Hydrogen cars can usually safely vent their fuel. Even inside a garage venting hydrogen likely won't burn long or hot enough to set anything on fire; car and home very likely to survive. Contrast that with an EV blowing its top where car will definitely not survive and house likely won't either.
I know, I know; but you have to make that comment when this kind of thing comes up, it's the law.
Also, yes, the difficulty with hydrogen isn't the hydrogen per se, it's the additional requirements around storage. Hydrogen's very hard on storage vessels, not purely in most things being leaky as far as hydrogen's concerned, but also in embrittling whatever storage vessel you use.
Unitednuclear pioneered an interesting system where hydrogen was stored as a metal hydride that would release the gas when the metal was heated. It lost some energy efficiency due to needing power for the heater, but it allowed enough hydrogen to be stored in an ordinary vehicle to equal 15 gallons of gasoline.
It may not be energy efficient, but gray hydrogen is cheap in the United States because you can manufacture it from natural gas and we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. In theory we're talking like a thousand years of the equivalent of sub 2 dollar gas (and that is including compression and all the other extra costs). Unfortunately shitty energy policy undermines that.
I know hydrogen is currently much worse than batteries but if the same resources had been put into hydrogen that may not be the case.
You can just stick some electrodes into water - doesn't even have to be clean water - and make it that way.
One of the less farcical plans for clean power is a shit-ton of nuclear plants (fusion or fission, doesn't affect the plan) running electrolysis all day every day to generate the hydrogen needed to replace fossil fuels.
There was a pretty good writeup someone posted here (maybe you) not long ago explaining precisely that, and it was rather compelling. The evidence for sabotage was circumstantial (expected whenever you try to investigate something 100 years after the fact) but the fact that the tragedy was largely invented and accelerated by media propagandists - as they do with everything - is without question. I believe the clip was actually fake/broadcast before the actual casualty numbers were known. Then it was spliced together with later footage in newsreels shown at the theater to kill the airship industry.
Almost 100 years ago, we had a form of transport that could fly around the world at almost no cost beyond the maintenance of the vessel, and we gave it up because one utterly sensationalized, propagandized, completely unexplained accident that two thirds of the passengers survived, that was reported on by some totally unknown guy who it seems never reported on anything else before or after.
You don't think that's a little fucking strange?
Even if you think sabotage wasn't the cause, how is anything else even remotely deniable?
It was also incredibly slow and easily outclassed by planes. The disaster merely accelerated an already obvious sidelining. That's why we have air disasters and nobody sane suggests getting rid of passenger planes, because there's no better alternative.
80mph is supposedly the max speed of an airship, imagine how ridiculously long it would take to get any distance where even a car of that era such as the Fiat 1100 , which could do 68mph, only 12 less than the airship, would not be the best option.
You do know that cruise ships still exist and go slower than shit. Sorry your argument is dumb, Bikes, trains, lots of other forms of transport still have massive use though faster "better" methods exist. Even after the Titanic people still used passenger ships. It seems there was a concerted effort to kill that industry using one not so tragic tragedy to do so.
Yes, and they're a very niche form of transport. Nobody says they're going to take a cruise to get somewhere, they're taking a cruise to take a cruise. The journey is the purpose.
Bikes, trains, lots of other forms of transport still have massive use though faster "better" methods exist.
They all have some kind of advantages.
Bikes are good exercise, and free to run. They're good for traveling a short distance.
Trains are usually cheaper than fueling up a car to go where you want to go, so you take them to save money, or because where you're going is near a station and parking is unavailable.
It appears so. They have small tanks you swap out with your car. So you run low, go to a store and buy a new tank, and have the old one refilled at the station for someone else. If it can be done in under ten minutes, and be cheap enough not to care, then it beats electric.
That's also what they should have done with the batteries in Teslas. In fact they floated it as a proposal at one point but scrapped the idea. Not sure why. (I mean, it's "hard" to do yeah, but doesn't mean it's not worth doing...)
I would imagine weight. Battery packs are fucking heavy. Tesla is planning to use structural battery packs which effectively replaces part of the frame itself with batteries. Swappable batteries would be the opposite where it would require more weight than a nonstructural battery pack.
Plus imagine the infrastructure needed. You'd need to build service stations with magazines of 1000 pound batteries and robots that can remove and install them built into the ground.
And even if you bought the car you'd be leasing the battery otherwise you'd drive a brand new battery off the lot and next time you need a swap your brand new battery is replaced with an old battery which would suck donkey balls.
Good points, especially the last one I bet that's the biggest reason for not going that route. Right now buying an electric car is basically buying an electric battery with wheels attached. To make it palatable the company would have had to finance everyone's batteries.
Unlikely. NASA can't even figure that out with their SLS rocket and they have actual rocket scientists working on the problem. It is a problem inherent to working with hydrogen as a fuel.
Automobile hydrogen tanks are a much easier problem than rocket tanks because weight isn't as much of an issue. Hydrogen tanks are heavy. The Nexo is 400 lbs heavier than the similarly sized Tucson (although that's still like 600 lbs lighter than the similarly sized Ioniq).
You can't drill the ground and have hydrogen come out
You sort of can. Steam reforming natural gas is very very cheap, like way cheaper per mile than gas, and the United States has at least a millennium of natural gas even with the increased consumption that using it to power cars would bring. By then hopefully we'd be comfortable with nuclear or have space solar power or something.
Naming your company Hopium is either a massive troll or a massive miscalculation. Remains to be seen which.
Knowing the French it's probably the former rather than the later.
Oh, the humanity!
Hydrogen cars can usually safely vent their fuel. Even inside a garage venting hydrogen likely won't burn long or hot enough to set anything on fire; car and home very likely to survive. Contrast that with an EV blowing its top where car will definitely not survive and house likely won't either.
I know, I know; but you have to make that comment when this kind of thing comes up, it's the law.
Also, yes, the difficulty with hydrogen isn't the hydrogen per se, it's the additional requirements around storage. Hydrogen's very hard on storage vessels, not purely in most things being leaky as far as hydrogen's concerned, but also in embrittling whatever storage vessel you use.
I'm surprised the makers of Rise of Skywalker didn't invoke this as a troll response to people who question how Palpatine survived.
Unitednuclear pioneered an interesting system where hydrogen was stored as a metal hydride that would release the gas when the metal was heated. It lost some energy efficiency due to needing power for the heater, but it allowed enough hydrogen to be stored in an ordinary vehicle to equal 15 gallons of gasoline.
There may also be the threat of committing suicide after creating a car that works with hydrogen fuel cells that is reliable and cheaper than gas/oil.
The problem is that sourcing hydrogen isn't energy efficient.
It may not be energy efficient, but gray hydrogen is cheap in the United States because you can manufacture it from natural gas and we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. In theory we're talking like a thousand years of the equivalent of sub 2 dollar gas (and that is including compression and all the other extra costs). Unfortunately shitty energy policy undermines that.
I know hydrogen is currently much worse than batteries but if the same resources had been put into hydrogen that may not be the case.
You can just stick some electrodes into water - doesn't even have to be clean water - and make it that way.
One of the less farcical plans for clean power is a shit-ton of nuclear plants (fusion or fission, doesn't affect the plan) running electrolysis all day every day to generate the hydrogen needed to replace fossil fuels.
That clip is oil industry propaganda and the Hindenburg disaster was oil industry sabotage.
There was a pretty good writeup someone posted here (maybe you) not long ago explaining precisely that, and it was rather compelling. The evidence for sabotage was circumstantial (expected whenever you try to investigate something 100 years after the fact) but the fact that the tragedy was largely invented and accelerated by media propagandists - as they do with everything - is without question. I believe the clip was actually fake/broadcast before the actual casualty numbers were known. Then it was spliced together with later footage in newsreels shown at the theater to kill the airship industry.
Can't have the Kaiser's Eyes in the Sky floating over the Channel now can we?
Sounds interesting, could you send me the link to that post? I have never thought of that before.
Is there anything stormcucks won't claim is fake?
Almost 100 years ago, we had a form of transport that could fly around the world at almost no cost beyond the maintenance of the vessel, and we gave it up because one utterly sensationalized, propagandized, completely unexplained accident that two thirds of the passengers survived, that was reported on by some totally unknown guy who it seems never reported on anything else before or after.
You don't think that's a little fucking strange?
Even if you think sabotage wasn't the cause, how is anything else even remotely deniable?
Cool it with the antisemitism bro.
It was also incredibly slow and easily outclassed by planes. The disaster merely accelerated an already obvious sidelining. That's why we have air disasters and nobody sane suggests getting rid of passenger planes, because there's no better alternative.
80mph is supposedly the max speed of an airship, imagine how ridiculously long it would take to get any distance where even a car of that era such as the Fiat 1100 , which could do 68mph, only 12 less than the airship, would not be the best option.
You do know that cruise ships still exist and go slower than shit. Sorry your argument is dumb, Bikes, trains, lots of other forms of transport still have massive use though faster "better" methods exist. Even after the Titanic people still used passenger ships. It seems there was a concerted effort to kill that industry using one not so tragic tragedy to do so.
Yes, and they're a very niche form of transport. Nobody says they're going to take a cruise to get somewhere, they're taking a cruise to take a cruise. The journey is the purpose.
They all have some kind of advantages.
Bikes are good exercise, and free to run. They're good for traveling a short distance.
Trains are usually cheaper than fueling up a car to go where you want to go, so you take them to save money, or because where you're going is near a station and parking is unavailable.
makes much more sense than electric for cars
It appears so. They have small tanks you swap out with your car. So you run low, go to a store and buy a new tank, and have the old one refilled at the station for someone else. If it can be done in under ten minutes, and be cheap enough not to care, then it beats electric.
That's also what they should have done with the batteries in Teslas. In fact they floated it as a proposal at one point but scrapped the idea. Not sure why. (I mean, it's "hard" to do yeah, but doesn't mean it's not worth doing...)
I would imagine weight. Battery packs are fucking heavy. Tesla is planning to use structural battery packs which effectively replaces part of the frame itself with batteries. Swappable batteries would be the opposite where it would require more weight than a nonstructural battery pack.
Plus imagine the infrastructure needed. You'd need to build service stations with magazines of 1000 pound batteries and robots that can remove and install them built into the ground.
And even if you bought the car you'd be leasing the battery otherwise you'd drive a brand new battery off the lot and next time you need a swap your brand new battery is replaced with an old battery which would suck donkey balls.
Good points, especially the last one I bet that's the biggest reason for not going that route. Right now buying an electric car is basically buying an electric battery with wheels attached. To make it palatable the company would have had to finance everyone's batteries.
Unlikely. NASA can't even figure that out with their SLS rocket and they have actual rocket scientists working on the problem. It is a problem inherent to working with hydrogen as a fuel.
Automobile hydrogen tanks are a much easier problem than rocket tanks because weight isn't as much of an issue. Hydrogen tanks are heavy. The Nexo is 400 lbs heavier than the similarly sized Tucson (although that's still like 600 lbs lighter than the similarly sized Ioniq).
They already solved that issue. Carbon tank that can contain about 5-6 kilo of hydrogen. This is good for 600-700 km of range
They are the best source of energy in the future, there's just two issues with it:
Acquiring it: Because hydrogen is extremely plentiful but it's stuck to everything
Storage: I don't need to detail that one, bit self explanatory
But get through those hoops and welcome to a truly renewable energy.
You sort of can. Steam reforming natural gas is very very cheap, like way cheaper per mile than gas, and the United States has at least a millennium of natural gas even with the increased consumption that using it to power cars would bring. By then hopefully we'd be comfortable with nuclear or have space solar power or something.
Rolling hydrogen bombs on the streets of every major city in the world. I like where this is going.
We already have rolling flame throwers. Just saying.
Not even close.
They said something similar about gas powered cars.