Toyota hopes you'll buy a hydrogen-powered car after grilling with a hydrogen barbecue
It will be the same as with lithium EVs. Hydrogen may be safer than IC, but once any explodes media will paint them as bombs driving on our roads
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
180 points (88.8% liked)
Technology
59359 readers
5259 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
That depends on how easy it is to deal with the explosion when it happens. The issue with lithium-ion is that they can't just be smothered like an ICE fire, so there's really nothing you can do once it starts. Also, ICEs don't spontaneously catch fire when parked in your garage, they tend to catch fire when you're driving, which means you're immediately aware when it starts to happen.
An EV catching fire while it charges at night is extra scary because I'm likely to be asleep, and therefore I'll have a smaller chance to react properly (especially if I need to run up/down stairs to round up small children). So even if it's less likely, it's potentially worse because I'm less likely to be able to get away from it safely.
I don't know much about what a practical hydrogen failure looks like, but my understanding is that it's quite violent. But maybe they have controls around that now, idk.
The combustion product isn't likely to be a carcinogen. Safer to use indoors.
Toyota builds Phillip Jeffries and found he doesn’t want to talk about Judy. He doesn’t want to talk about Judy at all
Sooo just cooking gas with more steps.
Oil industry loves pushing hydrogen but it's nearly all made from fossil fuels, so what benefit is there?
Blue hydrogen is made by stripping the hydrogen from fossil fuel hydrocarbons (chains of hydrogen and carbon, hence the name), and sequestering the carbon. It produces a fuel that contains enough chemical energy to be burned as fuel, but without the carbon atoms that would turn into greenhouse gases.
Most hydrogen currently produced though, is gray hydrogen (made from natural gas, but without sequestering the carbon, so that CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere).
Key words being “current supply”. There are major moves being made to change this. Supply and demand need to grow at the same time if this is to work though.
Fossil fuels, including coal, are also used to produce electricity. They simply need to be prohibited or at least strictly rationed. Fortunately, hydrogen can be produced without emitting greenhouse gasses because it is still necessary for processes like steel and fertilizer production. It's also a practical replacement for fossil fuels in transportation and, as Toyota demonstrated, food preparation. As I replied to someone else, sometimes we need portability and/or a flame when it comes to cooking. Electricity just doesn't cut it in those cases.
Generate hydrogen at night from nuke plants.
The biggest use-case I see for hydrogen is more of an energy storage and transfer mechanism. With the world switching to renewables that generate power inconsistently, some countries are looking at putting the extra power into hydrogen generation via electrolysis, which can then be used at night/low-wind days to keep the power grid stable.
If we ever get to the point that we've got a surplus of renewably generated hydrogen, then it could make sense to start using to power cars, heating, cooking, whatever.
I think Japan is pushing it, because they import most of their kJ. They don't like nuclear for obvious reasons and there's a few reasons they probably don't like renewable projects like a lack of land and being a natural disaster prone country. So they are left with importing energy and hopefully value adding to it enough that it's worth while
If the process to make hydrogen is clean, burning h is way way way cleaner. That's the math, not the source. The source can become an economics problem rather than necessarily an environmental one (imagine like 45 footnotes for where we do stuff that makes this not true, I'm just trying to capture the goal)
Burning hydrogen is 10x cleaner but not pollution free.
Using a fuel cell creates electricity and heat without pollution, but is a source of heat enough to call something a BBQ?
What is this lighting called and why does it make my brain immediately think this image is AI?
I would call this "harsh" and indirect lighting with a shallow depth of field. It seems like a relatively low-light room, and there's tons of shadows making the images noisey. On cameras, the more you open the aperture to let more light in, the narrower your focus becomes. That's why there's so much blur or "bokeh" in the images.
Back in the early days of gas infrastructure, before wide-spread electrification, you know gas street lights and everything, the gas was produced by gasifying coal, resulting in gas that was often over 50% hydrogen, with only ~20% methane. Rest nitrogen and CO.
Natural gas has a methane content upwards of 75%, which meant that everyone had to switch out their burner nozzles but the rest of the infrastructure stayed intact.
All this is to say: Nothing about is really new or rocket science. Europe is certainly creating a backbone pipeline network for hydrogen, parts of it new pipes, other parts re-purposed natural gas pipes, many were built to a standard that allows them to carry hydrogen though some valves etc. might need upgrading. Some of those were originally built for hydrogen in the first place, and checking Wikipedia there's actually a 240km segment in the Ruhr area, built in 1938, still in operation, which always carried hydrogen. Plain steel but comparatively low-pressure so it works.
Oh and have another number: According to Fraunhofer, Germany's pipeline network can store three months of total energy usage (electricity, transportation, everything). Not in storage tanks, but just by operating the pipelines themselves at higher or lower pressure.
And we need that stuff one way or the other: Even if tomorrow ten thousand fusion plants go online that doesn't mean that the chemical industry doesn't need feedstock, or that reducing steel with electricity would make sense. Both of those things need hydrogen.
Fusion is still in the future so the plan is to import most of that hydrogen, mostly from Canada and Namibia, in tankers carrying ammonia which is way more efficient that trying to compress hydrogen also ammonia is needed for some processes anyway.
Hydrogen is so much smaller than natty light that on a Continental scale the losses could be significant, but that's neat history. It's fun how long stuff has been around like gasification.
From all that I've seen electricity lines (also HVDC) have higher transmission losses by a magnitude. With hydrogen and modern material science you'll probably have the choice between higher losses and embrittlement, but that's just another economical equation: Do you want to eat the higher losses, or replace the pipeline in a couple of decades or a century.
At least environment-wise hydrogen leaks aren't an issue: Some atoms diffusing through the wall don't constitute a fire hazard and the end result is water. Methane, OTOH, is a nasty greenhouse gas.
Speaking of nature: Ammonia is nasty, but nature produces it itself (just not at those concentrations) and can deal with it. The site directly surrounding a leak would be dead, a bit further downstream (literally) there's going to be over-fertilisation. Not nice but definitely better than an oil leak and fixing it quite literally involves waiting until grass has grown over it as rain dilutes it and microorganisms migrate back in to eat it. Similar things apply to ethanol which I'd say would be a better choice for general use such as hybrid cars, camping stoves and whatnot because it's not going to burn your lungs away. Can't rely on people being conscious enough to get up and flee the ammonia stench when they're in a car accident.
At least environment-wise hydrogen leaks aren't an issue:
Hydrogen is a strong indirect greenhouse gas.
The climate impact of hydrogen is about 34 times higher than CO2 when measured over a 20-year period. Looking at the impact over 100 years, the global warming potential reduces to between eight and 13 times.
Hydrogen causes this by stabilising methane in the atmosphere and creating tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapour.
We shouldn't be having methane in the atmosphere in the first place. Sure, if you produce the hydrogen from natural gas then you have a problem because that stuff comes with plenty of methane which won't suddenly stop leaking.
We shouldn't be having methane in the atmosphere in the first place.
Ha. So we are banning farmers from owning livestock
Sure, if you produce the hydrogen from natural gas then you have a problem because that stuff comes with plenty of methane which won't suddenly stop leaking.
Also if you inject hydrogen into the existing natural gas pipeline.
The point here is that hydrogen leaks are very much an issue. Your previous statement was false.
Noone here is planning to inject hydrogen into existing pipelines. If anything, synthesising methane during the transition so that consumers only have to switch their burners once, from nat gas to hydrogen, and not first to nat gas + more hydrogen and then to pure hydrogen. Gotta switch whole municipalities at once doesn't make sense to duplicate the last-mile gas pipes. If, and that's not even clear yet, hydrogen pipes will even be a thing for private consumers.
Noone here is planning to inject hydrogen into existing pipelines.
Ok. Not you. But lots of people elsewhere in this thread.
If anything, synthesising methane during the transition so that consumers only have to switch their burners once, from nat gas to hydrogen, and not first to nat gas + more hydrogen and then to pure hydrogen.
Agree. Burning hydrogen has to be done carefully to avoid NOx and other side effects.
And that's not even clear yet, hydrogen pipes will even be a thing for private consumers.
Agreed.
Industrial green hydrogen is a necessity to remove fossil fuels. Residential hydrogen I am very sceptical about. Even 100% clean fuel cells burn too hot for domestic heating.
Probably true since transmission loses come after engine losses. Ammonia is also pretty cool though, I've read about the idea of using it in big engines since it's also easy to store/make.
That's cool and all...but hydrogen isn't an energy source, not the way we use it...it's more like a battery. And we have battery powered ovens now.
The hard part of current tech is making recharging the battery economical given that there will be a significant loss.
The even harder part of hydrogen, though, is storing and transport. Hydrogen atoms are real small. Anything you put it in will leak, and that impacts the recharge efficiency, as well.
We can put it in the containers they stored FOOF in.
There is promising research into mixing hydrogen with existing natural gas pipelines at low concentration (<2%). It doesn't leak any more than gas pipes do already and the low concentration prevents embrittlement. And you don't have to go through the horrendous efficiency of a fuel cell, you just burn it with the gas
Burning hydrogen with natural gas without special equipment creates NOx which is 300x worse than CO2 (but released in smaller quantities).
view more: next ›