Hydrogen is being used as a Trojan Horse/Slow walk by fossil fuel companies against renewable and EVs. It's an absolutely hopeless way of fuelling a car and that hydrogen combustion engine is bollocks. He'll, even in hydrogen obsessed Japan the head of Honda thinks Toyota are barking up the wrong tree with it, and absolutely no one else is interested.
Hydrogen has a place, but on the roads ain't it.
As for Kawasaki's tired, "Ooh the electricity" trope, it's been done to death. He's dead right about the size of cars, though. They have had to get bigger for safety reasons (you are no longer the crumple zone) but clever marketing has convinced the people that a jacked up hatchback of ever increasing proportions is vital to a modern lifestyle. And the US is even worse with everyone convinced they need a monster truck or APV sized 4x4 to commute in.
Interestingly, it looks like a honking big battery factory is going forward up North.
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:24 pm
by GogLais
PCPhil wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:34 am
The future is coal and steam boilers. You heard it here first.
Somebody once asked me whether wind turbines had a power supply to turn the blades when the wind wasn’t blowing. I think it’s about 50:50 whether or not he was serious.
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:25 pm
by shaggy
Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:18 pm
Hydrogen is being used as a Trojan Horse/Slow walk by fossil fuel companies against renewable and EVs. It's an absolutely hopeless way of fuelling a car and that hydrogen combustion engine is bollocks. He'll, even in hydrogen obsessed Japan the head of Honda thinks Toyota are barking up the wrong tree with it, and absolutely no one else is interested.
Hydrogen has a place, but on the roads ain't it.
As for Kawasaki's tired, "Ooh the electricity" trope, it's been done to death. He's dead right about the size of cars, though. They have had to get bigger for safety reasons (you are no longer the crumple zone) but clever marketing has convinced the people that a jacked up hatchback of ever increasing proportions is vital to a modern lifestyle. And the US is even worse with everyone convinced they need a monster truck or APV sized 4x4 to commute in.
Interestingly, it looks like a honking big battery factory is going forward up North.
Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:18 pm
Hydrogen is being used as a Trojan Horse/Slow walk by fossil fuel companies against renewable and EVs. It's an absolutely hopeless way of fuelling a car and that hydrogen combustion engine is bollocks. He'll, even in hydrogen obsessed Japan the head of Honda thinks Toyota are barking up the wrong tree with it, and absolutely no one else is interested.
Hydrogen has a place, but on the roads ain't it.
As for Kawasaki's tired, "Ooh the electricity" trope, it's been done to death. He's dead right about the size of cars, though. They have had to get bigger for safety reasons (you are no longer the crumple zone) but clever marketing has convinced the people that a jacked up hatchback of ever increasing proportions is vital to a modern lifestyle. And the US is even worse with everyone convinced they need a monster truck or APV sized 4x4 to commute in.
Interestingly, it looks like a honking big battery factory is going forward up North.
Why is hydrogen a hopeless way to power vehicles?
It's tough to transport and store, since it leaks through anything. To be useful it generally needs to be massively under pressure. If you think a battery going wrong is a bit scary, a tank full of hydrogen at 10000psi is scarier...
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:48 pm
by GogLais
Marylandolorian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:04 pm
Tesla 3 is doing well in the UK.
Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:18 pm
Hydrogen is being used as a Trojan Horse/Slow walk by fossil fuel companies against renewable and EVs. It's an absolutely hopeless way of fuelling a car and that hydrogen combustion engine is bollocks. He'll, even in hydrogen obsessed Japan the head of Honda thinks Toyota are barking up the wrong tree with it, and absolutely no one else is interested.
Hydrogen has a place, but on the roads ain't it.
As for Kawasaki's tired, "Ooh the electricity" trope, it's been done to death. He's dead right about the size of cars, though. They have had to get bigger for safety reasons (you are no longer the crumple zone) but clever marketing has convinced the people that a jacked up hatchback of ever increasing proportions is vital to a modern lifestyle. And the US is even worse with everyone convinced they need a monster truck or APV sized 4x4 to commute in.
Interestingly, it looks like a honking big battery factory is going forward up North.
Why is hydrogen a hopeless way to power vehicles?
It's tough to transport and store, since it leaks through anything. To be useful it generally needs to be massively under pressure. If you think a battery going wrong is a bit scary, a tank full of hydrogen at 10000psi is scarier...
Those are challenges that can be solved through engineering innovation and improvements. Still not seeing the ‘absolutely hopeless’ description though.
