Flying Tesla Roadster

[nctnico]

Hydrogen WILL be worse, because it needs higher compression to get equivalent power, and combustion temperatures are extremely high (ca. 1,300C), this is just a fact of life for a hydrogen ICE and it's inherent to the technology.

Higher compression? Why? Make a 10cyl instead of an 8.
5x more electrical power? Breeder reactors are basically free 24x7 power. If 5x is a real number, then it's not an issue, just a small problem to solve.

If you dive a bit deeper into the subject matter you'll learn that what tom66 wrote above is wrong. The sole reason for needing high compression ratio's is to have a decent amount of power at low revs. But with a hybrid car you don't need that because the electric motor fills in the gaps. This results in being able to construct and run the ICE in much more favourable conditions leading to a massively better efficiency and massively lower emissions. For example: Toyota's hybrids with an Atkinson cycle engine emit 15 times less NOx than the EU legal limits. The other emissions are also around 5 times below the EU legal limits. And you can run ICEs using cycles optimised for running on hydrogen with a lean (low temperature) burn. You can burn hydrogen at much leaner mixtures compared to gasoline/diesel/LNG without the forming of hydrocarbon (HCx) emissions from partly burned (wasted) fuel, near zero NOx emissions and better thermal efficiency.
 

[paulca]

to get lift is to continuously generate a downward blast of air

Interestingly, as it's relevant to the technology.

A helicopter flies and It isn't the "downward blast of air" which causes it to fly.  It's the low pressure on the top of the rotor which effectively "Pulls" it up.  There is only a moderately higher pressure under the rotor.  Literally the rotor is a long thin, spinning wing.  In forward flight it even behaves like one, a "disc wing", flies like a plane.  The actual airflow down draft from a helicopter is not a downward column of air, but a large toroid with air coming out downward and outward, then rising and .. .if the heli is hovering back through the rotor again.

(Picture Wing tip vortices.  Now spin the wing 360*.  Now the wing tip vortexs become a toroid. 

If you descend a helicopter in a hover too quickly, you start flying "through" that toroid and the result is a significant drop in lift, requiring IMMEDIATELY control inputs to "get out of hover" or it acccelerates making it worse, until you hit the deck.  "Ring vortex" they call it.

I experienced this with an RC heli in a rather alarming way.  The heli was back tracking towards me.  Tail in for easy control orientation.  It was descending gently.  As I pushed forward cyclic to arrest the rearward velocity it began to descend more and more rapidly.  At this point is above me, just in front and descending rapidly towards my face.  I was unaware of ring vortex and so I did the wrong thing and I only got away with it, because I was flying a small and over powered heli.  The instinct motion of the collective once I noticed something was wrong, I just slammed it full pitch an the heli made a noise of protest like a "Vhummmp" and shot back to rising again.  Another 2 seconds and I would have been ducking, holding the controller over my head and taking what I got.

Also, if you flick the engine switch "OFF" you can glide.  As long as you can get forward speed, the disc load comes off and the collective can be dropped almost to 0 pitch and still glide without slowing the rotors.  So you can literally glide like a plane, for miles if you have the height.  The momentum stored in the blades can then be deployed in a sharp, burst flare to stop and land.

Now.  Look at a drone.  Look at a "human rated drone".  You do not see rotors.  You see "props".  Props do work by shifting as much air as possible through them, they are literally sized and measured by the dimensions of the screw thread it would cut in wood.  They do not glide.  They can't.  They stop and drop.  The human rated ones have 8 motors, 2 on each corner.  They have to be rated for at least 2 failures, but they can't take a double failure on a single pylon or it flips uncontrollably.

To your point, they also consume a large amount more battery "flying".  Flight times on LiPo batteries between a small RC heli and an RC drone, the heli is at least twice as efficient, but it depends on how much time you spend hovering.

[Psi]

to get lift is to continuously generate a downward blast of air

Interestingly, as it's relevant to the technology.

A helicopter flies and It isn't the "downward blast of air" which causes it to fly.  It's the low pressure on the top of the rotor which effectively "Pulls" it up.  There is only a moderately higher pressure under the rotor.  Literally the rotor is a long thin, spinning wing.

Interestingly, but totally pointless, the longer heli rotors blades are the slower they need to spin to generate the same thrust. Which means that infinitely long rotor blades would allow a heli to hover in the air with zero blade rotation, like magic. 

[paulca]

If such cars are sold for use on private roads, then the flying features will need to be disabled except when they are prepared for a track.

Nope.  Wrong department.  The instant it leaves the ground it is no longer subject to the road laws, but the air laws.  From the DVA to the CAA instantly.

Technically although ludicrous you are under the CAA governance the moment you jump off the ground.  Now "sanity" is applied of course.  Drones and model aircraft are definiately CAA.  It gets more complicated in the finer details as some people have successfully argued for "Vertical curtilage" permitting people to class the very immediate airspace around their homes as their property... which they can defend from a flying drone.  That has not reached the point where you can blast a drone with a shotgun in any country Im aware of, not even Texas.

[paulca]

Interestingly, but totally pointless, the longer heli rotors blades are the slower they need to spin to generate the same thrust. Which means that infinitely long rotor blades would allow a heli to hover in the air with zero blade rotation, like magic. 

It's a lot more complicated than that.  But... playing along.

If, you took a quad motor drone and made the arms long enough to fit 1/4 of the equivalent disc area of a helicopter as props.
Made those props "straight pitched"
Made those props variable pitch.
Added "free wheel" or declutch gears.
Allowed those props to flex due to asymetric velocity.

Then you might get "close" to the equivalent.  "Close", but 4 small props rather than one large one might store different momentum for the flare.

If you did that though, you would have a very large 4 rotor helicopter which would present it's own problems.  There is probably a reason why nobody has built a real "quad rotor".

But...  16" fixed "screw profile", props, directly connected to brushless motors.  If they stop, you drop.  Period.

If we get into the depth of "how lift and thrust" work and how they different, if the differ, the thread will go on and on as it's almost like "How to ride a bike".  There are many different parts, so the simple explainations have "buts" which go round and round.  The aerodynamist, like an electronics engineer is going to pick the most reliable equation, model and inference for the question at hand and not be bothered switching the model and equations when it works.

[SteveThackery]

How much energy is needed by a suction cup to hold itself when 'stuck' to something upside down?

Relevant how?

[nctnico]

How much energy is needed by a suction cup to hold itself when 'stuck' to something upside down?

Relevant how?

Because the principle is similar to how the Tesla stays stuck to the ramp: pressure difference

[nctnico]

If such cars are sold for use on private roads, then the flying features will need to be disabled except when they are prepared for a track.

Nope.  Wrong department.  The instant it leaves the ground it is no longer subject to the road laws, but the air laws.  From the DVA to the CAA instantly.

Indeed. Amphibious cars have a similar problem. They must comply with road and marine regulations.

[paulca]

How much energy is needed by a suction cup to hold itself when 'stuck' to something upside down?

Relevant how?

Because the principle is similar to how the Tesla stays stuck to the ramp: pressure difference

Or magnets.

Which presents interesting pathways given the "What energy?" question also.

[negativ3]

How much energy is needed by a suction cup to hold itself when 'stuck' to something upside down?

Relevant how?

Because the principle is similar to how the Tesla stays stuck to the ramp: pressure difference

Or magnets.

Which presents interesting pathways given the "What energy?" question also.

They could make a roadway that recharges the vehicle on the move!

[tom66]

Hydrogen WILL be worse, because it needs higher compression to get equivalent power, and combustion temperatures are extremely high (ca. 1,300C), this is just a fact of life for a hydrogen ICE and it's inherent to the technology.

Nevermind the fact that a hydrogen ICE will consume about 5x more electrical power per mile traveled than an EV...

Where hydrogen ICE might be interesting would be in motorsport, and perhaps in some off-grid applications like generators and construction equipment...  but passenger cars, forget about it.

Higher compression? Why? Make a 10cyl instead of an 8.
5x more electrical power? Breeder reactors are basically free 24x7 power. If 5x is a real number, then it's not an issue, just a small problem to solve.

Why would we not just use 5x more electricity to do useful things?  Whilst reactors may produce power with effectively zero incremental cost once built,  they still need to be built, maintained and staffed -- all of which costs money.  So in this future hydrogen economy, we spend 5x more energy to run our cars, just because some people can't be bothered to wait 5 minutes longer to charge their car?   

[nctnico]

Hydrogen WILL be worse, because it needs higher compression to get equivalent power, and combustion temperatures are extremely high (ca. 1,300C), this is just a fact of life for a hydrogen ICE and it's inherent to the technology.

Nevermind the fact that a hydrogen ICE will consume about 5x more electrical power per mile traveled than an EV...

Where hydrogen ICE might be interesting would be in motorsport, and perhaps in some off-grid applications like generators and construction equipment...  but passenger cars, forget about it.

Higher compression? Why? Make a 10cyl instead of an 8.
5x more electrical power? Breeder reactors are basically free 24x7 power. If 5x is a real number, then it's not an issue, just a small problem to solve.

Why would we not just use 5x more electricity to do useful things?  Whilst reactors may produce power with effectively zero incremental cost once built,  they still need to be built, maintained and staffed -- all of which costs money.  So in this future hydrogen economy, we spend 5x more energy to run our cars, just because some people can't be bothered to wait 5 minutes longer to charge their car?   

Ask yourself these two simple questions: 1) where is the electricity going to come from when fossil fuels are phased out? and 2) how is electricity going to be stored to bridge the winters?. The people who's job it is to keep the lights on in your country already found that the answer is hydrogen (like all other countries in Europe did). The fundamental issue with electricity is getting it stored in an economically viable way. And batteries won't do that. Not by a long shot. Just run a simple analysis of what your home storage solution would look like in terms of costs, weight, size and battery utilisation (energy stored versus energy needed during production). You'll quickly realise batteries are a complete non-starter for storing electricity for more than a few hours. And the problems scale along when wanting to do grid scale storage. So how do you want to charge your car in the winter when the sun doesn't shine? You are really missing the big picture while getting hung up on completely false efficiency arguments (how efficient are fossil fuels for example?) and thinking electricity comes out of a socket by magic.

Just to give an example: the solar panels on my roof provide enough electricity for my annual use. You'd say that is great. However, a seasonal battery storage system would cost me around 300k euro, it would weigh in at 14 metric tonnes and it would take 60 years before the battery has stored that same amount of energy it took to produce the batteries. The analysis I ran told me the optimum is a battery roughly equal to the Wp rating of the panels. Even doubling the capacity would make the ROI go negative. It is all about getting enough cycles from a battery. And even then, the optimal battery's number of cycles during 10 years (technical lifespan for a consumer unit) is 50% of what it is rated for. Also the effective roundtrip efficiency (where the battery's own consumption is included) isn't great: between 70% and 80%.

The fundamental problem with batteries is the huge amount of anode / cathode surface needed to make a tiny bit of electrolyte work. And worse: the longer you store electricity, the lesser of that anode / cathode surface is actually used. In the end a battery does a conversion between electricity and a chemical compound. If you reduce the size of an anode / cathode surface and pass the electrolyte along it in a gas or liquid form, you greatly reduce the amount of materials and volume of anode / cathode materials needed. There is nothing cheaper to make than empty space to store a gas or liquid in. All things considered, hydrogen is one of the simplest and thus cheapest forms to achieve this. Hydrogen is litterally stored in a hole in the ground on a large scale.

[paulca]

Look where "Hydrogen technology" gets its funding.

Then look at the different colours of hydrogen and their costs and consequences.  Then look at the "Well to wheel" on hydrogen transport.

I hate Elon musk, but on this he is correct.

"Yes" it's possible to generate genuine 'green'  hydrogen from solar/wind, but that is not how the vast majority of it IS generated.

The current cost of a hydrogen storage loop is over 50% round trip loss.  Thats assuming current 'elctrolysis' practicalities and fuel cells.

The only sane scenario you would take that loss in in the case of extreme over renewable generation, which has happened, on particularly days for particular hours only.

California for example might take advantage.  The UK too, the problem there is not generation, it's getting the power from the windy north to the hungry south.

Interesting article.
https://scienceinsights.org/how-efficient-is-hydrogen-fuel-source-to-wheel/

[nctnico]

"Yes" it's possible to generate genuine 'green'  hydrogen from solar/wind, but that is not how the vast majority of it IS generated.

Well, when EVs where just introduced, electricity was (and still is in many places) generated from fossil fuels. In some cases even to the point where driving an EV causes more pollution and/or CO2 compared to driving an efficient hybrid. All in all this is a very weak argument. You need to start somewhere.

[Cyclotron]

Ask yourself these two simple questions: 1) where is the electricity going to come from when fossil fuels are phased out? and 2) how is electricity going to be stored to bridge the winters?.

Production:

Rank & Source	Capacity Factor (Reliability)	Safety (Deaths/TWh)	Lifecycle Emissions (g CO₂/kWh)	Sustainability Profile
1. Nuclear	~90% – 93%	0.03	4 – 6	Highest energy density; zero-emission baseload power.
2. Geothermal	~70% – 90%	0.03	38	Highly consistent earth heat; very low geographic footprint.
3. Hydropower	~40% – 50%	1.30	24 – 97	Excellent baseload/storage; limited by local river ecology.
4. Wind (Off/Onshore)	~35% – 50%	0.04	11	One of the lowest carbon footprints; requires large land area.
5. Solar PV	~15% – 25%	0.02	53	Safest energy source; highly decentralized but weather-dependent.
6. Biomass	~50% – 70%	4.60	78 – 230	Dispatches on demand; emits particulate matter and uses heavy land.

Storage:

Technology Type	Key Methods	Round-Trip Efficiency (RTE)	Best Use Case
Electrical	Supercapacitors, SMES	90% – 98%	Instant grid stabilization
Electrochemical	Lithium-ion, Sodium-ion	85% – 95%	Daily 2–4 hour peak shaving
Mechanical	Flywheels	85% – 95%	Fast kinetic power quality
Mechanical	Pumped-Storage Hydro	70% – 85%	Massive grid firming (8+ hours)
Flow Batteries	Vanadium Redox, Zinc-based	70% – 85%	Long-duration storage (6–12h)
Thermal	Molten Salt, Sand Batteries	40% – 70%	Industrial heat, multi-day shifts

You already listed hydrogen storage, so I didn't include it, but it's also the worst round-trip efficiency at 30-45% tops.
And we should avoid using the term "Green," since people use it to believe there's no environmental impact. All products and all storage have an impact.

[nctnico]

Well, the efficiency of fossil fuels is like 10% from well to user. And still it is economically viable.

Most of us are electronics engineers. So I think most of us can answer this question: what would be cheaper to make? An AC/DC adapter with 75% efficiency or one with 99.9% efficiency? I think we will all agree that the latter will be the most expensive. Pretty much so that a laptop will cost like 1000 euro extra just for the 99.9% efficient adapter. In itself that might not be bad but I think everyone can also clearly see the 1000 euro extra will never pay for itself in terms of cost savings or even be affordable. It is not economically viable. Bottom line: if you keep focussing on efficiency alone, you are telling yourself an incomplete story.

If you add hydrogen to your list, you'll see it has all the upsides like years (decades) of storage, low material use and no land use which easely makes up for the lower efficiency cost wise.

Added to that is the fact that there are vast amounts of (white) hydrogen available in the earth's crust. The current estimates are that 5% of the available amount is enough to supply the entire world's energy demand for the next 200 years. This is without converting wind & solar into hydrogen. Also, some of the hydrogen sources are replenished due to natural underground steam reforming / catalytic conversion processes. And it is not some wild fantasy, this is already commercially deployed and more wells are being drilled and put into production.

[CatalinaWOW]

Well, the efficiency of fossil fuels is like 10% from well to user. And still it is economically viable.

Most of us are electronics engineers. So I think most of us can answer this question: what would be cheaper to make? An AC/DC adapter with 75% efficiency or one with 99.9% efficiency? I think we will all agree that the latter will be the most expensive. Pretty much so that a laptop will cost like 1000 euro extra just for the 99.9% efficient adapter. In itself that might not be bad but I think everyone can also clearly see the 1000 euro extra will never pay for itself in terms of cost savings or even be affordable. It is not economically viable. Bottom line: if you keep focussing on efficiency alone, you are telling yourself an incomplete story.

If you add hydrogen to your list, you'll see it has all the upsides like years (decades) of storage, low material use and no land use which easely makes up for the lower efficiency cost wise.

Added to that is the fact that there are vast amounts of (white) hydrogen available in the earth's crust. The current estimates are that 5% of the available amount is enough to supply the entire world's energy demand for the next 200 years. This is without converting wind & solar into hydrogen. Also, some of the hydrogen sources are replenished due to natural underground steam reforming / catalytic conversion processes. And it is not some wild fantasy, this is already commercially deployed and more wells are being drilled and put into production.

As engineers we also know that total quantities are not good measures of economic viability.   There are literally thousands of tons of gold in the earths oceans.  No one sane believes that any commercial fraction of that gold will be recovered with any currently projected technology.  Yes the earths crust is believed to have huge amounts of white hydrogen.  No one currently knows how much of it is economically recoverable.  Existing operations indicate that there is at least some that can be economically recoverable, but it would be foolish to bet your economy on there being enough at the current time.   

Storing hydrogen for decades is another of those non engineering statements.   The only way that I am aware of to store large quantities of hydrogen involves cryogenic storage, which is neither easy or cheap.  High pressure storage is conceivable, but anyone who has tried to contain hydrogen knows that it isn't easy and and doing huge quantities of it will require massive development and investment.  Hydride storage at large scale has different but real problems.

[nctnico]

Well, the efficiency of fossil fuels is like 10% from well to user. And still it is economically viable.

Most of us are electronics engineers. So I think most of us can answer this question: what would be cheaper to make? An AC/DC adapter with 75% efficiency or one with 99.9% efficiency? I think we will all agree that the latter will be the most expensive. Pretty much so that a laptop will cost like 1000 euro extra just for the 99.9% efficient adapter. In itself that might not be bad but I think everyone can also clearly see the 1000 euro extra will never pay for itself in terms of cost savings or even be affordable. It is not economically viable. Bottom line: if you keep focussing on efficiency alone, you are telling yourself an incomplete story.

If you add hydrogen to your list, you'll see it has all the upsides like years (decades) of storage, low material use and no land use which easely makes up for the lower efficiency cost wise.

Added to that is the fact that there are vast amounts of (white) hydrogen available in the earth's crust. The current estimates are that 5% of the available amount is enough to supply the entire world's energy demand for the next 200 years. This is without converting wind & solar into hydrogen. Also, some of the hydrogen sources are replenished due to natural underground steam reforming / catalytic conversion processes. And it is not some wild fantasy, this is already commercially deployed and more wells are being drilled and put into production.

As engineers we also know that total quantities are not good measures of economic viability.   There are literally thousands of tons of gold in the earths oceans.  No one sane believes that any commercial fraction of that gold will be recovered with any currently projected technology.  Yes the earths crust is believed to have huge amounts of white hydrogen.  No one currently knows how much of it is economically recoverable.  Existing operations indicate that there is at least some that can be economically recoverable, but it would be foolish to bet your economy on there being enough at the current time.   

True. Which is why betting on getting hydrogen from PV, wind and mining is a good idea. But if you look at the numbers extracting only a tiny fraction of the hydrogen is enough to last for decades. And the transition won't be instant so full production isn't needed from day 1.

Storing hydrogen for decades is another of those non engineering statements.   The only way that I am aware of to store large quantities of hydrogen involves cryogenic storage, which is neither easy or cheap.

Then I suggest to dig a bit deeper into hydrogen storage. Storing compressed hydrogen in salt caverns has been done since the 1970's. In Europe new salt caverns are being made and have been constructed today. For example: Spain has contracted Solvay to create salt caverns specifically for hydrogen storage. In the Netherlands funding 4 more salt caverns for hydrogen storage just got approved. It is a proven technology. The pressure range is typically somewhere between 70 and 300 bar. These salt caverns are huge; you can fit the Eiffel tower in them. But the underground salt deposits are the size of mountain ranges. And then there are plenty of empty gas fields which can also be used to store hydrogen. There really isn't a shortage of space and technology to store hydrogen. According to a report from the NL government (not some random talking head on Youtube) the Netherlands expect to need a median of 20 TWh of energy storage by 2050. The same report states that the NL has the theoretical potential to store 240 TWh worth of hydrogen by utilising salt caverns and empty gas fields. I don't quite get why some people think hydrogen needs to be stored cryogenically. Perhaps for rocket applications which run on liquid hydrogen and oxygen to reduce the volume but that is a special application.

[Andy Chee]

I don't quite get why some people think hydrogen needs to be stored cryogenically.

Because that's the only way to store enough hydrogen in a car fuel tank to give it a 600km+ range without sacrificing cabin space.

[nctnico]

I don't quite get why some people think hydrogen needs to be stored cryogenically.

Because that's the only way to store enough hydrogen in a car fuel tank to give it a 600km+ range without sacrificing cabin space.

Nope. For cars they use hydrogen at 700 bar (or 350 bar at lower tier filling stations). That has been standarised internationally already. No cryogenics. The hydrogen BMW X5 (released in 2028) has the hydrogen tanks integrated in the frame so the cabin space is not affected.

[Randy222]

Higher compression? Why? Make a 10cyl instead of an 8.
5x more electrical power? Breeder reactors are basically free 24x7 power. If 5x is a real number, then it's not an issue, just a small problem to solve.

You make it sound like an engineering problem, it is not.

It is a economic problem, specifically, return on investment.

Hydrogen ICE has a negative ROI.

I suspect you not reading all the posts. I mentioned some pages back, having favorable books at end of the day is how it works. Didn't Tesla run red for some years even with govt subsidy? How about startup companies who seek 50-250mil in investor funding where investors expect all their ROI within 5-10yrs, isnt that an instant red balance sheet?

[Andy Chee]

Higher compression? Why? Make a 10cyl instead of an 8.
5x more electrical power? Breeder reactors are basically free 24x7 power. If 5x is a real number, then it's not an issue, just a small problem to solve.

You make it sound like an engineering problem, it is not.

It is a economic problem, specifically, return on investment.

Hydrogen ICE has a negative ROI.

I suspect you not reading all the posts. I mentioned some pages back, having favorable books at end of the day is how it works.

Correct.  My point is that when you do the economic sums, hydrogen ICE will never payback.  Not within 30 years.  Not within 100 years.

Your Tesla analogy only works with hydrogen fuel cell, not hydrogen ICE.

[Cyclotron]

If you add hydrogen to your list, you'll see it has all the upsides like years (decades) of storage, low material use and no land use which easely makes up for the lower efficiency cost wise.

I didn't take it off, I just didn't list it because you'd already settled on it alone as the answer to the questions and I don't think that's a proper assessment.
Hydrogen is perfectly reasonable to explore but currently it has enoumous challenges.

Added to that is the fact that there are vast amounts of (white) hydrogen available in the earth's crust. The current estimates are that 5% of the available amount is enough to supply the entire world's energy demand for the next 200 years. This is without converting wind & solar into hydrogen. Also, some of the hydrogen sources are replenished due to natural underground steam reforming / catalytic conversion processes. And it is not some wild fantasy, this is already commercially deployed and more wells are being drilled and put into production.

I am only aware of exploration. Where have you seen "commercially deployed" drilled well hydrogen and supply to consumers?
Mali's Bougou-1 experiment is the only thing I'm aware of and they've had nothing but problems and output of 150-1k cubic meters of gas per day.
Equivalent to 150-200 homes tops.

There's a lot of other problems to overcome. The most wicked of them is hydrogen embrittlement.

So, its not a fantasy you say. Where are these commercially deployed wells and who are their customers?
Hydrogen doesn't come out of the ground pure as the fresh driven snow. It is often contaminated substantially with methane which is one of the strongest greenhouse gases we know of. So, that has to be separated and handled and then you're back to using natural gas to some extent.

Anyway, I'm always highly suspect when someone says one thing is going to solve all our problems. Randy222 has been in this thread hammering away at BEVs like they are demonstrably destroying human children and then you've just said that hydrogen is the future and it is basically "settled science."

I've seen no links to anything that would convince me or would convince anyone of either in my view.

[Randy222]

Higher compression? Why? Make a 10cyl instead of an 8.
5x more electrical power? Breeder reactors are basically free 24x7 power. If 5x is a real number, then it's not an issue, just a small problem to solve.

You make it sound like an engineering problem, it is not.

It is a economic problem, specifically, return on investment.

Hydrogen ICE has a negative ROI.

I suspect you not reading all the posts. I mentioned some pages back, having favorable books at end of the day is how it works.

Correct.  My point is that when you do the economic sums, hydrogen ICE will never payback.  Not within 30 years.  Not within 100 years.

Your Tesla analogy only works with hydrogen fuel cell, not hydrogen ICE.

So from your view, those places doing all the R&D for HICE tech, have not listened to you and are all just burning cash for no good reason? I dunno, seems like they know something you don't?

[Randy222]

Oil discovery............... long ago.
NatGas.
Nuke power.
Toxic Lithium.

Although H is here and progressing, I do wonder if fusion comes before H goes bonkers?

With fusion reactors, getting H is just that much cheaper & safer.