# Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?



## Space Lynx (May 8, 2021)

The more I look at what Toyota has done (and is doing) with a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine even... I just don't get it. I know storage costs of hydrogen are expensive, but if it were scaled up, wouldn't the cost dramatically lower? The Boring Company could dig giant underground storage facilities (its cold as crap if you dig far enough down)... and store the tanks of hydrogen there, and a driver will simply drive down a ramp, get the hydrogen tank replaced, and drive off.

I feel like clean energy with no messy batteries even... is staring us right in the face, why is Toyota taking a risk on it if there is no possible future for it? I don't get it. Someone educate me.

(reason I bring this up is because I was just reading recently how 5% of all electric car batteries are recycled, who knows what happens to rest... not to mention they are not good to begin with...)

If all world governments got on board and were like ok all... we highly miscalculated climate change, things need to change within 5 years... all mass production changed to this hydrogen idea... would it be impossible? Or would it scale?


----------



## the54thvoid (May 8, 2021)

Just a point, if you dig far enough down, it gets hotter and hotter. We live on the cold bit. But deeper in the crust, it gets super-heated.


----------



## 64K (May 8, 2021)

Just doing a quick look around I found some definite negatives for using hydrogen as fuel:

Investment is Required. ...
Cost of Raw Materials. ...
Regulatory Issues. ...
Overall Cost. ...
Hydrogen Storage. ...
Infrastructure. ...
Highly Flammable.
There's virtually no pure hydrogen on Earth because it's so reactive. Most hydrogen is made from methane [natural gas] in a process that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The reason we are still using fossil fuels to power our cars is because it's a cheaper and simpler means of energy production. One day when we are running out of cheap fossil fuels that will change. Hopefully at that time Fusion will be cheap enough and simple to use and practical for transportation.


----------



## PooPipeBoy (May 8, 2021)

I worked in the gas industry for a few years and hydrogen isn't easy to work with. Obviously it's volatile but the real issue is that you need to store it as a gas at high pressures (2,000 to 10,000 psi). Even when you can design a passenger vehicle with a hydrogen fuel tank that can handle that pressure, you still don't have the same energy density as good old fashioned petrol. That doesn't rule hydrogen out but at least for now it's not quite there in terms of practicality.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 8, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> Just a point, if you dig far enough down, it gets hotter and hotter. We live on the cold bit. But deeper in the crust, it gets super-heated.



 I obviously didn't mean dig that deep... sigh...



64K said:


> Just doing a quick look around I found some definite negatives for using hydrogen as fuel:
> 
> Investment is Required. ...
> Cost of Raw Materials. ...
> ...



then how has Toyota managed to do it...


----------



## moproblems99 (May 9, 2021)

The largest issue for any alternative fuel (not electric) is infrastructure.  There are more gas stations than stars.  So building new stations would be troublesome and converting the others a logistical headache (and costly) which means it won't happen until necessary.

Electric cars largely are unaffected by this but suffer from their obviously longer 'refuel' times.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 11, 2021)

this answers a lot of questions... but I guess the next question is, how does Toyota do it? and would those costs come down if it were scaled largely... or is there a new way to get hydrogen easier?









						World's first commercial-grade hydrogen plane takes flight in UK, as government urged to grow 'green' hydrogen sector - edie
					

The first flight of a hydrogen-powered, commercial-grade aircraft has been successfully completed in Bedford, while UK ministers face fresh calls to help scale up the domestic market for hydrogen produced using renewables.




					www.edie.net
				




also where did this plane get its hydrogen fuel... see lot of questions here not a lot of answers... main thing is would it scale to be cost efficient?









						Billionaire takes on Elon Musk in electric vehicle vs hydrogen debate
					

Billionaire Andrew Forrest said Musk had 'every reason to fear green hydrogen, and his description is perhaps better suited to someone who peddles a battery technology as green when it runs on fossil fuel




					www.livemint.com
				




Now I need to know more about this Australian mining company, how did they make the switch to Hydrogen profitable... and is that method scalable.  

Maybe we should look at a mix of EV's and Hydrogen's, certain areas that can have that infrastructure of hydrogen get it, and other more dense areas rely on EV's... why can't we all just get along? haha


----------



## moproblems99 (May 11, 2021)

I would absolutely support the research on hydro cars.  No questions.  I have been seeing stuff about them since the early 2000s.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 11, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> I would absolutely support the research on hydro cars.  No questions.  I have been seeing stuff about them since the early 2000s.



Toyota is already doing lots of research in it, and Toyota just came out with this recently, a hydrogen combustion engine, no Fuel Cell:









						Toyota Developing Hydrogen Engine Technologies Through Motorsports | Corporate | Global Newsroom | Toyota Motor Corporation Official Global Website
					

Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) announced today that, toward the achievement of a carbon-neutral mobility society, it is developing a hydrogen engine. It has installed the engine on a racing vehicle based on Toyota's Corolla Sport, which it will enter in competition under the ORC ROOKIE Racing...




					global.toyota


----------



## moproblems99 (May 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Toyota is already doing lots of research in it, and Toyota just came out with this recently, a hydrogen combustion engine, no Fuel Cell:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I should say: Support more broad research than and research on how to best implement this shit.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 11, 2021)

64K said:


> It's from this series. One of the best sci-fi series ever imo
> 
> If you haven't had a chance to watch it then I recommend it.
> 
> View attachment 199718



Indubitably


----------



## Shrek (May 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I just don't get it. I know storage costs of hydrogen are expensive...


Hydrogen is hard to store, it not being easily liquified; electricity is easy to store.

People are working on ways to produce LPG (liquid petroleum gas) which is easy to store.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 11, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Hydrogen is hard to store, it not being easily liquified; electricity is easy to store.



Elon Musk's Boring company could make large underground facilites you drive through, changes your hydrogen storage tank, and you drive off, could be instant refueling.

Also, I feel like I am repeating myself... how does Toyota do it... they have active hydrogen fueling stations in California for many years now and expanded it.


----------



## Shrek (May 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> changes your hydrogen storage tank


How does that solve the problem? (Hydrogen is hard to store, it not being easily liquified).

And car batteries may be recycled by using them for house electricity storage; what happens is that such batteries lose their power ability, but not so much their energy capacity.

If car batteries are standardized one may also be able to swap one out at the station and drive off.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 11, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> How does that solve the problem? (Hydrogen is hard to store, it not being easily liquified).
> 
> And car batteries may be recycled by using them for house electricity storage; what happens is that such batteries lose their power ability, but not so much their energy capacity.
> 
> If car batteries are standardized one may also be able to swap one out at the station and drive off.



this is what I want to ask Toyota, or that plane maker, or that Australian miner I linked before. how do you do it, and can it scale efficiently in certain geological areas... and are there new methods for creating hydrogen that just aren't advertised as much... where did that plane get it's hydrogen for example...  as I said lots of question not many answers, simply interesting to think about. not just dismiss immediately, if Toyota thought it was impossible, hopeless, endless dream - I doubt they would be sinking money into it for this long...









						Electric cars: What will happen to all the dead batteries?
					

In the next 10 years millions of old electric car batteries will need to be recycled or discarded.



					www.bbc.com
				




_"Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%," says Dr Anderson. "In some parts of the world it's considerably less."_

So yeah batteries are pretty bad for the environment, EV isn't a savior just yet... not until we figure out this problem which we haven't... not to mention the mining of Nickel and Iron isn't exactly good either... 









						Nickel mining: the hidden environmental cost of electric cars
					

The extraction of nickel, mainly mined in Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Russia and the Philippines, comes with environmental and health costs




					www.theguardian.com
				




what if instead of just dismissing hydrogen we keep investing (like toyota, like the Australian mining company, etc)... maybe there is a way to scale up large tank storage underground (underground because its cold, protected from weather, and will require less electricity to keep stored).


----------



## tabascosauz (May 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Elon Musk's Boring company could make large underground facilites you drive through, changes your hydrogen storage tank, and you drive off, could be instant refueling.
> 
> Also, I feel like I am repeating myself... how does Toyota do it... they have active hydrogen fueling stations in California for many years now and expanded it.



You seem to be extremely hung up on Toyota's alleged "success" on this front.

Toyota hasn't "DONE IT". The Mirai is not a success. Just ask the Mirai early adopters who are now realizing that the car is only half the question (if that), infrastructure is the other half and Toyota hasn't anywhere near the amount of infrastructure needed to properly support hydrogen cars.

The Mirai also isn't evidence that Toyota is betting big on hydrogen. A company as big as Toyota has plans that cannot be easily turned around on a whim; there was news a little while back that they've been flirting with the idea of a partnership with Tesla, but plans take time to come to fruition. In the meantime, the bulk of Toyota's strategy still hedges on hybrids and more efficient gas engines (downsizing larger engines like the 1GR, turbocharging, D-4S dual injection, new platforms that integrate better with hybrid powertrains, etc.). Toyota believed that aggressively pursuing EVs wasn't the right policy (at least, not in the near term), and well, they're living with the consequences.

Yes, their new track car that runs hydrogen in a ICE engine turned a few heads as a technology demonstrator. That doesn't mean anything for the viability of hydrogen as a fuel and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Toyota is a company that plays it safe, but even then there's just not a good reason to invest significantly into this idea of making ICE cars run on hydrogen. They don't run hydrogen out of the box, they're not emissions-free, they're a distraction from EVs and Toyota's own hybrids, and the same problems with creating/storing hydrogen remain.


----------



## Nuckles56 (May 11, 2021)

The other big issue with hydrogen other then storage, is the production of it, as currently like 95% comes from the cracking of methane and that makes it just as dirty a fuel as the petrol we use currently.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 11, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> You seem to be extremely hung up on Toyota's alleged "success" on this front.
> 
> Toyota hasn't "DONE IT". The Mirai is not a success. Just ask the Mirai early adopters who are now realizing that the car is only half the question (if that), infrastructure is the other half and Toyota hasn't anywhere near the amount of infrastructure needed to properly support hydrogen cars.
> 
> ...



I understand your arguments. Now I simply wonder why Toyota bothers with it, or why the UK airplane decided to use hydrogen... perhaps these are simply models in the hopes someday there will be a breakthrough in how to harvest hydrogen easier/cleaner. I am unsure. Maybe these things are an RnD program so to speak, and it's just a waiting game to see if some genius figures out a way to get hydrogen easier.


----------



## Shrek (May 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> can it scale efficiently


That's my point... car storage... no economies of scale.



lynx29 said:


> see if some genius figures out a way to get hydrogen easier.


? electrolysis


----------



## tabascosauz (May 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I understand your arguments. Now I simply wonder why Toyota bothers with it, or why the UK airplane decided to use hydrogen... perhaps these are simply models in the hopes someday there will be a breakthrough in how to harvest hydrogen easier/cleaner. I am unsure. Maybe these things are an RnD program so to speak, and it's just a waiting game to see if some genius figures out a way to get hydrogen easier.



I'm not sure I understand why they decided to go down this road either, lol. Toyota is the literal embodiment of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", but it doesn't feel like they were ever very serious about hydrogen. Seeing Toyota falling behind companies like Ford and GM in electrification is just......I hope they do find a way to jumpstart their venture into EVs, whether by the Tesla deal or otherwise.

I do get excited about cool new innovations in cars, but if anything the past 6 years have taught me that an exciting product means precisely 0 until the moment the company makes it a mass-produced commercial success (or at least real and viable to some degree). Merc EQC, Bollinger, Nikola, Rivian as of this moment.........over-promise, under-/don't-deliver. Same goes for the plane. It's cool, but I'll believe it when I see it.

At least Mirai is a real product and not vaporware, and the infrastructure for it certainly seems a little better in Japan. But it currently still falls into the same trap as the above, involving a lot of "promises" and not a lot of "reality"; like, hydrogen COULD be stored easily and widely but it isn't, hydrogen COULD be made in efficient, low-emissions ways but it isn't, etc.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 11, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> That's my point... car storage... no economies of scale.
> 
> 
> ? electrolysis



I don't know what you mean by car storage... I'm talking about small tanks that go in the hydrogen car, they would pop out, then back in, as the car drives underground to refuel on an automated conveyor belt you drive on to, no humans needed. (this is just an idea of mine, I doubt it would work) my goal isn't to argue with this thread, it's simply asking a question about physics... is Elon Musk right in his video he made? are the physics clear cut, or is there something else possible.  (I'd really love to know what this mining company in Australia is doing switching from traditional mining to making hydrogen, that article in particular I find intriguing, is it something new or what... I have no idea) I figure there has to be a financial incentive for them to switch though... which is where I get confused.



tabascosauz said:


> . Same goes for the plane. It's cool, but I'll believe it when I see it.
> 
> At least Mirai is a real product and not vaporware, and the infrastructure for it certainly seems a little better in Japan.



I'm not sure what you mean in regards to plane, the hydrogen fueled plane has already flown in the UK. It exists. Lot of questions I have... before I can comment further, but if it is exists it is not vaporware imo.


----------



## Bones (May 11, 2021)

There was a guy in Japan years ago that created an engine that literally ran off of water. 
Part of the process involved ceramic "Plugs" that were heated to a very high temp and when the water was injected, it contacted the plugs, exploded/burned like gas and the engine ran. 

It's a similar effect when you have molten metal and it comes in contact with water - If you are ever in a foundry and water comes in contact with the metal it will cause an explosion, if enough of both comes together you'd better RUN and hope you're fast enough.


----------



## erocker (May 11, 2021)

We've barely started with hydrogen cars. I just recently saw some stuff coming in the next few years but there's really been nothing much in production yet.


----------



## Shrek (May 11, 2021)

A steam engine runs on water...

What heated the plugs?


----------



## tabascosauz (May 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I'm not sure what you mean in regards to plane, the hydrogen fueled plane has already flown in the UK. It exists. Lot of questions I have... before I can comment further, but if it is exists it is not vaporware imo.



I know it has, I should have clarified that I was referring to the likes of the Airbus demonstrator plane. Hydrogen can easily power Cessna and Piper Cub sized aircraft, but the vast majority of people don't consider joyrides in a Cessna as making a meaningful impact on air travel as a whole. That would be like if we only had cars like this and hailed it a groundbreaking revolution for the auto industry:









						Chinese £3,200 budget electric car takes on Tesla
					

The mini electric vehicle being made by China's biggest carmaker is now outselling Tesla two to one.



					www.google.com
				




I'm not saying that hydrogen doesn't hold promise. Perhaps a lot more promise in aviation, since electrification is not yet an option, but it's got a very long way to go.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 11, 2021)

HOLY CRAP









						Chinese £3,200 budget electric car takes on Tesla
					

The mini electric vehicle being made by China's biggest carmaker is now outselling Tesla two to one.



					www.bbc.com
				




if I could buy this for 4500 to 5000 dollars I would buy it... I really wish this would come to the states... me want... I can't find the range on it though, needs to be at least 120 miles imo... otherwise the battery charge cycles will occur to frequently, meaning new batteries needed in quick amount of time if we account for standard 1000-2000 cycle rates


----------



## oobymach (May 11, 2021)

Hydrogen is extremely explosive, storing a large quantity of it safely (safe enough to withstand complete vehicle destruction) is the real issue. Imagine if your car exploded violently from a fender bender. Remember the Hindenburg? Gasoline is an extremely safe fuel by comparison, we use hydrogen in bombs because it explodes real good.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 11, 2021)

oobymach said:


> Hydrogen is extremely explosive, storing a large quantity of it safely (safe enough to withstand complete vehicle destruction) is the real issue. Imagine if your car exploded violently from a fender bender. Remember the Hindenburg? Gasoline is an extremely safe fuel by comparison, we use hydrogen in bombs because it explodes real good.



No Mirai has exploded yet... and they have been on the road for like a decade. The tanks they are use are nearly indestructible even at high speeds, so I'm not sure I buy this argument, Toyota already thought of this.

The main issue in my eyes, is the extraction of hydrogen at an efficient enough level to make the hydrogen car competitive. Seems to be what Elon Musk said as well in the video I linked.


----------



## Shrek (May 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> hydrogen powered internal combustion engine


The ICE is very inefficient; a great waste of energy compared to electric cars.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 11, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> The ICE is very inefficient; a great waste of energy compared to electric cars.


 That's just for racing cars, but my point with mentioning is that Toyota is still developing hydrogen tech overall. They have not given up on it, which was my only point. the Fuel Cell hydrogen is one for consumers. again, this thread is just me trying to wrap my head around it all, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Operandi (May 11, 2021)

The hydrogen full cells like what Toyota is using in their cars are "fueling" electric cars, they are not ICE (internal combustion engines) so they are not burning the hydrogen.  You can use it that way and Mazda did it with a RX8 I think as concept and it worked but as has been pointed out ICE engines are nowhere near as efficient as electric motors so its hard to see ICE hydrogen would work out.  Not sure why Mazda did it, maybe just cause they could... but nobody is looking at burning hydrogen as a fuel.

Storage is an issue but it can be solved.  Transportation is an issue but it also can be solved.  The real problem is getting the hydrogen.  Current methods for producing hydrogen are nearly so energy intensive that it takes almost as much energy in the form of oil, coal or natural gas to produce the hydrogen that you better off just turning the oil, natural gas )or whatever primitive hydrocarbon) into the energy you wanted in the first place (ICE engines) or convert it an easier way in the form of batteries.  Hydrogen should win out in the end as renewable energy takes off and as fuel cells get better but its got a long way to go compared to lithium ion infrastructure.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 11, 2021)

Why not using an industrial scaled Ultrasonic dispenser to separate water into O2 and H2, if the electrolysis is so inefficient. Ultrasonic dispensers have an efficiency of 100% since they literally split the water atoms into H2 and O2...
The next time you are using your 20$ humidifier inside your home think about this....


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 11, 2021)

Well we have few experimental trolleybuses going around on hydrogen since last year, but just as everything many projects are stalled due to CV19. The Hydrogen station is located inside of public transport park. 

It is a byproduct of this EU project. The results are not there, but interestingly enough it is not dead.





__





						H2Nodes
					

H2NODES - Evolution of a European hydrogen refuelling station network by mobilising the local demand and value chains   H2Nodes looks into...




					www.h2nodes.eu


----------



## Jetster (May 11, 2021)

Hydrogen Fuel is a no go
Molecules such as water and alcohol have to be processed to extract hydrogen to feed into a fuel cell. Some of these processes require the using other energy sources, which then defeat the advantages of this "clean" fuel.








						Why We Still Can't Deliver on the Promise of Hydrogen Cars
					

2020 is a big year for battery EVs, but there are many reasons hydrogen fuel cells will never live up to their promise.




					www.thedrive.com
				




We also abandoned Bioenergy:
Converting forest lands into bioenergy agriculture could accelerate climate change by emitting carbon stored in forests, while converting food agriculture lands into bioenergy agriculture could threaten food security

Oddly enough Nuclear energy is still an option as seen by some experts as sustainable which seams crazy to me


----------



## Caring1 (May 11, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> People are working on ways to produce LPG (liquid petroleum gas) which is easy to store.


Cars (and buses) have been running solely on LPG or NG for decades already.


----------



## Tardian (May 11, 2021)

Hydrogen is NOT a fuel.  It is a store of energy.  It is an extremely inefficient way of storing energy.  The only future sensible use of hydrogen involves nuclear fusion.  This has yet to be made commercial. 

Hydrogen vehicles are exercises in Virtue Signalling. Countries struggling with carbon dioxide levels such as South Korea and Japan want Australia to make them hydrogen.

Hydrogen is not GREEN.  It is a scam. Using renewable energy to make hydrogen makes no sense.  Using battery, wind, hydo (including pumped water), wave generated power at night makes more sense.

Before insisting that I am wrong I suggest you do some serious Googling.


----------



## 80251 (May 11, 2021)

After what happened to the Hindenburg I don't think I'd want to be around a hydrogen powered vehicle following a car crash.


----------



## Melvis (May 11, 2021)

Australia isnt we are actually investing heavily into it far as I am aware?


----------



## sepheronx (May 11, 2021)

A couple of our facilities use Hydrogen Fuel celled machinery.  The maintenance team complains about the system all the time.  Hard to maintain and expensive.


----------



## Hemmingstamp (May 11, 2021)

Honda trialed them in the UK back in 2008-9. 
We put our names on the list but never heard back. Then it went all quiet. Haven't heard anything about hydrogen cars since.


----------



## fma67 (May 11, 2021)

And because still HUGE interests (red "money") in petrol industry.
We will remember all this (including hydrogen engines) when the fossil reserves will be depleted (not so far, isabout century)


----------



## Bones (May 11, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> A steam engine runs on water...
> 
> *What heated the plugs?*


I'm having to guess electricity - The article said they were ceramic plugs but the article didn't go much into detail aside from how it worked in basic principal.
Of course they woudn't give too much detail anyway nor would anyone actually doing it give such info out.
I'll have to look and see if I can find it again and if I do I'll post up the link to it.

EDIT:
I did find a few articles and got the links.
Maybe this will shed some light on the subject.

Tamil Nadu engineer invents engine that runs on distilled water, to be launched by Japan govt after India ignores - Education Today News

And another controversial reference:
Inventor Of ‘Water-Powered Car’ Died Screaming ‘They Poisoned Me’ - UNILAD

Interesting..... If true at all.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 11, 2021)

oobymach said:


> Hydrogen is extremely explosive, storing a large quantity of it safely (safe enough to withstand complete vehicle destruction) is the real issue. Imagine if your car exploded violently from a fender bender. Remember the Hindenburg? Gasoline is an extremely safe fuel by comparison, we use hydrogen in bombs because it explodes real good.



This is not really a challenge anymore. Both the Nexo and the Mirai prove this. Remember, Toyota... Hybrid pioneers with the Prius, if anything they proved the merit of electric drive in recent times. Its a norm now. Its very likely hydrogen is going to get added to that sooner rather than later.

However, it does add a lot of weight. They're both heavy cars. Heavier than the, also heavier than ICE vehicle, electric cars.

IMHO, I think we're moving to an age where different types of fuel and engine work alongside each other for different purposes. Diversification is key to get the best tool in the optimal use case every time. Need longer range or can't waste time on recharge? Hydrogen car. Regular day-to-day work use case? Electric car. Need to do heavy lifting? Perhaps you still need a Diesel.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 11, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> The ICE is very inefficient; a great waste of energy compared to electric cars.


They are inefficient but that doesn't mean we can't figure out how to make them more efficient.  We have been stuck where we are on purpose.  Yet we still subsidize it.



80251 said:


> After what happened to the Hindenburg I don't think I'd want to be around a hydrogen powered vehicle following a car crash.


Don't forget that gasoline vapors are explosive, gasoline is as well, sorta.  And your gas tanks are cheap plastic and Ang generally located on the rear extremities of the car.

If I can find the video, you can watch them hitting hydro cars with trains and the tanks come out undamaged.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 11, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> They are inefficient but that doesn't mean we can't figure out how to make them more efficient.  We have been stuck where we are on purpose.  Yet we still subsidize it.


VW and many other companies were very good at making their Diesel engines more efficient, because regulation *forced *them to.

We know what happened next. Subsidize it? No - we already swung the banhammer and it was a better idea apparently to take billion dollar fines the world over (and massive damage to brands and ICE vehicles in general) than improve something that already exists for decades. Its impossible to defend the idea that there isn't enough incentive to actually improve it. Its a massive target market and it screams for environmentally friendly solutions while 'we keep doing as we do'.

Sometimes, you gotta admit its the end of the line and I think the combustion engine is the perfect example of it. Automotive research went into this already, and not even a little. You can't possibly still believe they'll get better, objectively. Anyone saying that is trying marketing out of the 90's in 2021. Forget it.

Note how the same VW is now turning the whole business 180 degrees within several years. So it was more profitable for them to stop doing what they've always done, than to improve that ICE further. If they could have made a better platform with ICE in it, they would've done so ages ago.


----------



## Shrek (May 11, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> They are inefficient but that doesn't mean we can't figure out how to make them more efficient.


More yes, but there is a strict thermodynamic limit given by

(T_in - T_ex)/T_in​
where the temperature is in Kelvin. Best possible is about 37%, actual is about 20%

Physics, Concepts & Connections, Art Hobson 5th edition


----------



## Jetster (May 11, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> VW and many other companies were very good at making their Diesel engines more efficient, because regulation *forced *them to.
> 
> We know what happened next. Subsidize it? No - we already swung the banhammer and it was a better idea apparently to take billion dollar fines the world over (and massive damage to brands and ICE vehicles in general) than improve something that already exists for decades. Its impossible to defend the idea that there isn't enough incentive to actually improve it. Its a massive target market and it screams for environmentally friendly solutions while 'we keep doing as we do'.
> 
> ...


VW also got caught cheating on emissions standards









						Volkswagen emissions scandal - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## moproblems99 (May 11, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> VW and many other companies were very good at making their Diesel engines more efficient, because regulation *forced *them to.
> 
> We know what happened next. Subsidize it? No - we already swung the banhammer and it was a better idea apparently to take billion dollar fines the world over (and massive damage to brands and ICE vehicles in general) than improve something that already exists for decades. Its impossible to defend the idea that there isn't enough incentive to actually improve it. Its a massive target market and it screams for environmentally friendly solutions while 'we keep doing as we do'.
> 
> ...


Lying and making them good are two different things.


----------



## Shrek (May 11, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> VW and many other companies were very good at making their Diesel engines more efficient, because regulation *forced *them to.


More efficient and cleaner are two different things; I thought the regulations were after the later.

My Honda VTEC-E gets 45 mpg and would get even more if it didn't have to run a catalytic converter.


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 11, 2021)

Well firstly looking at EU emission reduction plan, there are no other ways. Diesel will be killed off in these 10-20 years near any city with taxes accelerating on polluting tech with each year so on. And Hydrogen exactly is targeted to replace that niche. Where range matters, and lithium tech cannot provide it normally, thus an alternative is in the pipes.

Basically private vehicles will go lithium. Long range transport should go hydrogen. There are currently Hydrogen filling problems, but still is way faster than charge fully a car. Not mentioning how many cycles it can really endure. And then faster you charge and force the battery the less cycles you have. Ok, with iron phosphate it is way better, but Lithium ion/polymer... it is like scam. The battery life is way too short.

Hydrogen won't disappear as idea for sure. The private sector is place where it will arrive last as some people are monkeys and you can't give them anything sharper than a spoon in order not to injure themselves.


----------



## Shrek (May 11, 2021)

The battery life is too short? Teslas at 100,000 mi still have a lot of life left in the battery.

And a battery can be swapped out at a charging station to extend range.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (May 11, 2021)

It was mentioned already, and at the risk of belaboring the point, the largest issue is production.  Hydrogen forms bonds extremely easily.  That means there is no free terrestrial hydrogen.  It's all bound up in water and hydrocarbons, which means those bonds need to be broken, and hydrogen bonds are VERY strong.  The most abundant source is water, but that's also an extremely energy-intensive bond to break.  The easier alternative is getting it from natural gas, but now we're back at fossil fuels.  The remaining technical challenges (storage, delivery, etc.) are surmountable with time and investment, but clean production probably isn't possible without a separate abundant source of clean energy to drive it.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (May 11, 2021)

64K said:


> Just doing a quick look around I found some definite negatives for using hydrogen as fuel:
> 
> Investment is Required. ...
> Cost of Raw Materials. ...
> ...


The majority of your negatives apply to EVs as well. With the exception of the last one. 

EVs have seen daramtically more funding and pulic support then hydrogen, yet hydrogen and other alt fuels make a lot more sense then pure electricity for vehicle drivetrains. Battery density is just not there yet, and isnt going to be for some time.



Andy Shiekh said:


> The battery life is too short? Teslas at 100,000 mi still have a lot of life left in the battery.


There are also teslas waiting on new battery packs after 7-8 years of use, to the tune of $20-25k. Ther eis a shop in claifornia that can do it cheaper by reconditioning the failed packs, only $3K roughly, that's still a major cost, and cant be done just anywhere. Most places int he country dont have such repairs available. 


Andy Shiekh said:


> And a battery can be swapped out at a charging station to extend range.


Tesla abandoned that idea, there is nwohere in the US where this can be done. It's as realistic as swapping out an engine at the side of the road.


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 11, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> The battery life is too short? Teslas at 100,000 mi still have a lot of life left in the battery.
> 
> And a battery can be swapped out at a charging station to extend range.



Rolfopter.

Dig up the datasheet of the Panasonic 21700 cells and see the numbers not the marketing rubbish shoveled in our mouths.

Also for latest Tesla's batteries are glued up together like in a tank. Even the Chinese refurbers have problems splitting them and then selling again the rubbish into the gray market.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 12, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> VW and many other companies were very good at making their Diesel engines more efficient, because regulation *forced *them to.
> 
> We know what happened next. Subsidize it? No - we already swung the banhammer and it was a better idea apparently to take billion dollar fines the world over (and massive damage to brands and ICE vehicles in general) than improve something that already exists for decades. Its impossible to defend the idea that there isn't enough incentive to actually improve it. Its a massive target market and it screams for environmentally friendly solutions while 'we keep doing as we do'.
> 
> Note how the same VW is now turning the whole business 180 degrees within several years. So it was more profitable for them to stop doing what they've always done, than to improve that ICE further. If they could have made a better platform with ICE in it, they would've done so ages ago.



You give VW and other diesel powertrain makers way too much credit......the only thing anyone's been doing in the past 13 years since commonrail became a thing is cranking up the rail pressure to get more power. The first and only page in Modern Diesel for Dummies. And in the light duty segment they haven't even been doing much of that.

VW wasn't idiotic enough to continue down that road because the kind of diesels that they make don't have any future at all.

VW doesn't make large displacement diesels for medium or heavy duty / off-highway applications, where diesel still has a legitimate place.
"Clean diesel" is a myth. You start with a disadvantage on NOx and PM emissions. Use all the emissions tricks possible, and diesel is _still_ behind.
Regen is inevitable and kills efficiency to the tune of 30-50%. So not even efficiency exists anymore, emissions is diametrically opposed.
Torque is no longer an advantage for light duty, modern gas with DI and turbos easily match diesel below 400lb-ft.
Diesel reliability and durability no longer exists due to emissions equipment.
Euro 7 is just around the corner. There are simply no more quick-and-easy tricks left to help diesels meet stricter standards.
Light duty diesel basically stopped improving on power/torque/efficiency since they discovered commonrail, while gas continues to innovate every year.
And that's without mentioning their unmitigated PR disaster. If you were in their shoes, what conclusion would you come to? I'm not sure how it could be any clearer that light duty diesel has become wholly obsolete.


----------



## Shrek (May 12, 2021)

Slightly off topic but the first SMART cars were diesel to meet the inflammability requirements.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 12, 2021)

I don't get the issue here.

If Toyota thinks they can make money creating Hydrogen cars, why not let them try? Alternative fuel methodologies can only be a benefit to society. If it doesn't work, its Toyota's money that's wasted. If it does work (and its more efficient than gasoline or whatever), then society benefits. Win/Win either way.

Its not like anyone in this topic actually knows if H2 cars are going to win or not. It seems unlikely right now, but I don't see any problems investing into the technology. Not all investments pay off (lol Intel Xeon Phi), but generally people learn from those failures. That's how progress is made, you gotta be brave enough to take on a few potential failures if you want to eventually make a breakthrough.

There's clearly major issues with Lithium Ion technology. The weight, the explosiveness, etc. etc. I mean, just a few weeks ago, this happened: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...details-revealed-in-texas-fire-marshal-report






Yeah, its not like Lithium-Ion is very safe either. Remember Samsung's exploding batteries? Think about what happens when a giant car battery catches fire, its not pretty. Still, we're giving the Lithium-Ion fans plenty of money and opportunity to try out their technology. I'm personally a bit bearish on Li-Ion overall but its worth "checking out".

Similarly, its worth checking out Hydrogen (or other fuels as well: Bio-diesel, E85, Redox-flow batteries, or whatever). If its got some degree of feasibility, build a bunch and lets figure out if its worthwhile later.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 13, 2021)

Jetster said:


> VW also got caught cheating on emissions standards
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. Maybe an /S should have been added but I thought the sarcasm was obvious. Not to mention the entire post is about exactly that, too....

"VW and many other companies were very good at making their Diesel engines more efficient, because regulation forced them to.

_We know what happened next"_


----------



## Steevo (May 13, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> More efficient and cleaner are two different things; I thought the regulations were after the later.
> 
> My Honda VTEC-E gets 45 mpg and would get even more if it didn't have to run a catalytic converter.



If you burn the mixture leaner to gain mechanical and thus fuel efficiency you produce significantly more nitric oxides, which would require the use of a Urea based catylyst system to break down, causing the addition of a whole extra module, transporting 68% water to refill urea tanks making the system as a whole less efficient, meaning higher fuel prices, and more emissions overall. 

Hydrogen isn't energy dense enough, and isn't available readily in its pure form. 
You can't get more energy out of system than you put in, so say we use electrolysis to split water to get the hydrogen instead of breaking it off carbon bearing existing fuels, you would easily expend 10X the electrical energy equal in a battery powered car, and then there is the whole storage, transportation, and lack of energy density that makes it unfeasible.


Why have car companies built and produced "clean cars" like this?

Carbon credit tax write offs. If they can offset their tax liability or sell a few hundred of these and get the offset to sell 10,000 normal cars without paying a penalty they will as long as it makes $$$$$$$

Tesla really doesn't care about the enviroment, they care about their carbon credits https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/tes...ntal-credits-help-drive-to-profitability.html and making money.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 13, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> There's clearly major issues with Lithium Ion technology. The weight, the explosiveness, etc. etc. I mean, just a few weeks ago, this happened: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...details-revealed-in-texas-fire-marshal-report


That's nothing.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/509...ing-cp-as-supercar-flips-and-rolls-down-hill/



> The Rimec One Concept car is all-electric. Hammond's model was left destroyed and took *five days to fully extinguish*







Not bad for no gas.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 13, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> Not bad for no gas.



Gasoline fires are literally easier to extinguish.









						Hummer Erupts in Flames Just Feet From Gas Pump After Stockpiling Fuel in the Trunk
					

Fire crews found roughly 20 gallons of gas stored inside the vehicle, though the cause of the fire has yet to be released.




					www.thedrive.com
				






> When what looks to be a Hummer H2 went up in flames in Homosassa, Florida on Wednesday, Citrus County Fire Rescue discovered the exact scene everyone's been warned about. The vehicle's driver had just filled up multiple containers of gasoline during what looks to be a panic-buying spree but didn't make it far from the pumps before the fuel ignited. Emergency personnel had the fire contained in roughly *10 minutes* after arriving and although an injury was reported, the person refused medical transport against the advice of on-scene workers.



In contrast...



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/19/tesla-texas-driverless-crash/
		




> Just before midnight Saturday, a Tesla drove swiftly around a curve, veered off the road, struck a tree and burst into flames in The Woodlands, Tex., a suburb north of Houston, police said.
> 
> It took four hours for fire officials to put out the flames.





> Officials in Houston said the battery inside Tesla ignited after the collision, causing a fire that burned for four hours and required more than 30,000 gallons of water to put out.
> 
> “Our office has never experienced a crash scene like this,” Herman told KHOU. “Normally, when the fire department arrives, they have a vehicle fire under control in minutes, but this went on for hours.”


----------



## ShiBDiB (May 13, 2021)

The issue isn't so much that the batteries are hard to extinguish, it's that a lot of fire departments aren't equipped correctly to do so. Water is not the most effective way to put out the fire in this situation. But right now there's not enough of a risk to warrant these departments spending their limited budget on specialized electric car firefighting equipment when water will eventually get the fire out.

If these batteries become more wide spread you'll see fire departments dedicating a truck to this particular type of fire and equipping it with something besides straight water.


Also considering this is a thread about hydrogen, everything I read is more the lack of infrastructure makes them a hard sell. Electric is much more easily implemented in even the most remote places.


----------



## 80251 (May 14, 2021)

Compressed H gas certainly made for an explosive situation w/the Hindenburg. What could H gas compressed considerably more do if it began leaking? Or if the tank containing the H gas were to be crushed in a car accident and rupture?


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (May 14, 2021)

80251 said:


> Compressed H gas certainly made for an explosive situation w/the Hindenburg. What could H gas compressed considerably more do if it began leaking? Or if the tank containing the H gas were to be crushed in a car accident and rupture?



The H2 on the Hindenburg was not compressed.  It couldn't have flown if it was.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 14, 2021)

I think Hydrogen is stuck in a bad position: on one hand the costs needed to build the infrastructure costs a lot of money, on the other hand electric is fast providing enough range for 90% of the users. Maybe it will develop a niche on its own, but I think only planes have a chance of using them as the primary fuel of choice.


----------



## Caring1 (May 14, 2021)

ShiBDiB said:


> The issue isn't so much that the batteries are hard to extinguish, it's that a lot of fire departments aren't equipped correctly to do so. Water is not the most effective way to put out the fire in this situation. But right now there's not enough of a risk to warrant these departments spending their limited budget on specialized electric car firefighting equipment when water will eventually get the fire out.


In fact fire fighting specialists are warned NOT to use water on Lithium fires due to the explosive effect it can have, much the same as water on a Magnesium fire, it flares up even more.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 14, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> Yes. Maybe an /S should have been added but I thought the sarcasm was obvious. Not to mention the entire post is about exactly that, too....
> 
> "VW and many other companies were very good at making their Diesel engines more efficient, because regulation forced them to.
> 
> _We know what happened next"_


Also, I will be the first to admit I didn't see that. Apologies sir.  I still want a diesel so I can have an excuse for my french fry addiction.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 14, 2021)

Fourstaff said:


> I think Hydrogen is stuck in a bad position: on one hand the costs needed to build the infrastructure costs a lot of money, on the other hand electric is fast providing enough range for 90% of the users. Maybe it will develop a niche on its own, but I think only planes have a chance of using them as the primary fuel of choice.



Electric is unlikely to ever make sense in fully loaded semis.

I think empty trailers or lightweight trailers are good for electric. But as soon as you put rolling resistance (mainly due to weight deforming the wheels, increasing friction), electric loses an outstanding amount of range.

ICE, diesel in particular, has advantages in that scenario. Hydrogen also has superior range under load compared to electric (but it seems really hard to displace diesel in the truck scenario regardless)

Electric range really suffers severely with rolling resistance (aka weight), gravity / hills, and air resistance (highway speeds). There seems to be a massive hole for a fuel of tomorrow for the trucking industry. I think hydrogen makes a lot of sense for truckers.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 14, 2021)

Fourstaff said:


> I think Hydrogen is stuck in a bad position: on one hand the costs needed to build the infrastructure costs a lot of money, on the other hand electric is fast providing enough range for 90% of the users. Maybe it will develop a niche on its own, but I think only planes have a chance of using them as the primary fuel of choice.



I was reading about a new breakthrough in a new kind of lithium battery just three days ago, its way better than lithion-ion, i forget what kind it is, but its lithium something just not ion, but it seems like this time its not just a hyperbole breakthrough but a legit will be scaled breakthrough.  

so maybe something like that or this itself, will solve all the problems anyway mostly.


----------



## thesmokingman (May 14, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> In contrast...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/19/tesla-texas-driverless-crash/


That's really bad linking. If you looked into that texas incident, the reporting is all wrong not to mention the cops just flat out making up facts about it being driverless.









						Tesla Fire in Texas Crash Was Not How It Was Reported, Says Fire Chief
					

Persistent news reports that the 2019 Model S burned for hours and stymied fire officials are wrong, he says.




					www.caranddriver.com
				






> The initial fire was quickly put out, he said, but the vehicle smoldered and continued to ignite after that, which is why firefighters used a small-diameter hose to keep water running onto the area, to deal with any small flames that started. Pine sap from the trees also caused some flare-ups, Buck said. The bottom of the car, where the battery pack is located, was in contact with the ground, which made it more difficult to get water where it needed to go. When the firefighters finally managed to raise the car, they were also able to stop the chain reaction.



I didn't see much mention of big oil and its future rotation to dirty hydrogen. If they stop making gas, they gotta make something instead... right?


----------



## 80251 (May 14, 2021)

80-watt Hamster said:


> The H2 on the Hindenburg was not compressed.  It couldn't have flown if it was.


The gas bladders in the Hindenburg were inflated with H, the mere fact of they're inflating the bladders would result in some compression wouldn't it?


----------



## R-T-B (May 14, 2021)

80251 said:


> The gas bladders in the Hindenburg were inflated with H, the mere fact of they're inflating the bladders would result in some compression wouldn't it?


I mean...  gas expands to fit/fill an empty container by definition.  But the only thing really compressing it is the atmospheric pressure against the bladder walls, so in general terminology, no, they were not "compressed."


----------



## The red spirit (May 14, 2021)

Overall less efficient than electricity and is almost sidegrade to existing petrol, diesel or lpg. This video explains everything:









It would be a better idea to switch to ethanol before going full electric, as it burns on already existing engines and burns cleaner. It doesn't burn in all cars and is still somewhat sidegrade to typical fuels, but at least something would be done.


----------



## 80251 (May 14, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> I mean...  gas expands to fit/fill an empty container by definition.  But the only thing really compressing it is the atmospheric pressure against the bladder walls, so in general terminology, no, they were not "compressed."


Wouldn't the walls of the container apply pressure? Because if they didn't the H gas would just continue expanding. I'd say the walls of the containing bladder are applying force to the H gas contained because H gas has a much lighter molecular weight than air. Then of course that force is, in turn, being applied to the dirgible itself through the webbing attached to each gas bladder. The partial pressures of the component gases of air and H are not the same either.


----------



## Caring1 (May 14, 2021)

80251 said:


> Wouldn't the walls of the container apply pressure? Because if they didn't the H gas would just continue expanding. I'd say the walls of the containing bladder are applying force to the H gas contained because H gas has a much lighter molecular weight than air. Then of course that force is, in turn, being applied to the dirgible itself through the webbing attached to each gas bladder. The partial pressures of the component gases of air and H are not the same either.


You're arguing an invalid point.
The hindenburg's fuel was not pressurized.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 14, 2021)

The red spirit said:


> Overall less efficient than electricity and is almost sidegrade to existing petrol, diesel or lpg. This video explains everything:



Given the amount of misinformation on Youtube, Documentaries, and overall the visual medium... I'd rather not watch a video.

If you have a legitimate point to make, you can find it in the written form of communication. Which is both easier to verify and easier to digest. There's still misinformation in blogs / articles / newspapers / whatever, but its much easier to evolve our ideas in the written form.


----------



## Khonjel (May 14, 2021)

1) Creating H₂ is energy-intensive process. Plus even storing and transit is dangerous. I think you'd need heavy investment, the likes of gas pipelines to properly transport it.
2) Creating battery-based products is quite easier I presume. There's electric car start-ups coming out every few week or so. And the basic layout is quite simple. You have battery bay and motors spinning the wheels. That's why you can make electric cars even at home.
3) People like the instant torque. It'd be interesting in the future how or if Toyota and other mainstream carmakers try to make their budget electric cars as slow as possible.
4) There is a consensus that big rigs might be the home of H₂ powertrain since battery-electric range is so-so. But I think it's gonna be an uphill fight. It can be tackled by smart transit planning (i.e. short trips instead of long ones) and the one thing big rigs need in abundance is torque, which the electric motors have in spades.


----------



## mb194dc (May 14, 2021)

Looks like hydrogen fuel cell cars are still being developed, by BMW and others. It's just very difficult and expensive. Plus all the hype is with electric. So they haven't been abandoned.

From a practical and cost perspective both are very poor relative to good old fashioned gasoline.  

Importantly countries simply don't have the electricity generation infrastructure in terms of charging points, generation, load balancing and more for a  very significant take up of electric cars as it stands. 

My base case would be the likely incoming economic crisis puts EV and hydrogen on the back burner due to the costs. My guess is ultimately some other technology comes along that is as practical as gasoline but without the emissions. Could take decades or more though. A crisis might speed that up though.


----------



## freeagent (May 14, 2021)

This is not something I have read about lately, thanks for the interesting read.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 14, 2021)

Khonjel said:


> 1) Creating H₂ is energy-intensive process. Plus even storing and transit is dangerous. I think you'd need heavy investment, the likes of gas pipelines to properly transport it.
> 2) Creating battery-based products is quite easier I presume. There's electric car start-ups coming out every few week or so. And the basic layout is quite simple. You have battery bay and motors spinning the wheels. That's why you can make electric cars even at home.
> 3) People like the instant torque. It'd be interesting in the future how or if Toyota and other mainstream carmakers try to make their budget electric cars as slow as possible.
> 4) There is a consensus that big rigs might be the home of H₂ powertrain since battery-electric range is so-so. But I think it's gonna be an uphill fight. It can be tackled by smart transit planning (i.e. short trips instead of long ones) and the one thing big rigs need in abundance is torque, which the electric motors have in spades.



1. Lithium Ion is extremely dangerous, and is only held "safely" thanks to a myriad of conservative computer chip based monitoring systems. Every consumer Li-ion battery has a BMS (battery management system), carefully reading the voltage and current into/out of the battery. This BMS is somewhat cheaper on a large-scale battery pack (since you can have maybe 50 to 400 cells monitored at a time by one chip), but its still an ad-hoc / modeling process.

2. Lithium-Ion is somewhat unique as a source of fire. It is simultaneously a "source of ignition" (the electricity itself stored chemically), as well as a combustable material (the electrolyte is currently combustable). Furthermore, the oxydizer is inside the battery pack already. This results in a fire that does NOT need external oxygen to continue, as well as fires that can start "spontaneously" (should the battery pack fail. See Samsung)

3. Lithium-Ion cells require cobalt right now, a material that's only being mined manually in Africa, often by children, in regions controlled by warlords. The amount of rare-earth metals (or other unfavorable raw materials) needed in Hydrogen Fuel cells is much lower. ICE cars are the best from a mass production / supply chain perspective: the engine is made out of simple Steel, a highly abundant material that can be manufactured anywhere in the world. (Iron mines are cheap and plentiful).

Ultimately, I think hybrid-ICE makes the most sense. I admit that I'm highly ignorant of Hydrogen Fuel Cells: I don't really know how they work, but I find it unlikely that Hydrogen Fuel Cells are as hard to make as Lithium-Ion. Furthermore: Hydrogen Fuel externalizes the charging / discharging process. So I feel like the issues with "putting ignition sources next to flamable materials" is avoided (a current issue with Li-Ion designs).


----------



## 80251 (May 14, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> You're arguing an invalid point.
> The hindenburg's fuel was not pressurized.


Fuel? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.


----------



## Kissamies (May 14, 2021)

I don't know anything about cars, mut maybe the technology just wasn't ready yet?


----------



## R-T-B (May 14, 2021)

80251 said:


> Fuel? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.


It was certainly combusted at one point. 

I mean, re your points, you aren't wrong but in conventional speak that's not enough pressure to be considered "pressurized."


----------



## The red spirit (May 14, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Given the amount of misinformation on Youtube, Documentaries, and overall the visual medium... I'd rather not watch a video.
> 
> If you have a legitimate point to make, you can find it in the written form of communication. Which is both easier to verify and easier to digest. There's still misinformation in blogs / articles / newspapers / whatever, but its much easier to evolve our ideas in the written form.


Super short version:
hydrogen itself isn't useful, you need to convert it to electricity first for it to be useful and hydrogen fuel manufacturing is just as bad as typical petrol/diesel if not worse. Making hydrogen pointless in terms of pollution.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 14, 2021)

The red spirit said:


> Overall less efficient than electricity and is almost sidegrade to existing petrol, diesel or lpg. This video explains everything:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



thank you for posting that video, that did help, and it was a recent vid, so very interesting. this topic is not just about if it isn't possible though, its about inquiring if maybe there are things that couple improve the possibilities of it, I just thought it was neat to discuss it was all.

also Ethanol engines tend to get clogged a lot, especially if you life in a winter climate and your ethanol sits in the tank for a lengthy period of time... it ruins entire tanks. so buyer beware, they don't tell you that though at the dealership.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 14, 2021)

The red spirit said:


> hydrogen fuel manufacturing is just as bad as typical petrol/diesel if not worse



We can make hydrogen out of water + electricity with a simple school-kid's experiment. (Saltwater + electric current == H2 + O2). The fact that we decide to make H2 out of petroleum products is kind of a bonus: there's easier ways to make H2 if we so choose.

The fact remains: H2 can be produced out of any body of saltwater with a 1.23V potential. The future of H2 production is electric, if we so choose.



> hydrogen itself isn't useful, you need to convert it to electricity first for it to be useful



There are plenty of H2 combustion engine concepts that have been demo'd. The H2 fuel cell is *more efficient*, so we'll probably use fuel cells. But there's actually a myriad of designs that H2 can be used in.


----------



## The red spirit (May 14, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> We can make hydrogen out of water + electricity with a simple school-kid's experiment. (Saltwater + electric current == H2 + O2). The fact that we decide to make H2 out of petroleum products is kind of a bonus: there's easier ways to make H2 if we so choose.
> 
> The fact remains: H2 can be produced out of any body of saltwater with a 1.23V potential. The future of H2 production is electric, if we so choose.
> 
> ...


At that point it's salt doing the job hardly water itself.

I will believe efficiency when I will see it. Steam engines are also water engines, why not heat up water with some black object and make it run without electricity?


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 14, 2021)

The red spirit said:


> At that point it's salt doing the job hardly water itself.



You know that our saltwater reserves (aka: oceans) is more common than our freshwater / drinking water reserves, right?

The fact that Electrolysis of Water works on saltwater is a *massive* advantage for the sustainability of the solution. EDIT: There's a bit of a corrosion problem of course. Saltwater isn't very good on our tools. But electrolysis of ocean water is certainly within the realm of possibility.


----------



## Hemmingstamp (May 14, 2021)

Hydrogen's real problem....Not enough filling stations according to James May. 


```
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tNutYL0h2M
```


----------



## Space Lynx (May 14, 2021)

Ethanol has another problem, there simply isn't enough good top soil left to keep using it for fuel. Within 30-50 years it's expected we won't have enough quality level top soil for current crops we eat. So I'm not sure we should be using that precious nitrogen soaked soil for non-food.


----------



## Hemmingstamp (May 14, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Ethanol has another problem, there simply isn't enough good top soil left to keep using it for fuel. Within 30-50 years it's expected we won't have enough quality level top soil for current crops we eat. So I'm not sure we should be using that precious nitrogen soaked soil for non-food.


Back to the bicycle it is then. I'm not joking. I witnessed cycle lanes being put in place, speeds reduced, and roads narrowed when Covid was all over the headlines last year.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 14, 2021)

The red spirit said:


> Overall less efficient than electricity and is almost sidegrade to existing petrol, diesel or lpg. This video explains everything:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



E85 is great on power but poor efficiency, worst of all it's highly corrosive to fuel pumps/lines.

There's a lot of talk about "all cars can run on ethanol", but if that were the case, E85 certification and fuel systems hardening wouldn't be necessary. The only people who actually use E85 are those who live a stone's throw away from a E85 gas station, people going to a race, and people testing out a new E85 tune on the dyno.

Then there's the whole debate about food vs. fuel and whether ethanol is actually tangibly better for the environment.



dragontamer5788 said:


> Given the amount of misinformation on Youtube, Documentaries, and overall the visual medium... I'd rather not watch a video.
> 
> If you have a legitimate point to make, you can find it in the written form of communication. Which is both easier to verify and easier to digest. There's still misinformation in blogs / articles / newspapers / whatever, but its much easier to evolve our ideas in the written form.



Donut definitely makes "for dummies" videos, but why not actually watch it before you write it off as being "just another misinformed Youtube video"? Pause on one of the overview frames and you'll pretty much get the gist of the video anyways.

TransLink (not to be confused with Translink in Ireland) used to operate a significant number of fuel cell buses in their fleet, coinciding with PR purposes duing the 2010 Olympics. All have since disappeared, while the other alternative fueled buses have not only lived on but are thriving (CNG, trolley electric, diesel-hybrid). They blamed it on high maintenance costs, and from what I can see there's not much reason to doubt that.

Notably, the vast majority of the articulated fleet handling the "B-lines" (basically the core commute lines) are diesel-electric now. The downtown core is served by a lot of trolleys, the smaller buses in the Vancouver region are mostly diesel, and once you venture out into the Fraser Valley you see more CNGs.

TransLink seems to believe that electric is the future, which makes sense as buses never require more than 250km range anyways, unlike semis; they've been sampling and testing various electric buses since about 2016. But it's a good demonstration of other factors preventing the adopting of H2 fuel cell in heavier vehicles. The tech is there and has been for a long time, but it doesn't always make for financially viable.

And H2 fuel cell buses don't necessarily have any more of an infrastructure burden than EV buses do. Yes, real estate is a bit of a luxury at a number of TransLink's bases, but to sustain their new LFSe buses they're going to have to build a shit ton of chargers all over the place.

Maybe semis will see a better case for H2 fuel cells, since they actually care about the range loss from EV and the performance loss from CNG. But that probably requires all the EV semis to flop spectacularly at the same time.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 14, 2021)

Hemmingstamp said:


> Back to the bicycle it is then. I'm not joking. I witnessed cycle lanes being put in place, speeds reduced, and roads narrowed when Covid was all over the headlines last year.



let's just hope lithium battery tech truly does advance. then we can all do ebikes and cheap electric cars that have 15 year battery life... that's the dream i think, we just need to increase the longevity of battery tech. current charge cycles are just too swift/limited for long term sustainability.


----------



## Hemmingstamp (May 14, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> let's just hope lithium battery tech truly does advance. then we can all do ebikes and cheap electric cars that have 15 year battery life... that's the dream i think, we just need to increase the longevity of battery tech. current charge cycles are just too swift/limited for long term sustainability.


I think they will but with that comes the energy issue. Where is it coming from since most of the infastructure across the Western world hasn't had an overhaul in decades. We had Electric scooters in 1916, just go and search, but I'm going to assume the oil industry was favoured over it at the time. Opportunities missed....


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 14, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> let's just hope lithium battery tech truly does advance. then we can all do ebikes and cheap electric cars that have 15 year battery life... that's the dream i think, we just need to increase the longevity of battery tech. current charge cycles are just too swift/limited for long term sustainability.



Lithium batteries are already great (and widespread) in bicycles.

Electric cars: I'm not convinced that they're actually a net-benefit yet. The weight requirements and the huge amount of resources (mining from unsavory sources protected by literal Warlords) means that large-scale use of Li-ion in electric cars is a bit of a moral issue. The additional weight of electric cars (often 1000lbs more than a traditional car) seems to grossly hamper the technology compared to PHEVs.

Given all of the weight issues and manufacturing problems associated with the current crop of electric, I'm interested in seeing alternatives still. Redox flow batteries would probably be great if they ever got working: a "liquid battery" which you can cycle into-and-out of cars, making battery swaps much easier. You know, lots of stuff is possible if we consider the current research projects of the world. I'm liking Li-Ion as a general PHEV solution (keeping battery packs small at 20-miles or 50-miles largely solves the mass-production issues in obtaining those rare-earth metals).

Li-Ion is also too heavy to ever be used on Aircraft in a serious manner. H2 fuel cells are probably our best bet at "electrifying" our aircraft.


----------



## The red spirit (May 14, 2021)

Hemmingstamp said:


> I think they will but with that comes the energy issue. Where is it coming from since most of the infastructure across the Western world hasn't had an overhaul in decades. We had Electric scooters in 1916, just go and search, but I'm going to assume the oil industry was favoured over it at the time. Opportunities missed....


Not really an oil industry as just simple convenience of petrol.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (May 14, 2021)

Hemmingstamp said:


> I think they will but with that comes the energy issue. Where is it coming from since most of the infastructure across the Western world hasn't had an overhaul in decades. We had Electric scooters in 1916, just go and search, but I'm going to assume the oil industry was favoured over it at the time. Opportunities missed....



Electric back then had a couple of big challenges:  density and delivery.  Electric cars beat internal combustion out of the gate, helped along by being simpler to design and construct, plus the reliability advantage that comes with simplicity.  But the batteries had to be huge and heavy, and they didn't hold enough juice to go very far.  Once IC beat its reliability and infrastructure issues, electric never really stood a chance.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 14, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> Donut definitely makes "for dummies" videos, but why not actually watch it before you write it off as being "just another misinformed Youtube video"? Pause on one of the overview frames and you'll pretty much get the gist of the video anyways.



Because forcing people in a text-based forum to watch a 16-minute video to know what you're talking about is a bit of a hurdle to your argument. If there was something worthwhile to say, I think you'd be able to say it with your own words (or maybe find an article to copy/paste your point from).

I've "omni-slashed" youtube videos before and have provided counter-points with references. But... its really not worth the effort IMO. Switching between text-based and video-based arguments is a massive pain in the ass.

I do appreciate your discussion points on the 2010 Olympics.


----------



## Totally (May 14, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> The more I look at what Toyota has done (and is doing) with a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine even... I just don't get it. I know storage costs of hydrogen are expensive, but if it were scaled up, wouldn't the cost dramatically lower?



No, will always remain expensive until a method refine it that isn't energy negative is developed. To make hydrogen fuel we're spending 1.x units of fuel to make 1 unit of hydrogen fuel, that even before considering the energy cost from when the hydrogen is refined to when it is in your tank.  It is never going to be cheaper than alternatives.



> The Boring Company could dig giant underground storage facilities (its cold as crap if you dig far enough down)... and store the tanks of hydrogen there, and a driver will simply drive down a ramp, get the hydrogen tank replaced, and drive off.
> 
> I feel like clean energy with no messy batteries even... is staring us right in the face, why is Toyota taking a risk on it if there is no possible future for it? I don't get it. Someone educate me.
> 
> ...



The reason Toyota are still working FC vehicles is because they are behind on the battery front and with the current strict fuel economy standards regulation that are set to be tightened even further in 2030, it's much cheaper to do this as a stop gap than be raked raked over the coals.









						CO₂ emission performance standards for cars and vans
					

Passenger cars and vans ('light commercial vehicles') are respectively responsible for around 12% and 2.5% of total EU emissions of carbon...




					ec.europa.eu


----------



## Hemmingstamp (May 14, 2021)

80-watt Hamster said:


> Electric back then had a couple of big challenges:  density and delivery.  Electric cars beat internal combustion out of the gate, helped along by being simpler to design and construct, plus the reliability advantage that comes with simplicity.  But the batteries had to be huge and heavy, and they didn't hold enough juice to go very far.  Once IC beat its reliability and infrastructure issues, electric never really stood a chance.


Can't argue with that. Electric science aside...Back gold came first because the economy depended on it and it was easier to produce.



The red spirit said:


> Not really an oil industry as just simple convenience of petrol.


True, very true.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 14, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Because forcing people in a text-based forum to watch a 16-minute video to know what you're talking about is a bit of a hurdle to your argument. If there was something worthwhile to say, I think you'd be able to say it with your own words (or maybe find an article to copy/paste your point from).
> 
> I've "omni-slashed" youtube videos before and have provided counter-points with references. But... its really not worth the effort IMO. Switching between text-based and video-based arguments is a massive pain in the ass.
> 
> I do appreciate your discussion points on the 2010 Olympics.



Video wasn't my post, but fair point. Basically, lack of H2 stations (really makes me wonder honestly how exactly Toyota thought it was a good idea to push the car in the US before infrastructure reached an acceptable level), cost of filling up with H2, lack of performance, current methods for creating H2, and the success of EVs.

I agree on the idea of PHEVs but they seem to have missed their right time to make a move. If people want simplicity and $ they just keep buying ICE, if they wanna cut down on gas costs they buy a normal hybrid, if they want to make an environmental statement or really hate the gas station (basically me) they go and buy an EV. The PHEV Rav4 costs like $13,000 more compared to the regular Rav4 hybrid that gets better mileage. 

But you do get full EV incentive amount on some PHEVs, and that EV sticker so you can take the carpool lane, though - our traffic always sucks. That seems a bit morally questionable to me though, why allow PHEVs to reap the EV benefits outside of promoting adoption? They are only really somewhat cleaner than ICE vehicles in practice, they aren't any cleaner than conventional hybrids, all they offer is a bit more range for that occasional road trip.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 14, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> But you do get full EV incentive amount on some PHEVs, and that EV sticker so you can take the carpool lane, though - our traffic always sucks. That seems a bit morally questionable to me though, why allow PHEVs to reap the EV benefits outside of promoting adoption? They are only really somewhat cleaner than ICE vehicles in practice, they aren't any cleaner than conventional hybrids, all they offer is a bit more range for that occasional road trip.



A PHEV with 20-miles range would be sufficient at removing over 95% of my gasoline per year. That's 20-miles of range when I leave my house, then 20-miles of range from my workplace (8-hours of charging at a 220V charger), every day. The gasoline usage would still tick up: PHEVs need to run some gasoline every now and then to keep the hybrid-engine lubricated. But we're looking at 500 gallons of fuel (15000 miles @ 30MPG) getting reduced to maybe 50 gallons / year. Over 10 years, I'm probably looking at  only using 500 gallons total.

Just some napkin math with round numbers. But we can see that ICE == 5000 gallons used. PHEV == 500 gallons (rest is electric). And Electric is 0-gallons, but 100% electric. Conventional Hybrid has no ability to plug-in to the grid but maybe runs at 40MPG or 50MPG. So your 150000 mile lifetime turns into 3333 gallons used over the lifetime. Better than ICE, but no where close to PHEV.

Is the literal 1-ton battery under a pure-EV really worth saving ~500 gallons of fuel over the lifetime of a car? I doubt it. Those rare-earth metals and the Lithium-Ion battery manufacturing process is extremely dirty.

--------

Conventional Hybrid doesn't have a plug-in capability. While our electric-grids remain coal / natural gas based, there's been a large push towards green sources of energy (Nuclear, Solar, Wind, and Hydro). Therefore, the Hybrid-vehicles will be all gasoline while PHEV will get more-and-more efficient as we electrify our grids.


----------



## user112 (May 15, 2021)

if batteries don't advance fast enough I could see hydrogen taking over with the growth of nuclear power. though it looks like solid state batteries in development already have some nice specs. still I could see EVs having bad resale value on the used market just because people want to avoid taking out loans to buy batteries.


----------



## 80251 (May 15, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> It was certainly combusted at one point.
> 
> I mean, re your points, you aren't wrong but in conventional speak that's not enough pressure to be considered "pressurized."


It required pressure above and beyond atmospheric to inflate the gas bladders that held the H gas. The gas bladders themselves became pressurized because they supported the entire weight of the Hindenburg! As Newton once said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The gas bladders and thus the H gas itself was applying a force greater than gravity to the Hindenburg. The gas bladders must have deformed under that force and pressurized the H gas within.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 15, 2021)

user112 said:


> if batteries don't advance fast enough I could see hydrogen taking over with the growth of nuclear power. though it looks like solid state batteries in development already have some nice specs. still I could see EVs having bad resale value on the used market just because people want to avoid taking out loans to buy batteries.




yep if Bill Gates ever gets his new ideas for a new nuclear plant implemented, or fusion has more breakthroughs (its had several in last few years)... its very possible electricity usage won't matter anymore, in which case hydrogen fleets make sense for everyone in every sector and the planet is transformed overnight - 

big IF on the fusion, bill gates new plant designs actually uses the old nuclear waste as more fuel... so... it does seem promising at least.

problem with renewable energy, wind, solar, etc is they still require large banks of lithium battery for storage. nuclear does not.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (May 15, 2021)

80251 said:


> It required pressure above and beyond atmospheric to inflate the gas bladders that held the H gas. The gas bladders themselves became pressurized because they supported the entire weight of the Hindenburg! As Newton once said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The gas bladders and thus the H gas itself was applying a force greater than gravity to the Hindenburg. The gas bladders must have deformed under that force and pressurized the H gas within.


So I ended up falling back on Wikipedia for this info, but for dirigibles like the Hindenburg, the bladders can't inflate past atmospheric pressure or they'll rupture. They're underfilled at launch to allow for inflation at altitude. Lighter-than-air craft rely on buoyancy, not pressure, to fly. When you add pressure (and by extension density), you reduce effective lift.

Blimps, however, do operate at slightly-higher-than atmospheric pressure to keep the bladders in shape, since there's no rigid skeleton like in a dirigible.


----------



## Caring1 (May 15, 2021)

80251 said:


> Fuel? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.


Way to miss the point, if you can't be right, laugh at any mistake?


----------



## ralfy (May 15, 2021)

You need to look at energy return. For example,









						Behind the Numbers on Energy Return on Investment
					

A full listing of the sources and references behind the calculations in this EROI infographic




					www.scientificamerican.com
				












						Will Fossil Fuels Be Able to Maintain Economic Growth? A Q&A with Charles Hall
					

The inventor of the energy return on investment (EROI) metric argues that economic growth could soon stop—and that we need to get smart about incorporating the true cost of fuel in energy policies




					www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## Totally (May 15, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> yep if Bill Gates ever gets his new ideas for a new nuclear plant implemented, or fusion has more breakthroughs (its had several in last few years)... its very possible electricity usage won't matter anymore, in which case hydrogen fleets make sense for everyone in every sector and the planet is transformed overnight -



Nuclear is already prepping for a comeback, right now it's the perception issue that still plagues them as SMR and micro SMR designs are demolishing the second hurdle, the high initial cost to bringing a plant online.


----------



## Steevo (May 15, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> yep if Bill Gates ever gets his new ideas for a new nuclear plant implemented, or fusion has more breakthroughs (its had several in last few years)... its very possible electricity usage won't matter anymore, in which case hydrogen fleets make sense for everyone in every sector and the planet is transformed overnight -
> 
> big IF on the fusion, bill gates new plant designs actually uses the old nuclear waste as more fuel... so... it does seem promising at least.
> 
> problem with renewable energy, wind, solar, etc is they still require large banks of lithium battery for storage. nuclear does not.



Nuclear is our only viable option, if we subsidized it as much as we do other forms of energy we would have clean energy that was affordable enough to heat/cool homes with, cook, clean, drive, for 90 percent of the US population.

Hydrogen still requires immense energy input for low output, and has issues with high pressure storage, more dangerous to transport efficiently. If we used electrolyte based water splitting we would still end up with some very dangerous by products, copper chloride from breakdown of the copper and salt.

Hydrogen is a poor fuel choice, figuring out battery tech that is more stable, charges faster, and lasts longer is a better option. Quick charge capacitors with current output limiting circuits.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (May 15, 2021)

Steevo said:


> Nuclear is our only viable option, if we subsidized it as much as we do other forms of energy we would have clean energy that was affordable enough to heat/cool homes with, cook, clean, drive, for 90 percent of the US population.
> 
> Hydrogen still requires immense energy input for low output, and has issues with high pressure storage, more dangerous to transport efficiently. If we used electrolyte based water splitting we would still end up with some very dangerous by products, copper chloride from breakdown of the copper and salt.
> 
> Hydrogen is a poor fuel choice, figuring out battery tech that is more stable, charges faster, and lasts longer is a better option. Quick charge capacitors with current output limiting circuits.



You're kind of comparing two hypotheticals.  Figuring out a better, cleaner battery system is proving just as non-trivial as cleaner H2 production.


----------



## Shrek (May 15, 2021)

One battery can last 200,000 mi; the pollution of production and disposal is spread over a lot of miles.


----------



## Steevo (May 15, 2021)

80-watt Hamster said:


> You're kind of comparing two hypotheticals.  Figuring out a better, cleaner battery system is proving just as non-trivial as cleaner H2 production.


Except we have the infrastructure for electrical and battery production, but little for hydrogen production, transport or storage.

Hydrogen doesn’t provide a solution to heating and cooling, stable electrical production but instead requires that solution to already exist, and the biggest issue is still that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put in, so Hydrogen will be a order more inefficient at the very best.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (May 15, 2021)

Steevo said:


> Except we have the infrastructure for electrical and battery production, but little for hydrogen production, transport or storage.
> 
> Hydrogen doesn’t provide a solution to heating and cooling, stable electrical production but instead requires that solution to already exist, and the biggest issue is still that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put in, so Hydrogen will be a order more inefficient at the very best.



This is all true.  There's tradeoffs for everything.  I'm going to try to summarize the pro/con list as I see it for the three players here.

ICE:  Fuel is currently abundant/inexpensive, easy to transport and store, and is extremely well-developed technically and infrastructure-wise.  CO2, other pollutants and long-term supply are its primary downsides.

Battery electric:  Technology and infrastructure is well-developed, for the most part.  Energy density has gotten to an acceptable point.  Costs are currently higher than ICE, but not insurmountably so.  Negatives: cradle-to-grave battery production is not as environmentally-friendly as we'd like.  Supply of important elements is limited, and will only tighten as electric vehicle production expands.  Large infrastructure investment required to handle additional grid load.

H2 electric:  Assuming electrolysis, fuel is endlessly recyclable:  2(H20) -> 2(H2)+1(O2) -> 2(H2O).  Good energy density and powertrain efficiency.  Definitely the biggest list of challenges.  Production is the most energy-negative, infrastructure basically doesn't exist, all methods of production have troublesome byproducts, tech not as well-developed as others.

As much as it pains me as a motorhead, ICE is an eventual dead-end, whether for practical or political reasons.  Maybe not in our lifetime, but it's coming.  Truly "eco-friendly" battery electric will depend on expansion of renewables/nuclear plus development of more favorable battery tech.  The former is achievable, the latter may not be.  It definitely won't be easy.  Hydrogen... there's just so much to overcome.  A page on the U.S. DoE website (that I forgot to bookmark) notes that H2 infrastructure could resemble that of natural gas, particularly with some storage methods that don't rely on high compression.  It wouldn't solve the massive amounts of additional electricity we'd need to generate, but the eventual load on the grid could be lower than with battery electric.  A side benefit the same page mentioned that I hadn't thought of was load-balancing:  generation could be used for H2 production during low-demand periods, increasing system efficiency.  Not much of a mitigation, granted, but everything helps.  And in a solar/nuclear future, maybe the extra energy input isn't as big a stumbling block as it seems.


----------



## Caring1 (May 28, 2021)

Can't say Hydrogen vehicles are totally abandoned, it's just a slow uptake.








						'Australia will have the cheapest hydrogen in the world' according to Hyundai
					

According to Hyundai, Australians could benefit from the cheapest fuel in the world when it comes to hydrogen.




					www.carsguide.com.au
				











						First hydrogen car fleet hits Aussie roads
					

Large-scale FCEV trial begins as fleet of 20 Hyundai NEXO SUVs is pressed into service




					www.motoring.com.au


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 28, 2021)

80-watt Hamster said:


> Good energy density



H2 has Good energy density by *weight*. Terrible energy density by *volume*. Volume matters, and is the biggest issue with H2.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 6, 2021)

The hydrogen economy is about to get weird
					

Companies may be investing in production capacity that will outpace demand.




					arstechnica.com
				




welp. apparently I am not the only one who thinks hydrogen is not dead just yet.  USA investing in RnD on it, UK and other countries already working heavily on it.

Germany has a hydrogen train up and running already too. wow neat


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 8, 2021)

Steevo said:


> Nuclear is our only viable option, if we subsidized it as much as we do other forms of energy we would have clean energy that was affordable enough to heat/cool homes with, cook, clean, drive, for 90 percent of the US population.
> 
> Hydrogen still requires immense energy input for low output, and has issues with high pressure storage, more dangerous to transport efficiently. If we used electrolyte based water splitting we would still end up with some very dangerous by products, copper chloride from breakdown of the copper and salt.
> 
> Hydrogen is a poor fuel choice, figuring out battery tech that is more stable, charges faster, and lasts longer is a better option. Quick charge capacitors with current output limiting circuits.



Nuclear is fine, just build us some Vaults here and there prior to mass consumerism with it  And hire Musk to make sure all the waste ends up on Mars.

Last I heard they wanted to mine crypto with nuclear. That's where excess energy will go, I guess. Nuke em all. That said I do agree with you. I think nuclear should be pushed a lot more especially in development. There are big possibilities there, at least to shift away from fossil.

Renewable I think is still the only way forward, but it comes with a culture shift where you seek efficiency before expansion of capacity and even reduction before both. A big issue with renewables, mostly, is that they take craploads of space. Space we don't have, the world is overcrowded and ecobalance is at odds with solar and wind farms. Public health just as well. The noise from wind turbines can be sickening. But there are only a few places in the world actually where square miles are not at a premium, and those places are usually suboptimal or too remote for transport. An energy demand that keeps rising while the net gain per square mile compared to coal is negligible is not going to cover it either.

Look at us humans, we're better at exponential growth than Covid, except on a somewhat longer time scale. It can't keep going like that, and there is no historical precedent either. Anyone saying its fine, is deluded - other systems in the world are also deteriorating exponentially...

I think the bottom line is, its really irrelevant what powers our driving, we're too many drivers.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 8, 2021)

I thought actual hydrogen production was cost and environmental effects deficient ie makes it pointless much like the TCO costs of electric cars.

We need better answers, less misdirection etc.

Public transport doesn't account for much of total emissions, creating products , generating power and global product transportation are where we should be working to limit emissions and also.

The whole thing of building consumer throw away items needs to stop where reasonably possible.

Less moved around a lot before hitting landfill via Amazon warehouse might help more.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 8, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> H2 has Good energy density by *weight*. Terrible energy density by *volume*. Volume matters, and is the biggest issue with H2.


That makes no sense. Energy density is, by definition, energy per unit volume. Energy per unit of mass is specific energy, not energy density. Also weight != mass.


----------



## 64K (Aug 8, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> yep if Bill Gates ever gets his new ideas for a new nuclear plant implemented, or fusion has more breakthroughs (its had several in last few years)... its very possible electricity usage won't matter anymore, in which case hydrogen fleets make sense for everyone in every sector and the planet is transformed overnight -
> 
> big IF on the fusion, bill gates new plant designs actually uses the old nuclear waste as more fuel... so... it does seem promising at least.
> 
> problem with renewable energy, wind, solar, etc is they still require large banks of lithium battery for storage. nuclear does not.



Lockheed Martin said about 7 years ago that they would have a fusion reactor within 10 years. I haven't seen anything more on the progress but fusion is definitely the future of electricity generation if they can pull it off.









						Lockheed says it'll make a truck-sized fusion reactor within 10 years - ExtremeTech
					

Lockheed Martin, the US government's largest contractor, says it has made a technological breakthrough in nuclear fusion power. The breakthrough will apparently allow Lockheed to build a 100-megawatt 'compact fusion reactor' (CFR) that can fit on the back of a truck within 10 years. If Lockheed...




					www.extremetech.com


----------



## GerKNG (Aug 8, 2021)

because oil companies are richer than the people who want something else.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 9, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> The hydrogen economy is about to get weird
> 
> 
> Companies may be investing in production capacity that will outpace demand.
> ...


Hydrogen heated homes under development in the UK.








						U.K. Setting Its Sights Too Low for Hydrogen Heating in Homes
					

The U.K. should move faster to replace gas with hydrogen in domestic heating, as the country’s pipes will be ready to make the switch in just two years, according to the head of a pilot project.




					www.bloomberg.com
				












						Hydrogen heating campaign launches to promote benefits for UK homes
					

A hydrogen heating campaign is underway as the UK energy sector strives to make households aware of hydrogen's home heating benefits




					www.homebuilding.co.uk


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 9, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> Hydrogen heated homes under development in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hydrogen seems to be the future of the UK, and geographically speaking they are the right size and shape for that kind of distribution network too.

Thanks for sharing that, very interesting.  I believe the first hydrogen plane that flew was also in the UK.  They seem to be going all in with hydrogen over there.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 9, 2021)

Bones said:


> There was a guy in Japan years ago that created an engine that literally ran off of water.
> Part of the process involved ceramic "Plugs" that were heated to a very high temp and when the water was injected, it contacted the plugs, exploded/burned like gas and the engine ran.
> 
> It's a similar effect when you have molten metal and it comes in contact with water - If you are ever in a foundry and water comes in contact with the metal it will cause an explosion, if enough of both comes together you'd better RUN and hope you're fast enough.


Nuclear melt down comes to mind


----------



## silentbogo (Aug 9, 2021)

Just so happened, one of my favorite youtubers posted some stuff for his new project a couple of weeks ago.








Gotta be very interesting to see how this is going to end up. I loved all of his previous DIY turbine projects and all of the fun gimmicky stuff, but this is the whole another level.




Totally said:


> No, will always remain expensive until a method refine it that isn't energy negative is developed. To make hydrogen fuel we're spending 1.x units of fuel to make 1 unit of hydrogen fuel, that even before considering the energy cost from when the hydrogen is refined to when it is in your tank. It is never going to be cheaper than alternatives.


While the tech is in its infancy, it doesn't matter that much. Even for a foreseeable decade or so you can either use cheap excess power from conventional power plants, or partly offset it by renewables to generate hydrogen. E.g. same approach that's been promised for today's EVs, e.g. using wasted or cheap power to do at least something useful, like satisfy the needs of early adopters. 

The biggest issue with FCs is the complexity/price of hydrogen fuel cells. ATM just a naked 100kW cell costs x10 more than an equivalent automotive lithium battery, and the fuel cost is almost . And while the newer stuff looks good on paper with ~100kg weight at 100-150kW and more compact design, it's gonna get bigger and heavier once you start adding up stuff like uber-heavy hydrogen tank(~50-100kg depending on size), separate big-ass active cooling loop(FC runs very-very hot and requires tons of cooling for consistent operation), pressure reductors, lots of thermal insulation, etc. etc. etc.
It's good for stationary installations, like an emergency power backup (instead of conventional generators), or for hybrid transport (where it's used alongside lithium battery), but on it's own - not so much.
There are some cool cutting-edge compact FCs designed specifically for transport (AIO enclosure w/ integrated water loop and pressure regulators), but those are still a bit far from mass-production.
Tank issues are also in the process of being resolved. Carbon sponge went nowhere, but there are some new developments in MOF-based mesh: same approach but cheaper to produce.
Methane fuel cells can also be used as a transitional measure. It's not carbon-neutral, but much cleaner comparing to internal combustion and can greatly benefit from existing infrastructure. LPG fuel cells are also on the rise, and these can be filled up basically at your nearest gas station (at least in EU and CIS). Power output is much lower, but the convenience factor is the highest of them all.


Caring1 said:


> Hydrogen heated homes under development in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At first glance I thought it was gonna be something interesting like BloomBox, but that...   That makes little to no sense.... especially after contemplating on the fact that at the endpoint it's _not _pure H2, but essentially a "watered-down" methane. Just remove the middle man, and it's already much better. EVs are a bit different in this aspect, cause there is an issue of refueling time (faster and cheaper to pump tankfull of H2 than wait several hours near the charging station). For homes and mass consumption - stupid. Just provide incentives for electric heating  and call it a day. Even our less than stable govt. managed to put together set of incentives to get people off natural gas(mostly due to shortages and rising prices). Right now according to official stats over 30% of houses have electric heating, and realistically it's a lot more, since the vast majority is moving to hybrid setups (electric heating, but gas-powered boilers and stoves) as a temporary solution on the way to full electric.



user112 said:


> if batteries don't advance fast enough I could see hydrogen taking over with the growth of nuclear power.


Assuming there'll be any growth at all. After Fukushima incident most governments got an excuse to cancel or indefinitely delay new powerplant constructions (though in most cases it was a rising cost that killed it). The only countries making strides are China, India, and Turkey. Even in US and Russia everything is suspended, and very few reactors that are being built are only there for maintaining some resemblance of balance and offset a dozen closed reactors, while the total generation and nuclear share of it has remained stagnant for over 20 years.
France - the poster-child for nuclear power - is in the process of downsizing even more. Now they have a plan to reduce nuclear to under 50% by 2025 from current 70% and peak ~80%, which is probably going to happen a lot sooner due to old age.



64K said:


> Lockheed Martin said about 7 years ago that they would have a fusion reactor within 10 years. I haven't seen anything more on the progress but fusion is definitely the future of electricity generation if they can pull it off.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I remember that one. Apparently they are still actively working on it, but now it's not much of a CFR, but more of a BFR and each iteration it only gets bigger and bigger.


----------



## KSA2030 (Aug 9, 2021)

Hi,

So this post got my attention and i though someone might be interested to see there are on going research and project for hydrogen. Saudi Arabia already shipped a hydrogen to japan.








						The Saudi Move into Hydrogen: A Paradigm Shift - KAPSARC
					

Saudi Arabia is moving ahead with its diversification plan, Saudi Vision 2030, by adopting hydrogen. The Kingdom is keen to enable the circular carbon economy (CCE) by producing and utilizing clean hydrogen. On September 27, Saudi Aramco announced its first shipment of hydrogen from Saudi Arabia...




					www.kapsarc.org
				




and this is the project if you are interested to read about it








						Saudi Arabia and the Hydrogen Economy: Domestic Developments and International Opportunities - KAPSARC
					






					www.kapsarc.org


----------



## defaultluser (Aug 9, 2021)

This is why we abandoned Hydrogen so quickly - because of inefficiencies in  the drive train, you get much more wasted energy.









						What’s more efficient? Hydrogen or battery powered?
					

The start of production of the Volkswagen ID.3 again raises the question of the most sustainable mobility technology in many places: Electric battery or hydrogen? ...




					www.volkswagenag.com
				




And even though Fuel cells have been around for 60 years, they still add an appreciable cost to every Hydrogen vehicle (they still haven't found a way to make them cheaply)*.  This is in-additional to the ludicrous costs of producing Hydrogen cleanly through Electrolysis, instead of just putting the electricity directly in your battery (once again, nobody has a "miracle fix" for this, outside flashy press releases)*.

The difference in economics is this: Tesla going BEV is much easier to make a profit on than Hydrogen will ever be. Toyota  loses money on every Marl sold. (even with the cost improvements in the latest model).

Here is how much they lost on the 2016 model:



> As originally reported by Autoblog Green, Cox said Toyota is "probably taking a hit of 50,000 to 100,000 euros per unit" on each 2016 Mirai it sells.
> 
> 
> That would be $62,000 to $124,000 each, after its U.S. purchase price of $57,500 (before any Federal or state incentives).











						How Much Money Does The 2016 Toyota Mirai Lose? A Lot, Perhaps
					

All automakers expect to lose money at first when they launch expensive new powertrain technologies. But if one European official with deep experience in alternative-fuel infrastructure is right, the 2016 Toyota Mirai hydrogen fuel-cell sedan may be losing its maker quite a lot of money indeed...




					www.greencarreports.com
				




That's massively more money than they lost on the original Prius (to put this in-context).  The only places that can make Hydrogen fuel work are government-funded-enterprises (like that German Train, which likely ran on diesel before.)

See here:



> Germany has rolled out the world’s first hydrogen-powered train, signalling the start of a push to challenge the might of polluting diesel trains *with costlier but more eco-friendly technology.*




*








						Germany launches world's first hydrogen-powered train
					

Two trains built by the French train maker Alstom are now operating on a 62 mile stretch of line in northern Germany




					www.theguardian.com
				



*
We will have to wait and see on this, but don't expect it to mass-produced outside Germany (the cost of electrification may end-up being cheaper than the aded cost for H2 infrastructure + running costs)!

Petroleum works because you don't need a electric generation plant anywhere nearby - it was also surprising;y stable at 1atm of pressure; The insane  cost of long-distance H2 transit is going to mean you will have to build Hydrogen plants nearby (either with reforming Methane, which requires a gas supply or Electrolysis from a power plant).  Might as well run your train directly on BIOMethane, or just bypass the Hydrogen and run an electric line to the train.


----------



## Hachi_Roku256563 (Aug 11, 2021)

I think regadless of how bad hyrogen is we are going to come running back to it 
because no matter what tesla says they are TERRIBLE for the enviroment
worse even then a actual car
those battery packs have rare metals and dangerous acids


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 11, 2021)

Isaac` said:


> I think regadless of how bad hyrogen is we are going to come running back to it
> because no matter what tesla says they are TERRIBLE for the enviroment
> worse even then a actual car
> those battery packs have rare metals and dangerous acids



Yeah I have never understood the love for EV's personally. It would be interesting to see where all these EV car companies source their metals, complete transparency from mine it was mined in to factory it was forged in, etc.

I have a feeling the reason there is no transparency on this is because... well an answer we don't know want to know about. 

Same as the rare mineral cobalt/tantalum being in all smartphones, yet 70% of the worlds tantalum is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo where warlords rule and do horrible things to people for decades now, at least last time I read up on it, which was awhile ago.


----------



## Hachi_Roku256563 (Aug 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Yeah I have never understood the love for EV's personally. It would be interesting to see where all these EV car companies source their metals, complete transparency from mine it was mined in to factory it was forged in, etc.


yes i almost certain evs are just a stepping stone to somthing truly clean
possibly hydrogen


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 11, 2021)

So....this is a question that is fundamentally demonstrating why Hydrogen is not a current option with the available technologies.  The discussion of alternatives is also interesting.

You fundamentally don't yet have an answer for energy density and safe storage of the components.


Let me explain this in fundamental bits.  The three competing current technologies are fossil fuels, hybrid drive systems, and electric systems.  The one thing you can immediately remove from the table is hybrid technologies...but I'm already hearing people state the stupidity in this.  Hybrids aren't a perfect solution, but they are friendlier.  Well, no.  They do slightly decrease emissions, but they also effectively double what you've got to carry in your drivetrain.  A standard engine, transmission, multiple electrical motors, switching between the systems, and enough sensors to make it all work.
So, electric works....right?  Well, no.  It's great for short term travel, but the energy density of a battery is fractions of what can be found in conventional fossil fuels.  Anyone wonder why electric semi-trucks don't exist?  Hint, it's because moving a couple of tons, versus 40, means a complete change in the magnitude of energy storage needed.  Imagine for a moment that same 300 mile distance limitation, needing 20 times more batteries.  Just utterly nuts.
Finally, fossil fuels.  These are currently our most stale source of energy, and they contain the greatest energy per unit mass.  Add in that they can be nearly instantly replenished, and you see what value they bring to the table.  Please note, this is an argument not about the environmental impact, but the sheer amount of energy that can be provided per unit of weight.