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:24 pm
by Hal Jordan
I refer you to Michael Liebreich and Auke Hoesktra on this one.
Plus less than 10,000 Toyota Mirai fuel cell cars sold in California since it was first introduced, the state where they had the most incentives to own one (including, I believe, $15k of free fuel).
Big ships, airplanes? Probably. The massive costs and inefficiency of fuel cells vs batteries are generally why the auto companies are pretty much not interested.
Specifically, the city calculates it would cost them 95 cents per kilometer for the hydrogen fueled buses versus 15 cents per kilometer for battery-powered buses. In addition, the cost of the fuel cell-powered buses was between €150,000 and €200,000 more than the cost of battery-powered buses.
I would be more than happy if affordable hydrogen cars which ran on renewably produced fuel were available, but right now it's not happening, plus virtually all hydrogen is blue, I.e. a fossil fuel byproduct. I hope this changes and I believe it will. Zero tailpipe emissions and as low a carbon footprint for the vehicle's lifespan is the aim.
Plus, you know, decent public transport might help...
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:37 pm
by Glaston
Marylandolorian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:04 pm
Tesla 3 is doing well in the UK.
Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:24 pm
I refer you to Michael Liebreich and Auke Hoesktra on this one.
Plus less than 10,000 Toyota Mirai fuel cell cars sold in California since it was first introduced, the state where they had the most incentives to own one (including, I believe, $15k of free fuel).
Big ships, airplanes? Probably. The massive costs and inefficiency of fuel cells vs batteries are generally why the auto companies are pretty much not interested.
Specifically, the city calculates it would cost them 95 cents per kilometer for the hydrogen fueled buses versus 15 cents per kilometer for battery-powered buses. In addition, the cost of the fuel cell-powered buses was between €150,000 and €200,000 more than the cost of battery-powered buses.
I would be more than happy if affordable hydrogen cars which ran on renewably produced fuel were available, but right now it's not happening, plus virtually all hydrogen is blue, I.e. a fossil fuel byproduct. I hope this changes and I believe it will. Zero tailpipe emissions and as low a carbon footprint for the vehicle's lifespan is the aim.
Plus, you know, decent public transport might help...
Agree on cars. Shipping most likely. Planes I suspect will be a biofuel but a liquid one.
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:55 pm
by Flockwitt
For solid state batteries an issue with these is that the technology is still changing faster than the product development times, but this is where the existing big boys in the car industry are going full tilt. They'll be up at 1000Wh/kg in 2024 and their fundamental safety vs. the liquid electrolyte types means they will form the basis of future electric vehicles despite lower cycle life. Their high recharge rates will help too. Issues for EVs are in other areas - international standardizing charging is a biggy, supply chain problems of battery materials and conductors.
But I wouldn't discount the fuel cell model with the right chemistry. There's still a lot to be said for simply swapping in a block of some high energy density thing and just going.
Hydrogen's problem is its transport currently, as soon as you move it there's immediate inefficiencies. It's viable for certain applications, but not for mass distribution ones at present.
That must be the ugliest BMW they've ever made. It actually looks like a Chinese copy of a European SUV.
Yeah, good analogy. I like the futuristic look of EVs, but that is one of the fuglier options.
Jesus
I googled it. My eyes hurt... what were they thinking?
Bungle, petrol at $2.75 and predicted to hit $3... it's only a matter of time here, yeah?
Indeed. I think the range anxiety some are still exhibiting on here is a thing of the past for standard commuter cars. While we’re in a good position down south, being hydro powered, there’ll need to be some Ute options coming quick and some R&D put into trailer batteries to aid towing.
It’s remarkable seeing all the short sighted recent Auckland subdivisions with infill housing and limited off street parking. Are residents supposed to run extension cables?
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:05 am
by shaggy
Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:24 pm
I refer you to Michael Liebreich and Auke Hoesktra on this one.
Plus less than 10,000 Toyota Mirai fuel cell cars sold in California since it was first introduced, the state where they had the most incentives to own one (including, I believe, $15k of free fuel).
Big ships, airplanes? Probably. The massive costs and inefficiency of fuel cells vs batteries are generally why the auto companies are pretty much not interested.
Specifically, the city calculates it would cost them 95 cents per kilometer for the hydrogen fueled buses versus 15 cents per kilometer for battery-powered buses. In addition, the cost of the fuel cell-powered buses was between €150,000 and €200,000 more than the cost of battery-powered buses.
I would be more than happy if affordable hydrogen cars which ran on renewably produced fuel were available, but right now it's not happening, plus virtually all hydrogen is blue, I.e. a fossil fuel byproduct. I hope this changes and I believe it will. Zero tailpipe emissions and as low a carbon footprint for the vehicle's lifespan is the aim.
Plus, you know, decent public transport might help...
Again, these are current challenges which can realistically be overcome. Hydrogen cannot be described as hopeless for a future power source for vehicles, there potential upsides are strong.
Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:24 pm
I refer you to Michael Liebreich and Auke Hoesktra on this one.
Plus less than 10,000 Toyota Mirai fuel cell cars sold in California since it was first introduced, the state where they had the most incentives to own one (including, I believe, $15k of free fuel).
Big ships, airplanes? Probably. The massive costs and inefficiency of fuel cells vs batteries are generally why the auto companies are pretty much not interested.
Specifically, the city calculates it would cost them 95 cents per kilometer for the hydrogen fueled buses versus 15 cents per kilometer for battery-powered buses. In addition, the cost of the fuel cell-powered buses was between €150,000 and €200,000 more than the cost of battery-powered buses.
I would be more than happy if affordable hydrogen cars which ran on renewably produced fuel were available, but right now it's not happening, plus virtually all hydrogen is blue, I.e. a fossil fuel byproduct. I hope this changes and I believe it will. Zero tailpipe emissions and as low a carbon footprint for the vehicle's lifespan is the aim.
Plus, you know, decent public transport might help...
Again, these are current challenges which can realistically be overcome. Hydrogen cannot be described as hopeless for a future power source for vehicles, there potential upsides are strong.
It is hopeless for cars. Just adding unnecessary energy conversions, particularly for green hydrogen. Also combustion engines are very inefficient compared to electric motors. could see it being used for shipping and maybe heavy goods vehicles.
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:17 pm
by inactionman
We've got an option on a used Zoe, but it's around 55k miles. It'll have the Renault battery lease so - although $50 or so a month leasing charge - it's one less thing to worry about and was my major worry with higher miled and older EVs.
I'd not be worried at all about 55k on a used IC car, not sure if that holds for an EV?
Taking a look at it this afternoon, we'll see what happens.
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:19 pm
by Ymx
Anyone have that salary sacrifice EV lease at their work?
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:10 pm
by shaggy
Ymx wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:19 pm
Anyone have that salary sacrifice EV lease at their work?
Ymx wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:19 pm
Anyone have that salary sacrifice EV lease at their work?
Yes. Just ordered through it.
I’m getting a no currently from the FD, as don’t have scheme.
He’s suggesting it impacts the numbers and therefore company valuation.
I’m guessing as it’s a (quickly depreciated) company asset and with a debt which is owned by the company.
Are any of you FDs out there and have figured out how to handle it?
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:19 pm
by Hal Jordan
Ymx wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:19 pm
Anyone have that salary sacrifice EV lease at their work?
All the dickheads that used to drive Audis and BMWs, if the behaviour of the average Tesla Model 3 driver round here is anything to go by.
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 6:00 pm
by Insane_Homer
Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:40 pm
It's tough to transport and store, since it leaks through anything. To be useful it generally needs to be massively under pressure. If you think a battery going wrong is a bit scary, a tank full of hydrogen at 10000psi is scarier...
Problems that can be solved.
The fear mongering is quiet hysterical, it's almost like petrol isn't dangerous at all.
Hydrogen is extremely flammable.[12] However this is mitigated by the fact that hydrogen rapidly rises and often disperses before ignition, unless the escape is in an enclosed, unventilated area. Demonstrations have shown that a fuel fire in a hydrogen-powered vehicle can burn out completely with little damage to the vehicle, in contrast to the expected result in a gasoline-fueled vehicle.[13]
Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:40 pm
It's tough to transport and store, since it leaks through anything. To be useful it generally needs to be massively under pressure. If you think a battery going wrong is a bit scary, a tank full of hydrogen at 10000psi is scarier...
Problems that can be solved.
The fear mongering is quiet hysterical, it's almost like petrol isn't dangerous at all.
Compared with mains gas it has one key safety advantage which is that it can't produce carbon monoxide but think batteries have won this technology battle.
Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:40 pm
It's tough to transport and store, since it leaks through anything. To be useful it generally needs to be massively under pressure. If you think a battery going wrong is a bit scary, a tank full of hydrogen at 10000psi is scarier...
Problems that can be solved.
The fear mongering is quiet hysterical, it's almost like petrol isn't dangerous at all.
Compared with mains gas it has one key safety advantage which is that it can't produce carbon monoxide but think batteries have won this technology battle.
Not if you include the environmental impact of mining for precious metals. Hydrogen can be entirely clean, can be refuelled quickly and does not add a massive weight which reduces efficiency.
The fear mongering is quiet hysterical, it's almost like petrol isn't dangerous at all.
Compared with mains gas it has one key safety advantage which is that it can't produce carbon monoxide but think batteries have won this technology battle.
Not if you include the environmental impact of mining for precious metals. Hydrogen can be entirely clean, can be refuelled quickly and does not add a massive weight which reduces efficiency.
with green hydrogen you're converting electricity to hydrogen and then converting it back to electricity or burning it to generate motion. That isn't efficient. We would be having to generate shitloads of excess electricity to make it as economical.
Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:40 pm
It's tough to transport and store, since it leaks through anything. To be useful it generally needs to be massively under pressure. If you think a battery going wrong is a bit scary, a tank full of hydrogen at 10000psi is scarier...
Problems that can be solved.
The fear mongering is quiet hysterical, it's almost like petrol isn't dangerous at all.
Compared with mains gas it has one key safety advantage which is that it can't produce carbon monoxide but think batteries have won this technology battle.
You need to qualify that statement "batteries". A liquid electrolyte lithium battery fire is a nightmare - you can't put it out and it's hot.
Compared with mains gas it has one key safety advantage which is that it can't produce carbon monoxide but think batteries have won this technology battle.
Not if you include the environmental impact of mining for precious metals. Hydrogen can be entirely clean, can be refuelled quickly and does not add a massive weight which reduces efficiency.
with green hydrogen you're converting electricity to hydrogen and then converting it back to electricity or burning it to generate motion. That isn't efficient. We would be having to generate shitloads of excess electricity to make it as economical.
Its doesn't need to be - lets face it Internal Combustion Engines are much , much less efficient than electric motors
Whilst in it's infancy there are projects in place develop offshore wind farms that are at least partly devoted to making hydrogen.
1, It is usually (much) cheaper to transport hydrogen than it is to move electricity.
2, Having the electrolyser in the turbine or on a nearby structure enables the electronics in the turbine to be simpler.
3, If making hydrogen is the ultimate purpose of the electricity made at the wind farm, then it may make sense never to attach the turbine to the grid. The advantages of this include cost – no need for a substation onshore, for example – and flexibility. There is no risk of enforced disconnection if the grid temporarily cannot handle the electricity that the turbine produces.
4, In addition, the hydrogen pipeline to the shore can act as a very efficient storage medium. The pressure can be increased and more hydrogen ‘packed’ into the pipeline.
Although some participants in these pilots are still checking that electrolysis at sea is possible and makes financial sense, there seems to be an increasingly strong view that a large fraction of total hydrogen supply will come from offshore wind turbines. Many of the largest European utilities are heavily involved in the project proposals.
Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:40 pm
It's tough to transport and store, since it leaks through anything. To be useful it generally needs to be massively under pressure. If you think a battery going wrong is a bit scary, a tank full of hydrogen at 10000psi is scarier...
Problems that can be solved.
The fear mongering is quiet hysterical, it's almost like petrol isn't dangerous at all.
Hydrogen is extremely flammable.[12] However this is mitigated by the fact that hydrogen rapidly rises and often disperses before ignition, unless the escape is in an enclosed, unventilated area. Demonstrations have shown that a fuel fire in a hydrogen-powered vehicle can burn out completely with little damage to the vehicle, in contrast to the expected result in a gasoline-fueled vehicle.[13]
I'm not worried about the hydrogen leaking, or burning, I'm worried about any gas that needs to be stored at enormous pressures for it to actually be contained in useful quantities.
inactionman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:17 pm
We've got an option on a used Zoe, but it's around 55k miles. It'll have the Renault battery lease so - although $50 or so a month leasing charge - it's one less thing to worry about and was my major worry with higher miled and older EVs.
I'd not be worried at all about 55k on a used IC car, not sure if that holds for an EV?
Taking a look at it this afternoon, we'll see what happens.
We've got a 22kwh zoe, going fine and I guess around 35k miles (not checked, could be 40). The advatnage with the lease is the car is often cheaper to start with, but also, if the range on the battery has dropped below a certain %, renault replace the battery. That's what the lease is for, so there's not really anything to worry about on that front.
The fear mongering is quiet hysterical, it's almost like petrol isn't dangerous at all.
Compared with mains gas it has one key safety advantage which is that it can't produce carbon monoxide but think batteries have won this technology battle.
You need to qualify that statement "batteries". A liquid electrolyte lithium battery fire is a nightmare - you can't put it out and it's hot.
I was comparing mains gas to hydrogen. By technology battle I meant between hydrogen and batteries for cars. I know thermal runaway fires is very bad on certain chemistry's. I do think hydrogen has a place in this energy transition and it is hydrogen and electricity+batteries rather than one or the other. I just think cars is one of the cases where batteries will dominate.
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:45 am
by Guy Smiley
Ammonia has 3 Hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen has two.
Ammonia is a potential storage and transport solution.
One of H2's advantages as a fuel source for combustion engines is the ease of transferring that tech across regions with expertise already and little chance of upskilling quickly. Think developing countries where locals already know how to repair engines.
H2 has a tremendous upside as an energy source... we're only just seeing serious efforts being put into that. Give it a couple of years development and the suggestion it's a no hope option will look a little premature.
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:46 am
by Blackmac
inactionman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:17 pm
We've got an option on a used Zoe, but it's around 55k miles. It'll have the Renault battery lease so - although $50 or so a month leasing charge - it's one less thing to worry about and was my major worry with higher miled and older EVs.
I'd not be worried at all about 55k on a used IC car, not sure if that holds for an EV?
Taking a look at it this afternoon, we'll see what happens.
I don't think I would be able to get past the fact it is supposedly as safe as a tissue box in an accident.
Compared with mains gas it has one key safety advantage which is that it can't produce carbon monoxide but think batteries have won this technology battle.
You need to qualify that statement "batteries". A liquid electrolyte lithium battery fire is a nightmare - you can't put it out and it's hot.
I was comparing mains gas to hydrogen. By technology battle I meant between hydrogen and batteries for cars. I know thermal runaway fires is very bad on certain chemistry's. I do think hydrogen has a place in this energy transition and it is hydrogen and electricity+batteries rather than one or the other. I just think cars is one of the cases where batteries will dominate.
Yep, I agree, the hydrogen experimental companies like GM and Toyota have are interesting but they're not going mainstream in the medium term. 2-3 years from now EVs with batteries will be significantly better and safer than now. I'm waiting for that next paradigm shift (hate the term but there you go) before heading into the EV market myself.
Re: The future for EV cars?..
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:05 am
by Flockwitt
TB63 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 9:17 am
But what would they do with the excess oxygen?..
Put the plants next to steel mills who chew it up. Or sewerage treatment. Plenty of use cases for it. That's what's happening with the current developments in the larger hydrogen plants, looking for dual use models.
inactionman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:17 pm
We've got an option on a used Zoe, but it's around 55k miles. It'll have the Renault battery lease so - although $50 or so a month leasing charge - it's one less thing to worry about and was my major worry with higher miled and older EVs.
I'd not be worried at all about 55k on a used IC car, not sure if that holds for an EV?
Taking a look at it this afternoon, we'll see what happens.
I don't think I would be able to get past the fact it is supposedly as safe as a tissue box in an accident.
The weightsavings certainly mean it feels a lot more 'tinny' - although our point of reference is a Land Rover so perhaps not a fair comparison- but I wasn't aware of any NCAP safety issues? It's missing e.g. autonomous braking and the raft of skirt airbags but I took this as a function of its age.
Someone else has reserved the one we were looking at, it was pretty high miled and a touch tatty so we could take or leave it, but will continue the search.
Can't justify the £20k+ it would take for newer EVs, so Zoe with lease battery is about the only game in town at this point in time.
Flockwitt wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:23 pm
You need to qualify that statement "batteries". A liquid electrolyte lithium battery fire is a nightmare - you can't put it out and it's hot.
I was comparing mains gas to hydrogen. By technology battle I meant between hydrogen and batteries for cars. I know thermal runaway fires is very bad on certain chemistry's. I do think hydrogen has a place in this energy transition and it is hydrogen and electricity+batteries rather than one or the other. I just think cars is one of the cases where batteries will dominate.
Yep, I agree, the hydrogen experimental companies like GM and Toyota have are interesting but they're not going mainstream in the medium term. 2-3 years from now EVs with batteries will be significantly better and safer than now. I'm waiting for that next paradigm shift (hate the term but there you go) before heading into the EV market myself.
Solid state batteries? I'm in a similar position in that I'm planning on waiting a few years. I was wondering if any car companies will shift to lithium iron phosphate batteries as they are less prone to thermal runaway.
