Hydrogen Argument...

[ruggedscotty]

So....

1kg of hydrogen allows a car to do 100km or 60 miles ?

2.38 gallons of water required to produce 1kg of hydrogen...

and 55 kWh of electricity to produce that 1kg of hydrogen. other factors need to be considered, compressing that hydrogen ? and transporting it after creation. all eat into that kWh figure.

Id be looking at just how much distance you would get from 55kWh.


Then thinking about this further... 1kg of hydrogen 60 miles ?
average mileage say 7k a year...
thats 116 kg of hydrogen.
276 gallons of water ?

can we really take that sort of water and crack it without having a knock on effect on the environment ?

[jeremy996]

Or you could just use the 55kW to just drive a BEV instead.

Hydrogen only makes sense if you would otherwise waste the electricity produced by renewable sources or the machinery being driven by the hydrogen is used 365/7/24.

Synthetic fuel only makes sense is you have surplus electricity or hydrogen and you want to carry on using the existing infrastructure.

There is a whole lot of wishful thinking going on.

[ruggedscotty]

battery storage is where it is at to level the green production...

I cant work out wasting energy to split water to hydrogen and oxygen, when that energy is able to be stored in a battery.

splitting all that water I believe will create a new environmental disaster.

[sherman]

ruggedscotty said:

battery storage is where it is at to level the green production...

I cant work out wasting energy to split water to hydrogen and oxygen, when that energy is able to be stored in a battery.

splitting all that water I believe will create a new environmental disaster.

Will the surplus oxygen not be pumped back into the atmosphere diluting the greenhouse gases and reducing the greenhouse effect slowly but surely.

[gazza285]

ruggedscotty said:

battery storage is where it is at to level the green production...

I cant work out wasting energy to split water to hydrogen and oxygen, when that energy is able to be stored in a battery.

splitting all that water I believe will create a new environmental disaster.

Why would it be an environmental disaster? Storing hydrogen is greener that battery production, and the water used is replaced by water produced by the use of hydrogen. Use a local windmill/solar array to keep transmission losses down, combined with lots of small scale production and storage, to keep transport costs down.

[kurokawa]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think Hydrogen does have a place in the future
like you mention battery even with solid state battery would not be viable to mass transportation and industrial machinary.
Hydrogen will likely exist in Fuel cell usage for long haul, public transportation, and probably light machinary like folklift
Synthetic fuel might be allow to be use in construction and agriculture, as synthetic fuel is still burning hydrocarbon
ICE ban will remain, and spread into public transportation and goods vehicles. Existing ICE register before the ban will be allow to continue run until the end of their life.

[NMNeil]

ruggedscotty said:

battery storage is where it is at to level the green production...

I cant work out wasting energy to split water to hydrogen and oxygen, when that energy is able to be stored in a battery.

splitting all that water I believe will create a new environmental disaster.

If you use solar and wind to generate the electricity to break down the water, there's no environmental issues at all.
Sunshine into electricity. Electricity used to generate hydrogen & oxygen (hydrogen stored, oxygen released into the atmosphere)
Hydrogen & oxygen from the atmosphere fed into a fuel cell. Electricity from the fuel cell powers an electric motor.
Yes there will be an very small amount of Deuterium left from the electrolysis, which unless ingested in extremely large quantities, is harmless.
The estimate is that you would need to replace between 25 and 50% of your body water with Deuterium for it to be dangerous, and water makes up 50 to 75% of your total body weight.

[Carlososos]

ruggedscotty said:

splitting all that water I believe will create a new environmental disaster.

Why?

[FilH]

Theres been a Hydrogen vehicle filling station near me for a good few years. All the electricity produced to make the magic happen is done via solar power.

https://itm-power.com/news/hydrogen-vehicle-rally-...


Did have a quick look at hydrogen cars, and as expected expensive and look horrific, even the 3 or 4 ever available second hand are well beyond my budget, and they are also 996 turbo money, so im out.

[dsuk]

In 10+ years you will have a hydrogen supply directly into your house to fuel your boiler. It’s not if but when.

[anonymous-user]

ruggedscotty said:

So....

1kg of hydrogen allows a car to do 100km or 60 miles ?

2.38 gallons of water required to produce 1kg of hydrogen...

and 55 kWh of electricity to produce that 1kg of hydrogen. other factors need to be considered, compressing that hydrogen ? and transporting it after creation. all eat into that kWh figure.

Id be looking at just how much distance you would get from 55kWh.


Then thinking about this further... 1kg of hydrogen 60 miles ?
average mileage say 7k a year...
thats 116 kg of hydrogen.
276 gallons of water ?

can we really take that sort of water and crack it without having a knock on effect on the environment ?

When you burn the hydrogen fuel you get your water back again, you don't permanently remove water from the environment.

[anonymous-user]

NMNeil said:

If you use solar and wind to generate the electricity to break down the water, there's no environmental issues at all.

what? Do renewable energy generation and transmission networks simply pop into being, or do us humans have to expend effort and relase CO2 to construct and maintain them?

And that's the problem when it comes to private passenger cars, a BEV directly fuelled from the same renewable grid has 3 times lower overall impact no matter the magnitidue of that impact. Ie if your H2 car emits say 60g/km (or 6g/km) then a BEV emits 20 g/km (or 2 g/km) ie you can fuel a fleet three times as large for the same net impact! And for HICE it's far worse, with something approaching 6 times the energy consumption per mile driven.....

[Evanivitch]

MrMan001 said:

When you burn the hydrogen fuel you get your water back again, you don't permanently remove water from the environment.

There are questions to.be answered about the quality of water required for electrolysis. Fresh water, purified takes energy and resources. But dirty or sea water might impact the efficiency and quality of the product.

Ultimately, we'll be using hydrogen for a whole host of chemical processes anyway, possibly including steel production. It's almost a nul point whether we use it in cars.

[Gareth79]

FilH said:

Theres been a Hydrogen vehicle filling station near me for a good few years. All the electricity produced to make the magic happen is done via solar power.

https://itm-power.com/news/hydrogen-vehicle-rally-...

If it has solar on site I'm assuming it's an array much much larger than the station! Most will have to use grid power due to site necessities, and if they want to say it's green then just buy in green power. I imagine that's what they do?

[GT9]

dsuk said:

In 10+ years you will have a hydrogen supply directly into your house to fuel your boiler. It’s not if but when.

There are indeed several future scenarios in which hydrogen is being proposed for use in domestic heating.

What this does NOT mean is that that will make is the right solution for cars, quite possibly exactly the opposite, if production capacity is constrained.

In exactly the same way we don't use natural gas to power our cars, yet we use it prolifically to heat our homes.

Horses for courses, Rodney.

Hydrogen cars require gaseous hydrogen to be supplied at 700 bar/10000 psi, what pressure do you think domestic hydrogen will be supplied at?

I think you should also expand upon whether you think this domestic heating hydrogen will be originally sourced from natural gas anyway (grey/blue hydrogen) or renewable electricity (green hydrogen), and whether it will be blended with natural gas or not.

Hydrogen is NOT a silver bullet.

It makes sense in some applications, it makes a lot less sense in others.

[NMNeil]

MrMan001 said:

When you burn the hydrogen fuel you get your water back again, you don't permanently remove water from the environment.

But the hydrogen won't be burned, or you're back to polluting the air, which defeats the whole object of the exercise.

[anonymous-user]

NMNeil said:

But the hydrogen won't be burned, or you're back to polluting the air, which defeats the whole object of the exercise.

Burning hydrogen in air just produces water, potentially with small traces of other oxides like Evanivich mentioned above.

[NMNeil]

Max_Torque said:

what? Do renewable energy generation and transmission networks simply pop into being, or do us humans have to expend effort and relase CO2 to construct and maintain them?

And that's the problem when it comes to private passenger cars, a BEV directly fuelled from the same renewable grid has 3 times lower overall impact no matter the magnitidue of that impact. Ie if your H2 car emits say 60g/km (or 6g/km) then a BEV emits 20 g/km (or 2 g/km) ie you can fuel a fleet three times as large for the same net impact! And for HICE it's far worse, with something approaching 6 times the energy consumption per mile driven.....

The question was the use of hydrogen not it's generation and any environmental impact on building infrastructure.
It's like saying that an ICE car only pollutes from the tailpipe, but in manufacturing an ICE engine you have castings, forgings, machining, heat treating, and all the other pollution caused by making the 200 or so parts that go into an ICE engine. Do you include these when measuring pollution caused by ICE cars?

[HustleRussell]

NMNeil said:

MrMan001 said:

When you burn the hydrogen fuel you get your water back again, you don't permanently remove water from the environment.

But the hydrogen won't be burned, or you're back to polluting the air, which defeats the whole object of the exercise.

How so? No carbons on a Hydrogen. Burning it is simply one way of reacting it with oxygen.

You can also react it with oxygen without combusting it- in a fuel cell.

[GT9]

NMNeil said:

MrMan001 said:

When you burn the hydrogen fuel you get your water back again, you don't permanently remove water from the environment.

But the hydrogen won't be burned, or you're back to polluting the air, which defeats the whole object of the exercise.

Burnt/converted, let's not be too pedantic about it.

Fuel cell cars produce water vapour, this will be water that has been removed from one geographic location and added to another.

Maybe that's what OP meant was referring to?