Hydrogen is the future, not BEVs?
Discussion
k offautumnsum said:
98elise said:
Agreed. Just look at the switch to low energy lamps. There was a thread onnhere where people were stockpiling 100w lamps before the ban came in! There was no way the government was going to stop them wasting energy!
I wonder if any of them still insist on using 100w old bulbs.Low energy bulbs are crap with the slow light up but that's not the reason I don't want them. I don't want them because they give off large quantities of UV light which will fade pictures / books etc.
As for LED, they cost a fortune and don't last 5 minutes. They also have a horrible 'strobe' effect on running water which I really can't stand. The only ones that seem to do OK are those 'fake' filament style bulbs so I have one of those in my outside light.
I can still buy 105W halogen bayonet bulbs, and ~40W G9 bulbs, so other people wanting to use low energy bulbs is fune by me but I hate choice being legislated away.
I work in H2ICE development and there is definitely a space for it. I don't think it'll be passenger cars really but, again, it's the choice being forced upon us that I despise. Especially when the fundamental issue is overpopulation coupled with blatant overconsumption.
autumnsum said:
5G too, that seems to have gone quiet now they all have it.
I am surprised they have not gone nuts about fibre optic cables, my whole area is currently being upgraded to it by BT.
It is odd what parts of technology they choose to be mad about.
5G went quiet because the Evil Emperor Ming the Merciless was defeated. I am surprised they have not gone nuts about fibre optic cables, my whole area is currently being upgraded to it by BT.
It is odd what parts of technology they choose to be mad about.
heebeegeetee said:
I've been thinking about this regarding Lee Anderson and his followers, as in, what makes them think they have a right to live in a country or a society that never changes?
Underneath is a common sense in that with change comes loss for some. Just look back to medieval times and the technologies that eventually led into the renaissance. All great chances that moved society forward but for many of the most vulnerable it was a change they didn't recover from let alone advance with. Today that change is even more rapid and we can see with the adoption of AI that there will be a mass deletion of lower paid roles and while many will be fine and move with the change there will be casualties. These collective memories of change and the fact that the lower down the wealth scale you head the more likely it is to know people negatively impacted are what form the foundation from which agitators can foment unrest and stoke fears for their own objectives.
And in reality, pushback to change is essential as it is a core function of keeping change healthy. Without pushback you fail to get scrutiny and the lunacy of the 'early adopter' illness ceases to be a benefit but become a creator of chaos. The most extreme at either end are toxic to society if granted too loud a voice but both of great worth is allowed sufficient voice.
On top of this basic underlying way that human civilisations lurch steadily forward we have in the U.K. a particular national scenario within living memory and which, whether people realise it or not, is ever present in British society and that was the coal miners' strikes and general rapid de-industrialisation of the 80s and the economic regional wastelands of the 90s. Millions saw their entire world tipped upside down by aggressive govt legislation and many never recovered. Now, it just so happens that that deindustrialisation of the 80s is about to transpire to all to have been the most fortuitous and greatest thing to have happened to the U.K. as a result of 2035 and 2050. We are one of very few developed, post industrial nations and the developed nations that chose not to deindustrialise at the end of the 20th century are now facing crippling costs to try and meet 2050 targets and will incur mass unemployment at about the worst possible era in modern history, an era where the developing nations have done much of the developing and simply no longer need be beholden to western guidance and profiteering.
stavers said:
I work in H2ICE development and there is definitely a space for it. I don't think it'll be passenger cars really but, again, it's the choice being forced upon us that I despise. Especially when the fundamental issue is overpopulation coupled with blatant overconsumption.
Introducing compressed hydrogen into punter's homes and cars is an interesting solution to overpopulation, a bit left field maybe.Seriously though, what part of the legislation is preventing hydrogen ICEs from being used in passenger cars after 2035?
JCB's own website claims the engines only produce water vapour, so if you are going to use the NOx argument then I think you should update your website.
As for the practicalities of building a production passenger HICE car with an acceptable range, we both know that mother nature made the choice for us when hydrogen's physical properties were dished out tens of billions of years ago.
I appreciate that we are coming at this topic from opposite ends, but I'm genuinely interested in an honest discussion or anything you can share that would address some of the lingering questions about both the source and the in-vehicle storage of H2 for the UK's transportation sector.
stavers said:
autumnsum said:
98elise said:
Agreed. Just look at the switch to low energy lamps. There was a thread onnhere where people were stockpiling 100w lamps before the ban came in! There was no way the government was going to stop them wasting energy!
I wonder if any of them still insist on using 100w old bulbs.Low energy bulbs are crap with the slow light up but that's not the reason I don't want them. I don't want them because they give off large quantities of UV light which will fade pictures / books etc.
As for LED, they cost a fortune and don't last 5 minutes. They also have a horrible 'strobe' effect on running water which I really can't stand. The only ones that seem to do OK are those 'fake' filament style bulbs so I have one of those in my outside light.
I can still buy 105W halogen bayonet bulbs, and ~40W G9 bulbs, so other people wanting to use low energy bulbs is fune by me but I hate choice being legislated away.
I work in H2ICE development and there is definitely a space for it. I don't think it'll be passenger cars really but, again, it's the choice being forced upon us that I despise. Especially when the fundamental issue is overpopulation coupled with blatant overconsumption.
Low energy bulbs are now almost all led and are instant to light up. They last longer than traditional incandescent bulbs and cost a few quid.
They emit a tiny amount of UV compared to other bulb types, they're used extensively in art galleries for that very reason.
G9 bulbs are notorious for suffering from high heat levels, this is true whatever they use to crease the light.
When we switched over to using Google home assistant, we bought about 20 smart bulbs, that was 6 years ago and not a single one has failed - cost each around £7... We've since added accent lighting in some rooms using smart led ribbon, none of those were costly or have failed either.
The notion of running a 100w+ light bulb these days is odd to me. The only exception was a cut glass chandelier we have, we stuck with traditional filament bulbs for thatg as we wanted the single point light that a filament gives to retract through the glass and create a nice ceiling pattern. As such, I did stockpile some suitable bulbs... But then realised the make led bulbs now that do create a spot light from several LEDs, they give the same result.
dvs_dave said:
^^^^^
It’s such a bizarre and factually incorrect position to hold I’m inclined to think it’s a carefully crafted troll post, especially with the “I work in H2ICE development” grenade thrown in.
If I'm honest I did wonder if the EV - Energy saving lightbulb thing was such a good comparison that somebody would have to stretch to find a way to downplay energy saving lightbulbs It’s such a bizarre and factually incorrect position to hold I’m inclined to think it’s a carefully crafted troll post, especially with the “I work in H2ICE development” grenade thrown in.
Before this thread gets too carried away with it's own little echo chamber it's worth pointing out that not all "tech" is actually a genuine improvement. There's obviously lots of good stuff but plenty has been sold as "the future" but really relies more on clever marketing and being lapped up by over enthusiastic "tech bro" types.
Our Tesla has loads of examples - the door handles are an absolutely idiotic design. I have to tell new passengers all the time how to get in and out, they freeze over easily and are physically awkward to use even when you're used to them. Whereas not once have I ever given the door handles of anything else even a moments thought. A complete failure of design but lapped up because it's "futuristic".
Same with the touchscreen dominated controls, it's great for lesser used stuff but stabbing at a small touchscreen button with nothing to rest your hand on while trying to drive just because you want to be half a degree warmer is also idiotic. Again, it's lapped up as the future when in reality it's just marketing and cost cutting.
Lots of home "smart" tech is badly designed unreliable garbage too - smart digital showers are a prime example, why introduce the complexity of the app, electronics and actuators into something that works beautiful without them. There's literally no benefit at all that I can see - instead of just turning on the shower, I need to carry my phone and open an app? The Mira Excel shower installed in one of my parent's bathroom in the 90's still works perfectly with all of it's original components, what are the chances that £900 all singing Aqualisa smart shower will still be working in 2054?
As an engineer (in my 30s!) I detest complicated tech for the sake of it but I suppose gadgets and gimmicks are much easier to sell than decent quality.
Way off topic now though!
Our Tesla has loads of examples - the door handles are an absolutely idiotic design. I have to tell new passengers all the time how to get in and out, they freeze over easily and are physically awkward to use even when you're used to them. Whereas not once have I ever given the door handles of anything else even a moments thought. A complete failure of design but lapped up because it's "futuristic".
Same with the touchscreen dominated controls, it's great for lesser used stuff but stabbing at a small touchscreen button with nothing to rest your hand on while trying to drive just because you want to be half a degree warmer is also idiotic. Again, it's lapped up as the future when in reality it's just marketing and cost cutting.
Lots of home "smart" tech is badly designed unreliable garbage too - smart digital showers are a prime example, why introduce the complexity of the app, electronics and actuators into something that works beautiful without them. There's literally no benefit at all that I can see - instead of just turning on the shower, I need to carry my phone and open an app? The Mira Excel shower installed in one of my parent's bathroom in the 90's still works perfectly with all of it's original components, what are the chances that £900 all singing Aqualisa smart shower will still be working in 2054?
As an engineer (in my 30s!) I detest complicated tech for the sake of it but I suppose gadgets and gimmicks are much easier to sell than decent quality.
Way off topic now though!
DonkeyApple said:
Bulbs aside, the poster merely said they worked in the field and didn't see much for private cars, which seems logical.
That's certainly logical for private transport. I fail to see the logic of hydrogen for any ice personally - the low pollution gains are great but easily wiped out by the mass generation of hydrogen including distribution and storage. If certain applications truly have to remain ice, it's often very difficult to argue there is a better solution than continuing to use fossil fuels until a genuine alternative is found.The attempt to undermine EV for personal transport by trying to undermine the obvious benefits and advance of energy saving lighting was laughable.
Snow and Rocks said:
Before this thread gets too carried away with it's own little echo chamber it's worth pointing out that not all "tech" is actually a genuine improvement. There's obviously lots of good stuff but plenty has been sold as "the future" but really relies more on clever marketing and being lapped up by over enthusiastic "tech bro" types.
Our Tesla has loads of examples - the door handles are an absolutely idiotic design. I have to tell new passengers all the time how to get in and out, they freeze over easily and are physically awkward to use even when you're used to them. Whereas not once have I ever given the door handles of anything else even a moments thought. A complete failure of design but lapped up because it's "futuristic".
Same with the touchscreen dominated controls, it's great for lesser used stuff but stabbing at a small touchscreen button with nothing to rest your hand on while trying to drive just because you want to be half a degree warmer is also idiotic. Again, it's lapped up as the future when in reality it's just marketing and cost cutting.
Lots of home "smart" tech is badly designed unreliable garbage too - smart digital showers are a prime example, why introduce the complexity of the app, electronics and actuators into something that works beautiful without them. There's literally no benefit at all that I can see - instead of just turning on the shower, I need to carry my phone and open an app? The Mira Excel shower installed in one of my parent's bathroom in the 90's still works perfectly with all of it's original components, what are the chances that £900 all singing Aqualisa smart shower will still be working in 2054?
As an engineer (in my 30s!) I detest complicated tech for the sake of it but I suppose gadgets and gimmicks are much easier to sell than decent quality.
Way off topic now though!
The examples you give are examples of tech sold as tech, for the sake of exciting bored punters. They don't relate to transformative technology such as LEDs or the electric drivetrain for cars.Our Tesla has loads of examples - the door handles are an absolutely idiotic design. I have to tell new passengers all the time how to get in and out, they freeze over easily and are physically awkward to use even when you're used to them. Whereas not once have I ever given the door handles of anything else even a moments thought. A complete failure of design but lapped up because it's "futuristic".
Same with the touchscreen dominated controls, it's great for lesser used stuff but stabbing at a small touchscreen button with nothing to rest your hand on while trying to drive just because you want to be half a degree warmer is also idiotic. Again, it's lapped up as the future when in reality it's just marketing and cost cutting.
Lots of home "smart" tech is badly designed unreliable garbage too - smart digital showers are a prime example, why introduce the complexity of the app, electronics and actuators into something that works beautiful without them. There's literally no benefit at all that I can see - instead of just turning on the shower, I need to carry my phone and open an app? The Mira Excel shower installed in one of my parent's bathroom in the 90's still works perfectly with all of it's original components, what are the chances that £900 all singing Aqualisa smart shower will still be working in 2054?
As an engineer (in my 30s!) I detest complicated tech for the sake of it but I suppose gadgets and gimmicks are much easier to sell than decent quality.
Way off topic now though!
True. There's so much VC money about and has been for a long time that a lot of things that would have died at the funding point have sailed through to the market.
And I suspect we're already seeing a row back on massive screens with the market splitting between budget and premium with the latter reverting to better solutions for some functionality.
Devoutly believing new must be better is an early adopter belief, in reality, sometimes the original solution is still the superior one. The market does eventually sort the wheat from the chaff.
And of course, it works the other way that sometimes new tech is genuinely much better but it fails to get traction at that time and comes back later after a rebrand and a change over of early adopters.
In a manner, the electric motor for moving a car was always the first and better means of propulsion but because the energy for it couldn't be efficiently stored and because naptha was a waste product back then the massively complex, inefficient and generally rubbish ICE was created. Luckily for us.
And I suspect we're already seeing a row back on massive screens with the market splitting between budget and premium with the latter reverting to better solutions for some functionality.
Devoutly believing new must be better is an early adopter belief, in reality, sometimes the original solution is still the superior one. The market does eventually sort the wheat from the chaff.
And of course, it works the other way that sometimes new tech is genuinely much better but it fails to get traction at that time and comes back later after a rebrand and a change over of early adopters.
In a manner, the electric motor for moving a car was always the first and better means of propulsion but because the energy for it couldn't be efficiently stored and because naptha was a waste product back then the massively complex, inefficient and generally rubbish ICE was created. Luckily for us.
TheDeuce said:
The examples you give are examples of tech sold as tech, for the sake of exciting bored punters. They don't relate to transformative technology such as LEDs or the electric drivetrain for cars.
Absolutely hence the "there's obviously lots of good stuff" comment. I have noticed a small but growing movement in favour of simplicity and living with fewer, but higher quality goods though. Hopefully it catches on - ever greater throw away consumerism won't save the world even if is electric!DonkeyApple said:
True. There's so much VC money about and has been for a long time that a lot of things that would have died at the funding point have sailed through to the market.
And I suspect we're already seeing a row back on massive screens with the market splitting between budget and premium with the latter reverting to better solutions for some functionality.
Devoutly believing new must be better is an early adopter belief, in reality, sometimes the original solution is still the superior one. The market does eventually sort the wheat from the chaff.
And of course, it works the other way that sometimes new tech is genuinely much better but it fails to get traction at that time and comes back later after a rebrand and a change over of early adopters.
In a manner, the electric motor for moving a car was always the first and better means of propulsion but because the energy for it couldn't be efficiently stored and because naptha was a waste product back then the massively complex, inefficient and generally rubbish ICE was created. Luckily for us.
It was lucky for us! Because energy storage didn't catch up with methods of energy usage, we got a hundred or so years of dino juice powered cars - that's guilt free fun we've all enjoyed!And I suspect we're already seeing a row back on massive screens with the market splitting between budget and premium with the latter reverting to better solutions for some functionality.
Devoutly believing new must be better is an early adopter belief, in reality, sometimes the original solution is still the superior one. The market does eventually sort the wheat from the chaff.
And of course, it works the other way that sometimes new tech is genuinely much better but it fails to get traction at that time and comes back later after a rebrand and a change over of early adopters.
In a manner, the electric motor for moving a car was always the first and better means of propulsion but because the energy for it couldn't be efficiently stored and because naptha was a waste product back then the massively complex, inefficient and generally rubbish ICE was created. Luckily for us.
But now things are different and we can store the required energy in the car sufficient to use a simple electric motor.. the guilt free part starts to collapse.
What can I say? In an engineer - of course an electric motor is better at making a car move than blowing up petrol 2000 times a minute to kick it down the road. Of course electricity which is everywhere, instantly, is forever more efficient than hauling petrol or hydrogen or any other fuel around the world ahead of using it.
But as a car fan I am very grateful for the years of internal combustion we have enjoyed guilt free. I'm also very glad to live in a time I can cherry pick a great ice car as an investment whilst mainstream cars crack on with common sense.
Most of all, it's possible to celebrate a love of ice and also a healthy desire for sensible progress simultaneously. For some of us.
Snow and Rocks said:
TheDeuce said:
The examples you give are examples of tech sold as tech, for the sake of exciting bored punters. They don't relate to transformative technology such as LEDs or the electric drivetrain for cars.
Absolutely hence the "there's obviously lots of good stuff" comment. I have noticed a small but growing movement in favour of simplicity and living with fewer, but higher quality goods though. Hopefully it catches on - ever greater throw away consumerism won't save the world even if is electric!I'm certain the governments pushing EV are very happy if it also puts some people on the bus. That won't ever be popular, but is it wrong? Are buses not a sensible solution..!?
We all have to consume less, I'm doing my bit in that regard both personally and through my business. But it seems a lot of the EV upset is coming from people that are used to buying a £700 shed every few years and worrying that EV won't ever provide that solution. Is that a reason to not want cleaner transport?
GT9 said:
stavers said:
I work in H2ICE development and there is definitely a space for it. I don't think it'll be passenger cars really but, again, it's the choice being forced upon us that I despise. Especially when the fundamental issue is overpopulation coupled with blatant overconsumption.
Introducing compressed hydrogen into punter's homes and cars is an interesting solution to overpopulation, a bit left field maybe.Seriously though, what part of the legislation is preventing hydrogen ICEs from being used in passenger cars after 2035?
JCB's own website claims the engines only produce water vapour, so if you are going to use the NOx argument then I think you should update your website.
As for the practicalities of building a production passenger HICE car with an acceptable range, we both know that mother nature made the choice for us when hydrogen's physical properties were dished out tens of billions of years ago.
I appreciate that we are coming at this topic from opposite ends, but I'm genuinely interested in an honest discussion or anything you can share that would address some of the lingering questions about both the source and the in-vehicle storage of H2 for the UK's transportation sector.
I have to admit I haven't looked at the legislation in detail recently but it did need to be tweaked to allow combustion engines with 0 net CO2 emissions as it specified technology.
As for the only emissions being water I'll refrain from commenting on that as I would like to keep my job...
As I said, I don't think it's viable for passenger vehicles really. The physics of converting electricity to hydrogen and back again just don't make sense in tha scenario. The only advantage really is that it would stop large quantites of rare raw materials being used to create batteries and motors and mostly rely on stuff that is easily recyclable.
In terms of industry I think it makes more sense as there often isn't infrastructure where a lot of construction industry works so charging batteries just isn't feasible (without an ICE generator...) and the cost of lost time whilst they are being charged also isn't viable. Effectively the H2 is being used as an energy storage medium for places which don't have the ability / time to charge batteries.
The vehicle which the engine goes in to have high-pressure storage vessles which store enough fuel for several hours of work, and can be refilled from a tube trailer which can store several hundred kilos of fuel. Generation can be done in a green way and whilst it isn't the most efficient (as mentioned above) it is at least less polluting than traditional ICE.
TheDeuce said:
stavers said:
autumnsum said:
98elise said:
Agreed. Just look at the switch to low energy lamps. There was a thread onnhere where people were stockpiling 100w lamps before the ban came in! There was no way the government was going to stop them wasting energy!
I wonder if any of them still insist on using 100w old bulbs.Low energy bulbs are crap with the slow light up but that's not the reason I don't want them. I don't want them because they give off large quantities of UV light which will fade pictures / books etc.
As for LED, they cost a fortune and don't last 5 minutes. They also have a horrible 'strobe' effect on running water which I really can't stand. The only ones that seem to do OK are those 'fake' filament style bulbs so I have one of those in my outside light.
I can still buy 105W halogen bayonet bulbs, and ~40W G9 bulbs, so other people wanting to use low energy bulbs is fune by me but I hate choice being legislated away.
I work in H2ICE development and there is definitely a space for it. I don't think it'll be passenger cars really but, again, it's the choice being forced upon us that I despise. Especially when the fundamental issue is overpopulation coupled with blatant overconsumption.
Low energy bulbs are now almost all led and are instant to light up. They last longer than traditional incandescent bulbs and cost a few quid.
They emit a tiny amount of UV compared to other bulb types, they're used extensively in art galleries for that very reason.
G9 bulbs are notorious for suffering from high heat levels, this is true whatever they use to crease the light.
When we switched over to using Google home assistant, we bought about 20 smart bulbs, that was 6 years ago and not a single one has failed - cost each around £7... We've since added accent lighting in some rooms using smart led ribbon, none of those were costly or have failed either.
The notion of running a 100w+ light bulb these days is odd to me. The only exception was a cut glass chandelier we have, we stuck with traditional filament bulbs for thatg as we wanted the single point light that a filament gives to retract through the glass and create a nice ceiling pattern. As such, I did stockpile some suitable bulbs... But then realised the make led bulbs now that do create a spot light from several LEDs, they give the same result.
My experience with LED bulbs is very different from yours. Every one that I have installed (with the exception of the "filament" style one as mentioned) has failed in less time than a halogen and cost a small fortune (as you say, £7 each rather than 85p each that I paid for my last lot of halogen bulbs). That goes for both G9 and standard bayonet bulbs.
TheDeuce said:
DonkeyApple said:
Bulbs aside, the poster merely said they worked in the field and didn't see much for private cars, which seems logical.
The attempt to undermine EV for personal transport by trying to undermine the obvious benefits and advance of energy saving lighting was laughable.Having worked for 3 OEMs on hybrid and electric vehicle development, as well as other in standard & H2 ICE development, I have my own opinions on it all.
The main point I was trying to make is that things like bulbs (which have made F all difference to global CO2 levels) should not be forced upon people. If it truly is a better technology then it will become the leader on its own merit.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff