this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
-5 points (30.8% liked)

Hydrogen

74 readers
1 users here now

A community about hydrogen and its use as a way to fight climate change.

founded 2 years ago
-5
Hydrogen had a breakout year. Why are some VCs still skeptical? (pitchbook.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hydrogen startups are on pace to raise more VC funding in 2023 than in the prior two years combined, according to PitchBook's 2024 Industrial Technology Outlook.

top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fishos 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because it's still just fossil fuels with an extra step in the middle. Electrolysis doesn't generate more hydrogen energy than input, so water is still a net loss source. So you're still getting it from drilling. So not really solving the actual problem at all. And by the time you do figure out an energy positive source that isn't destructive, battery density will make it irrelevant anyways.

"94 million tonnes of grey hydrogen are produced globally using fossil fuels as of 2022, primarily natural gas, and are therefore a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions."

Hydrogen has always been a scam put forth by the oil companies. It's pretending to be green and revolutionary while being the exact same thing as before.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

That's just gaslighting by the BEV fanatics. In reality, hydrogen and its derivatives are the only way of powering the majority of transportation. Everything else you hear is total bullshit.

[–] nomecks 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have an EV that I charge in my garage. You will never get me back in a car where I have to go fill it somewhere. It doesn't matter how good the tech is, the personal convenience of hydrogen is less than BEV, which is all anyone actually cares about.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So you will never charge at a public station ever again? You will never travel long distances for the rest of your life?

Seriously, fuck off with this obvious lie. In reality, this is a made-up argument by BEV arguments. Of course you will charge publicly at some point in the future. And since driving happens far away from your house most of the time, it is the more convenient solution. Not to mention people who don’t have a garage to begin with.

[–] nomecks 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Fuck off with the obvious nit picking. You got me. I use super chargers like 1% of the time. I'll definitely switch to less convenient hydrogen when it comes out thanks to your amazing ability to argue the least relevant bit of my point. Why wouldn't I want to stand out in the freezing cold a few times a week filling my car with highly explosive gas instead of plugging it in like my phone at home?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then you admit you can tolerate public charging. So you have no argument to make.

And here's the more shocking fact: Home refueling is possible. In fact, it has always been possible. Things like lawnmowers or leafblowers have traditionally been refueled at home. You always could have some kind of fuel delivery service. But it never took off. Why? Because the gas station was the better idea and everyone agreed with it.

Same is true with hydrogen. In fact, you can envision some kind of home electrolysis system and such concepts exist too. But very few people wanted it. Proving that this need is a fictional one. No one wanted it until BEV fanatic suddenly decided that they wanted it.

[–] nomecks 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you think this is high school debate club? I can do all this complicated shit that nobody in reality will actually do and that proves you right? Nobody is going to choose hydrogen over BEV, nobody is going to build out a hydrogen distribution network because BEV will bankrupt any company that tries and nobody is going to install some stupid hydrogen generating crap when they can more efficiently put that energy directly into a battery. It doesn't matter how clean or better you think hydrogen is, IT'S NOT AS CONVENIENT!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're too deep in your BEV fanaticism then. Of course millions of people will choose hydrogen over BEVs. Simply because they have no choice. In the long run, this is going to be the solution nearly everyone adopts. It is basically a one-to-one replacement for conventional cars.

[–] nomecks 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sure you have something to back up "they'll have no choice", because right now it seems like hydrogen is getting left in the dust. Even the champions of hydrogen, Toyota, have relented and are building a fleet of BEVs. Spoiler alert: they're not going to build out two separate assembly lines, no matter how much they want hydrogen to win.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Again, you are too deep in your BEV fanaticism to realize obvious facts. In reality, this is a dead end. Car companies are only doing it for the subsidies and because governments demand it. Once this era passes, BEVs will fade away into obscurity or at best a niche. We already seeing signs of this, as BEVs sales have slowed (hidden by huge discounts and fleet sales BTW).

At some point, there will have to be a real attempt at zero emissions transportation. One that works for everyone. That inevitably leads to hydrogen cars. If not, then derivative ideas like e-fuels.

This won't happen all at once, nor will we suddenly pivot from one idea to the other. Hydrogen cars will steadily grow in popularity until anti-hydrogen denial becomes unsustainable and eventually people will embrace the concept.

[–] nomecks 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It won't happen at all, because you can't seem to make any arguments beside "It's cleaner" and "You're a BEV fanatic". If that's seriously the arguments for hydrogen, it's doomed.

The truth is that you're arguing that a theoretical technology is going to win out over the one with tens of billions of dollars of current invetment and millions of vehicles already operating. All this while providing no actual benefit to the end consumer over BEV.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Green hydrogen, literally made from water and electricity from renewable energy sources, is impossible in your mind.

That's basically the same stuff climate change deniers said about all green energy. Ironically, even including BEVs. Repeating the same rhetoric against hydrogen is totally self-discrediting.

It's immediately obvious that there's no credible argument against hydrogen or hydrogen vehicles. At best, you had some naive technical arguments, but those are easily debunked by pointing out that hydrogen cars already exist. So there are no arguments left at all.

Guys like you are pretty much stuck in the past. It's now a matter of letting reality make a mockery of guys like you. Just like it did with deniers of wind and solar, even BEVs.

[–] nomecks 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Again, why am I going to make hydrogen when I can more efficiently charge a battery? Why would a charging station do the same?

Hydrogen cars exist? Show me the commercial implementation of it.

Guys like you have no idea how the world actually operates. It's telling that you have to resort to attacking my character ("people like me are like this") rather than having your argument stand on facts.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because you don't need a giant battery anymore. As it turns out, this is the biggest savings of them all. In fact, it likely ensures that hydrogen cars are the greener type of car.

Yes, hydrogen cars exist commercially right now. You can even go to a dealership and buy one right now, assuming you live in the right area. It's a mirror of how BEVs got adopted in the first place.

You're pretty much projecting at this point. When you adopt rhetoric identical to what climate change deniers say, you have clearly lost the plot. You either have to admit that you've drank the kool-aid on BEVs, and is now spouting BEV bullshit, or start claiming that green energy is impossible altogether, since your words have been used against all green energy before.

[–] nomecks 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You argue like you're 12.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Says the obvious troll...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As an EV owner, I would actually love to get a hydrogen car, home charging is just not as convenient especially for someone like me who travels long every day and unless you are in the main city, quick refills will always be better. Have an ioniq 5, the EV depreciation also pretty much sucks.

That being said EVs have come a long way, great improvements over the years and they continue to improve, charging is not the only issue, battery weight (I can literraly feel how heavy ioniq 5 is while driving compared to my old gas car), depreciation, degradation and etc.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

FCEVs are basically BEVs, but without the giant battery weighing it down. It should be pretty obvious that FCEVs are a good idea to any BEV fan. Sadly, too many of them have drank the kool-aid and are opposed to further innovation beyond their own car.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But fuel cells still rely on raw materials and I imagine they are more energy intensive to produce and more expensive as a technology to develop and produce than the already established ICE technology which has been around for decades.

This is why I am personally rooting for hydrogen on ICE to be honest - besides the unmatched emotion an ICE can give you obviously haha.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A fuel cell is staggeringly small compared to the alternative. For instance, the fuel cell stack in the Mirai only weighs around 50kg. As a result, this is likely to be the cheapest and least resource intensive powertrain in the long-run.

ICE will have advantages in terms of design maturity and a having century of optimization. It will probably always be more desirable in sports cars. But eventually, even ICE cars will probably lose to FCEVs.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it seems like despite the fuel cell itself being relatively small, I just googled the weight of Toyota's hydrogen corolla racing prototype, which weighs 4210 lbs, while the toyota mirai weighs around 4400 lbs, Google bard also says Toyota is aiming to make it's hydrogen combustion corolla weigh less than 3,700 lbs as development continues.

Super interesting, I honestly think ICE development is being pushed to even more advanced levels, I think with the right infrastructure, they can certainly compete and if they take off I don't see fuel cells being favored over them.

It's crazy how despite how old the ICE technology is, these companies can still find ways to keep improving it, despite the engine being much heavier, the overall car weight is actually less than the Mirai which itself is a great feat. I'm personally optimistic about Hydrogen combustion for sure.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also it seems like the weight on the Mirai could also be due to the battery it has as a backup after the fuel cell itself, and then electric motors, if you look at the whole package it does get heavier.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

BEVs need spare battery capacity too. Plus electric motors. The main issue is that the Mirai is based off of the Toyota Crown, which is already pretty heavy. If they really wanted too, they could've shaved off a huge amount of weight.

[–] reddit_sux 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please do share facts...

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You need something that can fully replace fossil fuels. This includes all core factors, such as maximum range, refueling times, and yes, even energy density. After all, it makes no sense to replace fossil fuels with something inferior. As a result, any basic analysis will lead you to some kind of fuel derived from hydrogen. Nothing else we have can meet all of the necessary criteria. As a result, it pretty much has to be hydrogen or something derived from it.

PS: Biofuels don't count, because there is no way to scale up production to the needed levels.

[–] Brainsploosh 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But why not use localised fusion power, or orbital solar power if we're talking non-realised solutions?

Hydrogen is highly hyped by the oil industry to be their new product line after peak oil, but it doesn't solve most of the major issues of fossil fuels, introduces more problems that we haven't yet solved, and the industry hasn't yet developed feasible ways to utilise hydrogen that actually lowers fossil fuel consumption.

It's a cool idea, less proven than most.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As I said, this is all gaslighting. Green hydrogen is already a developed technology. We've already know how to make it. The anti-hydrogen rhetoric is just bullshit. If anything, the critics are working for the oil industry, since they are repeat arguments nearly identical to what the fossil fuel industry said about wind, solar, electrification, etc.

[–] Brainsploosh 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Without data, you're the one attempting to gaslight. Please provide sources, or wait until we meet in a hydrogen car to be smug.

Without proof to back up your claims, you're indistinguishable from someone misunderstanding facts, or even someone lying. With sources, you become trustworthy, seems like well worth the effort to provide them.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

I see hydrogen cars drive by nearly every day. It’s you who is totally out of touch with reality. Next you’ll be telling me smartphones are impossible, or that OLED TVs will never happen. Or whatever “it’s impossible” bullshit for something that already exists.

[–] fishos 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Um, those are facts. That quote was pulled directly from Wikipedia. It's got numerous sources if you'd like those too. It also lists the tiny percent derived from electrolysis too. So what part of "most hydrogen is a byproduct of fossil fuels and doesn't remove our dependence on them or the climate destruction they caused" was gaslighting? Because again, those are just facts.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Which was written by BEV fanatics. Still gaslighting. Sources are also just bullshit from BEV fanatics. None of it is real. It's just all made-up crap. Even the grid will be partially powered by hydrogen due to the need for long-duration energy storage. So even BEVs will need hydrogen to reach zero emissions. That's just how ludicrous the corporate propaganda has gotten. It literally denies its own basis for existence, because the BEV industry simply cannot let hydrogen take off on any level. They know, deep down, that it is the primary disruptive threat to the BEV, and it will kill off the BEV if it ever gained marketshare.

[–] inclementimmigrant 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because generation is only one of the many issues with hydrogen.

There still the issues with storage since hydrogen is highly reactive and tends to break down materials making them brittle as heck. That's still not solved.

Combine the fact that storage is a problem that hydrogen is very volatile, able to ignite with only a 4% ratio and very easy to set off.

Hydrogen requires it to be compressed to be stored and it's cold as heck making transport a pain requiring new pipelines to be created and again combine that with the hydrogen being reactive and volatile.

Refueling, it's cold, very cold and that's another problem when you have a reactive, volatile compress gas and most materials don't exactly like constant extreme temperature changes.

Hydrogen still has a lot of problems and generation is still just the top of the iceberg.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The "issues" you list is something companies like Toyota has already dealt with and even if it's small, there is still a growing hydrogen infrastructure in some places in the world like california with people driving these cars.

Yes they are challenging, but we have already overcome and have vehicles and infrastructure in production.

I see many hydrogen critics list how hydrogen is "very volatile, able to ignite, cold as heck, extreme temperature" and etc, well yes, there are challenges, but despite that there are companies out there that have dealt with them and already have products running on the same hydrogen you are talking about.

Not trying to blindly support hydrogen or anything, but in my opinion we are past the point where we debate and claim hydrogen is not possible and has many issues - many of them are no longer an "issue" when its already out there for consumers in some parts of the world, and if these issues were a huge barrier, we won't have vehicles like Toyota mirai selling at all, so these issues are not issues but maybe "tricky", "expensive" and "slow development" would be the right words.

[–] inclementimmigrant 2 points 1 year ago

I'll grant you that storage has gotten better since the decade now when I last worked on a hydrogen ICE project and yeah Toyota has made some good advances with their carbon fiber tanks now, heck of a lot better than the carbon fiber tanks that I had the pleasure of working with.

Last I read, the temperature changes were still issues with refilling station where they tended to ice up and with fatigue on the point of connection to the inlet due to temperature changes. If that's been fixed or a solution has been found that's great.

I think the biggest hurdles is still the transport, generation, and infrastructure and yeah, I can agree that tricky, expensive, slow development are all valid here.

And while I still don't think the tech is there yet, I'm glad that progress is still being made and hopefully it'll actually be viable in the future.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Now list the problems of the alternatives...

In reality, hydrogen is far simpler and more straightforward than any alternative we have right now. Most of the supposed problems have long been solved or never were serious issues. By now, it is entirely a matter of properly funding and scaling up the infrastructure. Nothing else really holds back hydrogen. The naysayers are simply motivated by ulterior motives, such as personal financial gain, to deny this basic fact.

[–] inclementimmigrant 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, my bad. I completely misunderstood the fact you wanted copium and not actual discourse over the viability hydrogen.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And you want something that is basically climate change denial. You can either admit that there is a solution to our problems, or dwell in either doomerism or denialism.

[–] inclementimmigrant 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yup, not a single bit of a grown up discussion to be had here. You are a terrible cheerleader for hydrogen and make no salient points on hydrogen being a good future technology, which I happen to have hope for.

Just nothing but whataboutisms and insults, nothing intellectual coming from you at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s no patience for people who totally deny reality. The first step is for guys like you to admit that there is even a possibility that you got it wrong. Otherwise, there’s no point for this conversation.

[–] inclementimmigrant 3 points 1 year ago

Done.