A few people say they are waiting for hydrogen powered cars before they give up petrol/diesel.
I watched this podcast the other day, it it seems it may not ever happen.
Hydrogen in vehicles is a bit of an uphill battle
Manufacturers won't make vehicles without hydrogen ifrastructure
Hydrogen suppliers won't set up vehicle infrastructure without users
Select to expand quoteelmo said..
Hydrogen in vehicles is a bit of an uphill battle
Manufacturers won't make vehicles without hydrogen ifrastructure
Hydrogen suppliers won't set up vehicle infrastructure without users
No it's much worse than that. Green hydrogen is horribly expensive, setting up the infrastructure also expensive.
Hydrogen leaks like crazy, is hard to compress, takes up a huge volume, it affects most metals, and has a low heat value.
It really is a non event.
Most of the hydrogen plants we've been involved with have ended up being for ammonia manufacture for fertilisers or explosives the other plants have been canned.
It's not so much about how hydrogen works in an engine. More about the expense of producing it, and getting it to the service stations.
Do they mention what the range is from that tank on the back.
Yes hydrogen is needed for fertiliser and making steel, but that is done on site, not transported.
Yep cost is the issue (as with everything) most of the plants were to be powered by renewables which keeps the cost down.
Regarding service stations in the US they had modular stations producing H on site, but these were generally powered by the grid which defeats the purpose.
Large scale transportation is not to much of an issue, just different technology. It's the liquification as the liquid transition piont is around -240?C whereas natural gas is -162?C.
As H is a very small atom it permeates most materials more readily so they need thicker materials, unfortately this leads to Hydrogen embrittelment is another problem.
From the video "The range on that tank is 250-300 miles".
I'm vaguely aware of suggestions that hydrogen can be turned into ammonia to make it easy to handle and the NH3 can be used in either a fuel cell or for combustion
Burning hydrogen is nonsensical as it makes water vapour, a greenhouse gas
hydrogen fuel cells do make sense but the energy required to make hydrogen can make electricity ... so the it is again nonsensical
what we neeeed to do is reduce the power need of society. Like mining bitcoin
like overuse of aircon
Like lights on for no reason and a new phone every year
^^^
The thing about water as a greenhouse gas is that the biggest source of it by a couple of orders of magnitude is evaporation. Taking liquid water, making H2 and burning it has no major effect on the atmosphere.
At normal Earth temperature, most of it falls out of the atmosphere and forms a liquid or solid.
CO2 is a gas under the same conditions, so it stays in the atmosphere, and we haven't been recycling what was already in the system. We've been adding to it, about 50% increase since the Industrial Revolution.
"Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth's current warming. But increased water vapor doesn't cause global warming. Instead, it's a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases."
science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
