Discussion
Hydrogen is the future according to Clarkson and many of his followers.
Why?
What is the attraction?
My nearest hydrogen filling station is a mere 450 miles away so not quite doable on my normal commute.
And even if it was local then it still has the downsides of actually having to take the car there to refill it.
You still have all the rare metals used in an EV and it doesn't make a nice noise.
So can anyone change me mind
Why?
What is the attraction?
My nearest hydrogen filling station is a mere 450 miles away so not quite doable on my normal commute.
And even if it was local then it still has the downsides of actually having to take the car there to refill it.
You still have all the rare metals used in an EV and it doesn't make a nice noise.
So can anyone change me mind
The attraction is that you get ICE motoring without the pollution. The Holy Grail
The reality is that there isn't any Hydrogen on the planet that you can put in your tank. The cost of making Hydrogen appears to be extremely expensive and also polluting in many cases.
One of the Japanese firms is launching a hydrogen fuel cell car in the UK next year. The article also mentioned that the only hydrogen fuel station in England was at that company's plant.
There is also a political angle to the product. It has been promoted deliberately by certain media that is hostile to other alternatives. This is why so many normal people think that hydrogen powered cars are arriving any day and that have been told that Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements in the solar system etc.
People have been led to believe that tankers will just top up normal tanks at normal fuel stations and cars will just pull up and fill up just like with petrol.
The reality is that there isn't any Hydrogen on the planet that you can put in your tank. The cost of making Hydrogen appears to be extremely expensive and also polluting in many cases.
One of the Japanese firms is launching a hydrogen fuel cell car in the UK next year. The article also mentioned that the only hydrogen fuel station in England was at that company's plant.
There is also a political angle to the product. It has been promoted deliberately by certain media that is hostile to other alternatives. This is why so many normal people think that hydrogen powered cars are arriving any day and that have been told that Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements in the solar system etc.
People have been led to believe that tankers will just top up normal tanks at normal fuel stations and cars will just pull up and fill up just like with petrol.
McWigglebum4th said:
DonkeyApple said:
The attraction is that you get ICE motoring without the pollution. The Holy Grail
And what is so great about ICE ?Hydrogen if used to power an ICE will retain a lot of these hideous leftovers from the evil Industrial Revolution.
Obviously, if used as a fuel cell to power an electric motor then it is somewhat moot.
In my ideal world, if an ICE car isn't good enough to be sold as a poster for a kids bedroom or be part of a video game etc then it can be replaced with something quiet and more efficient. But if an ICE passes the above tests it should recieve tax discounts
One of my lecturers at Uni is extremely enthusiastic about hydrogen, and we had lectures and coursework on the subject, though I stopped short of choosing hydrogen storage for a 2 month research project. The first thing he will tell you is that it is an energy vector: not a "fuel". This means it effectively serves the same purpose as batteries. You put energy in somewhere, store in your hydrogen, and then use it - typically by combining with oxygen to produce water and energy. All this is very nice and works very well. The production and end use can be very energy efficient (less so in ICE engines, which is not an ideal application). The big problem comes with storage. The mass energy density is great but the volume is the biggest problem.
As far as I know, the maximum density it is possible achieve with hydrogen is ~80kg/m^3 - I do not know the exact numbers, but this means there is several times less energy stored per cubic metre than other methods, such as petrol. This is also under "perfect" conditions, with the amount of compression or refrigeration and associated infrastructure required being huge. There are some other methods that allow storage at high densities under more moderate conditions, but these are most certainly not without their difficulties. Adsorption has been an area of much interest, and gives some very promising results, though almost everything is preferentially adsorbed to hydrogen, so the purities required are bordering on the ridiculous.
There's plenty of info out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage . This article gives a good summary, and will probably correct me, as I have not thoroughly check any facts. I have no great concerns over safety, as we manage very well with petrol, which is thoroughly nasty stuff.
I'm not sure that we will all be driving around in hydrogen powered cars, though it has got a part. I believe that diversity of energy storage methods and fuel will probably be the answer, given the narrow operating windows of some alternatives. The climate debate is a distraction, though probably a good catalyst for encouraging the development of alternatives for when, after my lifetime, we "run out" of nice easy to find and use fuels.
Ultimately how your car runs, and what form the energy is delivered to it in, is in the hands of those who put the legislation in place to encourage it. Which is worrying as engineers and scientist who are best equipped to understand or have expertise in relevant areas are unlikely to be in this position.
As far as I know, the maximum density it is possible achieve with hydrogen is ~80kg/m^3 - I do not know the exact numbers, but this means there is several times less energy stored per cubic metre than other methods, such as petrol. This is also under "perfect" conditions, with the amount of compression or refrigeration and associated infrastructure required being huge. There are some other methods that allow storage at high densities under more moderate conditions, but these are most certainly not without their difficulties. Adsorption has been an area of much interest, and gives some very promising results, though almost everything is preferentially adsorbed to hydrogen, so the purities required are bordering on the ridiculous.
There's plenty of info out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage . This article gives a good summary, and will probably correct me, as I have not thoroughly check any facts. I have no great concerns over safety, as we manage very well with petrol, which is thoroughly nasty stuff.
I'm not sure that we will all be driving around in hydrogen powered cars, though it has got a part. I believe that diversity of energy storage methods and fuel will probably be the answer, given the narrow operating windows of some alternatives. The climate debate is a distraction, though probably a good catalyst for encouraging the development of alternatives for when, after my lifetime, we "run out" of nice easy to find and use fuels.
Ultimately how your car runs, and what form the energy is delivered to it in, is in the hands of those who put the legislation in place to encourage it. Which is worrying as engineers and scientist who are best equipped to understand or have expertise in relevant areas are unlikely to be in this position.
Mighty Flex said:
One of my lecturers at Uni is extremely enthusiastic about hydrogen, and we had lectures and coursework on the subject, though I stopped short of choosing hydrogen storage for a 2 month research project. The first thing he will tell you is that it is an energy vector: not a "fuel". This means it effectively serves the same purpose as batteries. You put energy in somewhere, store in your hydrogen, and then use it - typically by combining with oxygen to produce water and energy. All this is very nice and works very well. The production and end use can be very energy efficient (less so in ICE engines, which is not an ideal application). The big problem comes with storage. The mass energy density is great but the volume is the biggest problem.
As far as I know, the maximum density it is possible achieve with hydrogen is ~80kg/m^3 - I do not know the exact numbers, but this means there is several times less energy stored per cubic metre than other methods, such as petrol. This is also under "perfect" conditions, with the amount of compression or refrigeration and associated infrastructure required being huge. There are some other methods that allow storage at high densities under more moderate conditions, but these are most certainly not without their difficulties. Adsorption has been an area of much interest, and gives some very promising results, though almost everything is preferentially adsorbed to hydrogen, so the purities required are bordering on the ridiculous.
There's plenty of info out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage . This article gives a good summary, and will probably correct me, as I have not thoroughly check any facts. I have no great concerns over safety, as we manage very well with petrol, which is thoroughly nasty stuff.
I'm not sure that we will all be driving around in hydrogen powered cars, though it has got a part. I believe that diversity of energy storage methods and fuel will probably be the answer, given the narrow operating windows of some alternatives. The climate debate is a distraction, though probably a good catalyst for encouraging the development of alternatives for when, after my lifetime, we "run out" of nice easy to find and use fuels.
Ultimately how your car runs, and what form the energy is delivered to it in, is in the hands of those who put the legislation in place to encourage it. Which is worrying as engineers and scientist who are best equipped to understand or have expertise in relevant areas are unlikely to be in this position.
You are correct that hydrogen should be thought of as a battery. Another big problem is that its quite inefficient to crack hydrogen. Unless you have lots of energy to waste in creating the hydrogen, then its not viable.As far as I know, the maximum density it is possible achieve with hydrogen is ~80kg/m^3 - I do not know the exact numbers, but this means there is several times less energy stored per cubic metre than other methods, such as petrol. This is also under "perfect" conditions, with the amount of compression or refrigeration and associated infrastructure required being huge. There are some other methods that allow storage at high densities under more moderate conditions, but these are most certainly not without their difficulties. Adsorption has been an area of much interest, and gives some very promising results, though almost everything is preferentially adsorbed to hydrogen, so the purities required are bordering on the ridiculous.
There's plenty of info out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage . This article gives a good summary, and will probably correct me, as I have not thoroughly check any facts. I have no great concerns over safety, as we manage very well with petrol, which is thoroughly nasty stuff.
I'm not sure that we will all be driving around in hydrogen powered cars, though it has got a part. I believe that diversity of energy storage methods and fuel will probably be the answer, given the narrow operating windows of some alternatives. The climate debate is a distraction, though probably a good catalyst for encouraging the development of alternatives for when, after my lifetime, we "run out" of nice easy to find and use fuels.
Ultimately how your car runs, and what form the energy is delivered to it in, is in the hands of those who put the legislation in place to encourage it. Which is worrying as engineers and scientist who are best equipped to understand or have expertise in relevant areas are unlikely to be in this position.
There is research going on into the use of various transition metal oxides for the "splitting" of water using UV light (effectively working in daylight). I was offered a PhD project in the field looking at using titanium oxides (doped with other metals). However, I should think that, like solar panels, the energy conversion is not that good and the expense of producing a well-defined catalyst on a mass scale will stop it from being a useful means of producing hydrogen gas
thatdude said:
There is research going on into the use of various transition metal oxides for the "splitting" of water using UV light (effectively working in daylight). I was offered a PhD project in the field looking at using titanium oxides (doped with other metals). However, I should think that, like solar panels, the energy conversion is not that good and the expense of producing a well-defined catalyst on a mass scale will stop it from being a useful means of producing hydrogen gas
There is a huge quantity of research given the near "Holy Grail" nature of low energy hydrogen production, but as with your example (and in storage) there are huge difficulties involved in the accurate and economical production of these catalysts and materials. I'd like to remain hopeful that an elegant and workable solution will come from it, but I think certain physical and thermodynamic properties mean that it's bordering on the impossible. I do not know enough to be certain about this, but I have heard a lot of skeptical views from people I have a great deal of respect for. However, I'm glad there are those who remain optimistic! For the original questions, it could be a far "cleaner" solution than the current crop of battery EVs in terms of rare earth metal use and nasty waste, whilst being more energy efficient. Which would be lovely. Effectively very much like a battery EV to drive (as realistically, an ICE hydrogen car is a bit silly), but with much quicker "recharges".
Edited by Mighty Flex on Monday 16th December 14:51
Mighty Flex said:
There is a huge quantity of research given the near "Holy Grail" nature of low energy hydrogen production, but as with your example (and in storage) there are huge difficulties involved in the accurate and economical production of these catalysts and materials. I'd like to remain hopeful that an elegant and workable solution will come from it, but I think certain physical and thermodynamic properties mean that it's bordering on the impossible. I do not know enough to be certain about this, but I have heard a lot of skeptical views from people I have a great deal of respect for. However, I'm glad there are those who remain optimistic!
For the original questions, it could be a far "cleaner" solution than the current crop of battery EVs in terms of rare earth metal use and nasty waste, whilst being more energy efficient. Which would be lovely. Effectively very much like a battery EV to drive (as realistically, an ICE hydrogen car is a bit silly), but with much quicker "recharges".
What are the rare earth metals that EV's use, in which components and in what quantities?For the original questions, it could be a far "cleaner" solution than the current crop of battery EVs in terms of rare earth metal use and nasty waste, whilst being more energy efficient. Which would be lovely. Effectively very much like a battery EV to drive (as realistically, an ICE hydrogen car is a bit silly), but with much quicker "recharges".
Edited by Mighty Flex on Monday 16th December 14:51
of course the fuel cell car also uses as much for the traction engine and the dribble rate of fuel cell power may mean you still need hefty batteries to support the power demands. Even a 100kW motor will need a battery ~6.5kWh for a sensible'ish 15C discharge. Also why fill up with hydrogen when most trips you could just fill that battery from home? Mean you might build a Chevy Volt Mk2 weith a fuel cell for +35mile trips = 10kWh battery and the similar rare earth metal debate with the rare and expensive material for the fuel cell....
I think most OEMs are pushing for the reduced rare earth material content in their EV traction systems. I understand the LEAF avoids them? Japan wont really pander Chinese demands on their resources.
I think most OEMs are pushing for the reduced rare earth material content in their EV traction systems. I understand the LEAF avoids them? Japan wont really pander Chinese demands on their resources.
AnotherClarkey said:
What are the rare earth metals that EV's use, in which components and in what quantities?
Actually, that was a silly statement of me to make, as I don't know. I expect the answer is some (though I'm not sure if this is problem, as they aren't necessarily as "rare" as the name suggests.If Battery tech can develop further (don't ask me how) it may well always be one step ahead of Hydrogen.
JonnyVTEC said:
of course the fuel cell car also uses as much for the traction engine and the dribble rate of fuel cell power may mean you still need hefty batteries to support the power demands. Even a 100kW motor will need a battery ~6.5kWh for a sensible'ish 15C discharge. Also why fill up with hydrogen when most trips you could just fill that battery from home? Mean you might build a Chevy Volt Mk2 weith a fuel cell for +35mile trips = 10kWh battery and the similar rare earth metal debate with the rare and expensive material for the fuel cell....
I think most OEMs are pushing for the reduced rare earth material content in their EV traction systems. I understand the LEAF avoids them? Japan wont really pander Chinese demands on their resources.
I think the Tesla avoids them too - it uses an AC induction motor.I think most OEMs are pushing for the reduced rare earth material content in their EV traction systems. I understand the LEAF avoids them? Japan wont really pander Chinese demands on their resources.
DonkeyApple said:
In my ideal world, if an ICE car isn't good enough to be sold as a poster for a kids bedroom or be part of a video game etc then it can be replaced with something quiet and more efficient. But if an ICE passes the above tests it should recieve tax discounts
Thats a great way to describe whati think too. We should never dictate what cars people drive and should always keep aspirational dream cars. But who's to say what will power them in future. I think as soon as batteries improve their range we could see stuff we never expected for the price. 1000bhp 4wd cars that can drive themselves safely at 200mph on the motorway for example That's why I want to see more renewable energy. If you unlock from using a previous expensive resource and can get bucket loads of energy for the upfront capital cost you then everyone can expend more energy on transport. The economy is currently constrained by energy availability and the efficiency which it is used.
Back to the thread title. Hydrogen won't help. The energy used to make hydrogen make is 3 times more expensive than using a battery.
There's research being done with organic solar panels that will use algae and certain metals to break to H2O bond without using heaps of electric. However IIRC they take to much space to be useful in replacing current oil usage.
Think biofuel from algae is more likely than hydrogen as it can be done with sea water algae and sewage.
Poison Tom 96 said:
Coltan is used in batteries and is found in and around Uganda usually. It is a finite resource in an unstable country.
Is it? I thought it provided materials (neither of which are rare earth metals) used for capacitors? It has been a bit of a hot potato across the whole electronics industry for some time.TransverseTight said:
Back to the thread title. Hydrogen won't help. The energy used to make hydrogen make is 3 times more expensive than using a battery.
This is incorrect and a very common misconception. Hydrogen is only theoretically energy intensive when using traditional derived fossil fuel power sources. As already shown in this thread there's a global business in hydrogen energy generation; this will only continue to expand and the sooner we are all able to tap into hydrogen the better.One team in the US has developed a domestic sized generation kit where the hydrogen is produced via solar dished collector [the energy source], produced in their microwave sized separator and stored in a similar spec'd vessel to an LPG tank. I for one can not wait until this equipment is readily available as all my cars will be converted.
Lastly, any alternative power source produced by electricity will never be efficient...when will people realise that, even here in the little UK, power transmission losses are 70%+ by time electricity reaches our homes and point of usage. I trust all those buying EVs take this on board...work out the real cost of production per kWh and emissions; you'll be shocked. Then, think about the majority of other nations with considerably larger transmission distances!
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff