Hydrogen is the future, not BEVs?
Discussion
Honestly if people are stupid enough to fall for the hydrogen nonsense at this point then they deserve to, there is no point in arguing with them any more.
Although once they see how expensive hydrogen is, how crazy the servicing requirements on a hydrogen car are etc. etc. they might think twice. But let them find it out for themselves.
Trying to explain why it's a joke of a fuel is pointless as they often don't even have a GCSE level of understanding of science.
Although once they see how expensive hydrogen is, how crazy the servicing requirements on a hydrogen car are etc. etc. they might think twice. But let them find it out for themselves.
Trying to explain why it's a joke of a fuel is pointless as they often don't even have a GCSE level of understanding of science.
320d is all you need said:
feef said:
320d is all you need said:
feef said:
note: (when the infrastructure and vehicles that can cope with fast charging are available)
Also, as you'll be stopping for 15 minutes every 2 hrs on these long drives then there will be sufficient time to charge when (to reiterate) the infrastructure and vehicles that can cope with fast charging are available
Why would I be stopping for 15 minutes every 2 hours?Also, as you'll be stopping for 15 minutes every 2 hrs on these long drives then there will be sufficient time to charge when (to reiterate) the infrastructure and vehicles that can cope with fast charging are available
Would it not be a good thing to almost force drivers to take more frequent breaks to ensure there are fewer tired drivers on the road? Charging for 15 minutes every couple hours would be a way of doing that
Driving for 2 hours doesn't make me in the least bit tired.
Do you have a 10 minute break every hour watching the TV or being on the computer, or on your Smartphone?
https://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/vdubreaks.htm
Don't be ridiculous and don't take this discussion off topic.
So while it's not totally on topic, it wouldn't be a bad thing to enforce more frequent breaks for those travelling longer distances.
I believe hydrogen fuel cell cars will be part of the future solution, alongside BEV.
There's massive, massive interest within industry to progress the hydrogen economy and the various parts of it, from all the sectors involved, and especially in green, water sourced hydrogen.
For example, these are only a couple of the alliances and groups involved:
https://hydrogencouncil.com/en/
https://www.plasticomnium.com/en/article/12-news/n...
The Mirai write up is interesting. They say they've improved the stack efficiency by 10%. They say they've made it smaller too.
It would be interesting to see what Toyota mean by the FCEV purifying the air as it passed through......
There's massive, massive interest within industry to progress the hydrogen economy and the various parts of it, from all the sectors involved, and especially in green, water sourced hydrogen.
For example, these are only a couple of the alliances and groups involved:
https://hydrogencouncil.com/en/
https://www.plasticomnium.com/en/article/12-news/n...
The Mirai write up is interesting. They say they've improved the stack efficiency by 10%. They say they've made it smaller too.
It would be interesting to see what Toyota mean by the FCEV purifying the air as it passed through......
feef said:
Who decides what's needed? Around 10% of accidents are thought to be contributed to or caused by tiredness (Maycock : Driver Sleepiness as a factor in car and HGV accidents : 1995) and I'm sure those individuals thought they didn't need to rest either
So while it's not totally on topic, it wouldn't be a bad thing to enforce more frequent breaks for those travelling longer distances.
You can't stay on topic, so I'm not discussing with you any further.So while it's not totally on topic, it wouldn't be a bad thing to enforce more frequent breaks for those travelling longer distances.
Seems typical for EV fans on this forum.
The 'hydrogen availability' thread has just covered this topic to death.
For all the hydrogen supporters, please read that thread before wandering in here with batteries bad = hydrogen good.
Hydrogen has a role to play in large vehicle transportation, but the hurdles it has to overcome for widespread use in passenger cars are huge, including the source of the energy to produce enough hydrogen in the first place.
Hydrogen either comes from natural gas, making it non-renewable, or it comes from electrolysis of water using renewable electricity, which requires approximately 2.7 times the amount of electricity per mile compared to a BEV.
Either method of producing it is very energy intensive, so in absence of BOTH free and abundant energy, the case for widespread use in passenger car falls over very quickly compared to the battery alternative.
The extra cost of the infrastructure to produce the 2.7 times additional electricity required, the cost of the infrastructure to produce the hydrogen and the cost of the infrastructure to distribute it widely is hundreds of billions compared to tens of billions for installing BEV charging points and the local upgrades to the grid to feed these.
The difference between the two in terms of efficiency means that the BEV scenario can be met with the achievable planned upgrades to the grid generating capacity, whereas the hydrogen scenario hasn't got a hope in hell of covering commercial and industrial applications as well as passenger cars. There is also an import role that widespread battery distribution needs to play in terms of energy management on the grid, so BEVs present a fantastic opportunity to become an interactive part of that.
The hydrogen vehicles themselves come with an extra layer of complexity and maintenance, along with the safety challenges of a highly explosive gas and the existing restrictions preventing access to many tunnels, bridges and confined spaces. Hydrogen explosions are an inevitable part of consuming hydrogen, and we will never be able to eliminate that risk entirely.
Do not equate lots of hydrogen with lots of hydrogen cars.
For all the hydrogen supporters, please read that thread before wandering in here with batteries bad = hydrogen good.
Hydrogen has a role to play in large vehicle transportation, but the hurdles it has to overcome for widespread use in passenger cars are huge, including the source of the energy to produce enough hydrogen in the first place.
Hydrogen either comes from natural gas, making it non-renewable, or it comes from electrolysis of water using renewable electricity, which requires approximately 2.7 times the amount of electricity per mile compared to a BEV.
Either method of producing it is very energy intensive, so in absence of BOTH free and abundant energy, the case for widespread use in passenger car falls over very quickly compared to the battery alternative.
The extra cost of the infrastructure to produce the 2.7 times additional electricity required, the cost of the infrastructure to produce the hydrogen and the cost of the infrastructure to distribute it widely is hundreds of billions compared to tens of billions for installing BEV charging points and the local upgrades to the grid to feed these.
The difference between the two in terms of efficiency means that the BEV scenario can be met with the achievable planned upgrades to the grid generating capacity, whereas the hydrogen scenario hasn't got a hope in hell of covering commercial and industrial applications as well as passenger cars. There is also an import role that widespread battery distribution needs to play in terms of energy management on the grid, so BEVs present a fantastic opportunity to become an interactive part of that.
The hydrogen vehicles themselves come with an extra layer of complexity and maintenance, along with the safety challenges of a highly explosive gas and the existing restrictions preventing access to many tunnels, bridges and confined spaces. Hydrogen explosions are an inevitable part of consuming hydrogen, and we will never be able to eliminate that risk entirely.
Do not equate lots of hydrogen with lots of hydrogen cars.
jjwilde said:
Honestly if people are stupid enough to fall for the hydrogen nonsense at this point then they deserve to, there is no point in arguing with them any more.
Although once they see how expensive hydrogen is, how crazy the servicing requirements on a hydrogen car are etc. etc. they might think twice. But let them find it out for themselves.
Trying to explain why it's a joke of a fuel is pointless as they often don't even have a GCSE level of understanding of science.
Some beans...Although once they see how expensive hydrogen is, how crazy the servicing requirements on a hydrogen car are etc. etc. they might think twice. But let them find it out for themselves.
Trying to explain why it's a joke of a fuel is pointless as they often don't even have a GCSE level of understanding of science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4IQjUpTNVU
Edited by GT119 on Monday 30th November 18:03
Yes, as a previous poster said, let's avoid the BEV vs H2 arguments.
Hydrogen could be the answer for freight transport, cars and even aircraft. BUT: the first thing is to produce it without hydrocarbons, either by electrolysis or reverse osmosis, at an economic rate in high enough quantities. Who knows, wind turbines generating surplus power could provide the energy for the process. Right now, commercial scale electrolysis is in its infancy. We're at least 10-20 years away from making enough environmentally-produced hydrogen is available.
Hydrogen could be the answer for freight transport, cars and even aircraft. BUT: the first thing is to produce it without hydrocarbons, either by electrolysis or reverse osmosis, at an economic rate in high enough quantities. Who knows, wind turbines generating surplus power could provide the energy for the process. Right now, commercial scale electrolysis is in its infancy. We're at least 10-20 years away from making enough environmentally-produced hydrogen is available.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Inclined to agree, I think the Hydrogen network could be built out for commercial transport/busses maybe. That could open the door to personal transport.At this point everything everyone has against BEV is tenfold worse with hydrogen though. It has a long way to go to prove the viability.
The challenges FC cars still have to face are high. Pulling a cable out of the pavement and getting some extra juice through it for charging a car are child's play in comparison.
As for 320d, he seems to be spouting the same nonsense ("draping cables across the pavement") that seems prevalent in every other thread, ignoring the fact that there's plenty of streets already where you can actually charge your car.
The ONLY challenge here is making sure the local network can handle the extra load.
