Hydrogen is the future, not BEVs?
Discussion
HustleRussell said:
NGK210 said:
Merry said:
NGK210 said:
And for anyone burdened with living in a 2nd-floor or higher apartment, in cities such as lil’ ol’ Edinburgh or London, a 13A socket will suffice?
Not everyone lives in a suburban semi-detached.
Fixing that problem involves a significantly smaller leap of imagination than making green hydrogen and it's supporting infrastructure viable... Not everyone lives in a suburban semi-detached.
I could train a parrot to say 'prove it'.
Anyway, Merry's is a statement of fact. Where you sit now, what is closer? A source of 13A electrical power or source of 99.9% Hydrogen?
ETA: What about where your car sits? still 13A electrical power? what about the place where you currently fill your car up? still 13A?
Edited by HustleRussell on Wednesday 15th March 10:34
HustleRussell said:
NGK210 said:
Merry said:
NGK210 said:
And for anyone burdened with living in a 2nd-floor or higher apartment, in cities such as lil’ ol’ Edinburgh or London, a 13A socket will suffice?
Not everyone lives in a suburban semi-detached.
Fixing that problem involves a significantly smaller leap of imagination than making green hydrogen and it's supporting infrastructure viable... Not everyone lives in a suburban semi-detached.
I could train a parrot to say 'prove it'.
Anyway, Merry's is a statement of fact. Where you sit now, what is closer? A source of 13A electrical power or source of 99.9% Hydrogen?
ETA: What about where your car sits? still 13A electrical power? what about the place where you currently fill your car up? still 13A?
Edited by HustleRussell on Wednesday 15th March 10:34
"We do not allow residents to run cables from their homes across the footway to charge their electric vehicles as it is an offence under the Highways Act 1980 to place objects on the public highway that could present a hazard to other road users."
Lamppost charging? A lamppost or 'charging pod' alongside every on-street parking bay is a solution, but for obvious reasons it's a flawed solution. And in addition, also from my borough's website:
"Not all lamp columns are suitable for lamp column chargers. We cannot install chargers in Kensington Vestry Heritage style columns or any other columns that are within 15 metres of other electrical equipment, on narrow pavements or which are not in reach of a parking bay. There are also other non-visible restrictions such as underground services..."
In short, EV-charging for most urban flat-dwelling car owners is not / will not be viable. Whereas an H2-filling point at existing fuel stations would / could be viable.
Irrespective of whether one supports EVs, FCEVs or e-petrol, for city-based car owners the feasibility of easy/quick refuelling or charging is clearly mired in too many could be / would be / should be's.
So EVs can only be charged at home. Righto. 
People who can't charge at home will simply charge remotely. What they won't be doing is rushing to switch away from ICe until that remote network is in place.
Plus, people who cannot charge at home for economic reasons certainly won't be using GH as a fuel given it's always going to be 2-3x the price of the electricity it is made from. Nor will they be able to afford the cars, nor will the fuel actually exist for them.
The less affluent car user will have two choices by 2040: recharge remotely or get the bus. GH is not their saviour nor is there a shred of science to suggest otherwise.
People who can't charge at home will simply charge remotely. What they won't be doing is rushing to switch away from ICe until that remote network is in place.
Plus, people who cannot charge at home for economic reasons certainly won't be using GH as a fuel given it's always going to be 2-3x the price of the electricity it is made from. Nor will they be able to afford the cars, nor will the fuel actually exist for them.
The less affluent car user will have two choices by 2040: recharge remotely or get the bus. GH is not their saviour nor is there a shred of science to suggest otherwise.
NGK210 said:
Like many, I live in a flat in a city, so an EV would be 100% inaccessible from a 13A plug because my borough decrees:
"We do not allow residents to run cables from their homes across the footway to charge their electric vehicles as it is an offence under the Highways Act 1980 to place objects on the public highway that could present a hazard to other road users."
Etc
I never said it was easy, just that it was considerably more viable than creating an entire H2 generation and distribution network."We do not allow residents to run cables from their homes across the footway to charge their electric vehicles as it is an offence under the Highways Act 1980 to place objects on the public highway that could present a hazard to other road users."
Etc
The electrical distribution network exists already, you car is parked quite close to it. It may need reinforcing in certain areas and work needs to be done with the DNOs here, but you're not starting from scratch.
Therefore it's a much more realistic and efficient proposition, over hydrogen.
You could have an EV now if you desperately wanted to. Its not impossible for you in a flat, as rapid chargers exist, it's just inconvenient.
DonkeyApple said:
So EVs can only be charged at home. Righto.
People who can't charge at home will simply charge remotely. What they won't be doing is rushing to switch away from ICe until that remote network is in place.
Plus, people who cannot charge at home for economic reasons certainly won't be using GH as a fuel given it's always going to be 2-3x the price of the electricity it is made from. Nor will they be able to afford the cars, nor will the fuel actually exist for them.
The less affluent car user will have two choices by 2040: recharge remotely or get the bus. GH is not their saviour nor is there a shred of science to suggest otherwise.
A log way into the future, there may be enough green H2 produced that it's comparable in price to electricity, because the unicorn-ridden lands of zero carbon will have silly amounts of wind power generating H2 and storing it for electricity on windless days.People who can't charge at home will simply charge remotely. What they won't be doing is rushing to switch away from ICe until that remote network is in place.
Plus, people who cannot charge at home for economic reasons certainly won't be using GH as a fuel given it's always going to be 2-3x the price of the electricity it is made from. Nor will they be able to afford the cars, nor will the fuel actually exist for them.
The less affluent car user will have two choices by 2040: recharge remotely or get the bus. GH is not their saviour nor is there a shred of science to suggest otherwise.
But my guess is, IC cars will be banned from London a long time before that happens. So in the 'foreseeable' future, like this side of 2050, it's going to be BEVs or the bus.
NGK210 said:
HustleRussell said:
NGK210 said:
Merry said:
NGK210 said:
And for anyone burdened with living in a 2nd-floor or higher apartment, in cities such as lil’ ol’ Edinburgh or London, a 13A socket will suffice?
Not everyone lives in a suburban semi-detached.
Fixing that problem involves a significantly smaller leap of imagination than making green hydrogen and it's supporting infrastructure viable... Not everyone lives in a suburban semi-detached.
I could train a parrot to say 'prove it'.
Anyway, Merry's is a statement of fact. Where you sit now, what is closer? A source of 13A electrical power or source of 99.9% Hydrogen?
ETA: What about where your car sits? still 13A electrical power? what about the place where you currently fill your car up? still 13A?
Edited by HustleRussell on Wednesday 15th March 10:34
"We do not allow residents to run cables from their homes across the footway to charge their electric vehicles as it is an offence under the Highways Act 1980 to place objects on the public highway that could present a hazard to other road users."
Lamppost charging? A lamppost or 'charging pod' alongside every on-street parking bay is a solution, but for obvious reasons it's a flawed solution. And in addition, also from my borough's website:
"Not all lamp columns are suitable for lamp column chargers. We cannot install chargers in Kensington Vestry Heritage style columns or any other columns that are within 15 metres of other electrical equipment, on narrow pavements or which are not in reach of a parking bay. There are also other non-visible restrictions such as underground services..."
In short, EV-charging for most urban flat-dwelling car owners is not / will not be viable. Whereas an H2-filling point at existing fuel stations would / could be viable.
Irrespective of whether one supports EVs, FCEVs or e-petrol, for city-based car owners the feasibility of easy/quick refuelling or charging is clearly mired in too many could be / would be / should be's.
Look at fibre broadband. It's hardly critically important but nonetheless availability has gone from 1.7% to 45% in seven years.
Green hydrogen electrolysis and compression on a small scale is being done, however, scaling that up to the scale of national distribution and direct-to-consumer retail is a massive hurdle. Hydrogen is a very hazardous product which the general population know very little about. Safety and quality standards for equipment, components, handling procedures etc do not exist. It would be necessary to establish all of that. At the end of that process, Hydrogen is still a very hazardous product. I was in a meeting with some Norwegians not too long ago and they told me that all of the H2 filling stations nationally (I think there were four operating at the time) were closed for the forseeable because of a significant H2 explosion.
I think that to believe that distribution of H2 to filling stations in a similar way that hydrocarbon fuels are distributed, will be easier that the widespead installation of BEV charging stations, underestimates the hazards associated with H2 and the scale of the challenge to mitigate those risks to an acceptable level.
I am designing a conceptual large scale green hydrogen plant for one of the major energy companies at the moment. Construction of such is a LONG way off. To me, at a project level, it feels similar to the beginning of a nuclear job i.e. this individual facility is on a development horizon of 15+ years.
Edited by HustleRussell on Wednesday 15th March 15:48
It's all going swimmingly on planet hydrogen...
https://www.thedrive.com/news/hydrogen-toyota-coro...
I'm pleased they have found a way to store it at precisely -487 degrees. Walk in the park.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/hydrogen-toyota-coro...
I'm pleased they have found a way to store it at precisely -487 degrees. Walk in the park.
Edited by GT9 on Wednesday 15th March 16:17
GT9 said:
It's all going swimmingly on planet hydrogen...
https://www.thedrive.com/news/hydrogen-toyota-coro...
I'm pleased they have found a way to store it at precisely -487 degrees. Walk in the park.
-487 degree what? Absolute zero is 0 kelvin, or -273 celcius, or -459 fahrenheit.https://www.thedrive.com/news/hydrogen-toyota-coro...
I'm pleased they have found a way to store it at precisely -487 degrees. Walk in the park.
Edited by GT9 on Wednesday 15th March 16:17
Anyway:
Here's some advocacy for using nuclear power to produce synfuels:
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-urg...
It seems a bit optimistic to be pushing the UK: we will be down to one working nuclear plant in only a few years.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-urg...
It seems a bit optimistic to be pushing the UK: we will be down to one working nuclear plant in only a few years.
HustleRussell said:
Green hydrogen electrolysis and compression on a small scale is being done, however, scaling that up to the scale of national distribution and direct-to-consumer retail is a massive hurdle. Hydrogen is a very hazardous product which the general population know very little about. Safety and quality standards for equipment, components, handling procedures etc do not exist. It would be necessary to establish all of that. At the end of that process, Hydrogen is still a very hazardous product. I was in a meeting with some Norwegians not too long ago and they told me that all of the H2 filling stations nationally (I think there were four operating at the time) were closed for the forseeable because of a significant H2 explosion.
I think that to believe that distribution of H2 to filling stations in a similar way that hydrocarbon fuels are distributed, will be easier that the widespead installation of BEV charging stations, underestimates the hazards associated with H2 and the scale of the challenge to mitigate those risks to an acceptable level.
You are so right about the safety aspects.I think that to believe that distribution of H2 to filling stations in a similar way that hydrocarbon fuels are distributed, will be easier that the widespead installation of BEV charging stations, underestimates the hazards associated with H2 and the scale of the challenge to mitigate those risks to an acceptable level.
Edited by HustleRussell on Wednesday 15th March 15:48
That refuelling station explosion in Norway was traced to a slightly mis-installed plug, iirc. Hydrogen is bloody dangerous: the slightest mistake or failure can be catastrophic. There are so many challenges.
Being such a small molecule, it leaks extremely easily.
It has just about the widest explosive range when mixed with air of any gas; 4 - 70+% iirc. Most other flammables have a much narrower range.
It has a very high flame speed so that, when it explodes, it is more violent than other gases.
It burns with a translucent flame. (This is anecdotal: before the days of thermal imagers refinery workers used to hold a broom handle out in front if there was a suspicion of a hydrogen leak to avoid walking into the flame.)
Unlike natural gas, it cannot be odorised because the chemicals do not stay blended.
Its density and heating value are very different to natural gas so, to get the same amount of energy through an existing pipe network, a higher pressure is needed which increases the likelihood of leaks.
A few years ago the government commissioned a report on the safety issues. One recommendation was that a hydrogen car should not be allowed into an integral garage unless: the walls, doors etc to the house are gas-tight; it is fitted with a detector linked to a full isolator for any electrics; the ceiling has a high point vented to atmosphere. The insurance companies may become concerned as well.
Years ago I worked in the industrial gas business which produces and distributes a lot of hydrogen in cylinders, tube trailers and pipelines. There were very strict measures for handling hydrogen and workers were well-trained. Even so, there were incidents. Rooms containing hydrogen usually had light, blow-off roof or wall sections.
In my view it is far too dangerous for general use by the untrained public.
LasseV said:
Where do you think the energy comes from to create hydrogen?Fool cells is a dead end technology for passenger cars.
Undercover McNoName said:
LasseV said:
Where do you think the energy comes from to create hydrogen?Fool cells is a dead end technology for passenger cars.
'Constraints on electricity supply and and EVs' shorter ranges boost the appeal of hydrogen'
If there are constraints on electricity supply then the solution isn't a fuel that is made from electricity, is less efficient than electricity and more expensive than electricity.
The opening para then leads with 'some markets' so that is the clue here. Manufacturers such as BMW are global vendors. They sell product beyond the EU, North America and key Asian markets.
They aren't aiming to sell cars within these markets that use green hydrogen that doesn't exist but to maintain markets where fossil fuel hydrogen is less legislated against than the naptha fractions of crude oil.
This is a developing nations potential product as opposed to the wishful thinking of some that it is a product for retail consumers in developed nations. But such is the desperation of some, they will take all PR and propaganda that they can make for their desires and convert them to fact and reality.
HustleRussell said:
Undercover McNoName said:
Where do you think the energy comes from to create hydrogen?
Fool cells is a dead end technology for passenger cars.
Where do you think energy comes from to do anything? Are you aware that there are more than one sources? Fool cells is a dead end technology for passenger cars.
So, a market like the EU has no excess renewable energy. In fact we are all rather well aware that the whole continent has a total shortage of energy and is having to import it.
Energy security is so important that the EU is even having to take means to define legally what excess renewable energy actually is for the purpose of converting it to hydrogen.
You then have the commercial issues of the different type of 'excess' renewable energy. To build a viable GH supply you absolutely have to have a constant and predictable supply of renewable electricity. You cannot, of course, build a viable industrial supply around there possibly being some extra electricity from a wind farm somewhere at some time and where that excess cannot simply be exported for sale in its native form.
So, what we are talking about is categorically not green hydrogen. That's the green washing term layered on top of the spin.
The only viable source of hydrogen remains from fossil fuels. Coal or methane. That is what the European automotive industry is working with. That's why the end products are targeting developing nations as they transition to net zero far slower and later than developed nations.
DonkeyApple said:
HustleRussell said:
Undercover McNoName said:
Where do you think the energy comes from to create hydrogen?
Fool cells is a dead end technology for passenger cars.
Where do you think energy comes from to do anything? Are you aware that there are more than one sources? Fool cells is a dead end technology for passenger cars.
So, a market like the EU has no excess renewable energy. In fact we are all rather well aware that the whole continent has a total shortage of energy and is having to import it.
Energy security is so important that the EU is even having to take means to define legally what excess renewable energy actually is for the purpose of converting it to hydrogen.
You then have the commercial issues of the different type of 'excess' renewable energy. To build a viable GH supply you absolutely have to have a constant and predictable supply of renewable electricity. You cannot, of course, build a viable industrial supply around there possibly being some extra electricity from a wind farm somewhere at some time and where that excess cannot simply be exported for sale in its native form.
So, what we are talking about is categorically not green hydrogen. That's the green washing term layered on top of the spin.
The only viable source of hydrogen remains from fossil fuels. Coal or methane. That is what the European automotive industry is working with. That's why the end products are targeting developing nations as they transition to net zero far slower and later than developed nations.
HustleRussell said:
I know what your opinion is, you have posted it before, but you should not confuse the state of Hydrogen production as it is in 2023 with future possibilities.
Hydrogen is the most abundant molecule in the universe you don't need to 'produce' it. It's literally everywhere and make up a decent amount of your body weight. If you want to 'burn' it however as fuel, you need a huge amount of energy to first strip it away from what ever other stable molecule its bound to, than you have to compress it to a crazy pressure that would literally squash our puny bodies. I'm not even sure this water is actually at 10,000PSI, but the amount of energy you need to squash a gas into that pressure must be massive......in which case why not use that energy in a different way.
https://youtu.be/RoCmQ_yJh50
Oh also don't forget there is already a massive hydrogen reactor in our solar system, its not due to die for about another 10 billion years so why don't we just use hydrogen reactor as a source of energy?
gangzoom said:
Oh also don't forget there is already a massive hydrogen reactor in our solar system, its not due to die for about another 10 billion years so why don't we just use hydrogen reactor as a source of energy?
Mother nature, as usual, knows her s
t.Hydrogen, whilst being the most plentiful of all matter, is almost non-existent in pure form anywhere on the planet.
It has been made safe by combining it with other elements to give us the building blocks of sustainable life, but without us having to deal with the potency of the bare element.
We are now seemingly hellbent on just ignoring that, and trying to take control of that potency ourselves.
It's a bit like bringing a tiger home from the pet shop instead of a cat.
To be truly safe, you really need to remove the claws and teeth and probably permanently sedate it with drugs.
Which means you don't really have a tiger anymore, just some sad excuse for one as a vanity project.
Someone at some point is going to pay a heavy price for too many pet tigers.
gangzoom said:
Hydrogen is the most abundant molecule in the universe you don't need to 'produce' it. It's literally everywhere and make up a decent amount of your body weight.
If you want to 'burn' it however as fuel, you need a huge amount of energy to first strip it away from what ever other stable molecule its bound to, than you have to compress it to a crazy pressure that would literally squash our puny bodies. I'm not even sure this water is actually at 10,000PSI, but the amount of energy you need to squash a gas into that pressure must be massive......in which case why not use that energy in a different way.
https://youtu.be/RoCmQ_yJh50
Oh also don't forget there is already a massive hydrogen reactor in our solar system, its not due to die for about another 10 billion years so why don't we just use hydrogen reactor as a source of energy?
You most certainly do have to produce it, in the wild you are only going to find it in any quantity in its compound forms. If you want to 'burn' it however as fuel, you need a huge amount of energy to first strip it away from what ever other stable molecule its bound to, than you have to compress it to a crazy pressure that would literally squash our puny bodies. I'm not even sure this water is actually at 10,000PSI, but the amount of energy you need to squash a gas into that pressure must be massive......in which case why not use that energy in a different way.
https://youtu.be/RoCmQ_yJh50
Oh also don't forget there is already a massive hydrogen reactor in our solar system, its not due to die for about another 10 billion years so why don't we just use hydrogen reactor as a source of energy?
What is the creation of hydrogen gas at scale as a product from water or a hydrocarbon if not a production process?
Hydrogen very readily burns at atmospheric pressure and happens to have a very wide flammability range in air and a particularly low ignition energy.
Anyway who do we have to burn it when we can produce it by electrolysis and reverse that process in a fuel cell, both of which are ion echange processes?
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff