Hydrogen Argument...
Discussion
MrMan001 said:
'Burning' is accurate I think, one of the hazards of working with hydrogen is that the flame is almost invisible.
The thread is about hydrogen cars.To have any chance of making a case for using hydrogen in cars, you really need to be thinking fuel cells, the ICE option is a niche in a niche in a niche.
In which case reacting it with oxygen is more accurate in this context.
GT9 said:
The thread is about hydrogen cars.
To have any chance of making a case for using hydrogen in cars, you really need to be thinking fuel cells, the ICE option is a niche in a niche in a niche.
In which case reacting it with oxygen is more accurate in this context.
Thanks for pointing that out, are there many applications where hydrogen combustion is more likely to be used effectively? From my very surface-level understanding home boilers and aircraft seem like good choices, simply because I can't imagine a fuel cell being used in those environments. But that may be due to my own limited imagination To have any chance of making a case for using hydrogen in cars, you really need to be thinking fuel cells, the ICE option is a niche in a niche in a niche.
In which case reacting it with oxygen is more accurate in this context.
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 ?
Broadly speaking….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 ?
55kWh will get a HICE 30 miles, an FCEV 60 miles, and a BEV 180 miles.
Clearly making H2 for transportation is mental. Properly viable use cases for H2 powered transportation have yet to present themselves.
dvs_dave said:
Broadly speaking….
55kWh will get a HICE 30 miles, an FCEV 60 miles, and a BEV 180 miles.
Clearly making H2 for transportation is mental. Properly viable use cases for H2 powered transportation have yet to present themselves.
Not sure about that. I buy buses for a living and have 56 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on order which will be fed by an onsite hydrogen fuel station.55kWh will get a HICE 30 miles, an FCEV 60 miles, and a BEV 180 miles.
Clearly making H2 for transportation is mental. Properly viable use cases for H2 powered transportation have yet to present themselves.
The hydrogen will be supplied by air products, produced in the middle east using solar power as NH3 (ammonia) shipped to Purfleet and then chemically split into two gases both used in industry.
There's a lot of academic opinion about hydrogen but the reality is a huge industry is gathering pace, as others have said it will be one of various solutions.
A BEV bus works in urban environments but is extremely unproductive (charge downtime means you need more of them than diesel or hydrogen vehicles) and they are no use in rural applications and/ or areas with significant hills.
A hydrogen bus is circa 25% more expensive than a BEV bus but due to better productivity is actually more economically viable from a full life asset cost pov.
MrMan001 said:
Thanks for pointing that out, are there many applications where hydrogen combustion is more likely to be used effectively? From my very surface-level understanding home boilers and aircraft seem like good choices, simply because I can't imagine a fuel cell being used in those environments. But that may be due to my own limited imagination
I'd say that's a good shout.Large vehicles, aircraft, shipping and industrial/domestic heating.
Also as a means of import/export of electricity.
For the aircraft industry, converting it to ammonia is also potentially on the cards.
The storage/volumetric energy density issues for cars, particularly so for ICEs, are well documented on several concurrent threads.
I think it'd be worth thinking about why people seem to think Hydrogen is the answer for cars. Ie. why BEV is seen as a stepping stone. What does Hydrogen offer that makes it the goal?
I guess it's two things:
1) Range
2) Filling speed
3) Perhaps if being burned the car making "broom broom" noises.
There's assumptions on the above, does it give you increased range, can we have enough filling stations to make fillups quick, will it make a nice noise... etc. etc.
I personally prefer a BEV to Hydrogen... I'd be hoping that EVs with ever better batteries, efficiency, charging speeds mean that 1 & 2 aren't benefits any more, and I still don't know why a Tesla can make fart noises, but doesn't have a V8 soundtrack... but hey.
Take away what ever is seen as the advantage of Hydrogen and we can go back to using BEVs and leave the hydrogen for things that need it.
I guess it's two things:
1) Range
2) Filling speed
3) Perhaps if being burned the car making "broom broom" noises.
There's assumptions on the above, does it give you increased range, can we have enough filling stations to make fillups quick, will it make a nice noise... etc. etc.
I personally prefer a BEV to Hydrogen... I'd be hoping that EVs with ever better batteries, efficiency, charging speeds mean that 1 & 2 aren't benefits any more, and I still don't know why a Tesla can make fart noises, but doesn't have a V8 soundtrack... but hey.
Take away what ever is seen as the advantage of Hydrogen and we can go back to using BEVs and leave the hydrogen for things that need it.
GT9 said:
He's referring to the NOx produced from combusting it in an ICE.
And as usual the fact that there will be leakage of oil from the crankcase of an ICE engine past the piston rings, which it's then burned in the combustion chamber is ignored. The same for the PCV system and the valve guides. The engine will still be putting CO and CO2 into the atmosphere.The call is for 0 emissions, not close to 0.
NMNeil said:
GT9 said:
He's referring to the NOx produced from combusting it in an ICE.
And as usual the fact that there will be leakage of oil from the crankcase of an ICE engine past the piston rings, which it's then burned in the combustion chamber is ignored. The same for the PCV system and the valve guides. The engine will still be putting CO and CO2 into the atmosphere.The call is for 0 emissions, not close to 0.
NMNeil said:
HustleRussell said:
In that case, even EVs are going to need to do something about particulates produced by friction brakes and tyres
I should have simplified it as much as possible for you, sorry.Exhaust/tailpipe/engine emissions.
