Hydrogen is the future, not BEVs?
Discussion
bigothunter said:
Get over the shortcomings of batteries and EV domination would be unstoppable. But that breakthrough has been a long time coming, since around 1888.
but the real push for it has been since around 2019.lithium ion battery costs….. 2013 - $780 kWh to 2023 $139 kWh
CATL reckon they will have LFP batteries ay $56 kWh this year.
if you're not impressed or at least interested in such stats, then you never will be.
meanwhile 700+ Wh/kg cells are being piloted. to give context, a model 3 will be using cells at 250ish. again,. same statement as above.
tamore said:
bigothunter said:
Get over the shortcomings of batteries and EV domination would be unstoppable. But that breakthrough has been a long time coming, since around 1888.
but the real push for it has been since around 2019.lithium ion battery costs….. 2013 - $780 kWh to 2023 $139 kWh
CATL reckon they will have LFP batteries ay $56 kWh this year.
if you're not impressed or at least interested in such stats, then you never will be.
meanwhile 700+ Wh/kg cells are being piloted. to give context, a model 3 will be using cells at 250ish. again,. same statement as above.
bigothunter said:
Get over the shortcomings of batteries and EV domination would be unstoppable. But that breakthrough has been a long time coming, since around 1888.
Yup. As Deuce and I were ruminating over the other day, ICE power in cars is a stop gap to cater for the s
t batteries that have hobbled the EV for well over 100 years. And we know how society works in that 99.99% of rabid antis would completely reverse their extremist views overnight and go the other way if there was money in it for them. They don't care about Congalese children or rainforests, those are just proxies for wanting coins in their pocket just like the anti SUV muppets using a car type as a proxy for what grinds their gears. They don't hate SUVs. They hate the people in them. Just like the same base creatures spent the 70s hating people based on skin colour or clothing. Rob these people of those simple pleasures and they find proxies through which to carry on.
Unfortunately for the U.K., even though batteries remain fundamentally crap for EVs as a whole, the small size and huge affluence of our island does mean that even with today's batteries we can make EVs work perfectly well for replacing the bulk of private cars over the coming decades. Which is a different story to equally developed nations that have less electricity ubiquity and huge distances between main conurbations.
bigothunter said:
tamore said:
bigothunter said:
Get over the shortcomings of batteries and EV domination would be unstoppable. But that breakthrough has been a long time coming, since around 1888.
but the real push for it has been since around 2019.lithium ion battery costs….. 2013 - $780 kWh to 2023 $139 kWh
CATL reckon they will have LFP batteries ay $56 kWh this year.
if you're not impressed or at least interested in such stats, then you never will be.
meanwhile 700+ Wh/kg cells are being piloted. to give context, a model 3 will be using cells at 250ish. again,. same statement as above.
To say such a thing suggests a lack of knowledge and an interest only in terms of being provocative.
ATG said:
It's like saying "cleaning chimneys is bad" because some people shove children up chimneys to clean them.
While on the other side some think it's bad precisely because they're not allowed to shove children up a chimney any more.While a true evil genius would rebrand child chimney sweeps as carbon capture specialists and make a fortune.
TheDeuce said:
P.Griffin said:
Little morning reading for the EVangelists. I wonder how much more pristine rainforest needs to be cleared to get at the lithium? Are BEVs really the answer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
Why would you think that something not being perfect, means it's not the best solution? And as such, 'the answer'?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
Surely the problem you're pointing at is one of battery tech anyway, not EV.
Battery tech is essentially what we are talking about when discussing EVs.
TheDeuce said:
But that's not true is it? You can't be avidly interested in the topic but also believe that there has been no significant breakthroughs since 1888.
To say such a thing suggests a lack of knowledge and an interest only in terms of being provocative.
It does depend upon the distance from which one is viewing the situation. In 1888 driving an EV across the US wasn't economically viable v alternative power sources. In 2024 the same is true. Batteries are still sTo say such a thing suggests a lack of knowledge and an interest only in terms of being provocative.
t but we can argue that they're significantly less st . And we can also argue that the inroads over the last decade have exceeded all time prior and that rate of improvement looks set to continue and maybe even speed up. GT9 said:
stavers said:
The vehicle which the engine goes in to have high-pressure storage vessles which store enough fuel for several hours of work, and can be refilled from a tube trailer which can store several hundred kilos of fuel. Generation can be done in a green way and whilst it isn't the most efficient (as mentioned above) it is at least less polluting than traditional ICE.
I'm very familiar with the composite tanks used to store H2, their working pressures, and the life and dimensional limitations due to the stress profile and low cycle fatigue.If you haven't read most of this thread then I should elaborate that my question was mostly about source.
Electricity nowadays has a fairly mature (in terms of how it is derived) carbon intensity value attached to it.
UK sourced H2 is almost entirely grey today, and I don't see much on the horizon that sees us switching to green in a meaningful timeframe.
Rather, the approach seems to be to push blue hydrogen to the fore.
Blue H2 has some serious questions to answer before we can call it a proven low carbon option, so much so that the EU and USA appear to be saying no to blue hydrogen from the get go.
