Hydrogen availability
Discussion
otolith said:
Why is that important?
I really don't understand why people are so emotionally attached to the idea of sticking a nozzle in their car. Is it sexual?
It demonstrates the flexibility of hydrogen fuel cell cars and the inflexibility of BEVs in that respect.I really don't understand why people are so emotionally attached to the idea of sticking a nozzle in their car. Is it sexual?
With a HFC car the nozzle's not in long, it's a quick fumble and off ye go!
With BEV it's an electrified buttplug aaaalll night long! LOL!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's been found in Cornwallhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-541...
budgie smuggler said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's been found in Cornwallhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-541...
gangzoom said:
You seem to have forgotten the amount of equipment needed to store one of the most reactive elements in the universe at 5000PSI - not to mention the cost/complexity of equipment needed to compress any fuel to those kind of pressures for either storage or transportation.
Look up weight of hydrogen fuel cells cars before dissing EVs for been overweight.
If you recon a 800kg hydrogen powered Elise is coming, you will be waiting for long time yet.
Hydrogen isn't actually very reactive. It's oxygen that's the problem!Look up weight of hydrogen fuel cells cars before dissing EVs for been overweight.
If you recon a 800kg hydrogen powered Elise is coming, you will be waiting for long time yet.
Edited by gangzoom on Tuesday 20th October 08:59
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Hydrogen turbines....have you been on that whiskey you mentioned.I said gas turbines, which is the generic name given to engines that operate using the Brayton cycle. The most obvious ones are strapped to the wings of passenger airliners. The ‘gas’ refers to the working fluid, not the fuel, as they burn a wide variety of fuels.
They are also used in some helicopters and larger light aircraft. The technology has made its way into power generation. Hundreds of billions have been spent on downsizing to address small power generation applications and several attempts at getting them into passenger vehicles, both for propulsion applications as well as on board generators.
This downsizing has met with many technical and commercial challenges over the last 50 years, and there has been quite limited success.
Hydrogen technology also faces many technical and commercial challenges of downsizing for use in passenger vehicles, several posters have attempted to point these out but you can only counter with waffle about whiskey and Sinclair C5s (which is not really relevant to downsizing is it)?
You seem to want to ignore the engineering aspects of this discussion for some reason, how can you not see the relationship between cost and efficiency?
otolith said:
Voight, otolith is trying to show the thermodynamic efficiency of the fuels. How much of the energy that is in the fuel do you get back when you use it?
With a battery/electric car, this is really quite efficient. some energy is lost as heat in the charging process, and also in running the motor. Some is also lost in power transmission.
One of the big problems with dihydrogen are the fundamental thermodynamics of dihydrogen production, which is one of the reasons it's so inefficient as a fuel compared to batteries in the first place. You have to use a significant portion of the energy you release by burning the dihydrogen just to generate it in the first place. You then have to physically transport it, which is less efficient than electrical transmission. You then oxidise it to release energy either in an ICE (not likely) or in a fuel cell, neither of which are particularly efficient. These all add up and by the end of the process, you get only 20 % of the energy content you put in at the start to make the fuel going into make your car move forwards.
That is the cost. The wasted energy.
Polite M135 driver said:
otolith said:
Voight, otolith is trying to show the thermodynamic efficiency of the fuels. How much of the energy that is in the fuel do you get back when you use it?With a battery/electric car, this is really quite efficient. some energy is lost as heat in the charging process, and also in running the motor. Some is also lost in power transmission.
One of the big problems with dihydrogen are the fundamental thermodynamics of dihydrogen production, which is one of the reasons it's so inefficient as a fuel compared to batteries in the first place. You have to use a significant portion of the energy you release by burning the dihydrogen just to generate it in the first place. You then have to physically transport it, which is less efficient than electrical transmission. You then oxidise it to release energy either in an ICE (not likely) or in a fuel cell, neither of which are particularly efficient. These all add up and by the end of the process, you get only 20 % of the energy content you put in at the start to make the fuel going into make your car move forwards.
That is the cost. The wasted energy.
Loss of efficiency isn't THE cost, it is A cost, one of many.
Combine the costs, holistically, and then we have the answer.
But if you read back it doesn't support a specific statement Otolith made.
He/she has aknowledged that now.
otolith said:
The energy cost will be more than triple. The other costs are also likely to be higher, but I don't have numbers for that.
Those other numbers are important. You can't say much more without them.The other factor is stability. Stability of price, stability of supply. There have been spikes in the costs of the metals for BEV batteries.
That's not to say there's no battery in a HFC vehicle, just that it's much smaller and therefore poses less demand on the supply of those materials. The battery chemistry could be altered more easily than in a BEV, if necessary, as the car isn't so intensively reliant on it.
Hydrogen may just be a much more dynamic and stable solution in this respect.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 20th October 11:20
anonymous said:
[redacted]
the energy is all coming from the same place - renewably generated electricity, your arguments have all been within the framework of using renewably generated hydrogen. so the energy input costs the same for each route. The (net) energy you get out with batteries is three times higher than what you get out with fuel cells. Polite M135 driver said:
you sound a bit like someone arguing mobile phones will never take off because the batteries don't last long enough.
Nothing of the kind.The mobile phone took off because it was massively more flexible than a wired home phone.
And it became a fashionable accessory.
A status symbol.
Music player.
Internet browser.
It gave the owner freedom that a home phone didn't and became much more than a phone.
But now at a cost far, far greater than a home phone and using more power too.
And ever increasing in size and battery capacity.
Flexibility and freedom.
That means a lot.
Which will offer more, BEV or HFC?
The people who you need to aim your comment at are the people against hydrogen.
The people like Musk who is, strangely, the equivalent of the town gas lighting supplier insisting electric street lighting will never take off.
Greg_D said:
Just to wade into the infrastructure element of ev charging.
I build apartments and it has been standard For some time that every new unit we produce gets a charger in one of their designated parking spaces.
The whole infrastructure issue will simply melt away over time. Add in outlets retrofitted to street furniture and I don’t see any significant barriers to mass charging of EVs in the medium term.
Hydrogen in the other hand....
Just to be clear, does this mean that each apartment in a block has its own charger or is it one charger per block?I build apartments and it has been standard For some time that every new unit we produce gets a charger in one of their designated parking spaces.
The whole infrastructure issue will simply melt away over time. Add in outlets retrofitted to street furniture and I don’t see any significant barriers to mass charging of EVs in the medium term.
Hydrogen in the other hand....
If the latter, is there capacity to add more chargers in the future?
It may be that "The whole infrastructure issue will simply melt away over time." if the reports about the capacity of the local distribution cabling, substations, etc are correct!
The biggest problems with a HFC for PassCar applications is it's lack of response and mono-directionality (it cannot make re-hydrogen if you feed 'lecy back into it).
This forces you to fit a battery in parallel with the HFC to supply the peak load and to be-able to incorporate regen, which in a dynamic/transient PassCar application is the key to really low consumption (because traffic lights go red infront of you, people run out in front of you, roads have bends, roundabouts, and other traffic) The market also current demands a pretty high level of performance (typical family car is now around 8kg/bhp).
And that posses a problem. In order to be able to regent he most energy, and in order to provide decent transient performance, you have a system with an average load of about 15kW, but a peak load that can be 200, 300 or even 400kW (a ratio of at least 13:1). That forces you to fit a high power battery, and today(for various complex reasons i won't go into here), a high power battery is likely to be a high capacity one (in terms of energy storage). And once you have a high capacity battery, what is the HFC bringing to the party? The answer, is, only the ability to refuel very quickly, at the considerable cost of significant added complexity and increased monitary cost. When you do the analysis, in fact, even today with battery systems at around $180/kWh the sums simply don't add up for Passcar. It doesn't even provide the longest ranger per unit cost, because it's cheaper to just increase the size of the battery pack and ditch all the HFC gubins.
The simple truth of the matter is you won't see any significant HFC Passcar influence becase it's too expensive, too in-efficient, and the only benefit it actually provides (quick refuelling) is not the be-all or end-all in the PassCar market
This forces you to fit a battery in parallel with the HFC to supply the peak load and to be-able to incorporate regen, which in a dynamic/transient PassCar application is the key to really low consumption (because traffic lights go red infront of you, people run out in front of you, roads have bends, roundabouts, and other traffic) The market also current demands a pretty high level of performance (typical family car is now around 8kg/bhp).
And that posses a problem. In order to be able to regent he most energy, and in order to provide decent transient performance, you have a system with an average load of about 15kW, but a peak load that can be 200, 300 or even 400kW (a ratio of at least 13:1). That forces you to fit a high power battery, and today(for various complex reasons i won't go into here), a high power battery is likely to be a high capacity one (in terms of energy storage). And once you have a high capacity battery, what is the HFC bringing to the party? The answer, is, only the ability to refuel very quickly, at the considerable cost of significant added complexity and increased monitary cost. When you do the analysis, in fact, even today with battery systems at around $180/kWh the sums simply don't add up for Passcar. It doesn't even provide the longest ranger per unit cost, because it's cheaper to just increase the size of the battery pack and ditch all the HFC gubins.
The simple truth of the matter is you won't see any significant HFC Passcar influence becase it's too expensive, too in-efficient, and the only benefit it actually provides (quick refuelling) is not the be-all or end-all in the PassCar market
Max_Torque said:
The biggest problems with a HFC for PassCar applications is it's lack of response and mono-directionality (it cannot make re-hydrogen if you feed 'lecy back into it).
This forces you to fit a battery in parallel with the HFC to supply the peak load and to be-able to incorporate regen, which in a dynamic/transient PassCar application is the key to really low consumption (because traffic lights go red infront of you, people run out in front of you, roads have bends, roundabouts, and other traffic) The market also current demands a pretty high level of performance (typical family car is now around 8kg/bhp).
And that posses a problem. In order to be able to regent he most energy, and in order to provide decent transient performance, you have a system with an average load of about 15kW, but a peak load that can be 200, 300 or even 400kW (a ratio of at least 13:1). That forces you to fit a high power battery, and today(for various complex reasons i won't go into here), a high power battery is likely to be a high capacity one (in terms of energy storage). And once you have a high capacity battery, what is the HFC bringing to the party? The answer, is, only the ability to refuel very quickly, at the considerable cost of significant added complexity and increased monitary cost. When you do the analysis, in fact, even today with battery systems at around $180/kWh the sums simply don't add up for Passcar. It doesn't even provide the longest ranger per unit cost, because it's cheaper to just increase the size of the battery pack and ditch all the HFC gubins.
The simple truth of the matter is you won't see any significant HFC Passcar influence becase it's too expensive, too in-efficient, and the only benefit it actually provides (quick refuelling) is not the be-all or end-all in the PassCar market
And for those same reasons I won't have a Fusion powered car This forces you to fit a battery in parallel with the HFC to supply the peak load and to be-able to incorporate regen, which in a dynamic/transient PassCar application is the key to really low consumption (because traffic lights go red infront of you, people run out in front of you, roads have bends, roundabouts, and other traffic) The market also current demands a pretty high level of performance (typical family car is now around 8kg/bhp).
And that posses a problem. In order to be able to regent he most energy, and in order to provide decent transient performance, you have a system with an average load of about 15kW, but a peak load that can be 200, 300 or even 400kW (a ratio of at least 13:1). That forces you to fit a high power battery, and today(for various complex reasons i won't go into here), a high power battery is likely to be a high capacity one (in terms of energy storage). And once you have a high capacity battery, what is the HFC bringing to the party? The answer, is, only the ability to refuel very quickly, at the considerable cost of significant added complexity and increased monitary cost. When you do the analysis, in fact, even today with battery systems at around $180/kWh the sums simply don't add up for Passcar. It doesn't even provide the longest ranger per unit cost, because it's cheaper to just increase the size of the battery pack and ditch all the HFC gubins.
The simple truth of the matter is you won't see any significant HFC Passcar influence becase it's too expensive, too in-efficient, and the only benefit it actually provides (quick refuelling) is not the be-all or end-all in the PassCar market
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You are just showing your own predudices here i'm afraid.If you look at it with a purely objective head on, it's not being "against" or "for" it's about being the overall best fit for the application. And here, for Passcar, a pure EV is by far the best fit:
1) Cheapest
2) Simplest
3) Highest performance
4) Lowest overall consumption
5) Lowest infrastructure impact/demand
Today, i'm working on 7 different EV projects
Today, i'm working on 2 Hybrid (ICE + LECY) projects
Today, i'm working on 0 (zero) HFC projects
So, if you are so completely sure that a HFC passcar is the "right" answer, i'm afraid you're going to have to develop and build one yourself realistically speaking..........
Evanivitch said:
And for those same reasons I won't have a Fusion powered car
well actually, you might.The ultimate energy source, ie where the 'lecy to charge your BEV comes from could well be Fusion, just like some of it is Fission today.
And in fact, there is a good chance that grid scale HFC boosting is going to be used for load leveling and to allow renewables to be fully leveraged. With excess renwable 'lecy turned into hydrogen because it's a sunny/windy sunday, but oxidised back into 'lecy tomorrow, because it's a dark, windless monday.
So yes, HFC does have a rosy future in our energy mix, but one things for sure, you won't be carting one around in your passcar.........
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 20th October 12:01
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff