Hydrogen is the future, not BEVs?
Discussion
P.Griffin said:
The point is that, given there are other technologies to research and develop, I find it amazing that governments around the world are happy to accept that BEVs are the answer, even though they come with some huge drawbacks. We seem to have given up on Hydrogen. The situation reminds me of the folly of the US legislators in the 70s, confronted with the issue of smog. Instead of focusing on small capacity, clean burning efficient engines, they choked the hell out of the engine to make the emissions clean, but had to increase cubic capacity to maintain power, but in doing so, reduced gas mileage. It seems that EVs are the best of a bad bunch, but doesn't make criticism of them wrong, and I certainly can't trust governments to do the right thing.
Have you looked into what mineral resources would be needed to transition to hydrogen for cars? One of those articles you linked talked about the impact of mining copper for renewable energy generation - you'd need to mine three times as much copper to support enough generation for hydrogen fuel cell cars because they are less energy efficient. More like six times as much if you were daft enough to put it into ICEs. Fuel cells currently require precious metals (as do catalytic converters, and if you don't like cobalt mining operations in the third world, don't look up what happens in platinum group metal extraction) and they also require batteries, albeit smaller ones.Hydrogen is being killed by physics, not politics.
otolith said:
P.Griffin said:
The point is that, given there are other technologies to research and develop, I find it amazing that governments around the world are happy to accept that BEVs are the answer, even though they come with some huge drawbacks. We seem to have given up on Hydrogen. The situation reminds me of the folly of the US legislators in the 70s, confronted with the issue of smog. Instead of focusing on small capacity, clean burning efficient engines, they choked the hell out of the engine to make the emissions clean, but had to increase cubic capacity to maintain power, but in doing so, reduced gas mileage. It seems that EVs are the best of a bad bunch, but doesn't make criticism of them wrong, and I certainly can't trust governments to do the right thing.
Have you looked into what mineral resources would be needed to transition to hydrogen for cars? One of those articles you linked talked about the impact of mining copper for renewable energy generation - you'd need to mine three times as much copper to support enough generation for hydrogen fuel cell cars because they are less energy efficient. More like six times as much if you were daft enough to put it into ICEs. Fuel cells currently require precious metals (as do catalytic converters, and if you don't like cobalt mining operations in the third world, don't look up what happens in platinum group metal extraction) and they also require batteries, albeit smaller ones.Hydrogen is being killed by physics, not politics.
P.Griffin said:
I'm in no way defending the use of fossil fuels, and know that has to be reduced, but EVs don't come guilt free as some on here like to think.
No one thinks this. You can't just make up a viewpoint and pretend other people hold it so you can win an argument.Edited by P.Griffin on Tuesday 30th April 13:48
otolith said:
P.Griffin said:
The point is that, given there are other technologies to research and develop, I find it amazing that governments around the world are happy to accept that BEVs are the answer, even though they come with some huge drawbacks. We seem to have given up on Hydrogen. The situation reminds me of the folly of the US legislators in the 70s, confronted with the issue of smog. Instead of focusing on small capacity, clean burning efficient engines, they choked the hell out of the engine to make the emissions clean, but had to increase cubic capacity to maintain power, but in doing so, reduced gas mileage. It seems that EVs are the best of a bad bunch, but doesn't make criticism of them wrong, and I certainly can't trust governments to do the right thing.
Have you looked into what mineral resources would be needed to transition to hydrogen for cars? One of those articles you linked talked about the impact of mining copper for renewable energy generation - you'd need to mine three times as much copper to support enough generation for hydrogen fuel cell cars because they are less energy efficient. More like six times as much if you were daft enough to put it into ICEs. Fuel cells currently require precious metals (as do catalytic converters, and if you don't like cobalt mining operations in the third world, don't look up what happens in platinum group metal extraction) and they also require batteries, albeit smaller ones.Hydrogen is being killed by physics, not politics.
Green hydrogen requires cheap electrolysers - China.
Green hydrogen requires 3 times as many wind turbines - China.*
In-vehicle ultra-pressurised H2 storage requires a large mass of high grade carbon fibre composites - China.*
Fuel cell cars require lithium batteries - China.
Low-carbon hydrogen for cars turns the China thing up to 11.
Every single time we go through these discussions it's blatantly obvious to anyone with a working calculator that the only pathway we should be pursuing is the viable one that consumes the least energy.
If it helps people sleep easier at night, it's not a lone clueless bod in some random government office making these policy decisions on a whim.
They are made with the benefit of wide-ranging industry input via multi-year studies and information submissions to the Science and Technology Committees.
The resulting policy is backed by sound engineering and science input from the best in the business.
If that ends up meaning EVs for cars, e-fuel or ammonia for aircraft and ships and some hydrogen for long range HGVs, so be it.
It's simply a matter of perspective if the sub-sector specific solutions are putting all eggs in one basket or not.
- Both ultra-pressure H2 and wind turbines require high-grade composites.
Composites that have a current global volume production capacity that cannot support more then a few million fuel cell cars, predominantly because of the mass of material used in the car, but also because off the increase in the number of wind turbine blades.
Hydrogen for cars falls down on so many fronts due to its lack of sustainability and renewability that are yet to become known by a wider audience, and I doubt these things will ever become known, simply because it's too bloody expensive to use for public consumption, and that kills it all on its own.
UK-sourced hydrogen is currently all from natural gas and that will continue to be the case with preference for blue hydrogen in the near term.
Sustainable, low-carbon? I'l let the reader decide.
Edited by GT9 on Tuesday 30th April 15:32
DonkeyApple said:
P.Griffin said:
I'm in no way defending the use of fossil fuels, and know that has to be reduced, but EVs don't come guilt free as some on here like to think.
Such as? Edited by P.Griffin on Tuesday 30th April 13:48
If you could list those people it would be very useful.
DonkeyApple said:
P.Griffin said:
So in a 100% EV world, you don't see an issue with one country controlling the raw materials needed for their production?
But China doesn't in this scenario. Nor to they have total control over the future materials that will replace cobalt and lithium. We do however live wholly beholden to another nation controlling oil and even our gas market. The price of which not only governs our economic growth but BoE rate policy as we must maintain parity to the USD and our foreign policy where we must cowtow to producer nations.
And consider this, if the U.K. were 100% lithium ion EV today we would not be beholden to any nation at all for lithium as we would have become self sufficient because each vehicle scrapped would be supplying the lithium required for each produced.
So today we are in the nightmare scenario that you posit due to oil but 100% EV would release us from such a prison.
What you can see, quite clearly, is that EVs represent freedom for us in the U.K. They empower a freedom from the USD, freedom from US foreign policy, freedom from bad across such as Russia and freedom from the likes of China who currently hold significant control over key raw materials. All while being an integral part of our drive for freedom of energy self sufficiency.
They represent such a massive gain to the U.K. and competitive advantage that allowing people to just switch when they want to over the next thirty years is actually phenomenally cavalier to the point of being stupid and dangerous. But to do otherwise would not represent our core British values of freedom of choice and supporting the weak.
stavers said:
They weren't the only issues I'd had but they were my final straw.
As I said, I also hate the "strobe" effect of LED lights which doesn't happen with the halogen bulbs.
You seem to inhabit some strange place where the only LED bulbs you have available to you are from a local lighting shop, they still flicker at a noticeable 50Hz, and only last a few hours, whilst paying 7 quid a piece for the privilege.As I said, I also hate the "strobe" effect of LED lights which doesn't happen with the halogen bulbs.
Meanwhile the rest of us since about 2016 just nip down to B&Q and buy a box of 6 LEDs for a tenner that literally last forever, don’t flicker, don’t emit any UV or IR, and just work.
Hence our incredulity at your apparent experience with LEDs as it’s at complete odds with everyone else’s.
dvs_dave said:
You seem to inhabit some strange place where the only LED bulbs you have available to you are from a local lighting shop, they still flicker at a noticeable 50Hz, and only last a few hours, whilst paying 7 quid a piece for the privilege.
Meanwhile the rest of us since about 2016 just nip down to B&Q and buy a box of 6 LEDs for a tenner that literally last forever, don’t flicker, don’t emit any UV or IR, and just work.
Hence our incredulity at your apparent experience with LEDs as it’s at complete odds with everyone else’s.
this neatly encapsulates a lot of the negativity around the energy transition, not just the shift to EVs. people seem to pluck a reference point from the past and trot it out like it's still current. look forward, not back! it's exciting, not scary.Meanwhile the rest of us since about 2016 just nip down to B&Q and buy a box of 6 LEDs for a tenner that literally last forever, don’t flicker, don’t emit any UV or IR, and just work.
Hence our incredulity at your apparent experience with LEDs as it’s at complete odds with everyone else’s.
dvs_dave said:
stavers said:
They weren't the only issues I'd had but they were my final straw.
As I said, I also hate the "strobe" effect of LED lights which doesn't happen with the halogen bulbs.
You seem to inhabit some strange place where the only LED bulbs you have available to you are from a local lighting shop, they still flicker at a noticeable 50Hz, and only last a few hours, whilst paying 7 quid a piece for the privilege.As I said, I also hate the "strobe" effect of LED lights which doesn't happen with the halogen bulbs.
Meanwhile the rest of us since about 2016 just nip down to B&Q and buy a box of 6 LEDs for a tenner that literally last forever, don’t flicker, don’t emit any UV or IR, and just work.
Hence our incredulity at your apparent experience with LEDs as it’s at complete odds with everyone else’s.
Meanwhile everyone else on the thread is scratching their head as they have a house full of energy saving lightbulbs and they can't even remember the last time one blew
plfrench said:
There's also an interesting angle to the oft cited 'what about the tax take from fossil fuels - how will the government replace this lost revenue?' Well, if you think of the transition away from fossil fuels as the country burning less money (i.e. reducing the amount that leaves UK circulation and into those oil producing nations we buy it from), then that leaves more to spend within the UK, increasing tax take via VAT etc. This situation will only improve comparatively as the differential between electricity costs increasingly genrated by renewables come down and fossil fuel costs increase over the next couple of decades.
Knowing us Brits we'll probably just plough the free capital into mortgage repayments and drive House prices even higher. 
I think the next govt may be whacking up taxes anyway and eventually we will get higjer taxation on electricity purchases above a base level, as per income tax. It's too easy a tax to calc and collect as well as being progressive and incentivise self generation investment without subsidies etc. plus, it'll be a huge vote winner and hard to defend against. I suspect we will see a raft of wealth taxes masquerading as environmental levies.
DonkeyApple said:
plfrench said:
There's also an interesting angle to the oft cited 'what about the tax take from fossil fuels - how will the government replace this lost revenue?' Well, if you think of the transition away from fossil fuels as the country burning less money (i.e. reducing the amount that leaves UK circulation and into those oil producing nations we buy it from), then that leaves more to spend within the UK, increasing tax take via VAT etc. This situation will only improve comparatively as the differential between electricity costs increasingly genrated by renewables come down and fossil fuel costs increase over the next couple of decades.
Knowing us Brits we'll probably just plough the free capital into mortgage repayments and drive House prices even higher. I think the next govt may be whacking up taxes anyway and eventually we will get higjer taxation on electricity purchases above a base level, as per income tax. It's too easy a tax to calc and collect as well as being progressive and incentivise self generation investment without subsidies etc. plus, it'll be a huge vote winner and hard to defend against. I suspect we will see a raft of wealth taxes masquerading as environmental levies.
I expect that off peak/dynamic cheap rate electricity will remain cheaper overall for a long time into the future too - because that's also encouraging useful and national cost saving good behaviour.
TheDeuce said:
Meanwhile everyone else on the thread is scratching their head as they have a house full of energy saving lightbulbs and they can't even remember the last time one blew
My hall, right now.
They’re a lot better than they were ten years ago certainly, but you’re kidding yourself on trying to make out they’re as infallible as you are presenting in here.
emicen said:
TheDeuce said:
Meanwhile everyone else on the thread is scratching their head as they have a house full of energy saving lightbulbs and they can't even remember the last time one blew
My hall, right now.
They’re a lot better than they were ten years ago certainly, but you’re kidding yourself on trying to make out they’re as infallible as you are presenting in here.
The larger form factor led bulbs are stupidly long lived ime.
stavers said:
GT9 said:
stavers said:
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.
I'm very familiar with the composite tanks used to store H2, their working pressures, and the life and dimensional limitations due to the stress profile and low cycle fatigue.If you haven't read most of this thread then I should elaborate that my question was mostly about source.
Electricity nowadays has a fairly mature (in terms of how it is derived) carbon intensity value attached to it.
UK sourced H2 is almost entirely grey today, and I don't see much on the horizon that sees us switching to green in a meaningful timeframe.
Rather, the approach seems to be to push blue hydrogen to the fore.
Blue H2 has some serious questions to answer before we can call it a proven low carbon option, so much so that the EU and USA appear to be saying no to blue hydrogen from the get go.
Fugitive methane and H2 rates combined with sub-100% capture of CO2 potentially means very unattractive real world carbon intensity.
This is what I mean by an honest discussion.
Understandably, the business relationships between JCB and Ineos, for example, favour the idea of using blue hydrogen over green.
I can rationalise that as a sound approach to decarbonising existing consumers of hydrogen, but what I struggle with is developing new applications to increase the consumption of H2 on the back of an unproven and potentially even higher carbon intensity than simply burning the methane and producing electricity from it.
Alternatively, heavy plant is one of the few areas where swappable battery packs actually makes a lot of sense over ICE, achieving many more net positives. For remote site operations without ready grid connections, H2 fuel cell generators to charge the batteries is perhaps a smarter direction to go in, or trailer mounted wind turbines, and/or solar arrays to run it all. Worst case you can at least have relatively efficient Diesel Generators on standby to keep things running if your renewable power sources aren’t able to keep up with demand.
dvs_dave said:
For heavy construction and mining equipment, H2ICE seems like a lot of effort to go to over just sticking with diesel. Not really any particular advantages to make the juice worth the squeeze.
Alternatively, heavy plant is one of the few areas where swappable battery packs actually makes a lot of sense over ICE, achieving many more net positives. For remote site operations without ready grid connections, H2 fuel cell generators to charge the batteries is perhaps a smarter direction to go in, or trailer mounted wind turbines, and/or solar arrays to run it all. Worst case you can at least have relatively efficient Diesel Generators on standby to keep things running if your renewable power sources aren’t able to keep up with demand.
It's an interesting area, heavy plant. Why does it need to be clean when working where no one can see it? And no one is going to allow hydrogen to be being used and transported or stored where there are people who can see. You're simply not going to allow a large, compressed volume of hydrogen to be on an urban construction site. Not more than once anyway. Alternatively, heavy plant is one of the few areas where swappable battery packs actually makes a lot of sense over ICE, achieving many more net positives. For remote site operations without ready grid connections, H2 fuel cell generators to charge the batteries is perhaps a smarter direction to go in, or trailer mounted wind turbines, and/or solar arrays to run it all. Worst case you can at least have relatively efficient Diesel Generators on standby to keep things running if your renewable power sources aren’t able to keep up with demand.
JCB have spent a little bit of cash taking a head from a German company to create a combustion solution. The cost has come out of grants. Meanwhile the owner is a key driver behind the need to greenwash driving round in circles for no purpose so is well onboard the 'efuel for Gary's MPV in Clacton' comedy show. His son is flogging buses to simple minded local authorities who willingly hurl away other people's money so they can look like heroes, get on TV and maybe even write of book or get a better paid gig at an NGO or quango. And his deal with his mate Fortesque to claim carbon credits so as to be able to meet net zero obligations while still churning out cO2 at least has merit as the GH can potentially be produced from true excess wind renewable as western aus is one of the three global locations where that is plausible and China is not too far away and a ready buyer.
The fundamental issue though is GH supply. Currently in commercial terms it is zero. It'll take ten years minimum just to build up sufficient production to enable current hydrogen industries to switch and escape massive net zero levies. Then you have the myriad other industries where GH may be the most cost effective solution to escaping those levies. It doesn't really leave anything in the table for decades to be a reliable global backbone to road transport or transport in general beyond aviation and all the while others energy stores will be improving and GH is ultimately only a bad fudge while those other energy stores improve.
We'll see. Stuff will come out of the GH market but we can see that for the last few years almost all the media was propaganda and hype and that vast sums of taxpayer money has been defrauded and lost and the hype is now clearly dying down.
DonkeyApple said:
dvs_dave said:
For heavy construction and mining equipment, H2ICE seems like a lot of effort to go to over just sticking with diesel. Not really any particular advantages to make the juice worth the squeeze.
Alternatively, heavy plant is one of the few areas where swappable battery packs actually makes a lot of sense over ICE, achieving many more net positives. For remote site operations without ready grid connections, H2 fuel cell generators to charge the batteries is perhaps a smarter direction to go in, or trailer mounted wind turbines, and/or solar arrays to run it all. Worst case you can at least have relatively efficient Diesel Generators on standby to keep things running if your renewable power sources aren’t able to keep up with demand.
It's an interesting area, heavy plant. Why does it need to be clean when working where no one can see it? And no one is going to allow hydrogen to be being used and transported or stored where there are people who can see. You're simply not going to allow a large, compressed volume of hydrogen to be on an urban construction site. Not more than once anyway. Alternatively, heavy plant is one of the few areas where swappable battery packs actually makes a lot of sense over ICE, achieving many more net positives. For remote site operations without ready grid connections, H2 fuel cell generators to charge the batteries is perhaps a smarter direction to go in, or trailer mounted wind turbines, and/or solar arrays to run it all. Worst case you can at least have relatively efficient Diesel Generators on standby to keep things running if your renewable power sources aren’t able to keep up with demand.
JCB have spent a little bit of cash taking a head from a German company to create a combustion solution. The cost has come out of grants. Meanwhile the owner is a key driver behind the need to greenwash driving round in circles for no purpose so is well onboard the 'efuel for Gary's MPV in Clacton' comedy show. His son is flogging buses to simple minded local authorities who willingly hurl away other people's money so they can look like heroes, get on TV and maybe even write of book or get a better paid gig at an NGO or quango. And his deal with his mate Fortesque to claim carbon credits so as to be able to meet net zero obligations while still churning out cO2 at least has merit as the GH can potentially be produced from true excess wind renewable as western aus is one of the three global locations where that is plausible and China is not too far away and a ready buyer.
The fundamental issue though is GH supply. Currently in commercial terms it is zero. It'll take ten years minimum just to build up sufficient production to enable current hydrogen industries to switch and escape massive net zero levies. Then you have the myriad other industries where GH may be the most cost effective solution to escaping those levies. It doesn't really leave anything in the table for decades to be a reliable global backbone to road transport or transport in general beyond aviation and all the while others energy stores will be improving and GH is ultimately only a bad fudge while those other energy stores improve.
We'll see. Stuff will come out of the GH market but we can see that for the last few years almost all the media was propaganda and hype and that vast sums of taxpayer money has been defrauded and lost and the hype is now clearly dying down.
A company right next door to my workshop is now developing containerised solar generators incorporating a diesel backup, so the power supply required could be deposited just about anywhere, and in fact be relocated as need be by the plant it's powering. This seems a lot simpler and safer than anything that can be achieved using hydrogen. And crucially, even if the diesel generator kicks in occasionally, it's still an overall green solution and I don't think it would be a difficult sell in terms of regulators accepting such a solution because it's standard practice for all sorts of industries and services to use fossil fuel backup to keep things working if there's a loss to the normal power supply, for whatever reason.
TheDeuce said:
For heavy plant - can't they just use static batteries to rapidly recharge the mobile plant batteries? That's the direction rail electrification seems to be headed in. It's great because you don't need a whopping great power supply, you just need one that can charge banks of static batteries at least at the rate they're discharged - so if a battery needs to be drained to top up the mobile plant battery every four hours, you have four hours to recharge it.
A company right next door to my workshop is now developing containerised solar generators incorporating a diesel backup, so the power supply required could be deposited just about anywhere, and in fact be relocated as need be by the plant it's powering. This seems a lot simpler and safer than anything that can be achieved using hydrogen. And crucially, even if the diesel generator kicks in occasionally, it's still an overall green solution and I don't think it would be a difficult sell in terms of regulators accepting such a solution because it's standard practice for all sorts of industries and services to use fossil fuel backup to keep things working if there's a loss to the normal power supply, for whatever reason.
Capex is your enemy. Stick a different head on existing plant and tanker in a toxic gas versus the current rubbish electric solution of needing banks of batteries, moving them about and having to invent ways of recharging them where there is no grid supply. You can see the reasoning as it's a relatively cheap means to utilise existing heavy plant until viable EV solutions are created. You can see why simply tinkering in a different fuel type has merit at present. Urban usage will tend to have pre-existing electricity supply and a need to not have mistakes that wipe out a thousand apartments. A company right next door to my workshop is now developing containerised solar generators incorporating a diesel backup, so the power supply required could be deposited just about anywhere, and in fact be relocated as need be by the plant it's powering. This seems a lot simpler and safer than anything that can be achieved using hydrogen. And crucially, even if the diesel generator kicks in occasionally, it's still an overall green solution and I don't think it would be a difficult sell in terms of regulators accepting such a solution because it's standard practice for all sorts of industries and services to use fossil fuel backup to keep things working if there's a loss to the normal power supply, for whatever reason.
DonkeyApple said:
TheDeuce said:
For heavy plant - can't they just use static batteries to rapidly recharge the mobile plant batteries? That's the direction rail electrification seems to be headed in. It's great because you don't need a whopping great power supply, you just need one that can charge banks of static batteries at least at the rate they're discharged - so if a battery needs to be drained to top up the mobile plant battery every four hours, you have four hours to recharge it.
A company right next door to my workshop is now developing containerised solar generators incorporating a diesel backup, so the power supply required could be deposited just about anywhere, and in fact be relocated as need be by the plant it's powering. This seems a lot simpler and safer than anything that can be achieved using hydrogen. And crucially, even if the diesel generator kicks in occasionally, it's still an overall green solution and I don't think it would be a difficult sell in terms of regulators accepting such a solution because it's standard practice for all sorts of industries and services to use fossil fuel backup to keep things working if there's a loss to the normal power supply, for whatever reason.
Capex is your enemy. Stick a different head on existing plant and tanker in a toxic gas versus the current rubbish electric solution of needing banks of batteries, moving them about and having to invent ways of recharging them where there is no grid supply. You can see the reasoning as it's a relatively cheap means to utilise existing heavy plant until viable EV solutions are created. You can see why simply tinkering in a different fuel type has merit at present. Urban usage will tend to have pre-existing electricity supply and a need to not have mistakes that wipe out a thousand apartments. A company right next door to my workshop is now developing containerised solar generators incorporating a diesel backup, so the power supply required could be deposited just about anywhere, and in fact be relocated as need be by the plant it's powering. This seems a lot simpler and safer than anything that can be achieved using hydrogen. And crucially, even if the diesel generator kicks in occasionally, it's still an overall green solution and I don't think it would be a difficult sell in terms of regulators accepting such a solution because it's standard practice for all sorts of industries and services to use fossil fuel backup to keep things working if there's a loss to the normal power supply, for whatever reason.
There's no shortage of electric plant already operating. In the film industry we use electric telehandlers, cherry pickers and cranes, they're perfect they don't use any power when not moving, yet are always ready to move. Obviously we also have access to biblical amounts of power wherever we work so power usage isn't really a concern
TheDeuce said:
I personally wouldn't be bothered if they just stuck with diesel for more remote operations - the impact is tiny. But I'm assuming legislation will at some point force a 'green' solution, and in that scenario batteries and where needed site based renewable generation for charging seem to be the simplest direction for future plant to head in.
You can see it coming.Diesel generator + electrolyser + compressor + H2 engine.
NOx and CO2 footprint substantially worse than just using diesel.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff