Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

redingerforcongress OP t1_iy5faoy wrote

> Rather than getting stuck into real estate, building traditional fuel stations and setting up H2 supply chains, Hyperion has decided to build mobile fuel stops that can be towed wherever you want, and left there for however long makes sense.

> Hyperion sees this as a relatively fast and cheap way to get a fledgling hydrogen fueling network set up with minimal risk and investment. They won't need to buy land or sign long contracts; if they're not getting used, they can be moved somewhere else. It'll be interesting to see how they communicate these moves to customers, assuming they've begun to rely on a given station.

11

Ubericious t1_iy5p1b6 wrote

Stop trying to make hydrogen happen, its not going to

8

ItsASchpadoinkleDay t1_iy64g8k wrote

Why not?

I’m not trying to be argumentative, just looking to learn something today.

3

izybit t1_iy68e3j wrote

Massive waste of energy compared to just using the electricity directly.

7

Fit_Manufacturer_444 t1_iy7acur wrote

Very naive to just say "it'll never ever happen" when crazier alternatives were introduced before in history. Like the combustion engine to the horse, people just thought "that's a massive waste of energy just to move" just to have everyone using cars and discarding their wagons for radios the coming decades after. I'm not saying hydrogen will overturn the gas and oil market right now, I hope it does, all I'm saying is we shouldn't blatantly point at alternatives being ineffective while coal and oil is just as inefficient, you have to burn millions of tons of it just to manufacture and produce.

3

Timbershoe t1_iy7edam wrote

You can’t use the existence of the internal combustion engine to say all automotive inventions are going to take off in the same way.

Hydrogen engines are inefficient. It is more efficient to use them to generate electricity, and run electric cars.

The physics isn’t going to change.

As electric cars exist and are more efficient, Hydrogen engines are completely redundant technology. The time for Hydrogen vehicles was 20 years ago, before electric was really viable, it’s far too late to propose then today.

4

SubsequentBadger t1_iy7nt9o wrote

They're not completely redundant yet, but the next 20 years will decide their fate.

−1

Timbershoe t1_iy7oj0g wrote

The previous 20 years already decided their fate.

It’s the Betamax vs VHS debate all over again. Yes, Betamax was the better format, but they were too late to the table and VHS took the lead.

If hydrogen vehicles were going to take a market share, the time was 20 years ago and we’re laughably far past that now.

To make any inroads now, hydrogen would need to be both more efficient and significantly cheaper than either electric or gas vehicles. It’s neither.

3

SubsequentBadger t1_iy7orz9 wrote

You could have said the same about petrol in 1899 when electric was so clearly dominant. Even then steam took another 50 years or so to completely die out for road transport. Don't write it off so soon.

0

Timbershoe t1_iy7p82k wrote

This isn’t 1899.

It’s not Carl Benz knocking together 10 horseless carriages a year from a shed, trying to work out if his electric engine or petrol engine was better.

Trillions of dollars have already gone into electric vehicles, development, infrastructure, technology, manufacturing plants. There has to be a fucking serious reason to write off that investment in favour of hydrogen vehicles.

And what is that seriously compelling reason? Hydrogen vehicles are both more expensive and less efficient, so there is literally no reason to switch.

It’s a simple choice, and the choice was made 20 years ago.

Maybe in 30/40 years when electric vehicles run out of key metals for battery production. But not today, hydrogen is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

5

SubsequentBadger t1_iy7ryfu wrote

The key reasons I say it's not dead are twofold

  1. Major companies are still investing in hydrogen as a fuel for other uses. Rolls Royce in jet engines for example.

  2. Japan generates a lot of hydrogen as a byproduct of other industries, so there are situations in which it becomes cheaper and the Japanese manufacturers have always kept it in the system as a concept for this reason.

Now I'm no great hydrogen evangelist, I know it has some fundamental flaws, but it's not yet dead. If there is a solid reason to build large scale hydrogen infrastructure it may yet come back for cars, or possibly commercial vehicles. However the next 20 years will certainly be the age of battery EVs for personal transport.

0

DonQuixBalls t1_iybsyyf wrote

> 1. Major companies are still investing in hydrogen as a fuel for other uses.

Oil companies. Most commercial hydrogen is made from natural gas. The fossil giants have the most to gain by miles.

0

Reddit-runner t1_iy88775 wrote

>Very naive to just say "it'll never ever happen" when crazier alternatives were introduced before in history.

If you look at the energy loss chain from "wind turbine to wheel" you will see why hydrogen makes no finacial sense where you could use batteries instead.

So for cars batteries are a no-brainer. That's what people usually refer to when they say "H2 will never happen".

However for planes, ships and the chemical and mining/refining industry things look quite differently.

4

brett1081 t1_iy7r86e wrote

Oil was literally coming out of the ground when you dig a deep enough hole. Where are all the hydrogen wells? It’s not remotely the same, you spend a lot of energy generating hydrogen, get a fraction of it back converting it, and every time you do so you take a massive penalty. Why does everyone in this sub not understand even basic thermodynamics? FFS

3

Fit_Manufacturer_444 t1_iy81t31 wrote

People can understand fine. We don't just understand when people whine "just stop using alternatives and just burn coal and oil, despite us already letting millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and heating up the Earth" sounds counterintuitive.

The reason people are even considering EV or hydrogen cell is to stave off climate change warming effect (might be too late) not to wave their money and or act like they are leagues smarter than anyone else because.... GREEN. "Oil was literally coming from the ground" So does Geothermal power and water. "You spend a lot of energy for so little" a combustion engine releases just as much energy and as for hydrogen production being expensive, I assume that will go down overtime as technology advances, where as hydrogen can be just as energy efficient as a coal and oil, it's expensive, but that's why people are considering it because the latter pollutes the Atmosphere and environment so much.

−1

oldnuthammer t1_iyauii3 wrote

It seems like you are ideologically invested in hydrogen not working. The science does not support your statement. The reality is that electric battery powered vehicles are not sustainable for a variety of reasons. Unless there is a technological breakthrough, Hydrogen will replace battery powered evs.

1

TheHunterZolomon t1_iy5j5ic wrote

Could see them having an interface in their cars that real time updates locations for the cell stations, I think that would have to be a must, no?

1

FuturologyBot t1_iy5jqph wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/redingerforcongress:

> Rather than getting stuck into real estate, building traditional fuel stations and setting up H2 supply chains, Hyperion has decided to build mobile fuel stops that can be towed wherever you want, and left there for however long makes sense.

> Hyperion sees this as a relatively fast and cheap way to get a fledgling hydrogen fueling network set up with minimal risk and investment. They won't need to buy land or sign long contracts; if they're not getting used, they can be moved somewhere else. It'll be interesting to see how they communicate these moves to customers, assuming they've begun to rely on a given station.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z79qfo/hyperion_plans_to_kickstart_a_h2_fuel_network/iy5faoy/

1

MrDirtyWrench t1_iy6h4pf wrote

Best bet, build service stations with hydrogen powered generators to charge the cars and use the byproducts (water) to use in the irrigation system.

1

Old_Study_1953 t1_iy5shh5 wrote

The REAL answer to alternative fuel for automobiles.

−1

thehourglasses t1_iy5pe53 wrote

Changing the fuel source and not radically changing the transit mode is akin to giving someone dying of fever an ice pack to put on their forehead.

Cars are the problem. EV, ICE, hydrogen — doesn’t matter. We need viable and widely used public transit, not “greener” cars.

−7

FeralCJ7 t1_iy5yusn wrote

You'd need a constant stream of public transit in many areas that's just not feasible because there's not enough tax base to support the equipment, and wouldn't be enough users to support the wages and costs long term.

7

HotTopicRebel t1_iy5wzdl wrote

Yes, but what do you want them to do about that? That's a problem with local governments and city planning, not alt fuel companies.

If you want to make a difference about that, go to city zoning meetings and get your friends, too. Vox populi, vox dei.

4

DonQuixBalls t1_iybtmc9 wrote

Cities with effective, widespread mass transit exist. People can and do move to them every day. They're just really expensive. Density sufficient to make mass transit work is a lot more expensive to build.

2