Think about it for more than half a second. People are paying for usable energy - miles of range. Mirai shows roughly the same usable energy per volume and how does gasoline get there? By truck, so H2 could be delivered the same way.
Sure. By taking something like fifty times more trips with the same truck, or perhaps 50 trucks and drivers instead.
With high temperature reactions you use the output to heat the input.
There are still energy inefficiencies. There are current commercial Hydrogen production plants available to study. There are many commercial Ammonia plants to study.
I have done a paper on the end to end efficiency of hydrogen production for maritime use WRT Australia as a net energy exporter. It went something like: "What if Australia put up a million square KM of PV Solar Panels. How would How would Australia Export the energy?" I cited sources and had reliable figures of end to end process efficiency.
You started off with your thesis that it has to be liquified and kept at near zero temperatures to be useful.
No, I did not. It is right there in black and white. I said that:
Hydrogen is a low density gas. To make it energy-dense enough to be viable for energy storage, it needs to be liquified.
Which is entirely due to the logistics of getting it from the point of manufacture (say, the Australian Desert Solar Farms) to the point of use.
The idea "We can just make 50 trips!" adds to the cost! You haven't given a single example of a viable logistics method. Hopes and dreams for a magic future don't actually solve any problems.
I am all for advances in electrolysis, but so far the gold standard is Polymer Electrolyte Membrane cells. The worlds biggest plant is 20 MW, which is tiny. The individual cells are expensive and they wear out. The Magic 8Ball says "Check back in 2030".
Look, I hope you get your golden future of cheap hydrogen energy storage. I hope you get a jetpack too. But right now all you haves are pipe-dreams and Jam Tomorrow, all pushed by the same geniuses that came up with "Carbon Capture" on coal plants; which neatly doubles the coal burned for the same electricity generation. Like carbon capture, any solution which starts by doubling the price of energy is doomed to failure, and hydrogen is much more expensive than double the cost an alternative.
If I were to put down cash, I'd bet that we get an alternative battery technology and plug in Electric Vehicles before we cheap on-site electrolysis. Even a significant improvement in the anode and cathode of LiPo or LiFePo batteries could halve the size and cost of EV battery packs. There are a number of candidates.
People are paying for usable energy - miles of range. Mirai shows roughly the same usable energy per volume
Sure. By taking something like fifty times more trips with the same truck, or perhaps 50 trucks and drivers instead.
So roughly the same volume, same sized truck can deliver H2 equivalent to the same number of miles driven as the gasoline truck... but you'll magically need 50 more of them.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard yet.
You've clearly done at least some basic research, which is why it's baffling for you to make these absurd claims like this and the others. Maybe you're a chatbot that can do 2+2 but not 200+200? It's weird.
Guy, the Mari is a hybrid. The fuel calculations are for stop and go city traffic, in which it makes a lot of the regenerative breaking to charge the small battery. I don't know who they got the test driving figures from, but they were a master of low-torque slow acceleration and coasting stops.
Moreover it costs a cool $100 to fill up the tank.
Driving fast, which uses actual torque and does not take advantage of the hybrid system uses a LOT more fuel.
Do you really have the idea that a haulage truck or a delivery van could get the same advantages?
Not everyone, especially commercial vehicles can operate on such low torque. I certainly don't trust the quoted range figures.
Consumption is officially rated at 0.7kg of hydrogen per 100km. After a handful of different drivers on nothing but 50–70km/h stop-start streets, the Mirai indicated a 0.88kg/100km figure, which is about 25 per cent over its claim
It is noted that fuel is basically only available in California, and that this vehicle was built to satisfy California laws that demand "Zero Emission Vehicles"
How about we see a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Stack fitted to a garbage truck?
But go ahead. Buy one. Put your money where your mouth is. Pay US$17 a kg for fuel. Lets see if the hydrogen price goes down.
If you are right, you will make out like a bandit!
The fuel calculations are for stop and go city traffic, in which it makes a lot of the regenerative breaking to charge the small battery. I don't know who they got the test driving figures from, but they were a master of low-torque slow acceleration and coasting stops.
Dude you're totally delusional about this subject. Mirai's rated by the same EPA cycle that every other car is. It's not off by 50 times lol. Wow.
If the only usage case for hydrogen fuel is driving hybrid passenger vehicles, then you would have a point.
Is that what you mean? Be specific. Or are you imagining a broader use for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles? You have already described hydrogen haulage trucks to deliver the fuel. In your mind, does this hydrogen fuel infrastructure serve any other transport type?
Anything else? Or just those two?
If you are trucking energy to the user, and each truck contains (say) 1 / 50th of the energy. How many trucks of gas will you require for a drop-in replacement for transport fuel? There are some efficiency gains, because fuel cells are more efficent at converting fuel to motion, but this is absolutely offset by the inefficiencies to store the energy in the form of hydrogen. A diesel engine is something like 35% efficent. Stem reforming hydrogen production is a lot less efficent than that.
I'll make this as simple as I can.
In fact, a road tanker which transports high pressure hydrogen as compressed gas might typically carry 300–400 kg of H2 and be able to refuel up to about 100 cars.
Whereas a typical diesel tanker typically carries between 20,800 to 43,900 L in the USA.
Large trucks typically have capacities ranging from 5,500 to 11,600 US gallons (20,800 to 43,900 L; 4,580 to 9,660 imp gal). In Australia, road trains up to four trailers in length (known as Quad tankers) carry loads in excess of 120,000 litres (26,000 imp gal; 32,000 US gal)
Sure. By taking something like fifty times more trips with the same truck, or perhaps 50 trucks and drivers instead.
There are still energy inefficiencies. There are current commercial Hydrogen production plants available to study. There are many commercial Ammonia plants to study.
I have done a paper on the end to end efficiency of hydrogen production for maritime use WRT Australia as a net energy exporter. It went something like: "What if Australia put up a million square KM of PV Solar Panels. How would How would Australia Export the energy?" I cited sources and had reliable figures of end to end process efficiency.
No, I did not. It is right there in black and white. I said that:
Which is entirely due to the logistics of getting it from the point of manufacture (say, the Australian Desert Solar Farms) to the point of use.
The idea "We can just make 50 trips!" adds to the cost! You haven't given a single example of a viable logistics method. Hopes and dreams for a magic future don't actually solve any problems.
I am all for advances in electrolysis, but so far the gold standard is Polymer Electrolyte Membrane cells. The worlds biggest plant is 20 MW, which is tiny. The individual cells are expensive and they wear out. The Magic 8Ball says "Check back in 2030".
Look, I hope you get your golden future of cheap hydrogen energy storage. I hope you get a jetpack too. But right now all you haves are pipe-dreams and Jam Tomorrow, all pushed by the same geniuses that came up with "Carbon Capture" on coal plants; which neatly doubles the coal burned for the same electricity generation. Like carbon capture, any solution which starts by doubling the price of energy is doomed to failure, and hydrogen is much more expensive than double the cost an alternative.
If I were to put down cash, I'd bet that we get an alternative battery technology and plug in Electric Vehicles before we cheap on-site electrolysis. Even a significant improvement in the anode and cathode of LiPo or LiFePo batteries could halve the size and cost of EV battery packs. There are a number of candidates.
Have a great day.
So roughly the same volume, same sized truck can deliver H2 equivalent to the same number of miles driven as the gasoline truck... but you'll magically need 50 more of them.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard yet.
You've clearly done at least some basic research, which is why it's baffling for you to make these absurd claims like this and the others. Maybe you're a chatbot that can do 2+2 but not 200+200? It's weird.
Guy, the Mari is a hybrid. The fuel calculations are for stop and go city traffic, in which it makes a lot of the regenerative breaking to charge the small battery. I don't know who they got the test driving figures from, but they were a master of low-torque slow acceleration and coasting stops.
Moreover it costs a cool $100 to fill up the tank.
Driving fast, which uses actual torque and does not take advantage of the hybrid system uses a LOT more fuel.
Do you really have the idea that a haulage truck or a delivery van could get the same advantages?
Read about it yourself.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/2021-toyota-mirai-hydrogen-fuel-cell-sedan-key-takeaways/#:~:text=The%202021%20Toyota%20Mirai%20is%2C%20at%20its%20heart%2C,hybrid%20%E2%80%94which%20acts%20as%20a%20buffer%20of%20sorts.
Not everyone, especially commercial vehicles can operate on such low torque. I certainly don't trust the quoted range figures.
From https://www.drive.com.au/reviews/2021-toyota-mirai-fcev-first-drive-review/
It is noted that fuel is basically only available in California, and that this vehicle was built to satisfy California laws that demand "Zero Emission Vehicles"
How about we see a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Stack fitted to a garbage truck?
But go ahead. Buy one. Put your money where your mouth is. Pay US$17 a kg for fuel. Lets see if the hydrogen price goes down.
If you are right, you will make out like a bandit!
Dude you're totally delusional about this subject. Mirai's rated by the same EPA cycle that every other car is. It's not off by 50 times lol. Wow.
If the only usage case for hydrogen fuel is driving hybrid passenger vehicles, then you would have a point.
Is that what you mean? Be specific. Or are you imagining a broader use for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles? You have already described hydrogen haulage trucks to deliver the fuel. In your mind, does this hydrogen fuel infrastructure serve any other transport type?
Anything else? Or just those two?
If you are trucking energy to the user, and each truck contains (say) 1 / 50th of the energy. How many trucks of gas will you require for a drop-in replacement for transport fuel? There are some efficiency gains, because fuel cells are more efficent at converting fuel to motion, but this is absolutely offset by the inefficiencies to store the energy in the form of hydrogen. A diesel engine is something like 35% efficent. Stem reforming hydrogen production is a lot less efficent than that.
I'll make this as simple as I can.
Whereas a typical diesel tanker typically carries between 20,800 to 43,900 L in the USA.
I'm done here. Have a great day.