Hydrogen ICE - encouraging news
Discussion
Long term it could well work, especially for smaller volume vehicles like sports and super cars.
I suspect it’s likely we will move predominantly EV though, especially in the short to medium term, which for most vehicles (white goods 3,4 and even a lot of 6 cylinder cars) wouldn’t lose much from them once the charging network expands in line with growth of market share.
I suspect it’s likely we will move predominantly EV though, especially in the short to medium term, which for most vehicles (white goods 3,4 and even a lot of 6 cylinder cars) wouldn’t lose much from them once the charging network expands in line with growth of market share.
sherman said:
Why not?
Because it creates NOx which will be banned by the EU and falls under the 2035 combustion ban in the U.K. to remove the NOx you need a particulate filter and catalyst so large you wouldn’t hear anything from it anyway. I’m not even going to go into the economics, supply chain and environmental problems. If you think you want this you don’t understand enginesTerminator X said:
Here for the "it will never work" comments.
TX.
Here to watch you cry inside a 2030 Euro 7 turbo’d “big block” 3litre V6 with PPF and audio system sound generator because that’s what the regs say and you can’t understand them. Legal limit of 68db - going out with a roarTX.
D4rez said:
sherman said:
Why not?
Because it creates NOx which will be banned by the EU and falls under the 2035 combustion ban in the U.K. to remove the NOx you need a particulate filter and catalyst so large you wouldn’t hear anything from it anyway. I’m not even going to go into the economics, supply chain and environmental problems. If you think you want this you don’t understand enginesElectric cars make no noise so why would the lack of noise be a problem.
Enviromental problems of getting rid of spent lithium batteries will be a interesting conundrum.
D4rez said:
Terminator X said:
Here for the "it will never work" comments.
TX.
Here to watch you cry inside a 2030 Euro 7 turbo’d “big block” 3litre V6 with PPF and audio system sound generator because that’s what the regs say and you can’t understand them. Legal limit of 68db - going out with a roarTX.
Edited by wsn03 on Wednesday 27th October 22:44
wsn03 said:
nd there we have it...for some very strange reason those in awe of Elon Musk are passionately routing for everything else to be banished. What an odd scenario?!? When did "pistonheads" begin to attract so many ordinary car haters I wonder?
Not really the case, just challenge the belief that EV means the death of driver’s cars. I don’t buy that cars are so one dimensional that removing one aspect suddenly makes them dull them boring and not worth lusting after. Steering feel, agility, acceleration, ride, throttle adjustability etc should be far more of the experience than that binary judgement suggestsEdited by wsn03 on Wednesday 27th October 22:44
sherman said:
Enviromental problems of getting rid of spent lithium batteries will be a interesting conundrum.
This thing might be a new concept, it might not be.
This thing is called recycling.
Lithium batteries are almost 100% recyclable.
The main reason you don't hear about it yet is because they are lasting much longer than anyone expected in their first incarnation.
What do you think of this brilliant news?
GT911 said:
sherman said:
Enviromental problems of getting rid of spent lithium batteries will be a interesting conundrum.
This thing might be a new concept, it might not be.
This thing is called recycling.
Lithium batteries are almost 100% recyclable.
The main reason you don't hear about it yet is because they are lasting much longer than anyone expected in their first incarnation.
What do you think of this brilliant news?
As of today there are no hard figures but best estimates put it at around 5% if lithium batteries are recycled.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/...
You best let these people know you can recycle 100% of the battery as they can only get appx 80%.
https://www.fortum.com/products-and-services/fortu...
Why make things up?
Using a reciprocating engine to burn hydrogen is significantly less efficient that converting it to electricity in a fuel cell. Without a battery and electric motor/generator somewhere in the drivetrain it is also not possible to recover braking energy. So we are back to typical liquid fuels efficiencies. Either that or it needs to be a hybrid vehicle of sorts to try to get something better than that efficiency wise.
It strikes me as very odd that one of the usual arguments against EVs is that the grid can't cope. Can someone please explain to me then how increasing the amount of electricity required by three times (compared to charging EVs) to produce green hydrogen to burn in an ICE doesn't make that problem three time worse. Or are we just going to make the hydrogen from natural gas and sod renewables?
Diesels are being chased out of urban areas, predominantly because of their high NOx byproduct. Guess which substance also produces NOx when combusted at high temperatures in an ICE.
A typical ICE passenger car operating on hydrogen is going to need around 6-7 kg of it on board to have a decent enough range. Simples yeah? Until you you then remember that 7 kg of hydrogen gas occupies about 77,000 litres at room temperature and pressure. And no, that's not a typo. We now need to compress is 700 times to fit it in the car. Enter the carbon fibre composite fuel tanks that are required. These are cylindrical and it's usually necessary to have 2 or 3 tanks per car to make the tanks small enough to have the strength required and/or to fit the various places that you can put a fuel tank. I suspect there are also significant concerns about having all of it in one tank, especially as in the (low probability but not impossible) event the tank is punctured and it ignites, the resulting explosion would take out just about everything within a 50 metre radius.
These tanks are very highly pressurised and are also subject to cyclic stressing due to emptying and refilling, they eventually weaken to the point of not being safe to use. The timeframe for this is something between 10-15 years, and unfortunately they are very difficult to recycle. For the posters who keep raising the prospect of a 'disposal nightmare' for lithium, despite its recyclability, how do you feel about disposing of all these composite tanks? We are talking up to 100 kg weight for the combined set of tanks.
Note that one of the major producers of high grade carbon fibre is Japan. The hydrogen approach requires unprecedented amounts of carbon fibre for both the vehicle fuel tanks and the potential massive increase in wind turbines that would be required. Who wants to hazard a guess as to one of the reasons why the Japanese are keen to pursue hydrogen?
So whilst is sound like a promising idea, in practice, hydrogen ICEs do very little to provide a net benefit. The servicing of ICEs is much more involved than an EV, and there will no doubt be some sort of NOx control system that will probably degrade with age, so you don't really get away from the reality that ICEs tend to be much worse on emissions at the end of their life than when they left the factory.
What I'm saying is that this type of alternative to an EV is not going to be a mainstream option. It will be a more expensive product (to buy and run) for niche applications, or for specific markets where hydrogen is potentially more attractive. In my estimation there is very little about the UK market that makes it attractive for hydrogen as a mainstream option.
It strikes me as very odd that one of the usual arguments against EVs is that the grid can't cope. Can someone please explain to me then how increasing the amount of electricity required by three times (compared to charging EVs) to produce green hydrogen to burn in an ICE doesn't make that problem three time worse. Or are we just going to make the hydrogen from natural gas and sod renewables?
Diesels are being chased out of urban areas, predominantly because of their high NOx byproduct. Guess which substance also produces NOx when combusted at high temperatures in an ICE.
A typical ICE passenger car operating on hydrogen is going to need around 6-7 kg of it on board to have a decent enough range. Simples yeah? Until you you then remember that 7 kg of hydrogen gas occupies about 77,000 litres at room temperature and pressure. And no, that's not a typo. We now need to compress is 700 times to fit it in the car. Enter the carbon fibre composite fuel tanks that are required. These are cylindrical and it's usually necessary to have 2 or 3 tanks per car to make the tanks small enough to have the strength required and/or to fit the various places that you can put a fuel tank. I suspect there are also significant concerns about having all of it in one tank, especially as in the (low probability but not impossible) event the tank is punctured and it ignites, the resulting explosion would take out just about everything within a 50 metre radius.
These tanks are very highly pressurised and are also subject to cyclic stressing due to emptying and refilling, they eventually weaken to the point of not being safe to use. The timeframe for this is something between 10-15 years, and unfortunately they are very difficult to recycle. For the posters who keep raising the prospect of a 'disposal nightmare' for lithium, despite its recyclability, how do you feel about disposing of all these composite tanks? We are talking up to 100 kg weight for the combined set of tanks.
Note that one of the major producers of high grade carbon fibre is Japan. The hydrogen approach requires unprecedented amounts of carbon fibre for both the vehicle fuel tanks and the potential massive increase in wind turbines that would be required. Who wants to hazard a guess as to one of the reasons why the Japanese are keen to pursue hydrogen?
So whilst is sound like a promising idea, in practice, hydrogen ICEs do very little to provide a net benefit. The servicing of ICEs is much more involved than an EV, and there will no doubt be some sort of NOx control system that will probably degrade with age, so you don't really get away from the reality that ICEs tend to be much worse on emissions at the end of their life than when they left the factory.
What I'm saying is that this type of alternative to an EV is not going to be a mainstream option. It will be a more expensive product (to buy and run) for niche applications, or for specific markets where hydrogen is potentially more attractive. In my estimation there is very little about the UK market that makes it attractive for hydrogen as a mainstream option.
lord.vader said:
GT911 said:
sherman said:
Enviromental problems of getting rid of spent lithium batteries will be a interesting conundrum.
This thing might be a new concept, it might not be.
This thing is called recycling.
Lithium batteries are almost 100% recyclable.
The main reason you don't hear about it yet is because they are lasting much longer than anyone expected in their first incarnation.
What do you think of this brilliant news?
As of today there are no hard figures but best estimates put it at around 5% if lithium batteries are recycled.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/...
You best let these people know you can recycle 100% of the battery as they can only get appx 80%.
https://www.fortum.com/products-and-services/fortu...
Why make things up?
Is 96% close enough to 100% for your liking?
Maybe I should have used the words 'can be' recycled at almost 100%.
Very sensitive subject, try not to be so angry.
Edited by GT911 on Thursday 28th October 01:36
Combustion!
Burning = bad
Hydrogen is great idea but it’s miles off from being anywhere near ready for mass use and hydrogen combustion is just stupid. Plain daft. Besides to make use of hydrogen you need to have a massive excess of electricity to make it. Until we have a massive excess of renewable electricity so more than 100% of our standard demand met by wind, solar etc we may as well burn oil.
Or use battery’s that are ready now and are much better than oil for us.
Burning = bad
Hydrogen is great idea but it’s miles off from being anywhere near ready for mass use and hydrogen combustion is just stupid. Plain daft. Besides to make use of hydrogen you need to have a massive excess of electricity to make it. Until we have a massive excess of renewable electricity so more than 100% of our standard demand met by wind, solar etc we may as well burn oil.
Or use battery’s that are ready now and are much better than oil for us.
Carlososos said:
Combustion!
Burning = bad
Hydrogen is great idea but it’s miles off from being anywhere near ready for mass use and hydrogen combustion is just stupid. Plain daft. Besides to make use of hydrogen you need to have a massive excess of electricity to make it. Until we have a massive excess of renewable electricity so more than 100% of our standard demand met by wind, solar etc we may as well burn oil.
Or use battery’s that are ready now and are much better than oil for us.
Which bit is better? The process of making the stuff that appears to be horrendously bad?Burning = bad
Hydrogen is great idea but it’s miles off from being anywhere near ready for mass use and hydrogen combustion is just stupid. Plain daft. Besides to make use of hydrogen you need to have a massive excess of electricity to make it. Until we have a massive excess of renewable electricity so more than 100% of our standard demand met by wind, solar etc we may as well burn oil.
Or use battery’s that are ready now and are much better than oil for us.
The process of charging this stuff (also using electricity)?
Or the process of recycling this stuff (again extremely bad)
Im not sure I see a difference so far, except that hydrogen might provide a solution that people actually want. Why are EV people so against the idea of anything else working? It really is a cult like obsession. I'd like to see various solutions, what is wrong with people??
With so many now investing in it it does look like hdrogen is coming whether you like it or not.
D4rez said:
wsn03 said:
nd there we have it...for some very strange reason those in awe of Elon Musk are passionately routing for everything else to be banished. What an odd scenario?!? When did "pistonheads" begin to attract so many ordinary car haters I wonder?
Not really the case, just challenge the belief that EV means the death of driver’s cars. I don’t buy that cars are so one dimensional that removing one aspect suddenly makes them dull them boring and not worth lusting after. Steering feel, agility, acceleration, ride, throttle adjustability etc should be far more of the experience than that binary judgement suggestsEdited by wsn03 on Wednesday 27th October 22:44
There are always several ways to skin a cat, and most people get that. EV fans seem to take a very Marxist approach to this by a) refusing to acknowledge there could be another way, and b) pushing out one dimensional PR that completely fails to cover any of the issues
My Tesla fan friend said one of the biggest own goals of the EV argument is the stupidity of government forcing people with the big stick - all it does it build resentment and then rebellion. He said they should be making it an attractive no-brainer where people choose on their own.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff