Hydrogen availability

[Witchfinder]

I tuned out of this thread pages ago. I popped back in to warm my hands on the tyre fire. I see VK has taken to responding selectively to posts. Still hasn't produced any links to credible studies, though.

VK, you take it on faith that fuel cells will somehow magically get at least five times better (and safer) in the next ten years (because "studies" that you've so far failed to cite).

There are all kinds of reasons why people refuse to change their minds, even when presented with irrefutable evidence and facts. There's no point continuing to argue.

[eldar]

98elise said:

National Grid are cool with capacity for BEV's, with a little load control around peak times. They may not be so cool when 3x the energy is needed for your Hydrogen cars!

People will mostly charge at home, work or shops. Basically destination charging. Where you have electricity, you can have chargers.

Hydrogen needs an entirely new infrastructure, and nobody is building it.

Plus, of course, thousands of batteries plugged into the grid is excellent at load balancing. And cheaper than the grid having to provide storage....

[anonymous-user]

Witchfinder said:

I tuned out of this thread pages ago. I popped back in to warm my hands on the tyre fire. I see VK has taken to responding selectively to posts. Still hasn't produced any links to credible studies, though.

VK, you take it on faith that fuel cells will somehow magically get at least five times better (and safer) in the next ten years (because "studies" that you've so far failed to cite).

There are all kinds of reasons why people refuse to change their minds, even when presented with irrefutable evidence and facts. There's no point continuing to argue.

I've posted them, you fool. Just fking look!

[gregs656]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The link between green funding available from govts and the industry has been explained to you a handful of times in this thread by people working in the industry (those posts are fascinating).

The idea the automotive industry are betting on FCEVs is demonstrably false.

[Witchfinder]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The only credible paper you shared from PWC still shows FCEV behind BEV and ICE even by 2030, and the others are a puff piece from Hyundai about their own cars and one from a hydrogen producer.

Your data and sources are laughable, your opinions risible, your continued arguing unbelievable, and you're rude and obnoxious to boot. Like I said, I've tuned out, and I'm not getting sucked back into arguing with someone who is clearly immune to facts.

[anonymous-user]

gregs656 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The link between green funding available from govts and the industry has been explained to you a handful of times in this thread by people working in the industry (those posts are fascinating).

The idea the automotive industry are betting on FCEVs is demonstrably false.

I've posted documents that back up what I've said.
You've done nothing!
The other Greg did the same, asked to see the docs and then cried off with some snide hissy fit instead.
I can't take you seriously because you've never posted anything to back up your viewpoint.

Please, please, please contribute something worthwhile.
Offer some data or detail on my query about BEV charging point numbers if you think it's a.done deal.
You won't though because you haven't a clue.

[anonymous-user]

Witchfinder said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The only credible paper you shared from PWC still shows FCEV behind BEV and ICE even by 2030, and the others are a puff piece from Hyundai about their own cars and one from a hydrogen producer.

Your data and sources are laughable, your opinions risible, your continued arguing unbelievable, and you're rude and obnoxious to boot. Like I said, I've tuned out, and I'm not getting sucked back into arguing with someone who is clearly immune to facts.

You betray your own stupidity with your response. In one post you say I haven't cited the documents that I have cited, the very next you offer some mealy mouthed, vacuous and worthless blurb as to what you think of some of the documents that I've cited.

Talk about twisting and turning.

You've never come back with anything meaningful other than snide opinion.
There are some who have contributed reasonably. You're not one of them.
If you don't believe in hydrogen then fine, but if you want to make a point of it then please post something worthwhile.
Until then please stop trolling the thread.

[RemarkLima]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[GT119]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You can cherrypick to find information from the same type of sources to support either technology, you just chose the hydrogen ones. These information sources are not always based in fact and/or have ulterior motives behind them.

There are posters on this thread who have been directly involved in the development of technology complementary to both BEVs and HFCVs, with both commercial and technical expertise, and they are unanimous which is the far superior choice. These views evolved over many years of direct experience and are founded out of evidence-based decision-making.

It’s pretty obvious for all to see that you are totally unwilling to to take on board anything that does not support your preconceived ideas, a classic case of confirmation bias if I’ve ever seen one.

[GT119]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

cough...Norway....cough

And yes I know it was a filling station storage tank leak from an incorrectly fitted valve, but surely that just highlights how quickly it all goes very wrong at the slightest opportunity.

