why dont we just switch to hydrogen now? why must we wait for

>>7744680
It's extremely explosive.

>>7744680
Do you want some Arab going Allahu akbar and driving a portable nuke to your house?

We have to wait until the jews have made enough shekels on available fuel. Also hydrocarbon fuel will never run out, just fossil fuel.

Economics is the future.

You can't just throw hydrogen into a car, you have to make the fuel first.

That would require renewable energy infrastructure first to be sensible.

How many solar powered hydrogen fuel factories do you see?

>>7744680
>Use hydrogen
>Implying gasoline (octane) isn't a hydrocarbon.
Are you a 14 year old high school freshman?

[giant fuckery of C and H] + O2 -> CO2 + H2O + energy

>>7744680
Hydrogen is a meme.

>>7744700
What is silly is they're making the cars first, before the infrastructure to support them.

Don't be fooled by hydrogen cars within the next 2 decades, they are a gimmick.

>>7744701
wat?

i think you were trying too hard to show everyone you just graduated higschool and fumbled somewhere

>>7744719
Still better than making /b/-tier threads about the future of automobile fuel.

>>7744695
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
>He doesn't know about fuel cells
>>7744680
Basically, the best known catalyst for a Hydrogen fuel cell is platinum. Platinum is fucking hard to get.
For those of you who don't know anything about electrochemistry (>>7744701) he's talking about the reaction
[math]
2H_2 + O_2 \rightarrow 2H_2O
[/math]
Which has a standard cell potential of .623

1. would require trillions of dollars in infrastructure to be built.
2. production is by either steam reformation of methane or by electrolysis. either way is horribly inefficient and methane production puts CO2 into the air.
3. hydrogen does not want to remain pure. it will try to bond with any other atom it comes across.
4. hydrogen leaks through all containers.
5. hydrogen causes metal to become brittle.
6. hydrogen needs a lot of energy spent to compress or liquefy it for storage.
7. energy density is poor
8. hydrogen combustion engines have poor thermal efficiency.
9. hydrogen fuel cells require exotic materials.
10. hydrogen likes to explode instead of just burn
11. dangers of handling pressurized or cryo gases.
12. alternatives are just generally better.

Battery EVs might suck when it comes to energy density and refill time. Yet overall they are just many times more efficient and less expensive. It is more efficient to just burn methane at a natural gas power plant. To transmit power and charge an EV.

I read an article on this a while ago. Hydrogen is a meme. In addition to everything people have mentioned thus far, producing H2 gas with renewable energy is highly inefficient. The article cited a miserable retention of energy figure somewhere below one half.

>>7744705

You are quite correct -- they are a gimmick.

The real problem with hydrogen is that it is horribly inefficient. I forget the exact numbers, but it would use as much energy to haul hydrogen a distance of something like 300 or 400 miles as you would get out of it.

The only way to make hydrogen work would be to have local hydrogen plants in every town and city to produce the hydrogen and avoid the high cost of transporting hydrogen to where it is needed.

File: careless driving.jpg (211KB, 426x500px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 426x500px

>>7744743
Exactly that

>>7744680
In addition you might want to remember that that shitty car stores hydrogen at 700 bar and is driven by the same idiots as the people that couldn't work out how to stop their prius when they had the accelerator wedged down

LPG is much better.

>>7744680
>why dont we just switch to hydrogen now?

We don't have a convenient, cost effective way for consumers to replenish empty fuel cells.

>why must we wait for gas/oil to run out?

We don't. The problem is one of infrastructure, not of supply.

>hydrogen is the future is it not

It is. Sustainable growth can be achieved once we are able to tackle the aforementioned problem.

And we are that close to solving that problem, probably within a decade.

>>7745425
Yup. Biomethane / LPG / gas powered cars are MUCH cleaner then oil cars, and the infrastucture is already here and many tankstations sell LPG. People somehow don't understand the solution is already here. An An LPG car is much cleaner then a Tesla if you look at net-pollution. Almost every car can be converted to an LPG with a simple kit. The fuel is cheap and abundant and can be produced cheaply compared to oil. But the neo liberals don't want to believe it because. It ''burns'' therefor it is bad. Anything that isn't electric is seen as bad. LPG is a realistic, safe, clean and cheap fuel. .

>>7744743
>1. would require trillions of dollars in infrastructure to be built.

Wrong

>2. production is by either steam reformation of methane or by electrolysis. either way is horribly inefficient and methane production puts CO2 into the air.

The manufacturing process can be streamlined to eliminate the carbon footprint.

>3. hydrogen does not want to remain pure. it will try to bond with any other atom it comes across.

Hydrogen embrittlement is a major concern for engineers. One way to overcome this is to manufacture reinforced carbon-carbon isogrid containers. But that too is costly...but if economies of scale can be achieved, those costs could be reduced substantially.

>4. hydrogen leaks through all containers.

Not under high pressure.

>6. hydrogen needs a lot of energy spent to compress or liquefy it for storage.

The problem isn't to compress the gas, the problem is to keep it compressed

>7. energy density is poor

How so? Liquified hydrogen, under favorable conditions, can be extremely efficient for generating the energies needed to power a vehicle.


>9. hydrogen fuel cells require exotic materials.

Carbon-Carbon composites aren't really considered exotic materials. Now if the topic of this conversation centered around antimatter/matter energy generation, then that would require some very expensive and fairly uncommon materials.

>10. hydrogen likes to explode instead of just burn

Hydrogen, under combustion, would escape from a safety valve in case of an accident, and vent upward. Gasoline fuels are much denser, and would spread over a much larger area....

>11. dangers of handling pressurized or cryo gases.

There is always a danger of handling anything that is under pressure, or is kept in cryo (such as liquid oxygen...which is far more dangerous than liquid oxygen)

>12. alternatives are just generally better.

Generally "better" solves problems in the short term. Hydrogen fuel cells pose a potential solution to a long term problem.

>>7745443
>.which is far more dangerous than liquid oxygen)

My apologies, I meant to say far more dangerous than liquid hydrogen.

>>7745440
>An An LPG car is much cleaner then a Tesla if you look at net-pollution
This meme needs to stop

LPG cars also tend to be unreliable and still not really solving the issue of local pollution

>>7745443
There are liquid crystal storage systems for hydrogen. The guys from United Nuclear have been commercializing one for years (they ran into some legal/resource obstacle a few years ago right before going into production and it's brought the entire project to a halt).

>>7745443
>1. would require trillions of dollars in infrastructure to be built.
>Wrong

>Production facilities, pipe lines, filling facilities, storage (still a major issue), contingency arrangements for emergency services...for the entire developed world
>Not expensive

Are you on drugs?

>>7745452
>There are liquid crystal storage systems for hydrogen

I have heard of such systems, but the issue is producing these crystal storage systems.

Hydrogen is too dangerous to use as fuel. Also pretty energy inefficient. You'll have to spend energy obtaining it, then more storing it, then even more utilizing it. It has to constantly be kept under pressure at all times, making simple transportation and refuelling a nightmare. Keeping it in cryo storage is a problem too. Cars fitted for this will be way more complex to maintain and repair, and more expensive than current models. It's nowhere near mass production efficiency yet.

>>7745455
>Are you on drugs?

No.

Tell me, what sort of infrastructure are you wanting to build for H2 systems that would require "trillions" of dollars?

Are you wanting to produce pipelines that are made from precious metals and semi-precious stones?

>>7745449
>LPG cars also tend to be unreliable and still not really solving the issue of local pollution

One diesel vehicle emits 120 times the amount of fine particles as the equivalent LPG vehicle.
It takes 20 LPG vehicles to emit the same amount of NOx as one diesel vehicle.

if more then 50% of cars were LPG most local air pollution would be a joke.

lets say you you have a country of 10 million with 5 million cars.

If the ratio diesel : petrol was 1 : 1, you'd have 2.5 million diesel cars.

2.5 million diesel cars pollute as much NOx as 50 million LPG cars.

2.5 million diesel cars pollute as particulates as 250 million LPG cars.

Particulates and NOx are the primary causes of local air pollution.

LPG cars are not unreliable, unless the installation was not done by a professional, which is sometimes the case, since the conversion is so simple, but amateurs aren't qualified to convert them.

Facts > fiction.

>>7745455
>Production facilities, pipe lines, filling facilities, storage (still a major issue), contingency arrangements for emergency services...for the entire developed world
>>Not expensive


All of these are expensive to build; initial investment costs for building everything we need (using today's logistics system) would be in the hundreds of billions. The cost of maintaining the entire channel of distribution would be a few billion per year.

These figures would approach the trillion dollar mark, probably over a ten year period. I estimate the cost being somewhere in the 500 billion dollar range.

It would not cost trillions as you suggest.

>>7745482

How much would it cost to build a plant to produce the hydrogen? How many of them would it take?

Remember that hydrogen doesn't travel well. It isn't like you can build a few very big plants and transport the hydrogen throughout the country. Rather, you'd need at least one in just about every town and many in big cities.

Hydrogen fuel is extremely inefficient

>>7745539
>How much would it cost to build a plant to produce the hydrogen? How many of them would it take?


The initial outlay would, again, be in the hundreds of billions. Current infrastructure would allow us to build these, for a lack of a better way to put it, "factories" at a far reduced cost--despite the end product being a new technology.

>Remember that hydrogen doesn't travel well.

Which is why I brought up the point about the unique way of setting up self service hydrogen fuel cell depots. There was another idea floated out there that would allow the consumer to buy fuels at retail, such as your local Wal-Mart.

Which isn't a good idea, but I digress.

>Transport the hydrogen throughout the country.

You could truck the product fairly safely from factory to warehouse/retail outlets. Palletizing fuel cells safely (that are specifically engineered to travel over any surface) is a no brainer.

>>7745567

I don't know about transporting hydrogen, but I am familiar with transporting helium.

Helium trailers are enormously heavy -- one of the heaviest trucks and trailers you will see driving on the highway. The tanks are very thick and double walled to try to limit the loss of helium. Even with that, when a helium truck leaves the plant near my house, by the time it arrives at the coast to load helium on a ship, it will have lost a significant amount of helium to the atmosphere.

I assume hydrogen is even worse.

And don't forget that the energy costs of hauling the hydrogen more than something like 300 miles will be more than the amount of hydrogen being hauled.

So if we used hydrogen for fuel and hauled it from select factories in some states, it would take more energy to haul it to a great many places than you could possibly get by using it to power a fuel cell.

>>7744700
>>7744700
Any predictions about what's gonna be the next way of gathering the shekel's when economics drive out the use of fossil fuel? Selling guns won't be enough.

>>7745457

granular hydrogen?

>>7745715
>Helium trailers are enormously heavy -- one of the heaviest trucks and trailers you will see driving on the highway. The tanks are very thick and double walled to try to limit the loss of helium. Even with that, when a helium truck leaves the plant near my house, by the time it arrives at the coast to load helium on a ship, it will have lost a significant amount of helium to the atmosphere.

Helium is extremely expensive to produce, and transporting the gas is expensive too.

Hydrogen is considerably lighter, albeit it is far more dangerous than helium to transport. I can envision h2 tankers sharing essentially the same specifications as helium tankers (thickness of walls, etc).

>And don't forget that the energy costs of hauling the hydrogen more than something like 300 miles will be more than the amount of hydrogen being hauled.

Hydrogen is lighter. Therefore pulling a full tank of compressed hydrogen shouldn't put a lot of strain on a diesel (or comparable gasoline powered) engine.

>So if we used hydrogen for fuel and hauled it from select factories in some states, it would take more energy to haul it to a great many places than you could possibly get by using it to power a fuel cell.

Hence why I made the comment about palletizing H2 fileld carbon-carbon composite containers. Carbon-Carbon bonds are strong, especially in an isogrid construction frame, and transporting compressed fuel cells arranged neatly on a 40x48 pallet (26 total) on an air ride trailer should be cheaper than hauling compressed H2 via a specialized tanker.

Plus, we would have to make sure that tanker is protected against Hydrogen embrittlement....which isn't that much of an issue while transporting the fuel cells on a wooden pallet, on a wooden floor of a OTR trailer.

1. update the energy grid and go all electric for stop and go engines, infrastructure

1. power constant operating engines with hydrogen

>>7745744

>1. update the energy grid and go all electric for stop and go engines, infrastructure

>1. power constant operating engines with hydrogen

also,

1. Put a bullet in the head of every owner of every jacked-up diesel burning ego machine

>>7744680
>2015
>not using solar roadways

>>7745733
>granular hydrogen

....I am unfamiliar with crystaline granular hydrogen, but its compounds I am familiar with (I assume you meant H202---or Hydrogen Peroxide granulars?)

>>7745737
>Helium is extremely expensive to produce, and transporting the gas is expensive too.
>create fusion reactor
>get endless supplies of helium as by-product
>helium becomes so cheap zeppelins become a thing again

>>7744680
We can't go to war over hydrogen like we do with oil

>>7744695
for you

>>7745440

>THEN

Shit you science guys don´t even know how to fucking write.