Navistar, GM, OneH2 Combine Forces For Long-Haul Hydrogen-Electric Trucks (cnet.com) 53
Thelasko shares a report from CNET: Navistar, the company formerly known as International Harvester, announced on Wednesday that it's partnering with GM and OneH2 for a "complete solution for customer implementation of a zero-emission long-haul system," which is a fancy way of saying an entire ecosystem devoted to electric trucking. The group will work together on the trucks themselves, in addition to the ancillary stuff required to keep them operating.
It starts with the trucks, which in this case will be International RH Series hydrogen fuel-cell electric trucks. Each RH Series semi will get two GM Hydrotec fuel cell power cubes, each of which contains more than 300 hydrogen fuel cells in addition to the management systems that run the whole show. Navistar plans to have these trucks ready for commercial purchase in the 2024 model year, with test models operating in a pilot phase by the end of 2022. The hope is that these trucks will pack a range of 500 miles or more with a fueling time of less than 15 minutes and Navistar hopes that its propulsion system will sport a per-mile cost similar to diesel.
When it comes to the fuel itself, that's where OneH2 comes into play. Navistar will rely on the company for the production, storage and safe delivery of the compressed hydrogen required to power the trucks. To deepen the partnership, Navistar announced that it will purchase a minority stake in OneH2, as well. OneH2 doesn't just deal in gas-station-style fill up locations; the company has a mobile fueling solution, too, which should help in the early stages as the US' hydrogen fuel infrastructure is still very much in its infancy. [...] Navistar has chosen J.B. Hunt Transport to be in charge of its vehicles during the pilot program. J.B. Hunt, a name you've likely seen on the highway, will put Navistar's GM-powered International models on dedicated routes to see how these vehicles perform in place of traditional diesel-powered semi trucks.
It starts with the trucks, which in this case will be International RH Series hydrogen fuel-cell electric trucks. Each RH Series semi will get two GM Hydrotec fuel cell power cubes, each of which contains more than 300 hydrogen fuel cells in addition to the management systems that run the whole show. Navistar plans to have these trucks ready for commercial purchase in the 2024 model year, with test models operating in a pilot phase by the end of 2022. The hope is that these trucks will pack a range of 500 miles or more with a fueling time of less than 15 minutes and Navistar hopes that its propulsion system will sport a per-mile cost similar to diesel.
When it comes to the fuel itself, that's where OneH2 comes into play. Navistar will rely on the company for the production, storage and safe delivery of the compressed hydrogen required to power the trucks. To deepen the partnership, Navistar announced that it will purchase a minority stake in OneH2, as well. OneH2 doesn't just deal in gas-station-style fill up locations; the company has a mobile fueling solution, too, which should help in the early stages as the US' hydrogen fuel infrastructure is still very much in its infancy. [...] Navistar has chosen J.B. Hunt Transport to be in charge of its vehicles during the pilot program. J.B. Hunt, a name you've likely seen on the highway, will put Navistar's GM-powered International models on dedicated routes to see how these vehicles perform in place of traditional diesel-powered semi trucks.
Relay drivers? (Score:1)
So what is the plan for drivers?
500 miles is about 8 hours on the road at 60 MPH, a reasonably efficient speed. So are they going to just swap drivers during the 15 minute refuel?
Seems like a lot of effort in terms of infrastructure and distribution when they could just move the trailer to another vehicle with some big batteries.
Re:Relay drivers? (Score:5, Informative)
Remember that truck drivers are required to take a break from driving in the USA.
"Drivers must take a 30-minute break when they have driven for a period of 8 cumulative hours without at least a 30-minute interruption. "
So sometime in the 11 hours a driver can drive each day (after 10 hours off duty previously) they will have to stop for 30 minutes, within 8 hours fo starting. This fits exactly with needing to stop after 500 miles (or earlier if you want) to fill your truck up with hydrogen.
Truckers, during their working day in the USA, have to stop sometime in the middle for 30 minutes. With this scheme, so does their truck (though the truck only needs 15 minutes to refuel).
No problem.
The US Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has a clear explanation here: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regu... [dot.gov]
Re:Relay drivers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. And even 500 miles is optimistic for hydrogen. As a reminder, this [hackaday.com] is Hyundai's prototype. And it only gets 400km / 250 miles range. You can go to higher pressures to lower your density, but it makes your tanks disproportionately heavier and complicates fueling. High volume (truck-scale), high pressure filling is (at present) actually rather slow (due to heat issues), although there's work on cooling approaches to solve this. And let's not forget that hydrogen vehicles don't simply require tanks and fuel cells (and corresponding air intake / filtration / cooling systems, etc), but also (surprisingly sizable) li-ion battery buffers as well (capacity is of course lower than a BEV, but the mass and cost gains on that are partially offset by needing higher power cells with shallower DoDs).
Even before you get into the ridiculous price and efficiency figures and all of the environmental and safety issues it presents, hydrogen is just a terrible "solution" to any form of road transport.
BTW, you don't need to move trailers to a different vehicle; 30-minutes-to-80% is rather slow for fast-charging batteries today, and truck drivers in the US are required to have 30 minute stops once per shift (in Europe, it's 45 minutes every 4,5 hours). If one shift consumes less than ~80% of your charge, you're golden.
(Of course, we're promoting the myth that most trucking is long-haul, when in actuality it's only a small fraction - and falling)
Re:Relay drivers? (Score:4, Insightful)
** Hydrogen leaks through almost anything. It embrittles metals. It pools under overhangs in explosive mixtures, and if / when it escapes, it destroys ozone. It enters roof-mounted pipes and follows them to their destinations, pooling there. Confined environments, such as tunnels, make problems worse. It ignites in almost any fuel-air mixture, with about 1/10th the ignition energy of gasoline fumes or natural gas (minor static discharges or common household electronics can ignite it). It burns all of its energy off at once, rather than a slow-burn from a puddle such as with gasoline (diesel is hard to burn at all). It readily undergoes deflagration-to-detonation transitions (fireball-to-explosion) - indeed, the ignition of a leak of just a couple kilograms from a hydrogen fueling station in Norway was intense enough to detonate the airbags of a passing car on a nearby road. It burns invisibly. The mere pressures that it's stored at would be bad enough even if all that was being stored was air.
The capital, energy, storage, and transport costs are huge. Energy is the biggest, and while there are proposals to make hydrogen with "surplus" electricity in high-renewables grids during peak times, there's lots of other industries that would also like that electricity if it becomes consistently available to the same degree of capacity factors that hydrogen needs, and most EV charging is done at off-peak times regardless. The fuel cell cycle consumes about 3x more energy than EVs. As mentioned, FCEVs still need batteries, but you also add the need for actually rare metals like platinum. You complicate your powertrain, and with that, maintenance (fuel cell stacks also tend to have shorter lifespans than batteries, and are significantly more expensive). Winter poses a whole new set of complications - not just for vehicles, but for others (some hydrogen vehicles deal with frosting by storing up the water output and then "peeing it" out all at once - but of course, that will then freeze into a patch of smooth ice)
It's just nonsense.
Re:Relay drivers? (Score:4, Informative)
** Hydrogen leaks through almost anything.
Except for the materials that are actually used.
It pools under overhangs in explosive mixtures, and if / when it escapes, it destroys ozone.
Hydrogen that escapes rises to the top of the atmosphere very quickly. At that point, it literally continues going up and leaves the planet on solar winds. There is zero environmental impact of an H2 "spill".
It enters roof-mounted pipes and follows them to their destinations, pooling there.
Site an example. I don't think that this has ever happened.
Confined environments, such as tunnels, make problems worse. It ignites in almost any fuel-air mixture, with about 1/10th the ignition energy of gasoline fumes or natural gas (minor static discharges or common household electronics can ignite it). It burns all of its energy off at once, rather than a slow-burn from a puddle such as with gasoline (diesel is hard to burn at all). It readily undergoes deflagration-to-detonation transitions (fireball-to-explosion) - indeed, the ignition of a leak of just a couple kilograms from a hydrogen fueling station in Norway was intense enough to detonate the airbags of a passing car on a nearby road. It burns invisibly.
Yes, H2 has energy, but the "explosion" is not a "high explosive". The incident in Norway caused no injuries, and not a lot of damage. BEV explosions emit toxic gasses. Gasoline does not explode, until it is vapor, and then it does well. H2 is buoyant, while gas vapors and propane vapors settle and concentrate. ... enough ... You can argue that H2 is too expensive to produce and handle and get some traction. Don't try to make up negatives that just don't exist.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Even then, but just slower. But its ability to leak readily makes unanticipated and damage or aging-related leaks more common and more extreme.
Not through an overhang it doesn't. FYI, according to NASA's hydrogen handling safety guidelines, buildings that handle hydrogen have to have a roof that's designed to be blown off in an explosion.
Re: (Score:2)
** lower blast per unit energy vs. traditional high explosives
Re:Relay drivers? (Score:5, Informative)
> High volume (truck-scale), high pressure filling is (at present) actually rather slow (due to heat issues), although there's work on cooling approaches to solve this.
I have some hands-on experience in the design, construction and operation of compressed natural gas fueling stations, so I can maybe offer some useful commentary here. I'll also preface this by saying I recognize Hydrogen likely has a role in a sustainable, renewable energy economy, but the importance of that role is IMO way overblown and overhyped. That said, long-range trucking is one of those applications I think is appropriate if it pans out.
Heat is not a super significant impediment to compressed gas refueling. Yes, it's a factor, but not a deal breaker by any stretch.
The compression takes place largely before the vehicle ever gets there, with the gaseous fuel getting stored in heavy steel tanks. For a CNG station with a 3600 PSIG vehicle fill pressure, the storage tanks will typically be set around 4000 PSIG with safety valves between 4500-5000 PSIG. I imagine Hydrogen would operate at similar proportions even if the operating pressures are different.
Storage is typically split into "banks" - high, mid and low. High bank storage gets priority and is the first to be filled by the compressors, so it's always at the highest pressure. Mid and low bank storage follow. High bank sometimes has the lowest total volume as well - for example, it's not unusual for there to be 6 storage vessels, 1 high, 2 mid and 3 low.
When a vehicle hooks up to refuel, the dispenser connects the vehicle directly to low bank and the pressure gradient between storage and vehicle tanks does all the work. When the dispenser detects that the flow drops below some minimum, it switches to mid bank (which is always at a higher pressure than low bank) and fueling continues. By the time it switches to high bank, the vehicle should almost be full and you're just "topping it off."
If there's been a lot of use and high bank isn't enough to complete the fueling, the compressor will start to fill the vehicle directly. That's a lost resort, and is slow as hell, though it does happen. Otherwise the compressor works slow and steady to refill the storage vessels based on preset pressure targets.
Because of all this, the heat of compression is fairly minimal. The vehicle storage tanks may warm up a bit, but it's nowhere near what it would be if the gas was coming straight from the compressor. The heat of compression has already been removed by the compressor's intercoolers and from sitting in the storage tanks.
I've been present during the refueling of CNG school buses and garbage trucks, and it takes 2-3 minutes if the storage pressure is adequate. Maybe as long as 10 if you're last in line and have to fill directly from the compressors. "Time fill" is also a thing - if the vehicle is to be parked for any length of time, they can be hooked up directly to the compressor and left there. Time fill can be prioritized based on time of day (e.g. priority overnight so any connected vehicles are full and ready to go by morning) and usually takes hours as there are dozens of vehicles sharing the compressor's output. At those time scales the tanks practically don't get above ambient temp at all.
=Smidge=
Re: Relay drivers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That said, long-range trucking is one of those applications I think is appropriate if it pans out.Ships and trains, sure. Probably not trucks and definitely not long range - battery technology will continue to become more and more compact whereas hydrogen containment and storage can only advance so much until we've maxed out the possibilities.
Besides, invisible fucking flames for fuck sakes; fuck that shit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm familiar with this. You're at 350 bar. I'm not talking about 350 bar systems; I'm talking about 700 bar systems for heavy-duty vehicle as they stand today. It's surely solvable, but as things stand, no 700 bar fast fueling system is approved heavy-duty H2 vehicles (unless something's changed in the past ~6 months since I last checked) because of heating issues. There are working groups specifically focused on this problem.
If you have something that suggests otherwise, I'd be glad to see it.
(Remember th
Re: (Score:1)
truck drivers in the US are required to have 30 minute stops once per shift
After 8 hours, which is not necessarily the same thing.
Re: (Score:1)
So what is the plan for drivers?
These trucks are scheduled to hit the road in 2024. By then, long haul trucks should be driverless.
Seems like a lot of effort in terms of infrastructure and distribution
Indeed. It is silly to build an entire new infrastructure for something that, according to the summary, has no cost advantage over diesel.
Batteries seem like a much better way to go.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod +1 funny. You realize 2024 is three years away right? No, sorry we aren't close to self-driving long-haul trucks no matter what the Simpsons say. Have you driven a class 8 truck with a full load in traffic or in mountainous terrain?
And no, batteries are not a much better way to go. Not even close. Why would you think that? At best a hybrid electric approach in mountainous terrain would have benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries seem like a much better way to go.
Batteries have energy densities that are 1% of diesel fuel by mass. That makes them a very poor way to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Assume a diesel engine has 1/10th the efficiency of an electric motor, that still means 10 times the mass needed in batteries for the same energy output to the wheels. Assume 100 kg of fuel carried on a typical over the road truck to move cargo, that means one ton of batteries to move that same cargo. Assume one ton of fuel on a typical over the road truck, that means
Re: (Score:2)
I think having a whole different cab staged and ready to relay cargo, and having to leave their discharged cab behind to charge would be more complicated than just having a human waiting at a truck stop at about the right time.
That said, this doesn't look to be cost advantaged compared to diesel, is more inconvenient due to limited infrastructure, and whatever shortcomings electric trucks might have when they initially launch are very likely to be overcome well before the infrastructure for H2 could take ho
Re: (Score:3)
How long does it take to fill a diesel long haul truck? I would assume that it would take at least 10 minutes to fill one already so the extra 5 minutes for filling a hydrogen unit doesn't seem all that outrageous to me.
Re: (Score:2)
So are they going to just swap drivers during the 15 minute refuel?
Not mentioned here, but the other big technology project for the trucking industry is to get rid of the drivers altogether. Autonomous trucking. [landline.media]
Lol Navistar (Score:4, Interesting)
They forgot how to make a decent ICE so they have to go all in on Hydrogen.
The 6.0 and 6.4 liter diesel V8s that cost Ford literally millions in warranty repairs were made by Navistar. Then Ford made their own 6.7 V8 and it's... actually OK. Not a total fucking lemon like Navistar's.
They also made my pre-powerstroke 7.3 that died of cylinder pinholing due to cavitation.
I predict they will make garbage H2 systems, too.
Re: (Score:2)
They forgot how to make a decent ICE so they have to go all in on Hydrogen.
The 6.0 and 6.4 liter diesel V8s that cost Ford literally millions in warranty repairs were made by Navistar. Then Ford made their own 6.7 V8 and it's... actually OK. Not a total fucking lemon like Navistar's.
They also made my pre-powerstroke 7.3 that died of cylinder pinholing due to cavitation.
I predict they will make garbage H2 systems, too.
Yeah, those baby diesels they were making were god awful. Their bigger ones are a little better, but even then they always have issues. My best friend's a mechanic and during his coursework, he actively chose to take Navistar specific training. Not because he liked their engines (hint, he hates them), because he knew he'd never be for want of employ as those engines have so many issues.
Of course, what do you expect from the company that made the heaviest consumer vehicle [wikipedia.org]...
Re: Lol Navistar (Score:2)
They made one truly great engine package from 1994 to 1997, called the DT466PLN. Everything else blows.
Re: (Score:2)
They made one truly great engine package from 1994 to 1997, called the DT466PLN. Everything else blows.
Proof that even a blind squirrel can find a nut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GM seems to be blowing their nest-egg on bad investments, starting with Nikola and leading to this pile of dead technologies
Sounds like a great idea /s (Score:3)
By 2024 the Tesla Semi should be in some form of production and hopefully others. As a driver would I rather drive in something with batteries something with a huge fricking BOMB strapped to my truck?
Why go with all of this insane extra infrastructure that is dangerous as F rather than work on pure electrification? YOu need tons of electricity to make the hydrogen and then you have to transport it and turn it back into electricity. The inefficiency and you know BOMBS involved just seem like a really bad idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that lithium-ion batteries can have some pretty spectacular catastrophic failures, too, right?
And it's not like driving around with tanks of liquid petrochemical fuels is completely safe, either.
Ultimately, all of these methods are trying to cram huge amounts of energy into small volumes. The energy density in all these cases rivals that of explosives. It's impressive t
Re: (Score:2)
Li-ion failures tend to be runaway burns, I don't recall seeing an explosion involving one. Diesel doesn't burn particularly well and even gasoline does not usually involve large explosions, although it can happen. Not the case with any compressed gas.
Doesn't really matter since economically this is a complete non starter.
Re: (Score:2)
By 2024 the Tesla Semi should be in some form of production and hopefully others. As a driver would I rather drive in something with batteries something with a huge fricking BOMB strapped to my truck?
Any storage of that much energy is potentially a bomb. See the Ford Pinto, [wikipedia.org] and the Tesla Model S. [engadget.com]
You might argue that hydrogen is more explosive. However, it's not. Hydrogen, like gasoline, is limited in it's reactivity by its ability to mix with oxygen. The biggest concern with any chemical energy source is the reactant pre-mixes with its oxidizer and is then ignited. That's when bad stuff happens. It helps that gasoline is more dense than air. However, hydrogen is much less dense than air. Ther
Cost and distribution are the issues (Score:2)
The hope is that these trucks will pack a range of 500 miles or more with a fueling time of less than 15 minutes
As I comment above, that's good and sufficient.
When it comes to the fuel itself, that's where OneH2 comes into play. Navistar will rely on the company for the production, storage and safe delivery of the compressed hydrogen required to power the trucks.
That's good because this is going to be necessary. On the other hand, trucks spend nearly all their time on interstates (and a few major state highways) so the amount of places you have to install the hydrogen fuelling places is limited. The map is going to look like the Tesla supercharger map: a string of dots along the major interstates and some more dots around big cities.
and Navistar hopes that its propulsion system will sport a per-mile cost similar to diesel.
That's the problem. Currently hydrogen is produced from natural gas and is several time
Re: (Score:2)
...but it won't happen without a sudden technological development making hydrogen really cheap or regulatory forcing.
Regulatory forcing has it's limits since people won't vote themselves to starvation to keep diesel trucks from delivering food.
If we know how to make inexpensive and zero carbon hydrogen then we are one small step from synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels that are net zero carbon and competitive with petroleum fuels. To store hydrogen takes expensive pressurized tanks, to store a hydrocarbon fuel takes inexpensive steel tanks. Tanks that already exist, and are part of a hydrocarbon distribution system.
If we ge
Not Zero Emission! (Score:2)
While it sets the path for zero emission long haul trucking, this definitely is NOT ZERO EMISSION - the tech OneH2 uses is pretty shrouded, but 95% of hydrogen produced today is with fossil fuels. If you look at the press release and the partners of the project- there are no green energy producers, the project is led by Buckeye Partners- a fund whose major holdings are in (surprise!) Liquid Petroleum- from one of the press releases about Buckeye Partners: "...primarily consisting of the transportation, stor
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a storage medium. Whether it can be produced cleanly is a separate question. The answer is, it can.
I dispute the "complete solution for customer implementation of a zero-emission long-haul system." Without the base energy source, it is not an ecosystem. This really is a bid by a LNG producer to expand their customer base. Yes, we have no clue about the source/production of the raw materials for the trucks, but this is put forth as a "green" alternative- when it is mostly just shifting around inefficiencies.
I want the option of fuel cells. I really hope that part succeeds, however I dislike the greenwashi
Where do they get off? (Score:1)
I do not understand how these people get off on calling electric vehicles "zero emission".
"Zero Emission at instantaneous point of use" perhaps, but certainly not zero emission. Granted, you only have to burn twice as much fossil fuels to produce the electricity which allows these moving points of "zero emissions", but the "back end make it go" part generates significantly more emissions due to the inherent inefficiencies of the system.
Then there is the emissions and associated with obtaining the poisonous
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Where do they get off? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you need to back up with some details.
Speaking to the charging issue, sure, many electric plants are still burning fossil fuel, but by far not all. Nuclear, solar, and wind would be zero emission.
Of the power plants that do use fossil fuel, there's more flexibility empowering those power plants to be about twice as efficient at extracting useful energy as the internal combustion engine in cars. Getting the electricity from power plant to car does incur losses, but no where near enough to make up for the doubling in extracting energy from the fuel by doing it in a power plant.
Further, we actually have better chances at scrubbing and capturing exhaust at a power plant than in a vehicle. So those emissions may be greatly mitigated compared to what we can realistically do in a vehicle.
An electric vehicle also doesn't have to throw all the energy away when slowing down, regenerative braking is a great efficiency boost.
Also, by having the energy generation decoupled from the vehicle, we have a better opportunity to migrate how the energy is extracted.
Now in terms of the materials used in the batteries, that is a worthy topic and shockingly, an area where a lot of research and development is going to use different materials. Even so, I don't think that the manufacture of the current technology is quite as bad as you portray it.
"It starts with the trucks" - Wrong (Score:3)
Hydrogen-powered vehicles are relatively easily. Lots of companies have prototyped one and driven it around for their marketing demos. But as Tesla has proved, focusing on the refueling stations early is how to achieve scale. This lesson seems largely lost on traditional companies like GM. OneH2 has been around for six years, and has about 30 employees. Can they build a national consumer-ready hydrogen distribution network?
Re: (Score:3)
It's a bit different for haulage because they have depots, so they don't need so many locations.
80KW (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Figure this. A gallon of diesel contains 40kWh of energy. A semi gets about 6 MPG at 60MPH, thus burning 10 gallons of fuel per hour, which come to an average power of 400kW. Electric is probably about 2-3 times more efficient than diesel, so 133kW - 200kW is about the electric power needed to continuously operate a semi. It may need more going up hill, maybe there is some battery storage.
Re: (Score:2)
160 KW is 218 horsepower. And that's not out of line for truck engine sizes.
no to navistar (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.autonews.com/artic... [autonews.com]
Navistar refused to learn from abnormal failure rates and fix the problems. Ford pre-maturely ended the contract and designed their own engine for their super-duty line. This does not give me any confidence that Navistar can develop a new technology that works and lasts. Give it a decade on the road before someone else gets the bugs worked out.
A better way to use Hydrogen ... (Score:3)
as a high energy density source is NH3. Ammonia has more hydrogen per unit volume than liquid Hydrogen, believe it or not. NH3 can be catalyzed to burn with O2 to form N2 and H2O. It takes far less to compress Ammonia to a liquid than it does Hydrogen gas. No need for insulated tanks that are constantly leaking H2.
Farming is nothing more than using land to convert oil into food.~ Dr. Alfred Bartlett
No oil, no food. Presently. However, farmers are already familiar with handling NH3 and the manufacturing and delivery infrastructure is already in place to service farmers. Ammonia as a fuel is explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y_2Z_VwFNc
In 1981 a car running on Ammonia was demonstrated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And today, Carbon free, 75 cents per gallon isn't a bad price:
https://www.greennh3.com/ [greennh3.com]
But, CO2 is a plant food. As CO2 rises in the atmosphere the planet is greening up. Reduce it to per-industrial levels and the deserts will grow again. Take your pick. TINSTAAFL
Bad idea. Hydrogen sucks as a fuel (Score:3)
Get educated
https://youtu.be/qOntMxYA29U?t... [youtu.be] skips to the relevant part for those with little time or short attention spans
https://youtu.be/qOntMxYA29U [youtu.be] same video but starts at the beginning.
tldw;
96% of the Hydrogen used in the world today is made from fossil fuels, usually natural gas, in a process that uses a bunch of energy to crack the hydrocarbons into pure H2, which also releases the Carbon in the for of CO2. To get Hydrogen you have to put more energy into getting it than you can get out of it. Simple thermo dynamics.
The other methods of producing Hydrogen are so inefficient that even using the classic stand by, electrolysis of water using electricity from wind or solar is a net loss. You would get more work if you used the electricity to charge batteries directly.
Another video that is not directly relevant to this since it focuses on Hydrogen as a fuel in internal combustion engines but still has lots of useful info about Hydrogen as a fuel in general.
30 minutes, get a coffee and some snacks before clicking this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
To get Hydrogen you have to put more energy into getting it than you can get out of it. Simple thermo dynamics.
Nope and nope, as ghermodynamics has nothing to do with "making hydrogen", regardless how you do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen, the fuel, is standing backup centralized distribution, capital intensive industry and the network obsoleted by electrons in the olde petro-economy. That choke point in production reestablishes profiteering in distribution.
The real money is made in delivery, ~4%, which enables producers to approach 0% to make it in the transport side of the business. Even though, Hydrogen does fill the niche for large and mass transit in way that battery would be weight prohibitive.
Already, at this early start stag