Hydrogen is the future of motoring
Discussion
Hydrogen is just a energy carrier, and a little complicated type. To create hydrogen you need power, and where will that power come from? As 2/3 of the world energy production is based on fossile fules, were just moving around emissions, just like electrical cars. Last time I checked the efficiency on a coal plant was better then a petrol car, but that hasnt taken into accoutn that you have to move the electricity, charge the car and then discharge when you drive. So in the end a coal power based electric car takes you nowhere..
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Elgene...
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig1.p...
When we have a solution to the problem above, then there is a point in using electric/hydrogen cars, until then its just BS
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Elgene...
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig1.p...
When we have a solution to the problem above, then there is a point in using electric/hydrogen cars, until then its just BS
CedricN said:
Hydrogen is just a energy carrier, and a little complicated type. To create hydrogen you need power, and where will that power come from? As 2/3 of the world energy production is based on fossile fules, were just moving around emissions, just like electrical cars. Last time I checked the efficiency on a coal plant was better then a petrol car, but that hasnt taken into accoutn that you have to move the electricity, charge the car and then discharge when you drive. So in the end a coal power based electric car takes you nowhere..
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Elgene...
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig1.p...
When we have a solution to the problem above, then there is a point in using electric/hydrogen cars, until then its just BS
Which is one of the plus sideshttp://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Elgene...
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig1.p...
When we have a solution to the problem above, then there is a point in using electric/hydrogen cars, until then its just BS
You move the soot and crap out of the city
CedricN said:
Hydrogen is just a energy carrier, and a little complicated type. To create hydrogen you need power, and where will that power come from? As 2/3 of the world energy production is based on fossile fules, were just moving around emissions, just like electrical cars. Last time I checked the efficiency on a coal plant was better then a petrol car, but that hasnt taken into accoutn that you have to move the electricity, charge the car and then discharge when you drive. So in the end a coal power based electric car takes you nowhere..
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Elgene...
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig1.p...
When we have a solution to the problem above, then there is a point in using electric/hydrogen cars, until then its just BS
I agree but disagree with the conclusion. http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Elgene...
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig1.p...
When we have a solution to the problem above, then there is a point in using electric/hydrogen cars, until then its just BS
The whole problem with the EV concept is that it has been hijacked by political militants and their uneducated underlings.
Sure, if you see the EV as the savour of humanity then you are a fool and the concept is fatally flawed.
But, if you don't give a flying f
k about all the lies and distortions over fossil fuels or pollution etc then you are free to see the other benefits of EVs. Car companies are busy trying to fit as many auto gears to be as smooth as possible. As much sound deadening to be as quiet as possible. Make the vehicle as light as possible etc etc.
These are all things an EV can already do and will always do better.
The only single problem is range but work out where the majority of local journeys are to and install charge points. The costs is hidden in the shopping centre parking ticket and it texts you charge updates.
Forget this idiocy of individual and random charge points on the street. Whenever someone takes a car out they will invariably stop in a car park. That is where you put the charge points.
The simple reality is that EVs are doomed to failure because the agenda is driven by political activists, dreamers, cult leaders and in general the types of people who normal humans are genetically programmed to be wary of and avoid/ignore.
Mr2Mike said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Incidentally, the horrific images of the Hindenburg were largely attributed to the thermite based lining weren't they?
No they weren't but it makes a good urban legend. Perhaps it was invented to make the Nazis appear utterly stupid by painting a very heavy and extremely flammable compound onto a lighter than air craft?Does seem an odd choice though!
Prof Prolapse said:
Mr2Mike said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Incidentally, the horrific images of the Hindenburg were largely attributed to the thermite based lining weren't they?
No they weren't but it makes a good urban legend. Perhaps it was invented to make the Nazis appear utterly stupid by painting a very heavy and extremely flammable compound onto a lighter than air craft?Does seem an odd choice though!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#I...
otolith said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Mr2Mike said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Incidentally, the horrific images of the Hindenburg were largely attributed to the thermite based lining weren't they?
No they weren't but it makes a good urban legend. Perhaps it was invented to make the Nazis appear utterly stupid by painting a very heavy and extremely flammable compound onto a lighter than air craft?Does seem an odd choice though!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#I...
http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/myths#...
