Fuel cells can be more efficient than combustion because of direct electrification. With combustion, there needs to be a boiler, turbine, etc and that adds to the losses through the system.
At industrial scale, it is possible a turbine and boiler is probably the better bet, because the technology is very mature and large fuel cells may pose extra challenges with sourcing the membranes. It would need a more in-depth cost analysis.
It’s effectively the same though, if the electricity for the small vehicles is generated by burning hydrogen
It’s a fuel cell, it doesn’t “burn” hydrogen.
You wouldn’t really need fuel cells at a power plant though, would you? Or are there advantages I’m unaware of?
Fuel cells can be more efficient than combustion because of direct electrification. With combustion, there needs to be a boiler, turbine, etc and that adds to the losses through the system.
At industrial scale, it is possible a turbine and boiler is probably the better bet, because the technology is very mature and large fuel cells may pose extra challenges with sourcing the membranes. It would need a more in-depth cost analysis.
but theres many ways to generate electricity that dont include hydrogen.
Why not use it if the technology exists and has a use case?
Or is this more of the “OMG but the HINDENBURG!” Nonsense?
It’s not quite nonsense, though. Are hydrogen fires ready to handle?
We already deal with compressed gas in a lot of cities, so this isn’t an issue.
True.