Consider getting a bike that you can't charge anywhere.

Everything can seem impossible or impractical until it becomes mainstream.
Until folks start to realize that self-sustainability is more important than being mainstream; every non-mainstream idea would remain impractical.
On the plus side, if you have a hydrogen vehicle, less likely to have it stolen if thieves can't fill the hydrogen tank easily.

I'll keep working on getting my house off-grid as much as I can.
One can't have enough 50 gal. water drums for free.
Remember the "Challenger" consider H2 embrittlement,Popular Science did a real good writeup on the H2 future in the seventies( right after their format change) If People could get grip and tell Big Ag to shove it and tell Big Petrol to start selling to the infernal, methane and alcohol and of course BEVs( powered by Clean Fission) we would have a chance for the future, while the population keeps exploding Petroleum seems to be the default till it becomes unaffordable.
We are sort of like Lemmings we like to follow the masses into suicide a few bearded Gurus will not save us.
 
For the foreseeable future hydrogen is a technology that is not going to achieve any level of mass use. And for some pretty ironclad reasons. Namely the fueling stations mean manufacturers will not be selling tech that people can't use and therefore don't want to buy. If you have a fixed fleet and can have your own dedicated refill station in your motor pool parking lot (for example a garbage truck fleet or similar where everything starts and stops at the same place every day) that is the only remaining path to feasibility. And even then you have to deal with the safety concerns inherent in storing pressurized hydrogen (i.e. 'Boom').


View attachment 9215

Even if you had your own multi-million-dollar hydrogen fueling station, the economics of powering your fleet with hydrogen doesn't pencil out, your costs would be astronomical compared to simply installing solar panels and having a pure electric fleet. Hydrogen is nothing more than an energy storage medium. And hydrogen powered vehicles still need a (smaller) battery pack for instantaneous power needs. For example, the hydrogen powered bicycle that is the subject of this thread has a 150 Wh battery. The manufacturer doesn't give the weight of the bike but I believe it's pushing 100 pounds. That would be heavy for a hardtail, even if it were pure electric and had a 150 Km battery.

I just don't see the advantage here. If you're worried about charging speed at the end of your ride, just swap a new battery in. Hydrogen is dumb for cars and bikes when we have such good pure electric ones that cost less and have more performance and less maintenance/longer lifespan. Hydrogen fuel cells degrade more than batteries over the same time period.
 
Even if you had your own multi-million-dollar hydrogen fueling station, the economics of powering your fleet with hydrogen doesn't pencil out, your costs would be astronomical compared to simply installing solar panels and having a pure electric fleet. Hydrogen is nothing more than an energy storage medium. And hydrogen powered vehicles still need a (smaller) battery pack for instantaneous power needs. For example, the hydrogen powered bicycle that is the subject of this thread has a 150 Wh battery. The manufacturer doesn't give the weight of the bike but I believe it's pushing 100 pounds. That would be heavy for a hardtail, even if it were pure electric and had a 150 Km battery.

I just don't see the advantage here. If you're worried about charging speed at the end of your ride, just swap a new battery in. Hydrogen is dumb for cars and bikes when we have such good pure electric ones that cost less and have more performance and less maintenance/longer lifespan. Hydrogen fuel cells degrade more than batteries over the same time period.
We agree, as I said in my posts, that hydrogen has no place in the consumer vehicle space :)
 
152D236C-2A93-4390-8DD8-F4500D29BACD.jpeg
 
If we get to the point we can tap the "zeropoint energy" we will not even need this.Teslas dream magnified, the physicists say "ZP" energy is a thing, judging from the performance of the "UAPs" someone must already know how to do this. However the wireless energy from space would be a good thing if not weaponized.
 
What you see burning is the basically "guncotton exterior' and gas bags, the hydrogen flame is basically in visible( ever watch the main engines on that disaster called the STS?)the old Nazi was right that thing killed 2 crews.Spoiler do not fly an aluminum airplane into space and put the crew cabin aheasd of the explosive parts( was actually originally planned that way) reuse the "SRBs"? fuggetabout it.
The envelope on the "Dirigible may not have been 'guncotten' it was 'doped with somekind of an extremely flammable agent, we could have prevented this had we not had an embargo of selling the Germsns Helium.
 
I would like to ask them why they think this will ever be viable. Such a waste of resources when it doesn't even come close to comparing to a pure electric. Hydrogen may be abundant, but it takes huge amounts of other forms of energy to purify and compress it into a form we can use. Therefore, hydrogen is simply a very expensive way to store electricity for later use. A battery lasts longer, costs less, and is far more efficient.

They must know these things, maybe they are just milking a government grant or something?
 
I would like to ask them why they think this will ever be viable. Such a waste of resources when it doesn't even come close to comparing to a pure electric. Hydrogen may be abundant, but it takes huge amounts of other forms of energy to purify and compress it into a form we can use. Therefore, hydrogen is simply a very expensive way to store electricity for later use. A battery lasts longer, costs less, and is far more efficient.

They must know these things, maybe they are just milking a government grant or something?
Because hydrogen is free. It can be used for direct power or as a generator.

Compare that to the mining of lithium, cobalt and other chemicals needed for electric and it is more viable in some key ways.

It’s just that it isn’t supported as much as electric is at the moment.
 
Personally, I do not have very strong opinions against (or for) hydrogen as a means of energy storage. in some cases it can be a very good solution and - as always - I am cautious about dismissing it as nonsense. In the Faroe Islands, for example, excess sustainable energy produced is used to create compressed hydrogen reserves for ferries (see HUGE project).

The advantage is the very high energy density (about 40kWh/kg at 700 psi, vs. 0-.1 - 0.25 kWh/kg for batteries, but not that good in terms of kWh/liter), the low environmental impact of production, the wide temperature range, and the long shelf life. The disadvantages as a general competitor to batteries have already been discussed.

Certainly the argument changes with regard to sustainable road mobility: too diverse and widespread to predict a future dominated by Hydrogen instead of batteries. If I had to bet (but I never bet :) ...) I predict that it may become a niche solution for certain modes of transportation. Not for ebikes though because of the complication..
 
Because hydrogen is free. It can be used for direct power or as a generator.

Compare that to the mining of lithium, cobalt and other chemicals needed for electric and it is more viable in some key ways.

It’s just that it isn’t supported as much as electric is at the moment.
Hydrogen is no more free than any other resource.
Blue hydrogen —produced from natural gas paired with carbon capture and storage — costs between US$5 to 7 per kg in the US, and $7 to 11 in Europe and Australia. Green hydrogen produced through electrolysis using renewable power costs US$10-15 per kg , depending on availability
 
I would like to ask them why they think this will ever be viable. Such a waste of resources when it doesn't even come close to comparing to a pure electric. Hydrogen may be abundant, but it takes huge amounts of other forms of energy to purify and compress it into a form we can use. Therefore, hydrogen is simply a very expensive way to store electricity for later use. A battery lasts longer, costs less, and is far more efficient.

They must know these things, maybe they are just milking a government grant or something?
just burn the dang methane( total carbon output the same)
 
Personally, I do not have very strong opinions against (or for) hydrogen as a means of energy storage. in some cases it can be a very good solution and - as always - I am cautious about dismissing it as nonsense. In the Faroe Islands, for example, excess sustainable energy produced is used to create compressed hydrogen reserves for ferries (see HUGE project).

The advantage is the very high energy density (about 40kWh/kg at 700 psi, vs. 0-.1 - 0.25 kWh/kg for batteries, but not that good in terms of kWh/liter), the low environmental impact of production, the wide temperature range, and the long shelf life. The disadvantages as a general competitor to batteries have already been discussed.

Certainly the argument changes with regard to sustainable road mobility: too diverse and widespread to predict a future dominated by Hydrogen instead of batteries. If I had to bet (but I never bet :) ...) I predict that it may become a niche solution for certain modes of transportation. Not for ebikes though because of the complication..
hydrogen is hard to store.
 
It’s sorta like the lie that you are reducing your carbon footprint by burning ethanol even though in reality it consumes more than a gallon of petroleum to make a gallon of ethanol.
 
hydrogen is hard to store.
Yes and no. The good thing about photovoltaic, wind etc. is that it can be expanded at a steady state and, at a certain point, you have excess energy avilable. At the beginning just for some hours a day, than all over the day (and night for wind), also if you do not need it, at no cost. So, it is reasonable to imagine you can use this excess energy to store hydrogen at 700 bars or liquefying it. Then you have add more and more "bottles", rather than producing more battery that needs expensive material and a complex manufacturing.

I am not saying it is easy to store but that each energy source should be considered as a whole and according to the specific situation for which it is being thought: a source that may seem complicated or expensive for one application may become the simplest and cheapest solution for another. The example of use for ferries in the Faroe Islands says exactly that.

 
Yes and no. The good thing about photovoltaic, wind etc. is that it can be expanded at a steady state and, at a certain point, you have excess energy avilable. At the beginning just for some hours a day, than all over the day (and night for wind), also if you do not need it, at no cost. So, it is reasonable to imagine you can use this excess energy to store hydrogen at 700 bars or liquefying it. Then you have add more and more "bottles", rather than producing more battery that needs expensive material and a complex manufacturing.

I am not saying it is easy to store but that each energy source should be considered as a whole and according to the specific situation for which it is being thought: a source that may seem complicated or expensive for one application may become the simplest and cheapest solution for another. The example of use for ferries in the Faroe Islands says exactly that.

beware hydrogen embrittlement,hydrogen is harder to hold onto than helium,its doable of course,actually quite safe because any leaks are quicklly disapated,the negative is that the hydrogen flame is basically invisble.
 
Back
Top