| convinced we can build enough of them as quickly as we need
| to.
| konschubert wrote:
| We can use electricity, hydrogen and CO2 from the air to
| make climante-neutral methane.
|
| Methane can then replace natural gas. We already have huge
| storage infrastructure, power plants, and also cars and
| trucks that run on natural gas.
| Zigurd wrote:
| Re "do we have a more efficient alternative that can be
| rolled out at global scale?"
|
| Possibly ammonia.
| parkingrift wrote:
| Batteries aren't an answer for anything but cars. Honestly
| even for cars they still aren't a great answer. They are
| way too heavy and take up too much space.
|
| There are all sorts of problems to solve with hydrogen, but
| I think we're closer to solving those problems than we are
| to increasing battery density by an order of magnitude.
| empyrrhicist wrote:
| > They are way too heavy and take up too much space.
|
| Can you clarify? Currently have a Chevy Bolt and it is
| great...
| parkingrift wrote:
| Sure. Electric vehicles have enormous batteries which
| weigh thousands of pounds and take up a substantial
| portion of interior volume. We're at the bleeding edge of
| battery tech and the best we're able to achieve is 300ish
| miles of range. We can't realistically expand this to 500
| to 1,500 miles anytime in the next decade or so.
|
| As example compare the Model 3 and a CRV. This is an
| absurd example because the CRV is an SUV, but the
| comparison is telling given the weight differences.
|
| The Model 3 weighs 4,200 pounds with 97 cubic feet of
| interior passenger space.
|
| A Honda CRV weighs 3,500 pounds and 103 cubic feet of
| interior passenger space.
|
| So we have a smaller car that is quite a bit heavier and
| it's almost exclusively due to the battery. Tesla can't
| cram more battery into that car so the only option is to
| dramatically increase energy density. There is nothing in
| the horizon except incremental improvements.
| LightG wrote:
| I think you're missing the point. 300 miles is not my
| ideal and, yes, change may or may not be incremental. I'd
| be happier with 1000m. But 300m is enough for me to buy
| one now. And that is progress.
|
| And I think your point on space is out of date. I have no
| idea about the Tesla M3. In my mind I hate how that car
| looks and so I've never even tested one. But, for space,
| try an ioniq 5. Magic.
| onethought wrote:
| Model 3 is ~12% heavier than a Camry and the Model 3 is
| smaller in length. What do you mean too heavy and too
| much space?
| parkingrift wrote:
| I mean that we're at the absolute edge of possible range
| with existing battery tech, and there is no path to
| dramatically increasing range. The Model 3 is 20% heavier
| than a Honda CRV, the "range" is about 30% less, and the
| total cargo capacity is also about 30% less. We can't add
| more batteries because the weight is already an issue,
| and so the only viable path forward is to dramatically
| increase energy density. I compared a sedan to an SUV
| because you otherwise wouldn't expect a small sedan to
| weigh so much more than an SUV.
|
| Most effort today is going into decreasing costs via
| economies of scale. What's the path to an electric
| vehicle with a 1,500 mile range? Hydrogen "gen1" cars are
| already over 400 miles of range, and you can add 400 more
| miles of range in 3 minutes.
|
| Basically... batteries seem more like a stopgap than a
| permanent solution. Do you really think batteries will
| ever power an airplane, for example? I do think it's
| plausible that planes could run on hydrogen.
| cnasc wrote:
| > the Model 3 is smaller in length
|
| The Model 3 long range is almost 1,000 pounds heavier
| than a Camry, and the Camry has more range (and a faster
| "charging" time). Interior volume is similar, with a
| slight advantage to the Camry, though given the Model 3
| has smaller exterior dimensions I'd give it the edge
| there.
| jtlisi wrote:
| The MSRP of a Camry is less than half that of a model 3
| long range.
|
| 26000$ vs 57000$
| adrianN wrote:
| There are now battery-electric trains.
| freemint wrote:
| Yes, it's called a electricity grid. The sun shines 24/7.
| rasz wrote:
| the subsidy fleet, they will manufacture blue hydrogen using
| russian ga... oh, wait a minute
| [deleted]
| NoblePublius wrote:
| The hydrogen is produced by cracking H2 out of oil. The H2 is
| then liquified using electricity made mostly by burning carbon.
| The liquified H2 is then transported on diesel trucks. Don't fall
| for this carbon energy fake out.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| The solution for electric trucking has been obvious for 50 years
| - overhead cables on all major highways.
|
| It is the cheapest and most efficient solution, the trucks only
| need enough range for local delivery and transport, and since
| they charge from cables, they dont occupy petrol stations.
|
| https://movemnt.net/uk-trial-to-electrify-30km-of-motorway-w...
| panick21_ wrote:
| If that is the case, and I agree. We should actually put much,
| much more effort into cargo railway first. And the same for
| trams as well.
|
| But that shouldnt prevent us from trolly lines on highways.
| nimbleplum40 wrote:
| > The solution for electric trucking has been obvious for 50
| years - overhead cables on all major highways.
|
| Not necessarily disagreeing, but if the solution has been
| obvious for 50 years, why hasn't it happened?
| myself248 wrote:
| Same reason Detroit doesn't have useful mass-transit.
|
| Entrenched interests make more money by prolonging the
| problem. Arguably the solution would be economically superior
| (vastly so!), but the folks who'd profit from it aren't in
| power _now_, and government lacks both the technical
| competency to understand what to do, and the balls to do it.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Germany is currently testing this on some selected sections.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I mean, we still haven't even electrified all the railways,
| and the proposal for IceLink, a cable to import cheap
| renewable power from IceLand to UK, was sitting on the shelf
| for 60 years.
|
| Also we had trolleybusses in many cities and got rid of them
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| So why isn't it widely deployed _in Europe_ where they do
| have electrified railways, etc?
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Because the logistics never worked, and won't work for at
| least another 10 years.
|
| 1. How do you use it? First you need an electric truck, or a
| truck where at least 50% of its wheels are connected to
| electric motors. Either way you'd have to retrofit existing
| fleets of all shapes and sizes, so one or more companies
| would need to specialize in doing that, which would be very
| expensive initially. So you have to have an electric fleet to
| retrofit, or retrofit an ICE fleet (which makes _zero_
| economic sense).
|
| 2. How often is it used? The truck might actually only spend
| 1/2-2/3 of its time connected to the system, what with time
| waiting to load/unload at ports and depots, time before/after
| you're on highway, dealing with traffic on the highway
| itself.
|
| 3. How do you pay for the energy? You need a company to
| generate the energy, a company to charge users for the
| energy, a way to identify the truck as it's receiving the
| energy, tariff management software, etc.
|
| 4. Where are you going to install it? What roads will or
| won't work? How long will that take before you have enough
| roads that you'd stop losing money? Mostly long haul, so this
| has limited application, even in trucking.
|
| If all the trucks were electric, all exactly the same
| size/type, the system were installed on all roads, all the
| companies needed to service it were in operation, and you
| trained enough service staff, _and_ electricity was cheap
| enough that the portion of your ride would be offset by the
| amount of time you are charging that you could carry a
| smaller battery, _then_ it would make sense.
|
| But first we need to roll this system out on all highways,
| _then_ everybody needs a BEV, _then_ we retrofit them all,
| _then_ shrink all their batteries, and _then_ it will make
| economic sense. Before that all happens we need enough
| chargers, enough grid capacity, cheaper cleaner power, and
| enough BEVs rolled out, which will take 10 years at least.
|
| Electric trams work in cities because they have short routes,
| a small identical fleet, need very little battery, and all
| the money comes from one pool (the city).
| somethoughts wrote:
| Tom Scott did a video on it:
|
| The highway where trucks work like electric trains
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg
|
| Its interesting if it could be used in combination with self
| driving truck technology for long haul train style trucking.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Your link doesn't support your claims (that it has been
| "obvious for 50 years" or that it's the cheapest and most
| efficient solution). I don't doubt that it's cheaper and more
| efficient than large BEVs, but like the other commenters, I
| would like to know where this has been conclusively studied and
| why this hasn't been deployed at scale anywhere.
|
| > they dont occupy petrol stations
|
| In the US they usually have their own stations.
|
| EDIT: Downvoters, care to explain?
| upupandup wrote:
| It's not really up to commentators to post links, if
| something irks you this much, google is there for you to
| verify.
|
| HN is not a court of law and you are gonna have a tough time
| making friends if you ask for citation for every statement
| you hear.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| "Hyundai - which in its release did not clarify if the fuel cells
| would be charged with "green" hydrogen, using 100 per cent
| renewables - plans to utilise the launch of these new Xcient
| trucks as an opportunity to further expand its business into the
| wider European commercial vehicle market."
|
| Yeah, newsflash, its not. Usual hydrogen trojan horse for
| continued fossil fuel use.
|
| Aaaand, with Russia turning off the spigot for natgas...
| Lichtso wrote:
| I really don't get hydrogen. Yes, it has the highest possible
| energy density (for chemicals) but that is about it. That is the
| only thing it has going for it. Everything else is either equal
| or worse than other options:
|
| - It is the smallest atom so it diffuses through every other
| material, thus you get something similar to self discharge in
| batteries. Yes, you can make the walls bigger to slow down the
| process, but that makes it also very heavy and expensive to
| store.
|
| - It only reaches its advantage of the energy density at either
| insanely high pressure or low temperature. Both come with their
| own technical challenges and make it either impractical or down
| right dangerous (not considering its spontaneous combustion).
|
| - It is highly explosive and very easy to ignite. Should it ever
| leak and mix with air, it is bound to lead to a catastrophe. This
| is actually much worse than with regular gasoline or even
| batteries.
|
| Now, what would be better IMO? Small / short hydrocarbons such as
| methane (a gas at room temperature) or methanol (a liquid at room
| temperature):
|
| - Methane is still dangerous to handle, but well understood and
| even allowed to be used in housing. Methanol on the other hand is
| hard to ignite and can be mixed with water to make it
| inflammable, thus completely safe to store. Even this water
| methanol solution can still be directly used in fuel cells.
|
| - A leak of methane is still disastrous, especially if it does
| not burn because of its environmental impact. However, a complete
| spill of methanol is barely any issue at all compared to all the
| other options. It quickly dilutes and is bio degradable.
|
| - A downside is the reduced energy density, but storage is really
| easy and cheap so that should make up for that.
|
| - It can easily work with existing infrastructure. Pipelines,
| storage tanks and trucks all exists already and methane as well
| as methanol are among the most traded chemicals in the world.
|
| - Combustion engines could continue to be used, they wouldn't
| need a catalyst anymore and not produce any toxic gases such as
| carbon-monoxide. Also, the practical power efficiency of fuel
| cells is not that much better than that of combustion engines.
| Though, that might be because way more R&D optimization went into
| combustion engines so far.
|
| The last two are important points, people often forget the
| tremendous environmental impact of completely replacing all
| infrastructure.
|
| Just like hydrogen, most methane and methanol today comes from
| other hydrocarbons, in other words fossil fuels. However, that
| could change e.g. by using solar power and electrolysis /
| electrocatalysis. So my point is, the world should bury the
| hydrogen idea and go for methanol instead.
|
| Please correct me if I am wrong in any of these points, I am here
| to learn ;)
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Combustion engines are pretty crap tech compared with other
| options. No-one really wants to use them, and even if they did,
| they'd be as electricity generators in hybrid vehicles, just as
| any hydrogen usage would be.
|
| The uses of hydrogen in transport would be for fleets, where
| they already do weird things like use CNG or recycled vegetable
| oil to run the engines for pollution and carbon reasons, so
| switching to hydrogen isn't really as big a deal as it would
| for home users, who are not going to be using hydrogen, because
| battery EVs are just so much better for that use case.
|
| Cars (and most other tech) are going to age out, there's low
| hanging fruit that can be replaced now (e.g. urban driving) at
| a cost saving and that frees up existing ICE vehicles to be
| moved to other areas, to replace even older ICE vehicles that
| are getting scrapped because they are too costly and polluting
| to run.
|
| You are correct that in future, the cheapest and cleanest
| sources of methane and methanol will be making them from green
| hydrogen (SpaceX is doing this in Texas), but there's no good
| reason to burn them (unless you need zero-carbon rocket fuel or
| kerosene) so they'll mostly be chemical feedstocks.
| hedora wrote:
| People overestimate how dangerous hydrogen is. It disperses
| more rapidly than natural gas / propane / methane, and isn't a
| liquid like gasoline.
|
| People always think of the Hindenburg disaster as an example of
| how dangerous Hydrogen is, but forget that the shell was made
| of a chemical that is now used for solid state jet fuel.
|
| The bigger safety issue with hydrogen is that it is a
| compressed gas. Modern fiberglass tanks (mostly) solve that
| problem by twisting apart when they catastrophically fail
| (instead of launching shrapnel).
|
| I don't know how the chemistry works for carbon-neutral
| methanol production, but you likely already have all the
| feedstock required for hydrogen generation readily available at
| your house (water, oxygen and electricity).
|
| Also, commercial hydrogen crackers already exist, and are in
| test deployment.
|
| The way I think about hydrogen fuel cells is that they have
| minimal infrastructure requirements (you don't have to run
| natural gas lines / tankers anywhere, and water and electricity
| are more universally available), and their embodied carbon is
| (mostly) constant with increasing range, unlike batteries,
| where it's (mostly) proportional to range.
| konschubert wrote:
| Hydrogen is such a pain to deal with.
|
| I think we're better off converting it to methane and then using
| all the existing, proven infrastructure for auto gas.
| thehappypm wrote:
| Agreed--hydrogen is just a bad fuel compared to existing fuels.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Problem is, burning methane releases CO2, unlike hydrogen.
| konschubert wrote:
| It's exactly the CO2 that was captured when synthesising the
| methane from hydrogen.
|
| So it's CO2 neural
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Assuming you are getting the CO2 from capture and the
| methane from synthesis.
|
| Meaning you would have to make sure all companies from all
| the countries in the world won't try to make money by using
| a cheaper and easier to access source of methane once there
| is a huge market for it.
|
| Unlikely.
| konschubert wrote:
| That's what carbon taxes are for.
|
| I mean, of course you have to track where the methane
| came from but that's pretty easy.
|
| There are also ways ways to make hydrogen that emit lots
| of co2. So either way you have to track and tax.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| The carbon taxes haven't worked so well until now. There
| is no reason to believe they will in the future.
|
| And again, you need all the countries in the world to
| behave. The USA, China, India, Russia...
| konschubert wrote:
| You have the same problem with clean hydrogen.
|
| Carbon taxes work extremely well, btw, but i agree they
| have to be combined with an equivalent carbon import
| duty.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| The USA are not the world. Even if suddenly they managed
| to taxe all the carbon in their economy, and all imports
| coming into their countries, you cannot force the world
| to follow.
|
| China, Russia and India exchange massively between them,
| with Europe, Africa, and internally. Those product would
| be cheaper, since no carbon tax, so no incentive.
|
| It's a hard problem to solve.
|
| If we get a big hydrogen market, the problem never needs
| to be solved.
| sgift wrote:
| > If we get a big hydrogen market, the problem never
| needs to be solved.
|
| And you force China, Russia and India into that big
| hydrogen market how exactly? I like hydrogen, but your
| argument is incoherent.
| konschubert wrote:
| That's why you do carbon import taxes as well.
|
| Plus, Europe has a carbon tax already, so there is
| already a chance to set up a transatlantic cooperation.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Banking on all politicians in the USA and Europe to vote
| and maintain forever a carbon import tax is a big bet.
|
| And it won't affect exchanges of goods between Asia,
| Russia, South America and Africa, or internally in each
| country lika China or India. Internally use goods will
| not be taxed, and be cheap, so they will import less, use
| more internal good, and pollute more.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Well considering current hydrogen is produced from
| methane and release CO2, you need to solve that problem
| either way.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| It's like saying don't build solar panels because we use
| petrol for them.
|
| It's a chicken an egg problem.
|
| We are using methane to produce h2 because synthesizing
| fuel (any fuel) is incredibly energetically inefficient.
| Otherwise we would be using electrolysis for h2.
|
| Either you decide it's a problem, and you don't
| synthesize any fuel, or you will, and you'll oversize the
| energy grid and improve the synthesis process efficiency.
|
| This thread assumes we decided we should synthesize fuel
| (I'm not sold, but I'm debating in that context).
|
| If we do, then synthesis will never beat sourcing in
| efficiency for methane, since it's a direct process. But
| if there is a huge market for h2, there will be a
| incentive for over-sizing the grid and improving on
| electrolysis to the point that it can be competitive
| against sourcing methane + synthesize from that, which
| are 2 steps instead of one.
|
| However, there is no way we can find a way to compete
| against sourcing methane (and no more step) alone. No
| good incentive to create.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Synthesizing h2 from methane is also done by
| electrolysis, it's just cheaper to electrolyze methane
| than water. This is fundamental - it takes less energy to
| release hydrogen from methane than from water, to such a
| degree that even though water is free it's still not
| economical. If you are concerned about people using
| fossil instead of synthetic methane to cut costs, you
| should be concerned about people using methane instead of
| water to cut costs. Either you can get people to comply
| with regulations or you can't.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Fair point. I guess I underestimate how cheap sourcing
| methane is if it as no change of offsetting the
| difference in electrolysis efficiency in the future.
| konschubert wrote:
| methane is not cheap, ask the germans
| morning_gelato wrote:
| > Synthesizing h2 from methane is also done by
| electrolysis
|
| Most hydrogen is currently synthesized from steam
| reforming of methane [1], not electrolysis.
|
| [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-
| production-na...
| rr888 wrote:
| I'm thinking Solar is going to be our main renewable energy
| resource. It sucks for heating in winter and transportation.
| Hydrogen definitely is a great solution for these problems, just
| need to improve the efficiency of turning electricity into H.
| [deleted]
| edhelas wrote:
| Sure :)
|
| https://solaredition.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2.png
|
| 96% of H2 produced from carbon sources.
|
| How far do you think we can stretch electrolysis efficiency ?
| So far we are at 50% https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/actual-
| efficiency-electrolysi...
|
| And you need to compress H2 even more to make it interesting to
| transport, making it even less efficient.
|
| But lets follow our technical dreams where we will have 90% of
| H2 produced by solar panels (that doesn't have any impact on
| their own).
| [deleted]
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| We just need to travel to a solar system with a gas giant
| from which we can siphon Hydrogen directly, 'duh.
|
| Should be easy, right?
| upupandup wrote:
| Don't need to go that far, we could put giant solar panels
| that would soak up sunlight 24/7 and transmit that to
| earth. I see it work on small scale experiments, I really
| think that is SpaceX's ultimate game plan. Only those with
| capacity to deliver payloads at scale will be capable of
| building these energy stations.
|
| How they would deal with objects, meteorites and repairing
| is another concern but I'd imagine it won't be a giant
| solar panel but modular ones that are floating in cluster
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have a lot of it
| already.
| adrianN wrote:
| Cost matters a lot more than efficiency. The two are related,
| but not the same. The correct question to ask is how much
| does a kWh of hydrogen cost, and how much lower can we get
| that.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| 50% of current H2 is used for refining fossil fuels.
|
| And, much like solar, it's not some random efficiency or
| capacity stat that matters, it's cost. Low cost electrolizers
| are the next big thing that will prompt Americans to ask "Why
| is China the world leader in this technology we've been
| ignoring or actively spreading lies about?"
|
| https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-
| insight...
| rr888 wrote:
| > 96% of H2 produced from carbon sources
|
| Yes this is crazy, there is no point using Hydrogen right
| now.
|
| Solar panels are getting so cheap so quickly that in sunny
| places electricity during the day will be virtually free. 50%
| efficiency is pretty good in that case.
| ParksNet wrote:
| Electricity can run heat pumps which are great for heating.
| Even better if its a water-to-ground loop underneath the
| building, if there is no existing district heating system.
| goethes_kind wrote:
| IMHO, the easiest way forward that makes sense from an
| engineering as well as financial standpoint: overbuild as much
| energy capture as possible: solar, wind, nuclear, doesn't
| matter as long as it is captured at a location where it is
| cheap and convenient to do so. Then use power-to-gas tech and
| get a well behaved hydrocarbon fuel which is easy to transport
| anywhere in the world, stores energy at a high density in a
| relatively safe way, and can be used in practically all
| applications. And yes the conversion is super inefficient,
| which is why you need the energy capture to be cheap and to
| have maybe 300% of needed capacity.
| konschubert wrote:
| Methane or Ammonia.
| f6v wrote:
| Cow farts affecting climate: solved.
| konschubert wrote:
| It is climate neutral if you make it from renewable
| electricity and you burn it afterwards.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| It's cow burps that were an issue, but manure is already
| used to create carbon negative fuels and/or hydrogen
| while cutting pollution:
|
| https://www.historylink.org/File/20270
| rr888 wrote:
| Thanks, this is what I was trying to say but you did it
| better. :) Its fascinating things like Steel Mills which
| require a lot of heat are probably best located in deserts.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Wind is the most efficient renewable, followed by geothermal,
| hydro, and then solar. Solar is nice in extremely sunny places
| but otherwise it's more of a back-up.
| konschubert wrote:
| Efficiency is not so important, solar is cheap.
| baq wrote:
| is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
| solved?
| luplex wrote:
| seems like it would be easily solvable with a plastic
| coating, right?
| 1-6 wrote:
| Hydrogen fuel tanks already have an inner liner to prevent
| this.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Hydrogen will go through plastics, in fact plastic
| containers need a metal coating to contain hydrogen
| effectively.
| HPsquared wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement#Prevent.
| .. is a good start.
|
| It seems to be mostly a solved issue if you use the right
| materials and design: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroge
| n_pipeline_transport#...
| bushbaba wrote:
| What's the environmental impact of hydrogen production + fuel
| cell or EVs for long distance trucking over say algie &
| biodiesel. Is this really better for the environment when
| considering the full cost?
| bshipp wrote:
| The one (potential) benefit could be utilizing hydrogen as a
| sort of battery, where off-peak electrical generation capacity
| is used for processing hydrogen instead of being wasted or sold
| at a loss. My municipality was actually paying other
| jurisdictions to absorb excess generation capacity, so
| something like hydrogen generation could be a useful off-peak
| demand source.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-04 23:01 UTC)