In the UK this cascade will make the HICE an irrelevance. Which manufacturer is going to develop and sell HICE cars here? The sum total of nobody will buy them based on normal criteria like monthly payments, running costs, practicality, refinement, spaciousness, etc.
I don't think there will need to be a ban on HICE cars, as the numbers will statistically zero.
TooLateForAName said:
The reality is that the industry pushing hydrogen is mainly the oil industry.
Hydrogen can be green, from water using solar/wind - albeit far less efficient than just using the electricity - but almost all hydrogen is actually produced from petrocarbons.
Most hydrogen is currently produced by reforming methane, (natural gas), 48%, oil, 30%, coal, 18% and electrolysis, 4%. (Wikipedia). Hydrogen can be green, from water using solar/wind - albeit far less efficient than just using the electricity - but almost all hydrogen is actually produced from petrocarbons.
Hydrogen can be classified by colour, relating to how it was captured, (in reality, it is a colourless gas).
Green hydrogen is produced through water electrolysis process by employing renewable electricity. The reason it is called green is that there is no CO2 emission during the production process. Water electrolysis is a process which uses electricity to decompose water into hydrogen gas and oxygen.
(Current production is minimal)
Blue hydrogen is sourced from fossil fuel. However, the CO2 is captured and stored underground (carbon sequestration). Companies are also trying to utilise the captured carbon called carbon capture, storage and utilisation (CCSU). Utilisation is not essential to qualify for blue hydrogen. As no CO2 is emitted, so the blue hydrogen production process is categorised as carbon neutral.
(Current production is minimal)
Gray hydrogen is produced from fossil fuel and commonly uses steam methane reforming (SMR) method. During this process, CO2 is produced and eventually released to the atmosphere.
(Most current commercial hydrogen)
Black or brown hydrogen is produced from coal. The black and brown colours refer to the type bituminous (black) and lignite (brown) coal. The gasification of coal is a method used to produce hydrogen. However, it is a very polluting process, and CO2 and carbon monoxide are produced as by-products and released to the atmosphere.
(Next largest source of hydrogen)
Turquoise hydrogen can be extracted by using the thermal splitting of methane via methane pyrolysis. The process, though at the experimental stage, remove the carbon in a solid form instead of CO2 gas.
(Almost none)
Purple hydrogen is made though using nuclear power and heat through combined chemo thermal electrolysis splitting of water.
(Mostly accidental - can cause explosions in nuclear plant)
Pink hydrogen is generated through electrolysis of water by using electricity from a nuclear power plant.
(Not common)
Red hydrogen is produced through the high-temperature catalytic splitting of water using nuclear power thermal as an energy source.
(More theoretical than actual)
White hydrogen refers to naturally occurring hydrogen. (Rare and not commercially valuable) (Colour classification source: H2Bulletin, London)
Hydrogen is a very useful chemical feedstock, one of the world's largest producers is Ineos, so it is no surprise that they are developing a Fuel Cell BEV powertrain for the Grenadier. The chemical industry and politicians bang on about Green and Blue hydrogen and don't mention that they are commercially almost non-existent; this is probably as cynical as greenwashing gets.
Edited by jeremy996 on Monday 7th March 22:47
I like the idea of hydrogen fuel cells for road vehicles that really do need the extra range and ability to quickly refuel - road freight etc.
But apart from that, it just seems more efficient to generate the electricity 'however' and put it in to a cars battery. If hydrogen can in some way generate power in a very green way then great, lets build hydrogen power stations to power thousands of homes and cars. But why try and fit a hydrogen power station in to each car?
So far all the greenest ways of producing AND distributing hydrogen involve far more energy loss than putting the power straight in to the car. A big part is the distribution because it requires a specialised and safe infrastructure like petrol, as opposed to electricity which can be sent anywhere it needs to be, direct in to each car owners home specifically! The loss of energy via grid distribution is next to nothing compared to moving physical fuel around and handling it.
But apart from that, it just seems more efficient to generate the electricity 'however' and put it in to a cars battery. If hydrogen can in some way generate power in a very green way then great, lets build hydrogen power stations to power thousands of homes and cars. But why try and fit a hydrogen power station in to each car?
So far all the greenest ways of producing AND distributing hydrogen involve far more energy loss than putting the power straight in to the car. A big part is the distribution because it requires a specialised and safe infrastructure like petrol, as opposed to electricity which can be sent anywhere it needs to be, direct in to each car owners home specifically! The loss of energy via grid distribution is next to nothing compared to moving physical fuel around and handling it.
HustleRussell said:
NMNeil said:
HustleRussell said:
In that case, even EVs are going to need to do something about particulates produced by friction brakes and tyres
I should have simplified it as much as possible for you, sorry.Exhaust/tailpipe/engine emissions.
TheDeuce said:
If hydrogen can in some way generate power in a very green way then great, lets build hydrogen power stations to power thousands of homes and cars.
Where are you getting the hydrogen from to 'generate' power? It either started life as a reformed hydrocarbon or as water cracked by electricity both of which consumed power that had already been generated. You can of course assume it's an imported commodity, but I'm not sure relying entirely on the import of hydrogen would be a sound economic or political strategy.TheDeuce said:
So far all the greenest ways of producing AND distributing hydrogen involve far more energy loss than putting the power straight in to the car.
The words 'so far' are superfluous in that sentence, the intrinsic efficiency is what it is and won't ever change significantly.Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff