this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
435 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
59374 readers
7409 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They make solar stations that will pull hydrogen right from the atmosphere. What carbon are you talking about...and you do realize the same power that would be used to make hydrogen in your example would also be charging batteries.
That is a waste of solar. It's more efficient to put in batteries then kinetic. If there is no more batteries to put it in, you transmit the power over wires.
With hydrogen it's wasteful to create from electricity, then wasteful to turn into kinetic. Its wasteful to store as it's the smallest atom so escapes easily, it's low density so needs compressing. Then, to move it, you have to move storage around instead of just transmit over wires.
Exactly. And just to be clear, because it's annoying me every time people gloss over this, it's not just some percentage points lost in the conversion of energy, it's actually ~75% of the energy that goes to waste, from energy production to the final motion of the wheels. EVs on the other hand only waste ~25% of energy. Even with the wishful thinking that the hydrogen can simply be created in times of energy overproduction, you can't beat a factor of 3.
Yep. H2 cars are pushed by the ignorant or the corrupt (oil money).
Hydrogen is basically free energy though. Using solar to pull it from the atmosphere and then it goes in an ICE motor. Stations like these can supply hydrogen basically anywhere without needing to run wires to it. Providing fuel to ICE powered hydrogen cars.
You know that 75% loss of energy the GP mentioned above? That's for hydrogen fuel cells, not hydrogen ICE. It's even worse for ICE. Why the hell would we do that rather than putting that solar directly on the grid?
Because you can drop one of these and fuel hydrogen ice cars in the middle of nowhere. You can't do that with solar and superchargers , they require substations.
Sounds like all of you people live in the city. Figures how ignorant you all are, the USA is massive people don't just live in apartment blocks in walking distance of their jobs and stores.
So hydrogen just appears somewhere? There's no other infrastructure involved?
The fuck are you talking about, these micro plants, use solar energy to pull it from the atmosphere. This isn't rocket science....
What hydrogen in the atmosphere?
...you do know that water is in the air pretty much everywhere right? And that the H in H2O is... surprise hydrogen...
There is very little water there, and it varies considerably by region. You have to condense it out of the air, which itself takes energy. Then you have to electrolyze it, which also takes a lot of energy. You also can't electrolyze straight water; you'll need a supply of salt.
Once you've worked out all that, why not just feed that power into a regular battery and use that to charge cars? It will be far, far more efficient. Or just build a substation and use the power on the grid.
It's not free though. There's such a thing called 'opportunity costs': If I have the choice between a 'free candy machine' that spits out one candy every hour, and one that spits out three candies every hour, I know what I'll choose.
I also wasn't aware you ware talking about ICE powered hydrogen cars, where the efficiency is even more comically abysmal.
Cool your candy machine requires 10xs the investment and maybe even more because supercharger stations need substations near them. They can't run on a 400amp box.
It seems to me like you're comparing the costs for building one at the most out there location possible. Putting the questions aside if building anything in such locations would ever be profitable enough for something to be build, or if fast-charging is absolutely necessary: This absolutely isn't true for the majority/average location, where your solution is the one that prohibitively expensive, not to mention that a good chunk of people wouldn't even need a charging station at all when they can charge at home, maybe even using the solar panels already on their roof.
There may be some limited space for hydrogen ICE cars on the market, but it won't be the solution that'll see widespread adoption and support by car manufacturers as long as there's a much cheaper and comfortable solution for 99.9% of people on earth (number made up).
Though if anything, I predict that specialized EVs with swappable batteries (which already exist) that can then be charged slowly with solar will become viable as they're much cheaper and efficient in those areas.
This is crackpottery and your repeatedly re-posting this assertion without citing anything isn't really supporting your position.
Yes, yes, electrolysis is a thing.
No, it is not free.
FFS if you're going to go for crazy theories why not dream big: here is a potential paint we could research for a few megacredits and buff our science to coat our walls and make hydrogen with. For not free but cheaper than electrolysis.
Right now, it doesn't seam like we energy to waste. Not until all the energy is clean. Also, it's always going to be cheaper to use a lot less energy. Until energy is free, which it isn't even with renewable because of install cost and maintainance cost.
A...waste of solar....internal ICE hydrogen motors is what these would be used for not fuel cell hydrogen.
How are you wasting solar? Lol this makes no sense. These can be stood up anywhere, you cannot use these as super chargers for batteries....
Because you can put that electricity directly into the grid rather than wasting it making hydrogen.
Lol that's not the goal, the goal is to charge a car... you're finding a problem to solve that's not even in the same area...
You can use electricity on the grid to charge a car. Not sure if you were aware of that. It's going to be a whole lot more efficient at it than hydrogen.
No shit. You know you need a substation to power a supercharger grid...you know how many substations just randomly exist in rural areas to power superchargers? And how expensive they are to build and maintain?
And hydrogen won't get you there. It's much easier to build a substation than the new infrastructure for hydrogen.
Lol no it is not, do you know what goes into building a substation? They're expensive and require a lot of upkeep.
And so does your idea; you just haven't thought it through.
A solar hydrogen station cost no where near the amount putting in a substation does. I don't even know where you came up with the idea that it does.
Dude, you don't even have a good grasp of how much hydrogen you could make from the atmosphere. Nobody is advocating for doing it that way because it's too much effort for so little gain. I'm not going to take your word on much else.
https://news.mit.edu/2023/mit-design-harness-suns-heat-produce-clean-hydrogen-fuel-1016
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/07/out-of-thin-air-new-solar-powered-invention-creates-hydrogen-fuel-from-the-atmosphere
https://spectrum.ieee.org/solar-to-hydrogen
https://news.umich.edu/cheap-sustainable-hydrogen-through-solar-power/
Yep, totally no one is doing it.... it's not being researched or anything, cause it's not worth it. Yep, miles and miles of over head wires and substations all over the place it the way to go. No other alternative.
There are very few details on how much they've actually generated on any of these. The MIT one doesn't specify how it's getting the original water at all.
The IEEE one does actually list it out:
Yeah, that's about what I'd expect. You are not going to power cars with this.
The one in the Guardian article seems to be targeting it a as a replacement for natural gas in home heating and cooking, which is a maybe.
Look at the efficiency of the energy conversions. It is literally wasting solar.
How is it wasted if it completely free energy? You cannot charge up electric cars quickly via solar....hell solar in general isn't super efficient anyways lol
No energy is free because there is always installation and maintance cost. Lot's of people change their cars off solar. Most of a car's life is sat parked for hours. So slow is fine. My charger has a solar divert function I'm yet to get the solar for. Also, you change a house battery slow and then a car fast from it. Even here in the UK there are people doing it. Not solar all the time, but a lot in summer. House battery changed when your in the office, car overnight from that.
Hydrogen isn't in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is 20.9% oxygen, 70% nitrogen and some trace other gases, none of which are hydrogen.
Hydrogen is produced either by splitting water (the H in H²O) or splitting hydrocarbons like Methane which produces CO² (the carbon part bonding with oxygen from the atmosphere, making that stuff we're trying to cut back on).
That second method is why the fossil fuels companies are so keen on it. Hydrogen can be a repacked form of natural gas.
Yes totally forgot how there is no water in our atmosphere...forgot the globe just has water in a few places and humidity doesn't exist...
Oh yes, that 1% water vapour (on average) that you want 2/3rds of.
Gimme a break. I don't think your machine producing hydrogen "straight out of the atmosphere" is going to be fueling many cars.