• SupraMario@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Because that’s not the point, hydrogen is the most abundant fuel we have access to. The idea that we shouldn’t be using it is just dumb. It’s what’s more than likely going to fuel our ships to other planets eventually. It’s one of the reasons finding water on planets and moons is a big deal. The thought from the battery crew that we shouldn’t pursue hydrogen is just stupid.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      We did pursue it. Batteries won for common use cases. There may yet be niches where it’s useful, but they’ll be the exception.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        We’re still pursuing it. Batteries do not work for basically anything other than average passenger vehicles in the city or near cities. They do not work in construction, they do not work for heavy equipment, long haulers or even large sea vessels…they do not work for shit in aircraft that carry anything other than itself or tiny payloads…and they really are pointless for any sort of space propulsion. A mixed energy planet is what is needed, not this “batteries are the end all be all” thought so many of you have.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Most of the items you mention are being overtaken by better batteries. Long haul trucking batteries will likely be at cost parity with diesel trucks this year. Big cargo ships should probably go to SMRs. Airplanes no longer look as out of reach as they once appeared.

          Space flight is such a specialized use case. Of course hydrogen will be the predominant fuel there. More because there’s limited options than anything else.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            None of what you have is being done on a large scale because it doesn’t scale. Batteries are good for basically close cities where range isn’t an issue and super chargers are easily accessible. Everywhere else they do not hold up. You will never see a battery operated crane or some farm equipment, it’s just not possible with our current tech. If batteries magically decrease in weight, cost way less, are rechargeable in 5mins from basically and 110/120 outlet then sure, but for everything that isn’t some nice paved road and a semi short trip, it’s not happening.

          • SoGrumpy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Long haul trucking batteries will likely be at cost parity with diesel trucks this year.

            We have 2 electric Volvo FHs with everything else speced exactly like my diesel powered Volvo FH 500 turbo compound (gearbox, final drive, tyres, cab/cab equipment). With my 1265 litre tanks, I go about 4000 kilometres - load dependant - against their max 300 kilometre range - also load dependant. It takes me 15 minutes at a fast pump to fill the tanks. It takes the EVs 30 minutes to get to 80% on a fast-charger. They cost more than double my ICE to purchase. The price has a long way to fall, ignoring the range completely. Battery powered trucks are only good for the ‘last mile’ deliveries, everything else needs to be hydrogen powered.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Weight is always an issue, who told you it isn’t? And sounds like you know something these engineers don’t.

            • Ilovethebomb
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Some locomotives alone weigh hundreds of tonnes, while weight is an issue, it’s less of an issue than most applications.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Yep, but you’re suggesting that a train which with a diesel motor that weighs that much, wouldn’t be an issue with batteries. If you are going electric, skip the batteries and go over head tram lines and be done with it.

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    And you think a train full of batteries is going to be able to do what a fuel locomotive can?

    • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      hydrogen is not a fuel. You have to make it, and you always get less energy out than you put into doing so.

      It’s a very inefficient battery. On a vehicle that has no weight concerns.

    • Ilovethebomb
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah, but it’s attached to other molecules, and it’s really hard to separate the stuff.

      Hydrogen is a really shitty and inefficient battery, it would be cheaper, easier, and more efficient to just put batteries on the train.

        • Ilovethebomb
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Overhead lines are almost as expensive as laying the track in the first place though.

          • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Not if you do it simultaneously… cost is higher than just rail, but rains wouldn’t have range limits at all, and would weigh less, meaning less energy used to accelerate (and better emergency brake response).

            I’m very pro EV, but even more a fan of distributed power systems that aren’t chemical based.

              • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                We can consider it a relatively straightforward upgrade to the system though. Definitely more expensive than upgrading individual trainsets to h2 or lithium, and nowhere near as quick… But it could be staged, or just the mainlines.

                Imagine mainlines get electrified so EV or h2 trains use none of their onboard energy, until they start getting onto the unelectrified branches.

                • Ilovethebomb
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  That’s exactly what New Zealand is doing with battery electric trains, the plan is for them to run on batteries once they get beyond the overhead line network, to service areas where it’s not worthwhile to have overhead lines.

                  Not with hydrogen trains though, that’s a dead end technology.

                  • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    I’m inclined to agree re: h2, though at least with trains it kinda could work, maybe. They tend to come back to similar yards all over the place.

                    Hydrogen cars is just… Don’t.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            It trades off expensive up front costs for having cheaper train engines. Which is better if you want high volume with many runs per day. Which is what trains are best at in the first place.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yea totally why large companies are still pursuing it, apparently you and all the EV fanboys know something they don’t.

        Also you saying it’s really hard to do something is like the same people who said we shouldn’t be flying, it’s to hard. That’s not how innovation works. To you eating raw meat and living in caves is where humanity should have stopped apparently, because everything else is hard to do.