All guff apparently. There you go. You live and learn.
thinfourth2 said:
So that is your solution to the oil crisis
A petrol powered mini bus with a plastic bottle of water in the boot fitted with some random pipes and gears
Yes big oil is stopping us from knowing about the incredible technology know as a jam jar
Omshanti said:
The Wookie said:
Omshanti said:
As I have been writing several times in my previous posts in this topic, I am not trying to argue about the efficiency of the combustion engine vs the fuel cell electric motor as I know the latter is more efficient.
My whole point is that out of all the proposed alternative technologies, I like the hydrogen powered combustion engine because it would be the same as driving petrol cars and would keep everything we like about driving today in the future (that is of course if anybody tries to develop it).
Perhaps it won't take off as a practical technology in the future but nevertheless I wasn't trying to address its practicality.
If one day petrol runs out, any alternative energy source that allows cars to run just like petrol cars is an attractive technology to me.
That is all I am trying to say. Nothing more nothing less.
Regarding electric motors, is it possible to use manual transmissions on them?
I know they have a wide power band and do not require gears as much as combustion engines, but surely they must have a point where power is at its optimum and therefore to make the best gears would be required?
Don't bother wasting your energy (fnar) on Hydrogen, closed loop Methanol synthesis from CO2 is more efficient and far more practical as it requires minimal modification to existing vehicles.My whole point is that out of all the proposed alternative technologies, I like the hydrogen powered combustion engine because it would be the same as driving petrol cars and would keep everything we like about driving today in the future (that is of course if anybody tries to develop it).
Perhaps it won't take off as a practical technology in the future but nevertheless I wasn't trying to address its practicality.
If one day petrol runs out, any alternative energy source that allows cars to run just like petrol cars is an attractive technology to me.
That is all I am trying to say. Nothing more nothing less.
Regarding electric motors, is it possible to use manual transmissions on them?
I know they have a wide power band and do not require gears as much as combustion engines, but surely they must have a point where power is at its optimum and therefore to make the best gears would be required?
Edited by Omshanti on Wednesday 1st August 20:42
http://www.lotuscars.com/engineering/lotus-exige-2...
Edited by Omshanti on Wednesday 1st August 23:10
As we have only a finite resource then I fully support investigations into alternative power sources for transportation. In the short term advances in petrol and diesel vehicles will improve efficiency and help bridge the inevitable gap until a proven alternative is available. In the urban environment maybe purely electric vehicles are a possibility today, although I wish they would first start to use these technologies on buses rather than trying to develop them in cars. I am sure that a bus with a plug in hybrid drive system that includes regenerative braking could go a long way to reducing city centre pollution. They spend moth of their time stopping so should get a decent range with minimal use of the IC engine.
The issue for most car users is range for plug in vehicles. The potential infrastructure costs to install charge points would be huge. Charging will never be anywhere near as quick as filling with a liquid fuel so you would require a charge point for every vehicle in every car park and down every street where there is no off road parking for residents. I believe this is unrealistic.
The solution is with an alternative gaseous or liquid fuel. Hydrogen has some good advantages here but still needs to be produced and that still needs energy.
Reducing tail pipe emissions is one thing and will help local air quality but from a climate perspective overall emissions need to be reduced, without nuclear or a significant increase from renewable (or a combination of them both) this won't happen.
I would also encourage more focus on life cycle environmental costs not just tail pipe CO2. We need a government with the will to look at the overall picture and not focus excessively on one aspect.
The issue for most car users is range for plug in vehicles. The potential infrastructure costs to install charge points would be huge. Charging will never be anywhere near as quick as filling with a liquid fuel so you would require a charge point for every vehicle in every car park and down every street where there is no off road parking for residents. I believe this is unrealistic.
The solution is with an alternative gaseous or liquid fuel. Hydrogen has some good advantages here but still needs to be produced and that still needs energy.
Reducing tail pipe emissions is one thing and will help local air quality but from a climate perspective overall emissions need to be reduced, without nuclear or a significant increase from renewable (or a combination of them both) this won't happen.
I would also encourage more focus on life cycle environmental costs not just tail pipe CO2. We need a government with the will to look at the overall picture and not focus excessively on one aspect.
Ok. Here's a question:
Why do you start with the claim that we only have a finite resource?
Obviously in total terms oil is finite but you seem to allude to finite being something that is impending?
The reality is that there is absolutely no shortage of oil and will not be in either our or our children's lifetime. We are decades away from peak oil and once that is finally reached still probably 100 years away from being a problem.
The true price of oil is sub $10 a barrel. We are swamped with the stuff which is why supply is controlled by cartels and there are huge stores of it around the globe.
This running out of petrol story is a fairy tale. We won't.
Besides, the elasticity in social structures like the UK means that we can reduce our use of petrol massively and quickly whenever we need to without any need for alternative fuels. There is also enormous taxation elasticity that means fear of social unrest will trade off with reductions in taxation.
We are a densely populated island which is better connected between populations than any other significant country on the globe.
Almost any journey we make by car can easily be replaced by either bringing the service to our walkable environment, ferrying groups or by using modern communications.
The UK is uniquely placed to prosper in relative terms in a low fuel environment.
But the fact is that we won't get anywhere near there in our lifetime or the next.
Petrol in reality is dirt cheap and absolutely no other form of personal power can come close.
This is why the argument for EVs is wrong in its current form but valid in more common sense reasoning.
Why do you start with the claim that we only have a finite resource?
Obviously in total terms oil is finite but you seem to allude to finite being something that is impending?
The reality is that there is absolutely no shortage of oil and will not be in either our or our children's lifetime. We are decades away from peak oil and once that is finally reached still probably 100 years away from being a problem.
The true price of oil is sub $10 a barrel. We are swamped with the stuff which is why supply is controlled by cartels and there are huge stores of it around the globe.
This running out of petrol story is a fairy tale. We won't.
Besides, the elasticity in social structures like the UK means that we can reduce our use of petrol massively and quickly whenever we need to without any need for alternative fuels. There is also enormous taxation elasticity that means fear of social unrest will trade off with reductions in taxation.
We are a densely populated island which is better connected between populations than any other significant country on the globe.
Almost any journey we make by car can easily be replaced by either bringing the service to our walkable environment, ferrying groups or by using modern communications.
The UK is uniquely placed to prosper in relative terms in a low fuel environment.
But the fact is that we won't get anywhere near there in our lifetime or the next.
Petrol in reality is dirt cheap and absolutely no other form of personal power can come close.
This is why the argument for EVs is wrong in its current form but valid in more common sense reasoning.
Biogas for example have very tidy emissions, its pretty popular here for public transport and company cars(tax rules). The probalem is that we cant produce enough here in sweden atm. Biogas can be produced from waste, almost all kind of bio waste. If you could find a better way to collect for example waste from restaurants, private homes, factories, farming etc that could be one way. But one thing is definetly sure. There will not be any single source of energy that will replace oil, that is just not possible.
DonkeyApple said:
Almost any journey we make by car can easily be replaced by either bringing the service to our walkable environment, ferrying groups or by using modern communications.
This may be true for some journeys within densely populated areas such as large cities, but there is still a significant amount of the UK that is relatively sparsely populated e.g. huge areas of Scotland, and plenty of the North of England and Wales and the Westcountry.Mr2Mike said:
This may be true for some journeys within densely populated areas such as large cities, but there is still a significant amount of the UK that is relatively sparsely populated e.g. huge areas of Scotland, and plenty of the North of England and Wales and the Westcountry.
But in reality they are sparse for a reason and that won't change. The village shops will return as people can't reach superstores or superstores would run shuttle services.
So the sparsely populated areas aren't an issue either as they are sparse because there is less commerce and fewer people.
More appropriately, they don't actually even need to exist if you think about it? Shocking as it sounds. They can also be self sufficient as they always were.
There will be no structural crisis on the UK mainland driven by private fuel, ever. It's just an impossibility.
Whilst I would love to think that most journeys can be replaced by walking and services will re-locate to suit, I cannot see this happening in my lifetime. Society has sufficiently changed its expectations. We don't work locally any more. A 100 mile round trip to the office is now normal. Offices, shops etc are constructed out of town away from houses. Villages are left with nothing in terms of services. It would require huge structural change to change this. I agree the number of journeys can be reduced by working form home etc but this isn't the answer for everything. We have all got used to personal transport and aren't about to jump on a bus as an alternative.
A solution that works for London probably won't work for much of the rest of the country. Whilst there probably is plenty of oil for the foreseeable future it isn't a bad thing that we are looking at alternatives. There are other reasons than supply and financial to consider, which any cyclist who has followed a stinking bus will agree on.
A solution that works for London probably won't work for much of the rest of the country. Whilst there probably is plenty of oil for the foreseeable future it isn't a bad thing that we are looking at alternatives. There are other reasons than supply and financial to consider, which any cyclist who has followed a stinking bus will agree on.
MarkRSi said:
The Wookie said:
I find that immensely surprising, considering they can install an ad-hoc filling station at relatively minimal cost in Olympic terms
Also, to be fair (and I'm no fuel cell advocate) they are pretty cool bits of kit. They give off sci-fiesque sound effects, are eerily quiet to ride in and are actually surprisingly quick. Handling leaves a bit to be desired, but it's still better than a standard one!
More info http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10836132Also, to be fair (and I'm no fuel cell advocate) they are pretty cool bits of kit. They give off sci-fiesque sound effects, are eerily quiet to ride in and are actually surprisingly quick. Handling leaves a bit to be desired, but it's still better than a standard one!
Love this pic
edward1 said:
We don't work locally any more. A 100 mile round trip to the office is now normal.
Normal ?okay 100 miles a day, 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year gives 24000 miles a year
According to a government survey the average milage is roughly 8000 miles a year
So either we all own 3 cars or a 100 mile round trip is far from normal
DonkeyApple said:
CedricN said:
Hydrogen is just a energy carrier, and a little complicated type. To create hydrogen you need power, and where will that power come from? As 2/3 of the world energy production is based on fossile fules, were just moving around emissions, just like electrical cars. Last time I checked the efficiency on a coal plant was better then a petrol car, but that hasnt taken into accoutn that you have to move the electricity, charge the car and then discharge when you drive. So in the end a coal power based electric car takes you nowhere..
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Elgene...
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig1.p...
When we have a solution to the problem above, then there is a point in using electric/hydrogen cars, until then its just BS
I agree but disagree with the conclusion. http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Elgene...
http://elways.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fig1.p...
When we have a solution to the problem above, then there is a point in using electric/hydrogen cars, until then its just BS
The whole problem with the EV concept is that it has been hijacked by political militants and their uneducated underlings.
Sure, if you see the EV as the savour of humanity then you are a fool and the concept is fatally flawed.
But, if you don't give a flying f
k about all the lies and distortions over fossil fuels or pollution etc then you are free to see the other benefits of EVs. Car companies are busy trying to fit as many auto gears to be as smooth as possible. As much sound deadening to be as quiet as possible. Make the vehicle as light as possible etc etc.
These are all things an EV can already do and will always do better.
The only single problem is range but work out where the majority of local journeys are to and install charge points. The costs is hidden in the shopping centre parking ticket and it texts you charge updates.
Forget this idiocy of individual and random charge points on the street. Whenever someone takes a car out they will invariably stop in a car park. That is where you put the charge points.
The simple reality is that EVs are doomed to failure because the agenda is driven by political activists, dreamers, cult leaders and in general the types of people who normal humans are genetically programmed to be wary of and avoid/ignore.
The only thing i disagree with is the range issue
I think it is a problem of perception of a problem then a real problem.
A 2 car family is far from unusual these days so a EV can happily fill the role of one of those cars.
Most people outside the odd world of pistonheads work 8 hours a day at one place and then go home and sleep in the same place for 8 hours which gives you two 8 hour long chances to charge a car.
This can work for many folk of course someone will now pop up and cry that they sleep for 3 minutes a night before driving 1000 miles a day and electric car would never work for them. So how on earth could they use an electric car. the answer is 1 they have a very strange life and 2 buy a petrol car you tard.
Yes a hydrogen car would solve this but looking at the market today i can point out that a hydrogen car would never work for me as i don't live in Swindon where the hydrogen filling station is. A hydrogen car also removes one of the advantages of an EV. You can't charge it at home.
Prof Prolapse said:
CraigyMc said:
Reminds me of this: http://www.dhmo.org/
That really is quite clever. Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff