this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
336 points (93.3% liked)
Technology
58094 readers
3168 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Shift? Dude that article has been debunked already.
https://thebusinessjournal.com/blog-harris-ranch-sets-record-straight-on-diesel-powered-tesla-supercharger-allegations/
Funny thing is that EVs are still cleaner than ICE even when powered by a Coal grid
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electric-cars-are-cleaner-even-when-the-power-comes-from-coal/
A month after the Business Journal article, a Harris Ranch spokesperson confirmed that Tesla did set up diesel generators to power Superchargers for a time. So, it's a thing that happens. Regardless, the point is that the energy in the gasoline and diesel fuel that goes into most of the fleet will still have to come from somewhere and there are no policies to make sure it comes from GHG-free sources.
If it's not a problem for BEVs to run on electricity derived from coal, then it shouldn't be a problem for FCEVs to run on hydrogen derived from natural gas. What I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter how the energy from coal or natural gas eventually gets consumed. It's a separate issue that we simply shouldn't be burning any of that stuff.
There is no clean, cheap, efficient source of hydrogen. You still need to transport it around burning more fuel to transport it all around.
There are already multiple ways to get clean electricity for BEVs and the supply chain is cleaner.. Plant, grid, car.
Also coal is already a TINY TINY % of US power production, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ , going to natural gas sourced hydrogen would be a step backward.
When source to consumption is considered BEV is the cleanest option so far.
That's just not true. Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen can be accomplished with electricity from any source and it even makes intermittent renewable sources feasible without massive, enviromentally unfriendly batteries or fossil fuel fired peaking plants. It is even possible to get hydrogen from natural gas by way of pyrolysis, which avoids CO2 emissions. Hydrogen can of course be safely and efficiently transported by pipeline, probably significantly more safely than overhead power transmission lines can "transport" electricity.
Fixed it for you. All these batteries are going to be a problem. Meanwhile, hydrogen just requires pressure vessels and pipelines for storage and transport, which are much safer for the environment.
As we have seen in Germany, the permanent reduction of coal fired electricity is not a sure thing. Regardless, the point is that whether you are driving a BEV or an FCEV, it will be running on an overall energy mix that is determined by separate national policies.
Electrolysis is at least 25% less as efficient than just storing the electricity in battery’s as it produces both oxygen and hydrogen and then you need to spend some more of the power compressing it…. Even before you get to transporting it. Otherwise we would just have electrolytes plants all over already.
The relative inefficiency is okay because it still produces hydrogen, which is better for transport applications than electricity in batteries. Plus, oxygen is a useful byproduct, which everyone seems to ignore.
As for the lack of hydrogen infrastructure, I think that has to do with it not getting as much support from the government. I couldn't find a specific comparison, but the Wikipedia lists many more US programs supporting plug-in electric vehicles than ones supporting fuel cell vehicles. Apparently, Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, was very anti-hydrogen and that's just how it went.
Likely has more to do with the cost of 1-2million per station vs 250,000 to 500,000 for a typical EV fast charging station
That's not such a bargain considering that it takes so long to charge a BEV. More fast chargers are needed to match the capacity of a hydrogen dispenser. I think the uneven subsidies and hype over the years have just lead to more BEV customers.