BHP says battery electric cheaper than hydrogen as it dumps diesel(thedriven.io)
thedriven.io
BHP says battery electric cheaper than hydrogen as it dumps diesel
https://thedriven.io/2023/06/23/bhp-says-battery-electric-cheaper-than-hydrogen-as-it-dumps-diesel-for-haul-trucks/
16 comments
Process H2 generated at point of use makes sense (e.g. for steel production), but the whole “H2 as a fuel” story is simply nonsense to keep the legacy fossil fuel companies happy.
I keep waiting for everyone to wake up to the hydrogen scam. Do you see any practical consumer hydrogen infrastructure going up? Has it even been invented yet? Electrical infrastructure is a solved problem, we need to scale it up anyways, and it hooks into everything (industry, consumer use, consumer solar panels, public transport, renewable generation) because it just wires together and there are lots of electricians and engineers you can hire. There is electrical infrastructure almost everywhere there is human settlement! But hydrogen is a bunch of exploding leaking embrittling bullshit, and it will only ever have niche uses.
Fun fact: currently 95% of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. This might be a clue as to why such a dumb idea is still around.
Fun fact: currently 95% of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. This might be a clue as to why such a dumb idea is still around.
Hydrogen becomes more attractive once electricity is decarbonized. It's really the only fuel that has both the energy density to power flight and transoceanic travel and does not emit carbon. Batteries are fine for cars, and trains can be electrified. But you'll never fly across the Atlantic on a battery powered passenger plane.
Synthetic methane and other hydrocarbons are also ideas that are floated. But those need hydrogen as an input anyway. They also need a source of carbon, which is too difficult to extract from the atmosphere. So using the hydrogen directly may be more feasible.
Synthetic methane and other hydrocarbons are also ideas that are floated. But those need hydrogen as an input anyway. They also need a source of carbon, which is too difficult to extract from the atmosphere. So using the hydrogen directly may be more feasible.
Hydrogen best case density is ~ 2.5 kWh/kg, definitely not that great considering this is in its liquid form. To stay in that form, you need to cool them to ~ 20˚K, which is about -253°C. Also, because the molecules are so small, the tank needs to be almost perfect. Even the crystal structure of metals is eventually penetrated by hydrogen.
Hydrogen has many sensible uses in the production of many goods, filling powerful electrical generators etc. It would be great if we could produce it economically in a renewable fashion.
Actually, there are many carbon free fuels. It is hard for any to use as jet fuel. An example fuel that has much better properties than hydrogen is for instance sodium. Making a sodium fuel cell does not need any rare earth metals such as platinum, sodium is solid at room temperature, does not produce any fumes, better energy density than liquid hydrogen, the resulting NaOH sodium hydroxide can be recycled into sodium (with hydrogen as a byproduct) by the Castner process. Hard to say, if this could use the water vapor present in the atmosphere, if it did, you would also have to think about what to do with the caustic hydroxide solution. Probably, that would be neutralized quickly in the atmosphere but at ground level or above cities could "raise eyebrows" even though burning leaded petroleum in aviation still seems to be a thing...
Actually, there are many carbon free fuels. It is hard for any to use as jet fuel. An example fuel that has much better properties than hydrogen is for instance sodium. Making a sodium fuel cell does not need any rare earth metals such as platinum, sodium is solid at room temperature, does not produce any fumes, better energy density than liquid hydrogen, the resulting NaOH sodium hydroxide can be recycled into sodium (with hydrogen as a byproduct) by the Castner process. Hard to say, if this could use the water vapor present in the atmosphere, if it did, you would also have to think about what to do with the caustic hydroxide solution. Probably, that would be neutralized quickly in the atmosphere but at ground level or above cities could "raise eyebrows" even though burning leaded petroleum in aviation still seems to be a thing...
The best density is 33.3 kWh/kg. That's simple physics.
Yes, sorry. It should've been per litre. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#In_chemical_rea...) The intuition about volume/ weight is out of the window with hydrogen, because it's so light. Thank you for the correction.
Of course, for almost all uses, the volumetric efficiency is important because you have to create bigger tanks, which if they have to contain liquid hydrogen, are usually heavy and costly.
Of course, for almost all uses, the volumetric efficiency is important because you have to create bigger tanks, which if they have to contain liquid hydrogen, are usually heavy and costly.
Long-haul flights are the one possible exception, but they're not the saving grace the fossil fuel companies are trying to manufacture. Tanks of hydrogen at the airport are not a "hydrogen economy". And since it's looking like air travel will be one of the last things to decarbonize, there's no guarantee hydrogen will be relevant. Long-distance flights don't account for a large portion of global CO2 emissions[0] which leaves room for various options.
Short-range aircraft will probably switch to batteries in the coming decades, because the prototypes are already flying[1] and battery and electric motor tech is ever-increasingly ubiquitous and mature.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions#Aviat...
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-el...
Short-range aircraft will probably switch to batteries in the coming decades, because the prototypes are already flying[1] and battery and electric motor tech is ever-increasingly ubiquitous and mature.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions#Aviat...
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-el...
It's not just long haul flights, it's really anything longer than a hundred miles or so. Battery powered aircraft are also very small and light with little passenger or cargo capacity. Then there's the issue of charging. Planes can't just sit idle for hours at th gate as they charge. Faster charging reduces the lifespans of the batteries, and a plane needing a new set of batteries after a few hundred flights due to aggressive wear from fast charging is unacceptable.
It's not just long haul flights out of reach of battery powered aircraft. Even a regional flight like Seattle to San Francisco cannot be feasibly done with batteries. This is fundamentally due to the energy density of lithium ion batteries, no amount of engineering can change the chemical limitations at hand: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File%3...
It's not just long haul flights out of reach of battery powered aircraft. Even a regional flight like Seattle to San Francisco cannot be feasibly done with batteries. This is fundamentally due to the energy density of lithium ion batteries, no amount of engineering can change the chemical limitations at hand: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File%3...
> Faster charging reduces the lifespans of the batteries
As far as I understand, the problem is not just the speed, but the thermal management. IIRC the impact on battery life is not as bad if cooled properly.
> and a plane needing a new set of batteries after a few hundred flights due to aggressive wear from fast charging is unacceptable.
That's an economics question. How much does it cost to get that battery replaced and charged over its lifetime versus the alternative.
> This is fundamentally due to the energy density of lithium ion batteries, no amount of engineering can change the chemical limitations at hand
That's the beauty of battery technology, you can substitute. Cobalt a problem? Fine we can make batteries with out it. Lead-acid not suitable, fine here's lithium ion. Lithium ion not good enough, find we'll find a better battery.
Hydrogen however is just that: hydrogen. Notice how low it is on the energy per volume scale. You can't substitute it out for anything. The volume requirement is what's going to kill you with hydrogen.
As far as I understand, the problem is not just the speed, but the thermal management. IIRC the impact on battery life is not as bad if cooled properly.
> and a plane needing a new set of batteries after a few hundred flights due to aggressive wear from fast charging is unacceptable.
That's an economics question. How much does it cost to get that battery replaced and charged over its lifetime versus the alternative.
> This is fundamentally due to the energy density of lithium ion batteries, no amount of engineering can change the chemical limitations at hand
That's the beauty of battery technology, you can substitute. Cobalt a problem? Fine we can make batteries with out it. Lead-acid not suitable, fine here's lithium ion. Lithium ion not good enough, find we'll find a better battery.
Hydrogen however is just that: hydrogen. Notice how low it is on the energy per volume scale. You can't substitute it out for anything. The volume requirement is what's going to kill you with hydrogen.
> Lithium ion not good enough, find we'll find a better battery.
Well, then get back to us when you find that battery. Unfortunately, simply finding a new battery chemistry that has an order of magnitude better energy density is easier said than done.
> Hydrogen however is just that: hydrogen. Notice how low it is on the energy per volume scale.
You're looking at uncompressed hydrogen. Hydrogen at 700 bar has several times better energy density than lithium ion batteries, and over 1000x as much energy by mass. And lower mass means you need less fuel since the craft is lighter.
Well, then get back to us when you find that battery. Unfortunately, simply finding a new battery chemistry that has an order of magnitude better energy density is easier said than done.
> Hydrogen however is just that: hydrogen. Notice how low it is on the energy per volume scale.
You're looking at uncompressed hydrogen. Hydrogen at 700 bar has several times better energy density than lithium ion batteries, and over 1000x as much energy by mass. And lower mass means you need less fuel since the craft is lighter.
A point if and I seriously mean if in the I'm exceptionally dubious about hydrogen powered aircraft. If aircraft were hydrogen powered you'd generate the hydrogen on site at the airport.
Will point out takes a decade now to produce a blue print aircraft. So if we started designing one now it would be flying when 2033? China rolled out a high speed rail network in ten years. You could do that in the US and other places.
Notable point. The complaints I hear about high speed rail in Europe is tickets cost more than airplane tickets and the trains are always full. The explanation is the ergonomics and logistics of passenger aircraft sucks.
Will point out takes a decade now to produce a blue print aircraft. So if we started designing one now it would be flying when 2033? China rolled out a high speed rail network in ten years. You could do that in the US and other places.
Notable point. The complaints I hear about high speed rail in Europe is tickets cost more than airplane tickets and the trains are always full. The explanation is the ergonomics and logistics of passenger aircraft sucks.
You'd likely send via pipelines or tanker trucks instead.
Hydrogen doesn't make sense to transport. You contend with cryogenics / boil-off for tanker trucks or ships. Pipelines you're dealing with poor volumetric energy levels (you use comparatively more units of energy to move one unit of h2).
Boiloff is not that big of a deal if you are using the fuel right away. It is the same story as with LNG.
I replied to your comment that was talking about transportation... i.e. not using it right away.
H2 has a daily boil off 5 times greater than LNG. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277265682...
Not only that, liquid H2 has worse energy density than LNG. So again, you're spending more units of energy to comparatively more less units of energy.
H2 has a daily boil off 5 times greater than LNG. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277265682...
Not only that, liquid H2 has worse energy density than LNG. So again, you're spending more units of energy to comparatively more less units of energy.
You can liquefy hydrogen on the spot. You don't need to move LH₂ around. If that does become necessary, the solution is improved insulation. Modern materials can reduce boil-off to that of LNG's. In fact, LNG was once seen as impossible because of its boil-off concerns at one point.
You will need bigger tanks but the fuel is much lighter. It is a solvable problem.
You will need bigger tanks but the fuel is much lighter. It is a solvable problem.
>Boiloff is not that big of a deal if you are using the fuel right away.
>You can liquefy hydrogen on the spot. You don't need to move LH₂ around.
Why are you liquefying H2 if you are using it right away and or not transporting it? Liquefaction is to optimize for storage. You're all over the shop.
>You can liquefy hydrogen on the spot. You don't need to move LH₂ around.
Why are you liquefying H2 if you are using it right away and or not transporting it? Liquefaction is to optimize for storage. You're all over the shop.
You liquefy H₂ for the density advantage, not for storage. You actually want to store hydrogen as a gas since it won't boil off.
If flights are carrying that much hydrogen around with them they should also just use them for "free" lift. I don't think hydrogen fuel tanks save the airplane, I think they return us to economic models where the blimp/airship make more sense.
Liquid hydrogen is significantly denser than air.
Right, which is why it "weighs" more and starts to make sense for a flying vehicle to store more of it as gas (less weight, more ballast) and the more you store as gas the closer you get to reinventing airships/blimps/zeppelins.
> Do you see any practical consumer hydrogen infrastructure going up? Has it even been invented yet?
It has been invented, the majority are in China and Japan if I remember rightly.
It has been invented, the majority are in China and Japan if I remember rightly.
It makes sense for large vehicles - a passenger plane from New York to London will never make sense for batteries, but could be done with hydrogen.
Similarly, cargo ships can't run on batteries, but could fairly trivially be switched to hydrogen with only minor loss in storage capacity (1-5%).
The benefit of hydrogen is that it was functioning just fine in the 1960s, there aren't any outright technical showstoppers here; just financial problems and technical problems that are hard to solve cheaply.
I'm not saying that hydrogen is the best solution (if synthfuel pans out then it'll be a perfect drop-in replacement for existing jet fuel), but it's a solution that exists today. It's there if we care.
Obviously we don't care, since coal plants are still around, but if we genuinely wanted to stop using fossil fuels ASAP then it would permit us to keep using planes/cargo ships.
Similarly, cargo ships can't run on batteries, but could fairly trivially be switched to hydrogen with only minor loss in storage capacity (1-5%).
The benefit of hydrogen is that it was functioning just fine in the 1960s, there aren't any outright technical showstoppers here; just financial problems and technical problems that are hard to solve cheaply.
I'm not saying that hydrogen is the best solution (if synthfuel pans out then it'll be a perfect drop-in replacement for existing jet fuel), but it's a solution that exists today. It's there if we care.
Obviously we don't care, since coal plants are still around, but if we genuinely wanted to stop using fossil fuels ASAP then it would permit us to keep using planes/cargo ships.
Liquid hydrogen takes 4x the volume of standard aviation kerosene. Coming up with on-jet liquid storage of hydrogen of that volume is a rather steep engineering hurdle. And hydrogen, liquid or not, will require some rather impressive storage and handling techniques at the airport.
If I were to bet, I would say that converting hydrogen to kerosene will be far cheaper and more efficient than trying to power long distance flight with hydrogen
If I were to bet, I would say that converting hydrogen to kerosene will be far cheaper and more efficient than trying to power long distance flight with hydrogen
> ...there aren't any outright technical showstoppers here
H2 molecules are extremely small -- storing them without loss is heavy and volumetrically expensive, making it implausible for any aircraft.
The same factors apply to ships, pipelines etc because space for fuel is space that does not contain high value cargo.
H2 molecules are extremely small -- storing them without loss is heavy and volumetrically expensive, making it implausible for any aircraft.
The same factors apply to ships, pipelines etc because space for fuel is space that does not contain high value cargo.
>The same factors apply to ships
Ships don't care about weight. The cooling infrastructure or heavy steel tanks are possible.
Ships don't care about weight. The cooling infrastructure or heavy steel tanks are possible.
> Ships don't care about weight. The cooling infrastructure or heavy steel tanks are possible.
Have you looked at how high the containers are stacked on a container ship? Space taken up by fuel is space that can't be sold.
Source: we partner with commercial shipping companies and spend time not just talking to the commercial people but on the ships themselves.
Have you looked at how high the containers are stacked on a container ship? Space taken up by fuel is space that can't be sold.
Source: we partner with commercial shipping companies and spend time not just talking to the commercial people but on the ships themselves.
The problem, just like for car, is the volume that hydrogen takes up, not the weight
The problem isn't doing one plane. It's doing enough of them to make a difference.
Jet fuel is ludicrously energy dense, to the extent that it's easy to underestimate how much energy you need: at any reasonably-sized airport, if you want to replace the current fleet then you need to be talking about roughly a power station's worth of continuous energy delivery into aircraft fuel tanks. That's doable with jet fuel because you're not climbing out of an energy well just to get hold of the fuel. You just separate it out, and the problem becomes pure logistics.
With H2, the volume you need and the added storage complexity means the current logistics becomes a rounding error in comparison to how on earth you get the gigawatts to churn feedstock into gas.
You could do it, but you'd want nukes on-site to do it.
Jet fuel is ludicrously energy dense, to the extent that it's easy to underestimate how much energy you need: at any reasonably-sized airport, if you want to replace the current fleet then you need to be talking about roughly a power station's worth of continuous energy delivery into aircraft fuel tanks. That's doable with jet fuel because you're not climbing out of an energy well just to get hold of the fuel. You just separate it out, and the problem becomes pure logistics.
With H2, the volume you need and the added storage complexity means the current logistics becomes a rounding error in comparison to how on earth you get the gigawatts to churn feedstock into gas.
You could do it, but you'd want nukes on-site to do it.
Synthfuel apparently exists already and the US Navy has a solution. It's just very energy-intensive.
The shipping industry is investigating making ammonia from the hydrogen and then using that in fuel cells; it has the advantage that it's easier to handle. https://maritime-executive.com/article/highest-power-output-...
The shipping industry is investigating making ammonia from the hydrogen and then using that in fuel cells; it has the advantage that it's easier to handle. https://maritime-executive.com/article/highest-power-output-...
The Germans in WW2 made large quantities of synthetic fuel. It's not new, the same challenges continue to exist. Most of their military aviation fuel was apparently synthetic due to oil shortages.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel#History
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel#History
The whole idiotic war would have been over the moment the free trade system of the US would have surplanted the pre-existing empires and their embargoes. Harber+Bosch + liquid gas is what feeds the world and creates the pre-requisite to all peace.
> the free trade system of the US would have surplanted the pre-existing empires and their embargoes
This doesn't make any sense: free trade is not a magic spell against the desires of imperialism, and the US embargoed Japan slightly before Japan attacked the US (but long into Japan's war with China).
This doesn't make any sense: free trade is not a magic spell against the desires of imperialism, and the US embargoed Japan slightly before Japan attacked the US (but long into Japan's war with China).
Liquid gas may feed some of the world, but there are many left out with this centralized system.
I am glad that decentralised electrical from solar and wind can fully replace the old system and look foward to a new many-noded culture which can allow all humanity to flourish.
I am glad that decentralised electrical from solar and wind can fully replace the old system and look foward to a new many-noded culture which can allow all humanity to flourish.
The best solution for large airplanes is remote meetings and realistic remote experiences.
Sorry. But there’s no reason so many people need to fly (consultants, I used to be one racked up a few hundred thousand miles) besides leisure or critical travel. And it should reflect in the price so tickets aren’t $150 to be crammed in like cattle.
And yes it should be rare to fly until we figure out cleaner fuel methods. Just my hot take.
Sorry. But there’s no reason so many people need to fly (consultants, I used to be one racked up a few hundred thousand miles) besides leisure or critical travel. And it should reflect in the price so tickets aren’t $150 to be crammed in like cattle.
And yes it should be rare to fly until we figure out cleaner fuel methods. Just my hot take.
Another place where it could make sense is trains. Building overhead power lines could be expensive, especially if we are talking about high speed trains. Because of the square cube law, large pressurized tanks could be economically quite efficient. A train could carry an extra car with a pressurized tank at 700 bar. At this pressure the hydrogen density is 42 kg/m3. A typical oil car has a volume of 131 m3, so assuming the same volume, we'd get about 5.5 tons of hydrogen. Hydrogen has about 3 times the energy density of diesel fuel, and hydrogen cells about twice the efficiency of diesel engines, so all in all 5.5 tons of hydrogen would be the equivalent of about 33 tons of diesel. That's more than enough to move a train from one train station to another one, even if the stations are hundreds of miles apart.