[RemarkLima]

GT119 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

cough...Norway....cough

And yes I know it was a filling station storage tank leak from an incorrectly fitted valve, but surely that just highlights how quickly it all goes very wrong at the slightest opportunity.

In defence, I wonder how many petrol stations went up in the early days? And how many storage accidents? It's been 100 years of refinement and safety procedures being layered up so not too surprised there'd be a few accidents.

And growing up, I'm sure you used to see a lot more cars on file at the side of the road from oil leaks, fuel leaks etc... Maybe it's anecdotal tho?

[ruggedscotty]

they call them hydrogen fuel cells.... more like fool cells.... as only a fool would believe that hydrogen is a solution... it is as far from the table as you could imagine but yet they keep flooging the horse... it will never pass the finish line.

The biggest problem (logistical, environmental, infrastructural, economic, etc.) with hydrogen fuel cells is probably the hydrogen itself. This starts with the greenhouse gas footprint. At SunHydro in Connecticut, the gas is derived through solar energy. But generally hydrogen is produced through steam methane reforming (from natural gas), which means a lot of CO2 emitted. The hydrogen needs to be stored either at very high pressures or cryogenically as a liquid – and all of that takes a lot of energy. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the Mirai is not much more efficient than your standard Prius – it’s much worse than an electric car. On top of that, hydrogen is explosive, it pools upward in enclosed spaces and can burn with an invisible flame.

Most car companies have investigated and run a mile. the sums dont stack up either, both for the manufacturer or for the consumer.

The manual for a bus ? scale your fuel cell up or down truck bus or car principle is the same like a small capacity three cylinder car engine to a multi cylinder large capacity HGV engine. and like car engines a fool cell will have specific maintenance that needs to be done.

manual for a toyota fool cell car - https://www.toyota.com/t3Portal/document/omms-s/T-...

battery is the way forward, keep the car simple motor and battery. the fool cell car has a battery as well as a fool cell.... like ? why not just go the whole hog and use a battery instead of the cell and all the associated parafanalia associated with the cell.

[rscott]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ahem. I see you've failed to read the article I posted a link to? The journalist who drove a Hyundai Nexo to Frankfurt and never filled it past 97%. Normal fiilups were only 85% and 50% in one case.
Most of those were using ITM equipment. Which sort of suggests their CURRENT product isn't quite ready for 50% of the FCEVs CURRENTLY available in the UK.

[leef44]

ruggedscotty said:

they call them hydrogen fuel cells.... more like fool cells.... as only a fool would believe that hydrogen is a solution... it is as far from the table as you could imagine but yet they keep flooging the horse... it will never pass the finish line.

The biggest problem (logistical, environmental, infrastructural, economic, etc.) with hydrogen fuel cells is probably the hydrogen itself. This starts with the greenhouse gas footprint. At SunHydro in Connecticut, the gas is derived through solar energy. But generally hydrogen is produced through steam methane reforming (from natural gas), which means a lot of CO2 emitted. The hydrogen needs to be stored either at very high pressures or cryogenically as a liquid – and all of that takes a lot of energy. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the Mirai is not much more efficient than your standard Prius – it’s much worse than an electric car. On top of that, hydrogen is explosive, it pools upward in enclosed spaces and can burn with an invisible flame.

Most car companies have investigated and run a mile. the sums dont stack up either, both for the manufacturer or for the consumer.

The manual for a bus ? scale your fuel cell up or down truck bus or car principle is the same like a small capacity three cylinder car engine to a multi cylinder large capacity HGV engine. and like car engines a fool cell will have specific maintenance that needs to be done.

manual for a toyota fool cell car - https://www.toyota.com/t3Portal/document/omms-s/T-...

battery is the way forward, keep the car simple motor and battery. the fool cell car has a battery as well as a fool cell.... like ? why not just go the whole hog and use a battery instead of the cell and all the associated parafanalia associated with the cell.

Why such negativity?

I appreciate that FCEV will always be for the minority and I don't expect it to command anywhere near the dominance expected of BEV, but your above comments suggests it is totally unviable. Yet we already see some fuel stations and H2 vehicles. No where near any scale worth talking about but it already exists so it isn't totally unviable and foolhardy.

[leef44]

RemarkLima said:

GT119 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

cough...Norway....cough

And yes I know it was a filling station storage tank leak from an incorrectly fitted valve, but surely that just highlights how quickly it all goes very wrong at the slightest opportunity.

In defence, I wonder how many petrol stations went up in the early days? And how many storage accidents? It's been 100 years of refinement and safety procedures being layered up so not too surprised there'd be a few accidents.

And growing up, I'm sure you used to see a lot more cars on file at the side of the road from oil leaks, fuel leaks etc... Maybe it's anecdotal tho?

Good points.

I would like to think that due to the incident in Norway, we live and learn from this rather than run away and not consider the technology. When we saw lithium battery files, albeit more from aeroplane incidents, we didn't shut down the whole idea of battery technology but instead looked for safety measures to prevent future incidents.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Cheers!
Had a skim read of his post.
You said 2000 mile round trip.
Didn't he make a point of the 1000km trip in the first leg with, effectively, 4 stops that he said took about an hour longer than it would have in an ICE?
That kinda figures, 20 minutes supercharging at Eurotunnel and then three more stops to supercharge at about 20 minutes each?

With the national Grid thing, i think peak demand is around 6pm. That might cross-over with people coming home and plugging in?
So they think there's only likely a 10% (5GW) increase to the peak if we all went BEV. So how many chargers running at 7kW does that represent? Doesn't seem many?

[RemarkLima]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Sorry, yes 2000 km round trip with approx 2 hours added to the journey, 1 hour each way I'd guess. Either way, doesn't seem to bad and didn't sound stressful or the like. Still, that's the reality right now, and likely to be improved further still... For me, a 20 min stop every few hours is fine, but appreciate some people are happy to wizz in a plastic bottle to "make progress'!

The national grid say it themselves, so they will have a better idea than the rest of us! Hence smart meters and smart chargers are being rolled out.

The perfect situation would be that you get home, plug in and use 5% of your cars battery to run the house at peak demand, ovens, kettles, and high load appliances being ran and then trickle charge the car for the night. That way the grids peak demand will actually reduce and you'll flatten / buffer the required energy.

Having owned EVs for 5 years now just makes me realise just how all the concerns about charging, range, blah blah blah are very quickly evaporated into non issues. The main one at the moment is really the cost!

[anonymous-user]

rscott said:

Ahem. I see you've failed to read the article I posted a link to? The journalist who drove a Hyundai Nexo to Frankfurt and never filled it past 97%. Normal fiilups were only 85% and 50% in one case.
Most of those were using ITM equipment. Which sort of suggests their CURRENT product isn't quite ready for 50% of the FCEVs CURRENTLY available in the UK.

I have failed to read it. I cannot find it.
I'm not saying you haven't posted it but could you please relink back to the point in the thread where the link is?

[gregs656]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

All the stuff you have posted is marketing guff of exactly the type that has been explained to you is a requirement of the funding which manufacturers take because it funds their R&D.

What none of the documents you have produced address (and can't address) the fundamental issues with FCEVs which have been identified many times on this thread.

What none of the documents address is the fact that manufacturers are actually producing BEV vehicles which people can go out and buy right now. BEVs are a growing market, and more and more companies have BEVs in their pipeline.

There are three issues which you seem to be choosing to ignore:

1. The well established issues with FCEVs are not going away, and nothing you have produced suggests otherwise
2. All the evidence from the market suggests FCEVs for personal transport is not something manufacturers are offering
3. BEVs are by and large being adopted by manufacturers and consumers, who generally are enthusiastic about their purchase

You seem to think there is a burden on me to 'prove' something, but it seems to me the burden lies with you, as you basically need to demonstrate that the way the market is going over the next 10 years or more is going to change soon from BEVs to FCEVs (for personal transport).

The Grid is unconcerned from a capacity POV about charging infrastructure. The solutions will be many and varied I am sure, and many of them of course will take advantage of infrastructure that already exists. My office parking is full of Tesla charging points. Installing hydrogen fueling stations is a whole other ball game, and of course still requires vast amounts of electricity.

[JonnyVTEC]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Bottleneck? The BEVs will have started the day full, unlike a hydrogen car. That’s a huge difference in expected utilisation. 100% of hydrogen cars need to use refilling stations for 100% of their refills, imagine the fraction that exist if you compare BEVS.