Fugitive methane and H2 rates combined with sub-100% capture of CO2 potentially means very unattractive real world carbon intensity.
This is what I mean by an honest discussion.
Understandably, the business relationships between JCB and Ineos, for example, favour the idea of using blue hydrogen over green.
I can rationalise that as a sound approach to decarbonising existing consumers of hydrogen, but what I struggle with is developing new applications to increase the consumption of H2 on the back of an unproven and potentially even higher carbon intensity than simply burning the methane and producing electricity from it.
Evanivitch said:
98elise said:
I buy the cheapest ones from screfix (LAP band) and I don't remember the last time I had to replace a bulb.
As an Engineer I'm surprised you've come to your conclusions from a very small data set.
Same.As an Engineer I'm surprised you've come to your conclusions from a very small data set.
I do find Amazon ones (often G9 or filament) were prone to failure so ditched using them. Perhaps this lighting shop is just drop shipping.
As I said, I also hate the "strobe" effect of LED lights which doesn't happen with the halogen bulbs.
TheDeuce said:
stavers said:
TheDeuce said:
DonkeyApple said:
Bulbs aside, the poster merely said they worked in the field and didn't see much for private cars, which seems logical.
The attempt to undermine EV for personal transport by trying to undermine the obvious benefits and advance of energy saving lighting was laughable.Having worked for 3 OEMs on hybrid and electric vehicle development, as well as other in standard & H2 ICE development, I have my own opinions on it all.
The main point I was trying to make is that things like bulbs (which have made F all difference to global CO2 levels) should not be forced upon people. If it truly is a better technology then it will become the leader on its own merit.
A gradual transition to a "better" technology results in less people on soapboxes rather than being forced which people will always push back on.
P.Griffin said:
IMHO, EVs are pretty far from perfect. On emissions, they are better than ICE, but mining lithium and strengthening an ever more hostile China seem to be a high price to pay. It's complex, I appreciate, but I hope other solutions can be found that don't have the similarly negative impacts on the environment and the west's security. Look what happened when Germany was so reliant on Russian gas. Where do you think we'll be if (probably when) China invades Taiwan and strangleholds the world's semiconductor supply? We seem to be sleepwalking into very dangerous situations.
Battery tech is essentially what we are talking about when discussing EVs.
China only controls the key reserves because the West was actively running a mile from its colonial history so we can't blame another nation for looking at what we were choosing to leave on the table and sweeping it up. Battery tech is essentially what we are talking about when discussing EVs.
What's also import to factor in when comparing lithium mining to oil extraction is that it is infinitely cleaner because what is extracted isn't just used once but recycled infinitely. The Lithium extracted today will still be in circulation in 100 years time, the oil extracted today is gone forever next week.
It's really important to step back from the base propaganda of both sides of the debate and focus on the truth and the common sense.
We must also take into account that the U.K. has the easiest transition to EV of any developed nation and that this affords us a huge economic advantage over our economic peers, as is also the case with 2050 where Thatcher did the heavy lifting for that back in the 80s and we paid the price through the 90s which happened to also be the decade that the developing nations began to rapidly move away from being impoverished third world states and become global economic power houses. Our economic competitors who chose to retain legacy 20th century industry must now face the crippling task of shutting them down as developing nations out compete them and paying the huge cost of the mass unemployment and repositioning of their economies. And of course there is the self sufficiency energy hurdle where the U.K. yet again has landed on its feet much to the rage of our competitors. First coal self sufficiency, then gas self sufficiency and now renewable all gifted by quirks of geology and geography to keep a tiny and remote island significantly more affluent than it otherwise should be.
Whether we like EVs or not the simple reality is that the slow thirty year migration to them along with the path to 2050 is an enormous global advantage to the U.K. over our peers and despite all the scams, propaganda and political rhetoric we will prosper very nicely as a result and more importantly, more so our children.
stavers said:
If a technology is good then it doesn't need to be forced on us. It will take over by merit.
A gradual transition to a "better" technology results in less people on soapboxes rather than being forced which people will always push back on.
This may be true, but private buyers are not buying EVs, and they won't until charging and range are addressed. If the government want mass uptake, they need to encourage the solution of these 2 key shortcomings. Instead, we seem to see a steady stream of massive horse power cars that can do 0-60 in 2 seconds, and they call that progress...really useful that.A gradual transition to a "better" technology results in less people on soapboxes rather than being forced which people will always push back on.
DonkeyApple said:
P.Griffin said:
IMHO, EVs are pretty far from perfect. On emissions, they are better than ICE, but mining lithium and strengthening an ever more hostile China seem to be a high price to pay. It's complex, I appreciate, but I hope other solutions can be found that don't have the similarly negative impacts on the environment and the west's security. Look what happened when Germany was so reliant on Russian gas. Where do you think we'll be if (probably when) China invades Taiwan and strangleholds the world's semiconductor supply? We seem to be sleepwalking into very dangerous situations.
Battery tech is essentially what we are talking about when discussing EVs.
China only controls the key reserves because the West was actively running a mile from its colonial history so we can't blame another nation for looking at what we were choosing to leave on the table and sweeping it up. Battery tech is essentially what we are talking about when discussing EVs.
What's also import to factor in when comparing lithium mining to oil extraction is that it is infinitely cleaner because what is extracted isn't just used once but recycled infinitely. The Lithium extracted today will still be in circulation in 100 years time, the oil extracted today is gone forever next week.
It's really important to step back from the base propaganda of both sides of the debate and focus on the truth and the common sense.
We must also take into account that the U.K. has the easiest transition to EV of any developed nation and that this affords us a huge economic advantage over our economic peers, as is also the case with 2050 where Thatcher did the heavy lifting for that back in the 80s and we paid the price through the 90s which happened to also be the decade that the developing nations began to rapidly move away from being impoverished third world states and become global economic power houses. Our economic competitors who chose to retain legacy 20th century industry must now face the crippling task of shutting them down as developing nations out compete them and paying the huge cost of the mass unemployment and repositioning of their economies. And of course there is the self sufficiency energy hurdle where the U.K. yet again has landed on its feet much to the rage of our competitors. First coal self sufficiency, then gas self sufficiency and now renewable all gifted by quirks of geology and geography to keep a tiny and remote island significantly more affluent than it otherwise should be.
Whether we like EVs or not the simple reality is that the slow thirty year migration to them along with the path to 2050 is an enormous global advantage to the U.K. over our peers and despite all the scams, propaganda and political rhetoric we will prosper very nicely as a result and more importantly, more so our children.
TheDeuce said:
bigothunter said:
tamore said:
bigothunter said:
Get over the shortcomings of batteries and EV domination would be unstoppable. But that breakthrough has been a long time coming, since around 1888.
but the real push for it has been since around 2019.lithium ion battery costs….. 2013 - $780 kWh to 2023 $139 kWh
CATL reckon they will have LFP batteries ay $56 kWh this year.
if you're not impressed or at least interested in such stats, then you never will be.
meanwhile 700+ Wh/kg cells are being piloted. to give context, a model 3 will be using cells at 250ish. again,. same statement as above.
To say such a thing suggests a lack of knowledge and an interest only in terms of being provocative.
P.Griffin said:
Little morning reading for the EVangelists. I wonder how much more pristine rainforest needs to be cleared to get at the lithium? Are BEVs really the answer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
No! As everyone is saying, the solution to "the problem" of the car isn't another car.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
Everyone accepted that yonks ago and moved on, what point are you trying to raise?
P.Griffin said:
This may be true, but private buyers are not buying EVs, and they won't until charging and range are addressed. If the government want mass uptake, they need to encourage the solution of these 2 key shortcomings. Instead, we seem to see a steady stream of massive horse power cars that can do 0-60 in 2 seconds, and they call that progress...really useful that.
It's top down. That's the key. In order for the market to develop the products needed by the less affluent over the next thirty years all the incentives are focussed on getting those who can afford to switch now to do so. Ergo, the bulk of EVs in the West are aimed at those affluent people. The less well off and those for whole an EV or the current infrastructure genuinely can't work for their usage case aren't being asked to switch.
It's genuinely a very logical path but for some reason many lower income earners are confused that they are somehow being told to switch now.
The key is to step back from all the marketing and hype and simply look at the reality. EVs comprise a very small proportion of the U.K. fleet still and even under ZEV the majority of new cars will remain ICE for years to come. Even in 2035 only about a third of the entire U.K. fleet will have switched.
You're supposed to consider switching when the EV product that fits your finances and usage comes into existence, not before.
The fact that there are £200k EVs for sale today is no more relevant than it was in the 1985 when a mobile phone cost £2k or when CD players cost £1k.
National legislation has zero impact or relevance on anyone who isn't yet in a position to switch. It is merely targeting those who can and incentivising them to pay money to create the market, environment and infrastructure that will allow more and more to switch as they wish to.
We can even see who the legislation is aimed at today, higher income earners who can utilise BIK and who have a driveway for home charging and whose car usage fits the capabilities of an EV.
If a person's personal criteria doesn't fit the above then they have to wait. They can't have an EV today and nor are they supposed to be so daft as to try.
There will be early adopters who don't fit those core criteria but must inconvenience themselves in order to keep up with the Jones' but who cares about such childish behaviour and they're only inconveniencing themselves while still benefitting everyone else through their need for infrastructure growth and their supply of used cars into the fleet for those of us who don't want new.
People just need to chill and go and enjoy their ICE while other people spend all the money, do all the work and incur any inconveniences to create the market that allows you to switch at some point over the next 25 years.
P.Griffin said:
So in a 100% EV world, you don't see an issue with one country controlling the raw materials needed for their production?
For how long though?Once we have enough battery material in-country, we could in theory recycle it for the foreseeable future and top up the tiny % lost each time, either by import of from our own natural resources.
The same goes for the renewable energy to charge them.
I appreciate that this requires a long term view that neither our modern society nor our political system is renowned for.
Edited by GT9 on Tuesday 30th April 10:22
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff