Hydrogen availability
Discussion
GT119 said:
I'm at a loss...
You are now arguing strongly that weight is important to efficiency, which of course implies efficiency must also be important.
Yesterday you were arguing that the poor comparative efficiency of HFCVs to BEVs isn't important.
Here's a question for you, what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
As far as weight goes, comparative kerb weight matters to some degree for start-stop driving (tempered by the ability to recover energy used to accelerate the vehicle). For constant speed, the drag coefficient and drive train efficiency are far more significant.
You're at a loss because you're not listening!You are now arguing strongly that weight is important to efficiency, which of course implies efficiency must also be important.
Yesterday you were arguing that the poor comparative efficiency of HFCVs to BEVs isn't important.
Here's a question for you, what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
As far as weight goes, comparative kerb weight matters to some degree for start-stop driving (tempered by the ability to recover energy used to accelerate the vehicle). For constant speed, the drag coefficient and drive train efficiency are far more significant.
I've never said efficiency isn't a consideration.
I said that the difference in the well to tank efficiencies will be reduced with developments in the way hydrogen is produced and delivered.
I also said that efficiency is only one of many considerations that buyers make. If efficiency was the only factor we'd have all long been driving one-litre diesel s
tboxes already! Now that's hyperbole, before you say any more.Now when it comes to range then there's a balance between powertrain efficiency, energy density and weight. Yes aerodynamics and drag matter but they're a moot point and they're not a differential of the powertrain choice.
Because the energy density of hydrogen is so much more than the energy density of batteries (10x) you can fit a lot more energy in the hydrogen 'tank' than you can in the battery 'tank'.
The difference in the efficiency of an FCEV powertrain and a BEV powertrain is nowhere near that factor. Don't confuse the well to wheel differential factor of 3x with the tank to wheel differential.
So you can get much more range out of an FCEV. You can attempt to increase the range of a BEV by whacking more batteries in but all that does is reduce the efficiency of the BEV (I'd say in terms of wheel to tarmac) and makes it impractically heavy, which has implications in both handling, vehicle wear, increase in the weight of the rest of the vehicle to strengthen it to deal with the increased battery weight, increase in the vehicle production costs (batteries are a major cost element) and end of life recycling costs (again majorly a result of the batteries).
Max_Torque said:
Simple solution to motorway HGV range when they are BEV:
The Siemens eHighway:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7003989/T...
How practical do you think that is?The Siemens eHighway:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7003989/T...
https://energypost.eu/energy-conversion-for-hydrog...
Hydrogen 38%
Electricity 80%
Hydrogen has no place as a fuel, its a diversion, a waste of time.
Electricity generated and transmitted to the hydrogen production facility, Hydrogen has to be produced, then compressed and stored, it then has to be delivered to the refueling point, It then has to be dispenced to the vehicle. All processes are energy consuming and taking power to compete....
A BEV
Electricity is generated, transmitted through cable to the recharge station, connects to car and recharges battery. simple really....
Those still pursuing hydrogen are wasting time and effort that could be better spent on developing better battery technology or even working on supercapacitors that may be the answer, quick charge capability and a couple of hundred miles range.
Hydrogen 38%
Electricity 80%
Hydrogen has no place as a fuel, its a diversion, a waste of time.
Electricity generated and transmitted to the hydrogen production facility, Hydrogen has to be produced, then compressed and stored, it then has to be delivered to the refueling point, It then has to be dispenced to the vehicle. All processes are energy consuming and taking power to compete....
A BEV
Electricity is generated, transmitted through cable to the recharge station, connects to car and recharges battery. simple really....
Those still pursuing hydrogen are wasting time and effort that could be better spent on developing better battery technology or even working on supercapacitors that may be the answer, quick charge capability and a couple of hundred miles range.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
In an ICE the energy used to accelerate entirely is lost as heat. In an EV a large proportion is recovered.
When not accelerating (ie at a constant velocity) it has very little impact on the energy consumed. Energy is only expended making up for rolling resistance and drag. In an airless and frictionless environment there would be no energy consumed at all no matter what the weight was.
That's just physics.
98elise said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
In an ICE the energy used to accelerate entirely is lost as heat. In an EV a large proportion is recovered.
When not accelerating (ie at a constant velocity) it has very little impact on the energy consumed. Energy is only expended making up for rolling resistance and drag. In an airless and frictionless environment there would be no energy consumed at all no matter what the weight was.
That's just physics.
ks!No, sorry, it's a combination of b
ks and irrelevance.Eg of b
ks:'In an ICE the energy used to accelerate entirely is lost as heat'.
So an ICE car is a heater? And energy is lost, is it? Are you sure it's not converted?
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 25th October 20:15
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I am listening, it’s just that, well, you are presenting all of this stuff as if it was an epiphany. Maybe for you it is, but for someone who has lived and breathed this stuff for the past 20 years in a professional capacity, it is horribly old news. The comparisons you are making between the two approaches have been done to death a thousand times over by technical experts. Conclusions were drawn and people acted. The big players in the passenger car market have already steered their ships a long way down the BEV path and have being doing so for 10 years or more. You are quite a few years late to the party I’m afraid.
Greg_D said:
Excellent. I will be genuinely interested to see how you get on.
In all seriousness, (and I’m not being snide now) are you expecting refuelling problems in your current location? How will you get on when you need to do longer journeys?
Ah, Jesus.In all seriousness, (and I’m not being snide now) are you expecting refuelling problems in your current location? How will you get on when you need to do longer journeys?
You say you're not being snide but that's exactly what you're being. You seem that type on here. I hope you're nicer in real life.
GT119 said:
I am listening, it’s just that, well, you are presenting all of this stuff as if it was an epiphany. Maybe for you it is, but for someone who has lived and breathed this stuff for the past 20 years in a professional capacity, it is horribly old news.
The comparisons you are making between the two approaches have been done to death a thousand times over by technical experts. Conclusions were drawn and people acted. The big players in the passenger car market have already steered their ships a long way down the BEV path and have being doing so for 10 years or more. You are quite a few years late to the party I’m afraid.
What the hell are you on about? The comparisons you are making between the two approaches have been done to death a thousand times over by technical experts. Conclusions were drawn and people acted. The big players in the passenger car market have already steered their ships a long way down the BEV path and have being doing so for 10 years or more. You are quite a few years late to the party I’m afraid.
From reading your posts I don't get the impression that you have lived and breathed this stuff for the past 20 years in a professional capacity.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I’m actually a little offended now! I wasn’t being snide at all. I meant what I say... there is currently a shortage of refuelling stations and I was asking you if you are comfortable with your own personal ability to fuel the car (for all I know, you may have a hydrogen station at the end of your drive...)I was trying to be convivial....
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Here's a guide:[Url]www.cimt.org.uk › alevelPDF
6 WORK and ENERGY[/url]
To make the car move, accelerate and keep moving you've got to convert one type of energy to kinetic energy. Yes some is 'lost' to heat in that process (and other forms of energy) but that's the case in ICE, in BEV and in FCEV (most evident in ICE). The calculation for kinetic energy involves mass and velocity, so to move at a constant velocity the heavier the vehicle the more kinetic energy needs to be generated to maintain that velocity, continually working against rolling resistance, aero drag and,in some instances, gravity too.
Someone else was talking about the hypothetical environment where there is no resistance and no drag but that's irrelevant as there's no case that will ever happen, practically, in the case of a motor car and it wouldn't be very useful if there was no resistance anyway!
Mass is important when you're thinking how much energy needs to be converted to keep a car moving.
That is all I'm saying. Its madness (and retarded) to say that the mass of a car isn't important and isn't a factor in efficiency of a car. Weight saving benefits efficiency.
Mass matters primarily because it affects how much energy you have to put in to accelerate the car to a given speed. If you were able to recover 100% of that energy and put it back into the battery when you slow down, this factor would not matter whatsoever. If you can recover a large proportion of it (as hybrids and BEVs can) it matters much less. If you hardly ever accelerate or slow down it matters less.
Mass matters secondarily because it affects rolling resistance. This affects how much energy you have to put in to maintain a constant speed. Energy recovery is not relevant to this term, but it is a relatively small factor.
Mass matters secondarily because it affects rolling resistance. This affects how much energy you have to put in to maintain a constant speed. Energy recovery is not relevant to this term, but it is a relatively small factor.
otolith said:
Mass matters primarily because it affects how much energy you have to put in to accelerate the car to a given speed. If you were able to recover 100% of that energy and put it back into the battery when you slow down, this factor would not matter whatsoever. If you can recover a large proportion of it (as hybrids and BEVs can) it matters much less. If you hardly ever accelerate or slow down it matters less.
Mass matters secondarily because it affects rolling resistance. This affects how much energy you have to put in to maintain a constant speed. Energy recovery is not relevant to this term, but it is a relatively small factor.
So you agree mass matters!Mass matters secondarily because it affects rolling resistance. This affects how much energy you have to put in to maintain a constant speed. Energy recovery is not relevant to this term, but it is a relatively small factor.
Fabulous!
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff