Thats a damn moist byproduct right there
1 Like
I actually do yeah lol. 
Na jk but what i do like about Hydrogen cars is that you could potentially,
add like 600km ish of range in like under 10 minutes ish.
Unlike with BEV cars that will take allot more time to fully charge.
I think it is just a matter of convenience really.
One of my friends actually has a BEV and uhh charging late at night somewhere,
on an dark industrial area is not particularly nice.
The only problem with that is that currently, hydrogen is either a fossil fuel or 20% as efficient as using a BEV.
So, here we are with an energy crisis in the regions where hydrogen would potentially be adopted. We really can not afford to waste the energy.
Wouldn’t be a problem with a tesla… 
But let’s be real, as soon as you get a single gasket that is no longer perfect, you could lose half your range overnight.
Additionally the whole selling point of an EV is that the car doesn’t need to fast charge. You charge it at your house/apartment, overnight. I can’t describe the luxury of not needing to waste an hour a week pumping gas.
2 Likes
I think another problem with hydrogen fuel cell cars is that battery technology will advance at a much higher rate then the fuel cell technology itself.
2 Likes
yeah mainly because there are only 3 countries even caring about hydrogen research anyways
someone likes steampunk stuff
1 Like
I read that comment with skepticism. If we look back 60 years we’ve only doubled our secondary battery energy density twice over nickel-zinc batteries from the 50’s. We are not progressing fast with secondary battery chemistry and if trends and development history hold, we will not see a secondary battery even match current fuel cell energy density in out life times.
Primary batteries are a different story but will likely never see use in consumer EVs.
1 Like
1 Like
Wrong thread?
1 Like
oh yeah LMAO. Fuck it
All the high pressure fittings for the FCEVs (I guess that would only be the mirai) are high nickel alloy compression ferrules; The only time I’ve seen non-brass compression ferrules go bad is after they were thermal cycled with 1000 degree temperature swings.
I’d like to see solid hydrogen storage technology progressed more, they can already store hydrogen denser than if it were a liquid and at only a few atmospheres of pressure using the existing metal hydride powders.
2 Likes
True. Though I think the amount of money going into battery technology these days is much much more than let’s say 25 years ago.
I’m not trying to dismiss hydrogen fuel cell technology, but currently we don’t really have any meaningful production that’s not just methane based. If we’re trying to make car driving somewhat more green it looks like batteries are the current best way.
(And yes I know not all electricity is “green” these days)
I’m with QT on this one. Your making an apples to oranges comparison here
How about you stick to the time frames in which both technologies are receiving any kind of serious research? That would basically mean since 2008. And in that time frame batteries have definitely eclipsed hydrogen and then some
It’s the simpler more pragmatic solution. Not saying that hydrogen doesn’t have a place but I seriously don’t have it being a place in cars. The only reason Toyotas even doing it is cuz they’re receiving billions upon billions upon billions upon BILLIONS of government subsidies over it. The reason why Japan is doing that is because they’ve given up on nuclear. They now have to import most of their fuel. If they could use hydrogen as a fuel they wouldn’t have to import it
1 Like
You’re not wrong, but I’m taking the pessimistic view on the influx of money into battery technologies without “much” (in my view) fruit being born as a sign that the proverbial development well is getting dry.
Its my opinion we can’t have environmentally good (or at least better than an economical ICE) BEVs until we get battery technology that doesn’t require 1000+ pounds of reactive and poisonous heavy metals respectively that are both in short supply.
Sticking to roughly the last 15 years makes li-on look a tiny bit better progressing from 160wh/kg>265wh/kg from 2008 to 2023, but in that same time frame fuel cells have more than doubled to 600wh/kg for the PEMFCs; accomplishing that feat with significantly less money.
If I had to guess what I think would happen in the future: bioengineering will progress to the point where we can genetically engineer algae to produce hydrocarbon and/or hydrocarbon precursors and burn it directly in ice power plants and in fuel cells. “producing” carbon dioxide isn’t a problem if there is algae on the other side of the cycle taking it all right back in.
My issue is that hydrogen is the smallest molecule you can make, pretty much. That means you have to be perfect or it’s gonna leak.
How much energy does it take to compress hydrogen that much? Doubt we recoup that energy investment, so that’s another cost…
1 Like
We have lab tests showing 6x energy density (by weight) with less degradation. IIRC, the challenge is commercializing it.
Fair enough! I agree the way we get to a lot of these materials these days is not good( ref Congo etc.)
Which is why I think that for the future we would all be better off with a more sustainable battery technology
Apologies in advance (I swear I don’t normally do this)
Hydrogen is diatomic making it a pretty normal size for a gas molecule, it’s the monoatomic gases like helium that leak out of everything.
Which is coincidently why the hydrogen filled German airships could come to America but helium filled American airships couldn’t travel to Europe.
1 Like
Because of it’s molecular shape your actually quite incorrect here. It doesn’t self siphon and is much more easy to contain than you think
Take for example liquid helium. It will siphon itself out of any tiny space. It will exhibit the problem you describe but hydrogen will not. If you want to get into the nitty gritty I have my old Ochem book. It’s kind of cool but it also makes helium more strange than hydrogen. Helium is not a fuel thank God.