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.
A new study published in Joule finds that relying on carbon capture and storage (CCS) to decarbonize the electric grid is significantly more expensive than transitioning to renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. Researchers modeled various decarbonization scenarios and discovered that even with optimistic assumptions about CCS cost reductions, renewables coupled with battery storage offer a cheaper pathway to a carbon-free grid. This cost difference stems from the inherent energy intensity of capturing, transporting, and storing carbon dioxide, adding extra operational expenses compared to simply generating clean electricity in the first place.
HN commenters are generally skeptical of carbon capture, viewing it as a distraction from the necessary transition to renewable energy. Many see it as a way for fossil fuel companies to maintain the status quo, pointing out its high cost and energy requirements. Some believe the focus should be on reducing emissions rather than trying to capture them after the fact. The practicality and scalability of carbon capture are also questioned, with commenters highlighting the immense infrastructure required and the lack of proven, effective technologies. A few suggest that carbon capture could play a niche role in hard-to-decarbonize industries, but not as a primary climate solution. There's also discussion about the misleading nature of "net-zero" targets that rely heavily on unproven carbon capture technologies.
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.