Volkswagen ID Forum banner
41 - 60 of 101 Posts
Discussion starter · #41 ·
Don’t be pedantic. Instead of using virgin uranium you recycle the old rods. There are other new plants that can use the rods , also usually recycled and reformed,but you required an existing plant in commercial use and i provided it.
But nobody except the French does it because its not economically feasible. It sort'a kind'a made sense when we needed plutonium for nuclear weapons but absent that subsidy, reprocessing spent fuel makes very little sense. Meanwhile, the British expect to spend more than £260 Billion cleaning up Sellafield (their nuclear fuel reprocessing site) and we're about to punt on the idea that we can EVER clean up the Hanford Reservation, even for the last proposed $528 Billion budget.
 
So we leave spent fuel rods for our descendants in 30,000 years to deal with?
Back to hydrogen. It is neither cheap or easy to transport. Transporting it by pipeline requires stainless steel pipe. That means new pipelines with all of the NIMBYism . We can’t even get new electrical transmission lines built which is arguably easier to do. For 20 years of my career I testified as an expert witness for eminent domain for roads and bridges. The laws allowed the government to take the land, post a bond for the value we estimated the land to be worth with the court and settle with the owner in court while construction is under way. Utilities, on the other hand, can also use eminent domain but can only start construction after each and every plot of land is settled in court.
 
Having worked at a chemical plant that had a hydrogenation phase of the reactor that contained hydrogen compressed to 10,000 PSI and used extra heavy wall Inconel, I strongly disagree that compressed H2 is easy to contain and transport.

The energy cost of the compression alone makes hydrogen far less practical than BEVs, even if we had a hydrogen filling station at every corner. If we truly did have a massive oversupply of renewable electrical sources why not use those kilowatts to go directly into batteries and not have it go through another (chemical-mechanical-chemical-electrical) loss cycle of the hydrogen FC use?
 
A good article debunking and ripping to shreds the OP point by point with experts:
“He’s complaining about current batteries and implying we have to wait for better ones. But the current ones will already last the lifetime of the car and the car will emit 3x less CO2 over its lifetime. (Yes, I’m sure about this, because that is my actual field of study.)” said Hoekstra in on twitter.
Including:
why hydrogen powered vehicles are completely absurd and have no future.
 
Discussion starter · #46 ·
Having worked at a chemical plant that had a hydrogenation phase of the reactor that contained hydrogen compressed to 10,000 PSI and used extra heavy wall Inconel, I strongly disagree that compressed H2 is easy to contain and transport.
So don't transport it at 10,000 psi.

The energy cost of the compression alone makes hydrogen far less practical than BEVs, even if we had a hydrogen filling station at every corner. If we truly did have a massive oversupply of renewable electrical sources why not use those kilowatts to go directly into batteries and not have it go through another (chemical-mechanical-chemical-electrical) loss cycle of the hydrogen FC use?
Because batteries, no matter how good they get, will NEVER be refillable 0 to 100% in five minutes time but a hydrogen tank can be. Because batteries require supplies of minerals and big batteries require more of those minerals whereas bigger tanks benefit from square law. Because it's likely to turn out to be relatively easier and more-reliable to transmit hydrogen over vast distances than it is to transmit electric power.
 
Maybe instead of focusing on farfetched concepts like e-Fuel and hydrogen, automakers can step up and support battery tech companies (like Quantumscape and SolidPower) to develop a competitive battery in the West. If they don't do that, they will have to buy their battery technology from China in foreseeable future. They are already invested in these companies, but they should increase their support 10 fold. Without a next gen battery technology they won't be competitive with Chinese manufacturers in a few years.
 
Because batteries, no matter how good they get, will NEVER be refillable 0 to 100% in five minutes time but a hydrogen tank can be.
You are absolutely correct on this point, but...

But who "needs" this?

Isn't 5 minutes a long time, too?

Is a five minute refueling window – something the vast majority of car owners don't often need or benefit from – worth the trade-off of having to always go somewhere to refuel, and the increased space requirements of building a car around these hydrogen storage tanks?

If refueling speed was so important to most drivers, why hasn't gasoline fueling technology progressed from "nozzle in hole" drop-loading to Indy-car style or aviation single-point connection style couplings that could decrease gas station stop time to less than a minute?

Convenience comes at a price – or at least a trade-off. I can't help but imagine most EV owners would prefer the every 3 hour 15-20-minute DCFC road trip charging stop (which is definitely where EV battery technology is headed) and otherwise plugging in while they're parked, to the alternative of having to refuel at a hydrogen station every single time.
 
Back the article? I'll note that the first words are "Sadly, keeping your old petrol car may be better than buying an EV." Keeping is the key word. After his paragraphs of Hydrogen and Soild State futuretech, he gets down his core message: ditch your in-town diesel but otherwise keep your current vehicle a bit longer.

That has some wisdom in it. (Also sounds a whole lot wiser than buying a new combustion vehicle.)
 
Discussion starter · #50 ·
You are absolutely correct on this point, but...

But who "needs" this?

Isn't 5 minutes a long time, too?

Is a five minute refueling window – something the vast majority of car owners don't often need or benefit from – worth the trade-off of having to always go somewhere to refuel, and the increased space requirements of building a car around these hydrogen storage tanks?

If refueling speed was so important to most drivers, why hasn't gasoline fueling technology progressed from "nozzle in hole" drop-loading to Indy-car style or aviation single-point connection style couplings that could decrease gas station stop time to less than a minute?

Convenience comes at a price – or at least a trade-off. I can't help but imagine most EV owners would prefer the every 3 hour 15-20-minute DCFC road trip charging stop (which is definitely where EV battery technology is headed) and otherwise plugging in while they're parked, to the alternative of having to refuel at a hydrogen station every single time.
Because “five minutes” is close enough to “instantly” but “half an hour or more” isn't.
 
