Hydrogen availability

[Gary C]

jimbouk said:

CoolHands said:

Did you lease the Hyundai? Can it be sent back as the result of no fuel supply? Imagine how much money Hyundai sunk into it to produce an engine etc that is basically defunct as the fuel supply is dead.

It is on a lease, shortly to reach term anyway.

Tempted to buy it at an ultra low price

and convert it to LPG ?

[jimbouk]

And so it ends…..

No Hydrogen anywhere in the Southwest…..

Good bye Nexo, less than 10k miles in 4 years.

Great technology, atrocious infrastructure….

[autumnsum]

jimbouk said:

And so it ends…..

No Hydrogen anywhere in the Southwest…..

Good bye Nexo, less than 10k miles in 4 years.

Great technology, atrocious infrastructure….

The technology was inefficient, inelegant rubbish.

At least you have a Tesla?

[GT9]

jimbouk said:

And so it ends…..

No Hydrogen anywhere in the Southwest…..

Good bye Nexo, less than 10k miles in 4 years.

Great technology, atrocious infrastructure….

When you talked yourself into buying the car, did the aspect of the source of hydrogen feature highly in the conversation?

Any hydrogen you actually consumed came from splitting natural gas and dumping the CO2 into the atmosphere.

The only near-term proposals we have in the UK to address this is carbon capture stuck on the back end, aka blue hydrogen.

Green hydrogen is decades away in the UK.

Most other European countries are not pursuing blue hydrogen at all and are making ambitious plans for green hydrogen production.

The methane leakage rates from splitting it into hydrogen and CO2 and the actual CO2 capture rate leaves a very big question mark over whether it would be less harmful to simply burn that methane to generate electricity and use it in a much more efficient EV, rather than a fuel cell.

I'm sure you are aware that methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, so the open question is, what does a fuel cell car operating on blue hydrogen actually achieve environmentally?

[leef44]

It doesn't sound like a dead end technology for the Biden Administration who is giving out $7 billion of grant money for clean hydrogen projects

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/hydrogen-h...

[D4rez]

leef44 said:

It doesn't sound like a dead end technology for the Biden Administration who is giving out $7 billion of grant money for clean hydrogen projects

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/hydrogen-h...

Not being used for cars nor does the article try and suggest it is….

[samoht]

GT9 said:

When you talked yourself into buying the car, did the aspect of the source of hydrogen feature highly in the conversation?
...

That's no more an argument against hydrogen than the tired old trope that a fossil-powered energy grid is a reason not to buy an EV. The fact that energy is currently provided from a carbon-emitting source doesn't invalidate moving to a technology which is compatible with consuming ever cleaner energy in the future (and cleans up urban emissions today).

I appreciate Green hydrogen is a less efficient use of electricity than charging a BEV. However, filling up your hydrogen fuel cell car in five minutes is a more efficient use of everyone's time than charging for an hour en route to gain the same range. Historically society has proven willing to consume more energy in order to save some time.


Anyway, it seems hydrogen cars aren't taking off presently in this country; it'll be fascinating to see how things develop elsewhere.

[otolith]

samoht said:

I appreciate Green hydrogen is a less efficient use of electricity than charging a BEV. However, filling up your hydrogen fuel cell car in five minutes is a more efficient use of everyone's time than charging for an hour en route to gain the same range. Historically society has proven willing to consume more energy in order to save some time.

How willing are you to pay motorway service station fuel prices in order to save a time consuming diversion?

How willing would you be if it was £4.50 a litre on the motorway?

[GT9]

samoht said:

GT9 said:

When you talked yourself into buying the car, did the aspect of the source of hydrogen feature highly in the conversation?
...

That's no more an argument against hydrogen than the tired old trope that a fossil-powered energy grid is a reason not to buy an EV. The fact that energy is currently provided from a carbon-emitting source doesn't invalidate moving to a technology which is compatible with consuming ever cleaner energy in the future (and cleans up urban emissions today).

Anyway, it seems hydrogen cars aren't taking off presently in this country; it'll be fascinating to see how things develop elsewhere.

The greening of the grid is a widely publicised concept.

Most of us are familiar with what efforts we are making in the UK to reduce dependency on fossil fuel sources, primarily methane.

Both existing and future EVs will benefit from this.

Blue hydrogen, on the other hand, is a reversal of this dependency and appears to be nothing more than a way to keep consuming methane quietly in the background.

I've already posted this graphic several times this week, but here it is again, we are unique in Europe in our approach to hydrogen.



My guess is that most people are blissfully unaware of this.

Whilst it might make sense to try the questionable blue hydrogen experiment as a means of decarbonising existing hydrogen consumption, I don't think increasing consumption in new sectors is a very good idea.

If the actual carbon intensity turns out to be as high as some independent reports have put it at, we are just setting ourselves up for another diesel fiasco.

It seems most other European countries feel the same way.

[autumnsum]

samoht said:

I appreciate Green hydrogen is a less efficient use of electricity than charging a BEV. However, filling up your hydrogen fuel cell car in five minutes is a more efficient use of everyone's time

It's been shown time and time again it isn't five minutes, it can easily be 30 minutes (especially if the site has regular users). It just has the potential to be 5, but often isn't.

Then you have to pay for it, and it's far, far more expensive than electricity.

[eldar]

autumnsum said:

samoht said:

I appreciate Green hydrogen is a less efficient use of electricity than charging a BEV. However, filling up your hydrogen fuel cell car in five minutes is a more efficient use of everyone's time

It's been shown time and time again it isn't five minutes, it can easily be 30 minutes (especially if the site has regular users). It just has the potential to be 5, but often isn't.

Then you have to pay for it, and it's far, far more expensive than electricity.

I charge my BEV at home, so full range every morning. I've spent less than two hours wait at public chargers this year this year.

And as I have solar panels, my electricity bill will be negative over the summer months, including the car charging.

Seems a no brainier.

[autumnsum]

eldar said:

I charge my BEV at home, so full range every morning. I've spent less than two hours wait at public chargers this year this year.

And as I have solar panels, my electricity bill will be negative over the summer months, including the car charging.

Seems a no brainier.

Well they can't charge at home, so they become obsessed that driving miles to some hydrogen station and standing there filling it up for up to 30mins then driving home again is a good use of time 🤷

[98elise]

leef44 said:

It doesn't sound like a dead end technology for the Biden Administration who is giving out $7 billion of grant money for clean hydrogen projects

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/hydrogen-h...

It's not a dead end technology. It just makes no sense for cars.

[otolith]

leef44 said:

It doesn't sound like a dead end technology for the Biden Administration who is giving out $7 billion of grant money for clean hydrogen projects

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/hydrogen-h...

There is an enormous industrial requirement for hydrogen which is currently met from fossil fuels.

[autumnsum]

otolith said:

There is an enormous industrial requirement for hydrogen which is currently met from fossil fuels.

Could you explain this in more detail? I'm genuinely curious what the potential uses are, as I saw that Port Talbot steel works has been converted to 'arc electricity' but I'd read hydrogen could be used instead.

Is it more economical to just use electricity? Just trying to get a general view of this.

[ATG]

autumnsum said:

otolith said:

There is an enormous industrial requirement for hydrogen which is currently met from fossil fuels.

Could you explain this in more detail? I'm genuinely curious what the potential uses are, as I saw that Port Talbot steel works has been converted to 'arc electricity' but I'd read hydrogen could be used instead.

Is it more economical to just use electricity? Just trying to get a general view of this.

I'm guessing making steel needs two things; something to get things very hot and then something to react with the oxygen to leave your with nice shiny metal. Coke and hydrogen would each do both things, I think? I.e. they're producing loads of heat and they're stripping loads of oxygen out. I image an arc-electric wotsit can get as hot as you like, but it's going to need some reducing agent as well to strip out the oxygen, isn't it?

[otolith]

autumnsum said:

otolith said:

There is an enormous industrial requirement for hydrogen which is currently met from fossil fuels.

Could you explain this in more detail? I'm genuinely curious what the potential uses are, as I saw that Port Talbot steel works has been converted to 'arc electricity' but I'd read hydrogen could be used instead.

Is it more economical to just use electricity? Just trying to get a general view of this.

It's currently used mostly as a chemical feedstock rather than as an energy source/vector, and the single largest use is the production of ammonia which is predominantly used as fertiliser.

[dvs_dave]

otolith said:

It's currently used mostly as a chemical feedstock rather than as an energy source/vector, and the single largest use is the production of ammonia which is predominantly used as fertiliser.

A st ton of H2 is produced around the clock for various industrial processes yet even a basic H2 filling infrastructure has proven to be unviable. Says it all. Lol.

[Mikehig]

From the Energy Voice website:
"In a report on the UK's net zero needs, the National Infrastructure Commission says there is "no public policy case" for hydrogen to be used to heat individual homes or other buildings."

[Blackpuddin]

dvs_dave said:

otolith said:

It's currently used mostly as a chemical feedstock rather than as an energy source/vector, and the single largest use is the production of ammonia which is predominantly used as fertiliser.

A st ton of H2 is produced around the clock for various industrial processes yet even a basic H2 filling infrastructure has proven to be unviable. Says it all. Lol.

Toyota is developing ammonia-fuelled engines as we speak.