Electric vehicles are in the past. The new, renewable energy source is coming to engines build by the most notorious companies in the automotive world.
I don’t know what technology Honda is using, but before Tesla there were some interesting storage media research avenues; one was a porous sponge-like material, and another was also on-demand water splitting using a consumed catalyst.
But, yeah. I think they missed the boat on this. Hydrogen still is an interesting transportation medium; covering the Sahara with solar panels would have little environmental impact, but how do you get the energy produced where you want to consume it? Using the electricity to split water and produce hydrogen, and then ship the hydrogen to the destination is an option; a “spill” would have almost no environmental impact. Make them robo-tankers and you almost eliminate safety concerns.
Its still possible that battery energy density will plateau and a good way of storing hydrogen still be worked out. I’m glad research is still going on, because battery technology is still pretty environmentally awful, but at the moment it’s hard to see hydrogen competing with current battery technology.
Trains. Make them trains. The stunningly efficient “move incredible amounts of mass” systems we have used for hundreds of years, and yes, even automated.
Of course, over land. But transporting from Africa to, e.g. the US you’d use tankers, probably converted oil tankers. Then, from the coast to the interior on rail.
Unfortunately, “spills” are still a big concern, especially if we used this as an energy medium in the grand scheme. This article states that hydrogen gas has around 11x the greenhouse potential compared to carbon dioxide. Also, as far as safety goes, you can’t visually see a hydrogen fire without thermoptic equipment, so that could make cleanup more difficult.
I used to be really on board with hydrogen and fuel cells but there seems to be more issues that haven’t been solved that make this impractical. As far as getting solar generated electricity out of the Sahara, your best bet is to convert to high voltage AC or to move production to the source.
Ok, but carbon dioxide isn’t the alternative energy transport option, is it? Crude oil is, and a crude oil spill is far worse than a liquid hydrogen spill.
Containing a fire from a leak would be an issue for visibility. However, if there’s a catastrophe comparable to an oil spill in the open, liquid hydrogen (a) converts to gas and evaporates into the air and dissipated - it’s so much lighter than air, they used to use it to float enormous steel cages around; (b) it’s flammable, but not guaranteed to catch fire, and when it does burn, it produces water. There’s no other byproduct - just water.
I don’t know what technology Honda is using, but before Tesla there were some interesting storage media research avenues; one was a porous sponge-like material, and another was also on-demand water splitting using a consumed catalyst.
But, yeah. I think they missed the boat on this. Hydrogen still is an interesting transportation medium; covering the Sahara with solar panels would have little environmental impact, but how do you get the energy produced where you want to consume it? Using the electricity to split water and produce hydrogen, and then ship the hydrogen to the destination is an option; a “spill” would have almost no environmental impact. Make them robo-tankers and you almost eliminate safety concerns.
Its still possible that battery energy density will plateau and a good way of storing hydrogen still be worked out. I’m glad research is still going on, because battery technology is still pretty environmentally awful, but at the moment it’s hard to see hydrogen competing with current battery technology.
Trains. Make them trains. The stunningly efficient “move incredible amounts of mass” systems we have used for hundreds of years, and yes, even automated.
Use the thing that exists and is amazing. Trains.
Of course, over land. But transporting from Africa to, e.g. the US you’d use tankers, probably converted oil tankers. Then, from the coast to the interior on rail.
Unfortunately, “spills” are still a big concern, especially if we used this as an energy medium in the grand scheme. This article states that hydrogen gas has around 11x the greenhouse potential compared to carbon dioxide. Also, as far as safety goes, you can’t visually see a hydrogen fire without thermoptic equipment, so that could make cleanup more difficult.
I used to be really on board with hydrogen and fuel cells but there seems to be more issues that haven’t been solved that make this impractical. As far as getting solar generated electricity out of the Sahara, your best bet is to convert to high voltage AC or to move production to the source.
Ok, but carbon dioxide isn’t the alternative energy transport option, is it? Crude oil is, and a crude oil spill is far worse than a liquid hydrogen spill.
Containing a fire from a leak would be an issue for visibility. However, if there’s a catastrophe comparable to an oil spill in the open, liquid hydrogen (a) converts to gas and evaporates into the air and dissipated - it’s so much lighter than air, they used to use it to float enormous steel cages around; (b) it’s flammable, but not guaranteed to catch fire, and when it does burn, it produces water. There’s no other byproduct - just water.
I agree. I’m hoping more options will come and hydrogen is an interesting storage option Especially in a closed loop.