Couldn't cargo ships use wind? A wind turbine on the ship? A kind of modern re-imaging of how sailing ships of old were powered.
Is the problem that wind isn't reliable and you might go days without it? Or you wouldn't fit in ports or other areas with a big turbine sticking out? Or is there some other practical problem.
Is the problem that wind isn't reliable and you might go days without it? Or you wouldn't fit in ports or other areas with a big turbine sticking out? Or is there some other practical problem.
Several designs have been proposed for adding sails, of one shape or another, to ships in addition to an active mode of propulsion in order to reduce fuel consumption.
Further, the ships take a significant amount of energy to get going, so much of that initial acceleration could be handled by strong tug boats which would then be immediately recharged.
Further, the ships take a significant amount of energy to get going, so much of that initial acceleration could be handled by strong tug boats which would then be immediately recharged.
It's not just that wind is unreliable, it's also very low energy density. You'd need a lot of sails to haul a small amount of cargo. There are applications using kite sails to supplement combustion engines, but that's just an opportunistic mitigation.
Cargo ships could use wind sure, it would just be much slower and each boat would have to carry far less stuff.
Might solve problems for countries that have lost their own manufacturing capacity because shipping products gets way less appealing.
Might solve problems for countries that have lost their own manufacturing capacity because shipping products gets way less appealing.
It will make sense for nearly all transportation that can’t be directly electrified. The problem with batteries is that it is a massive resource hog, and one that is fundamentally unsustainable. It will have be abandoned. The only alternatives are ideas like synfuels or ammonia, but those require green hydrogen production anyways.
They are not the only alternative.
Ammonia (a toxic gas) as a fuel is an insane idea and will lead to needless deaths.
Efuels are incredibly inefficient. Hard to justify paying 10x the price.
Ammonia or synfuels are not the only alternative. The elephant in the room, the one fuel that is being used today is biofuel.
Ammonia (a toxic gas) as a fuel is an insane idea and will lead to needless deaths.
Efuels are incredibly inefficient. Hard to justify paying 10x the price.
Ammonia or synfuels are not the only alternative. The elephant in the room, the one fuel that is being used today is biofuel.
Biofuels are not green. It is purely greenwashing since the production of biofuels is very carbon intensive. It is also very environmentally destructive since it takes a lot of farmland to produce.
When they actually start producing that in any significant quantities, wake up me.
They will produce it as soon as it's economically viable to do so. Until then, (government subsidised) corn it is. Which some will call simply farming.
Imagine thinking corn ethanol is even remotely a good idea…
I'd appreciate if you at least tried to keep a non-condescending tone.
I was merely stating why cellulosic ethanol is not the major source of biofuel; because corn is heavily subsidized and produces a cheaper product, hence nobody wants to buy the more expensive product.
That's not a technical problem, it's an economic one. And the subsidies where to change we would see less from corn and more from other sources.
I was merely stating why cellulosic ethanol is not the major source of biofuel; because corn is heavily subsidized and produces a cheaper product, hence nobody wants to buy the more expensive product.
That's not a technical problem, it's an economic one. And the subsidies where to change we would see less from corn and more from other sources.
Government subsidized corn ethanol is an environmental disaster. If you hear it being brought up, you automatically assume the person is either confused or working for the corn lobby.
Cellulosic ethanol is an idea brought up as a solution to the problems of corn ethanol. Ironically, by the George W. Bush administration. Unfortunately, nothing has materialized in any meaningful quantity.
And FYI, they’d be subsidizing it heavily if any meaningful quantity of cellulosic ethanol could be produced. So bringing up that part doesn’t mean much. But cellulosic ethanol production never happened and so far there is no reason to believe it is possible.
Cellulosic ethanol is an idea brought up as a solution to the problems of corn ethanol. Ironically, by the George W. Bush administration. Unfortunately, nothing has materialized in any meaningful quantity.
And FYI, they’d be subsidizing it heavily if any meaningful quantity of cellulosic ethanol could be produced. So bringing up that part doesn’t mean much. But cellulosic ethanol production never happened and so far there is no reason to believe it is possible.
> And FYI, they’d be subsidizing it heavily if any meaningful quantity of cellulosic ethanol could be produced.
I'm not so sure. That would introduce competition for the corn ethanol, and there's a fairly large constituency (those having their corn production subsidised) that would oppose this kind of measure.
I'm not so sure. That would introduce competition for the corn ethanol, and there's a fairly large constituency (those having their corn production subsidised) that would oppose this kind of measure.
It probably sounds like a great idea if you are a senator or congressman from a midwestern state.
BTW: Biofuels are ludicrously inefficient. Something like 1% of the solar energy actually ends up being usable at the end of the process. That’s not include all the other inputs like fertilizers or pesticides and the like. It is pretty resource intensive in reality. Which is why serious environmentalists reject them entirely.
[deleted]
How would a hydrogen powered passenger plane work? How big and or heavy would the fuel tanks need to be? As I understand it you either need very big tanks to store it as gas, or very heavy insulated tanks to store it liquefied. Would a passenger plane still work?
Hydrogen planes have been tested. The physics works out provided you have more room for the tanks.
Wing tanks won't work for hydrogen, and wing tanks are essential for weight distribution and reducing load on the wing roots. A hydrogen cylinder in the central fuselage will require a complete rework of the aircraft design and a new type designation, it's not something that can be retrofitted into current aircraft, even if converting the engines to hydrogen would be otherwise feasible.
Aircraft will remain liquid-hydrocarbon-fueled for the foreseeable future, even if the fuel production transitions to a synthetic process vs. refined crude oil.
Aircraft will remain liquid-hydrocarbon-fueled for the foreseeable future, even if the fuel production transitions to a synthetic process vs. refined crude oil.
Ah yes, it works if only it weren’t for those pesky economic considerations.
Making more room for the tanks means either less cabin/storage and/or bigger cross-section and increased drag.
Making more room for the tanks means either less cabin/storage and/or bigger cross-section and increased drag.
The alternative is SAF, which has to be a synthetic fuel if the goal is to be honestly green. However, that requires enormous green hydrogen production anyways.
The alternative is electric and biofuels.
There will never be a long-distance battery powered plane. Not with any kind of battery we can conceive of today at any rate. And again, biofuels are not green.
> There will never be a long-distance battery powered plane.
"Long-distance" is a subjective term. There is an ever-increasing distance for which batteries are doable. Everything else is will be liquid biofuels, rather than efuels.
Biofuels are as green as the process making them. Electrify the equipment being used (something that's being done for reasons orthogonal to this) and you're already made the process more green.
"Long-distance" is a subjective term. There is an ever-increasing distance for which batteries are doable. Everything else is will be liquid biofuels, rather than efuels.
Biofuels are as green as the process making them. Electrify the equipment being used (something that's being done for reasons orthogonal to this) and you're already made the process more green.
Airplanes are not cars. Weight actually matters, even for short trips. There are not an “ever-increasing” number of routes that can be powered by batteries. You can’t even legally send passengers using batteries, because you can’t even get to reserve range minimums. It is basically zero today. And people have noted that even with miracle battery advancements, we would still not have a battery good enough to build a 737 or a320 equivalent. As a result, most of the aviation community has abandoned the idea altogether.
Again, biofuels are not green. The process that makes them involve vast quantities of land and resources. It is in fact a very inefficient and resource intensive idea. It is actually much worse than what it takes to make e-fuels.
Again, biofuels are not green. The process that makes them involve vast quantities of land and resources. It is in fact a very inefficient and resource intensive idea. It is actually much worse than what it takes to make e-fuels.
Well it doesn't in some ways, but I think many overlook the fact there is going to be trillions (quadrillions?) of kWhs of free/negative price electricity in the coming decades - when there is too much solar and/or wind on the grids.
There needs to be more productive uses of this free electricity and I imagine H2 is one of them.
NB: Batteries won't solve this unless prices dropped astronomically. The issue isn't overcapacity on a day by day basis, it's seasonal overcapacity. Areas further south are less affected by this, as there is less seasonal variation in solar output. You're not going to charge a battery then discharge it weeks later - the economics don't make sense.
There needs to be more productive uses of this free electricity and I imagine H2 is one of them.
NB: Batteries won't solve this unless prices dropped astronomically. The issue isn't overcapacity on a day by day basis, it's seasonal overcapacity. Areas further south are less affected by this, as there is less seasonal variation in solar output. You're not going to charge a battery then discharge it weeks later - the economics don't make sense.
I can see it being a useful battery tech as well to be used with wind power: offshore wind to generate electricity and generate hydrogen from ocean water to be burned when the wind isn't blowing.
I thought this sentence at the end was quite interesting:
> BHP’s modelling shows that battery charging time may be the biggest cost on the electric side, something that dynamic charging can reduce significantly.
For an industry like mining, the biggest cost of switching to electric isn’t buying vehicles, or batteries or setting up charging stations: it’s the downtime they experience while charging.
> BHP’s modelling shows that battery charging time may be the biggest cost on the electric side, something that dynamic charging can reduce significantly.
For an industry like mining, the biggest cost of switching to electric isn’t buying vehicles, or batteries or setting up charging stations: it’s the downtime they experience while charging.
The mining trucks are 100+ tonne (carry capacity) Haul Paks with a (say) 30 minute turn around time from excavator to loadout (dumping into train) and back again.
The trucks are already "electric" having diesal generators that power electric axle motors.
Dynamic charging probably means auto hooking a charger at the excavator (which are often electric - they don't move much and can have fat ass HV cables running to them that are dragged when the excavator moves) to boost batteries on the trucks while they park as they're loaded.
Optimal performance is no truck idle save when being loaded - dumping is relatively quick.
The trucks are already "electric" having diesal generators that power electric axle motors.
Dynamic charging probably means auto hooking a charger at the excavator (which are often electric - they don't move much and can have fat ass HV cables running to them that are dragged when the excavator moves) to boost batteries on the trucks while they park as they're loaded.
Optimal performance is no truck idle save when being loaded - dumping is relatively quick.
I would guess overhead lines and catenaries for some portion of the route rather than dragging cables around.
> fat ass HV cables running to them
Do you a more exact specs?
Maybe MV 10kV-40kV ?
And how thick are these cables?
Do they carry 2000A snaking around the site?
Do you a more exact specs?
Maybe MV 10kV-40kV ?
And how thick are these cables?
Do they carry 2000A snaking around the site?
There are a number of “standards”, but e.g. Liebherr are using 6kV for their newer small electrified excavation equipment. Cable size obviously varies based on the needs of the equipment, but “not small”, and yes, they are routinely surface-laid around the site. Larger sites do the predictable step-down thing to reduce IR losses.
Many of these systems have been around for quite a while, but the move into smaller scale (sub-100t) gear seems to be picking up.
Many of these systems have been around for quite a while, but the move into smaller scale (sub-100t) gear seems to be picking up.
Hard to get a sense of scale, but you can see them running across the ground in this video: https://youtu.be/Kw-enXeOnKE?t=101
>>> Dynamic charging probably means auto hooking a charger at the excavator (which are often electric - they don't move much and can have fat ass HV cables running to them that are dragged when the excavator moves) to boost batteries on the trucks while they park as they're loaded.
>>> Optimal performance is no truck idle save when being loaded - dumping is relatively quick.
> Hard to get a sense of scale, but you can see them running across the ground in this video: https://youtu.be/Kw-enXeOnKE?t=101
It seems like the loading process is pretty quick too. It's hard for me to see how it would be feasible to hook the truck up to a charger during loading without slowing the process significantly.
>>> Optimal performance is no truck idle save when being loaded - dumping is relatively quick.
> Hard to get a sense of scale, but you can see them running across the ground in this video: https://youtu.be/Kw-enXeOnKE?t=101
It seems like the loading process is pretty quick too. It's hard for me to see how it would be feasible to hook the truck up to a charger during loading without slowing the process significantly.
Critical path nerds will be looking at lengthening the truck queue.
If you slip an extra truck into the rotation then there's a longer idle slot just before moving to the excvator - an opportunity to charge any difference lost on the round trip | regained on the descent to load out.
Cost to that is an extra truck - there's a few million.
Gains are longer idle time, less heat build on the tires, charging, reduced fuel costs with electric fleet.
There are many options to consider and cost.
The first draft of things like https://www.micromine.com/pitram/ were written in the early 1980s.
If you slip an extra truck into the rotation then there's a longer idle slot just before moving to the excvator - an opportunity to charge any difference lost on the round trip | regained on the descent to load out.
Cost to that is an extra truck - there's a few million.
Gains are longer idle time, less heat build on the tires, charging, reduced fuel costs with electric fleet.
There are many options to consider and cost.
The first draft of things like https://www.micromine.com/pitram/ were written in the early 1980s.
> Do you a more exact specs?
Yes. (It's also a fun bit of internet search challenge best left for the reader)
> And how thick are these cables?
Thicker than a snake, thinner than a human torso.
Imagine the thinnest part of a Toyota Landcruiser after a HaulPak runs over it ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TskUzmg6Sk
Yes. (It's also a fun bit of internet search challenge best left for the reader)
> And how thick are these cables?
Thicker than a snake, thinner than a human torso.
Imagine the thinnest part of a Toyota Landcruiser after a HaulPak runs over it ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TskUzmg6Sk
A fair portion of their huge equipment is already connected to a power cord, so electricification isn't a problem itself. But pretty much everything is moving 24/7. For things like heavy shovels uptimes are commonly 88% per year. When you look at how much maintenance is needed to keep running in these rough environments it's a pretty amazing number.
Please see my sibling comment.
Do we really use 2000A cables running around a work site? Are they buried ?
Do we really use 2000A cables running around a work site? Are they buried ?
Yep, and no mostly not buried. They have cable tractors to move around the wires and heavy spools. At the interface they'll have it lifted in places so the trucks don't drive over it.
Very interesting. Makes me imagine a battery swapping station for a huge mining truck. Probably not feasible but I’m sure it would look awesome if it was.
They have hybrid test trucks that can power themselves via overhead lines for the uphill loaded portion of the trip. I wonder if something like that could reduce battery usage and time to charge.
That makes a lot of sense.
I went in a road trip in our EV yesterday pulling a trailer for the first time. We basically drove down into a valley in the morning, and back up out in the evening. As you could imagine, we got basically infinity range going downhill, and much much shorter range going uphill.
A track that powered/charged mining trucks while they were hauling material up, coupled with regenerative breaking seems like it could pretty much solve charging for that application.
I went in a road trip in our EV yesterday pulling a trailer for the first time. We basically drove down into a valley in the morning, and back up out in the evening. As you could imagine, we got basically infinity range going downhill, and much much shorter range going uphill.
A track that powered/charged mining trucks while they were hauling material up, coupled with regenerative breaking seems like it could pretty much solve charging for that application.
Even better, many BHP iron sites in the Pilbarra are mesa mining .. they drive up unloaded and roll down with 100+ tonnes - plenty of opportunity to gravity charge while retarding downhill motion (free wheeling a laden HaulPak down a mesa doesn't end well).
That’s the principal behind Fortescue’s infinity train:
https://newatlas.com/transport/fortescue-wae-infinity-train-...
https://newatlas.com/transport/fortescue-wae-infinity-train-...
Regenerative braking in trains: https://www.google.com/search?q=regenerative+braking+trains
Regenerative braking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_braking
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27579732 :
> In Scandinavia the Kiruna to Narvik electrified railway [...] The regenerated energy is sufficient to power the empty trains back up to the national border
Is re-planning routes for regenerative braking solvable with the Modified Snow Plow Problem (variation on TSP Traveling Salesman Problem), on a QC Quantum Computer; with Quantum Algorithmic advantage due to the complexity of the problem?
From "Snow plow routing problem": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_plow_routing_problem :
> The snow plow routing problem is an application of the structure of Arc Routing Problems (ARPs) and Vehicle Routing Problems (VRPs) to snow removal that considers roads as edges of a graph.
> The problem is a simple routing problem when the arrival times are not specified.[1] Snow plow problems consider constraints such as the cost of plowing downhill compared to plowing uphill.[2] The Mixed Chinese Postman Problem is applicable to snow routes where directed edges represent one-way streets and undirected edges represent two-way streets. [3]
Arc routing > Algorithms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_routing#Algorithms :
> Finding an efficient solution with large amounts data to the Chinese Postman Problem (CPP), the Windy Postman Problem (WPP), the Rural Postman Problem (RPP), the k-Chinese postman problem (KCPP), the mixed Chinese postman problem (MCPP), the Directed Chinese Postman Problem (DCPP),[8] the Downhill Plowing Problem (DPP), the Plowing with Precedence Problem (PPP), the Windy Rural Postman Problem (WRPP) and the Windy General Routing Problem (WGRP) requires using thoughtful mathematical concepts, including heuristic optimization methods, branch-and-bound methods, integer linear programming, and applications of traveling salesman problem algorithms such as the Held–Karp algorithm makes an improvement from O(n!) to O(2^{n}n^{2}).[9] In addition to these algorithms, these classes of problems can also be solved with the cutting plane algorithm, convex optimization, convex hulls, Lagrange multipliers and other dynamic programming methods. In cases where it is not feasible to run the Held–Karp algorithm because of its high computational complexity, algorithms like this can be used to approximate the solution in a reasonable amount of time.[10]
QC algos for TSP and similar:
- QISkit tutorials > Max-Cut and Traveling Salesman Problem: docs/tutorials/06_examples_max_cut_and_tsp.ipynb: https://qiskit.org/ecosystem/optimization/tutorials/06_examp...
Regenerative braking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_braking
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27579732 :
> In Scandinavia the Kiruna to Narvik electrified railway [...] The regenerated energy is sufficient to power the empty trains back up to the national border
Is re-planning routes for regenerative braking solvable with the Modified Snow Plow Problem (variation on TSP Traveling Salesman Problem), on a QC Quantum Computer; with Quantum Algorithmic advantage due to the complexity of the problem?
From "Snow plow routing problem": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_plow_routing_problem :
> The snow plow routing problem is an application of the structure of Arc Routing Problems (ARPs) and Vehicle Routing Problems (VRPs) to snow removal that considers roads as edges of a graph.
> The problem is a simple routing problem when the arrival times are not specified.[1] Snow plow problems consider constraints such as the cost of plowing downhill compared to plowing uphill.[2] The Mixed Chinese Postman Problem is applicable to snow routes where directed edges represent one-way streets and undirected edges represent two-way streets. [3]
Arc routing > Algorithms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_routing#Algorithms :
> Finding an efficient solution with large amounts data to the Chinese Postman Problem (CPP), the Windy Postman Problem (WPP), the Rural Postman Problem (RPP), the k-Chinese postman problem (KCPP), the mixed Chinese postman problem (MCPP), the Directed Chinese Postman Problem (DCPP),[8] the Downhill Plowing Problem (DPP), the Plowing with Precedence Problem (PPP), the Windy Rural Postman Problem (WRPP) and the Windy General Routing Problem (WGRP) requires using thoughtful mathematical concepts, including heuristic optimization methods, branch-and-bound methods, integer linear programming, and applications of traveling salesman problem algorithms such as the Held–Karp algorithm makes an improvement from O(n!) to O(2^{n}n^{2}).[9] In addition to these algorithms, these classes of problems can also be solved with the cutting plane algorithm, convex optimization, convex hulls, Lagrange multipliers and other dynamic programming methods. In cases where it is not feasible to run the Held–Karp algorithm because of its high computational complexity, algorithms like this can be used to approximate the solution in a reasonable amount of time.[10]
QC algos for TSP and similar:
- QISkit tutorials > Max-Cut and Traveling Salesman Problem: docs/tutorials/06_examples_max_cut_and_tsp.ipynb: https://qiskit.org/ecosystem/optimization/tutorials/06_examp...
That is kind of funny. If the stuff is mined at the site using plugged-in equipment, and then lifted up to get into the trucks, I guess the mining equipment could be seen as a very convoluted way of doing energy storage via gravity.
Just make sure the mine is uphill of society! Then the trucks only need battery packs sufficient to get back up the mining site unladen.
Just make sure the mine is uphill of society! Then the trucks only need battery packs sufficient to get back up the mining site unladen.
> free wheeling a laden HaulPak down a mesa doesn't end well
I think you win the understatement of the month award.
I think you win the understatement of the month award.
Already in production:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124478_world-s-largest...
"Marking that trip around 20 times a day, Kuhn Schweitz says the eDumper produces 200 kwh of surplus energy every day, or 77 megawatt-hours a year. A typical dump truck uses between 11,000 and 22,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year. "
They have to discharge the surplus :)
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124478_world-s-largest...
"Marking that trip around 20 times a day, Kuhn Schweitz says the eDumper produces 200 kwh of surplus energy every day, or 77 megawatt-hours a year. A typical dump truck uses between 11,000 and 22,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year. "
They have to discharge the surplus :)
BHP Australia Operational Decarbonisation 'Report' (30 slides)
June 2023
https://www.bhp.com/-/media/documents/media/reports-and-pres...
from: https://www.bhp.com/news/articles/2023/06/tamahra-is-focused...
June 2023
https://www.bhp.com/-/media/documents/media/reports-and-pres...
Recently appointed as Principal Power Decarbonisation, Tamahra Kierath and her team are focused on exploring options to provide renewable energy to BHP's Western Australia Iron Ore operations.
To achieve our aim of eliminating emissions from diesel by electrifying our truck and locomotive fleets, we will require more electricity to support that transition. Our Pilbara operations are not connected to the power grid, so my team are exploring a range of opportunities for renewable energy solutions. The transition will start with proven renewable technologies such as wind and solar and we will continue to explore long duration energy storage options as technology advances.
from: https://www.bhp.com/news/articles/2023/06/tamahra-is-focused...
Question is always: what's externalized and what isn't?
Grid storage, required if you want to ensure your energy source is renewable, is usually not taken into account. Sure, diesel and commercial hydrogen isn't either, and an energy reduction even if not renewable is still great, but I'd be keen on knowing the number when taking it into account. That's the end goal after all.
Grid storage, required if you want to ensure your energy source is renewable, is usually not taken into account. Sure, diesel and commercial hydrogen isn't either, and an energy reduction even if not renewable is still great, but I'd be keen on knowing the number when taking it into account. That's the end goal after all.
Grid storage isn't needed before the grid is at least 50% renewable (and I don't mean "once in a blue moon more than 50% of demand is satisfied by renewable electricity, I mean baseline"); in fact it's hard to justify building a lot of storage out before renewables give them lots of stuff to balance.
Grid storage is eventually needed, but the discussion around batteries is kind of like demanding your website be "web scale" when you've had less than 100 visitors a day for the past year. Like, I'm all for planning ahead but is this really our priority?
Meanwhile, if we reduce our emissions by 10% today, then we have 10%(ish) more time to get rid of the remaining 90%. Our deadline isn't time, it's CO2e emitted.
In other words: Grid storage should not be taken into account, because the only way it becomes important soon is if we buy ourselves a lot of time to deal with it by majorly cutting emissions. People focus too much on "100% renewables by 20XX" and not enough on "50% renewables by ASAP".
I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing that, because "[thing] should be taken into account" is basically an applause light and I'm contradicting it, but you get the idea.
Grid storage is eventually needed, but the discussion around batteries is kind of like demanding your website be "web scale" when you've had less than 100 visitors a day for the past year. Like, I'm all for planning ahead but is this really our priority?
Meanwhile, if we reduce our emissions by 10% today, then we have 10%(ish) more time to get rid of the remaining 90%. Our deadline isn't time, it's CO2e emitted.
In other words: Grid storage should not be taken into account, because the only way it becomes important soon is if we buy ourselves a lot of time to deal with it by majorly cutting emissions. People focus too much on "100% renewables by 20XX" and not enough on "50% renewables by ASAP".
I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing that, because "[thing] should be taken into account" is basically an applause light and I'm contradicting it, but you get the idea.
> Question is always: what's externalized and what isn't?
In many (most?) electricity markets this is a non-issue because on the producer side, the price they get is determined by a spot market. Rather than every producer getting paid $0.05/kWh (or whatever) all the time, the price is calculated every hour/minute according to supply and demand. That means producers that generate electricity when there's an abundance (eg. renewables on a windy/sunny day) are penalized accordingly, and producers that generate electricity when there's a shortage (eg. peaking fossil fuel plants) are awarded accordingly.
In many (most?) electricity markets this is a non-issue because on the producer side, the price they get is determined by a spot market. Rather than every producer getting paid $0.05/kWh (or whatever) all the time, the price is calculated every hour/minute according to supply and demand. That means producers that generate electricity when there's an abundance (eg. renewables on a windy/sunny day) are penalized accordingly, and producers that generate electricity when there's a shortage (eg. peaking fossil fuel plants) are awarded accordingly.
You can significantly reduce grid storage requirements for high-renewables scenarios if you can include demand-response in a big fleet of EV chargers to say "if your charge is not urgent, please delay it a bit".
Who pays for grid storage? Is it really externalized or does it just become part of the cost of doing business for the power company?
The answer for "who pays for X" is always similar. If no government intervenes, people that use electricity when its most expensive pay for it; or if the power company keeps the price constant, it gets included on the average price.
But, governments tend to intervene in utility prices somewhat often, and power companies have varying policies WRT constant pricing, so we have at least three (fairly dissimilar) possible answers here.
> so we have at least three possible answers here
For a question of who pays for a service, in an undefined market, at an undefined place, not specifying what participant it's about, and not determining at what history period exactly it's about (yeah, near future, but how near?). Do you think that's too many?
For a question of who pays for a service, in an undefined market, at an undefined place, not specifying what participant it's about, and not determining at what history period exactly it's about (yeah, near future, but how near?). Do you think that's too many?
I think in this particular case the question might be "what is cheaper to operate?"
Not part of the official analysis, but BHP is a huge player in many of the raw resources of electric drivetrains. So they have a lot of personal stake in advancing electrification.
I will say that they would also be a player in many of the metals utilized in hydrogen fuel cells as well.
I wasn't sure who "BHP" were, it turns out it's an Australian mining company:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHP:
> BHP Group Limited (formerly known as BHP Billiton) is an Australian multinational mining, metals, and natural gas petroleum public company headquartered in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
> The Broken Hill Proprietary Company was founded on 16 July 1885 in the mining town of Silverton, New South Wales.[3] By 2017, BHP was the world's largest mining company, based on market capitalisation,[4][5] and was Melbourne's third-largest company by revenue.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHP:
> BHP Group Limited (formerly known as BHP Billiton) is an Australian multinational mining, metals, and natural gas petroleum public company headquartered in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
> The Broken Hill Proprietary Company was founded on 16 July 1885 in the mining town of Silverton, New South Wales.[3] By 2017, BHP was the world's largest mining company, based on market capitalisation,[4][5] and was Melbourne's third-largest company by revenue.[6]
Q: Where is the electricity coming from to recharge the batteries?
"Powered by electricity" doesn't necessarily mean "clean", years ago I visited friends in Germany who were within cycling distance of an open-cast lignite mine. It had its own (lignite-fueled) power station on-site, which powered much of the equipment.
Will never forget climbing steps up the earthen embankment at the edge of the mine to reach a viewing platform. The scale of the destruction was literally breathtaking.
"Powered by electricity" doesn't necessarily mean "clean", years ago I visited friends in Germany who were within cycling distance of an open-cast lignite mine. It had its own (lignite-fueled) power station on-site, which powered much of the equipment.
Will never forget climbing steps up the earthen embankment at the edge of the mine to reach a viewing platform. The scale of the destruction was literally breathtaking.
An electric car powered by coal is still cleaner overall than one powered by gasoline.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/10/26/analysis/dirty-e....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2018/08/19/myths-an...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electr...
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/10/26/analysis/dirty-e....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2018/08/19/myths-an...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electr...
Yes, almost always. But it's important to point out the edge cases.
Where I'm from the largest power plant in the country is also insanely polluting - Bełchatow power plant burns lignite for electricity and the CO2 emissions are just bananas. The official number is around 1.7kg(!!!!!!!) Of CO2 for every kWh of electricity produced[1]. If you run your electric car using energy from that power plant then yes, it pollutes more than almost any petrol/diesel vehicle bar some sports cars and large trucks.
But that's a curiosity, an edge case, and if anything it proves that Bełchatow should be closed down immediately and not that EVs are a bad thing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w_Power_Stat...
Where I'm from the largest power plant in the country is also insanely polluting - Bełchatow power plant burns lignite for electricity and the CO2 emissions are just bananas. The official number is around 1.7kg(!!!!!!!) Of CO2 for every kWh of electricity produced[1]. If you run your electric car using energy from that power plant then yes, it pollutes more than almost any petrol/diesel vehicle bar some sports cars and large trucks.
But that's a curiosity, an edge case, and if anything it proves that Bełchatow should be closed down immediately and not that EVs are a bad thing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w_Power_Stat...
Electric fueled by coal produces less CO2 than gasoline. It's not cleaner by a long shot. The pollution produced by a coal plant, especially a brown coal plant, is insane even when they don't have an ash pond breach that kills more wildlife than a tactical nuclear explosion.
> An electric car powered by coal is still cleaner overall than one powered by gasoline
I'm sceptical that we know enough about the energy and resource mix in use across our global supply chains to be anywhere near that confident.
Look up Enrico Mariutti and his thoughts on the photovoltaic lifecycle figures ( mentioned in "China's dirty fuel advanage" - https://public.substack.com/p/solar-panels-more-carbon-inten... )
I'm sceptical that we know enough about the energy and resource mix in use across our global supply chains to be anywhere near that confident.
Look up Enrico Mariutti and his thoughts on the photovoltaic lifecycle figures ( mentioned in "China's dirty fuel advanage" - https://public.substack.com/p/solar-panels-more-carbon-inten... )
"You glide silently out of the Tesla (TSLA.O) showroom in your sleek new electric Model 3, satisfied you're looking great and doing your bit for the planet. But keep going - you'll have to drive another 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before you're doing less harm to the environment than a gas-guzzling saloon."[0]
Appreciate this may be desperately off-message here, but here's the rub: what we change in Europe and North America isn't going to fix anything unless we take China, India, and all the rest of the world with us.
"Most of the electricity in China comes from coal, which accounted for 62% of the electricity generation mix in 2021"[1]
"China permits two new coal power plants per week in 2022"[2]
"China ramps up coal power despite carbon neutral pledges. Local governments approved more coal power in first three months of 2023 than all of 2021."[3]
If we really care about fixing the planet, China and India are where we should be looking. Teslas in California are an irrelevance.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China [2] https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/china-permits-two-... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/24/china-ramps-up...
Appreciate this may be desperately off-message here, but here's the rub: what we change in Europe and North America isn't going to fix anything unless we take China, India, and all the rest of the world with us.
"Most of the electricity in China comes from coal, which accounted for 62% of the electricity generation mix in 2021"[1]
"China permits two new coal power plants per week in 2022"[2]
"China ramps up coal power despite carbon neutral pledges. Local governments approved more coal power in first three months of 2023 than all of 2021."[3]
If we really care about fixing the planet, China and India are where we should be looking. Teslas in California are an irrelevance.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China [2] https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/china-permits-two-... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/24/china-ramps-up...
> "Powered by electricity" doesn't necessarily mean "clean"
"Powered by electricity" is an abstraction that lets you move towards clean sources of energy over time and zero emissions. Even if the source of that electricity is dirty today and shifts emissions, it can become clean and zero emission.
On the other hand "Powered by gasoline" or "Powered by diesel" will always be dirty, even with bio-diesel.
"Powered by electricity" is an abstraction that lets you move towards clean sources of energy over time and zero emissions. Even if the source of that electricity is dirty today and shifts emissions, it can become clean and zero emission.
On the other hand "Powered by gasoline" or "Powered by diesel" will always be dirty, even with bio-diesel.
Came to say this. I would add that "powered by electric" also typically means that power was generated at an industrial-scale facility and so is likely inherently more efficient than on-site generation. Powering a vehicle with electricity generated from diesel is (or can be upgraded to be, over time) more efficient than powering the same vehicles using diesel powertrains.
Thats interesting point, thanks.
This story is Tesla propaganda by a Tesla propagandist. The author of the piece wants every EV maker other than Tesla to go fail. Look at the history of articles the person wrote. No surprise, it’s another attack on an alternative green technology. I doubt the guy even cares about green technology other than what can promote Tesla.
There’s no reason to believe that this a serious attempt to go green. The vehicles are already diesel-electric so it is simply a matter of hooking them up to electricity. And since diesel is not that cheap, you can get save money with an electrified system, provided you have no interest in ensuring green electricity.
There’s no reason to believe that this a serious attempt to go green. The vehicles are already diesel-electric so it is simply a matter of hooking them up to electricity. And since diesel is not that cheap, you can get save money with an electrified system, provided you have no interest in ensuring green electricity.
It’s talking about Australia. If they have one thing it’s sunlight.
Also a looooot of coal.
https://www.energy.gov.au/data/australian-electricity-genera...
They have 30GW of renewables in the AEMO connection pipeline at the moment, ~7GW greater than entire continent coal generation (which will add to current renewables capacity) [1] [2]. Batteries are scaling up to consume grid services revenue and drive out thermal generation [3].
Also of note: "NEM total emissions declined this quarter to the lowest Q2 level on record, of 28.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, 6.6 per cent lower than Q2 2022, whilst emissions intensity dropped 4.3 per cent to 0.61 tCO2 e/MWh."
"“Rooftop solar generation increased 30 per cent from Q2 2022, which reduced electricity demand from the grid. Coupled with higher renewable output, wholesale prices were zero or negative nine per cent of the quarter throughout the NEM, a new Q2 record,” Ms Mouchaileh said." This bears repeating: 9 percent of the time, the wholesale cost of power is zero or negative.
[1] https://www.energymagazine.com.au/aemo-quarterly-energy-repo...
[2] https://opennem.org.au/facilities/au/?status=operating
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-04/how-tesla... | https://archive.is/egMXl
Also of note: "NEM total emissions declined this quarter to the lowest Q2 level on record, of 28.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, 6.6 per cent lower than Q2 2022, whilst emissions intensity dropped 4.3 per cent to 0.61 tCO2 e/MWh."
"“Rooftop solar generation increased 30 per cent from Q2 2022, which reduced electricity demand from the grid. Coupled with higher renewable output, wholesale prices were zero or negative nine per cent of the quarter throughout the NEM, a new Q2 record,” Ms Mouchaileh said." This bears repeating: 9 percent of the time, the wholesale cost of power is zero or negative.
[1] https://www.energymagazine.com.au/aemo-quarterly-energy-repo...
[2] https://opennem.org.au/facilities/au/?status=operating
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-04/how-tesla... | https://archive.is/egMXl
> They have 30GW of renewables in the AEMO connection pipeline at the moment, ~7GW greater than entire continent coal generation (which will add to current renewables capacity) [1] [2]. Batteries are scaling up to consume grid services revenue and drive out thermal generation [3].
Yet they are still digging coal out of the ground - for export. Australia exported USD 75 billion worth of coal in 2022.
Yet they are still digging coal out of the ground - for export. Australia exported USD 75 billion worth of coal in 2022.
If they discovered a new source of coal, as large, clean and easy to mine as their best ever existing coal seams, they'd be financially better off putting solar PV over the top of it than mining the coal seam. So that problem should solve itself if they let the market do its thing and don't tilt it to help out coal mine owners.
We should try to keep it that way.
I've been there too, it's the saddest view, maybe only on par with the destruction in Northern Canada due to fracking. And likely in Africa there are similar sites but I haven't seen those in person, just online and photos do not do this kind of damage any justice. If you haven't seen any of this try anyway:
https://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2012/07/tar_sands.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Panorama...
https://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2012/07/tar_sands.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Panorama...
I imagine a mix of solar and natural gas. A lot of natural gas is mined in Western Australia and Australian mines tend to be in hot sunny places. Coal mining isn’t BHPs business so that seems unlikely.
Uhhh, BHP is like one of the largest coal miners on the planet.
Though, it's just one of their operating units (mainly iron and copper).
The iron ore mines are nowhere near the coal mines, but are near the North West Shelf gas area.
Nah, I know, the iron is in WA, iirc the main coal mines are in Queensland and some in NSW. The main point was the comment that coal isn't BHP's business, when they've gotta be the largest coal miner in Australia.
BHP says battery electric cheaper than hydrogen
Well, duh. Hydrogen is just a (terrible) liquid battery you have to re-manufacture every time you discharge it. You lose a third of the energy making the hydrogen, another quarter moving it around, and then half of it converting from hydrogen to electricity.
Well, duh. Hydrogen is just a (terrible) liquid battery you have to re-manufacture every time you discharge it. You lose a third of the energy making the hydrogen, another quarter moving it around, and then half of it converting from hydrogen to electricity.
That's what I have been saying for the last 2-3 years that solar, renewables and batteries are making ice vehicles uncompetitive. The coming electric revolution will be interesting almost everything will use electricy motors while the variable cost to run those motors ie electricity will be getting cheaper.
Storing hydrogen in vehicles has never seemed like a good idea to me. The risk is too high since the gas tanks can't be made indestructible and hydrogen goes boom quite spectacularly.
But as a grid storage medium it could make a lot of sense. The fundamental equation is just too good to ignore - energy plus water becomes hydrogen, hydrogen becomes energy plus water - and only water.
The world needs both energy and clean water, so it seems like a potentially perfect "twofer". (I must admit that I have no idea if the amount of water generated from combustion is relevant).
The inefficiency doesn't seem to be a fundamental problem, as we get increasingly more surplus energy from solar and wind. This summer utility companies have had to "pay" customers to use electricity in Europe, a mere 6 months after they had the highest electricity prices on record. Any method to store even a fraction of the current surplus so that it can be sold for 50+ cents per kwh in 6 months should be very interesting.
But as a grid storage medium it could make a lot of sense. The fundamental equation is just too good to ignore - energy plus water becomes hydrogen, hydrogen becomes energy plus water - and only water.
The world needs both energy and clean water, so it seems like a potentially perfect "twofer". (I must admit that I have no idea if the amount of water generated from combustion is relevant).
The inefficiency doesn't seem to be a fundamental problem, as we get increasingly more surplus energy from solar and wind. This summer utility companies have had to "pay" customers to use electricity in Europe, a mere 6 months after they had the highest electricity prices on record. Any method to store even a fraction of the current surplus so that it can be sold for 50+ cents per kwh in 6 months should be very interesting.
There seems to be a lot of lobbying going on around hydrogen and unfortunately politicians seem to think:
Hydrogen is a gas - therefore everywhere you use gas you can use hydrogen instead.
I’m not sure it’s quite so simple.
Hydrogen is a gas - therefore everywhere you use gas you can use hydrogen instead.
I’m not sure it’s quite so simple.
It's now pretty clear that chemical fuel systems, i.e. any system based on the combustion of a fuel with oxygen to generate heat/pressure/motive force, are going to be fairly niche markets in the future. International jet travel and orbital launch rockets, and maybe long-distance commercial shipping, are about it.
The real value of renewable-energy-powered chemical synthesis will be in the production of things like fertilizers, dyes, carbon fiber, etc. Basically you can take the entire fossil-fuel-sourced front end of the petrochemical industry and replace it with hydrogen and carbon inputs from water and atmospheric CO2 respectively.
The real value of renewable-energy-powered chemical synthesis will be in the production of things like fertilizers, dyes, carbon fiber, etc. Basically you can take the entire fossil-fuel-sourced front end of the petrochemical industry and replace it with hydrogen and carbon inputs from water and atmospheric CO2 respectively.
Well if theres a sector that can benefic form eletric vehicles, this would be big machines. They would have lighter engines, because they would not need a transmission.
Cat is one of the few manufacturers that make direct drive trucks. Most are diesel-electric.
Same with locomotives. Most are diesel-electric in that a diesel engine drives a generator, which generates electricity to power an electric motor that actually turns the wheels. Less mechanical wear and tear this way, though it adds some inefficiency as the article says.
Also in locomotives is that no gear box would survicee so much weight.
The US has seemed to "hit the gas" [0] with large expenditures to support hydrogen use as a fuel.
In November 2021, Congress passed, and President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. signed into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). This historic, once-in-a-generation legislation authorizes and appropriates $62 billion for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), including $9.5 billion for clean hydrogen. [1]
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $1.5 billion to support hydrogen electrolysis and $8 billion to fund a broad Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs program. [1]
0. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hit%20the%20gas
1. (largish pdf) https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/us-national-clean-hydro...
2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/07/05/...
In November 2021, Congress passed, and President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. signed into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). This historic, once-in-a-generation legislation authorizes and appropriates $62 billion for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), including $9.5 billion for clean hydrogen. [1]
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $1.5 billion to support hydrogen electrolysis and $8 billion to fund a broad Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs program. [1]
0. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hit%20the%20gas
1. (largish pdf) https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/us-national-clean-hydro...
2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/07/05/...
Was that ever controversial in the last fifteen years or so?
Only to those without a firm grasp on the laws of thermodynamics. There are a lot of those people. They fall into two categories:
- those genuinely confused about this (most of the general public)
- those representing oil and gas lobbies that have been using hydrogen lobbying as a way to stay in the fossil fuel industry a bit longer. Because most hydrogen is made from natural gas and they love the idea of growing the market for that.
In short, there's a lot of waffle about stored energy by people who don't get (or refuse to acknowledge) that most of that 1) needs to come from somewhere (which is a lossy process) and 2) needs to be transformed into a usable form of energy (which is also a lossy process).
That's before you take into account the logistics of moving hydrogen around, which is challenging because it takes up a lot of space. You can either compress it to a few hundred bar (which takes energy) or cool it to a few degrees of kelvin (which takes energy, and keeping it there costs you more energy). And once you do that, you need to keep it contained for extended periods of time (which isn't 100% efficient, especially in liquid form), and use about 18x more trucks for hydrogen in gas form compared to methane in liquid form; or only about 3x more trucks is you actually do cool it down to liquid form.
In short, you end up loosing a lot of energy in various lossy energy transformations, compression, storage, and transport of hydrogen before you even get to extract energy from it. All these inefficiencies multiply to a very significant cost disadvantage over simple battery electric.
And even if you do all go down this path you end up charging a battery with a hydrogen fuel cell. Because fuel cells suck at producing variable output that you would need for a vehicle. Which is why most hydrogen vehicles today that use a fuel cell are fully functional battery electric vehicles that happen to have a tiny battery.
You could just rip out the hydrogen bits and replace them with a bigger battery and you end up with a vehicle that's cheaper to operate. By about 2-3x. A better vehicle in other words.
Vehicles like the ones BHP produces are huge. So, shoving a few mwh of battery in them is not going to be that big of a deal. Charging them is a logistical challenge but also a solvable one. Multi mw charger technology already exists. And of course not having to truck in lots of diesel/hydrogen trucks to the remote places where these things are used might also be a benefit. The main challenge for companies like this is access to enough battery and electricity.
- those genuinely confused about this (most of the general public)
- those representing oil and gas lobbies that have been using hydrogen lobbying as a way to stay in the fossil fuel industry a bit longer. Because most hydrogen is made from natural gas and they love the idea of growing the market for that.
In short, there's a lot of waffle about stored energy by people who don't get (or refuse to acknowledge) that most of that 1) needs to come from somewhere (which is a lossy process) and 2) needs to be transformed into a usable form of energy (which is also a lossy process).
That's before you take into account the logistics of moving hydrogen around, which is challenging because it takes up a lot of space. You can either compress it to a few hundred bar (which takes energy) or cool it to a few degrees of kelvin (which takes energy, and keeping it there costs you more energy). And once you do that, you need to keep it contained for extended periods of time (which isn't 100% efficient, especially in liquid form), and use about 18x more trucks for hydrogen in gas form compared to methane in liquid form; or only about 3x more trucks is you actually do cool it down to liquid form.
In short, you end up loosing a lot of energy in various lossy energy transformations, compression, storage, and transport of hydrogen before you even get to extract energy from it. All these inefficiencies multiply to a very significant cost disadvantage over simple battery electric.
And even if you do all go down this path you end up charging a battery with a hydrogen fuel cell. Because fuel cells suck at producing variable output that you would need for a vehicle. Which is why most hydrogen vehicles today that use a fuel cell are fully functional battery electric vehicles that happen to have a tiny battery.
You could just rip out the hydrogen bits and replace them with a bigger battery and you end up with a vehicle that's cheaper to operate. By about 2-3x. A better vehicle in other words.
Vehicles like the ones BHP produces are huge. So, shoving a few mwh of battery in them is not going to be that big of a deal. Charging them is a logistical challenge but also a solvable one. Multi mw charger technology already exists. And of course not having to truck in lots of diesel/hydrogen trucks to the remote places where these things are used might also be a benefit. The main challenge for companies like this is access to enough battery and electricity.
Funnily enough, if you mine underground you spend an incredible amount of electricity trying to keep the air fresh down there, mostly due to whatever combustion reaction is powering your vehicles.
I’ve seen reports claiming you break even or even use less electricity when operating electric vehicles since your ventilation requirements are significantly reduced.
I’ve seen reports claiming you break even or even use less electricity when operating electric vehicles since your ventilation requirements are significantly reduced.
> Only to those without a firm grasp on the laws of thermodynamics.
You are the one completely confused by the laws of thermodynamics.
A hydrogen fuel cell is an electrochemical system. So are electrolyzers. They represent the equivalence of charging and discharging a battery. There is no fundamental reason why this must be less efficient. You can potentially reach 100% efficiency at least in theory.
What people really are saying is that “in practice,” it is less efficient than a battery setup. But this is also mostly made-up and filled with exaggeration. Electrolyzers are reaching 98% efficiency. Fuel cells, at least in large installations, can already reach 85% efficiency or battery (assuming heat recapture).
In short, it is already pretty close to what batteries can do. Future advancements will eliminate the efficiency gap almost entirely.
Furthermore, it is actually more efficient to store and move around hydrogen than it is with electricity. Energy storage at scale is very difficult, and enough of a problem that we are looking at using hydrogen for long-duration energy storage. That alone basically kills the argument that batteries have any advantages in this respect.
Finally, as the economics of hydrogen production scale up, we can expect cost to approach zero. That’s because it is very much like wind and solar: We’re using a basically free resource (wind, sunlight and water) and turning it into a fuel. People criticized the efficiency of photovoltaics in the past, but the fundamental advantage of not having to pay for fuel means that costs can drop to nearly zero, and it did. This is the same story again. Except nearly free green hydrogen in the long-run.
You are the one completely confused by the laws of thermodynamics.
A hydrogen fuel cell is an electrochemical system. So are electrolyzers. They represent the equivalence of charging and discharging a battery. There is no fundamental reason why this must be less efficient. You can potentially reach 100% efficiency at least in theory.
What people really are saying is that “in practice,” it is less efficient than a battery setup. But this is also mostly made-up and filled with exaggeration. Electrolyzers are reaching 98% efficiency. Fuel cells, at least in large installations, can already reach 85% efficiency or battery (assuming heat recapture).
In short, it is already pretty close to what batteries can do. Future advancements will eliminate the efficiency gap almost entirely.
Furthermore, it is actually more efficient to store and move around hydrogen than it is with electricity. Energy storage at scale is very difficult, and enough of a problem that we are looking at using hydrogen for long-duration energy storage. That alone basically kills the argument that batteries have any advantages in this respect.
Finally, as the economics of hydrogen production scale up, we can expect cost to approach zero. That’s because it is very much like wind and solar: We’re using a basically free resource (wind, sunlight and water) and turning it into a fuel. People criticized the efficiency of photovoltaics in the past, but the fundamental advantage of not having to pay for fuel means that costs can drop to nearly zero, and it did. This is the same story again. Except nearly free green hydrogen in the long-run.
> Fuel cells, at least in large installations, can already reach 85% efficiency or battery (assuming heat recapture).
Heat recapture is great, but we care about electricity output.
> Finally, as the economics of hydrogen production scale up, we can expect cost to approach zero. That’s because it is very much like wind and solar: We’re using a basically free resource
It will never reach zero because the equipment, transportation, and people involved are not free.
Further solar panels and wind turbines got cheaper due to learning effects. These effects are not present for over half of the things involved in a hydrogen fuel system. Pumps and tanks and valves and pipes are already mass produced.
And while the sunlight might be free, the electricity from it is now, and never will be since the equipment isn’t free.
Heat recapture is great, but we care about electricity output.
> Finally, as the economics of hydrogen production scale up, we can expect cost to approach zero. That’s because it is very much like wind and solar: We’re using a basically free resource
It will never reach zero because the equipment, transportation, and people involved are not free.
Further solar panels and wind turbines got cheaper due to learning effects. These effects are not present for over half of the things involved in a hydrogen fuel system. Pumps and tanks and valves and pipes are already mass produced.
And while the sunlight might be free, the electricity from it is now, and never will be since the equipment isn’t free.
We do not always need electricity as an output. Even then, you can combine SOFCs with gas turbines and still get an electrical output. Efficiency is still very high.
The equipment is mostly made out of steel or other cheap materials. You read about using fiberglass or HDPE for a lot of the components. Those aren’t expensive materials. Certainly, way cheaper than what batteries use. Transportation is via pipelines which is 10x cheaper than wires. The costs of infrastructure should be very cheap.
> Further solar panels and wind turbines got cheaper due to learning effects. These effects are not present for over half of the things involved in a hydrogen fuel system. Pumps and tanks and valves and pipes are already mass produced.
Solar panels and wind turbines are over a century old. Hell, wind power existed for millenia in form or another. But as it turns out, it still benefits from the learning effect. So you’re just spouting more of your anti-progress agenda here.
The equipment is mostly made out of steel or other cheap materials. You read about using fiberglass or HDPE for a lot of the components. Those aren’t expensive materials. Certainly, way cheaper than what batteries use. Transportation is via pipelines which is 10x cheaper than wires. The costs of infrastructure should be very cheap.
> Further solar panels and wind turbines got cheaper due to learning effects. These effects are not present for over half of the things involved in a hydrogen fuel system. Pumps and tanks and valves and pipes are already mass produced.
Solar panels and wind turbines are over a century old. Hell, wind power existed for millenia in form or another. But as it turns out, it still benefits from the learning effect. So you’re just spouting more of your anti-progress agenda here.
> So you’re just spouting more of your anti-progress agenda here.
And with that, I'm leaving this conversation and letting anyone else reading to clearly see that pro-hydrogen zealots are alive and well, despite the astonishment of one of the top-level comments.
And with that, I'm leaving this conversation and letting anyone else reading to clearly see that pro-hydrogen zealots are alive and well, despite the astonishment of one of the top-level comments.
Your own posting history suggests a BEV fanatic. And the fact you keep on bringing up biofuels show how unserious you are about the topic.
You don't need to transport hydrogen - you can generate it on-site from water at the fuel station. Although this will require upgrading the electrical grid.
Hydrogen is already in use in e.g. forklifts that need to operate 24/7 (because recharging is slow), so while the logistical problem could be solved, I don't think it's worth doing so in all cases. Hydrogen has it's niche.
(tl;dr below: there's stuff that hydrogen is bad at but batteries literally cannot do, so if we prioritize ditching oil then hydrogen wins by default in those specific niches.)
IMO hydrogen also makes sense for large vehicles that need a long range - planes flying the New York to London trip will need to either be synthfuel or hydrogen, and we haven't figured out how to make synthfuel at scale yet. So while synthfuel will eventually be better than hydrogen, it might not be available in time for our climate deadline.
Similarly, hydrogen might be a better option for multi-man trucks on a long haul (i.e. a truck with a bed in the back and a second (or even third) driver, so they can drive for two 10-hour shifts without stopping for a break) through low-infrastructure areas. Yes, that is a bit niche.
Also, cargo ships could use hydrogen right now with only a 1-5% loss in cargo capacity. Batteries wouldn't get 100KM let alone across the pacific and synthfuel doesn't exist.
In theory biofuels are also a drop-in solution, but modern farming is very heavily reliant on oil, so biofuels are mostly just fossil fuels with extra steps (and speaking of which: tractors need high uptime, you can't be constantly charging the tractor batteries on harvest day so once again, hydrogen tractors win by default). Also, unnecessarily straining our food supply is really dumb.
Hydrogen is already in use in e.g. forklifts that need to operate 24/7 (because recharging is slow), so while the logistical problem could be solved, I don't think it's worth doing so in all cases. Hydrogen has it's niche.
(tl;dr below: there's stuff that hydrogen is bad at but batteries literally cannot do, so if we prioritize ditching oil then hydrogen wins by default in those specific niches.)
IMO hydrogen also makes sense for large vehicles that need a long range - planes flying the New York to London trip will need to either be synthfuel or hydrogen, and we haven't figured out how to make synthfuel at scale yet. So while synthfuel will eventually be better than hydrogen, it might not be available in time for our climate deadline.
Similarly, hydrogen might be a better option for multi-man trucks on a long haul (i.e. a truck with a bed in the back and a second (or even third) driver, so they can drive for two 10-hour shifts without stopping for a break) through low-infrastructure areas. Yes, that is a bit niche.
Also, cargo ships could use hydrogen right now with only a 1-5% loss in cargo capacity. Batteries wouldn't get 100KM let alone across the pacific and synthfuel doesn't exist.
In theory biofuels are also a drop-in solution, but modern farming is very heavily reliant on oil, so biofuels are mostly just fossil fuels with extra steps (and speaking of which: tractors need high uptime, you can't be constantly charging the tractor batteries on harvest day so once again, hydrogen tractors win by default). Also, unnecessarily straining our food supply is really dumb.
It’s controversial now. There are many people smoking the hopium pipe claiming that fuel cell vehicles are the solution of the future.
there's some still clinging to fuel cells despite the numbers showing the edge to BEVs
I can think of one major car maker...
I can think of one major car maker...
Hydrogen is a battery.
Thanks, I did not know the definition of an accumulator or battery is that broad.
"A device that stores energy is generally called an accumulator or battery."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
"A device that stores energy is generally called an accumulator or battery."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
Just not a very good one.
It’s the theoretically best one possible. BEV fanatics are just spreading propaganda against it.
The laws of thermodynamics disagree with you on this. There are inherent inefficiencies with hydrogen that you can't get rid off without basically inventing a perpetuum mobile machine.
You don't understand the thermodynamics of the situation. Fuel cells/electrolyzers are electrochemical systems with theoretically the same efficiency as batteries. If the alternative is just battery, then both have the same fundamental limitations. You are spending more energy than you are get back. At best, you are saying that for now, there is a more efficient way of doing it. But in the long run, that advantage will disappear.
But the real point is that you can power things with wind or solar energy without depending on fossil fuels. While you can do this with both batteries and hydrogen, you avoid the heavy weight and the resource requirements if you go with the latter. You need only just wind, solar and water in order to create an an energy storage system. That puts the cost at potentially very close to zero. In the long-run, it likely will approach zero, just like how wind and solar power itself plunged in cost once they scaled up. As a result, it is likely going to be the dominant solution for most transportation needs.
But the real point is that you can power things with wind or solar energy without depending on fossil fuels. While you can do this with both batteries and hydrogen, you avoid the heavy weight and the resource requirements if you go with the latter. You need only just wind, solar and water in order to create an an energy storage system. That puts the cost at potentially very close to zero. In the long-run, it likely will approach zero, just like how wind and solar power itself plunged in cost once they scaled up. As a result, it is likely going to be the dominant solution for most transportation needs.