Because “five minutes” is close enough to “instantly” but “half an hour or more” isn't.
Right, I think that part is established and accepted by most of us.

1. In the immediate future DCFC charging times will be reduced to 15-20 minutes.

2. Driving somewhere to spend five minutes fueling is a chore, where plugging in and walking into home or work is close enough to 'instant."
 
Discussion starter · #52 ·
A good article debunking and ripping to shreds the OP point by point with experts:
“He’s complaining about current batteries and implying we have to wait for better ones. But the current ones will already last the lifetime of the car and the car will emit 3x less CO2 over its lifetime. (Yes, I’m sure about this, because that is my actual field of study.)” said Hoekstra in on twitter.
Including:
why hydrogen powered vehicles are completely absurd and have no future.
That article spends an awful lot of its words on ad hominem attacks.

And then there's this:

As he pointed out in his recent interview with The Driven, Tony Seba says EVs are already doing five times more kilometres over their lifetime than ICE vehicles and with 2 million km batteries going into mass production next year, a single EV will soon replace 10 ICE vehicles over its lifetime. That’s 10 times fewer vehicles that need to be manufactured.
That must be referring to EVs in very specialized use such as taxi service. 'Cause it's for damned sure that the EVs that you and I drive for our casual use will last about as long as the ICEs that we currently drive and after ten or fifteen years of use (and the same number of miles that we would have put on an ICEV in that same time), all that same stuff like electric window winders and suspension components will break and be economically unrepairable and we'll junk the cars.

That is to say, it is a silly argument to make that a BEV will amortize its embedded energy (or CO2) over a much longer service lifetime than an equivalent ICEV.

I found Atkinson's article much less biased than this rebuttal.
 
Which is why I don't discount for a moment the utility of a BEV as the daily commuter car.
Right, and it's impractical to think a hydrogen future will be built to support summertime road trippers. It'll always be niche unless it's built on the backs of long haul truckers – even then, who's going to build or buy an occasional use car?
 
I find this funny because of how mundane it is. We're comparing methods of generating, transporting, storing, and consuming energy for the purpose of converting it into kinetic energy. That's it.

It only gets complicated when you look at the consequences of each of those 4 steps. The consequences people care about drive them to prefer one energy source over another, but to disregard other sources because of a preference is silly.

IMO if you care about the current and rapidly increasing consequences of generating energy by consuming fossil fuels, then any energy source which results in consuming fewer of them is worth having.

Probably best to have multiple of them concurrently to help saturate different segments of the market? I hope hydrogen succeeds, and BEVs of all types. I also hope we trend towards walkable cities, better public transport, and renewable (or at least non-hydrocarbon emitting) energy sources.
 
Maybe this is way off in the weeds, politics-wise, but the international nuclear fuel situation is a complete mess. Even right now, the US imports a substantial amount of both low-enriched uranium fuel and uranium ore from Russia--despite all sorts of words about sanctions.

Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says the US nuclear industry has made little effort to lower its dependence on Russian LEU. “Industry came out of the gates saying no, we can’t do it. I didn’t see any kind of effort on the part of the US industry to get together and say let’s see how we can do this.”

If Constellation could do without Russian uranium, “the question is why didn’t they just do it?” says Lyman. “They don’t want any perturbation of their Russian supply that could inconvenience them or raise costs. I find that kind of outrageous.” A Constellation spokesperson says the Russian supply contracts were negotiated before the Ukraine invasion, and none have been made since then.

The US nuclear industry has long urged the federal government to subsidize new domestic enrichment capacity, arguing that all the world’s enrichment plants are essentially government-owned enterprises.


Getting more nukes in play will require a massive disruption to the politics and economics and industrial landscape.
 
Discussion starter · #57 ·
Regarding transporting hydrogen over long distances, another method of doing so is to take nitrogen from the air, use that to convert the hydrogen to easily-transported ammonia, and then, at the far end, crack the hydrogen back out of the ammonia and release the nitrogen back to the air.

Green Ammonia To Solve Hydrogen Transportation Conundrum
 
Discussion starter · #58 ·
Getting more nukes in play will require a massive disruption to the politics and economics and industrial landscape.
Another factor now is that while it used to seem that fusion energy was never going to arrive, that situation finally seems to be changing and it's entirely within the realm of possibility that any money spent now on new fission projects (that won't come online for a decade or so) will turn out to be money wasted because fusion power will make fission power a white elephant.
 
Another factor now is that while it used to seem that fusion energy was never going to arrive, that situation finally seems to be changing and it's entirely within the realm of possibility that any money spent now on new fission projects (that won't come online for a decade or so) will turn out to be money wasted because fusion power will make fission power a white elephant.

 
Guys, as an engineer I’m enjoying this thread… but we’re never going to build more nukes* (3 mile island, etc) or hydrogen infrastructure (Hindenburg). What we do have already is an electric grid that brings power everywhere. Now, it needs upgrading and reliability improvements, but that’s just money and time - doesn’t require investing in unproven tech. And our power generation tech is getting greener every day - plus we don’t need to worry about replacing our car or our charging infrastructure when someone replaces a coal plant or a nuclear plant with a wind turbine or a solar panel. So, all we need to do is get smaller, lighter batteries that charge faster… and who wants to make the argument that chemists aren’t going to crack that in the next few years with all the money going into it? (You can already spend six figures for a Taycan that charges on road trips in 15 min or less under ideal conditions; now it’s just a matter of making it cheaper and more reliable to hit those marks - and when have we been unable to do that?)

* Yes, fusion (my favorite technology) could be the perfect answer to everything power-generation wise, but wake me up when it’s commercially viable!
 
41 - 60 of 101 Posts