I don't think we're betting on the wrong horse here tbh. Battery cars are here, work for well over 90% of the population and the electricity to charge them is literally everywhere.
jjwilde said:
Honestly if people are stupid enough to fall for the hydrogen nonsense at this point then they deserve to, there is no point in arguing with them any more.
Although once they see how expensive hydrogen is, how crazy the servicing requirements on a hydrogen car are etc. etc. they might think twice. But let them find it out for themselves.
Trying to explain why it's a joke of a fuel is pointless as they often don't even have a GCSE level of understanding of science.
This.Although once they see how expensive hydrogen is, how crazy the servicing requirements on a hydrogen car are etc. etc. they might think twice. But let them find it out for themselves.
Trying to explain why it's a joke of a fuel is pointless as they often don't even have a GCSE level of understanding of science.
One of the few things it has going for it is that it’s a useful waste product from chemical processes, hence why people like Ratcliffe/Ineos are pedalling it at the moment
jjwilde said:
Honestly if people are stupid enough to fall for the hydrogen nonsense at this point then they deserve to, there is no point in arguing with them any more.
Although once they see how expensive hydrogen is, how crazy the servicing requirements on a hydrogen car are etc. etc. they might think twice. But let them find it out for themselves.
Trying to explain why it's a joke of a fuel is pointless as they often don't even have a GCSE level of understanding of science.
My gut feel is that anyone who's saying this a) hasn't got or had a modern EV, and b) doesn't like change.Although once they see how expensive hydrogen is, how crazy the servicing requirements on a hydrogen car are etc. etc. they might think twice. But let them find it out for themselves.
Trying to explain why it's a joke of a fuel is pointless as they often don't even have a GCSE level of understanding of science.
Every reason/excuse possible will be plucked from the book of excuses. Every barrier will be put up, and every example of why it doesn't work for them, regardless of whether it would is brought out.
Hydrogen is their saviour because they see it as not requiring any change. And that's maybe the case. But unfortunately with that they miss out on all the benefits having an EV now comes with.
I do think there's a place for Hydrogen, it's just not in passenger cars.
It's a shame, but equally I've come to my senses and now I'm getting the benefit, if others don't want to, that's their loss.
phil4 said:
Every reason/excuse possible will be plucked from the book of excuses. Every barrier will be put up, and every example of why it doesn't work for them, regardless of whether it would is brought out.
Hydrogen is their saviour because they see it as not requiring any change. And that's maybe the case. But unfortunately with that they miss out on all the benefits having an EV now comes with.
I agree, and what's a shame is that no one seems to be aware of low carbon synthetic fuels with even the potential for closed carbon cycles with reduced toxic emissions like Methanol.Hydrogen is their saviour because they see it as not requiring any change. And that's maybe the case. But unfortunately with that they miss out on all the benefits having an EV now comes with.
Technologies like green methanol could use all the existing infrastructure and even vehicles (with adaptation obviously) with far fewer downsides but most of the benefits of hydrogen.
It doesn't even need to be burnt in an IC engine, there are emerging direct methanol fuel cell technologies. Gumpert has even produced a concept vehicle which theoretically they will produce a run of.
https://www.rolandgumpert.com/en/
Admittedly it's compromised in some respects if you consider the detail, but pretty impressive for a world first go at the technology from a small company. Imagine someone like Honda or Toyota putting their name to the concept
Hi All,
Done a fair bit of work in this sector
Hydrogen cars will use li-ion batteries (and do already). Think of the hydrogen fuel cell like an onboard generator to recharge the li-ion cell pack
Totally true on limited H2 availability, but that is only relevant to Low Temperature Membranes like the current industry uses. The High Temperature Membranes for the next gen enable methanol to be used instead, with electrochemical combustion and the CO trapped in a reformer.
Its big for hub to hub (HGV, bus, etc) and in closed environments (warehouses, industrial sites, etc) where a private company can control the infrastructure for refilling
Regular cars will follow - but its a 2030 thing for mass uptake.
Done a fair bit of work in this sector
Hydrogen cars will use li-ion batteries (and do already). Think of the hydrogen fuel cell like an onboard generator to recharge the li-ion cell pack
Totally true on limited H2 availability, but that is only relevant to Low Temperature Membranes like the current industry uses. The High Temperature Membranes for the next gen enable methanol to be used instead, with electrochemical combustion and the CO trapped in a reformer.
Its big for hub to hub (HGV, bus, etc) and in closed environments (warehouses, industrial sites, etc) where a private company can control the infrastructure for refilling
Regular cars will follow - but its a 2030 thing for mass uptake.
JC29 said:
Totally true on limited H2 availability, but that is only relevant to Low Temperature Membranes like the current industry uses. The High Temperature Membranes for the next gen enable methanol to be used instead, with electrochemical combustion and the CO trapped in a reformer.
Glad to hear that I'm out of date in the right direction! Didn't realise there was tangible progress on DMFCs!The Wookie said:
JC29 said:
Totally true on limited H2 availability, but that is only relevant to Low Temperature Membranes like the current industry uses. The High Temperature Membranes for the next gen enable methanol to be used instead, with electrochemical combustion and the CO trapped in a reformer.
Glad to hear that I'm out of date in the right direction! Didn't realise there was tangible progress on DMFCs!and why go through this hugely inefficent process to make hydrogen when you have tanker loads of methanol? Just stick it in ICE's ...
and where are you going to store billions of tonnes of carbon each year?
JC29 said:
Regular cars will follow - but its a 2030 thing for mass uptake.
The challenge then is persuading the many people that have bought EV's that the benefits they have they'll need to give up. A good many can be overcome by upping the tech no end, and using a battery powered by the FC.... but the one that's missing for all those that charge their EV at home, is the fact you can start each day with a full battery.So then you have to persuade those people that they give that up, but in return they can fill their cars quicker when they have to. I doubt that argument will win.
So currently we have lots of people who fear the change of moving to EV. If you're looking that far out for H2, then you'll have this all over again but going EV to FC.
It's why I think you'll get H2 in trucks, boats, industrial etc... but unfortunately think you've missed the boat on cars.
Dave Hedgehog said:
so where is all this magic methanol coming from?
and why go through this hugely inefficent process to make hydrogen when you have tanker loads of methanol? Just stick it in ICE's ...
and where are you going to store billions of tonnes of carbon each year?
You manufacture it from various sources, the 'greenest' being from point of source hydrogen and CO2 direct from the atmosphereand why go through this hugely inefficent process to make hydrogen when you have tanker loads of methanol? Just stick it in ICE's ...
and where are you going to store billions of tonnes of carbon each year?
Perfectly fine to stick it in ICE's, as a stopgap and to keep existing vehicles running that is exactly my point. Granted you can burn H2 in ICE but it's pants, half the power, crap range without masses of tanks and difficult to re-engineer existing vehicles.
Longer term for Methanol, fuel cells have better theoretical efficiency and with ICE you'd still have to meet emissions regulations and therefore go through all of the rigmarole that governments have put in place to make fossil fuel engines as difficult and unprofitable as possible to produce.
Not sure I understand your point about storing billions of tonnes of carbon each year unless you're considering the Methanol as the carbon store, in which case you'd use tanks like you do with existing fuels!
It's not a perfect solution by any means but nothing is a perfect solution and it makes a lot of sense. Perhaps worth having a look here as a start if you're unfamiliar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy
Edited by The Wookie on Tuesday 1st December 12:42
phil4 said:
The challenge then is persuading the many people that have bought EV's that the benefits they have they'll need to give up. A good many can be overcome by upping the tech no end, and using a battery powered by the FC.... but the one that's missing for all those that charge their EV at home, is the fact you can start each day with a full battery.
So then you have to persuade those people that they give that up, but in return they can fill their cars quicker when they have to. I doubt that argument will win.
So currently we have lots of people who fear the change of moving to EV. If you're looking that far out for H2, then you'll have this all over again but going EV to FC.
It's why I think you'll get H2 in trucks, boats, industrial etc... but unfortunately think you've missed the boat on cars.
To be fair fuel cell vehicles aren't a replacement for battery vehicles they are a replacement for PHEV's. If PHEV's die out before 2035 then your point will be valid.So then you have to persuade those people that they give that up, but in return they can fill their cars quicker when they have to. I doubt that argument will win.
So currently we have lots of people who fear the change of moving to EV. If you're looking that far out for H2, then you'll have this all over again but going EV to FC.
It's why I think you'll get H2 in trucks, boats, industrial etc... but unfortunately think you've missed the boat on cars.
There's masses of money being thrown at putting H2 into shipping in particular but it's not commercially introduced yet. Have to say not a lot of it makes a great deal of sense to me when fossil fuels will still be required as part of the blend
Edited by The Wookie on Tuesday 1st December 12:44
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff