Hydrogen fuel is a me-

I'm all for cutting pollution but seems like a terrible waste of hydrogen as it would all come out when the bus lands at a bus stop and opens the doors

they make the best trucks of peace

>yfw hydrogen is generated from gas

yes but the ones that do typically can't read english.

>solar
>nuclear
>wind

hydrogen is produced from natural gas predominantly

Attached: 78369-f272f6700d910a87f462e8525ae5863b.png (183x300, 74K)

Cleaner yes but certainly not carbon free

Hydrogen is the future for certain modes of transport.
Passenger vehicles - not really. Hydrogen escapes too easily in vessels sized for the vehicles, your 'full tank of gas' is going to disappear in a week whether you use it or not.
But for things like Ambulances, Fire Engines, Buses, Police Cars, Taxis, Trucks, Industrial vehicles, etc - vehicles that refuel at least once a day, they're perfect targets for hydrogen.
Batteries are too slow for those markets but they also aren't affected by Hydrogen's weakness (at least for applications with weight concerns)

If the car companies got together (or maybe the fuel lobbyists needs to get involved...) you could even have a portable fuel cell you could hire and put in the boot of your battery electric passenger vehicle, so you could go long distance and take only minutes to refuel on roadtrips whilst still being battery electric on the regular.

it is because it requires energy to make it
however it can be energy storage in niche situations
for example
youtube.com/watch?v=8WUe9n_yGPg&t=19m16s

>you could even have a portable fuel cell you could hire and put in the boot of your battery electric passenger vehicle, so you could go long distance and take only minutes to refuel on roadtrips whilst still being battery electric on the regular.
you are ignoring the physical size of the hydrogen cylinder and the fact it's a pressure vessel

the toyota also has a second tank behind the seats

Attached: Toyota_Mirai_fuel_cell_stack,_hydrogen_tank_and_electric_battery_SAO_2016_9025.jpg (2400x1600, 3.38M)

It would be SO much better for island communities and national natural gas supplies.

>70323570
>Yes, my lith-ion/cadmium batteries are SO MUCH GREENER
>Hydrogen kills the planet
>We're going to be 100ft underwater by 2050 because you use natural gas!>

Depends how it's being produced. It could be getting mined as a byproduct of fossil fuel exploration (a bit like Helium). On the other hand it could be being produced via electrolysis, in which case it could be powered by nuclear.

Well that's a very elaborate and inefficient way to burn natural gas.

might as well just run on gas.

Attached: lead_720_405.jpg (720x405, 49K)

Belgian scientists have develloped a way of creating hydrogen from water with solar panels, it might actually a gamebreaker.

cleantechnica.com/2019/03/03/belgian-scientists-announce-new-solar-panel-that-makes-hydrogen/

Why don't we just use propane? Some vehicles had it already, like the mercury cougar in the early 80s. It burns cleaner than gas and is more efficient. Albeit not as clean as hydrogen obviously. The only way I could see hydrogen being widely adopted though is if we get over the hump of people being scared about nuclear power and have giant nuclear power electrolosis plants to generate the mass amounts of hydrogen we would need.

Give me one fucking benefit of hydrogen you retard.

>lets build cryogenic infrastructure
>and storages for a superfluid that tends to just soak through any fucking material and evaporate into explosive gas
>while using fuckloads of conventional energy sources to make it out of our normal efficient good fuel
>so we could have the same shit but significantly worse

You dumb fucking mongrels holy shit.
1 - if green energy was actually fucking good people would actually use it, but they don't
2 - cars and vehicles are insignificant compared to power plants and industrial facilities, also aircraft.
motor vehicles are fucking nothing compared to the real power hogs
3 nuclear energy is the only good green energy
4 the politicians and useful idiots scaremonger and push against nuclear only because this is a globalist agenda to ruin the economies of the first world nations.

Because a car crash has enough energy to split an atom

>be average britbong
>name is Muhammad
>don't even need to spread peace anymore
>bus does that for you spontaneously
>tfw unemployed

Attached: Screenshot_20190327_110026.png (662x762, 373K)

Musk is a hack who wants to brazenly cash out on the green energy scam.

But he didn't lie when he claimed that batteries are better than hydrogen.

With a regular fucking engine you make heat energy, turn it into mechanical work and go - very good and efficient you get whopping 36% of the useful energy.

With batteries you turn heat energy at the power plant into work, work into electricity, transfer electricity, use fuckloads of power lines and transformers, then you use a PSU to charge the batteries, discharge the batteries into the motors and go.
Each step involves losses and the losses combine so you use fuckloads more fuel at the power plant than you would in your engine.

But with hydrogen it's even worse.
You take methane that is a fuel in itself.
Then you burn more fuel in a furnace to heat up the methane to the point it separates into carbon and hydrogen.
Then you split hydrogen from it, compress and handle liquid hydrogen which it extremely complicated, expensive and inefficient, then you transport it to the car, and only then you use it as regular fuel.

WOW THAT'S FUCKING DUMB.
Liquid hydrogen is expensive to process and handle, and it can't even be stored because it's a super fluid that soaks through any material and escapes the tank, pump a bottle full of hydrogen and it will simply evaporate through the walls in a couple days.

Oh and the vapors are explosive,

Hydrogen is probably the future. With modest improvements to fuel cell efficiency and hydrogen storage volumetric energy density, a hydrogen powered vehicle can have the same or greater range than a gasoline vehicle. Hydrogen has a huge energy density, by weight which is why rockets use it to get into space, but volumetric energy density needs to improve. Fuel cells are pretty OP though because they can be much more efficient at converting chemical energy to usable work than heat engines, just because of this you can get away with modest improvements in hydrogen storage if you have very efficient fuel cells.
zero emissions does not necessarily result in cleaner air. Tires can emit particulates:
epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sbai_pres.pdf
There is even evidence that the windshield cleaner can contribute to smog.
if only bruh, if only. It's ridiculously fucking hard to fuse pure hydrogen, really the only way to fuse hydrogen is in something the size of the sun.
hydrogen produced from solar power can be shipped up from sunny countries to godawful northern hellholes like the United Kingdom

And because someone's going to eventually bring up hydrogen fires, hydrogen burns very differently from gasoline. Hydrogen being lighter than air, cannot pool on the ground like gasoline does, meaning it makes a big flame plume and doesn't burn the whole car. Pic related
No NOx emissions, no particulate emissions.

Attached: Hydrogen-versus-gasoline-fueled-car.png (960x540, 453K)

As entertaining as the though of the entire city getting levelled at the first car crash is, it sadly doesn't work that way.

It'd be far cheaper if they skipped using that and used LNG instead. Natrual gas is already being used to generate the electric to make the hydrogen and that's a shit load of energy wasted to end up powering a fucking bus. Skip all that waste and just use the LNG.

Not being used in this instance. It is a gas company doing this.

Fuel cells aren't very energy dense. Jet fuel and diesel are far better, we just need a better method of getting the energy out of it instead of wasting a lot of it.

Attached: Energy Density.png (1027x871, 61K)

>burn fossils to produce power in the city
>100% of the produced power generated pollution
vs
>use energy from the grid generated far away from urban centers
>depending on the country a good chunk of that energy wasnt even prodyced with fossils
>less reliance on oil niggers and saudis on top of that

How about we just nuke China and get rid of their 90% of the pollution? We'd also give menial labor jobs back to Americans and Mexicans as well as stop communism and curb some of the population problem.
Seems like an all win no lose situation to me.

>No NOx emissions,
Nitrogen oxides happen in any air breathing engine/furnace because the air is made of nitrogen and it can combine with oxygen when it's very hot.

You get you NOx at the power plant and in the chemical reactor where you make your hydrogen instead, and you get more of them.

>no particulate emissions.
You could run an engine on natural gas too.
It's cheaper, quiter and has benefits.

The reason it's not widespread is because gas is significantly more dangerous to handle than fluid.
>car crash
>the tank fucking explodes

Nuke India. Literally the worst place on earth. Worse than the fucking Saudis in every regard. If the entire country died over night literally nothing of value would have been lost. Quite the opposite, you'd only gain. The Chinese are a close second though.

No. Keep India. They're fun to laugh at.

>Far away from urban centers
It doesn't matter where the plant is, you're still creating carbon emissions.
>depending on the country a good chunk of that energy wasnt even prodyced with fossils
Which ones? The only ones that have a significant "green" power production are France (nuclear) and Iceland (thermal). And that's it.

Hydroplants can power cities too, but you need rivers for that,

there are at least 5 countries with over 95% of their power coming from renewables and a bunch more on the +50% range
the US, a pretty average country when it comes to power generation has 30% on renewables and nuclear, and growing
loses on the powerlines are estimated at around 15% tops, but fuel is no better since you also need to burn fuel to.move it around

if we were using nuclear > electricity > electrolysis, yeah, sure, then it would be clean.

Nice try, Hank

wood gas
its renewable :^)

Attached: 6a00e0099229e8883301a73dcf8196970d-580wi.png (580x432, 594K)

Nuclear>electricity>batteries is literally better as I explained here.

most of those countries that are on "95%" renewable have to rely on neighboring countries to equalize their demand.
or in other words it's just a meme for political brownie points.

The only viable renewable is hydro (not very scalable) and geothermal (location dependant). The rest are memes that push the energy sink farther up the manufacturing line.

In poor areas of Russia you can often find cars modified to run on propane.
Less power but wery cheap, quiet and lasts longer.

The reason propane cars aren't widely ised is that tanks of compressed combuctible gas are fucking dangerous, it could leak and blow up, or it could blow up in the case of a car crash.

Attached: 22821095.jpg (640x498, 53K)

>riding on a literal atomic bomb
Thanks, but no thanks

>liverpool

>>air breathing engine
not fuel cells. Fuel cells don't burn hydrogen.
>>NOx at power plant
Not if your power plant is nuclear, solar, or wind.
>>chemical reactor
wait what? You produce hydrogen via electrolysis of water
>>natural gas
still has particulates
>>significantly more dangerous
by what metric?
Look at your own chart faggot, it clearly says that hydrogen has a higher energy density by mass than gasoline. And while the energy of gasoline is high, you can't use all of the energy of gasoline if you burn it in a heat engine. ICEs in cars are about 25% efficient and thermodynamics says it's hard to approach high efficiencies. Fuel cells can get up to 83% efficiency. Of course work out is going to be a bit less because power electronics and electric motors aren't 100% efficient, but electric motors can be >90% efficient.

wow

Sitting on a fucking hydrogen bomb.

Hydrogen makes sense when you can plan your next refueling, which you obviously can with buses.

Attached: eco groovy.jpg (600x487, 81K)

Creating hydrogen gas from water and electricity is trivial and one of the first things they show in a beginner chemistry class. You just run a small amount of electricity through the water which will produce hydrogen and oxygen gas. Any reasonable solar panel can provide that electricity.
That article is more about drawing water out of the air to make the hydrogen gas which could be useful.

>why don't we just cause nuclear winter

Attached: brainlet machine.png (890x768, 318K)

alright wagies all aboard the 7am hindenburg!

this.
but i guess its fine.
i think if 50% of traffic would by h2 there would be around 10 explosions per year per country.

>more precious resources that will run out in a few decades because the planet is overcrowded in the third world and industries are willingly wasting them
it's nothing
we're going back to the middle ages anyway

This so much.

Hydrogen isn't a source of energy (fossil fuels, coal, solar), it's just an alternative to a battery.

>people being scared about nuclear power
Don't know about your country but the state of nuclear power here in Sweden really scares me. Policy is nuclear power is bad, no-no building new plants. Reality is that 55% of electricity here comes from 3 plants built in the early 80s. Maintaining them is barely allowed because nuclear power bad. Replacing them with new ones isn't allowed because nuclear power bad. Shutting them down is obviously not an option since we _need_ them. They will keep on running until there is an accident. That could easily be avoided by accepting the reality that we need nuclear power but Swedish politicians and Swedes in general seem to be hell-bent on denying reality when it comes to difficult decisions.

Surely nothing bad could possibly happen.

Attached: Hindenburg_disaster.jpg (310x253, 18K)

>So how much coal do they burn to generate the hydrogen?

None.
They make hydrogen from oil. (producing shitload of CO2 in the process though)

I'm sure Finland could sell you guys some electricity once those retarded Frenchies finish constructing those new reactors. Heh heh.

Attached: file.png (506x556, 40K)

Carbon emissions are a meme. Guess what: the earth isn't a closed system you retards.
The only thing that matters is the waste and pollution.

>But for things like Ambulances, Fire Engines, Buses, Police Cars, Taxis, Trucks, Industrial vehicles, etc - vehicles that refuel at least once a day, they're perfect targets for hydrogen.
>Batteries are too slow for those markets but they also aren't affected by Hydrogen's weakness (at least for applications with weight concerns)

I see numerous electric taxi's every day,
I have never seen a hydrogen taxi in my life.

Taxi drivers love electric because it's very cheap: a full charge is just a couple of euro's.
Hydrogen is expensive as hell, costing about the same as gasoline (per km) even though the price of gasoline is >90% taxes.
Hydrogen is also quite slow to refuel: 5 to 10 minutes (faster than the 15-20 minutes for electric, but not by a huge margin and superchargers get faster every year).

>I failed high school chem

What are you on? You think extra CO2 is dissipating into space?

>Policy is nuclear power is bad, no-no building new plants. Reality is that 55% of electricity here comes from 3 plants built in the early 80s. Maintaining them is barely allowed because nuclear power bad. Replacing them with new ones isn't allowed because nuclear power bad.

Same here in the Netherlands.

Except our poorly maintained plant from 1973 is below seal level - what could possibly go wrong?

Attached: pg2xhzna0fz9_wd640.jpg (640x360, 44K)

>tfw you're an idiot

>it's just an alternative to a battery.

A very shitty alternative that loses 70% of the energy you put in.

How?
He is correct.

Sure you can, in theory, also make hydrogen from electricity but that's far too expensive.
The petrochemical industry is the only mass producer of hydrogen. - that's why oil companies like Shell are shilling so hard for hydrogen over electric.

Fuck yeah!

Attached: drstrangelove.gif (500x297, 976K)

>cures global warming
>lowers the numbers of the human pestilence swaming all over, consuming all the resources to a sustainable, eco-friendly level
nothing but upsides

Attached: rly-makes-one-ponder.gif (366x314, 76K)

why tho
there are 1.4 billion chinks
and 1.4 billion poos who dont give a fuck about your wasted money

>I have no sense of humour

>Belgian scientists have develloped a way of creating hydrogen from water with solar panels
Claiming credit for something discovered over 200 years ago, I see.

>That article is more about drawing water out of the air to make the hydrogen gas
It'll suffer all the same problems of other attempts to draw water out of the air, though, won't it? Like being extremely inefficient.

>zero emissions does not necessarily result in cleaner air. Tires can emit particulates:
zero emissions does result in CLEANER air. it does not result in CLEAN air.

OY VEY, SHUT IT DOWN

Burn the coal, pay the toll

Hyrogen fuel cell vehicles, much like gas/electric hybirds, are a lobbyist meme to divert and stall adoption of all-electric powered vehicles.

>Hydrogen isn't a source of energy
What?
Combine H2 and O2, get H2O + electricity

Sounds like a source of energy to me. Solar is the same thing: Photon excites the solar cell and produces electricity.

Attached: alk4.jpg (300x264, 35K)

>Let's just pump water vapor into the atmosphere which is worse of a greenhouse gas than CO2 and CO
Do they even have a loicense for being that retarded?

I don't understand this bit.. Why don't they make hydrogen from nuclear plants through the cooling process?

hydrogen is a means of energy storage. We don't have free hydrogen floating around.

Enough to make the solar/geothermal/wind generator to kickstart the clean production of hydrogen fuel cell.

>Hydrogen fuel is a me-
, mario

-me
Hydrogen has a round-trip efficiency between 40 and 65%. It's barely better than combustion engines.

70-80% efficient just for electrolysis
Then subtract 10+% when converting back into electricity (fuel cells are at-best 90% efficient).

Hydrogen is a meme replacement for batteries.
I will wait for cheap lipos

>Energy density by mass
Check out the energy density by volume. Gonna hate to break it to ya, but gasoline wins there.

and uh... how are you able to compare round trip efficiency of hydrogen with gasoline?

Why not just burn natural gas to power the cars and buses like Vegas does

I guess that wouldn't look so good in the advertising since it would produce that demonic substance.

Extraction of oil, processing, burning in a combustion engine.

show me the math faggot.

Not certain about extraction but refining is 85% efficient and gas piston engines are on average 25% efficient (the highest achieved was 38%, not something you would see in a vehicle). Production turbines are up to 60% efficient.
We'll consider piston engines though:
0.85*0.25=0.2125 or 21.5% efficient.
Hydrogen is ~25% efficient on the low end, the math is explained here: youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY

*21.25% for piston, mistyped

>36%
>efficient
you're literally wasting the vast majority of your energy doing nothing