Transit agencies are repeatedly lured by hydrogen buses despite their significant drawbacks compared to battery-electric buses. Hydrogen buses are far more expensive to operate, requiring costly hydrogen production and fueling infrastructure, while battery-electric buses leverage existing electrical grids. Hydrogen technology also suffers from lower efficiency, meaning more energy is wasted in producing and delivering hydrogen compared to simply charging batteries. While proponents tout hydrogen's faster refueling time, battery technology advancements are closing that gap, and improved route planning can minimize the impact of charging times. Ultimately, the article argues that the continued investment in hydrogen buses is driven by lobbying and a misguided belief in hydrogen's potential, rather than a sound economic or environmental assessment.
Toyota has slashed the effective price of its Mirai hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in California. By combining a $5,050 price reduction with an additional $15,000 worth of free hydrogen fuel, the car's cost to consumers could be as low as just over $15,000, depending on the lease deal. This aggressive pricing strategy aims to increase adoption of hydrogen vehicles and address the limited refueling infrastructure currently available.
Hacker News commenters express skepticism about the viability of hydrogen cars, even with the substantial price reduction and fuel incentive. Several point out the lack of hydrogen fueling infrastructure as a major hurdle, emphasizing the inconvenience compared to readily available EV charging. Others question the "free fuel" claim, suspecting it's baked into the cost and highlighting the ongoing expense after the initial allotment. Some commenters also criticize hydrogen's overall efficiency compared to battery electric vehicles, citing energy losses in production, storage, and transport. A few express interest in the technology, but the overall sentiment leans towards practicality concerns and doubts about hydrogen's future in personal transportation.
Dhruv Vidyut offers a conversion kit to electrify any bicycle. The kit includes a hub motor wheel, a battery pack, a controller, and all necessary accessories for installation. Their website highlights its ease of installation, affordability compared to buying a new e-bike, and customizability with different motor power and battery capacity options. It's marketed as a sustainable and practical solution for urban commuting and leisure riding, transforming a regular bicycle into a versatile electric vehicle.
Hacker News users generally praised the simplicity and ingenuity of the electric bicycle conversion kit shown on the linked website. Several commenters appreciated the clear instructions and readily available parts, making it a seemingly accessible project for DIY enthusiasts. Some questioned the long-term durability, particularly regarding water resistance and the strength of the 3D-printed components. Others discussed potential improvements, like adding regenerative braking or using a different motor. A few pointed out the legality of such conversions, depending on local regulations regarding e-bikes. There was also discussion about the overall efficiency compared to purpose-built e-bikes and whether the added weight impacted the riding experience.
Summary of Comments ( 375 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43363293
Hacker News commenters largely agree with the article's premise that hydrogen buses are an inefficient and costly alternative to battery-electric buses. Several commenters point out the significantly lower lifecycle costs and superior efficiency of battery-electric technology, citing real-world examples and studies. Some discuss the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry as a driving force behind hydrogen adoption, framing it as a way to preserve existing gas infrastructure. A few offer counterpoints, suggesting niche applications where hydrogen might be viable, like very long routes or extreme climates, but these are generally met with skepticism, with other users arguing that even in these scenarios, battery-electric solutions are superior. The overall sentiment leans heavily towards battery-electric as the more practical and environmentally sound option for public transit.
The Hacker News post titled "Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?" generated a moderate amount of discussion with varied viewpoints. Several commenters echoed the article's sentiment, expressing skepticism towards hydrogen buses and highlighting the inefficiency of producing hydrogen, particularly when compared to electric buses. They pointed out the energy losses involved in converting electricity to hydrogen and then back to electricity to power the bus, emphasizing the superior efficiency of directly using electricity to charge batteries. Some also raised concerns about the environmental impact of hydrogen production if it relies on fossil fuels.
A recurring theme in the comments was the influence of lobbying and vested interests in promoting hydrogen technology, potentially clouding the judgment of transit agencies. Commenters speculated that political pressure and the allure of "new" technology might be contributing factors to the adoption of hydrogen buses despite their drawbacks.
However, not all comments were against hydrogen buses. Some commenters acknowledged specific niche applications where hydrogen might be advantageous, such as long-distance routes or situations where fast refueling is critical. They suggested that hydrogen could potentially play a role in a diversified public transport system, complementing battery-electric buses rather than replacing them entirely. One commenter also brought up the potential for hydrogen to be produced through electrolysis using renewable energy sources, addressing the environmental concerns raised by others. However, this sparked a counter-argument about the greater efficiency of directly using that renewable energy for charging batteries.
Another point raised was the lack of existing hydrogen infrastructure, which poses a significant hurdle to widespread adoption. Building out hydrogen refueling stations requires substantial investment, and the absence of such infrastructure makes it more challenging for transit agencies to transition to hydrogen buses.
Overall, the comments section presented a mix of perspectives on the viability of hydrogen buses. While many commenters were critical of the technology, emphasizing its inefficiencies and questioning the motives behind its adoption, others offered more nuanced views, suggesting potential niche applications and highlighting the possibility of cleaner hydrogen production. The discussion revolved around efficiency, environmental impact, infrastructure challenges, and the potential influence of lobbying.