Now, let's talk about the solution you cited.  How did it get done with the demonstration vehicle?  Let me start by asking you some fundamental questions.  What was the energy storage capacity of the relative power sources, how long did the demonstration vehicle sit idle, and exactly how much usage was demonstrated?

To the first question, let's compare the energy density of liquid hydrogen (its greatest density) versus gasoline.  That's 141.85 MJ/kg versus 46.4 MJ/kg.  That means the hydrogen has much more energy, right?  Well, assuming pure hydrogen and of course you have to assume the fantastic pressures involved to liquify, but once you then look at the actual liquid densities it's different.  Hydrogen is 70.85 grams/Liter, while gasoline is 755 grams/Liter.  That's 10 times as much mass in the same volume, with one third the energy.  Yeah, 10>3.  This means that before you even start figuring out the safe storage, the energy density is a literal non-starter.  

Now we get to the less fun, explodey bits.  People can literally have their cars sit for weeks on end, store many cars in close proximity, or even store their cars in an enclosed space.  That's great...except all of these things have a tendency to make things bad.  You're dealing with hydrogen...so even a 0.1% loss rate per hour (something insane considering the permeability of hydrogen through basically everything) at the pressures required to maintain a liquid hydrogen is basically a ticking time bomb.  In stark contrast to this, if you display the thing in huge open rooms and have constant airflow it "appears" to be free of leaks because something like sulfur compounds are impossible to include in the hydrogen because they'd either create emissions or foul reactionary membranes, thus the hydrogen loss is functionally odorless and undetectable by human olfactory senses.  If you let the thing constantly slow leak into a sealed one or two car garage, this would be an invitation to destroy your garage and potentially yourself.

Finally, let's discuss usage.  A membrane to membrane conversion could create electricity, and have the vehicle be an otherwise standard electric car.  An infusion of hydrogen gas and ambient oxygen could effectively replace fossil fuels in combustion.  Why did they decide on the combustion route, rather than the membranes?  Well....converting a vehicle to use one form of explosions to another is dead easy.  They knew this, and simply needed to design controls for it.  If you simply drive a round a bit, this is great.  The funny bit here is that the demonstrations assumed none of this.  They drove closed tracks and pre-designed courses.  Why?  Well, you know most gasoline systems are regulated and built such that a spill has some assurances not to cause an explosion.  Hydrogen doesn't.  You puncture a pressurized tank, and things get ugly fast.  You don't have a pressurized tank, and you can't get any real range.  So...none of the options are good.





So, what do we actually need to make hydrogen work?
1) Electrolysis stations to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen.
2) A fuel storage solution capable of taking damages, without sudden decompression and rapid oxidation (boom).
3) A fuel storage system stable enough to prevent all but the most insubstantial leaks.
4) All of the above, at a cost savings or break-even point.
5) All of the above, and a break-through in either storage density (3x or more) or dramatic increases in efficiency to make up for fossil fuels greater storage potential per unit mass.

This is why the hydrogen fuel vehicles can be demonstrated, but are not market present in any real volume (but natural gas and liquid propane solutions do exist)..  The belief that it's just a logical leap with technology is Elon Musk levels of insane...and this is the man who repackaged a "flamethrower" and sold it to the public as his only either not governmentally funded or failed project since Paypal.  

For those counting, Paypal, Tesla (huge subsidies and funding), SpaceX (less financially viable, and huge NASA developmental grants), the Boring Company (slower and more expensive than current technologies), the Hyperloop (mechanically impossible, due to physics, but "demonstrated" without and viable lines years after a model was promised), the Las Vegas conference loop (not automated, not at promised speed, and not carrying the promised volume, and my personal favorite Starlink (which now exists, but is indistinguishable from current offerings, and has such spotty current reception as to be a joke).  Eventually you just assume the things coming out of Musk's mouth are lies, just like hydrogen cars for the masses with current technology are equally impossible in any commercial sense.  This is the difference between robot helpers, and Asimo.  This is why hydrogen cars can exist, but are not possible with current market realities as a viable replacement to fossil fuels.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 11, 2021)

More work being done towards Hydrogen vehicles.








						Are Kia and Hyundai about to crack the clean, 'green' hydrogen code? Collaboration with Canadian specialists a big step towards holy grail of economic production
					

Kia and Hyundai have confirmed their determination to bring hydrogen fuel cell power into the automotive mainstream, signing a memorandum of understanding with Canada’s Next Hydrogen, the goal being large-scale, economic production of ‘green’ hydrogen.




					www.carsguide.com.au


----------



## defaultluser (Aug 11, 2021)

Isaac` said:


> I think regadless of how bad hyrogen is we are going to come running back to it
> because no matter what tesla says they are TERRIBLE for the enviroment
> worse even then a actual car
> those battery packs have rare metals and dangerous acids




No, hydrogen has just as many potential issues when used at as massive a scale as gasoline.  See Ozone Layer Depletion here.,






						Hydrogen fuel cells could damage ozone layer
					

The leaked hydrogen from fuel cells could cause as much as a 10% decrease in the ozone layer if it accumulates in the atmosphere, new research shows.



					www.edie.net
				




Hydrogen leakage Contributes  60% of the same Greenhouse Effects as the system it replaces.






						Global environmental impacts of the hydrogen economy | Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment
					






					agage.mit.edu
				




And finally

*Since fuel cells require rare-earth metals just like Lithium Ion Batteries, , such as platinum, to use as catalysts, they can not only be expensive, but they can also be detrimental to the environment as mining is often cited as a cause of biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, and large-scale pollution.

The only people continuing this "never-ending  Hydrogen Parade" are the ill-informed like yourself*. By the time you take into account the greenhouse gasses produced by Methane Reforming, plus the environmental impact of the materials inside each Fuel Cel (similar to making Lithium), plus the unavoidable 10-20% H2 leakage Global warming impact of pumping Hydrogen gas into everything has pretty much killed all enthusiasm.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Aug 11, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> No, hydrogen has just as many potential issues when used at as massive a scale as gasoline.  See Ozone Layer Depletion here.,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As of the publishing date (2003), the specifics of the hydrogen cycle weren't well enough understood to draw firm conclusions, but the researchers seemed believe that a 100% shift from petroleum to H2 would be a net benefit.









						Atmospheric researchers present new findingson the natural hydrogen cycle
					

imported placeholder




					www.caltech.edu
				











						Hydrogen economy might impactEarth's stratosphere, study shows
					

imported placeholder




					www.caltech.edu
				






defaultluser said:


> Hydrogen leakage Contributes  60% of the same Greenhouse Effects as the system it replaces.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



0.6%, not 60%, according to the abstract in your link, which is definitely a massive reduction:



> If a global hydrogen economy replaced the current fossil fuel-based energy system and exhibited a leakage rate of 1%, then it would produce a climate impact of 0.6% of the current fossil fuel based system.





defaultluser said:


> And finally
> 
> 
> *Since fuel cells require rare-earth metals just like Lithium Ion Batteries, , such as platinum, to use as catalysts, they can not only be expensive, but they can also be detrimental to the environment as mining is often cited as a cause of biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, and large-scale pollution.
> ...



The CalTech study (2003) assumed 10-20% leakage, while MIT (2006) based their numbers around a 1% value.  Not convinced that 10-20% is "unavoidable."


----------



## Hachi_Roku256563 (Aug 11, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> *he only people continuing this "never-ending Hydrogen Parade" are the ill-informed like yourself*. B


So what about the people on the never ending lithium iron parade which kills the environment once the car is dead


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 11, 2021)

Isaac` said:


> So what about the people on the never ending lithium iron parade which kills the environment once the car is dead


Whats killing us in immediacy is co2, not ground level pollutants.

Granted, people don't seem to understand most of the grid is still fossil fuel based and EVs without doing away with that is pointless.


----------



## Operandi (Aug 12, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> Whats killing us in immediacy is co2, not ground level pollutants.
> 
> Granted, people don't seem to understand most of the grid is still fossil fuel based and EVs without doing away with that is pointless.


No its not.  ICE engines are pretty much maxed out.  They've had over 100 years of engineering refinement to get them where they are and at best are sub 40% efficient in the best example.  Modern EVs are just getting started  and EV motors and modern battery tech are beyond 80% efficient today.  So even if you start with dirtiest coal source and account for grid loss EVs are clean and more efficient and cleaner.  Moreover EVs (and hydrogen I suppose) give you a way to transition off of coal, oil and natural gas.


----------



## Hachi_Roku256563 (Aug 12, 2021)

E


Operandi said:


> EVs are clean and more efficient and cleane


xcept Evs are NOT clean
They have battery packs..


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 12, 2021)

Operandi said:


> No its not.


I'm presently baking in the second record setting heatwave in my region this month.  Yes, it is.

EDIT:  I misunderstood, appologies.

I'm not saying the efficiency is not a benefit, but when you consider a coal power station is basically a centralized steam engine....  we still have work to do.



Isaac` said:


> E
> 
> xcept Evs are NOT clean
> They have battery packs..


And ground level pollutants are like "medium" on our warning sphere while I have actively cooked from 100 range temps co2 influences twice this month, so maybe "oh god make it stop" level of concern?


----------



## Operandi (Aug 12, 2021)

Isaac` said:


> E
> 
> xcept Evs are NOT clean
> They have battery packs..


Everything you do has an impact.  ICE engines have a lot of the same rare earth metals in their emissions systems that are used in the batteries and motors found in EV.  To the extent which has more I'm not sure but batteries and will be recycled back to raw elements used to make new batteries.  Also once they are not fit for a car the batteries can be re-used for less demanding loads.  I think Tesla does this with their home wall units.  So yeah, not _clean_ but _cleaner._


R-T-B said:


> I'm presently baking in the second record setting heatwave in my region this month.  Yes, it is.
> 
> EDIT:  I misunderstood, appologies.
> 
> I'm not saying the efficiency is not a benefit, but when you consider a coal power station is basically a centralized steam engine....  we still have work to do.


For sure coal is a problem but even if you charged your EV off of coal you are still coming out ahead afik.  Maybe some of the best ICE cars are close emissions wise, (and diesel is actually really good too when the emissions stuff is working properly) but thats comparing best case scenario to worst case scenario and coal is fading fast (at least in the US).  Where I live our grid is powered by coal and our coal plant has a generator thats around 10 years old (so pretty much state of art for coal) and they are already planning to transition to natural gas.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Aug 12, 2021)

Keep in mind that all the current hydrogen-powered cars have large batteries because the fuel cells aren't able to produce the large bursts of power needed for acceleration.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 12, 2021)

The Von Matrices said:


> Keep in mind that all the current hydrogen-powered cars have large batteries because the fuel cells aren't able to produce the large bursts of power needed for acceleration.



Perhaps it's time for humans to consider conquering their short term greed, and going back to village life, and walking a lot. Alas, mother nature will force us to eventually, whether we want to or not.


----------



## Operandi (Aug 12, 2021)

The Von Matrices said:


> Keep in mind that all the current hydrogen-powered cars have large batteries because the fuel cells aren't able to produce the large bursts of power needed for acceleration.


Probably no way around that unless super capacitors become a thing.  Still the battery is pretty small by car standards and I think once the car is cruising the fuel cell is doing all work.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 12, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> Granted, people don't seem to understand most of the grid is still fossil fuel based and EVs without doing away with that is pointless.


Why?  Does it have to be all or nothing or can we just celebrate whatever progress we get?

At this point, the world's dependence on oil is so encompassing, any progress should be hailed as a miracle.



Operandi said:


> Probably no way around that unless super capacitors become a thing.  Still the battery is pretty small by car standards and I think once the car is cruising the fuel cell is doing all work.


Realistically, it's the starting and stopping that is so fuel intensive.  It's why a Prius got great city mileage and comparably blah highway mileage.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 12, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> Why? Does it have to be all or nothing or can we just celebrate whatever progress we get?


It's not going to stop the climate from killing us en masse, which I consider a pretty bad failure.  Maybe thats a better way to put it.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 12, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> It's not going to stop the climate from killing us en masse, which I consider a pretty bad failure.  Maybe thats a better way to put it.


I mean, do you really think we can pull this off as a species?  And by we I mean us, not you?  Though frogs will be unhappy with the state of most things too.

But more what I meant, Doing it all at once is likely not possible or will be so painful no one will want to do it.  The time remaining is debatable but ostriches bury their head in the sand when the opportunity arises.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 12, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> I mean, do you really think we can pull this off as a species?


Haha.  Stupid lobster thinks it can talk.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 12, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> Haha.  Stupid lobster thinks it can talk.


Plankton, man, plankton!


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 12, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> It's not going to stop the climate from killing us en masse, which I consider a pretty bad failure.  Maybe thats a better way to put it.



only way to stop climate change at this point is if modern civilization just came to a halt. and we all started growing our own food, no more cars, no more planes, no more ships. no more fishing ships. overnight. it all just stopped and we went back to village life, and on top of that we would still probably need to replant a lot of tree's in rapid succession, but not just any trees, there is a combo of tree species that need to be done in proximity to other certain species, to truly create proper ecosystems. 

i'm afraid humans will never be capable of that level of discipline, so we most likely will keep going until mass famine/crop failures/oceans empty of fish kill masses all at once.  be prepared to grow your own food in under 10-20 years is my guess.


----------



## lightzout (Aug 12, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> I'm not sure I understand why they decided to go down this road either, lol. Toyota is the literal embodiment of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", but it doesn't feel like they were ever very serious about hydrogen. Seeing Toyota falling behind companies like Ford and GM in electrification is just......I hope they do find a way to jumpstart their venture into EVs, whether by the Tesla deal or otherwise.
> 
> I do get excited about cool new innovations in cars, but if anything the past 6 years have taught me that an exciting product means precisely 0 until the moment the company makes it a mass-produced commercial success (or at least real and viable to some degree). Merc EQC, Bollinger, Nikola, Rivian as of this moment.........over-promise, under-/don't-deliver. Same goes for the plane. It's cool, but I'll believe it when I see it.
> 
> At least Mirai is a real product and not vaporware, and the infrastructure for it certainly seems a little better in Japan. But it currently still falls into the same trap as the above, involving a lot of "promises" and not a lot of "reality"; like, hydrogen COULD be stored easily and widely but it isn't, hydrogen COULD be made in efficient, low-emissions ways but it isn't, etc.



*TLDR from former Toyota salesman: People won't buy the Murai because it is too expensive, it is unrecognizable and you can but a loaded Prius for half the price.   Two years ago it was only sold at one NorCal location in Silicon valley. It costs upwards of $60,000 and there are only a few places to get cells.  It was also one of the least attractive sedans from Japan in recent memory and there is no social media presence or legit ptomotion. My theory is Toyota executives know the current political climate and all their market reasearch shows the majority US consumer aren't interested in fuel economy its percieved as a hostile threat to their way of life by a social media campaigns intent of disrupting regulation which would lower profits and earning for shareholders.*

I was or technically still am a certified Toyota salesman and worked at a large dealership in SF bay area.  There was extensive product training on everything under the Toyota umbrella but* nothing about the Murai! *I was bummed. I am kind of hippy but  I have only owned Toyotas. I am also a major proponent of any technology that would reduce fuel consuption. I know I am only one person but it matters to me that I do what I can to reduce fossil fuel consumption and hopefully encourage others (by example not preaching) to make their own deliberate commitment to support companies that are in fact green and arent just trying to jedi mind trick consumers climate change doesn't exist. Being green was trendy but the most effeicient Toyota truck I owned was made in 1981.The 2003 Tundra i bought was sllammed by consumers eeports are grossly ineffiecuent and maybe averaged 10MPH in town. But I hardy drove it except to work.

I was actually a little crestfallen that the Murai is only sold (or was) at one dealership (San Jose) selling Murais for the entire Northern California region. There are 19 locations (big jump up actually) for hydrogen cells now which is good but only one in my county.  I used to be a huge Toyota truck fanboy and honk on their reliability but over time its clear Toyota doesn't care about doing whats best for the environment or whether we will have drivable roads in 50 years. It is about profit margins that year and following whatever trends they think will sell more. Fuel economy matters and like it or not US drivers are going to have to stop guzzlling gas like a frat boy under a kep of PBR. But there is no leadership from manufacteres foreign or domestic on this. Why is that?

My theory is that there is almost no demand for efficient vehicles. Gas is subsidized so heavily by the federal gov't in the US the prices remains artificially low. But mostly awareness has faded and a vociferous psyop/disinfo campaign within the oil industry has been absorbed by and perpetuated within sectors of social media conflating any attempt to improve fuel and air standards as a attack on Democracy by satanic communists or whatever it takes to scare folks into not actually trusting science, facts or history. The Murai is sadly just a perfect example of company who has the resources and the will to meet market as well as improve their "green" vitures. US consumers either dont care enough anymore. Most of the new cars in my neighborhood are base model Dodge charger variants and huge domestic trucks with massive tires that never tow anything. The Murai is ridiculously expensive and the first generation was neither replusive nor memorable. In fact, if you didnt know what a Murai was or looked like it might drive by every day without you noticing. Who would buy that? Mostly corporations who was to say they did something green.  There was zero sales reference for the Murai and basically call for that were refered to the Silicon Valley dealership.

Who would spend $70,000 on a Toyota's least attractive car just to be a little more green than a Prius? I doubt Toyota got the same sweetheart tax breaks and incentives that Tesla buyers enjoy. The Prius costs half as much with maxed trim, looks better and has more than the 5 color options in a Murai. It has been a few years now so all my takes are dated now. I am interviewing for a new Toy dealer this week after reading about some stuff they have coming. Anecdotally the other car company I worked for has made a full on, legit effort to meet climate goals and even though I would never buy a a flashy new thing from Bavaria myself I did choose to work there knowing I could sell on that. Or so I thought because I am naive . People who buy BMWs are either loaded with cash or crazy or both. EU drivers and customers seemed to appreciate their carbon-nuetral facilities etc. Typical American attitudes is indifferent or hostile. I actually sold my Tundra and ride a bike now. I am happier and healthier. I really like the Corolla or Supra but I am excited about driving the Rav4 PRIME and see its innovative design as solving perhaps the buggest hurdle in domestic market for Toyota trucks and crossovers. 









						Toyota Developing Hydrogen Engine Technologies Through Motorsports | Corporate | Global Newsroom | Toyota Motor Corporation Official Global Website
					

Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) announced today that, toward the achievement of a carbon-neutral mobility society, it is developing a hydrogen engine. It has installed the engine on a racing vehicle based on Toyota's Corolla Sport, which it will enter in competition under the ORC ROOKIE Racing...




					global.toyota


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 12, 2021)

The Guardian: Biden-backed ‘blue’ hydrogen may pollute more than coal, study finds.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/12/clean-fuel-blue-hydrogen-coal-study 



> This means that the production of this hydrogen actually creates 20% more greenhouse gases than coal, commonly regarded the most polluting fossil fuel, when being burned for heat, and 60% more than burning diesel, according to the new paper, published in the Energy Science & Engineering journal.


----------



## Operandi (Aug 12, 2021)

lightzout said:


> *TLDR from former Toyota salesman: People won't buy the Murai because it is too expensive, it is unrecognizable and you can but a loaded Prius for half the price.   Two years ago it was only sold at one NorCal location in Silicon valley. It costs upwards of $60,000 and there are only a few places to get cells.  It was also one of the least attractive sedans from Japan in recent memory and there is no social media presence or legit ptomotion. My theory is Toyota executives know the current political climate and all their market reasearch shows the majority US consumer aren't interested in fuel economy its percieved as a hostile threat to their way of life by a social media campaigns intent of disrupting regulation which would lower profits and earning for shareholders.*
> 
> I was or technically still am a certified Toyota salesman and worked at a large dealership in SF bay area.  There was extensive product training on everything under the Toyota umbrella but* nothing about the Murai! *I was bummed. I am kind of hippy but I have only owned Toyotas. I am also a major proponent of any technology that would reduce fuel consuption. I know I am only one person but it matters to me that I do what I can to reduce fossil fuel consumption and hopefully encourage others (by example not preaching) to make their own deliberate commitment to support companies that are in fact green and arent just trying to jedi mind trick consumers climate change doesn't exist. Being green was trendy but the most effeicient Toyota truck I owned was made in 1981.The 2003 Tundra i bought was sllammed by consumers eeports are grossly ineffiecuent and maybe averaged 10MPH in town. But I hardy drove it except to work.
> 
> I was actually a little crestfallen that the Murai is only sold (or was) at one dealership (San Jose) selling Murais for the entire Northern California region. There are 19 locations (big jump up actually) for hydrogen cells now which is good but only one in my county.  I used to be a huge Toyota truck fanboy and honk on their reliability but over time its clear Toyota doesn't care about doing whats best for the environment or whether we will have drivable roads in 50 years. It is about profit margins that year and following whatever trends they think will sell more. Fuel economy matters and like it or not US drivers are going to have to stop guzzlling gas like a frat boy under a kep of PBR. But there is no leadership from manufacteres foreign or domestic on this. Why is that?



First gen Murai was really nothing more than a beta test, only avaliable in California and only as lease if I'm correct?  It was also insanely slow and pretty freaking ugly, but essentially only there to test the viability of the platform so who cares what it looks like?  The 2nd gen Murai actually really nice and performs decently so looks like Toyota actually made a decent car around the platform this time around so it looks like they are fairly serious about the idea of hydrogen.

Toyota trucks get complete garbage MPG but I have a feeling that thats the trade off for being super conservative in terms of their drivetrain tech which have proven to be insanely reliable.  Terrible as a daily driver (unless you are driving short distances) but its a fair trade off if you want super reliable off road truck thats not going to fail on you.

As far as the politics and ideology of it goes most companies don't get involved.  Does Toyota leadership care about technology and doing whats good for the environment?  To an extent I'm sure they do but they are car manufacturer at the end of the day, not a research institute or environmental protection organization.  Toyota or anyone else isn't going to go bankrupt pushing a technological or environmental agenda, thats what elected officials are for.  The US has requirements for new vehicles in terms of emissions and fuel economy (which honestly make pretty good sense) but just about every other western country has some sort of test to make sure you are not driving around a complete POS polluting monster that has had zero maintenance in the last 15 years, in my view thats the bigger problem.




lightzout said:


> My theory is that there is almost no demand for efficient vehicles. Gas is subsidized so heavily by the federal gov't in the US the prices remains artificially low. But mostly awareness has faded and a vociferous psyop/disinfo campaign within the oil industry has been absorbed by and perpetuated within sectors of social media conflating any attempt to improve fuel and air standards as a attack on Democracy by satanic communists or whatever it takes to scare folks into not actually trusting science, facts or history. The Murai is sadly just a perfect example of company who has the resources and the will to meet market as well as improve their "green" vitures. US consumers either dont care enough anymore. Most of the new cars in my neighborhood are base model Dodge charger variants and huge domestic trucks with massive tires that never tow anything. The Murai is ridiculously expensive and the first generation was neither replusive nor memorable. In fact, if you didnt know what a Murai was or looked like it might drive by every day without you noticing. Who would buy that? Mostly corporations who was to say they did something green.  There was zero sales reference for the Murai and basically call for that were refered to the Silicon Valley dealership.


Totally man, the fossil fuel industry in general is basically propped up by the US government.  Some more, some less depending on the industry but overall there far more money being dumped into the market to keep fossil fuels cheap compared to intensives for EVs or grants and low interest rate loans to EV makers and green energy producers. 

There was a comment a up a bit about Tesla somehow only making it because of the subsidies they are getting from the US (and probably other nations) which while technically probably true for Tesla as it stands today financially so if you want to single them out thats fine buts not really a fair comparison in my opinion.  They are the only company out there to more less come out of nowhere to compete with the huge established players and build the entire infrastructure to make their cars viable.  Not to mention all the research and development required and the huge manufacturing facilitates that needed to be built just to make any of this happen, so yeah they are gona be in the red for awhile. Musk says a lot of dumb things but give credit where credit is due, Tesla is still leading the way in terms of technology and they are on the road to being profitable on equal terms with the established players.



lightzout said:


> Who would spend $70,000 on a Toyota's least attractive car just to be a little more green than a Prius? I doubt Toyota got the same sweetheart tax breaks and incentives that Tesla buyers enjoy. The Prius costs half as much with maxed trim, looks better and has more than the 5 color options in a Murai. It has been a few years now so all my takes are dated now. I am interviewing for a new Toy dealer this week after reading about some stuff they have coming. Anecdotally the other car company I worked for has made a full on, legit effort to meet climate goals and even though I would never buy a a flashy new thing from Bavaria myself I did choose to work there knowing I could sell on that. Or so I thought because I am naive . People who buy BMWs are either loaded with cash or crazy or both. EU drivers and customers seemed to appreciate their carbon-nuetral facilities etc. Typical American attitudes is indifferent or hostile. I actually sold my Tundra and ride a bike now. I am happier and healthier. I really like the Corolla or Supra but I am excited about driving the Rav4 PRIME and see its innovative design as solving perhaps the buggest hurdle in domestic market for Toyota trucks and crossovers.


Toyota is probably selling the Muria at cost but I think they get similar but maybe slightly different tax deals.  The Muria is still kinda technology demonstration even in the 2nd gen so comparing it to the Pirus isn't really fair in terms of cost.  Have you seen the 2nd gen btw?  Its way, way better looking the first one and looks flat out good in my opinion.  The whole buying an EV or Hybrid to _look_ different and stand out is done and the tanking Prius sales show that.  People want EVs and hybrids but they don't want some ugly ass Prius (though the newer ones look ok) anymore.

The issue has been politicized like everything else in the US.  Drive what you want, enthusiast cars and trucks should exist but our laws are regulations make little sense.  You shouldn't get spew pollution like crazy and cause my kids to develop cancer, thats not a personal freedom.  Likewise cheap dirty dead-end energy shouldn't be incentivizes at the expense of better more efficient technology and sustainable renewable energy.

In my view people buy BMWs (Mercs, Audi) for one of two reasons.  Status symbols which is pretty self explanatory, or because they are car enthusiasts that appreciate their performance, handling and build quality, they certainly don't buy them for their reliability or value lol.  I like cars so I get it, I'd like to try a BMW at some point but I would never buy a new one.  Also fun fact the Supra is pretty much a BMW. 

Right now I drive a VW Golf TDI (all the emission fixes are done) that I'm actually doing some mods on but keeping it as OEM as I can and all the emissions stuff is staying, basically making it closer to TDI version of a GTI.  That said while I like cars and driving commuting to work  in traffic is boring AF.  I mostly work from home now the majority of the time (so the whole TDI thing was kinda pointless but whatever) and when I do go in I bike also which I vastly prefer, the heath benefits are just a bonus.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 12, 2021)

Hydrogen would require completely new infrastructure to facilitate filling vehicles.

It explodes/ignites real nice like.

It's more expensive comparatively to a gallon of gas.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 12, 2021)

Hydrogen is a scam.  Almost every other energy source or storage system makes more sense environmentally and economically.  Michael Moore needs to make a documentary on this issue.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 12, 2021)

Tardian said:


> Hydrogen is a scam.  Almost every other energy source or storage system makes more sense environmentally and economically.  Michael Moore needs to make a documentary on this issue.



world is on pace to collapsing before any of this debate matters anyway. i expect mass migration and mass famine to be common occurrence within ten years.


----------



## cvaldes (Aug 12, 2021)

ShiBDiB said:


> Hydrogen would require completely new infrastructure to facilitate filling vehicles.


This is the underlying deterrent to widespread hydrogen powered vehicles. It is unrealistic to imagine a duplicate of the gasoline infrastructure. Heck, most US gas stations don't even carry diesel and you can forget about CNG/LNG.

The only realistic deployment has been fleet operations like buses for public transit and city/county government vehicles that return to the same yard daily. I've seen examples of both in my area over the years and a handful of CNG/LNG vehicles.

This simply isn't practical for consumer vehicles.

Every year the electricity grid comprises more and more renewable sources, some countries are ahead of others but this is clearly the direction the world must go.


----------



## Operandi (Aug 12, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> world is on pace to collapsing before any of this debate matters anyway. i expect mass migration and mass famine to be common occurrence within ten years.


Are you aspiring bond villain by chance?


cvaldes said:


> This is the underlying deterrent to widespread hydrogen powered vehicles. It is unrealistic to imagine a duplicate of the gasoline infrastructure. Heck, most US gas stations don't even carry diesel and you can forget about CNG/LNG.
> 
> The only realistic deployment has been fleet operations like buses for public transit and city/county government vehicles that return to the same yard daily. I've seen examples of both in my area over the years and a handful of CNG/LNG vehicles.
> 
> ...


I drive a TDI, diesel is pretty much everywhere, if one station doesn't have it the one across the street always does.  CNG is here too though I only know of a few spots that have it.

Fleet vehicles is where it would have to start with hydrogen for sure.  You can build up the infrastructure for it, it would take forever, but building isn't the problem.  The problem is generating the hydrogen cleanly in the first place.  Right now its being production is fueled with fossil fuel sources and by the time you subtract all the looses in generating it, moving it from point a to point b its a wash with just driving a gas powered car.  There has to be some break throughs in how its produced and the renewable energy grid has to expand before it makes sense.  I don't think its a scam but it has a long, long way to go and who knows if will ever pan out.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 12, 2021)

Operandi said:


> Fleet vehicles is where it would have to start with hydrogen for sure. You can build up the infrastructure for it, it would take forever, but building isn't the problem. The problem is generating the hydrogen cleanly in the first place.



Eh I'd argue the bigger problem is the profit isn't there to go hydrogen. If the civilian consumer side infrastructure doesn't exist you don't have a market share worth spending r&d time on. Unless the government comes out and says they're gonna start paying for a hydrogen infrastructure expansion for consumer vehicles we won't see them beyond niche markets.


----------



## Hachi_Roku256563 (Aug 13, 2021)

Tardian said:


> Hydrogen is a scam.  Almost every other energy source or storage system makes more sense environmentally and economically.  Michael Moore needs to make a documentary on this issue.


there is no REAL clean source OF energy
Hydrogen has problem
Batterys have problems 
It just depends on what tech can become clean first


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 13, 2021)

lightzout said:


> Who would spend $70,000 on a Toyota's least attractive car just to be a little more green than a Prius? I doubt Toyota got the same sweetheart tax breaks and incentives that Tesla buyers enjoy. The Prius costs half as much with maxed trim, looks better and has more than the 5 color options in a Murai. It has been a few years now so all my takes are dated now. I am interviewing for a new Toy dealer this week after reading about some stuff they have coming. Anecdotally the other car company I worked for has made a full on, legit effort to meet climate goals and even though I would never buy a a flashy new thing from Bavaria myself I did choose to work there knowing I could sell on that. Or so I thought because I am naive . People who buy BMWs are either loaded with cash or crazy or both. EU drivers and customers seemed to appreciate their carbon-nuetral facilities etc. Typical American attitudes is indifferent or hostile. I actually sold my Tundra and ride a bike now. I am happier and healthier. I really like the Corolla or Supra but I am excited about driving the Rav4 PRIME and see its innovative design as solving perhaps the buggest hurdle in domestic market for Toyota trucks and crossovers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Infrastructure should have come before the Mirai, and not the other way around. Hard to see how Toyota's NA hydrogen strategy could have turned out any differently from the way they conducted themselves.

It's slow at 9+ seconds (hell, even the Leaf Plus now is in the low 6 second range) and heavy
H2 filling stations
Expensive for what it is
If it ticked a few more of those excitement boxes, people might be willing to give hydrogen a try even with its inconveniences. The fact that EVs are trivially easy and an absolute blast to drive helps immensely to sell them (well, except VW ID4 or a Bolt lmao) regardless of their drawbacks. As it stands, Mirai is a fussy novelty that doesn't give any real reasons to drive it aside from "it's different". The fact that there are only a handful of H2 stations in the US, and basically all are in California doesn't help its adoption. At least Japan has [somewhat] better infrastructure in place to support the Mirai.

But at least the Mirai has some potential, most of it untapped. Toyota's idea for burning H2 in ICE motors is just laughable, anyone who's ever driven a CNG/LPG converted vehicle knows it's a horseshit idea.



lightzout said:


> * My theory is Toyota executives know the current political climate and all their market reasearch shows the majority US consumer aren't interested in fuel economy its percieved as a hostile threat to their way of life by a social media campaigns intent of disrupting regulation which would lower profits and earning for shareholders.*





lightzout said:


> Fuel economy matters and like it or not US drivers are going to have to stop guzzlling gas like a frat boy under a kep of PBR. But there is no leadership from manufacteres foreign or domestic on this. Why is that?
> 
> My theory is that there is almost no demand for efficient vehicles. Gas is subsidized so heavily by the federal gov't in the US the prices remains artificially low. But mostly awareness has faded and a vociferous psyop/disinfo campaign within the oil industry has been absorbed by and perpetuated within sectors of social media conflating any attempt to improve fuel and air standards as a attack on Democracy by satanic communists or whatever it takes to scare folks into not actually trusting science, facts or history. The Murai is sadly just a perfect example of company who has the resources and the will to meet market as well as improve their "green" vitures. US consumers either dont care enough anymore. Most of the new cars in my neighborhood are base model Dodge charger variants and huge domestic trucks with massive tires that never tow anything. The Murai is ridiculously expensive and the first generation was neither replusive nor memorable. In fact, if you didnt know what a Murai was or looked like it might drive by every day without you noticing. Who would buy that? Mostly corporations who was to say they did something green.  There was zero sales reference for the Murai and basically call for that were refered to the Silicon Valley dealership.



There's certainly demand for more efficient vehicles. Don't buy into the fearmongering and "muh V8". You don't have to look far - the successes of the 2.7 Ecoboost and 3.0 LM2 Duramax (that baby dmax is entirely in a class of its own) are testament to that. And then there's the Lightning and (hopefully not vaporware) Rivian.

It's easy to hide behind the facade of an online identity and laud the 5.0 for being "reliable and powerful", but when those same people walk into the dealerships, the 5.0 is rarely the motor they walk out with - F150 sales figures based on engine choice have told all for almost a decade. And when it comes to the Gen3 and Gen4 5.0 V8, it's _certainly_ anything but "reliable" anymore. Ask me how I know.

The demand may be hard to see in places where people pay $2.50 for gas. Unfortunately, there are places in North America where people aren't so lucky - gas is at equivalent $5.10 and $5.70/gallon for regular and 91 respectively here. 

After 3 trucks (last two of which were basically lemons), I ended up driving a Model 3 now and there's simply no going back. Anyone who hasn't lost their marbles and has experienced driving an EV will have some degree of excitement for the new Lightning, even if they aren't interested in buying the truck itself. Because of the step forward it represents. But yeah, times are changing and they always have been, don't let the keyboard warriors convince you otherwise.

When it comes to Toyota, I just don't understand why they're betting big on H2, or see it paying off in any relevant time frame. Reliable hybrids have always been their forte, and should easily tide them over until their belated EV transition (which honestly is basically their own global roadmap). As they are the largest automaker in the world, I have a tough time believing that industry being stacked against them was the whole reason that the Mirai in America didn't succeed (remember Toyota's lobbying against right to repair?). The entire thing reeks of a half-assed "green" PR stunt that failed miserably.

I guess that's what happens when a company as big as Toyota allows the personal vendetta of one man (Akio Toyoda's irrational hatred of EVs) to run the entire company. You don't need to like EVs. You don't need to drive an EV. You don't even have to like Elon Musk. But rabid denunciation of EVs as a temporary fad that will 'destroy the auto industry' is delusional on half a dozen different levels, but the entire company following suit with that vision is just.........hilarious. Closing your eyes and ears doesn't make EVs magically disappear.


----------



## prtskg (Aug 13, 2021)

I think petroleum products (petrol/gasoline, diesel, CNG) and ethanol as fuel can co-exist with battery powered vehicle. I don't have much hope for hydrogen because it's costly to produce and can easily explode.


----------



## lightzout (Aug 13, 2021)

Just popping back in because I am relieved to have a found a place for conversations about complex challenges in the future. I am concerned for my kids. Full disclosure I used to be a redneck hell hippy which isn't that uncommon in NorCal.  I love trucks and trees! And guns and ganja! But I want me boys to be able to access the same pristine wilderness I grew up camping, fishing and hunting for food in as well. It has been a tough year for everyone so I gave up on politics and avoid certain divisive talking points with certain friends and family.  Not because I am obligated to inform anyone or compelled to correct what I may believe is horse rubbish.  What really has gotten me the most is how divise some of the rhetoric being used really is when there is no middle ground for any compromise and the gap in ideology or even logic itself is so wide there any discussion is wasted time. 

I challenged myself to ride a bike and as much as I love it sucks. Riding daily helped me lose 2 inches off my waist and my L4/L5 sciatica is GONE.   But I have been hit by three cars and I am constantly getting flat tires. I was literally bed-ridden two years ago and unable to work in the trades as I had for decades.  It is impossible for me to qualify how extraordinary it is to wake up and not immeidately reach for advil. I am only bringing this up because it is awesome but totally not accidental. If I dont work at it (walking, stretching then ride) routine from physical therapist this degenerative vertebrae is not going away it can really be reversed but it has abated.

My point is that I think my grandparents lived through way shittier times than we have now.the ripple affects of WW1, Spanish flu, dustbowl, Prohibition and Depression in a fairly short order. But rather then divide people these people seem to understand they were all facing the same threat and form common goals. Yes I know there were protests and plenty of scoundrels but people wore masks so they wouldnt die. The last pandemic in the US was only 102 or so years ago and there are tons of pictures and news article that serve to illustrate how differently this could have gone if it was treated as a health crisis.  The US electoral system and the public's faith in science and medicine aren't just footnotes.  At the end of the day its about being able to say whatever you feel and listen to how others feel without get threatened when you dont agree. Maybe we all need to regrow a working sense of humor? I know I do.  Driving a F250 dually as a daily driver is dumb especially since 95%  of the people rolling V8s on giant lifts and 36" wheels are towing anything and may never see mud on their sidewalls. Does that mean they are bad people?No, because that was me at one time too.  Anyone who pulls moral high ground is sus.  I am trying to lead by example. But mainly I want US Americans to stop hating on each other. You dont have to like people but we are on the same team. 

I will work anywhere I can find a job and I never thought I would work in the auto industry. It is finally cleaning up its act in terms of safety, efficiancy and fair business practices that are evolving so they can be profitable without upselling some plastic strip on your door edge that costs $200.  If I could afford it or needed a truck I think the e150 is an incredible mobile office/work station.  Economically speaking, I should get a used prius and call it a day. But my little 4cylinder 2wd 1981 Toyotaa pickup got well over $20 mpg. Where there is a will theres a way.  These challenges can be met and when the US rallies around each other even if they have opposing views. I still believe anything is possible.


----------



## cvaldes (Aug 14, 2021)

Isaac` said:


> there is no REAL clean source OF energy
> Hydrogen has problem
> Batterys have problems
> It just depends on what tech can become clean first


There will never ever be a truly clean source of energy. It can be _cleaner_ but not perfectly clean, relative not absolute.

In the same way, there's no safe sex, just safer sex.

But as we are witnessing it is imperative that the people of this planet adopt cleaner energy while scientists strive to discover better solutions in the future. It's not responsible to operate at the status quo while we wait for an "ideal" solution.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 15, 2021)

cvaldes said:


> There will never ever be a truly clean source of energy. It can be _cleaner_ but not perfectly clean, relative not absolute.
> 
> In the same way, there's no safe sex, just safer sex.
> 
> But as we are witnessing it is imperative that the people of this planet adopt cleaner energy while scientists strive to discover better solutions in the future. *It's not responsible to operate at the status quo while we wait for an "ideal" solution.*


I don't agree. Clean energy needs to be considered from a whole process perspective. The energy used to produce cleaner vehicles has been considered as does the recycling and disposal of the previous vehicle. Very little consideration has been made to the recycling of lithium-ion batteries (which is a difficult and dangerous process. The removal of airbags is another dangerous process. Check out what mining lithium in Bolivia has done to the environment.  The list is endless ...


----------



## Operandi (Aug 16, 2021)

Potential game changer for the future viability of hydrogen potentially on the horizon in the form of essentially solid state hydrogen storage from a company called Plasma Kinetics.  Just stumbled over it over the weekend but if it pans out it would be a big step in making the hydrogen infrastructure way more feasible, (NextBigFuture article covers it pretty indpeth).



Tardian said:


> I don't agree. Clean energy needs to be considered from a whole process perspective. The energy used to produce cleaner vehicles has been considered as does the recycling and disposal of the previous vehicle. Very little consideration has been made to the recycling of lithium-ion batteries (which is a difficult and dangerous process. The removal of airbags is another dangerous process. Check out what mining lithium in Bolivia has done to the environment.  The list is endless ...


Perfectly clean energy will never exist, everything humans do has an impact on the environment.  It will never be zero so the best we can do is aim for as close to zero as possible.  Its true that batteries are energy intensive to make and getting at the raw materials has huge regional environmental impact.  These are same problems fossil fuels have but the difference is once you extract the materials and build the battery you keep using it for years, it can be repurposed when its not fit for a EV, and ultimately will be recycled, and not just in dirty places like China (see this IEEE article).


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 16, 2021)

Operandi said:


> Potential game changer for the future viability of hydrogen potentially on the horizon in the form of essentially solid state hydrogen storage from a company called Plasma Kinetics.  Just stumbled over it over the weekend but if it pans out it would be a big step in making the hydrogen infrastructure way more feasible, (NextBigFuture article covers it pretty indpeth).
> 
> 
> Perfectly clean energy will never exist, everything humans do has an impact on the environment.  It will never be zero so the best we can do is aim for as close to zero as possible.  Its true that batteries are energy intensive to make and getting at the raw materials has huge regional environmental impact.  These are same problems fossil fuels have but the difference is once you extract the materials and build the battery you keep using it for years, it can be repurposed when its not fit for a EV, and ultimately will be recycled, and not just in dirty places like China (see this IEEE article).



Used Lithium batteries are barely recycled. No idea where you got that information. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/

Hydrogen is very easy to extract. Take a 9v battery, 2 paperclips and a glass of water. The bubbles coming out are pure Hydrogen. So if I can do that in my kitchen I would imagine a giant plant could do much better.

Storage and transport are the main problems and not an insurmountable one if we placed as much infrastructure and resources as we have for Petrol.


----------



## prtskg (Aug 16, 2021)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Used Lithium batteries are barely recycled. No idea where you got that information. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/
> 
> Hydrogen is very easy to extract. Take a 9v battery, 2 paperclips and a glass of water. The bubbles coming out are pure Hydrogen. So if I can do that in my kitchen I would imagine a giant plant could do much better.
> 
> Storage and transport are the main problems and not an insurmountable one if we placed as much infrastructure and resources as we have for Petrol.


It's advisable to not do this experiment at home as hydrogen is highly combustible. It doesn't even need a spark to explode. And this nature of hydrogen is the reason it's not yet used widely.


----------



## Operandi (Aug 16, 2021)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Used Lithium batteries are barely recycled. No idea where you got that information. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/
> 
> Hydrogen is very easy to extract. Take a 9v battery, 2 paperclips and a glass of water. The bubbles coming out are pure Hydrogen. So if I can do that in my kitchen I would imagine a giant plant could do much better.
> 
> Storage and transport are the main problems and not an insurmountable one if we placed as much infrastructure and resources as we have for Petrol.


I didn't say it was perfect or even good.  And yeah your right, frankly its bad right now, most batteries don't get recycled and when they do only a small percent of the material is recovered but you have to start somewhere and its valuable resource so people will want to reclaim it.  Battery technology is not sitting still, recycling technology is not sitting still but burning hydrocarbon tech is all but maxed out and good luck recycling a gallon gas.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

Hydrogen cars are much like today's nuclear reactors. You wouldn't want to mess with an inherent gas quite as you would with either an inert liquid, or solid material. Nuclear isn't safe today similarly since it isn't using 'containable' materials like salt fuel reactors would.

Don't tell me hydrogen is safe, it is the only substance with both the quantum and physical properties observable. How do you think it penetrates "steel" out of all materials...


----------



## KLiKzg (Aug 16, 2021)

I work in Rimac Automobili.
AMA, just not about Nevera & other projects!   

& about hydrogen:

It is too hard to store! Any compartment will leak the "smallest 2-atom molecule we know".
It is too hard to transport within car (into the tank & from tank to the engine - ICE or FCE). Again, it will leak!
It is extremely combustional (any raised temperate will combust it in presence of oxygen). It is the same reason why HHO bull-shit never works! If it was working, the intake would have blown with all the heat, fresh oxygen & oil vapors.
Enjoy.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

Each hydrogen atom can puncture a 1mm wide hole on the surface of a steel pot if you heat it fast enough without letting it release its suspended hydrogen slowly. I cannot think of the cold-hot cycles that tank is possibly going to go through with full hydrogen saturation.


----------



## defaultluser (Aug 16, 2021)

Another thing: Fuel Cells are mostly recyclable, but most of the works that goes into them is precision layering (so you barely get a couple hundred back from something that will cost a minimum of $5000/unit):



			https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/06/f34/fcto_sa_2016_pemfc_transportation_cost_analysis.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A748%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C70%2C552%2C0%5D
		


*This means that: unlike an Apple system, it won't hold it's used value; it will have to be completely rebuilt from scratch.  The Carbon Nanotube-reinforced tanks will also need to be rebuilt when they reach end-of-life*

Also, once BEVs get mass-produced enough, you will find shops willing to do faulty battery cell replacement. increasing your battery life (without the cost o full pack replacement.)









						Repairing Any laptop battery - Li-Ion cell replacement
					

We are going to identify dead cells in battery...




					www.ifixit.com
				




About the only thing we still haven't figured out is affordable recycling Lithium Cells  (but when you figure how much the replacement costs are for rebuilding that Fuel Cell plus carbon fiber fuel tank,* it's kinda acceptable to take the environmental hit for Lithium as it has half the lifetime cost of FCV).  *

And potentially even-lower lower resellerer costs , when you take into account the costs of individual battery cell replacement refurbing a BEV; as-opposed to *rebuild-from-scratch  everything that touched the H2 in something like a Mirali - tanks, fuel cell and fuel lines!*


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

I think, this recycling, while useful in the short term, will also bring us to terms with this nonnegligible law of thermodynamics 2nd and how our tenet of everything's perishability and rather their void of substance in contrast to their substitutability brings about an exploitation of immeasurable means. If we could harness the sun's energy, we wouldn't stop to hesitate before succinctly perverting it to mine the whole of Earth's mantle.

One has to think if laws of physics has differed because where I stand, there is no way we are going to recycle what we put into the energy balance. As long as friction exists, I think we ought to settle on the preciousness of just existing and put the Lamarckian - later Darwinist - dogmatism that, _"Things will right themselves along the way"_: they don't - they follow strict laws about energy conservation and not the wishlists of ideologues who idealise their conformity of unforseen wake of grandiose actions.

Just because energy is cheap does not mean it won't cost anything. All uses of power lead to entropy, it is entropy that pushes things apart in the universe. Why try to liquidize everything when we could see our environmental footprint? Stored energy is just as violent as when it is released, if we should consider how other forms of energy used to store it back into the same container won't be as clean as the soothing mind leaps these unscientific minds take. It is the same old dogma that might makes right...


----------



## claes (Aug 16, 2021)

How anti-Randian of you...


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

claes said:


> How anti-Randian of you...


Not... Ellis Wyatt didn't work towards the benefit of his enemies in a losing battle. No difference between 15% tax and 15% accrued environmental cost, imo.


----------



## claes (Aug 16, 2021)

I’m sorry but like your previous post this just does not translate into English I can comprehend. No offense! Though being terse doesn’t help...


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

claes said:


> I’m sorry but like your previous post this just does not translate into English I can comprehend


Where is your buddy, you are attempting to derail the thread just by yourself tonight...


----------



## claes (Aug 16, 2021)

I have no buddies 

The last thirty posts or so have just reiterated why hydrogen isn’t feasible... not much to derail here :shrug:


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

claes said:


> I have no buddies
> 
> The last thirty posts or so have just reiterated why hydrogen isn’t feasible... not much to derail here :shrug:


So, you are saying counter arguments have no place here?


----------



## claes (Aug 16, 2021)

Nope; again, no offense, but I think you may need a new translator tool (or I’m just unable to read between the lines)


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

claes said:


> Nope; again, no offense, but I think you may need a new translator tool (or I’m just unable to read between the lines)


You think you are skewing the questions, but you still have to explain yourself why people need your approval to make counter arguments. I'm asking this because otherwise your comment on 30 opposite posts in this thread hangs in the air without any connotation.


----------



## claes (Aug 16, 2021)

Nah; you’re just trolling me now. I have no idea what you mean by “skewing questions” (and I’m confident you don’t either), as I also have no idea what your previous posts mean to express, which is all I wished to explore and the whole of my interventions here. You don’t have to explain your posts if you don’t want to, all I’m saying is that they are incoherent in this readers’ mind.

As for this thread’s quality of discussion; sure, random users pop-in and post an example of hydrogen fuel experiments, then they disappear while regulars reiterate why it’s not feasible. I guess that’s a discussion, but it’s pretty boring/uncontentious in here.

I’m not a mod, but those advocates can and should continue to discuss the merits of hydrogen as a fuel as they wish — makes no difference to me/not sure why you think I care lol :shrug:

Have a nice day


----------



## KLiKzg (Aug 17, 2021)

Except all Life leads to higher entropy...& all aspects of Life lead to higher entropy.
While physics tells us Universe is trying to achieve lower entropy.

So is Life, an answer to lower entropy of Universe? Are we really here, just to balance things among the Stars? (usually one Pannonian sailor used to say that line)


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 17, 2021)

claes said:


> Nah; you’re just trolling me now. I have no idea what you mean by “skewing questions” (and I’m confident you don’t either), as I also have no idea what your previous posts mean to express, which is all I wished to explore and the whole of my interventions here. You don’t have to explain your posts if you don’t want to, all I’m saying is that they are incoherent in this readers’ mind.
> 
> As for this thread’s quality of discussion; sure, random users pop-in and post an example of hydrogen fuel experiments, then they disappear while regulars reiterate why it’s not feasible. I guess that’s a discussion, but it’s pretty boring/uncontentious in here.
> 
> ...


I don't fancy blissful ignorance. Not returning an appropriate answer is not discussing and you know it better than I do. Enough with your insinuating counter arguments. Either respond head on, or move to the side.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 17, 2021)

Please stick to the topic of Hydrogen as a fuel source: pros and cons, possibilities and problems.

If someone posts a science based opinion, it is their right to do so, it is yours to refute it with further discussion.

Further personal arguments, however, will lead to reply bans.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 7, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> Please stick to the topic of Hydrogen as a fuel source: pros and cons, possibilities and problems.
> 
> If someone posts a science based opinion, it is their right to do so, it is yours to refute it with further discussion.
> 
> Further personal arguments, however, will lead to reply bans.



I had not been following this thread for awhile, thank you for helping.

See my new thread here if you are interested in some newer ideas... hydrogen won't happen I think we can all agree on that now. This topic was a good learning exercise for me though.









						Cost effective transportation, how to live a better life with more money in your pocket, 8.1 kWh per 100 km EV car's. Let's discuss.
					

Sketching out some rough ideas... basically what gave me this idea was how hard it is to find decently priced transportation to get back and forth to work.  How vulture like car salesman have been towards me, etc. I absolutely can't believe humanity has come to this. It's really sad and...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Hachi_Roku256563 (Sep 7, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> hydrogen won't happen I think we can all agree on that now


I still do not agree
Its Quite simple As of this point in time Electric Vehicles still have a Impact on the envoriment
and i dont see how this can be fixed
However Hydrogen does not have these impacts and if it can be given proper infestructure it would be better and safer


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 7, 2021)

Isaac` said:


> I still do not agree
> Its Quite simple As of this point in time Electric Vehicles still have a Impact on the envoriment
> and i dont see how this can be fixed
> However Hydrogen does not have these impacts and if it can be given proper infestructure it would be better and safer



Sorry for not clarifying mate, I meant in the short term it will not happen. Long term I agree EV is not the future. Short term and medium term though EV just has to much momentum now.  Congress and the world at large is hype fixated on EV.  Personally I would like to see a great public works project in the name of Keynesian Economics for a new hyperloop system of travel or hydrogen, but that is a flight of fancy I am afraid.


----------



## Hachi_Roku256563 (Sep 7, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Sorry for not clarifying mate, I meant in the short term it will not happen. Long term I agree EV is not the future. Short term and medium term though EV just has to much momentum now.  Congress and the world at large is hype fixated on EV.  Personally I would like to see a great public works project in the name of Keynesian Economics for a new hyperloop system of travel or hydrogen, but that is a flight of fancy I am afraid.


Yes i agree with this
I think toyota jumped the gun with hydrogen tech and its not ready
But i think 10-20 years Hydrogen will be the standard


----------



## ArdWar (Sep 7, 2021)

I agree that EV as it is done now might not exactly the correct or best way to go forward if we really care about sustainability. But out of the alternative out there, I'd rate Hydrogen not better than EV simply because of logistics.

Let's see:
one liter of petrol is 34MJ
one liter of LNG (liquid methane) is 22MJ
one liter of LiFePo battery is about 2MJ
one liter of compressed H2 at 150psi (common gas cylinder) is.... 0.1MJ

ain't going anywhere with that

okay, one liter of liquid H2 is 8.5MJ
sounds nice, buuut liquid H2 is -250 °C. Ain't gonna put that on your trunk either.

Hydrogen is something that looks good in theory but impractical in practice. For something stationary maybe doable, but definitely not for mobility... unless it's a rocket.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 7, 2021)

ArdWar said:


> I agree that EV as it is done now might not exactly the correct or best way to go forward if we really care about sustainability. But out of the alternative out there, I'd rate Hydrogen not better than EV simply because of logistics.
> 
> Let's see:
> one liter of petrol is 34MJ
> ...



if you are interested, I started a new more likely scenario thread...









						Cost effective transportation, how to live a better life with more money in your pocket, 8.1 kWh per 100 km EV car's. Let's discuss.
					

Sketching out some rough ideas... basically what gave me this idea was how hard it is to find decently priced transportation to get back and forth to work.  How vulture like car salesman have been towards me, etc. I absolutely can't believe humanity has come to this. It's really sad and...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 7, 2021)

I heard Toyota is working on them still



Isaac` said:


> Yes i agree with this
> I think toyota jumped the gun with hydrogen tech and its not ready
> But i think 10-20 years Hydrogen will be the standard


This I agree with. I see HY and LNG being the way.


----------



## cvaldes (Sep 7, 2021)

We have been here before. The limiting factor with hydrogen is the consumer fuel distribution infrastructure.

Hydrogen can still be considered for fleet operations (like city government cars & trucks) or a confined environment like an airport (aircraft operations vehicles, baggage vehicles, passenger shuttle buses, etc.).

Heck, a lot of gas stations don't have diesel. Sure, all the diesel vehicle owners say "there are lots of stations with diesel." They know all the local stations that carry diesel. They also know all of the stations that DON'T carry diesel (and generally forget about the latter).

Moving on, how many consumer gas stations carry LNG/CNG? Yeah, I thought so.

It's about commercial viability, people. Not some poorly articulated obscure dorkwad argument about fuel efficiency, etc.

Gasoline isn't even the most efficient fossil fuel but it's still the most used for passenger vehicles because the entire supply chain and distribution infrastructure is built around it.

Remember that it's easier to dig a trench for some electrical conductors rather than install some sort of tank for hydrogen fuel. And electricity doesn't require regular visits by other vehicles (that are probably powered by diesel) for replenishment.


----------



## Hachi_Roku256563 (Sep 7, 2021)

cvaldes said:


> Moving on, how many consumer gas stations carry LNG/CNG? Yeah, I thought so.


as i said give it 10 to 20 years
more inferstructure
when there is lots of stations carrying LNG/CNG then it will become the norm


----------



## Operandi (Sep 7, 2021)

cvaldes said:


> Remember that it's easier to dig a trench for some electrical conductors rather than install some sort of tank for hydrogen fuel. And electricity doesn't require regular visits by other vehicles (that are probably powered by diesel) for replenishment.


Thats the main advantage of EVs.  We already have an electrical grid so it just needs to be beefed up to support the load of EVs.  Aside from the electrical infrastructure already being there for EVs which dosn't exist for hydrogen moving high preasure hydrogen around is a major problem.  In order for it take off I think there is going to have be some kind of breakthrough in low pressure storage and there are several companies working on just that.  

I posted a link to company a few posts back about Plasma Kinetics which looks to be pretty close to actual product.  Loop Energy looks like another working on the same thing.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...esel-Electric-Locomotive-to-Hydrogen-Electric


----------



## DOA (Sep 7, 2021)

Isaac` said:


> as i said give it 10 to 20 years
> more inferstructure
> when there is lots of stations carrying LNG/CNG then it will become the norm


More likely it will never happen. BEVs are too good and too far ahead. Toyota seems more interested in slowing BEV adoption to keep ICE sales than FCVs. No one else really has a contender for the BEV vehicle array. While the theory is good, FCVs are just too expensive to run. Check the Toyota Long Beach experiment to see what I mean. 3 years and Toyota is showing no interest in selling the trucks, let alone footing the bill for infrastructure.


----------



## Operandi (Sep 7, 2021)

DOA said:


> More likely it will never happen. BEVs are too good and too far ahead. Toyota seems more interested in slowing BEV adoption to keep ICE sales than FCVs. No one else really has a contender for the BEV vehicle array. While the theory is good, FCVs are just too expensive to run. Check the Toyota Long Beach experiment to see what I mean. 3 years and Toyota is showing no interest in selling the trucks, let alone footing the bill for infrastructure.


Never?  BEV were useless till about 15 years ago, now its the new hottness.  

Technology breakthroughs happen and technology stagnates, right now ICE is pretty much maxed out and battery tech has had just enough progress and breakthroughs to make vehicles piratical where in the past they were a joke.  Hydrogen fuel cells have a lot of challenges but equally a lot of potential and Toyota is making a bet on it.  If it works out they'll have a huge advantage, if it doesn't their in the same boat as everyone catching up to Tesla.


----------



## defaultluser (Sep 7, 2021)

Operandi said:


> Never?  BEV were useless till about 15 years ago, now its the new hottness.
> 
> Technology breakthroughs happen and technology stagnates, right now ICE is pretty much maxed out and battery tech has had just enough progress and breakthroughs to make vehicles piratical where in the past they were a joke.  Hydrogen fuel cells have a lot of challenges but equally a lot of potential and Toyota is making a bet on it.  If it works out they'll have a huge advantage, if it doesn't their in the same boat as everyone catching up to Tesla.






BEV took learning how to tame the Lithium Monster, a chemical solid at room-temperature.  EASY.

Hydrogen will light itself an invisible fame if it comes into contact with any oxidant.  You also have ti store it at 10k psi in liquid form in order to get any level of competitive density (making the flame-up problem worse).

*Also, anything that touched the H2 will self-destruct within 10-15 years: the Mirai Fuel cells are rates for 5000 hours before the entire stack must must be replaced (a 5-10k undertaking), and the  Carbon-fiber  reinforced steel tanks have a designed lifetime of 15 years , with this replacement cost direct from Toyota:*





__





						Toyota Mirai Fuel Tank - 77A2062081 | Daytona Toyota, Daytona Beach FL
					

Fuel Tank. Toyota Mirai. Genuine Toyota Part - 77A2062081 (77A20-62081). Ships from Daytona Toyota, Daytona Beach FL



					parts.daytonatoyota.com
				




*The cost of 35-40k every 15 years to rehab an old Mirai (3x fuel tanks,plus one fuel cells) is going to be a huge price to pay, compared to the replacement cost of most battery packs  5-10k:









						How much does a Tesla Model 3 Battery Replacement Cost? | Current Automotive
					

A real work invoice shows just how much it costs to replace a Tesla Model 3 battery pack out-of-pocket. Plus, how does Tesla supply replacement packs?




					www.currentautomotive.com
				



*


----------



## Operandi (Sep 7, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> BEV took learning how to tame the Lithium Monster, a chemical solid at room-temperature.  EASY.
> 
> Hydrogen will light itself an invisible fame if it comes into contact with any oxidant.  You also have ti store it at 10k psi in liquid form in order to get any level of competitive density (making the flame-up problem worse).
> 
> ...


You are talking about battery vs hydrogen fuel cells as they are now thats why I said technological breakthroughs need to happen before it comes viable.  Look at what companies like Plasma Kinetics are working on.


----------



## AsRock (Sep 7, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I understand your arguments. Now I simply wonder why Toyota bothers with it, or why the UK airplane decided to use hydrogen... perhaps these are simply models in the hopes someday there will be a breakthrough in how to harvest hydrogen easier/cleaner. I am unsure. Maybe these things are an RnD program so to speak, and it's just a waiting game to see if some genius figures out a way to get hydrogen easier.



Any chance in part it could be so they can patent idea's and such ?, maybe they get loans just like most of these rich company's  do to fund a idea.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 7, 2021)

DOA said:


> More likely it will never happen. BEVs are too good and too far ahead. Toyota seems more interested in slowing BEV adoption to keep ICE sales than FCVs. No one else really has a contender for the BEV vehicle array. While the theory is good, FCVs are just too expensive to run. Check the Toyota Long Beach experiment to see what I mean. 3 years and Toyota is showing no interest in selling the trucks, let alone footing the bill for infrastructure.


Evs are trash



defaultluser said:


> BEV took learning how to tame the Lithium Monster, a chemical solid at room-temperature.  EASY.
> 
> Hydrogen will light itself an invisible fame if it comes into contact with any oxidant.  You also have ti store it at 10k psi in liquid form in order to get any level of competitive density (making the flame-up problem worse).
> 
> ...


Yup wait till windings burn up and thermal runaway.


----------



## defaultluser (Sep 7, 2021)

Operandi said:


> You are talking about battery vs hydrogen fuel cells as they are now thats why I said technological breakthroughs need to happen before it comes viable.  Look at what companies like Plasma Kinetics are working on.




And this is a single company running some amazing thing with "zero leakage" and "zero  emissions"?  My ass!

It's dubious when you have to use Click-bait like\:

This BANNED Technology Could Push Hydrogen Cars Over BEV,​









when it isn't banned, nor is it a new idea.

Nikola truck had similar Slick Marketing  Page, with tons of promises, but the truck didn't even have a working electric Drive train.  If there's any real truth to Plasma Kenetics, they're probably hiding tons f bad side-effects of the tech, along with  a lot of Pure Uncut BS in those Positive Claims!​








PR without any 3rd-party verification is just Hype.​


----------



## Operandi (Sep 7, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> And this is a single company running some amazing thing with "zero leakage" and "zero  emissions"?  My ass!
> 
> You know you're full-of-shit when you have to use Click-bait like\:
> 
> ...


Thats Sany Munro from Munro and Associates.  He's worked his entire life in the automotive industry now runs a design firm that works with all the many of automotive manufactures, specifically now with EVs.   You don't get that far in your field by accident so I think its safe to say he knows more about this field than you and anyone else in this forum.  Talk shit about whatever new unproven tech you want but have Plasma Kinetic done something shady that I'm not aware of?  

Besides, nobody is saying this is the one thats going to change the world but if fuel cells are going to work its going be disruptive tech like this to make it happen and if industry epxerts like Sandy shows interest in it than so do I.


----------



## DOA (Sep 7, 2021)

Operandi said:


> Besides, nobody is saying this is the one thats going to change the world but if fuel cells are going to work its going be disruptive tech like this to make it happen and if industry epxerts like Sandy shows interest in it than so do I.


Correct me if I am wrong, but this looks like a hydrogen holding system, not a hydrogen creation system. Something Toyota could use to get rid of the high pressure tanks which Sandy has said is a problem. 
But it does not address the basic problem of how expensive hydrogen is and will be compared to BEV charging.


----------



## Operandi (Sep 8, 2021)

DOA said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but this looks like a hydrogen holding system, not a hydrogen creation system. Something Toyota could use to get rid of the high pressure tanks which Sandy has said is a problem.
> But it does not address the basic problem of how expensive hydrogen is and will be compared to BEV charging.


Correct but the hydrogen infrastructure is a pretty big part of the problem.  Right now as it is storing and moving it high in pressure vessels has so much loss in efficiency that even if you used 100% renewable energy (which isn't the case) to create the hydrogen most of the green benefits are lost in infrastructure.


----------



## DOA (Sep 8, 2021)

eidairaman1 said:


> Evs are trash
> 
> 
> Yup wait till windings burn up and thermal runaway.


90K miles, hundreds of 1/4 mile runs (all the Hellcats and Demons quit due to breakage) and still not one dime in maintenance. 0-60 has slipped to 2.4 though on Dragy. 
If EVs are trash, they are still way ahead of any other tech right now. I am not sure any Taycan owner would agree with you either.


----------



## defaultluser (Sep 9, 2021)

Operandi said:


> Correct but the hydrogen infrastructure is a pretty big part of the problem.  Right now as it is storing and moving it high in pressure vessels has so much loss in efficiency that even if you used 100% renewable energy (which isn't the case) to create the hydrogen most of the green benefits are lost in infrastructure.




Even with this Magic Beans to hold your Hydrogen, it doesn't fix  the efficiency hit you get pumping it through a Fuel Cell.

We've been trying unsuccessfully to figure that one out for the last 60 years;* currently, the efficiency for compresses H2 to Fuel Cell Cycle is about 1/4 that of battery (and the pumped-storage is only half of that issue!)*

And, you also still have to replaced the  Mirai's pathetic/overpriced  Fuel Cell every 5000 hours, for between 5k (mass-produced) to 10k (current prices for something as low-production as the Mirai) , regardless of your Magic Beanstalk storage.



DOA said:


> 90K miles, hundreds of 1/4 mile runs (all the Hellcats and Demons quit due to breakage) and still not one dime in maintenance. 0-60 has slipped to 2.4 though on Dragy.
> If EVs are trash, they are still way ahead of any other tech right now. I am not sure any Taycan owner would agree with you either.


Right, putting any production ICE on the track will mean you have to fix the engine  every 20k miles.  Electric motors have been designed to take such a beating from day-one  (just look at all these diesel-electric trains we have running long distances.)

A traditional ICE only lasts hundreds of thousands of miles when you let it run in it's designed performance range .


----------



## Operandi (Sep 9, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> Even with this Magic Beans to hold your Hydrogen, it doesn't fix  the efficiency hit you get pumping it through a Fuel Cell.
> 
> We've been trying unsuccessfully to figure that one out for the last 60 years;* currently, the efficiency for compresses H2 to Fuel Cell Cycle is about 1/4 that of battery (and the pumped-storage is only half of that issue!)*
> 
> ...


Wow, whats with the dismissive attitude?  Millions of dollars have been lost by people shorting Tesla stock by people who thought they'd fail now all the traditional auto manufactures are scrambling to catch up....

They have demonstrated that it works, at what point does stop being "magic beans"?  Will it work commercially?, who knows but it looks promising and if it does that alone is enough to hydrogen a viable fuel for transportation.  Even with the losses in the fuel cell the energy density is there compared to batteries and the efficiency is still way better than the best ICE engines and no toxic by products.  And thats with the millions of engineering man hours that have gone into ICE engines to get them where they are (30-40% efficient at best), we're just at the tip of the ice berg with fuel cell potential, and frankly battery tech is also just in its infancy too.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 9, 2021)

Operandi said:


> Wow, whats with the dismissive attitude?  Millions of dollars have been lost by people shorting Tesla stock by people who thought they'd fail now all the traditional auto manufactures are scrambling to catch up....
> 
> They have demonstrated that it works, at what point does stop being "magic beans"?  Will it work commercially?, who knows but it looks promising and if it does that alone is enough to hydrogen a viable fuel for transportation.  Even with the losses in the fuel cell the energy density is there compared to batteries and the efficiency is still way better than the best ICE engines and no toxic by products.  And thats with the millions of engineering man hours that have gone into ICE engines to get them where they are (30-40% efficient at best), we're just at the tip of the ice berg with fuel cell potential, and frankly battery tech is also just in its infancy too.


The problem with hydrogen is how you get the fuel. Hydrogen is not an abundant element on earth and is highly reactive. So you're either getting hydrogen from cracking hydrocarbons, in which case you're about in the same boat as ICE engines, or you're using electrolysis to split water, where even under the best of conditions (with a heat assisted mechanism from a nuclear power plant or something,) you're still worse off than current battery and ICE tech. Forget the volatility of hydrogen, metal embrittlement, its colorless flame, and the complication of storing it under extremely high pressures. All in all, hydrogen is expensive, hard to work with, and comes with a lot of risks. Battery tech is far less risky and is far easier to take power from any number of sources, which you can say about hydrogen, but electrolysis is god awful in terms of efficiency, even compared to electrolysis. Even if cracking hydrocarbons is efficient, it still requires us using fossil fuels to derive that hydrogen, so it's really not any more green than an ICE engine.

Simply put, hydrogen has very few up sides for the number of down sides it has.

Seriously, if we had access to free hydrogen, it might make sense, but we have to get the hydrogen from somewhere and it's that process that makes this so unpalatable from a cost perspective. Hydrogen is also incredibly dangerous compared to other fuels and storage mediums.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 9, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> The problem with hydrogen is how you get the fuel. Hydrogen is not an abundant element on earth and is highly reactive. So you're either getting hydrogen from cracking hydrocarbons, in which case you're about in the same boat as ICE engines, or you're using electrolysis to split water, where even under the best of conditions (with a heat assisted mechanism from a nuclear power plant or something,) you're still worse off than current battery and ICE tech. Forget the volatility of hydrogen, metal embrittlement, its colorless flame, and the complication of storing it under extremely high pressures. All in all, hydrogen is expensive, hard to work with, and comes with a lot of risks. Battery tech is far less risky and is far easier to take power from any number of sources, which you can say about hydrogen, but electrolysis is god awful in terms of efficiency, even compared to electrolysis. Even if cracking hydrocarbons is efficient, it still requires us using fossil fuels to derive that hydrogen, so it's really not any more green than an ICE engine.
> 
> Simply put, hydrogen has very few up sides for the number of down sides it has.
> 
> Seriously, if we had access to free hydrogen, it might make sense, but we have to get the hydrogen from somewhere and it's that process that makes this so unpalatable from a cost perspective. Hydrogen is also incredibly dangerous compared to other fuels and storage mediums.



From what I understand, the reason Toyota (specifically Toyota in Japan) is still focusing on hydrogen is because Japan is sitting on a hydrogen reserve one of the largest in the world from what I read. SO hydrogen will make sense, but specifically for those regions of the world that have hydrogen reserves, everyone else will need to do EV or hybrids.

Can't find the source now... bit busy, but I did read something like that earlier this morning actually.


----------



## defaultluser (Sep 9, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> From what I understand, the reason Toyota (specifically Toyota in Japan) is still focusing on hydrogen is because Japan is sitting on a hydrogen reserve one of the largest in the world from what I read. SO hydrogen will make sense, but specifically for those regions of the world that have hydrogen reserves, everyone else will need to do EV or hybrids.
> 
> Can't find the source now... bit busy, but I did read something like that earlier this morning actually.




There is no such thing -it's all methane under the water around Japan, and they want to Reform it just like everyone else is already doing
(to supply what little H2 the world already needs).

Methane Hydrate are a bit harder  to unlock than Methane, but they  produce the same results:









						Japan eyes undersea 'fire ice' as source of clean-burning hydrogen
					

Oil platform maker Modec looks to strike gold as it tests methane hydrates extraction




					asia.nikkei.com
				






			https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/03/12/japan-tries-to-unlock-the-worlds-biggest-source-of-carbon-based-fuel/
		










						Japan achieves first gas extraction from offshore methane hydrate
					

A Japanese energy explorer said on Tuesday it extracted gas from offshore methane hydrate deposits for the first time in the world, as part of an attempt to achieve commercial production within six years.




					www.reuters.com
				




*Much like there is no magic carpet that is anywhere near production-ready  for storing H2 at standard pressure, there is no magic pixie dust that produces H2  without greenhouse effects from the water around Japan.*


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 9, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> From what I understand, the reason Toyota (specifically Toyota in Japan) is still focusing on hydrogen is because Japan is sitting on a hydrogen reserve one of the largest in the world from what I read. SO hydrogen will make sense, but specifically for those regions of the world that have hydrogen reserves, everyone else will need to do EV or hybrids.
> 
> Can't find the source now... bit busy, but I did read something like that earlier this morning actually.





defaultluser said:


> There is no such thing -it's all methane under the water around Japan, and they want to Reform it just like everyone else is already doing
> (to supply what little H2 the world already needs).
> 
> Methan Hydrate are a bit harder  to unlock than Methane, but they  produce the same results:
> ...


@defaultluser got to it before I did. They're cracking hydrocarbons. There is very little free hydrogen on Earth. It's part of the whole, "hydrogen is very reactive" thing.

Edit: Honestly, I do think that electrolysis is the right way forward if hydrogen were to be a sustainable energy storage solution. The problem is that we have physical limitations with how efficiently we can split water. The sad reality is that it's cheaper to crack hydrocarbons, which doesn't really make it green.


----------



## glsn (Sep 10, 2021)

in a nutshell:

we are fossil fuel depend, fossil fuels companies don't like the idea of ceding domincance, so they keep bailing out other solution or make up bullshit claims/stuff such as co2 filters, thanks to accomplices politicians/lawmakers who also like easymoney

2050 global net 0 emission my ass, they just pretend into sending firetrackers across the world to show off, while doing nothing at the root cause


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 11, 2021)

Porsche and Siemens Energy break ground on low-carbon e-fuel plant in Chile
					

Electrolyzed hydrogen is combined with CO2 to make methanol, then gasoline.




					arstechnica.com
				




this is interesting... hydrogen becomes clean gasoline...

also I read this earlier https://www.nh3fuel.com/index.php/f...prising-details-about-using-ammonia-as-a-fuel

ammonia could be next source of fuel and better than hydrogen vs ev/gas/diesel

weird, I wonder why we haven't heard of ammonia until now...


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 11, 2021)

The main issue I see with hydrogen is the "where do we get it?" equation.  Hydrogen is abundant in water on earth but freeing it via electrolysis requires electricity...  right now that would suck anywhere that has a coal fired grid.

Chicken and the egg issue.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 12, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> The main issue I see with hydrogen is the "where do we get it?" equation.  Hydrogen is abundant in water on earth but freeing it via electrolysis requires electricity...  right now that would suck anywhere that has a coal fired grid.
> 
> Chicken and the egg issue.



looks to me like hydrogen and EV are dead in the water.  ammonia gas makes the most sense. looks very promising from everything I have read on it. maybe I should make a new thread.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 12, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> looks to me like hydrogen and EV are dead in the water.  ammonia gas makes the most sense. looks very promising from everything I have read on it. maybe I should make a new thread.


It'd be worthy of discussion maybe.  I admitedly know little about how it works etc.


----------



## cvaldes (Sep 12, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> The main issue I see with hydrogen is the "where do we get it?" equation.  Hydrogen is abundant in water on earth but freeing it via electrolysis requires electricity...  right now that would suck anywhere that has a coal fired grid.
> 
> Chicken and the egg issue.


Again, this ignores the infrastructure & distribution issues.

Let's say you live in a place that gets its electricity from a combination of fossil fuel plants (natural gas, coal, etc.) and renewable energy sources (solar, wind, etc.).

In Scenario #1 (EV), the electricity is sent through the established electric grid to the EV which stores the electricity in its batteries until needed.

In Scenario #2 (FCV), the electricity is used to generate hydrogen via electrolysis, stored in tanks, pumped (likely using electricity) into tanker trucks (which are likely powered by diesel engines), transport it to fueling stations, pump (likely using electricity) the hydrogen to the the stations' tanks, pump (likely using electricity) the hydrogen to the FCV tank, then finally convert that hydrogen back into electricity to power electric motors which drive the FCV.

What is the cost of manufacturing fuel-grade hydrogen? It's not free, that's for sure. And even if you have really, really cheap electricity, it's still going to be more expensive than transmitting electricity over the existing electric infrastructure.

EVs don't charge in five minutes. However it's not too difficult to dig a trench, drop in some electrical conductors, and put a charging station in a convenient place (like a residential garage) and recharge the vehicle overnight.

FCVs might be able to be refueled fairly quickly but you can't do it at home. Right now there are are only two places where hydrogen fuel stations are at a density that satisfies Toyota enough to market the Mirai: Japan and California.

Ultimately infrastructure will be the showstopper for FCV. Hell, my guess is that only 25% of the gas stations in my area have diesel pumps.



lynx29 said:


> Porsche and Siemens Energy break ground on low-carbon e-fuel plant in Chile
> 
> 
> Electrolyzed hydrogen is combined with CO2 to make methanol, then gasoline.
> ...


The problem is that gasoline still generates greenhouse gases.

Porsche's synthetic gas is a PR stunt. That's fine.

In the end it will be EVs using better batteries than what we have today, fueled by more renewable electricity sources. Germany already generates enough electricity via renewable sources for residential needs.

Remember that the ultimate problem is greenhouse gases, not about generating electricity or power.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 12, 2021)

cvaldes said:


> Again, this ignores the infrastructure & distribution issues.
> 
> Let's say you live in a place that gets its electricity from a combination of fossil fuel plants (natural gas, coal, etc.) and renewable energy sources (solar, wind, etc.).
> 
> ...



nice job completely ignoring my comment about ammonia fuel being the future. lol.  mmk.


----------



## cvaldes (Sep 12, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> nice job completely ignoring my comment about ammonia fuel being the future. lol.  mmk.


I was replying to your comment about using electrolyzed hydrogen to make synthetic gasoline. And before that I was reply to someone else if you haven't noticed. Please pay attention.

Again, liquid ammonia as a motor vehicle engine fuel source still has the same transportation/distribution challenges as hydrogen.

My guess is that for another liquid fuel to seriously threaten gasoline, it probably needs to be cheaper by a magnitude of order, i.e., ten times cheaper. The gasoline extraction, transportation, refining, and distribution infrastructure is so well developed that something that is 10-25% cheaper isn't going to be a real player.

Clear heads here have pretty much nailed why hydrogen is basically a failure as a candidate for mainstream motor vehicle fuel. You are free to become increasingly shrill and defensive about your love for hydrogen.

But tell us this: who is going to fund this infrastructure and distribution buildout?  Governments? Non-profit organizations? Consumers?

Japan can't even get FCVs mainstream despite a government mandate. And that's in a market with exceptionally efficient distribution due to extremely high population density.

I actually live in one of the markets where the Toyota Mirai is marketed (California) and I don't think I've ever seen one on a public road. This is in a place where autonomous driving prototypes are ALL OVER THE PLACE and have been for years.


----------



## Caring1 (Sep 12, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> nice job completely ignoring my comment about ammonia fuel being the future. lol.  mmk.


I can't imagine Ammonia being a safe fuel.
It's a toxic gas in a confined space and a poison.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 12, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> I can't imagine Ammonia being a safe fuel.
> It's a toxic gas in a confined space and a poison.



there are many different types of ammonia.  i can't find all the details right now, but I did read and watch a bit about it on youtube. seems interesting anyway.


----------



## cvaldes (Sep 12, 2021)

Japan has a government FCV mandate which is why Toyota has pursued it.

It is important to consider Japan's situation. While it has about 38% of the USA's population, Japan is very poor in natural resources, particularly fuel sources. Japan imports all of their petroleum whereas the USA has multiple crude oil sources (Alaska, Midwest, Texas, California, etc.), its own refining in multiple locations, etc. Japan is also very poor in natural gas resources. Again, the USA has multiple natural gas sources. Here in my home state of California, natural gas is frequently used for electricity generation (as opposed to coal) because the former is readily available.

Without a doubt, Japan's FCV mandate is to provide an alternative to fossil fuel imports since they are entirely dependent on outside sources. While the USA still imports lots of crude oil, it's not entirely dependent on other nations or large petroleum cartels. The USA isn't going to kick OPEC back to the curb in my lifetime but for sure every EV that hits the road will ease a little bit of America's dependence on foreign oil.

Undoubtedly ammonia as a fuel source will also be influenced by the availability of natural resources to provide fuel-grade ammonia, the technology requirements for production, distribution, and infrastructure. The natural resources availability will not be equal everywhere on the planet.

There's a lot more to it than synthesizing a small amount in a lab for a proof-of-concept experiment or doctoral thesis.


----------



## Shrek (Sep 12, 2021)

Isn't efficiency something against a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine? If one releases the hydrogen by electricity then one already has one lot of thermal engine inefficiency in producing the electricity; then if one uses the electricity directly there is not a second, but if one runs an internal combustion engine on that hydrogen there is.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 13, 2021)

cvaldes said:


> Again, this ignores the infrastructure & distribution issues


No it doesn't, but you need to cross the "how do I get it" bridge before you can even consider distribution.  I just started at the fojndations and found them flawed before even approaching distribution.  I wasn't ignoring it, it just isn't relevant until we solve step 1, so to speak.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 21, 2021)

Why aren’t hydrogen trains carrying passengers yet?
(256) Why aren’t hydrogen trains carrying passengers yet? - Quora
"Hydrogen is a terrible choice of energy for trains…just as it is for cars, trucks and most other forms of transportation."


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 21, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Why aren’t hydrogen trains carrying passengers yet?
> (256) Why aren’t hydrogen trains carrying passengers yet? - Quora
> "Hydrogen is a terrible choice of energy for trains…just as it is for cars, trucks and most other forms of transportation."



I recommend you check out my hyperloop thread, I personally agree that hydrogen is probably not the best choice. Or maybe the world will look very different, similar to how wind and solar are targeted to certain areas only, oil will exist for other areas, nuclear for others, the all or nothing approach as I initially started out with I think is the wrong way to look at it. Best to target certain areas and geographical areas strategically, and accept all options including oil for some areas still.

But hyperloop... is still my all or nothing dream, that I do see as being possibly, but it would require a Great New Deal and no scam contractors on top of that, so yeah, it will never happen. We aren't the same country we were at when the highway system was built, to much has changed for that ever to be done properly and within budget. Greed and envy destroyed us sadly. But if I were to dream, it would be a hyperloop future and humans need to learn to walk more when hyperloop drops them off. /shrug









						Seems to me, that Hyperloop is not only the future, it will benefit all of us and save us a lot of time.
					

Watch this video in full before commenting please.  Keep in mind, even in the pandemic like now, hyperloop would still be better than all other modes of public transport (the pods are more sanitary since only small number of people for each one, versus air being exchanged on an entire train...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Ferrum Master (Nov 21, 2021)

The only terrible thing here is the answerers assumption everything can be changed to something, let's hang wires everywhere across the railroad. Also the answerer isn't aware of PEM hydrogen electrolyser based plant in Germany made by Shell one large fab is soon launched in UK by ITM Power. That's not made from natural gas, or some horrid environmental jokes like blue hydrogen plants US and Canucks have. So why then those fabs are made? Because it is nonsense right?

EU will not use fossil fuel, and that's it. Especially now politically it has been proven to get rid of reliance for oil and gas and go 100% green. It is a political choice, and the force will gain even more traction, it will loose the main appeal in poor economic viability, but as remaining as the only sane choice. There are some men and women that needs to change seats at the helm.

For those inaccessible places hydrogen will be used and the plan is set in motion despite some expert claims. Factories are build and trains also do their testing. As any early tech it has a lot of problems, but by the looks there is no turning back. Hydrogen is ideal to deal with excess energy especially in remote places with solar wind or Hydro plants where you have to shut down them as the grid doesn't consume that much. In that place you can transfer the energy to hydrogen, by directing current to the nearest plant.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 21, 2021)

Ferrum Master said:


> For those inaccessible places hydrogen will be used and the plan is set in motion despite some expert claims. Factories are build and trains also do their testing. As any early tech it has a lot of problems, but by the looks there is no turning back. Hydrogen is ideal to deal with excess energy especially in remote places with solar wind or Hydro plants where you have to shut down them as the grid doesn't consume that much. In that place you can transfer the energy to hydrogen, by directing current to the nearest plant.


Honestly, the best and most efficient way to get hydrogen would be as a byproduct from a nuclear reactor. Electrolysis is actually a lot more efficient under high pressure and temperatures, so you could use waste heat and energy from a nuke plant to capture hydrogen.


Ferrum Master said:


> Hydrogen is ideal to deal with excess energy especially in remote places with solar wind or Hydro plants where you have to shut down them as the grid doesn't consume that much. In that place you can transfer the energy to hydrogen, by directing current to the nearest plant.


Except as a storage medium, it's terribly inefficient, even under the best of circumstances. You're better off going with either batteries or using gravitational potential energy by pumping water to a higher elevation and running it back through a turbine when you need it.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 21, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> Except as a storage medium, it's terribly inefficient, even under the best of circumstances. You're better off going with either batteries or using gravitational potential energy by pumping water to a higher elevation and running it back through a turbine when you need it.



Pumped hydro is definitely cheaper, but we are running out of good water sources. Most of the west-coast's dams are used for water management / drought management, meaning you release the water NOT for power purposes, but instead so that the various states get their agreed upon amounts of water.

That means the dam will generate electricity (as the water is released), *even when you have no effective storage mechanism*. Now what? Li-ion is too small. Hydrogen on the other hand may only be 50% efficient, but its better to store *something* rather than waste all that energy.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 21, 2021)

Ferrum Master said:


> EU will not use fossil fuel, and that's it. Especially now politically it has been proven to get rid of reliance for oil and gas and go 100% green. It is a political choice, and the force will gain even more traction, it will loose the main appeal in poor economic viability, but as remaining as the only sane choice. There are some men and women that needs to change seats at the helm.



I don't know how I feel about this comment, Germany leads EU in everything, and they went back to burning coal and closing down their nuclear power plants what 4 years ago? Still burning coal like crazy last I knew... so eh... kneejerk reaction that nuclear is bad due to fukushima disaster is a classic case of not understanding basic context imo.. Germany doesn't have to worry about a typhoon and a earthquake at the same time like Japan did... and if they can't even understand basic context like that... eh, I am not hopeful.



dragontamer5788 said:


> Pumped hydro is definitely cheaper, but we are running out of good water sources. Most of the west-coast's dams are used for water management / drought management, meaning you release the water NOT for power purposes, but instead so that the various states get their agreed upon amounts of water.
> 
> That means the dam will generate electricity (as the water is released), *even when you have no effective storage mechanism*. Now what? Li-ion is too small. Hydrogen on the other hand may only be 50% efficient, but its better to store *something* rather than waste all that energy.



and to my knowledge, hydro damns have ruined many ecosystems, I was reading about that recently... so the green states out west using hydro really aren't so green in the bigger long term context


----------



## Shrek (Nov 21, 2021)

I've wondered about the vast methane resources, much locked in the seabed, and converting that to synthetic liquid fuel.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 21, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Pumped hydro is definitely cheaper, but we are running out of good water sources. Most of the west-coast's dams are used for water management / drought management, meaning you release the water NOT for power purposes, but instead so that the various states get their agreed upon amounts of water.


If you can't use water for pumped storage, then how do you expect to use it for splitting water? Seems like an issue they both have when water availability is low. That doesn't make hydrogen a better solution. At least it's still water after you pump it to a higher elevation and can still be used.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Nov 21, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I've wondered about the vast methane resources, much locked in the seabed, and converting that to synthetic liquid fuel.



Are you sure what ecological footprint does fracking do?

As I said... no fossils in EU. Diesel being the first one to die, it has been inked in documents and development and it will be so. You will have the ability to use, just the taxes will be unbearable.



lynx29 said:


> I don't know how I feel about this comment, Germany leads EU in everything.



France would like to have a chat about it. Especially in the nuclear department.

The EU politics are not simple,  it has never been. I am really not fond of Angela Merkel and what she and her party has done to Germany not even mentioning the last joke moves she did with Lukashenko. Last struggles with nordstream2 project, kinda revealing true colors, the level of corruption and idiocy, that's why I said, some chairs need to be vacated at the helm. You think the nuclear concerns are only because of possible ecological risk? Or to make someone rely even more on Russians and Arab oil and gas? It is not white and black as usual. This thread about hydrogen is tightly knitted with developments in politics, as the money for developing a real competitor for fossils may be increased or decreased basing on the interested party.

Hydrogen will become as political tool if it manages to survive the current beta/alpha testing. So far it looks good.

As for hydro plants, there is no harm in upgrading the existing ones and use them and do the job when the grid rests, like nights, the river doesn't stop flowing during that daytime and you have spare energy and it can be routed into producing hydrogen as a form of energy storage. Now a method is used to pump water into some higher reservoir in case of demand they open it to increase power, but that's expensive and again takes up space and alters the local environment for sure.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 21, 2021)

Ferrum Master said:


> Are you sure what ecological footprint does fracking do?
> 
> As I said... no fossils in EU. Diesel being the first one to die, it has been inked in documents and development and it will be so. You will have the ability to use, just the taxes will be unbearable.
> 
> ...



well said. and yes I commend France on their nuclear power green energy, but also, France has not had a net profit government in 45 years, printing endless money is not sustainable, as the world is finding out right now with skyrocketing inflation.  keynesian economics implemented in the wrong way is the downfall of our current normal existence.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 21, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> well said. and yes I commend France on their nuclear power green energy, but also, France has not had a net profit government in 45 years, printing endless money is not sustainable, as the world is finding out right now with skyrocketing inflation.  keynesian economics implemented in the wrong way is the downfall of our current normal existence.


I'm actually envious of France's dedication to nuclear energy. I honestly think that it's the way forward, particularly when talking about modern reactors and not ones from half a century ago. As I said earlier, the really nice part about nuclear is that you can use the waste heat and energy during low usage hours to drive a lot of things, which could include hydrogen production. My biggest gripe with it is actually with US laws regarding non-proliferation which prevents us from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel because the process could result in weapons-grade material.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 21, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> If you can't use water for pumped storage, then how do you expect to use it for splitting water? Seems like an issue they both have when water availability is low. That doesn't make hydrogen a better solution.



Do you know how the water rights agreements are set by law?

The Colorado River in particular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact

Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming,  Nevada, Arizona, and California are all guaranteed a certain amount of water by law. Except you know, the law was written poorly and there's not enough water. Either way, the dams in the area *must* follow the current agreement, until Congress changes it.

To steal the chart from Wikipedia:


Upper Basin, 7.5 million acre·ft/year (293 m³/s) totalColorado51.75%*​3.86 million acre·ft/year (150.7 m³/s)Utah23.00%*​1.71 million acre·ft/year (67.0 m³/s)Wyoming14.00%*​1.04 million acre·ft/year (40.8 m³/s)New Mexico11.25%*​0.84 million acre·ft/year (32.8 m³/s)Arizona0.70%​0.05 million acre·ft/year (2.0 m³/s)*Percentages with a star are a percentage of the total _after_ Arizona's
0.05 million are deducted. Arizona's percentage is of the total.Lower Basin, 7.5 million acre·ft/year (293 m³/s) totalCalifornia58.70%​4.40 million acre·ft/year (172 m³/s)Arizona37.30%​2.80 million acre·ft/year (109 m³/s)Nevada4.00%​0.30 million acre·ft/year (12 m³/s)

These are the requirements.



> At least it's still water after you pump it to a higher elevation and can still be used.



You can't pump the water from lower-to-upper, because California / Arizona / Nevada are *drinking* the water. What, are you just gonna let the people down-river die of thirst?

Furthermore, the contract doesn't match reality, the Colorado river *literally doesn't have enough water to match these allotments*.

----------

Pumped Hydro works when pumping water from lower-to-upper is allowable and legal. If you have water-contracts (because cities downstream need the water to live), things get a lot more hairy. As such, the rivers in the area can be used for power-generation (because releasing the water follows the contract), but NOT for pumped-hydro (because pumping the water back upstream breaks the Colorado River Compact).

Blame poor laws and poor water management. This river is 100% allocated.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 21, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Do you know how the water rights agreements are set by law?
> 
> The Colorado River in particular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact
> 
> ...


None of that solves how you're going to get hydrogen if water availability is low. Both options aren't feasible when water isn't available.

The solution to that is not live in the desert and I tell this to a friend of mine that lives in Phoenix on a regular basis.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Nov 21, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> The solution to that is not live in the desert and I tell this to a friend of mine that lives in Phoenix on a regular basis.



Also worth noting Intel built a fab42 and IMHO TSMC is next in the queue. Yeah, I agree they have earthquakes less there, but there are even more safe states in that department like Texas and north central  states besides Canada. IMHO, but that's only one type of catastrophes less.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 22, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> None of that solves how you're going to get hydrogen if water availability is low. Both options aren't feasible when water isn't available.



Electrolysis of hydrogen works on salt water.

Pumped hydro doesn't. Even if you could put a dam in some area near the ocean, pumping the ocean salt water into the fresh water area isn't very good for either environment.

Ocean / salt water is all at sea level, so no elevation drop for any dam. So no place to safely pump seawater into.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 22, 2021)

Ferrum Master said:


> Also worth noting Intel built a fab42 and IMHO TSMC is next in the queue. Yeah, I agree they have earthquakes less there, but there are even more safe states in that department like Texas and north central  states besides Canada. IMHO, but that's only one type of catastrophes less.



Yeah, Intel and TSMC building fabs in a drought ridden place has always flabbergasted me, when there are plenty of tax haven states surrounding the 5 Great Lakes. hehehe


----------



## Ferrum Master (Nov 22, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Yeah, Intel and TSMC building fabs in a drought ridden place has always flabbergasted me, when there are plenty of tax haven states surrounding the 5 Great Lakes. hehehe



Agh I forgot, Texas was one of the Tax greedy states, remember reading some of the NBA stuff regarding KP6 and Mavs.

Maybe US are afraid of Canuck invasion 

Or in reality... is it corruption again, or mere lobbyism?

Peps in Arizona will have to think twice whether to flush their toilet as it could be the last time in a while or turn out very expensive. I guess men are in advantage here too, plenty of cactuses around.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 22, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Electrolysis of hydrogen works on salt water.
> 
> Pumped hydro doesn't. Even if you could put a dam in some area near the ocean, pumping the ocean salt water into the fresh water area isn't very good for either environment.
> 
> Ocean / salt water is all at sea level, so no elevation drop for any dam. So no place to safely pump seawater into.


Seawater electrolysis results in hydrogen and chlorine gas, not hydrogen and oxygen. So that's not as safe as you might think it is. You can do it, but I hope you have a plan for all of that chlorine.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 22, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> I hope you have a plan for all of that chlorine.



Swimming pool manufacturers? cheaper costs for maintaining the worlds swimming pools thanks to influx of supply?  lol jk I have no idea. I'm just here for the ride at this point ~


----------



## Ferrum Master (Nov 22, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> Seawater electrolysis results in hydrogen and chlorine gas, not hydrogen and oxygen. So that's not as safe as you might think it is. You can do it, but I hope you have a plan for all of that chlorine.



There are cryo-desalination ideas, that are in even more raw state than hydrogen production.

Lately there is a new idea... oh the irony is strong in this one tho... 

To use the cold energy from LNG warming to gaseous state as byproduct and freeze seawater to get freshwater for almost free...


----------



## Mussels (Nov 22, 2021)

Bones said:


> There was a guy in Japan years ago that created an engine that literally ran off of water.
> Part of the process involved ceramic "Plugs" that were heated to a very high temp and when the water was injected, it contacted the plugs, exploded/burned like gas and the engine ran.
> 
> It's a similar effect when you have molten metal and it comes in contact with water - If you are ever in a foundry and water comes in contact with the metal it will cause an explosion, if enough of both comes together you'd better RUN and hope you're fast enough.


Sounds like sodium or a bunch of other reactive metals

You could make a vague prototype cylindrical engine, but uneven wearing would make finer applications useless


----------



## Shrek (Nov 22, 2021)

From an earlier post, hydrogen cars are less efficient than electric; end of story.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Nov 22, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> From an earlier post; hydrogen cars are less efficient than electric; end of story.



The only thing that flopped, that there is development of hydrogen engines that are not fuel cell based that the Pope rides, but a direct internal combustion one. Funny enough Toyota released this showcase few weeks after your shown video was released. After it participated in 24h race.


----------



## zebuddi (Nov 22, 2021)

The Cabal is why!!!  Check the video out


----------



## Ferrum Master (Nov 22, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Running hydrogen through an ICE will not result in better efficiency.



It ran 24h, despite mechanical issues on their first try they did complete. Can you do that with an electric? Almost no. Electric will not replace needs for long range hauls and long term usage.

Even for 24h Le Mans electric racer they used two 600kW chargers for some. 1.2MW... f*** that who talks about sanity using electric and expensive fuel tanks. Also the batteries meant to last only one race there. 

I am not that hasty to crown EV as more efficient.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 22, 2021)

Range is a good point, but electric still wins on efficiency.

One solution to electric range is a standardized battery that one swaps out at the station.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Nov 22, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Range is a good point, but electric still wins on efficiency.



Have you ordered your Tesla with the Chinese made batteries? Are we ready for mass adaptation and need of batteries? Not even mentioning need of recycling them afterwards? Nope... I can't see efficiency here. There are no parts for new cars, as they are no spare parts to fix the older ones. I kinda dunno if I would use a refurbished battery pack in my car having some random china cells.









						Production Delays Lead Some Automakers to Try a Low-Cost, Low-Range Battery
					

Welcome to the Hyperdrive daily briefing, decoding the revolution reshaping the auto world, from EVs to self-driving cars and beyond.




					www.bloomberg.com
				




PS.

Funny the second suggested headline there too.


Hyundai is fully embracing hydrogen-based technology.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 22, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Range is a good point, but electric still wins on efficiency.
> 
> One solution to electric range is a standardized battery that one swaps out at the station.



Once upon a time, California promised a tax credit to companies who solved the electric range issue. Then, a company claimed to have solved it. They demoed on stage a battery-swap, *collected the tax credit*, and then never actually developed the technology. Because environmentalists in California are utterly crap at actually pressing companies to you know, deliver what they promise. They just let these companies take government money on promises without actually checking to see if said development / R&D is going on.

Battery swap might work. But it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth because it just shows how stupid citizens are. "Battery Swaps" are a *perfect* case study into how to effectively steal money from naive environmentalists.

The company demoed Battery Swap in 2013. Its been 8 years. Its not coming. Don't pretend its an option, because the whole "battery swap" argument from the start was a grifting operation to take money from the government. Nothing more.

You gotta keep a keen eye, remember that these for-profit companies will lie and steal from you. Even if they say they're "for the environment", they really are "for more money". They'll take money and then ignore the environmental problems entirely. Don't fall for the hype. Don't pretend that battery swap was anything more than just a money grabbing operation.



Aquinus said:


> Seawater electrolysis results in hydrogen and chlorine gas, not hydrogen and oxygen. So that's not as safe as you might think it is. You can do it, but I hope you have a plan for all of that chlorine.



Chlorine is one of the biggest industries right now. Its fundamental to the creation of bleaches (you know, chlorine bleach) used in laundry like everywhere around the country. That bleach is used in paper-mills (whitening paper), sewage treatment (you know, how to get poop out of your water and make it drinkable again), etc. etc. Chlorine's uses are endless.

Chlorine production is a big business (https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/market-research-reports/chlorine-manufacturing-industry/)... an industry by itself. Extra "free" chlorine from a process isn't a problem, its a benefit. A positive. The market can and will buy that from you. Its a very valuable resource.

---------

What *is* a problem from an environmental point of view is *brine-waste*, which is the problem in any sea-water treatment plant. Brine is highly toxic and useless: there's no real use of brine-water as far as I'm aware of. So you're kinda correct but you talked about the wrong chemical / waste product.

That being said: the heaps of sulfuric acid needed to extract Lithium, and the child-miners who are exploring mines for that Cobalt (an important component of Li-Ion batteries) means that Li-Ion is in fact, one of the dirtiest industries in the planet. No joke.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 22, 2021)

Battery swaps should have worked, it's stupid they dont.

Here in aus they do LPG gas bottles for BBQ's at our 'gas stations' - and you swap the old in, pay, walk out with a new one.

The problem with batteries is swapping a good one, for a lower quality or worn out one so no one would ever do that... but it COULD be possible for a secondary 'range extender' universal style option if someone mandated a universal standard for that sort of thing.

Like all cars manufactured after X date must have space in the trunk with these battery terminals at X voltage, so you can clip on a range extender like you were jump starting a regular car. Hot swap THOSE bitches. (And if cars arent charging them, they shouldnt have the heat issues)


----------



## Shrek (Nov 22, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Once upon a time, California promised a tax credit to companies who solved the electric range issue. Then, a company claimed to have solved it. They demoed on stage a battery-swap, *collected the tax credit*, and then never actually developed the technology. Because environmentalists in California are utterly crap at actually pressing companies to you know, deliver what they promise. They just let these companies take government money on promises without actually checking to see if said development / R&D is going on.
> 
> Battery swap might work. But it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth because it just shows how stupid citizens are. "Battery Swaps" are a *perfect* case study into how to effectively steal money from naive environmentalists.
> 
> ...



They gave money for a solution that is utterly trivial?


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 22, 2021)

Mussels said:


> Battery swaps should have worked, it's stupid they dont.



When you consider that the battery pack of a Tesla costs well over $10,000 (https://www.thedrive.com/tech/38915/it-costs-nearly-16000-to-replace-a-tesla-model-3-battery-pack), it makes sense that battery swaps don't work.

Battery swaps *might* work if you own a fleet. Like rental cars for example, swapping batteries among your own cars is maybe a decent idea. Except at the $16,000+ price point to replace batteries (they're literally the most expensive part of an electric car), it makes more sense to *just buy spare cars* rather than spare batteries.



Mussels said:


> The problem with batteries is swapping a good one, for a lower quality or worn out one so no one would ever do that... but it COULD be possible for a secondary 'range extender' universal style option if someone mandated a universal standard for that sort of thing.



Hmmm, maybe we should use a standardized chemical that stores a lot of energy, and one that can be transferred easily with a hose. A chemical that's lighter and carries more energy than the rest of the battery pack. Different "grades" can be made, like 87, 91, and 93 for example, depending on the specific chemical reaction their cars are designed for.

And maybe in the future, we can think of other chemicals, like Hydrogen, that might work out cleaner than that other chemical.



Andy Shiekh said:


> They gave money for a solution that is utterly trivial?



"Trivial" ?? The battery pack literally weighs a ton and costs over $10,000. The battery pack is not only the most expensive piece of equipment in an electric car, it is *also* the heaviest. In the case of Tesla (the car company I talked about before), the battery pack is *literally wielded to the floor*.

You can't move that thing, not by the current design. Its wielded there as a safety issue (low center of gravity to prevent the car from tipping over).

Not only that, the battery pack is highly explosive (




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/ppqqwg
). The battery packs need heavy shields to make sure that rocks and/or dirt that kick up under it won't light the whole thing on fire. Even then, those shields can be penetrated at high speeds if you jump the curb like this video demonstrates.

I'm not seeing exactly how a battery swap is feasible, not by any current EV's design. Especially when you consider the low-center of gravity people want to have (so you want to place those packs under the floor), but still have safety issues (you don't want the car to bottom out and light on fire as it strikes something, like that video from r/IdiotsInCars).

So you have a 1-ton, $10,000+ object that's explosive and requires shielding that you want to swap around with strangers. Along with all the other car things to figure out (center of gravity, suspension, balance, weight, etc. etc.). Cool. Good luck figuring out the tools and equipment to actually accomplish that task.

To be fair, I don't lift engines, but moving car-parts that weigh 1-ton around just won't happen in 5 minutes, or 30-minutes if you take the precautions necessary. No mechanic will do an engine lift job in 30 minutes, and engines are lighter than these battery packs. Its pretty dangerous, not only to the person but also to the car to move such weights around.

Battery swap is one of those things where it sounds like it might work. But the minute you think about the mechanics of the swap (cost, economics, tool design, safety, etc. etc.) it makes no sense at all.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 22, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> I would absolutely support the research on hydro cars.  No questions.  I have been seeing stuff about them since the early 2000s.



please see my new thread here:  hydrogen is dead on arrival now, so is traditional EV, and so is hyperloop.









						The future isn't EV cars, hydrogen, or even hyperloop. I was wrong. The future is Aptera Solar Powered Cars.
					

Honestly, for 25 grand, I am considering saving up and buying this. No fuel cost for my commute = amazing, and on days when the sun doesn't shine enough, I can plug it in and charge it overnight I guess. If I get the 400 mile range though for only 29 grand...  (1000 mile range is only 45...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## AusWolf (Nov 22, 2021)

If one thinks that governments give a damn about public health, climate change, or any other high-swung topic, one's badly mistaken. They only care about money. They will support the technology that is adopted by the wealthiest companies. Tesla is full of cash (where from, I don't know) that they're happy to dump on developing the charging infrastructure for their dirty lithium cars. Climate change is only a scapegoat to sell all this crap to the masses.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Nov 22, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> it makes no sense at all.



Voice of sanity here. The problem really are the batteries. Worst tech we currently have around.

Basically EV fits for people for occasional need. Like short trips to store or job. To be fair most of those people should be spanked, taxed why you don't use a bicycle for those tasks. Yes the social status and habits, culture come in to place what environmental issues. The fact that working out could improve health also does not count.

For professional use ie job... EV does not work for most due to long charging time and short range, forcing faster charging will reduce total charge cycles, there is no workaround for that. Elon does not openly say that and promising more supercharge speeds, but basic physics are even for any lithium cell, and he is interested on selling more. With faster charging you are reducing even more the life span of the EV. Most of the the things he does is questionable really.

Logistics around servicing batteries is hard, battery swapping idea is surreal, actually due to safety they will be even more rugged hard to take out with future gens. I saw some videos where some cuckoos fixed batteries with simply cutting out the shorted cell. I took a breath on seeing how wrong it was and how dangerous it was.










The conclusion is, that  the average car service doing cars have no clue what they are doing really. This dude showed his special few penny equipment, that consists from popular aliexpress modules. He does show a 18650 cell instead of 21700 as another token of great presentation and does not care explaining how different they are even having similar form. He carries open unprotected blocks on the table. If something falls, like screwdriver, screw, the block itself etc on the group, it may bend it will flash and explode as everything is hot wired there. For an average dude it may look convincing.

They broke cell balancing, the group will have greater asymmetric load, wear and risk of damage, worst case is fire. You cannot put a new cell there also, you have to match them. Some aftermarket smartarses will simply take a apart one cell group for parts and put a used cell there, that would actually be least stupid... but still... They break the water sealing too probably. I would not trust that thing. Newer models are more filled with epoxy sealants, making even harder to take apart.

Practical side of maintaining the batteries at such scale is a costly nightmare and is dangerous. You have to replace the block with a new one. Always. The old one must be utilized into bits for recycling. You have to have a special trained personnel for that. Honestly they need to wear a bomb suit when disassembling some corroded cars, especially if it has had a crash in the past.

Efficient? I cannot see this tech efficient if you look at long term usage, servicing. Also it is not that green also considering how those batteries are produced too.

This what you should do with bad batteries.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 22, 2021)

Ferrum Master said:


> For professional use ie job... EV does not work for most due to long charging time and short range,



hmm?  Aptera only costs $44 grand and has a 1000 mile EV range, and if you don't drive it everyday can be recharged with its solar panels built in to it. or see thread here:









						The future isn't EV cars, hydrogen, or even hyperloop. I was wrong. The future is Aptera Solar Powered Cars.
					

Honestly, for 25 grand, I am considering saving up and buying this. No fuel cost for my commute = amazing, and on days when the sun doesn't shine enough, I can plug it in and charge it overnight I guess. If I get the 400 mile range though for only 29 grand...  (1000 mile range is only 45...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Ferrum Master (Nov 22, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> hmm?  Aptera only costs $44 grand and has a 1000 mile EV range, and if you don't drive it everyday can be recharged with its solar panels built in to it. or see thread here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Use taxi, ends up cheaper for most companies needing to carry only people...

There are no place for tools, goods etc needs to do your daily job. Nor kids and your wife. Office plankton can use commutes and bicycles, don't overcomplicate things. This thing doesn't disregard any of concerns EV has, it still resides batteries.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 22, 2021)

Ferrum Master said:


> Use taxi, ends up cheaper for most companies needing to carry only people...
> 
> There are no place for tools, goods etc needs to do your daily job. Nor kids and your wife. Office plankton can use commutes and bicycles, don't overcomplicate things. This thing doesn't disregard any of concerns EV has, it still resides batteries.



I disagree with all of this. Also, you can sleep in this, it has a tent upgrade kit for $600 addon, can travel the country and charge your car 40 miles a day solar when not plugged can, can sleep a 6ft large man and a large dog, and has room for storage on top of that... so yes I disagree completely with all of that.

I commute 50 mins to work each day... this is very ideal for me... will save me a ton on gas, and unlike a traditional EV, I won't be at the mercy of local utilities companies some of whom have been janking around EV customers.

This is freedom.


----------



## AusWolf (Nov 22, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> hmm?  Aptera only costs $44 grand and has a 1000 mile EV range, and if you don't drive it everyday can be recharged with its solar panels built in to it. or see thread here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why does it look like a Tesla inside? That is, an iPad glued to a kitchen counter?  Also, why do electric cars have to be ugly?


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 22, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> why do electric cars have to be ugly?



aerodynamics. that's why this has a 1000 mile EV range, its ugly, but it can go all night long baby cakes ~


----------



## cst1992 (Nov 22, 2021)

The Mirai is not a long-term viable car. On the outside it's as large as a 7-Series BMW but because of the hydrogen tanks, it has internal space comparable to a small compact. The floor is also pretty high, so it's not a very comfortable car to be in.

I'm against hydrogen cars, for the reason Elon Musk is against it: you have to use electricity to generate hydrogen that you can then use in your car. Why not store it(the electricity) directly?
And electrolysis to generate hydrogen from water is not an economically viable process. You don't get a lot of hydrogen for the amount of electricity used. Again, just store the electricity.
As for storage, the pressure required is too high to store in tanks, so it has to be stored in a fuel cell - similar to how a sponge holds water. If you were wondering, this is (I think) how the Mirai stores the hydrogen. Problem is, fuel cells have terrible energy density.

Plus, to generate hydrogen without electrolysis is to use methane, which is not an environmentally friendly solution. Methane is a less stable greenhouse gas than CO2(which is very stable), but it is still a problem as it takes decades to decompose in the atmosphere.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 22, 2021)

cst1992 said:


> I'm against hydrogen cars, for the reason Elon Musk is against it: you have to use electricity to generate hydrogen that you can then use in your car. Why not store it(the electricity) directly?


I'm pretty sure the rationale is because fuel cells are more efficient at storing energy than conventional batteries.


----------



## cvaldes (Nov 22, 2021)

We have been through this before. Hydrogen powered automobiles make no sense except in highly limited and specific situations.

The reason why the Toyota Mirai exists is because the Japan government started a program to encourage hydrogen vehicles. That's because Japan imports ALL of its petroleum. It's in their interest to find an alternative (LNG, hydrogen, etc.). The Mirai is marketed in two places: Japan and California.

The biggest issue with hydrogen as a fuel is distribution.

Hydrogen is plausible in Japan because of its extremely high density and massively efficient distribution system. Hydrogen would be more suitable for fleet operations like Takkyubin delivery trucks, taxicabs, government fleets, etc.

Hydrogen makes zero sense for private passenger automobiles.

As we covered earlier, for an electric charging station you did a ditch, drop in a conduit, some conductors, and you're good to go. At home you might want to set up a dedicated 220V circuit in your garage. To set up hydrogen refueling stations you need to real estate for refueling stations, install expensive storage tanks, and move everything around in tanker trucks. You can't refuel your hydrogen vehicle at home.

Here in California the hydrogen refueling stations are infrequent, mostly clustered around major metropolitan areas and are frequently out of fuel. How keen is Joe Consumer to drive 30 miles to refuel their hydrogen vehicle because the one three miles away is out of stock?

If you want to drive from Crescent City (near the Oregon border) to Encino (near the Mexican border) in a hydrogen fuel vehicle, you basically have to carefully plot your itinerary based on hydrogen fueling stations and leave extra in the tank just in case a given refueling station is out of fuel. That means more stops.

Hell, even LNG vehicles did not take off because of fuel availability issues.

And yes, there are various groups working on replacements to the Li-ion battery technology. I understand that manganese-magnesium is one battery technology that looks promising; I'm sure there are others.

It is shortsighted to expect that battery technology will remain static. It hasn't. There's a reason why we don't use NiCad batteries anymore. It's called progress -- something some people on tech forums don't seem to recognize.

My guess is that I will end up reposting this entire reply in another five pages of discussion because the same points will come up again.

We have been through this many times before in this thread.


----------



## defaultluser (Nov 22, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> I'm pretty sure the rationale is because fuel cells are more efficient at storing energy than conventional batteries.





*no, they're not.*

Consumer fuel Cell efficiencies top-out at around 50%,, and in the end of the day, both store the energy into as buffer battery and use that electricity to drive the wheels.

The delivery overhead of the electric network  vastly outpaces the  combined production costs of clean H2  and transportation losses  of H2 over pipelines; *there's also a much higher cost to refurbishing an older H2 vehicle that has reaches end-of-life for the fuel cell (5000h) plus the tanks (Mirai has three of these at 10k each, replaced every 15 years.)*

Even for trains, you're more likely to see segmented portion of tracks to become electrified before we ever see any wide distribution of H2 as a fuel *(and if you can carry enough electric range in-between break in the network, , then what do you need all that Fuel Cell H2 infrastructure  for*?)

They already make hybrid buses with catenarys over the road, and once they can come with enough electric range to bridge those gaps, , then the gas motor goes away.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 22, 2021)

cst1992 said:


> I'm against hydrogen cars, for the reason Elon Musk is against it: you have to use electricity to generate hydrogen that you can then use in your car. Why not store it(the electricity) directly?



By that logic, we should be using flywheels to move cars. Your car wants locomotion. Why not use flywheels to store locomotion and move it around? No one wants electricity when they're in a car, they want to move from pointA to pointB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

See? You can literally store locomotion energy directly. Why bother converting it between forms? /sarcasm

---------

Meanwhile, in the real world, we see that energy storage takes many different forms. Flywheels are high-power and low-energy. Meaning we can probably use flywheels to accelerate / decelerate very quickly and safely, but only for a few seconds. Flywheels "explode" in power, and also "absorb" huge amounts of power in short periods of time. We convert chemical energy into flywheels when using manual car transmissions (aka: RPMs are the flywheel, providing the energy needed to move the car forward as we drop-the-clutch and explode out the gate). So really, flywheels are a part of typical ICE design energy storage.

Electricity is high-weight (Li-ion may be the lightest battery today... but they still weigh a lot compared to other storage mechanisms) and medium-low energy. Not as low-energy as a flywheel, but there's a lot of people who want more range than what current EVs offer.

Chemical energy, be it methane, hydrogen, or gasoline, is in fact the best. High-power, high-energy, very simple machines sourced from cheap iron/steel rather than expensive (and environmentally damaging) Lithium or Cobalt and copper (copper isn't environmentally damaging, but its still a *lot* more expensive than steel). Li-ion simply has too much weight, too much environmental costs, too little energy density.


----------



## defaultluser (Nov 22, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Chemical energy, be it methane, hydrogen, or gasoline, is in fact the best. High-power, high-energy, very simple machines sourced from cheap iron/steel rather than expensive (and environmentally damaging) Lithium or Cobalt and copper (copper isn't environmentally damaging, but its still a *lot* more expensive than steel). Li-ion simply has too much weight, too much environmental costs, too little energy density.


*
Not in H2 form.* *The density is so low for compressed H2, the curb weight of a Mirai and a Tesla Model 3 is almost identical.*

They can't put out nearly the same amount of peak energy of BEVs running that Fuel Cell stack (fine for a commuter car,, but terrible for larger vehicles that have to climb hills)

Toyota Mirai's Fuel Cell tops-out at *172 hp delivery.*


----------



## Shrek (Nov 22, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> I'm pretty sure the rationale is because fuel cells are more efficient at storing energy than conventional batteries.



Don't think fuel cells are storage devices.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 22, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> *Not in H2 form.* *The density is so low for compressed H2, the curb weight of a Mirai and a Tesla Model 3 is almost identical.*


H2 is extremely light. Its so light that you can build airships that literally float on air with it.

H2 takes up a lot of *volume*, which is actually the problem. You must compress H2 down to a respectable size. Compression requires strong and thick steel, and that weighs the whole device down in general. But that's all you need: "just" steel to hold H2 in a compressed form factor. Transferring H2 into or out of the canister can be done safely, cheaply, effectively. No need for expensive or environmentally unfriendly Lithium or Cobalt either: simple steel gets the job done.

I'd rather us build a million vehicles out of steel, than a million vehicles out of Lithium and Cobalt. Its clear which of the materials is the more environmentally friendly design. We don't in fact need to strip mind the earth with sulfuric acid to pull iron out of the ground.



> They can't put out nearly the same amount of peak energy of BEVs running that Fuel Cell stack (fine for a commuter car,, but terrible for larger vehicles that have to climb hills)
> 
> Toyota Mirai's Fuel Cell tops-out at *172 hp delivery.*



I'm being a bit pedantic but... Horsepower is a unit of power, not energy. In any case, Toyota always makes weak and feeble cars.









						BMW Will Give Hydrogen Another Go With 374-Horsepower Fuel Cell Crossover
					

The Bavarians are set to make their most serious foray into hydrogen power yet, but will the market bite?




					www.thedrive.com
				




374 HP Hydrogen engine incoming from BMW. Power isn't an issue at all.


----------



## GhostRyder (Nov 22, 2021)

I think alot of the arguments that go into the different fuel sources is what trade offs do each get.  Hydrogen has been one I followed with great interest mostly because it seems to solve alot of problems while being cleaner.  However as many people have already pointed out in this thread, the storage of Hydrogen still presents an issue whether it be for filling up the vehicle, or the storage inside the vehicle.  Because of the pressures, its a question of in a serious accident what happens if the tank ruptures.  Gas tanks and Batteries can explode/catch fire in a wreck as well but with Hydrogen under so much pressure it becomes more of a safety concern.  

Think about propane for instance, we have already had propane/gas hybrid vehicles and propane powered small vehicles like forklifts.  However even the road going vehicles (At least around me) are limited in where they travel and at what speed (Plus they normally are in trucks that have the tanks at the front of the bed and are smaller than the truck to avoid severe issues).

So I think they are going to need to find a cost effective solution to where they can make them safe and powerful before we can even think about the infrastructure problem next.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 22, 2021)

cvaldes said:


> As we covered earlier, for an electric charging station you did a ditch, drop in a conduit, some conductors, and you're good to go



A Tesla Supercharger pushes 150 kW of power per car. An 8-bay Supercharger uses more power than 1000 typical US Homes. That's a lot of copper and infrastructure, and load on the grid.

In contrast: a typical gas station is a steel container embedded into concrete. A truck comes by every now and then and drops off the fuel. Once again: we're using concrete and steel (very very cheap materials) for construction. Hydrogen changes the fuel but not the nature. We know how to store gas inside of steel containers embedded into the ground. Its not very difficult.

In contrast: copper is very expensive. SiC MOSFETs are *very very* expensive and we're currently in a shortage of them. Routing 1.2 Megawatts of power per charging station requires tons of SiC MOSFETs, Copper, safety, and probably requires special electrical lines. This stuff won't work on 240V lines.



cvaldes said:


> At home you might want to set up a dedicated 220V circuit in your garage



A L2 charger takes *hours* to fill up a car. 220V are fine for home-uses where you charge overnight. But 220V is *NOT* a solution to any form of public charging. Its just too slow. Faster L3 chargers are extremely expensive to maintain and operate.


----------



## KLiKzg (Nov 22, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Range is a good point, but electric still wins on efficiency.
> 
> One solution to electric range is a standardized battery that one swaps out at the station.


No. Soon to be revealed cell technologies will make charging more faster & more reliable.

Not to mention what new technologies are planned to be released by 2025 alone. 

Sorry, can't reveal more...just keep a track of what Rimac Technology delivers soon!


----------



## Shrek (Nov 22, 2021)

Yes, the electric grid will need supplementing, but I don't see how this is an issue.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 22, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Yes, the electric grid will need supplementing, but I don't see how this is an issue.



Will $100 million of electric charging stations be more useful to society? Or will $100 million of H2 stations be more useful?

H2 stations will fill up / deliver more hydrogen to more cars in a shorter period of time, with probably far lower costs per H2 station.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 22, 2021)

The stations are only part of the overall cost.


----------



## Operandi (Nov 23, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> When you consider that the battery pack of a Tesla costs well over $10,000 (https://www.thedrive.com/tech/38915/it-costs-nearly-16000-to-replace-a-tesla-model-3-battery-pack), it makes sense that battery swaps don't work.
> 
> Battery swaps *might* work if you own a fleet. Like rental cars for example, swapping batteries among your own cars is maybe a decent idea. Except at the $16,000+ price point to replace batteries (they're literally the most expensive part of an electric car), it makes more sense to *just buy spare cars* rather than spare batteries.


A new Model S battery is $12,000+ from Tesla but thats today's prices, as battery tech scales and improves its only going to get cheaper, most likely significantly so.  If you compare the cost of replacement V8 or twin turbo V6 from similarly priced high performance ICE vehicle you are probably well over $8,000 and thats never going to get any cheaper.



dragontamer5788 said:


> The battery pack literally weighs a ton and costs over $10,000. The battery pack is not only the most expensive piece of equipment in an electric car, it is *also* the heaviest. In the case of Tesla (the car company I talked about before), the battery pack is *literally wielded to the floor*.
> 
> You can't move that thing, not by the current design. Its wielded there as a safety issue (low center of gravity to prevent the car from tipping over).
> 
> ...


The battery is not welded to the floor, its removable and serviceable.

The battery is in the floor because thats the most logical place to put it in the absence of a driveshaft and exhaust systems.  The battery pack is also used as a structural member of the vehicle (in the smart designs anyway) since its mass necessitates a large and heavy frame.  Putting the battery in at the lowest point possible does have performance advantages but it has nothing to do with preventing the car from "tipping over".

Lithium-ion is volatile but the battery is very heavily protected.  Can it be comprised?, sure people's ability to do stupid shit has no bounds particularly in a car that can run sub 11s, so yeah if your an idiot the consequences can be very bad but you have do a lot of damage to vehicle to get to the battery, its not "highly explosive" or at least no more than a GT3 and tank full of 93.

The feasibility of battery swapping is pretty much a moot point, nobody is asking for it.  Mid-range EVs today get 15-250 miles; thats more than enough for your average commute, if you drive more than that daily I feel bad for you but there are EVs that go 300, nobody is commuting daily 300 miles.  For anything thats going to exceed 300+ super charging works if you don't run the battery down to sub 10% and take the battery to 50-80%, so you might be stopping twice to keep the battery in the sweet spot and it might add and hour to your road trip, but is that the end of the world?



dragontamer5788 said:


> Chemical energy, be it methane, hydrogen, or gasoline, is in fact the best. High-power, high-energy, very simple machines sourced from cheap iron/steel rather than expensive (and environmentally damaging) Lithium or Cobalt and copper (copper isn't environmentally damaging, but its still a *lot* more expensive than steel). Li-ion simply has too much weight, too much environmental costs, too little energy density.


Its the best in density but thats it; in terms of powering a drivetrain with they are the worst in terms of performance, efficiency, and reliability by far.  And its at the end of line technologically really for ICE, the engines are insanely complex compared to EVs, with orders of magnitude more moving parts, its not even close.  ICE engines have had a 100+ years of countless man hours worth of engineering to get them to the point they are at, we're just at the start of modern battery tech and EV design comparatively.  Any progress from here is going to be marginal at best for ICE and complexity and cost has been scaling inversely for a long time now.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 23, 2021)

Operandi said:


> A new Model S battery is $12,000+ from Tesla but thats today's prices, as battery tech scales and improves its only going to get cheaper, most likely significantly so.



I'll believe it when I see it. Prices are going in the opposite direction: the base model Y now costs $58,900 for example.







Prices have been going *up*. Not just a little bit, but by a lot. These big battery packs need those SiC MOSFETs, you know, those "semiconductors" that are currently in shortage everywhere around the world.

Battery / electric powers won't route themselves. You need a semiconductor to move energy around. The Li-Ion savings of the past few years have been wiped away by increasing silicon costs. Our iron / steel supply  chains are simply more reliable than our high-tech / chip making supply chains.



> Lithium-ion is volatile but the battery is very heavily protected. Can it be comprised?, sure people's ability to do stupid shit has no bounds particularly in a car that can run sub 11s, so yeah if your an idiot the consequences can be very bad but. You have do a lot of damage to vehicle to get to the battery, its not "highly explosive" or at least no more than a GT3 and tank full of 93.



Watch the video again.


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/ppqqwg

I haven't seen a car this explosive since the Ford Pinto. That Model X exploded and caught on fire before the thing even stopped moving (!!!). This is the kind of unrealistic explosion you'll find in Michael Bay movies, the kind where they plant bombs inside of cars so that they get a more exciting film. Cars don't normally explode like that when they hop a curb.

Even better that this thing is in clear color video. You can see the signature red-lithium flames (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_test) of elemental Lithium in that explosion. Gasoline doesn't have that kind of color (you can see the typical "yellow gasoline" fire start up when the gas pump erupts after the Lithium car makes contact with it).



> Its the best in density but thats it; in terms of powering a drivetrain with they are the worst in terms of performance, efficiency, and reliability by far.



Tesla is ranked 2nd worst in the market for reliability this year by Consumer Reports.

I'm not convinced that electric is any more reliable than a hunk of iron and steel. Not only that, but the Li-Ion battery packs in general have had large issues across the board.









						GM Announces Fix for Chevrolet Bolt EVs to Address Fire Risk - Consumer Reports
					

General Motors issued a second recall on 2017-2019 Chevrolet Bolt electric cars, after cases in which EVs with the previous software update fix caught fire. Consumer Reports has the details.




					www.consumerreports.org
				












						Hyundai will replace Kona Electric battery packs, in most expensive EV recall ever
					

Hyundai Motor America confirmed U.S. versions of the Kona Electric are included in sweeping global recall.




					www.greencarreports.com
				




Even at the phone-level making tiny batteries, we have had some fire issues in the past couple of years.









						Samsung confirms battery faults as cause of Note 7 fires
					

The firm says neither software nor hardware, other than the batteries, were at fault in Note 7.



					www.bbc.com
				




At some point, it becomes evident that the entire Li-Ion battery marketplace is less reliable than people think. It doesn't matter if you're Tesla, Chevy, Hyundai, or Samsung, the chemistry seems prone to these fires and explosions.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 23, 2021)

I am told that when these batteries need replacing it is not so much due to reduced capacity as built-up internal resistance that makes high power no longer practical; as a result they may find use in homes to backup solar power where power demands are reduced.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 23, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I am told that when these batteries need replacing it is not so much due to reduced capacity as built-up internal resistance that makes high power no longer practical; as a result they may find use in homes to backup solar power where power demands are reduced.



Meanwhile in the real world...









						Almost 15% range loss Model 3 Awd
					

Hi, I have read about people losing range over time in their model 3s. In most cases its about 10-20 miles. For me the story is a bit different, right now at 100% charge I get about 267 miles. That's over 40 miles that I have lost. It has been happening slowly over time, I have had the car for...




					teslamotorsclub.com
				






> Hi, I have read about people losing range over time in their model 3s. In most cases its about 10-20 miles. For me the story is a bit different, right now at 100% charge I get about 267 miles. That's over 40 miles that I have lost. It has been happening slowly over time, I have had the car for about 6 months, and almost every week the range reading at 90% dropps with 1 or 2 miles. So it seems that it is steadly going down, but sadly it doesn't stop. I have contacted Tesla and been to the Sc several times and they keep telling me every single time that it's because of driving style and that the range reading adapts to my driving, this is not true as you probably know.
> 
> I have tried several times 100%-0%-100%, nothing helps. Tesla did actually do a diagnostics but found nothing, and they do not wanna help me anymore because they don't see this as a problem. Anyone experience THIS much range loss?
> 
> I have a LR AWD





Operandi said:


> A new Model S battery is $12,000+ from Tesla but thats today's prices











						Service says $22k for new battery on 2012 Model S
					

I got my Model S VIN 1751 off the line back in 2012 and have had it ever since. On Feb 14th during the day, I pulled it out of the garage with 114 miles showing on the battery. I woke up in the morning with some battery low errors. When I got into the car, it told me that the car wouldn't drive...




					teslamotorsclub.com
				




And by $12,000, you mean $22,000, right?



> Feb 24, 2021
> I got my Model S VIN 1751 off the line back in 2012 and have had it ever since. On Feb 14th during the day, I pulled it out of the garage with 114 miles showing on the battery. I woke up in the morning with some battery low errors. When I got into the car, it told me that the car wouldn't drive because it needed service, the 12V battery was low voltage and the HV battery was at 0 miles. After calling Tesla Roadside Assistance, they connected to the car and said that it had to be towed to a service center. I was able to get it towed to the closes Tesla service center and now they the tell me my warranty for the drivetrain expired on 1/9/21 (one month earlier) and the HV battery has to be replace for $22k. If my battery was 8 years old, I would be ok with that. I assumed a level of risk having a car for this long and I expected that the battery would go bad at some point. It's just a shame that it died a month after the warranty expired. The kicker for me is that I had a faulty backflow prevention valve in my HV battery 1.5 years ago and had the battery replaced under warranty. Now service is telling me that if I buy a new battery for $22k I get a 4 year/50k mile warranty on the new battery, but the battery they replaced 1.5 years ago only had a one year warranty for parts. I feel I had to somewhat document this to people as I am one of the first roughly 2k-2.5k cars that are out of warranty at this point and I seem to be one of the first to at least document out of warranty replacement options on this site (at least as my search abilities go). So be careful when that warranty expires. You are on your own. Tesla isn't budging on helping my 1.5 year old bad battery and now essentially bricked car. From what I can tell, the car is worth somewhere between $18k-25k working. I'm not sure yet if I'm going forward with the battery replacement to sell it or not.



Like, people actually post these stories on forums across the internet these days. It seems like the going price of battery replacement on Model S is $22,000, at least in Feb, 2021 (just 9 months ago, so probably still accurate to today's prices). This is an especially bad story because this is the 3rd battery pack of this particular poster... his battery is only 1.5 years old and suddenly came across an issue.

With regards to price: these battery packs aren't made out of pure elemental lithium + cobalt. They're also made with legions of SiC MOSFETs and other computer chips. We're in the middle of a computer-chip supply crisis right now, prices are going to go up. Its optimistic folly to think that these price issues would be solved this year.


----------



## Operandi (Nov 23, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> I'll believe it when I see it. Prices are going in the opposite direction: the base model Y now costs $58,900 for example.


Thats compared to Model S prices that were all north of $100,000 not that long ago.  Teslas aren't the cheapest but Model 3s look like they are in the mid/low 40s before rebates, and the average new car is $45,000 so.  The VW ID.4 is a bit cheaper than the Model 3, the Mustang Mach E is around the same price and the F150 Lighting is supposed to be at parity with the ICE counterpart.


dragontamer5788 said:


> I haven't seen a car this explosive since the Ford Pinto. That Model X exploded and caught on fire before the thing even stopped moving (!!!). This is the kind of unrealistic explosion you'll find in Michael Bay movies, the kind where they plant bombs inside of cars so that they get a more exciting film. Cars don't normally explode like that when they hop a curb.
> 
> Even better that this thing is in clear color video. You can see the signature red-lithium flames (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_test) of elemental Lithium in that explosion. Gasoline doesn't have that kind of color (you can see the typical "yellow gasoline" fire start up when the gas pump erupts after the Lithium car makes contact with it).


Yeah sensational video.... what about it?

The car looks intact to me, hopefully the driver was ok but people do dumb things in cars.  Statistically Teslas are safe cars but don't drive it at high speeds into a gas station.


dragontamer5788 said:


> Tesla is ranked 2nd worst in the market for reliability this year by Consumer Reports.
> 
> I'm not convinced that electric is any more reliable than a hunk of iron and steel. Not only that, but the Li-Ion battery packs in general have had large issues across the board.


For fit and finish and build quality reasons, not so much for reliability as far as I know.  They are a new company going through explosive growth all the problems associated with that.


dragontamer5788 said:


> https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/service-says-22k-for-new-battery-on-2012-model-s.221438/
> And by $12,000, you mean $22,000, right?


Sue from Tesla.  I'm sure there are examples of Telsa batteries failing right out of warranty and that would suck but I don't think thats the typical experience, these things are new, they are expected to last ~100,000 miles.  They will get cheaper, third party shops will drive the price lower, scale will increase, and cell technology will improve all driving the price down.


dragontamer5788 said:


> Look, these battery packs aren't made out of pure elemental lithium + cobalt. They're also made with legions of SiC MOSFETs and other computer chips. We're in the middle of a computer-chip supply crisis right now, prices are going to go up.


They do use semiconductors but the chip shortage affecting the automotive industry is actually affecting the legacy manufactures more than Tesla due to the legacy manufactures put controller dozens of controler modules all over the vehicle whereas Tesla tends consolidate functionality into fewer modules and rely on the same compute power that drives the infotainment, and navigation systems.  There isn't really a lot of semiconductors in the battery, a EV isn't really any better or worse than a ICE vehicle in that regard.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 23, 2021)

Operandi said:


> There isn't really a lot of semiconductors in the battery



SiC MOSFETs are a semiconductor, and that specific part is *currently in a shortage*.









						Chip shortage prompts EV makers to shore up SiC supply | Argus Media
					

Automotive manufacturers are engaging with silicon carbide (SiC) power device suppliers to secure deliveries as they look to avoid a supply crunch similar to the ongoing global semiconductor shortage.




					www.argusmedia.com
				






Operandi said:


> Thats compared to Model S prices that were all north of $100,000 not that long ago. Teslas aren't the cheapest but Model 3s look like they are in the mid/low 40s before rebates, and the average new car is $45,000 so. The VW ID.4 is a bit cheaper than the Model 3, the Mustang Mach E is around the same price and the F150 Lighting is supposed to be at parity with the ICE counterpart.





> On October 15, 2020, the U.S. _price_ of the long-range version was lowered to $69,420







Model S prices have skyrocketed +$30,000 this past year.

---------

Prices are not going how you think they're going. Chip shortage is absolutely affecting electric cars. SiC MOSFETs are one issue, the AI / Radar / Camera system is another, giant touch-screen tablets are another. All of these things require semiconductors... and not "cheap" semiconductors either. (SiC MOSFETs were always expensive due to their extremely low "on-resistance" and good speeds. But now with the shortage, their prices continue to rise higher and higher)

Better transistors means less resistive losses, meaning greater efficiency meaning better battery life, battery performance, and range. SiC MOSFETs are key to the quality of a good EV battery system, and the EV makers who avoid this high-quality transistor (for supply reasons) are noticeably compromised.



Operandi said:


> The car looks intact to me, hopefully the driver was ok but people do dumb things in cars. Statistically Teslas are safe cars but don't drive it at high speeds into a gas station.



The gas station wasn't what made it catch on fire.

The car was clearly on fire (with red-lithium flames erupting) from the curb. Gasoline fires are elemental carbon (aka: yellow in color). Red means lithium. Guess what? Nothing in a gas station uses Lithium. *Gas stations erupt into yellow flames*.

I took basic high school chemistry. I know the two fires in that video and their causes and chemical composition from the color alone. Don't you dare pretend that any of the red-flames in that video had anything to do with the gas station. That fire could have occurred anywhere.


----------



## Operandi (Nov 23, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> SiC MOSFETs are a semiconductor, and that specific part is *currently in a shortage*.


Got it, different kind of IC, wasn't aware of that.


dragontamer5788 said:


> Prices are not going how you think they're going. Chip shortage is absolutely affecting electric cars. SiC MOSFETs are one issue, the AI / Radar / Camera system is another, giant touch-screen tablets are another. All of these things require semiconductors.


By in large they are.  2021 global supply constraints compounded by high growth are a factor but the ID.4 and the Mustang Mach E and everything thats going to follow them are offering performance at prices that were possible before.



dragontamer5788 said:


> I took basic high school chemistry. I know the two fires in that video and their causes and chemical composition from the color alone. Don't you dare pretend that any of the red-flames in that video had anything to do with the gas station. That fire could have occurred anywhere.


LOL, good for you.  Its your linked video I'm just commenting on it.  Don't drive your vehicle containing volatile Lithium Ion batteries or gas into unmovable stationary object would be my advice.

Was the driver ok? I mean thats kinda what matters, not what the crash looked like from security camera footage.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 23, 2021)

Operandi said:


> Was the driver ok? I mean thats kinda what matters, not what the crash looked like from security camera footage.



In this case yes. I prefer to post the non-death videos because they are funnier.

When someone dies or is grossly injured, it's not funny. I have a collection of news stories I remember reading however, and IIHS insurance numbers to back up this Li-ion batter explosion point if you want me to keep pushing this point though.

My choice to share funny videos instead of death videos is a personal choice of mine. You can imagine how people die from this kind of consistent explosion: bottoming out from a bad road, or hopping the curb is more common than you might think.

This  crash video is basically perfect for my argument. No deaths so we can feel good about sharing, studying and thinking about it. A clear camera angle and clear color that demonstrates the chemicals at play. And even the precise moment where the car catches on fire (hitting the curb in front)

Other videos have death involved, are blurry dashcams, or no witnesses at all (and just the pics of the day after). Seeing the explosion in realtime with clarity doesn't get any better than that one video I'm sharing


----------



## cvaldes (Nov 23, 2021)

Tech dorkwads have claimed this discussion as their own, concocting incredibly farcical scenarios as justification to promote their own agenda.

I hereby terminate any further participation here.

Enjoy debating nonsensical situations.


----------



## Bomby569 (Nov 24, 2021)

I think the definite push for hydrogen will be plains and ships because i don't see any other way for them to go green, when that is settled cars can capitalize on it


----------



## prtskg (Nov 24, 2021)

Hydrogen is highly explosive in nature. Currently it's used only in things which are built to survive in extreme conditions like submarines, satellites ( things built for use in space), etc. It's not economical to use hydrogen in cars from today's technological point of view while battery operated vehicles can be cheap. So hydrogen has taken a back seat.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 24, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> I think the definite push for hydrogen will be plains and ships because i don't see any other way for them to go green



Synthetic fuel


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 24, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Synthetic fuel



There's like 10+ different competing synthetic fuels though, some of which are Hydrogen based.

That's the thing: I'm not willing to rule out any potential solution yet. If they can prove Hydrogen, then we should use it. If Japan wants to go for it, I think we should be supportive of them. The arguments for Hydrogen as a synthetic fuel (either as syngas, or liquified Hydrogen, or other forms) seem pretty strong to me... from environmental, to logistical, to economical.

In the absolute worst case: it has been shown that Hydrogen (aka: Syngas) can be converted into Methanol, and Methanol can be mixed into classical gasoline safely. So it even provides a path to "greenify" our already existing ICE cars.


----------



## Bomby569 (Nov 24, 2021)

My bet is still in hydrogen, but it's a gamble at this point


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Nov 24, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> My bet is still in hydrogen, but it's a gamble at this point



It'd be great if we could make it work, but like nuclear fusion, it's been stuck at Real Soon Now for quite some time.  I have a little optimism, emphasis on the "little".


----------



## dgianstefani (Nov 24, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> I'll believe it when I see it. Prices are going in the opposite direction: the base model Y now costs $58,900 for example.
> 
> View attachment 226280
> 
> ...


At some point it becomes evident that when you make billions of batteries, some will malfunction.

It's not the iron and steel that malfunctions, it's the associated wear and tear of machinery that has thousands of moving parts, compared to solid state electric motors.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 24, 2021)

Germany's new Chancellor replacing Merkel in early December is all in with hydrogen.  Hmm, interesting.

HIs name is Olaf... I bet he hated when that movie Frozen got super popular 









						Germany's Scholz seals deal to end Merkel era
					

Olaf Scholz will head a three-party coalition with broad plans for transition to a green economy.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## defaultluser (Nov 24, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> There's like 10+ different competing synthetic fuels though, some of which are Hydrogen based.



*There are ten different precise formulations for the gas you put in your car* *that all sell under the same label.*, but modem injectors don't need you to mess around with manual Choke.

*Mass-produced Chemistry has never been an exact science (only "good enough")*

I'm sure that all of these biofuels  (once mass-produced) will target an EXISTING  given chemical mix standard for jet fuel, and all the slight variatioons will all be handled by a new generation of fuel injectors!



dragontamer5788 said:


> That's the thing: I'm not willing to rule out any potential solution yet. If they can prove Hydrogen, then we should use it. If Japan wants to go for it, I think we should be supportive of them. The arguments for Hydrogen as a synthetic fuel (either as syngas, or liquified Hydrogen, or other forms) seem pretty strong to me... from environmental, to logistical, to economical.




Hydrogen will never be anywhere near a mass-produced  plane's fuel tank, as it's stored in the wings (these bulky things will never fit)

Also, the only thing strong enough to store 10k psi liquid hydrogen is fiber-reinforced steel (not lightweight by any stretch, if you look at that beefy Toyota Mirai curb weight)

They will have to convert Hydrogen to  gas here on the ground.


----------



## Bomby569 (Nov 24, 2021)

Hydrogen it's 3 times more energy efficient, so a plan can use 3 times less height for the fuel alone. That can more then compensate any extra security measures needed.
Airbus is already doing in successful test flights








						ZEROe
					

Discover ZEROe, Airbus’ hydrogen-powered concepts that are shaping our future zero-emission commercial aircraft.




					www.airbus.com


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 24, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> Hydrogen will never be anywhere near a mass-produced  plane's fuel tank, as it's stored in the wings (these bulky things will never fit)
> 
> Also, the only thing strong enough to store 10k psi liquid hydrogen is fiber-reinforced steel (not lightweight by any stretch, if you look at that beefy Toyota Mirai curb weight)
> 
> They will have to convert Hydrogen to  gas here on the ground.



Not necessarily gasoline / petrol. Metal Hydrides show promise, in that they can "store" Hydrogen inside of a chemical, which is then released at a later time. NiMH batteries are basically this in fact, but instead of releasing Hydrogen to make electricity, you'd just want to release Hydrogen to burn.

As you can see: the line is incredibly blurry between various energy storage mechanisms. Something like a NiMH battery is a hybrid between hydrogen and electric storage. Its best if we kept our minds open to the many possibilities that are available, especially because all of this stuff we're talking about are basically research projects. One or two of them will randomly have a breakthrough, but no one really knows which technology will get a breakthrough first.

------

There's simplicity though to the 10,000 PSI steel container full of hydrogen though. Its brutally simple in concept. Just compress the H2 to the point where it fits in the size you want. Cryogenics start getting complicated though.


----------



## defaultluser (Nov 26, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> Hydrogen it's 3 times more energy efficient, so a plan can use 3 times less height for the fuel alone. That can more then compensate any extra security measures needed.
> Airbus is already doing in successful test flights
> 
> 
> ...


No it can't - all current aircraft use in-wing tanks, but in order to get that kind of higher energy density requires over 10k psi tanks.

You can't do that with anything small enough to fit inside any aircraft wing!









						This is Why Fuel Tanks are Located in Aircraft Wings | AirplaneAcademy.com
					

Whether you are a seasoned, new, or aspiring pilot, you likely have noticed that aircraft fuel tanks are commonly located in the wings instead of…




					airplaneacademy.com
				




This is just as pointless as the Oil-industry-funded push for Blue Hydroge*n - by the time you work-out all these impossible issues for putting hydrogen on and n plane, you could have figured out how to convert it to jet fuel!*


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 26, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> Hydrogen it's 3 times more energy efficient, so a plan can use 3 times less height for the fuel alone. That can more then compensate any extra security measures needed.
> Airbus is already doing in successful test flights
> 
> 
> ...


Or maybe it's so they can claim tax exemptions from the IRS for capitalization of resources for R&D and any company that's big enough can make marketing look good.


----------



## KLiKzg (Nov 27, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> No it can't - all current aircraft use in-wing tanks, but in order to get that kind of higher energy density requires over 10k psi tanks.
> 
> You can't do that with anything small enough to fit inside any aircraft wing!
> 
> ...


Or maybe, they just experiment with also "flying wing design"? Have you even check the facts, before answering.

Here is a link, for a little tutorial (no Wiki, Airbus site): https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/...eveals-its-blended-wing-aircraft-demonstrator

Also, Netherlands is testing similar design on University called Delft Flying-V.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 27, 2021)

KLiKzg said:


> Or maybe, they just experiment with also "flying wing design"? Have you even check the facts, before answering.
> 
> Here is a link, for a little tutorial (no Wiki, Airbus site): https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/...eveals-its-blended-wing-aircraft-demonstrator
> 
> Also, Netherlands is testing similar design on University called Delft Flying-V.


You see this little tidbit here?


> “Although there is no specific time line for entry-into-service, this technological demonstrator could be instrumental in bringing about change in commercial aircraft architectures for an environmentally sustainable future for the aviation industry.”


If there is no roadmap, it's not in the long term vision for the company. Developing this kind of thing takes a while and saying stuff like this means that it merely an R&D project, which sort of goes into what I was saying earlier.


Aquinus said:


> Or maybe it's so they can claim tax exemptions from the IRS for capitalization of resources for R&D and any company that's big enough can make marketing look good.


----------



## Bomby569 (Nov 27, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> You see this little tidbit here?
> 
> If there is no roadmap, it's not in the long term vision for the company. Developing this kind of thing takes a while and saying stuff like this means that it merely an R&D project, which sort of goes into what I was saying earlier.



"Although there is no specific time line for entry-into-service" is not the same thing as "there is no roadmap".


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 28, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> "Although there is no specific time line for entry-into-service" is not the same thing as "there is no roadmap".


If there is an intent for something to be used or sold, there will be a timeline and a specific roadmap. They might not hit every milestone and the fine print will say that it's subject to change at the sole discretion of the business, but this is something that investors and stakeholders demand when pursuing such an endeavor because they need to see KPIs being hit to know that their money isn't going down the drain. No specific timeline to entry basically means that there is no active effort to make it happen.


----------



## KLiKzg (Nov 28, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> If there is an intent for something to be used or sold, there will be a timeline and a specific roadmap. They might not hit every milestone and the fine print will say that it's subject to change at the sole discretion of the business, but this is something that investors and stakeholders demand when pursuing such an endeavor because they need to see KPIs being hit to know that their money isn't going down the drain. No specific timeline to entry basically means that there is no active effort to make it happen.


That is what they said 10 years ago, for Electric cars.

Look at the momentums going on today.


----------



## Jism (Nov 28, 2021)

Perhaps we need to start accepting, that we're with quite some people on this planet, and this party cant last forever to be honest. At some point resources on planet earth will deplete faster then we can give back, and by the time then we're in quite some shit.


----------



## KLiKzg (Nov 28, 2021)

Jism said:


> Perhaps we need to start accepting, that we're with quite some people on this planet, and this party cant last forever to be honest. At some point resources on planet earth will deplete faster then we can give back, and by the time then we're in quite some shit.


Haven't you heard? We are already using more, then we Earth can repair (give back).

Check here: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48215453


----------



## Bomby569 (Nov 28, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> If there is an intent for something to be used or sold, there will be a timeline and a specific roadmap. They might not hit every milestone and the fine print will say that it's subject to change at the sole discretion of the business, but this is something that investors and stakeholders demand when pursuing such an endeavor because they need to see KPIs being hit to know that their money isn't going down the drain. No specific timeline to entry basically means that there is no active effort to make it happen.



You can have a road map for a project, milestones for a project, etc... without a clear date for "entry in service", because some projects are just that projects, you don't even know most times if they are viable. The only way to put a date for a comercial product in a project like this would be guesstimates. You overcome one hurdle and you don't know how many are in front of it.
KPIs will measure the teams progression not the final product, as there may never be one. It's R&D.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 28, 2021)

KLiKzg said:


> That is what they said 10 years ago, for Electric cars.
> 
> Look at the momentums going on today.


The only reason EV has taken off is because a particular certain company actually delivered, released a product, and demonstrated the ability to fully deliver. If you think companies like Tesla didn't have a plan to build out what they have in the time that they did it, then it sounds like you've never worked in management for a larger company. This stuff just doesn't happen.



Bomby569 said:


> It's R&D.


As I said, there is a reason for that.


Aquinus said:


> Or maybe it's so they can claim tax exemptions from the IRS for capitalization of resources for R&D and any company that's big enough can make marketing look good.


----------



## TheUn4seen (Nov 28, 2021)

Oh come on guys, be realistic. Energy from sunshine or the boom-boom gas? Oil and coal industries invested billions in getting those dead dinosaurs to your cars and dead trees to  your power plants and now you want to deprive investors of getting the fifth mansion and sixth yacht? You monsters. At least give the oil companies time to buy out the whole renewable energy industry (which they are doing at an unprecedented pace, by the way), so they can continue to use their political connections to tax you into servitude. 
Using hydrogen fuel cells needs a lot of R&D, but it'll happen. Look, listen and observe, as my father used to say. You will know this future is coming when the likes of BP will buy every hydrogen supplier on the planet and there will be a huge tax spike for hydrogen production and sales. That's how you know things are coming.


----------



## KLiKzg (Nov 28, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> The only reason EV has taken off is because a particular certain company actually delivered, released a product, and demonstrated the ability to fully deliver. If you think companies like Tesla didn't have a plan to build out what they have in the time that they did it, then it sounds like you've never worked in management for a larger company. This stuff just doesn't happen.


Oh, I do know how it happens. All to well.

But can't talk about it. NDA.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 28, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> The only reason EV has taken off is because a particular certain company actually delivered, released a product, and demonstrated the ability to fully deliver.



And perhaps because every house already has a refill 'pump'


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 28, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> And perhaps because every house already has a refill 'pump'



I don't think 110V is sufficient for anyone.

220v is doable in many, many homes but not universally. 220V level 2 chargers are the minimum home charging system to consider.

110V only does maybe 3 to 5 miles of charge per hour. 220V is a far more usable at about 20 miles of charge per hour.

110V chargers are for hotels at vacation spots to offer on the cheap. Maybe you'll get enough charge in 2 or 3 days of constant charging, and reduce the amount of time you spend at other chargers.


----------



## looniam (Nov 28, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> 220v is doable in many, many homes but not universally.


every house connected by the electric company gets 110v 2 phase power. a dual pole breaker in the service panel provides 220v phase to phase. either there's no breaker or no room in the service panel for a breaker *but it's still there.*


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 28, 2021)

looniam said:


> every house connected by the electric company gets 110v 2 phase power.


For the sake of clarity, this is called 230v split-phase electric service, which is two hots that are 180° out of phase where the difference between the two hots has a RMS voltage of ~230v which is very different than multi-phase service at 208v+ which is RMS voltage relative to neutral, not between the hots. This is more than 115v alone can provide, but it's not the same as having two phases with a common neutral at ~230v which has far more carrying capacity.

The main differences is that split-phase still only uses two conductors like regular 115v service and doesn't use a common neutral.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 29, 2021)

I wonder if the option to use more than one 110V circuit in a house will one day be practical.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 29, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I wonder if the option to use more than one 110V circuit in a house will one day be practical.


It is, that's what @looniam was talking about, split phase electrical service. It's two 115v circuits that are out of phase.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 29, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> It is, that's what @looniam was talking about, split phase electrical service. It's two 115v circuits that are out of phase.



That's not quite what I had in mind; that is 220V that is available in most US houses.

What I was thinking is to plug the charger into TWO 110V sockets that are on differing circuits; it would be a stop gap measure before one had 220V extended to the garage.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 29, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> That's not quite what I had in mind; that is 220V that is available in most US houses.
> 
> What I was thinking is to plug the charger into TWO 110V sockets that are on differing circuits; it would be a stop gap measure before one had 220V extended to the garage.


I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at. Two 115v circuits with a shared neutral compared to split-phase service would provide the same amount of carrying capacity, except you're using an additional conductor to do it. In fact, the lower effective voltage might make it worse.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 29, 2021)

True, but it would require no extra wiring (I did write 'it would be a stop gap measure before one had 220V extended to the garage')


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 29, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> True, but it would require no extra wiring (I did write 'a stop gap measure before one had 220V extended to the garage')


Two circuits requires twice the number of conductors. Using split phase over 115v would give you more capacity with the same conductors.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 29, 2021)

Third time now:
'it would be a stop gap measure before one had 220V extended to the garage'

the wiring is already present


----------



## Deleted member 202104 (Nov 29, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Third time now:
> 'it would be a stop gap measure before one had 220V extended to the garage'
> 
> the wiring is already present



In this case you're expecting two separate circuits that would have been physically installed close to each other.  I can't think of many times where I've seen that happen.

As a side note, I've been charging a plugin hybrid off of 120v for almost 4 years.  Small battery capacity that takes about 5 hours to add ~6.5 kWh

I recently had a 40 amp 240v circuit and charger installed for a second plugin hybrid that needs about 15 kWh to charge.  About 2.5 hours.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 29, 2021)

True, although I have more than one circuit in the kitchen, and I was just playing with thoughts.

My thinking is

I get an electric car
Rewiring waits till I have enough money
How much did the 240V installation cost?

For a hybrid I would probably live with 110V


----------



## Deleted member 202104 (Nov 29, 2021)

I have a friend who does Solar installs that did it for me.  The largest cost was the wire.  Roughly $4-5/ft.  The breaker was around $30.  Another $40 for wiring box and  receptacle. The other big hit was the charger itself at $600.

It's why I held off for so long to install.  I could have made 120v work for the second car (about 12-13 hours), but there's only one circuit available close enough, so I couldn't charge both cars at once.


----------



## looniam (Nov 29, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> For the sake of clarity, this is called 230v split-phase electric service, which is two hots that are 180° out of phase where the difference between the two hots has a RMS voltage of ~230v which is very different than multi-phase service at 208v+ which is RMS voltage relative to neutral, not between the hots. This is more than 115v alone can provide, but it's not the same as having two phases with a common neutral at ~230v which has far more carrying capacity.
> 
> The main differences is that split-phase still only uses two conductors like regular 115v service and doesn't use a common neutral.


yeah it could make a difference for certain application when sinewave gets picky, but for charging a car, i didn't think it mattered. esp. in the manner it was addressed; service to residences.

but thanks for the clarification.


----------



## KLiKzg (Nov 29, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I wonder if the option to use more than one 110V circuit in a house will one day be practical.


You get a solar / wind generator & power up your grid...but make those batteries hold 400V or 800V in series. & then all you need is DC-DC converter for direct filling up of an electric vehicle.   

Unless you want to move to Europe, where we do have one phase ~230V or triple-phase ~380V.


----------



## defaultluser (Nov 29, 2021)

KLiKzg said:


> That is what they said 10 years ago, for Electric cars.
> 
> Look at the momentums going on today.




The transition to electric cars didn't happen overnight -  the seeds were started around 2005  by early Lion hopefuls.

back in  2010 , the Nissan Leaf was the fist serious contender to ignite the market ...and it still took 5 yeas to top 50k cars /year.
The Bolt and  Model 3 had a ready-made market for a third generation blitz

*There have been Flying Wing Passenger Airplane pitches about every decade from one of the major aircraft makers (it never gathered steam).*

The problem isn't the technology (already proven in the NASA Boeing tests) , but having to redesign  the entire airport departure area (and the passenger's to accept the concept of *windowless "cattle cars for humans"* *in the year 2021*,) makes this an impossible sell anytime soon! There's also concernes with being able to effectively load the Cargo version (many runways need improvements to access the strange layout)









						Don't look for commercial BWB airplane any time soon, says Boeing's future airplanes head - Leeham News and Analysis
					

April 3, 2018, © Leeham News: New airplanes for the foreseeable future are unlikely to look radically different than the tube-and-wing configuration that’s been around since the dawn of manned flight. Yes, there are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)... Read More




					leehamnews.com
				




By the time all these other issues are sorted, the jet fuel will have already transitioned  to carbon-neutral decades prior* (so why do we need hydrogen on aircraft?)

Blended-wing aircraft will happen when they happen (eventually), but the transition to electric vehicles was foretold since the Prius.  *Toyota developed nimh car battery market out of existingconsumer products , then enjoying that SMASHING SUCCESS left the market open for others to handle the lion transition.

You can use the consumer market as yoiur ideas for your next large-scale higher-density  battery, There is no such "easy-mode" for commercial flying-wings


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 30, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> *Blended-wing aircraft will happen when they happen (eventually), but the transition to electric vehicles was foretold since the Prius. *Toyota developed nimh car battery market out of existingconsumer products , then enjoying that SMASHING SUCCESS left the market open for others to handle the lion transition.


The Prius is efficient because of the engine, not the hybrid system believe it or not. The hybrid system is to make up for the power loss from running a modified atkinson cycle because partial power of a small engine isn't enough. The gas mileage comes from how the engine has a higher effective expansion ratio versus compression because the intake valve is kept open through part of the compression stroke. This is why the Prius engines can get away with an effective expansion ratio of 14:1 which is higher than most gasoline vehicles which is where the higher thermal efficiency comes from. The prius is not the only vehicle that does this and not all of them have the hybrid system, such as the V6 variants which have enough power in their own right (most of the time,) even with the intake valve timing and duration altered.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Nov 30, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> The Prius is efficient because of the engine, not the hybrid system believe it or not. The hybrid system is to make up for the power loss from running a modified atkinson cycle because partial power of a small engine isn't enough. The gas mileage comes from how the engine has a higher effective expansion ratio versus compression because the intake valve is kept open through part of the compression stroke. This is why the Prius engines can get away with an effective expansion ratio of 14:1 which is higher than most gasoline vehicles which is where the higher thermal efficiency comes from. The prius is not the only vehicle that does this and not all of them have the hybrid system, such as the V6 variants which have enough power in their own right (most of the time,) even with the intake valve timing and duration altered.



It's very much a team effort, and I appreciate the enlightenment on the engine; hadn't known that.  A Prius wouldn't manage its stellar city economy without the hybrid system and the associated regen braking.


----------



## defaultluser (Nov 30, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> The Prius is efficient because of the engine, not the hybrid system believe it or not. The hybrid system is to make up for the power loss from running a modified atkinson cycle because partial power of a small engine isn't enough. The gas mileage comes from how the engine has a higher effective expansion ratio versus compression because the intake valve is kept open through part of the compression stroke. This is why the Prius engines can get away with an effective expansion ratio of 14:1 which is higher than most gasoline vehicles which is where the higher thermal efficiency comes from. The prius is not the only vehicle that does this and not all of them have the hybrid system, such as the V6 variants which have enough power in their own right (most of the time,) even with the intake valve timing and duration altered.


The engine is optimized to be  generator, but that doesn't mean it has to be involved *forever-more*; * the reason we started seeing plug-in hybrids ten years back is because the changing battery chemistry means we can fit enough range for something useful in-town!*

Once the battery-only-range gets far enough (versus fuel + engine), then the engine in your plug-in-hybrid disappears completely; it was only a matter of a decade!


----------



## Shrek (Nov 30, 2021)

The problem for me is still cost

My car cost $14,000 new (23 years back) and has since burned about the same in fuel (after 220,000 mi) so an electric car would not save me money;
also the fact that some of that fuel money stayed invested for some time.

But I still look forward to the day I run an electric vehicle, but that may take another decade.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 30, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> The problem for me is still cost
> 
> My car cost $14,000 new (23 years back) and has since burned about the same in fuel (after 220,000 mi) so an electric car would not save me money;
> also the fact that some of that fuel money stayed invested for some time.
> ...



$7500 tax credit on some PHEVs makes a big difference. (Only those with 40+ miles of charge qualify, but the 20+ mile cars still have a partial tax credit)

The PHEV Honda Clarity would likely be cheaper than my current car for example. Alas, Sedans are dying in this country, and the Clarity has been discontinued. I guess the top PHEV will now be the Rav4 Prime (smaller SUV form factor)

EDIT: Honda Clarity 2021 are still on sale around me. They start at $33,000, so the $7500 tax credit effectively drops the price down to $25,500 base value. Not bad for a 5-door sedan, especially in this market where everything is overpriced. (Yes, this is _today's_ price, though all the inventory is sold out...)


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 1, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> The engine is optimized to be  generator, but that doesn't mean it has to be involved *forever-more*; * the reason we started seeing plug-in hybrids ten years back is because the changing battery chemistry means we can fit enough range for something useful in-town!*
> 
> Once the battery-only-range gets far enough (versus fuel + engine), then the engine in your plug-in-hybrid disappears completely; it was only a matter of a decade!


You're not wrong. Double the range of a typical EV and even here in NH, it could work. A full tank of gas can get my to my parent's house in Maine, 4 hours away. Tesla can do it under ideal circumstances with one of the long range variants without a charge in-between. With my Subaru I can make the entire trip on a single tank easy (at >34 MPG I might add,) and filling the tank takes a couple minutes once the pump is going. If I go to visit them in the winter (which can get very cold up here,) then my range is reduced and there are limited areas in Maine to charge, but it is doable. Once I get to my destination, I probably don't have 230v for charging either, so that's 120v at a snail's pace.

I guess my point is that gasoline is still far more convenient if you're not just focused on driving locally. If you're not going long distances, EVs make a lot of sense, but until the range can match or exceed ICE vehicles, like closer to 400 or 500 miles, the shortcomings of recharge locations and times will continue to be the bane of EVs, at least for the kinds of commutes I've had to deal with traditionally.

With that said, I don't go far distances very often anymore. So it's the exception rather than the rule since I work remote now, but I always consider the furthest I'll need to drive.

All in all, I agree with your assessment, just maybe not the outlook. I don't see the ICE being dead in 10 years in the US, forget developing nations.



dragontamer5788 said:


> EDIT: Honda Clarity 2021 are still on sale around me. They start at $33,000, so the $7500 tax credit effectively drops the price down to $25,500 base value. Not bad for a 5-door sedan, especially in this market where everything is overpriced. (Yes, this is _today's_ price, though all the inventory is sold out...)


When I bought my 2015 Subaru Impreza brand new, the sticker price was 19.5k USD. Base model, sure, but new nonetheless.   
It has 138k miles on it now.



80-watt Hamster said:


> It's very much a team effort, and I appreciate the enlightenment on the engine; hadn't known that.  A Prius wouldn't manage its stellar city economy without the hybrid system and the associated regen braking.


Toyota does crazy things with engines. The D4-S system is another good one (direct injection + port injection.)


----------



## de.das.dude (Dec 1, 2021)

guys do you think that renewable fuels like ethanol are making great strides. a lot of countries are trying to go E85 very soon, and make flex fuel fuel capabilities mandatory in cars.
Is this going to impact hydrogen cars? Because the only adv they had was long range and storage was light. With ethanol becoming acceptable, that takes away its main advantage right?


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 1, 2021)

de.das.dude said:


> guys do you think that renewable fuels like ethanol are making great strides. a lot of countries are trying to go E85 very soon, and make flex fuel fuel capabilities mandatory in cars.
> Is this going to impact hydrogen cars? Because the only adv they had was long range and storage was light. With ethanol becoming acceptable, that takes away its main advantage right?



I dunno how it is in the rest of the world, but despite E85 compatibility from the factory in a lot of American cars it never took off. Yes, it's great for power and track use, but it gets horrible mileage and generally isn't regarded as being any "greener" than gas, especially when you take into account its production.

Basically, if you don't live next to an E85 station that has it for cheap, you're not going to be filling E85. And whether you can find an E85 station is _very_ dependent on where you live.

Not sure whether E85 can survive without government subsidies, let alone become popular enough to be a real alternative to gas.








Aquinus said:


> Toyota does crazy things with engines. The D4-S system is another good one (direct injection + port injection.)



Dual injection like Ford and Toyota is not so much a "feature" as it really is just a band-aid for direct injection, as the port injectors' presence calms most of the fear about buildup on the back of the valves. Or, what DI should have been in the first place, if you like. It doesn't do anything to improve fuel economy on its own (yes I'm aware of all the theoreticals that port injection makes up for the cold startup period of direct injection, etc.).

Atkinson cycle is equally situational (though yes, it works great for the 2ZR in the Prius). 2GR-FKS is a good example where all these bells and whistles have just resulted in an uncompetitive engine that has neither power nor efficiency.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 1, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> It doesn't do anything to improve fuel economy on its own (yes I'm aware of all the theoreticals that port injection makes up for the cold startup period of direct injection, etc.).


The biggest issue with DI is definitely the carbon buildup on the intake valves, but you can mitigate that with a good air-oil separator, however there are a couple other shortcomings of direct injection which does impact emissions and efficiency at the same compression ratio. The main bit in that respect has to do with the amount of time that the fuel has to mix with the air. An issue with DIs under heavy load or high RPM tends to be the production of particulate matter much like diesel engines because there are pockets of fuel that are more rich than the surrounding charge because there isn't enough time for the fuel to mix with the air to have a charge with a relatively consistent AFR. Stratified charge is a good way to run leaner than you would otherwise, but you still have the same emission issues.

Toyota's D4-S system doesn't just use the port injectors for occasionally cleaning the intake valves, they tend to almost always work together except under really high load at high RPMs.


----------



## KLiKzg (Dec 2, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> The Prius is efficient because of the engine, not the hybrid system believe it or not. The hybrid system is to make up for the power loss from running a modified atkinson cycle because partial power of a small engine isn't enough. The gas mileage comes from how the engine has a higher effective expansion ratio versus compression because the intake valve is kept open through part of the compression stroke. This is why the Prius engines can get away with an effective expansion ratio of 14:1 which is higher than most gasoline vehicles which is where the higher thermal efficiency comes from. The prius is not the only vehicle that does this and not all of them have the hybrid system, such as the V6 variants which have enough power in their own right (most of the time,) even with the intake valve timing and duration altered.


Again, totally wrong in so many ways:

It is not atkinson cycle, but Atkinson cycle. Somebody actually wrote many research papers, to have his name correct with big letter.
It is not "effective expansion ratio" of 14:1, but "compression ratio" of 13:1. Engines achieve power of stroke by compressing of air, not by effective expansion.
Point of Atkinson cycle in Toyota engine is that it has "changeable compression" inside that stroke, which give the engine lower air intake in that stroke. Lower air means lower fuel dispensing, which means lower consumption, but also less power on lower throttle setting.
Engine thermal efficiency is up to 40%, which is quite higher then cars used to have in Otto engines which were 30~33% (without any special valve technics).
What V6 engines does is not using thermal efficiency in their work, but getting some cylinder not working at all. So those cylinders can only consume more power by friction. But as it is not so much power & those strokes are not needed (with lower throttle positioning) - only thing being consumed is air without fuel. & that is the purpose of that system, not consuming FUEL. But those system do power down on the unit by not using cylinders, keep one part of the engine colder then the other (which makes other problems after 300k km or miles), they DO NOT alter valve train at all (so compression stroke is slowing engine down) & the engine is not very efficient at all in that more - other then not using fuel.
Many things are simply not true. & you need to be a mechanical engineer to understand those things.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 2, 2021)

Here is what I understand

The original Atkinson proposal had an exhaust stroke longer than the intake

(1) Atkinson Cycle Engine - Bing video

but the modern variations achieve this through a blow-back trick; namely to keep the inlet valve open during the early part of the compression stroke, so reducing its effective 'length'; this avoids the need for a fancy crank (see the above animation).

The whole idea is to take advantage of the larger volume of exhaust gas (it being hotter) and so not waste the final expansion.


----------



## KLiKzg (Dec 3, 2021)

Right, but you should also check out how VVT & i-VVT engine works in Toyota. Except them, Mazda has developed a Atkinson engine also, which works differently than Toyotas.

How Atkinson engine works (by mechanical engineer).

Toyota's Dynamic Force Engine.

Mazda's SPCCI engine (Skyactiv-X).


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 3, 2021)

KLiKzg said:


> Engines achieve power of stroke by compressing of air, not by effective expansion.


You better stick with complaining about me not using a capital letter because your understanding of the thermodynamic cycle in an ICE is fundamentally flawed.



http://web.mit.edu/2.61/www/Lecture notes/Lec. 03 Engine cycle analysis.pdf


KLiKzg said:


> Many things are simply not true. & you need to be a mechanical engineer to understand those things.


There is a lot of irony with you saying this when your own facts are wrong. Toyota's engines let less air into the engine by manipulating the intake valve timing, that effectively reduces the compression ratio but keeps the expansion ratio the same. The reason they need to do this is because you'd have knock or non-ideal ignition timing to compensate for it (if possible given the max temp of the charge in the cylinder.) Toyota is trading max power for efficiency by doing this and the end result is an expansion ratio that's larger than the effective compression ratio. This lets the engine extract more work from combustion for the amount of fuel burnt. Take your own advice, bub.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 3, 2021)

Actually I like Toyota's variation better than Atkinson's original since one could adjust the compression ratio (with variable valve timing) and so the engine could optimize itself for the grade of fuel being used, altitude, etc. Of course one would depend on the knock sensor and if this broke that would be a problem.

We are way off topic, but I actually feel that is appropriate.



KLiKzg said:


> Right, but you should also check out how VVT & i-VVT engine works in Toyota. Except them, Mazda has developed a Atkinson engine also, which works differently than Toyotas.
> 
> How Atkinson engine works (by mechanical engineer).
> 
> ...



How is Mazda's an Atkinson engine?


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Dec 3, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> ... so the engine could optimize itself for the grade of fuel being used, altitude, etc. Of course one would depend on the knock sensor and if this broke that would be a problem.



All* modern engines already do this for ignition timing.  If the ECU gets bad or no signal from the O2s, it'll fall back on a failsafe mapping.  Presumably the same strategy would be used for variable compression.

*Probably not literally "All", but close enough to.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 3, 2021)

What I am worried about is the sensor says (falsely) no knock and so the engine just keeps upping the compression ratio.

The trick of course is for the engine to periodically go to max compression, and if no knock is detected assume a faulty sensor.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 3, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> When I bought my 2015 Subaru Impreza brand new, the sticker price was 19.5k USD. Base model, sure, but new nonetheless.
> It has 138k miles on it now.



Impreza is a compact Sedan though. It seats 5 but your rear passengers will feel bunched up.

Honda Clarity is +4 inches wider and +20 inches longer. Cars of this size normally cost in the $22,000ish range. So $25,000ish for PHEV (After the $7500 credit is factored in) is a bit of a premium, but the gasoline savings will almost certainly win over in the long run.

That's why I liked Honda Clarity PHEV and GM Volt PHEVs. They actually were cost-effective at their jobs.



de.das.dude said:


> guys do you think that renewable fuels like ethanol are making great strides. a lot of countries are trying to go E85 very soon, and make flex fuel fuel capabilities mandatory in cars.
> Is this going to impact hydrogen cars? Because the only adv they had was long range and storage was light. With ethanol becoming acceptable, that takes away its main advantage right?



E85 is too expensive in the USA. I have a flex-fuel vehicle, so I can use both E85 and E15 gasoline. E85 gives me ~220 miles of range, while E15 gives me 330 miles of range.

So I lose well over 30% of my range, meaning E85 needs to be 30% cheaper before I seriously consider it as a daily fuel source. Unfortunately, E85 is maybe 10% cheaper at best than regular gasoline.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 3, 2021)

Actually the big problem is E85 has high octane, but one is not taking advantage of that; so a variable compression Atkinson cycle would be very useful.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 3, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Actually the big problem is E85 has high octane, but one is not taking advantage of that; so a variable compression Atkinson cycle would be very useful.







__





						Gasoline gallon equivalent - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






> 1.5 US gallons (5.7 litres) of ethanol has the same energy content as 1.0 US gal (3.8 l) of gasoline.
> 
> The energy content ethanol is 76,100 BTU/US gal (5.89 kilowatt-hours per litre), compared to 114,100 BTU/US gal (8.83 kWh/l) for gasoline. (see chart above)



This is determined by just burning 1-gallon of gasoline, and comparing the amount of heat-generated compared to 1.5-gallons of Ethanol. It seems like Ethanol simply has less energy density. No engine design can fundamentally alter a fuel's potential energy.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 3, 2021)

It's not just energy content, it's also efficiency; and high compression means higher efficiency.

So I disagree, an efficient engine can use more of the fuels chemical energy; that's how diesels work.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 3, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> It's not just energy content, it's also efficiency; and high compression means higher efficiency.
> 
> So I disagree, an efficient engine can use more of the fuels chemical energy; that's how diesels work.



If you have a 40% efficient miniature E15 / gasoline engine (small enough to fit in a car), and you build a 40% efficient Ethanol / E85 engine (also small enough to fit in a car), then you're basically done.

That's basically my car. I lose damn near 30% of fuel economy on E85 compared to E15. This suggests to me that my engine burns Ethanol about as "efficiently" as it burns gasoline (especially when you consider that E85 is only 85% ethanol, and that E15 fuel is 15% ethanol).

----------

Sure, there are more efficient engine designs. But those are called PHEV engines or Electric cars. It turns out that burning gasoline at a steady RPM at a steady and predictable torque leads to better efficiency. The issue with typical ICE cars is that the engine-designer needs to have a large RPM / torque curve for decent performance. Hybrid engines or PHEVs on the other hand, can turn a generator, and closely tune their engines to be efficient in a narrow and predictable RPM / Torque band.

The thing about the pro-electric guys is that electric engines are far more efficient. So electrifying the engine makes sense from an efficiency perspective (not only for the gasoline efficiency, but also for regenerative braking and other such tricks). But I'm still bearish on Li-ion as a storage mechanism. We definitely want electric engines, but using H2 fuel-cells, or even gasoline generators, to run those electric engines is a surprisingly good strategy.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 3, 2021)

That is my whole point; E85 has high octane so _could_ run at a higher compression ratio.

But yes, I agree, your car is equally efficient on both fuels and that is where the Toyota version of the Atkinson engine could change things.

We are not using E85 as it should be used.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 3, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> But yes, I agree, your car is equally efficient on both fuels and that is where the Toyota version of the Atkinson engine could change things.



The "Better engine" has already been made.

1. Narrow the RPM design of the engine to 2000 RPM or something. (Doesn't matter what specifically, the important thing is to choose a singular RPM instead of trying to optimize over 1000 RPM to 6000 RPM).

2. Design a generator that has a predictable amount of torque to turn.

3. The generator makes electricity, and stores that into a small battery pack.

4. Electric motors use electricity, and dynamically adjust to the car's driving behavior better. (Going up hill, down hill, or even using regenerative braking to turn momentum back into stored energy in the batteries).

-----

Step #1 and #2 can of course be replaced by Fuel Cells (Hydrogen Fuel technology), or Li-ion batteries (EV car technology). And that's really it for the debate. Step #3 and #4 are done and settled, this electric motor + regenerative braking thing is clearly the most efficient strategy moving forward on our current levels of technology.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 3, 2021)

CVT, one can now run over a narrow RPM range; avoids all the electrical losses

But that is separate from the E85 octane issue


----------



## Operandi (Dec 3, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> CVT, one can now run over a narrow RPM range; avoids all the electrical losses
> 
> But that is separate from the E85 octane issue


Car people hate CVTs, because they annoying AF when doing designed what for they are intended for; keeping the engine in the sweet spot RPM band.  That and they still have a fair bit of drivetrain loss compared to a a clutch and manual gear box if I'm not mistaken.  Not all that great of innovation in my opinion...


----------



## Shrek (Dec 3, 2021)

I seem to recall (correct me if I am wrong) that a computer controlled CVT is now more economical than stick-shift


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 3, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I seem to recall (correct me if I am wrong) that a computer controlled CVT is now more economical than stick-shift



They certainly market it to be.

But "no gear box" is even more efficient, which is the promise of PHEV Gasoline / Fuel Cell Hydrogen / Electric Battery -> Electric Motors.

No gearbox means no weight, no transmission losses at all, no nothing. Its simply non-existent. I should note that the Porsche Taycan has a gearbox, but I think that's more of a high-performance trick rather than an efficiency trick.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 3, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> That's basically my car. I lose damn near 30% of fuel economy on E85 compared to E15. This suggests to me that my engine burns Ethanol about as "efficiently" as it burns gasoline (especially when you consider that E85 is only 85% ethanol, and that E15 fuel is 15% ethanol).


E85 doesn't have as high of an energy content as E10 or E15, it's something like 72% of the gasoline equivalent. The nice bit about E85 though is its resistance to knock. You could run an engine with E85 at much higher CRs than an E10/15 can, but if you put it into a car that can run E10/15, you're going to hit what you just described.


dragontamer5788 said:


> Impreza is a compact Sedan though. It seats 5 but your rear passengers will feel bunched up.
> 
> Honda Clarity is +4 inches wider and +20 inches longer. Cars of this size normally cost in the $22,000ish range. So $25,000ish for PHEV (After the $7500 credit is factored in) is a bit of a premium, but the gasoline savings will almost certainly win over in the long run.
> 
> That's why I liked Honda Clarity PHEV and GM Volt PHEVs. They actually were cost-effective at their jobs.


To be completely honest, I wanted a manual transmission and my options in the US for inexpensive new cars that have AWD, a standard transmission, and a hatchback, leaves you with... well, one option. Not to say that it's not a good car, it is, but for what I wanted it was about all I could get. You don't really want to have 3 people in back, it's not meant for that. I was mainly using it as a commuter vehicle as I was the only person in it most of the time.


Operandi said:


> Car people hate CVTs, because they annoying AF when doing designed what for they are intended for; keeping the engine in the sweet spot RPM band.  That and they still have a fair bit of drivetrain loss compared to a a clutch and manual gear box if I'm not mistaken.  Not all that great of innovation in my opinion...


The CVT variant of my Impreza actually gets better gas mileage than my 5MT, far better with the DI variant of the FB20. They're actually very efficient as there are bigger Subarus with a CVT that have better gas mileage than my vehicle, despite weighing more and having bigger engines (2.5 vs. 2.0). Now, I didn't buy a CVT for one main reason, I wanted a standard because I enjoy it.


----------



## KLiKzg (Dec 3, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> You better stick with complaining about me not using a capital letter because your understanding of the thermodynamic cycle in an ICE is fundamentally flawed.
> View attachment 227433
> http://web.mit.edu/2.61/www/Lecture notes/Lec. 03 Engine cycle analysis.pdf
> 
> There is a lot of irony with you saying this when your own facts are wrong. Toyota's engines let less air into the engine by manipulating the intake valve timing, that effectively reduces the compression ratio but keeps the expansion ratio the same. The reason they need to do this is because you'd have knock or non-ideal ignition timing to compensate for it (if possible given the max temp of the charge in the cylinder.) Toyota is trading max power for efficiency by doing this and the end result is an expansion ratio that's larger than the effective compression ratio. This lets the engine extract more work from combustion for the amount of fuel burnt. Take your own advice, bub.


I do hope you are good as a Software Engineer, 'cause you would fail in thermodynamics & be a lousy Mechanical Engineer.  
Suggestion: do not sign for extra online classes...it is not worth it for you. 

But I am stopping this "off topic", before it gets toxic here.



Andy Shiekh said:


> How is Mazda's an Atkinson engine?


Mazda with Skyactive X tries to imitate the diesel-operation in gasoline engine...the result, as it can not achieve the true Diesel cycle is an Atkinson cycle.

But do not listen to me, here are also some experts talking (check the conclusion in the end): https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15339942/mazdas-gasoline-skyactiv-x-spcci-engine-explained/


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 3, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> To be completely honest, I wanted a manual transmission and my options in the US for inexpensive new cars that have AWD, a standard transmission, and a hatchback, leaves you with... well, one option. Not to say that it's not a good car, it is, but for what I wanted it was about all I could get. You don't really want to have 3 people in back, it's not meant for that. I was mainly using it as a commuter vehicle as I was the only person in it most of the time.



I actually had the same list of requirements, except I didn't care about AWD.

I was between Ford Focus, Mazda 3, and Impreza. I went with the standard transmission Focus Hatchback for $20,000 even. I test-drove all three cars and all three seemed solid choices to me.

AWD however shoves you into Impreza-only territory.


----------



## KLiKzg (Dec 3, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> It's not just energy content, it's also efficiency; and high compression means higher efficiency.
> 
> So I disagree, an efficient engine can use more of the fuels chemical energy; that's how diesels work.


Actually No!

Diesel cycle is fairly inferior to Otto cycle, which both are inferior to Atkinson cycle.

People do not believe that, but those are the facts.

& spending fuel doesn't mean any cycle has higher or lower efficiency. It only means it spends more or less fuel. 

Reason? Compression. 



Operandi said:


> Car people hate CVTs, because they annoying AF when doing designed what for they are intended for; keeping the engine in the sweet spot RPM band.  That and they still have a fair bit of drivetrain loss compared to a a clutch and manual gear box if I'm not mistaken.  Not all that great of innovation in my opinion...


It doesn't matter if you like it or not...CVT are the future, as they keep the engine at *sweet spot* & spend less fuel.

Real life tests prove it: https://www.cenex.com/about/cenex-i...al-interest/automatic-vs-manual-transmissions


----------



## Operandi (Dec 3, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> The CVT variant of my Impreza actually gets better gas mileage than my 5MT, far better with the DI variant of the FB20. They're actually very efficient as there are bigger Subarus with a CVT that have better gas mileage than my vehicle, despite weighing more and having bigger engines (2.5 vs. 2.0). Now, I didn't buy a CVT for one main reason, I wanted a standard because I enjoy it.


Yeah, I guess so.  All the Subarus with CVT option get better millage than manuals, the same thing for the Honda Civic and those are the only two I know of that offer both transmission types.


----------



## KLiKzg (Dec 3, 2021)

Operandi said:


> Yeah, I guess so.  All the Subarus with CVT option get better millage than manuals, the same thing for the Honda Civic and those are the only two I know of that offer both transmission types.


Toyota's also...some Mazda's...as well as Honda Jazz & Honda Accord / Acura TSX (if I am not mistaken).

Though those Audi ones are total garbage.


----------



## Operandi (Dec 3, 2021)

KLiKzg said:


> Though those Audi ones are total garbage.


VAG dosn't use any CVTs in any of their vehicles that I know of.  Its all regular torque converter automatics and DSGs, and the DSGs are quite good, my VW uses a 6 speed DSG.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 3, 2021)

Operandi said:


> VAG dosn't use any CVTs in any of their vehicles that I know of.  Its all regular torque converter automatics and DSGs, and the DSGs are quite good, my VW uses a 6 speed DSG.


VAG really likes their DSGs. Nissans are a CVT I'd stay away from though given their track record. I don't particularly like the TR580 CVTs in the Subarus though. I've always felt that they were a bit on the sluggish side. The TR690s are pretty solid though. I actually really like the EZ36 with it, it's really smooth and that 3.6L produces 150HP to the wheels at 2500RPMs. I really enjoyed driving a Legacy with that setup. Unfortunately Subaru killed off the 6 bangers.


KLiKzg said:


> I do hope you are good as a Software Engineer, 'cause you would fail in thermodynamics & be a lousy Mechanical Engineer.


That's not disproving what I said. I cited an MIT lecture slide series. Are you telling me that they're wrong?


----------



## KLiKzg (Dec 3, 2021)

Operandi said:


> VAG dosn't use any CVTs in any of their vehicles that I know of.  Its all regular torque converter automatics and DSGs, and the DSGs are quite good, my VW uses a 6 speed DSG.


Well lets see, they did this commercial for CVT "multitronic" gearboxes in US:









Then there is technical movie about it:









& they killed it, 'cause they did not solve all the issue with cars:
1. https://www.drive.com.au/news/audi-kills-off-multitronic-cvt-automatic-forever/
2. https://www.motor1.com/news/48333/audi-confirms-plans-to-discontinue-the-multitronic-cvt/




Aquinus said:


> VAG really likes their DSGs. Nissans are a CVT I'd stay away from though given their track record. I don't particularly like the TR580 CVTs in the Subarus though. I've always felt that they were a bit on the sluggish side. The TR690s are pretty solid though. I actually really like the EZ36 with it, it's really smooth and that 3.6L produces 150HP to the wheels at 2500RPMs. I really enjoyed driving a Legacy with that setup. Unfortunately Subaru killed off the 6 bangers.
> 
> That's not disproving what I said. I cited an MIT lecture slide series. Are you telling me that they're wrong?


VAG maybe like their DSG, but all of them are shit. Except the only one that works without problems, the PSG! 

& you cited them in a way, that got all the marbles wrong. That is how I new you do not hold the topic in your hands.
I would never be bold about Pyhton or C++, like you are with thermodynamics. Lots of people failed it, when trying only to cite things without any meaning what so ever.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 4, 2021)

this topic derailed worst then a train wreck


----------



## LabRat 891 (Dec 4, 2021)

Reading just the thread title, I have an answer.
Regulations and restrictions on metal hydrides:

I recall several appearingly successful attempts and demonstrations of safe and efficient 'distributed h2 storage' using hydrides. They were unable to make it to market due to 'restrictions on hazardous materials'


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 4, 2021)

LabRat 891 said:


> Reading just the thread title, I have an answer.
> Regulations and restrictions on metal hydrides:
> 
> I recall several appearingly successful attempts and demonstrations of safe and efficient 'distributed h2 storage' using hydrides. They were unable to make it to market due to 'restrictions on hazardous materials'



i just read this week this








						Toyota Refuses To Abandon 25-Year-Old Technology
					

Toyota was the first major automaker to introduce a series production hybrid to its lineup nearly 25 years ago. The first-generation Toyota Prius, though not the most attractive-looking vehicle, was a game-changer on many levels. Interestingly enough, the automaker today is in no rush to change...




					carbuzz.com


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 5, 2021)

KLiKzg said:


> & you cited them in a way, that got all the marbles wrong. That is how I new you do not hold the topic in your hands.
> I would never be bold about Pyhton or C++, like you are with thermodynamics. Lots of people failed it, when trying only to cite things without any meaning what so ever.


You still haven't disproved what I said and I'm still waiting for a rebuttal. Stop trying to bait me and disprove what I said instead of being a prick about it.


----------



## Space Lynx (Dec 8, 2021)

Designers hope hydrogen-powered plane will fly halfway around the world without refueling | Engadget
					

The zero-emission aircraft would supposedly match the speed and comfort of current midsize planes..




					www.engadget.com
				




interesting read here, posted yesterday


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 8, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Designers hope hydrogen-powered plane will fly halfway around the world without refueling | Engadget
> 
> 
> The zero-emission aircraft would supposedly match the speed and comfort of current midsize planes..
> ...



someone already made it fly, there are several build prototypes, someone else is promissing regular fligths in a decade, so having a concept at this stage is being way behind the curve.


----------



## Space Lynx (Dec 8, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> someone already made it fly, there are several build prototypes, someone else is promissing regular fligths in a decade, so having a concept at this stage is being way behind the curve.



are you sure that was a 150+ people passenger airplane that has already done it?


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 8, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> are you sure that was a 150+ people passenger airplane that has already done it?



i actually tought there had been already a test flight for an airbus but someone pointed out to me i was wrong, but there were already several flights with smaller planes. 
Airbus has presented their project for more then a year now i think.
And the german government is backing several hydrogen projects, not necessarily aviation, but if this is to be going forward i think it's essential it's not just aviation so costs can come down


----------



## defaultluser (Dec 8, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> i actually tought there had been already a test flight for an airbus but someone pointed out to me i was wrong, but there were already several flights with smaller planes.
> Airbus has presented their project for more then a year now i think.
> And the german government is backing several hydrogen projects, not necessarily aviation, but if this is to be going forward i think it's essential it's not just aviation so costs can come down




What miracle of Hydrogen Storage is going to be solved by Trains, but will somehow be magically-applicable to planes?

A diesel-electric train is already a giant Gas Tank (easily converted to H2), but planes have to store the fuel in the wings (and make the tanks load-bearing).

I'ts a lot hader to get over these design defficiencies when you put multiple H2 tank on a plane.


----------



## Space Lynx (Dec 8, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> i actually tought there had been already a test flight for an airbus but someone pointed out to me i was wrong, but there were already several flights with smaller planes.
> Airbus has presented their project for more then a year now i think.
> And the german government is backing several hydrogen projects, not necessarily aviation, but if this is to be going forward i think it's essential it's not just aviation so costs can come down



I mainly was just showing that the interest is growing anyway, regardless of what type. Hence the title of my thread here... perhaps the hydrogen movement is not done after all, I think for the masses it won't happen, but in targeted areas within certain targeted countries, like Japan and Germany are moving pretty strong on it.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 8, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I mainly was just showing that the interest is growing anyway, regardless of what type. Hence the title of my thread here... perhaps the hydrogen movement is not done after all, I think for the masses it won't happen, but in targeted areas within certain targeted countries, like Japan and Germany are moving pretty strong on it.



I already said a bit back, i think it's the best (current) solution for plains and boats, as it is impractical for them to use batteries, the weight in plains and the massive amount required for boats. I think this 2 big sectors may in my opinion make it commercially viable for more sectors a bit like a spillover.
And it's not just making the shift to be green, ports ans airports are usually near cities, and are great contributors for polution and the countries co2 numbers.

Sure other solutions may come about, but i don't think any of them is possible for the time frame this 2 need to do the shift.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 8, 2021)

I was surprised to learn

* Computers consume as much energy as air transport
* Kerosene lamps consume as much as air transport

All those people who still use kerosene lamps

Carrying high pressure tanks may not be an issue for boats, but it is for planes.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 8, 2021)

i think we are in a loop, we already discussed the "wing" and "tank" problems in plains a couple of post back.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 8, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> I already said a bit back, i think it's the best (current) solution for plains and boats, as it is impractical for them to use batteries, the weight in plains and the massive amount required for boats. I think this 2 big sectors may in my opinion make it commercially viable for more sectors a bit like a spillover.
> And it's not just making the shift to be green, ports ans airports are usually near cities, and are great contributors for polution and the countries co2 numbers.
> 
> Sure other solutions may come about, but i don't think any of them is possible for the time frame this 2 need to do the shift.



Trucks seem to be the #1 use case actually of practical Hydrogen right now.

Planes might work, but there's some compression issues to be discussed still.

Boats are really weird and I don't understand them at all.

Trains have the option of an electrified 3rd rail, meaning we don't actually need to have trains carry fuel in the first place. Electrifying our rail network makes more sense (yo Japan/Europe, stop laughing at us...). EDIT: To be fair: our diesel trains here in the USA can pull bigger trains than European engines IIRC. USA has a very efficient freight network, while electrification is much better for passenger traffic. Hydrogen fuel could theoretically replace Diesel fuel on our non-electric rail system.  Still though, electric rail probably would be my preference.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 8, 2021)

Weight is a BIG issue for planes, less so for boats and trains


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 8, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Trucks seem to be the #1 use case actually of practical Hydrogen right now.
> 
> Planes might work, but there's some compression issues to be discussed still.
> 
> ...



Hydrogen cars/trucks (not much difference really) are most toyota dream i think. But i think batteries have an edge there, because hydrogen is not avaiable, and you can charge a car at home

Boats are big things that float on water.

Trains can easilly use electricity like they always have done, less load and a already established network. Maybe for some lines where it doesn't make sense to electrify they can be a thing to replace the dieses locomotives for sure.
I really don't know about that pulling competition, but freight cargo by train in the US is a joke, lots of accidents, no maintenance. Europe railway network like in most places were replaced by the road, only a few countries maintain a good network.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 8, 2021)

Rail is still good for the really heavy stuff like coal.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 8, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> Hydrogen cars/trucks (not much difference really) are most toyota dream i think. But i think batteries have an edge there, because hydrogen is not avaiable, and you can charge a car at home



Hyundai XCIENT is about to be deployed. Furthermore, China's Winter Olympics 2022 will be run on Hydrogen busses.

By "truck", I'm talking about the big stuff. 18-wheelers or class 8 busses. These big vehicles need a lot of power, and would require days of charge before they can move (yes, even on a supercharger). But instead, the Hydrogen concept has been tested by Hyundai, Toyota, and various Chinese companies to refill in just 10 minutes.

Small cars have small enough batteries that you can kinda-sorta maybe decide to charge at home... if you install a high-voltage level 2 charger and/or buy smaller battery packs (such as a PHEV). Its a totally different story for a semi-truck like the Hyundai XCIENT.



Bomby569 said:


> I really don't know about that pulling competition, but freight cargo by train in the US is a joke, lots of accidents, no maintenance. Europe railway network like in most places were replaced by the road, only a few countries maintain a good network.



US freight cargo crushes European freight statistics.

But Europe also has the benefit of that Mediterranean Sea to boat things around (so they don't need as many trains, since boats are much more efficient). Still though: US freight rail is probably the highest throughput in the world, even if our rail is a bit older / diesel based still.

In any case, we have a better rail network because we *need* to have a better rail network. Still, Europeans are experimenting with new technologies that are probably better (ie: electrification). So we can't fall behind.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 8, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Hyundai XCIENT is about to be deployed. Furthermore, China's Winter Olympics 2022 will be run on Hydrogen busses.
> 
> By "truck", I'm talking about the big stuff. 18-wheelers or class 8 busses.



nice, i really didn't knew that.
I understood you meant big trucks, but my point is if you can do in a truck you can do in a car, the problem is making, carrying, places to recharge. None of that exist. In most places you can't charge an electric car let alone a hydrogen one. One of the old top gear guys did a great video about it.


















						James May is selling his Toyota Mirai hydrogen fuel cell car
					

James May has revealed that he is selling his Toyota Mirai, just a week after calling the hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle "the nicest car [he has] ever owned" in a piece for The Sunday Times.




					www.driving.co.uk


----------



## Space Lynx (Dec 8, 2021)

Just finished that video, thank you for sharing that. That Mirai makes a lot of sense for the UK where you don't have a lot of landmass like Japan.

I'd say hydrogen makes more sense for UK and Ireland and Japan then it does say Germany, just due to shear landmass.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 8, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> I understood you meant big trucks, but my point is if you can do in a truck you can do in a car, the problem is making, carrying, places to recharge. None of that exist.



None of it exists yet, but we all know how to make a Hydrogen fuel station. Its a hunk of steel wrapped in concrete, with a credit-card machine on top. Roughly $2 million buckaroos. Instead of shoving gasoline into the steel tank underground, you shove hydrogen into it. Cars and trucks drive on top of the concrete, their drivers pull out their credit cards and grab the fuel. "Refueling" a fuel station is just an 18-wheeler stopping by every now and then.

In contrast, the electric-car charging network (aka: the Superchargers) require 2,000,000 Watts of charge to be delivered to 8 bays for 30+ minutes before those cars are finished charging. The cost estimates on these things are insane, far more expensive than any gas station. Those "superchargers" use about the same amount of electricity as 1000 home neighborhoods. Its not so easy to think about. Even then, the 30+ minute wait times per car leads to insane lines during peak days (ex: Thanksgiving).






How many hours will you want to wait in line?

----------

In any case, superchargers cost more *and* have far less customers in the same amount of time. Its an insane model. I wouldn't bet on people putting up with this crap much longer. We're still in the phase where Tesla still hasn't delivered many vehicles yet (only a few hundred thousand per year), and we're already seeing insane lines / queues build up during major road-travel days.


----------



## Operandi (Dec 8, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> I understood you meant big trucks, but my point is if you can do in a truck you can do in a car, the problem is making, carrying, places to recharge. None of that exist. In most places you can't charge an electric car let alone a hydrogen one. One of the old top gear guys did a great video about it.


There is a lot of drive (pun....) to make it happen.  Will it happen? who knows but the Nikola truck is looking like a pretty legit attempt.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 8, 2021)

Operandi said:


> There is a lot of drive (pun....) to make it happen.  Will it happen? who knows but the Nikola truck is looking like a pretty legit attempt.



i'm sorry mate but i have bad news for you, Nikola was a scam, never had a functioning truck and showed a video of on on the road, but (and this is true) got it up a hill on a tow truck and then just let it roll down for the video.


----------



## Operandi (Dec 8, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> i'm sorry mate but i have bad news for you, Nikola was a scam, never had a functioning truck and showed a video of on on the road, but (and this is true) got it up a hill on a tow truck and then just let it roll down for the video.


I've seen enough of his video's to not put much of any stock in what he says on anything so I'll have to do my own research, I am admittedly not super familiar with Nikola the company.

Sandy (who is an industry expert) gets a pretty though walk through of one of their alpha trucks and gets to drive it so its clearly a thing that works.  Working prototypes and production vaiblity and scale are different things however of course.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 8, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> Boats are big things that float on water.



The issue with boats is how lopsided their energy / propulsion things are. Its like, boats are so freaking efficient, we could use coal for boats and the coal-based boats probably would still be more efficient than electrified rail or other forms of energy.

When something is like 90% more efficient than other means of travel, it doesn't matter if it uses wind (sailboats), coal, diesel, or hydrogen. We pretty much can ignore boats because of how little fuel they use in practice.

-----

We should work on making our inefficient-things more efficient first.



Operandi said:


> I've seen enough of his video's to not put much of any stock in what he says on anything so I'll have to do my own research.



I happen to agree with Bomby569 here. Nikola is probably a scam, taking advantage of the currently over-exuberant stock market to take money from investors. Tesla, Uber, WeWork, Roblox, and other companies are similarly scam-like. They make real products but their long-term prospects are very fishy.









						Revolutionary New Driverless Car Requires Zero Functional Technology To Generate Profit
					

AUSTIN, TX—In what many are calling the future of the automotive industry, a revolutionary driverless car unveiled Tuesday requires zero functional technology to generate profit. “While many companies in the autonomous vehicle sector have unveiled models to generate funding with little feasible...




					www.theonion.com
				




This satire by "The Onion" captures my feelings with the current stock market. So much bullshit exists that people have begun to fund bullshit. Its in part because of Softbank: a $100 Billion fund giving money out to bullshit companies does in fact mean that you can make good money from bullshit these days. But that doesn't mean that a long-term prospect or long-term viability is proven.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 8, 2021)

Operandi said:


> I've seen enough of his video's to not put much of any stock in what he says on anything so I'll have to do my own research, I am admittedly not super familiar with Nikola the company.
> 
> Sandy (who is an industry expert) gets a pretty though walk through of one of their alpha trucks and gets to drive it so its clearly a thing that works.  Working prototypes and production vaiblity and scale are different things however of course.



you may not like the video, but that is reported all over, even by big publications, you can do a quick search


----------



## Operandi (Dec 8, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> I happen to agree with Bomby569 here. Nikola is probably a scam, taking advantage of the currently over-exuberant stock market to take money from investors. Tesla, Uber, WeWork, Roblox, and other companies are similarly scam-like. They make real products but their long-term prospects are very fishy.


I have to read up more on Nikola but Tesla is no scam.  You don't get the capital to scale the way Tesla has based on the premise of a scam no matter how over reved the market is or loud the hype machine is.  People have been shorting Tesla stock for years now and getting wrecked in the process.  They are light years ahead of everyone in terms of EV platform manufacturing and battery tech, only Ford and VW are even on the radar.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 8, 2021)

Operandi said:


> You don't get the capital to scale the way Tesla



Nikola literally just got the capital to scale the way Tesla has. Like, Nikola literally IPO'd just a few months ago, and the stock market rewarded NIkola with like $5 billion buckaroos.

That's the situation we're in. Incredibly shitty companies can ask the stock market for money, and the stock market gives it to them, no questions asked. Now I'm hoping those NKLA investors do make money here, but I don't expect it. I don't actually wish for anyone to lose money on their investments, but... sheesh. Some companies just don't have any profits worth talking about, or models, or even a freaking product. And yet the market continues to award them billions and billions of dollars.

With the stock market acting this *dumb*, you can't just assume that all of the investments of the stock market are going to work out.

-----

Tesla has 4 models and the ability to make like 300,000 cars / year. Yes, this is more than Nikola. But really think about the current prices and valuations...

The Toyota / Lexus conglomerate has the ability to make 2-million Prius's a year, and there are more than 4 models of Prius. Literally: the Prius alone beats the entire productive capacity of the entirety of the Tesla company. But no, the stock market awards Tesla with a trillion dollar valuation, currently worth more than the rest of the car industry combined.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Dec 8, 2021)

Operandi said:


> I have to read up more on Nikola but Tesla is no scam.  You don't get the capital to scale the way Tesla has based on the premise of a scam no matter how over reved the market is or loud the hype machine is.  People have been shorting Tesla stock for years now and getting wrecked in the process.  They are light years ahead of everyone in terms of EV platform manufacturing and battery tech, only Ford and VW are even on the radar.



Tesla might not be a scam, but still REALLY looks like a bubble, which is presumably why people keep shorting it.  They're just wrong about when the bubble will burst.  Now, it's possible that Tesla's manufacturing output and market share will catch up to its valuation at some point, but the ratio is still _very_ skewed right now.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 8, 2021)

80-watt Hamster said:


> which is presumably why people keep shorting it.


Don't short things in this market.

The famous example from the 90s is the timing of when to short Enron. You would have had your shorts blown off. Sure, the shorts were eventually correct with Enron, but these sorts of things take a decade to work out.  Especially when the market is insanely jubilant.

Just sit back, relax, and find other companies to invest into. There's well over 3000+ publicly traded companies on the stock market. Find one that you like and buy it. There's some nice startups out there, I think Backblaze is a fun one if you want some risk (Obviously its a small company that can go bankrupt at any time... and in the tough market of cloud-provider / hard drive space. But they've recently IPO'd, they got some hype going, and their price is fair)



Operandi said:


> and battery tech



You mean Panasonic is years ahead of everyone else in Li-ion tech, and Panasonic is working with like, everyone.

Remember: Panasonic owns half of the Nevada Gigafactory. That's not Tesla tech making those Li-ion cells, that's Japan / Panasonic. Not even the vaunted "4680 cells" are owned by Tesla. That's once again, a Panasonic invention.

Like, what "moat" does Tesla have? Panasonic is already working with Toyota on a number of electric car designs (Panasonic supplies the cells used in the Prius). Its not like Panasonic has an exclusivity agreement with Tesla.

Sure, Ford / GM have decided to ally with LG Chem for their cells. But some future car could very well come out, and Panasonic could very well decide to make an agreement with Ford / GM / Toyota / anyone else instead. Tesla holds no actual competitive edge on this technology, just an agreement with Panasonic to buy some cells at slightly cheaper prices.


----------



## Operandi (Dec 8, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Don't short things in this market.
> 
> The famous example from the 90s is the timing of when to short Enron. You would have had your shorts blown off. Sure, the shorts were eventually correct with Enron, but these sorts of things take a decade to work out.  Especially when the market is insanely jubilant.
> 
> ...


Panasonic's involvement with Tesla is in current Lithium Ion cell technology.  To my knowledge they are doing the 4680 cell completely on their own.

The battery is the biggest part of the equation but its not the only part.  They are far, far ahead in terms of platform, motor, and packaging and lessons learned from ICE tech don't really apply.  That and they are building the dedicated factories in the EU and China.

VW and Ford are doing some of work to be in comparative place (GM is completely clueless, Toyota is just as bad) but Tesla is obviously all in and they are far ahead.  If you follow this trajectory out they are going to be place of huge competitive advantage.


----------



## Space Lynx (Dec 8, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Don't short things in this market.
> 
> The famous example from the 90s is the timing of when to short Enron. You would have had your shorts blown off. Sure, the shorts were eventually correct with Enron, but these sorts of things take a decade to work out.  Especially when the market is insanely jubilant.
> 
> ...




Panasonic has always been underrated, even in the 1990's with their tube televisions, they had the best picture in tube tv's hands down. I know because I owned two, and compared them all the time to other peoples. Good ******* times, thanks for all the great memories you gave me Panasonic tuber and Sony Console.  World may be insane now, but you sure as **** can't take those memories away. Hell, I might drink to those memories tonight!


----------



## Caring1 (Dec 8, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> What miracle of Hydrogen Storage is going to be solved by Trains, but will somehow be magically-applicable to planes?
> 
> A diesel-electric train is already a giant Gas Tank (easily converted to H2), but planes have to store the fuel in the wings (and make the tanks load-bearing).
> 
> I'ts a lot hader to get over these design defficiencies when you put multiple H2 tank on a plane.


Planes don't "have to" store the fuel in the wings.
Hydrogen cells will be built into the main fuselage.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 8, 2021)

Still, they add weight to the fuel.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 8, 2021)

Operandi said:


> To my knowledge they are doing the 4680 cell completely on their own.








						Panasonic Will Power Future Teslas with Way Larger, Higher-Capacity Cylindrical Battery Cells
					

The Japanese battery maker revealed the 4680 battery that Tesla promises will allow for five times the storage capacity while being cheaper to build.




					www.caranddriver.com
				






> Battery technology is constantly evolving, and the latest advancement comes from Panasonic, which revealed a prototype of its new 4680 battery cell. _Automotive News_ reports that the advanced-technology battery is due to power future Teslas, saying the 4680 batteries will have five times the storage capacity of current Tesla battery packs and will cost 50 percent less to build.



Nope. 4680 is Panasonic.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 8, 2021)

It's a bit offtopic, but yes it's insane how easy it easy to make some promesses and get billions on the market, stock or private investors, without selling a single car, without making a single car.

Tesla is way overvalued, the last customer satisfaction numbers put them at the end of the pack. Rivian barely made a sale and is already worth millions. Lucian i think not a single sale. Insane

Ford is doing things right and no one seems to care


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 8, 2021)

Operandi said:


> They are far, far ahead in terms of platform, motor, and packaging and lessons learned from ICE tech don't really apply. That and they are building the dedicated factories in the EU and China.



What? Like brakes and suspension?

Once we leave the drive-train, all of a sudden Tesla is in a disadvantage. All the other car makers know how to make the dumb stuff more cheaply and effectively than Tesla does.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 8, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> What? Like brakes and suspension?
> 
> Once we leave the drive-train, all of a sudden Tesla is in a disadvantage. All the other car makers know how to make the dumb stuff more cheaply and effectively than Tesla does.



i don't follow you on that, Tesla doesn't actually have to do much, there are hundreds of companies that work for the auto industry that do 90% of the car, you just have to make the body, framework, paint. Build a jit model and decide out to get the car to the client and service it.
True that Tesla doesn't even do that right with all the panel misalignment problems. But that is easily fixed.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 8, 2021)

Bomby569 said:


> i don't follow you on that, Tesla doesn't actually have to do much, there are hundred companies that work for the auto industry that do 90% of the car, you just have to make the body, framework, paint. Build a jit model and decide out to get the car to the client and service it.
> True that Tesla doesn't even do that right with all the panel misalignment problems. But that is easily fixed.












						Tesla recalls nearly 3,000 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles over faulty suspension issue
					

The recall applies to 2020-2021 Model Y and 2019-2021 Model 3 vehicles, with owner notification letters set to be mailed Dec. 24.



					www.usatoday.com
				












						Tesla Model S Plaid Crashes Twice On The Track: Brake Issue?
					

This Tesla Model S Plaid seems to have some weird braking issues at the track. Then, it spins out, leaves the pavement, and crashes at 150 mph.




					insideevs.com
				












						'Aladdin' star says a defect in his Tesla Model 3 led to his car wreck, and it comes from a problem area the company has known about for years
					

Those who follow Tesla closely have come to refer to the company's problems with suspension as "whompy wheels."




					www.businessinsider.com
				




These are simple brakes and suspension issues that other car makers have largely figured out. Tesla is running into issues despite making fewer than 300,000 cars/year. This is the easy part, Tesla haven't even scaled up yet and are already running into quality-control issues.

Spoiler alert: Suspensions are very difficult systems to model, test, design and deploy. So are braking systems. And finally, its hard to mass produce these systems with high quality. Having a VIP-customer like Mena Massoud have his freaking wheel fall off the suspension is *NOT* a good look for the company.

"Wompy Wheels" turns into a huge amount of news reports, demonstrating that Mr. Massoud is far from alone on this problem.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 8, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> These are simple brakes and suspension issues that other car makers have largely figured out. Tesla is running into issues despite making fewer than 300,000 cars/year. This is the easy part, Tesla haven't even scaled up yet and are already running into quality-control issues.
> 
> Spoiler alert: Suspensions are very difficult systems to model, test, design and deploy. So are braking systems. And finally, its hard to mass produce these systems with high quality. Having a VIP-customer like Mena Massoud have his freaking wheel fall off the suspension is *NOT* a good look for the company.
> 
> "Wompy Wheels" turns into a huge amount of news reports, demonstrating that Mr. Massoud is far from alone on this problem.



This is offtopic, but you're mixing up everything. Every car manufacturer runs into issues and recalls, quiet a lot actually. But i do agree they are not the best at their job. Still those are the easiest things to overcome, i'm not saying they aren't major flaws, just that they can easily overcome that, it's not technological challenges. They already done the hard part, building the jit, managed to get the cars to the clients in a way no one could before, etc...

Once you remove the engine block, everyone can make a decent car. Like i said 90% (maybe an exageration i don't have the exact number but it isn't far off) of the car is not made by whoever puts the badge on it.


----------



## Operandi (Dec 8, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> What? Like brakes and suspension?
> 
> Once we leave the drive-train, all of a sudden Tesla is in a disadvantage. All the other car makers know how to make the dumb stuff more cheaply and effectively than Tesla does.


No, the motor, battery management, cooling, that is all significant factors in a EV and thats where they are miles ahead.  They are also making huge strides in the structure of the vehicle itself that nobody else till now has attempted on a large scale, Tesla's Switch to Giga Press Die Castings for Model 3 Eliminates 370 Parts. That puts them at a huge advantage over all the legacy OEMs in terms of designing and packing an EV druvetrain as you can't just catch up overnight. Combine that with all the inherent structural, weight, cost, time advantages with their casting technology and they have a pretty big lead over everyone.



Bomby569 said:


> True that Tesla doesn't even do that right with all the panel misalignment problems. But that is easily fixed.


The big OEMs have had decades to get that process right, Tesla is still going through growing pains of scaling.  That and Tesla is constantly iterating changes during production so yeah, you aren't exactly producing a consistent product.  The only Tesla that I'd ever consider because of that is the Model 3 or Y but that has nothing to do with Tesla's technology, manufacturing techniques, and outlook as company.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 8, 2021)

Operandi said:


> They are also making huge strides in the structure of the vehicle itself that nobody else till now has attempted on a large scale, Tesla's Switch to Giga Press Die Castings for Model 3 Eliminates 370 Parts











						Tesla's giant stamping machine caught on fire at Fremont factory
					

Tesla’s giant stamping machine, believed to be the world’s biggest, caught on fire at Fremont factory today. No one was...




					electrek.co
				




That machine needs to stop catching on fire first if you actually expect it to do any work.

------

More seriously: we can look at vehicles as Tesla sells them. There's no "unibody" models being sold anywhere. The entire die-casting machine is a marketing stunt. Pure and simple. It doesn't matter that it catches on fire often because its not really doing any real work.

The fact that the machine there is built outside the factory is proof of that. No one seriously expects consistently in die-stamping to be done in an uncontrolled, outdoor environment full of dust, pollen, the elements and uncontrolled humidity / temperatures.


----------



## Operandi (Dec 8, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> The entire die-casting machine is a marketing stunt. Pure and simple.


K, well I guess that settles it.


----------



## KLiKzg (Dec 9, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Weight is a BIG issue for planes, less so for boats and trains


Thinking of keeping hydrogen in sealed steel cages. That is so 20 century!

Future is somewhere, more intelligent in a management way.


----------



## Operandi (Dec 9, 2021)

KLiKzg said:


> Thinking of keeping hydrogen in sealed steel cages. That is so 20 century!
> 
> Future is somewhere, more intelligent in a management way.


Current FCEV tanks are made from carbon fiber.  They are lighter and insanely tough.

The future though would be some sort of low pressure solid state storage.


----------



## de.das.dude (Dec 14, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Impreza is a compact Sedan though. It seats 5 but your rear passengers will feel bunched up.
> 
> Honda Clarity is +4 inches wider and +20 inches longer. Cars of this size normally cost in the $22,000ish range. So $25,000ish for PHEV (After the $7500 credit is factored in) is a bit of a premium, but the gasoline savings will almost certainly win over in the long run.
> 
> ...




Damn here they went and upped the ethanol in normal fuel to ~9%. This explains why i have been getting poorer mileage in my vehicle than before


----------



## Space Lynx (Dec 14, 2021)

de.das.dude said:


> Damn here they went and upped the ethanol in normal fuel to ~9%. This explains why i have been getting poorer mileage in my vehicle than before



yep everyone in the world has moved to 9-10% ethanol in gas. and yes it does give lower gas mileage, not to mention we only have about 60 years of good topsoil left for crops, so wasting any of that nutrient rich soil on corn... is probably a huge mistake.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 14, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> we only have about 60 years of good topsoil left for crops



Evidence for this claim?


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 14, 2021)

Interstellar. Great film.

But seriously, it is known that industrial scale farming is having a negative effect on topsoil quality.

Don't know about specific metrics for quality deprivation or timescales. But historically, farmers knew to rotate crops and let the land recover (in Scotland in old times we had the runrig system). Modern commercial farming is very nutrient intensive.

Edit: It's like most resources, modern humans tend to take a lot from the earth without considering the geological and lengthy processes that put them there.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 14, 2021)

There is artificial ways to enrich the soil, or we would never get the same crop year after year from the same soil. In large scale farming no one rotates crops or leaves fields to rest one season, that's something from the last century.
It sure isn't ideal, brings lots of other problems, but it isn't exactly that big a problem that in 60 years no one could farm or anything like that.


----------



## KLiKzg (Dec 14, 2021)

& you can get ethanol from any kind of sugar reach plant or source...so ethanol is not only "plant based", but can be also got from other sources.


----------



## xrobwx71 (Dec 14, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> also where did this plane get its hydrogen fuel... see lot of questions here not a lot of answers... main thing is would it scale to be cost efficient?


They built their own infrastructure as did the Australian's you mentioned. To build an on-site infrastructure compared to scaling it nationally is astronomical.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 14, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Impreza is a compact Sedan though. It seats 5 but your rear passengers will feel bunched up.
> 
> Honda Clarity is +4 inches wider and +20 inches longer. Cars of this size normally cost in the $22,000ish range. So $25,000ish for PHEV (After the $7500 credit is factored in) is a bit of a premium, but the gasoline savings will almost certainly win over in the long run.
> 
> ...


That “credit” isn’t free, we are all paying taxes to pay for it.

Electric or hybrid make sense only with a nuclear base load, right now we are burning more natural gas to offset the difference from “renewable” than they will ever save.



the54thvoid said:


> Interstellar. Great film.
> 
> But seriously, it is known that industrial scale farming is having a negative effect on topsoil quality.
> 
> ...


I can chime in on this, the issue is the removal of organic matter, already in most of the arid parts of the world where cereal crops are grown a “fallow” year is common. Removing the straw and lack of nutrient management is the issue, but most farmers fail when they engage in shitty farming, subsidies exist for advanced farming to encourage better practices and most are from companies they sell to, not for tax payers. Example, Molson Coors pays more for barley that can be traced to its source and for using the correct amount of fertilizer at the right time, with the correct hybrid of seed, and better farming practices.

Interstellar was a great film, however the autonomy was wrong for machines (20 plus years in the field(s)).

they also don’t harvest green corn with a combine like that.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 14, 2021)

Steevo said:


> Electric or hybrid make sense only with a nuclear base load, right now we are burning more natural gas to offset the difference from “renewable” than they will ever save.



Electric engines are much more efficient though, and Natural Gas turbines are also much more efficient due to size.

ICE engines are maybe 30% efficient (taking 30% of the power in gasoline and using it for motion, and then turning 70% of the power into heat). You can notice this by just feeling the hot exhaust on your car.

There are 50%+ efficient natural gas turbines (https://www.ipieca.org/resources/en...-heat-generation/combined-cycle-gas-turbines/). Electric engines are 80% efficient, and maybe you have 10% transmission loss, but when all is said and done, you are still using far less carbon-emissions from electric than you are from gasoline / ICE.

So even if you've got natural gas powered electricity, you've still got a net-benefit from gasoline. Heck, the consistent torque / RPM curves on PHEV vehicles also take advantage of this and start reaching absurdly efficient ICE-designs thanks to hybrid technology.

-------

As for me personally, I'm solar powered thanks to community solar. You can rent out solar panels these days on some field somewhere, and use the grid to transfer those panels to your house without ever building solar panels on your house now.

Its like all the benefits of solar power, with none of the hassle of actually building it myself, dealing with contractors, or worrying about the quality of the roof / storms / etc. etc.


----------



## defaultluser (Dec 14, 2021)

Operandi said:


> Current FCEV tanks are made from carbon fiber.  They are lighter and insanely tough.
> 
> The future though would be some sort of low pressure solid state storage.



And yet they still only get 15 years of lifetime before you drop 10k per-tank to replace it; the Fuel Cells also have to get replaced around the same time.

*Solid-state storage is like trying to get an overly-excited  dog to sit - nearly impossible, as there  are not too many materials that can hold energetic H2.*  And currently  (20 years into research) they're nowhere near high PSI tank storage!









						Hydrogen storage gets real
					

As production costs fall and demand is poised to rocket, James Mitchell Crow finds the hydrogen economy is finally ready for take-off - as long as we can find ways to store it




					www.chemistryworld.com
				




*And, I'm sure that (like everything H2 touches), these things will still need to be replaced just-as-often as a BEV's battery, at much higher cost!*

Even Toyota has all-but abandoned the Mirai









						Toyota opens up about its battery EV strategy, shows off new SUVs
					

It includes everything from a small crossover to an electric supercar.




					arstechnica.com


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 14, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> And yet they still only get 15 years of lifetime before you drop 10k per-tank to replace it; the Fuel Cells also have to get replaced around the same time.



Hyundai XCIENT just beat the Tesla-semi to market dude. But in any case, Li-ion traditionally only had 2-years of useful life. (See any decent cell-phone battery). I'm not convinced that its safe for Li-ion to be on the roads for so long actually.

There seems to be benefits to H2 on the larger vehicles. Mirai might have just been too small to be practical. I dunno.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 14, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> Even Toyota has all-but abandoned the Mirai
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True that Toyota abandoned the Mirai but not hydrogen, they are actually betting more on it then before. But also doing EV's.








						As world's automakers scramble to go electric, Toyota bets on hydrogen
					

Over the weekend, Akio Toyoda raced Toyota Yaris subcompact in Japan — a hydrogen car he says could preserve millions of auto jobs.




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## defaultluser (Dec 14, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Hyundai XCIENT just beat the Tesla-semi to market dude. But in any case, Li-ion traditionally only had 2-years of useful life. (See any decent cell-phone battery). I'm not convinced that its safe for Li-ion to be on the roads for so long actually.
> 
> There seems to be benefits to H2 on the larger vehicles. Mirai might have just been too small to be practical. I dunno.



And?  Being first in modern times to field a BEV  didn' win any points for GMC









						General Motors EV1 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Just because you're first doesn't mean you will automatically be profitable; you need to sell tens of thousands of fuel cells a year before the build costs of these plastic sandwiches falls below 10k,

Oh, and, Bomby569, you obviously bought the Bull, *with a hydrogen-powered concept car that will never again be sold here in the US* (that gives it a very small market , with just a few places outside US West Coast and Japan have enough H2 infrastructure to support it)









						Toyota Confirms Yaris Sedan, Hatchback Are Dead to U.S.
					

The 2020 model year will be the last for U.S. sales of the economical subcompacts.




					www.caranddriver.com
				




*Face it dude, H2 is dead in cars, and this Yaris concept one will be Japan-only!*


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 14, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> Just because you're first doesn't mean you will automatically be profitable.



Except we're seeing Japan, Korea, and China all bet on H2 in substantial levels.

Sure, USA is making a different bet, but... its not like those countries are bad an engineering either. There comes a point where its important to reflect upon what others are doing, and wonder if they're onto something.

Look, I don't know the future. I don't know if H2 will work or not. But there are some smart people in smart companies who think H2 will work. I wouldn't count it out yet.

------

If we look at the math and costs behind H2, there seem to be some substantial advantages to fuel cells, electrolysis, and other such technologies behind H2. USA has a lot of engineering talent, money, and entrepreneurs. I'm more than willing to support an experimental H2 group to try things out domestically. If it works out, great. If not, we probably learned a lot from it.

I'm not seeing why H2 is destined to failure yet. There's significant weight advantages, as well as storage / distribution advantages, to the methodology.


----------



## defaultluser (Dec 14, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> If we look at the math and costs behind H2, there seem to be some substantial advantages to fuel cells, electrolysis, and other such technologies behind H2. USA has a lot of engineering talent, money, and entrepreneurs. I'm more than willing to support an experimental H2 group to try things out domestically. If it works out, great. If not, we probably learned a lot from it.



Because the best-case efficiency of H20 to H2 is 70% (using expensive catalysts), plus the efficiency of that Fuel Cell is only 50%.  Add in the losses to transport H2 from a big electrolysis factory to your local gas station (15%  higher losses than just sending it over power lines), and you get a *final efficiency of around 30%*









dragontamer5788 said:


> I'm not seeing why H2 is destined to failure yet. There's significant weight advantages, as well as storage / distribution advantages, to the methodology.



Cause you choose to disbelieve reality.  Over-and--over again!

!. There is no weight advantage, because the steel carbon-fiber reinforced fuel tanks weigh as much as Lithium ION battery packs. 
2. There is no distribution advantage, because there is no real  H2-rated gaspipelines infrastructure already built in the US - we already have a proven efficient electric grid.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 14, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> Because the best-case efficiency of H20 to H2 is 70% (using expensive catalysts), plus the efficiency of that Fuel Cell is only 50%. Add in the losses to transport H2 from a big electrolysis factory to your local gas station (15% higher losses than just sending it over power lines)



And? The price of electricity swings by like 300% daily. Use the cheap electricity when its available, and then turn off the plants when its expensive.

Having a 40% efficient process but using electricity that's 33% the cost is still a net-winner from a market perspective. There's not enough "storage" or "elastic demand" going on in our power-grids. Such a workload would be a very good thing. H2 Electrolysis could be a "reverse peaker plant", effectively doing the job of energy storage.



defaultluser said:


> Cause you choose to disbelieve reality. Over-and--over again!



You're ignoring the market realities of our utility system and the price of electricity in your analysis. We have an energy storage problem, a rather large and difficult one mind you. H2 provides us the ability to solve two birds with one stone: storing cheap "off-peak" energy in the form of H2, then burning it in our transportation network.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Dec 14, 2021)

Hydrogen make sso much more sense then electric for anything heavy- pickup trucks, semi tractors, trains, boats. EV really only makes sense for shorter trips and city cars, where electric charging at home is a royal PITA.

I want to know why we cant go to biodiesel, which we could grow at home rather then importing from the middle east and is carbon neutral.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 14, 2021)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> I want to know why we cant go to biodiesel, which we could grow at home rather then importing from the middle east and is carbon neutral.



Actually, USA has more than enough oil reserves to be independent from the middle east. The main issue is that the middle east has easy-to-use oil reserves, while we in the USA have to do expensive fracking. As such, we can only be energy independent if... the price of oil skyrockets.

Kind of a backwards situation, but... hey, that's how the world politics / resource distribution works. Everything we do to make energy cheaper benefits the Middle East rather than us.

-----------

The reason why we use petroleum is because its extraordinarily cheap. The amount of water you needed to make that biodiesel is just far in excess of the costs needed to stick a metal-straw into the ground and slurp up the diesel that already exists in the earth.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 14, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> ICE engines are maybe 30% efficient (taking 30% of the power in gasoline and using it for motion, and then turning 70% of the power into heat). You can notice this by just feeling the hot exhaust on your car.


Toyota has 3 and 4-cylinder engines with a thermal efficiency of closer to 40%+. So we're still seeing improvements on this front.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 14, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> Oh, and, Bomby569, you obviously bought the Bull, *with a hydrogen-powered concept car that will never again be sold here in the US* (that gives it a very small market , with just a few places outside US West Coast and Japan have enough H2 infrastructure to support it)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



get your facts straight there's a lot of investment on it by the EU and especially the German government. I have no idea why you say it will never be a thing. I guess airplanes and ships in the US will be carrying an extra plane or shit along just to carry the batteries


----------



## ARF (Dec 22, 2021)

No one has abandoned anything. H2 is the future. Just be patient to see the stupid fossil fuels industry steps backwards.

The hydrogen stations in Germany:





H2.LIVE: Hydrogen Stations in Germany & Europe


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 22, 2021)

I have an engineer friend who works with energy (all forms except, ironically, renewables). But even he's involved with a hydrogen storage project in the UK. A lot of effort and private investment is being made toward making it a viable option - note - not a replacement. Just part of the slow transition.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Dec 22, 2021)

I'll just leave this here (from 1958)


----------



## defaultluser (Dec 22, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> I have an engineer friend who works with energy (all forms except, ironically, renewables). But even he's involved with a hydrogen storage project in the UK. A lot of effort and private investment is being made toward making it a viable option - note - not a replacement. Just part of the slow transition.



its only happening because none of the big energy companies ever want to give-up their massive petroleum infrastructure

But they have never been capable of "running the  numbers: (the entire oil industry has to be subsidized to make it affordable









						Subsidies really do matter to the US oil & gas industry -- one in particular
					

A new analysis measures the concrete impact that US fossil fuel subsidies have on the profitability of US oil & gas projects. One subsidy in particular makes a substantial difference.




					www.volts.wtf
				




They for some crazy reason think these subsidies will magically continue (*even after we electrify the truck and train networks for less than the cost of rebuilding all those pipelines to be h2-capable*, *AND add the cost of all those massive electrolysis factories, new storage containers at eveery locatiopn, al;l with  FIVE TIMES the leakage of Methane)*


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 22, 2021)

defaultluser said:


> its only happening because none of the big energy companies ever want to give-up their massive petroleum infrastructure











						Discover our stories | Air Liquide
					

Discover our stories




					www.airliquide.com
				




You know that H2 electrolysis exists today, and is ramping up to larger and larger sizes, right? That's water + electricity == Hydrogen, no carbon involved.



defaultluser said:


> even after we electrify the truck



Suuurrrreeeeee. In other news, 2021 is almost over and Pepsi still doesn't have their electric trucks from Tesla. We're also facing a chip shortage, lithium mining shortage, and other hurdles.

Meanwhile, H2 trucks and busses are full steam ahead.

I'm sure that Tesla will eventually be able to build those Tesla-semis or whatever. But they're far later than expected... H2 (Hyundai) has already delivered first.


----------



## ARF (Dec 22, 2021)

Well, everything around us is energy. But we use the most inappropriate and dangerous for us (because of the greenhouse effects) fossil fuels energy sources.

Meanwhile, the Sun energy is unlimited, look at the MWh solar energy striking the Earth every day 




Worldometer - real time world statistics (worldometers.info)


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 22, 2021)

ARF said:


> Well, everything around us is energy. But we use the most inappropriate and dangerous for us (because of the greenhouse effects) fossil fuels energy sources.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Sun energy is unlimited, look at the MWh solar energy striking the Earth every day



But H2 can be made from electricity + water, and there are utility scale (10MW plants) today that do this, with 100MW plants being built around the world.

In fact, you can directly turn solar energy into the energy needed to split 2(H2O) into 2(H2) + O2 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13237).


----------



## Shrek (Dec 22, 2021)

If you gonna make hydrogen from Sunlight, might as well make alcohol or synthetic gasoline.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 22, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> If you gonna make hydrogen from Sunlight, might as well make alcohol or synthetic gasoline.



H2 Electrolysis doesn't require us to use up our precious topsoil.

And yes, topsoil is a precious resource, USA is running low on it. We need to be more careful about our topsoil allocations. IIRC, we've lost like 35% of our topsoil in the past couple of decades.


----------



## ARF (Dec 22, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> If you gonna make hydrogen from Sunlight, might as well make alcohol or synthetic gasoline.



But the goal of the exercise is to remove and substitute the poisons, not to make them synthetically lol.

Can you imagine what burning of gasoline and coal is? It is like sitting on a chair, eating its legs and hoping that you will stay in your seat


----------



## Shrek (Dec 22, 2021)

Little confused here; how is synthetic gasoline a poison? if one gets the carbon needed from the air or the flue of a traditional power station.

I'm still for electric vehicles.


----------



## ARF (Dec 22, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Little confused here
> 
> How is synthetic gasoline a poison? if one gets the carbon needed from the air.



And then what? Release it back in the air after its combustion?

You don't need to release polluters in the air and then do the unnecessary exercise of removing them from there.
Just stop releasing them in the first place.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 22, 2021)

That's why electric vehicles are the future.

Hydrogen has a storage issue, that is why I suggested synthetic gasoline, and as you point out that also has issues.

The topic is
"Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?"
seems obvious to me given electric.


----------



## ARF (Dec 22, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> That's why electric vehicles are the future.



I don't know. With these so low ranges of 200-250 kilometers, you can't really rely on them, at least just yet.

I am not sure as of when they will release an affordable sedan with 800-900 kilometers of range.
An affordable means $25,000 or less.



Andy Shiekh said:


> Hydrogen has a storage issue, that is why I suggested synthetic gasoline, and as you point out that also has issues.
> 
> The topic is
> "Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?"
> seems obvious to me given electric.



Well, the issue is that we need high quality containers and high quality processes. Everything else is the same as moving and transporting of natural gas..


----------



## Shrek (Dec 22, 2021)

All good points, but things are developing at an impressive rate.

Recharge rate is also an issue to add to the list.

Then again, swappable batteries solves both range and refuel time issues, but not the cost issue (yet).


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 22, 2021)

The problem with the sun as most renewable sources of energy is it's unreliability, hydrogen is just a means of dealing with that, you can store it there.

BTW next to me they have planed a hydrogen plant run by solar energy.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 22, 2021)

I wonder if one day they orbit large reflectors to bring sunlight to select barren areas 24/7

Then again, that would not help a lot with global warming.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 22, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I wonder if one day they orbit large reflectors to bring sunlight to select barren areas 24/7



Seems more complicated than its worth. We have these things called transmission wires, which can deliver energy at 90%+ efficiencies across long distances.

Mirror reflectivity isn't perfect, you lose a chunk of energy each time light bounces off a mirror, and then more is lost as it traverses the atmosphere (clouds and whatnot disperse the light). Traveling through more atmosphere, its quite possible that giant mirrors in space is in fact less efficient than a high-voltage copper line on the ground.

Just build more solar, everywhere. If you want to up the benefits of solar, lets start by adding mirrors near-and-around the solar panels, rather than launching mirrors into space.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 22, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> H2 Electrolysis doesn't require us to use up our precious topsoil.
> 
> And yes, topsoil is a precious resource, USA is running low on it. We need to be more careful about our topsoil allocations. IIRC, we've lost like 35% of our topsoil in the past couple of decades.




Most fields are doing better now than in the past 50 years due to better agricultural practices. 

They are working on genetic modification to algae to directly create sugars and then yeast and fungi to convert the sugars to ethanol. 

Hydrogen cars aren't going to be a thing as hydrocarbon bonds have so much more energy.


----------



## ARF (Dec 22, 2021)

Well, the whole Sahara desert and the Arabian peninsula, together with large regions of South Europe are all under direct sunlight during the most of the year.

What they need to plan and construct is a global network of such solar panel farms in order to substitute each other during downtimes.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 22, 2021)

Then how about a heat-engine that works on the temperature difference between the surface sea and deeper down?

Or simply a shaft and boil water with the heat down deep? It gets real hot as one goes down a few miles.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 22, 2021)

Steevo said:


> Hydrogen cars aren't going to be a thing as hydrocarbon bonds have so much more energy.



I mean, I'm not against people trying biodiesel or ethanol. In fact, I filled up my car on E85 the other day. I'm more than willing to experiment with these technologies.

But synthetic hydrocarbons are one more step compared to synthetic hydrogen. True, we can make synthetic hydrocarbons out of the plants we eat, but we have some farming issues as it is, I'm not too keen on depleting our topsoil reserves.

H2 + CO2 + energy == syngas, which also can be converted into "clean" synthetic-hydrocarbons with further processing. But your efficiency drops yet again. Alternatively, H2 + CO2 + Coal looked promising as a coal-liquefaction strategy for making high quality synthetic gasoline IIRC, but we're back into "burning coal" and that doesn't solve the climate issue. Its probably still worth researching (we have a lot more coal than other fossil fuels), but this isn't green anymore.



ARF said:


> Well, the whole Sahara desert and the Arabian peninsula, together with large regions of South Europe are all under direct sunlight during the most of the year.
> 
> What they need to plan and construct is a global network of such solar panel farms in order to substitute each other during downtimes.



Actually, those are terrible areas for solar energy. Solar panels lose efficiency the hotter they get. It turns out that the ideal areas are temperate + grassy areas like Germany, rather than deserts.

There's a different set of technologies for making solar work in deserts: Solar Mirror salt plants. Instead of using solar panels, you use mirrors to heat up salt, and then use the salt to boil water and run a steam engine. Its a bit experimental right now but concept projects exist and are being studied.



Andy Shiekh said:


> Then how about a heat-engine that works on the temperature difference between the surface sea and deeper down?



If you're interested in this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project

"Heat-engine" is just steam, possibly superheated steam. There's also no need to do the temperature underground, because solar energy is more than enough to cause the salt to reach 550C+ temperatures. The "cold" side of your heat engine is just the ambient air (ie: 40C or so in the desert)

Hot steam pushes the piston when attached to 550C temperature source. As the steam cools down (attached to 40C ambient), it pulls on the piston. Bam. 100MW of power and 1GW-hr of stored heat-energy to provide power for about an hour or two after the sun sets.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 22, 2021)

The geothermal gradient is about 25°C for every kilometer of depth, so one doesn't have to go so deep.

Some mines are over 3km deep, and some bore holes go over 12km down.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 22, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> I mean, I'm not against people trying biodiesel or ethanol. In fact, I filled up my car on E85 the other day. I'm more than willing to experiment with these technologies.
> 
> But synthetic hydrocarbons are one more step compared to synthetic hydrogen. True, we can make synthetic hydrocarbons out of the plants we eat, but we have some farming issues as it is, I'm not too keen on depleting our topsoil reserves.
> 
> ...



Farming is getting better not worse, the biggest thing we could do for our topsoil now is to stop making ethanol for fuel until we can do it without the soil. the energy input to raise a ton of crop and the output of ethanol is a net loss and only done due to subsidies and tax breaks, its worse for the environment as the inputs all release carbon, and when the ethanol is burned it releases the carbon that was stored. Much like DEF/AdBlue is a failure due to the high energy cost of producing the urea, distilling the water, packaging, transport, and waste stream created. Bureaucrats with pet projects are not the answer to our problems but they are making the laws that merely move the pollution stream elsewhere.  



Andy Shiekh said:


> Then how about a heat-engine that works on the temperature difference between the surface sea and deeper down?
> 
> Or simply a shaft and boil water with the heat down deep? It gets real hot as one goes down a few miles.



Offshore nuclear reactors that also distill water for consumption and irrigation (irrigation leaves salts behind that build up in the soil due to evaporation). Provide stable base load and electric vehicles for the majority of the high population areas, electric heating and cooling using more heat pumps and some moderate use of solar to supplement.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 22, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> The geothermal gradient is about 25°C for every kilometer of depth, so one doesn't have to go so deep.
> 
> Some mines are over 3km deep, and some bore holes go over 12km deep.



When your hot-source is 550C like the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, going from 40C (cold-side) to 15C is a difference of like 5% power generation... miniscule when you consider the difficulty of transferring that temperature a km away.

In contrast, the 550C target of the mirrors can be placed somewhere convenient and close to the cold-source of your heat engine and simplify the design.



Steevo said:


> Bureaucrats with pet projects are not the answer to our problems but they are making the laws that merely move the pollution stream elsewhere.



The alternative seems to be billionaires with pet projects asking bureaucrats for money. Unlike bureaucrats, these billionaires pollute our airwaves and Facebook feeds with propaganda to try to turn the minds of our population towards their pet projects.

Don't get me wrong, we need billionaires to make these big energy projects. I fully understand that we live in a capitalistic society, and that the wealth is concentrated upon these individuals. Collaborating with billionaires is the only way to move forward. But we shouldn't let them set the terms of the debate. We need to make ourselves smarter on the subject so that we can properly evaluate everyone's pet projects and see which ones have the highest chance of actually working.

In the absence of the smarts, we can also just fund everyone's project and come back and revisit the subject in 10 years. Fortunately, the USA has a lot of money, so we can afford some waste and inefficiency.


----------



## Shrek (Dec 22, 2021)

Geothermal is 24/7 and does not take up much surface area.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 22, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> When your hot-source is 550C like the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, going from 40C (cold-side) to 15C is a difference of like 5% power generation... miniscule when you consider the difficulty of transferring that temperature a km away.
> 
> In contrast, the 550C target of the mirrors can be placed somewhere convenient and close to the cold-source of your heat engine and simplify the design.
> 
> ...




No one forces us to give billionaires our money, bureaucrats however have the government to point a gun at us and jail us for failing to provide the correct amount that they prescribe they should get for their pet projects. They are essentially lords and we are their peasants.

Billionaires also only get there by making companies more productive or making a product that more people want, but they should not be making any laws or rules for the rest of the population or involved in its shaping without agreement from the masses. 

At the end of the day we have an infrasturture for electricity that can be easily expanded, as coal and natural gas plants are retired the existing infrastructure can be converted to nuclear power easily. There is no other alternative that provides the reduction in carbon, stable base load, and reliability. We don't have the batteries or the storage technology and won't have it in time to make the "renewable" tech we have no feasible on scale before its going to be obsolete, and the demand for clean energy isn't going to reduce.


And no, we don't have the money, we are spending money borrowed from China and inflating our currency so fast right now we are headed for a Venezuela style crash where we will be eating pets and society may break down until we reign in our corrupt politicians.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 22, 2021)

Steevo said:


> No one forces us to give billionaires our money, bureaucrats however have the government to point a gun at us and jail us for failing to provide the correct amount that they prescribe they should get for their pet projects. They are essentially lords and we are their peasants.



The typical bureaucrat is like, your Post Office worker. They ain't got no power. Even a powerful "lord" of bureaucrats, like the Postmaster General, ain't got much to do with you.

There are a couple of bureaucrats that matter, but only in very specific circumstances. An ICE agent can deport you under certain circumstances. A health-inspector can shutdown your production lines. Etc. etc. But I don't work in production, so there's nothing an FDA-agent can do to me... and I'm not the skin-color of what ICE agents typically care about.

The only "Bureaucrat" that seems to match up with your discussion point is the IRS, except we all know that the IRS is largely powerless to stop the corporate world from abusing tax loopholes (ie: Apple leaving their money in Ireland and therefore out of reach of our tax system).

---------

In the case of green energy, I think I support most DARPA and Department-of-Energy projects, even the really weird stuff. ARES (Rail-energy storage) probably won't work but I love the idea. CAES (turning mines into giant steel balloons and inflating them to store energy as air-pressure) is surprisingly useful, albeit needing some natural gas to counteract the cooling problem (compressed air cools down, so to get all the energy back you need a little bit of heating). Etc. etc.

I honestly can't think of an energy project made by government officials that I disagreed with as far as experimentation goes. Do you have any specific government-sponsored energy project that pissed you off? Or are you just talking about abstract talking points?

------

I think there are plenty of corporations that are doing the right thing btw. Shell's jumping into green energy. The Saudis (as a country), also seem to be on the right track. Armaco (aka: Saudi Arabia) is investing into tech, green energy, etc. etc. Many corporations do the right thing on the average.

But there's a couple of companies that have crap practices, fake inventions, and are just out to steal government subsidies without properly competing or developing technology. So while I expect most billionaires to do the right thing, there's clearly a couple of bad actors in there who we need to more carefully keep our collective eyes on.

Tesla / Solarcity completely screwed New York / city of Buffalo for example. Completely immoral what they did, hyping fake "solar shingles" and never delivering the jobs, or green energy, that they promised. Most of the injustices I can think of are of this form, a company making lavish promises, a local naive bureaucrat getting tricked into accepting the corporation's deal, and then everyone getting screwed while the corporation/billionaire makes tons of money. Wisconsin and Foxconn as another major problem. And there was a big discussion about Intel / government subsidies the other day too.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 22, 2021)

I support the funding of research into better energy storage and more efficient production. Solar is still meh, the number of panels produced VS the total need has not scaled and doesn’t seem to be a 10 or 20 year fix VS the ability to move to nuclear. Nuclear is more green.

I don’t support the funding of companies with such huge subsidies like Solar and wind have received without more oversight, but there again we create lossy jobs where corruption can abound and the real check against corruption is the free market.

Specifically carbon credits for solar and wind are BS, I live in MT where I pay for solar arrays to be built not 10 miles from a coal plant. The solar array is less than 50% utilized and the coal plant is powering a huge crypto farm. If the government were responsible they would outlaw the crypto and solve two issues. My home has geothermal heat pump heating and cooling but the subsidies I get are 0 despite using it and less than 500 gallons of propane a year for cooking and hot water production when the heat pump can’t keep up at -10F. But my neighbor can install half the solar that would run my heat pump and get paid to burn 2000+ gallons of propane a year.

The free market with less regulation and more authority over fewer aspects will create the most efficient system when people are educated. Now people think solar will save them but don’t know nuclear is a far better option.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Dec 22, 2021)

Steevo said:


> when people are educated



Except not really. Because money buys education. I've got plenty of political examples if you want them. But I think we can all safely agree that the ConstitutionDAO project was completely a dumbass move that only proves how easily you can manipulate sheeple on Facebook.

If you can convince thousands of people that you can "Buy a piece of the US Constitution" by investing into a crypto-coin / NFT smart contract, there's pretty much no hope that the general population is smart enough / educated enough to make decisions like "Nuclear vs Natural Gas vs Solar". There are some bigger, more widespread... but highly political myths / misinformation out there, but I'm not trying to start an argument here, so I'll try to stay away from that flamebait.

But the fact of the matter is: you can buy people's opinions through a couple of easy moves. ConstitutionDAO did it, but so do so many other people these days.

1. SEO -- Search Engine Optimization to get your "facts" to the top of Google, maybe pay a bit more money and also get it to the top of Bing/DuckDuckGo/Yahoo (which use the same engine). Perform A/B tests with the crowds to see which discussion points go viral or not, and leverage "viral" / "memes" to spread lies. For example:






2. "Influencers" -- Pay off a few Youtubers to shill your idea on the cheap. Shill on forums, Reddit, Youtube comments, and more.

3. "Attack" -- create conspiracies against your rivals and diminish public opinion of them. If you're making electric cars, demonize Hydrogen. If you're making solar panels, demonize nuclear. This builds up your cult by creating a shared external enemy, and makes #1 and #2 more powerful. Make sure your followers are scared of some boogieman, to make sure they listen to you  more safely. Literally invent a great "Satan" for them to join your techno-religion over.

USA is one of the most highly educated populations in the world. No, we're not the best, but if the last few years have taught me anything, these 3 moves still affect us as a population incredibly. They are highly effective means at propaganda, and plenty of the Billionaires are using these techniques (aka: "Reputation services") to their benefit.

--------

You'll see it time and time again. A few years ago it was all about essential oils for example, or other forms of multilevel marketing. Do you think your friends / family are smart enough to figure out that they've been swindled on their own?

That whole "Democracy works if we're educated" idea is a fun fantasy, but that statement didn't exist in today's period of incredibly powerful, and relatively cheap, mass-influence / propaganda / marketing abilities.

-------

EDIT: Also market failures, such as externalities, monopolies, cartels, and the like, always will form in the absence of government action. At a minimum, we need a watchdog to prevent the common / well known market failures (again: monopolies or cartels) from forming.

In the case of green energy, there's clearly an externality problem, but no one seems to agree on how to solve it. I think its clear that the free market isn't good enough for the job though, and some kind of regulatory system on top is needed.


----------



## 95Viper (Dec 23, 2021)

Let's stay on topic.
If you wish to carry on a discussion of some other form of energy topic, please, create your own thread in the appropriate forum section.


----------



## Bomby569 (Dec 23, 2021)

The key question with hydrogen:  Is there any viable option to store energy right now besides hydrogen?

No matter what source of energy you use, there will always be the need to store it and batteries have not reach a point to be the solution, they are expensive, they need large quantities of scarce materials, and they are either heavy or the amount you require for certain uses makes them impractical.


----------



## KLiKzg (Dec 24, 2021)

ARF said:


> I don't know. With these so low ranges of 200-250 kilometers, you can't really rely on them, at least just yet.
> 
> I am not sure as of when they will release an affordable sedan with 800-900 kilometers of range.
> An affordable means $25,000 or less.


Sooner then you might think.

Just my 2 cents worth from Rimac Automobili.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 26, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Or simply a shaft and boil water with the heat down deep? It gets real hot as one goes down a few miles


I mean that's pretty much what geothermal is.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 20, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> Because the best-case efficiency of H20 to H2 is 70% (using expensive catalysts), plus the efficiency of that Fuel Cell is only 50%.  Add in the losses to transport H2 from a big electrolysis factory to your local gas station (15%  higher losses than just sending it over power lines), and you get a *final efficiency of around 30%*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The difference is that hydrogen is _dispatchable_ meaning that it can be converted to and from electricity on demand.  It simultaneously solves grid problems (excessive renewable) and transportation problems (fuel to drive jets, planes, trucks, and trains).  When you add to that the fact that hydrogen can generally be produced where it is needed, it eliminates most of the transportation costs that we currently incur via the oil and gas industries.

#1 is false.  The fuel cell and tanks are very, very light compared to battery packs.  It's more comparable to ICE and fuel tank.  Remember that 20 gallons of gasoline/diesel weigh a lot too.  In terms of energy, 1 kg of hydrogen is about equal to 1 gallon of gasoline (2.766913 kg).  The fuel itself is almost a third of the weight by energy density.  Some of that difference is lost because of the more robust tanks.

#2 is also false. Electricity is easily transmitted and generally can be produced wherever it is needed (solar, wind, nuclear).  All hydrogen production needs in addition to electricity is a supply of water.  Nuclear power plants also require access to water: the two technologies complement each other very well.  There's really no reason to transport hydrogen via means that aren't consumed (tankers).  With fossil fuels, transportation is required.


I didn't check the 19 pages of this thread but if it has been posted, it's worth posting again:

2021 Toyota Mirai









2022 Hyperion XP-1









Nikola

















Everything we need to completely do away with fossil fuels is available today.  The only problem is big oil (for obvious reasons) and politics (government money is behind battery electric) standing in the way of the revolution.

Koch is the only company I know of in the USA that is starting to ramp up green hydrogen production:








						Green Hydrogen: Koch Engineering & Fidelis Infrastructure Invest $9.2 Billion In Renewable Energy Ecosystem In Louisiana
					

Koch Engineered Solutions announces that two of its companies, Optimized Process Designs (OPD) and Koch Project Solutions (KPS),...




					fuelcellsworks.com
				





TL;DR: All the technology pieces are here; all that's left is investment to propagate it across the economy.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 20, 2022)

@FordGT90Concept holy ******* ****, you came out of nowhere.  been a long time no see.  

welcome back!!!


----------



## defaultluser (Jan 20, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The difference is that hydrogen is _dispatchable_ meaning that it can be converted to and from electricity on demand.  It simultaneously solves grid problems (excessive renewable) and transportation problems (fuel to drive jets, planes, trucks, and trains).  When you add to that the fact that hydrogen can generally be produced where it is needed, it eliminates most of the transportation costs that we currently incur via the oil and gas industries.



It's only _dispatchable_ if you are willing to pay the insane costs of build an entirely new storage infrastructure on-site *(no, you can't reuse methane tanks, because they can't handle the pressure)

If you want local generation, then you need local storage* (in case your H2 consumer is not constant, or just in case you have H2 production downtime):!

THE COST ESTIMATES ARE MUCH HIGHER, ACCORDING TO THIS STUDY:



			https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/08/f36/hdtt_roadmap_July2017.pdf
		




FordGT90Concept said:


> #1 is false.  The fuel cell and tanks are very, very light compared to battery packs.  It's more comparable to ICE and fuel tank.  Remember that 20 gallons of gasoline/diesel weigh a lot too.  In terms of energy, 1 kg of hydrogen is about equal to 1 gallon of gasoline (2.766913 kg).  The fuel itself is almost a third of the weight by energy density.  Some of that difference is lost because of the more robust tanks.




*The tanks have to be much heavier than a Gas tank, because of 10k PSI pressure*; if you think they weigh less, can you tell me why the 2021 Mirai (4,255lb )has almost the same curb weight as the Tesla Model 3 LR (4,250lb)?  Both Energy Supply Systems are virtually the same weight!



FordGT90Concept said:


> #2 is also false. Electricity is easily transmitted and generally can be produced wherever it is needed (solar, wind, nuclear).  All hydrogen production needs in addition to electricity is a supply of water.  Nuclear power plants also require access to water: the two technologies complement each other very well.  There's really no reason to transport hydrogen via means that aren't consumed (tankers).  With fossil fuels, transportation is required.



You can make a case for Jet fuel coming from Green Hydrogen -* the price premium on H2souurced fuels for ships will be too high to be absorbed by the shipping industry!*

The cost of creating H2 delivery infrastructure for trains is much more than the cost of universal track electrification!  And as the density of batteries increases, the advantages of going full-BEV on trucks will be obvious!



FordGT90Concept said:


> I didn't check the 19 pages of this thread but if it has been posted, it's worth posting again:
> 
> 2021 Toyota Mirai
> 
> ...


When two of your "Must-have- testimonials" include a crook (Nikola), and a whiny  TV Reviewer  who first reviewed BEVs back in 2011, and since then has made damn sure that he never gives them another shot (*Top Gear never reviewed another BEV until he and Jeremy left*, becausre *he's already made-up his mind, much like you*!)

*The first-generation of Leaf sucked, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the plethora pf improvements other companies have brought in the last decade!  But when you're "in-denial" like james, you tend to MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT BUYING THE UPGRADED MODEL OF "YOU ONE OPTION!"*


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 20, 2022)

The tanks are made of carbon fiber (aka light and strong):





						Physical Hydrogen Storage
					

Physical storage is the most mature hydrogen storage technology.




					www.energy.gov
				




$10,000 for a 20 kg 700 bar tank.  And these tanks can withstand 30'06 round fired at it.



defaultluser said:


> *The tanks have to be much heavier than a Gas tank, because of 10k PSI pressure*; if you think they weigh less, can you tell me why the 2021 Mirai (4,255lb )has almost the same curb weight as the Tesla Model 3 LR (4,250lb)?  Both Energy Supply Systems are virtually the same weight!


It's a much larger car with 25% more range:








						Comparison Tesla Model 3 LR vs Toyota Mirai
					

For some car owners, the future of the car lies with a hydrogen-based propulsion rather than an electric car with a large battery. To make a technical comparison between 2 state of art comparable c…




					tm3een.home.blog


----------



## defaultluser (Jan 20, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The tanks are made of carbon fiber (aka light and strong):
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*Then why does the car weigh exactly the same as a Model 3 Tesla LR?*

The original release model had straight carbon fiber reinforced steel tanks, *and this model with Polymer layers  weighs almost exactly the same!

Care to explain this math for me?    it seems to go the opposite of whatever you re dreaming!*


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 20, 2022)

Mirai is a luxury/executive mid-size sedan.  Tesla 3 is a compact budget sedan.  Model S is more comparative.

In the Toyota stable, Lexus GS 300h is the closest which comes in at 3,730 lbs versus Mirai 4,300 lbs.





Here's a comparative picture from the LS 500h (larger):





Remember that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are hybrids with the fuel cell replacing the internal combustion engine.  Hydrogen fuel cells have all of the performance advantages that hybrids do over their non-hybrid brethren.

Hydrogen vehicles will get lighter as technology improves.  Just compare the first generation Mirai to the second generation Mirai for proof of that.


Mirai caries 5.6 kg of hydrogen fuel where GS 300h carries 66l of petroleum which is 48.7 kg.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jan 20, 2022)

Mirai is a bad example, because 700-bar / 10,000 PSI tanks are either cheap-but-heavy, or light-but-expensive to make right now. Carbon-fiber reinforced pressure tanks do exist and have great specs, but they're just too expensive right now.

Making the tank bigger, so that there's more space inside but still the same amount of strength, is the ideal scenario.





This completely solves the weight issue. The amount of steel thickness you need to safely contain 10,000 PSI of pressure is basically the same between a small car and a large truck. In contrast, you need 100x as many Li-ion batteries (which are very, very heavy) to power a truck like that.

-------

Hydrogen as a technology should first be applied where it is "obviously good", like trucks and busses. The Xcient truck is commercial and shipping around the world in small numbers. Other trucks and busses are coming down from other car manufacturers. When those $10,000 carbon fiber tanks can be mass produced, then and only then will we consider Hydrogen for a small sedan. This technology just favors large vehicles for now.


----------



## defaultluser (Jan 20, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Mirai is a luxury/executive mid-size sedan.  Tesla 3 is a compact budget sedan.  Model S is more comparative.
> 
> In the Toyota stable, Lexus GS 300h is the closest which comes in at 3,730 lbs versus Mirai 4,300 lbs.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry man, but comparing the weight of a Grandpamobile like the GS 300 series, you do understand how much more crap they add?

The Toyota Camry is a similar class of car, with similar feature set, and similar dead-quiet ride comfort.

*It weighs ALMOST 1000 pounds less than the Mirai and Model 3

What kind of amazing magic tricks are you going to perform now to disqualify the Camry from  the discussion?  We are talking about comparing two different attempts at full EVs with a standard gas car, for comparison purposes!*


----------



## KLiKzg (Jan 20, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The difference is that hydrogen is _dispatchable_ meaning that it can be converted to and from electricity on demand.  It simultaneously solves grid problems (excessive renewable) and transportation problems (fuel to drive jets, planes, trucks, and trains).  When you add to that the fact that hydrogen can generally be produced where it is needed, it eliminates most of the transportation costs that we currently incur via the oil and gas industries.
> 
> #1 is false.  The fuel cell and tanks are very, very light compared to battery packs.  It's more comparable to ICE and fuel tank.  Remember that 20 gallons of gasoline/diesel weigh a lot too.  In terms of energy, 1 kg of hydrogen is about equal to 1 gallon of gasoline (2.766913 kg).  The fuel itself is almost a third of the weight by energy density.  Some of that difference is lost because of the more robust tanks.
> 
> ...


Just do not post any more of NIKOLA, as a whole case of those truck has been (and is) a cheat. Right now NIKOLA CEO is on court for fraud!
Link: https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/29/22599726/nikola-founder-securities-fraud-charge-milton


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 21, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> I'm sorry man, but comparing the weight of a Grandpamobile like the GS 300 series, you do understand how much more crap they add?
> 
> The Toyota Camry is a similar class of car, with similar feature set, and similar dead-quiet ride comfort.
> 
> ...


#1 Camry is not a luxury/executive car where Mirai is.  Luxury/executive cars weigh a great deal more than their non-luxury brethren due to more automation, more/better speakers, better materials (e.g. plush leather versus cloth; wood surfaces instead of plastic), and sound proofing material packed into every nook and cranny.
#2 Camry pollutes the air as it runs where the Mirai cleans it.
#3 Camry does not have instant torque like the Mirai and Lexus GS 300h.
#4 Camry is not virtually silent.
#5 Mirai is no Camry:











KLiKzg said:


> Just do not post any more of NIKOLA, as a whole case of those truck has been (and is) a cheat. Right now NIKOLA CEO is on court for fraud!
> Link: https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/29/22599726/nikola-founder-securities-fraud-charge-milton


You obviously did not watch the video I linked.  They're already shipping battery electric trucks to customers and they have seven alpha fuel cell vehicles they're testing.  There is an enormous amount of demand for both of these kinds of trucks and the infrastructure to fuel them.  One bad egg in a company doesn't ruin the remainder.


News today (January 21, 2022):








						World's first hydrogen tanker to ship test cargo to Japan from Australia
					

A Japanese-Australian venture producing hydrogen from brown coal is set to start loading its maiden cargo on the world's first liquid hydrogen carrier on Friday, in a test delayed by nearly a year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Space Lynx (May 6, 2022)

The world’s biggest hydrogen fuel cell EV has started work in South Africa
					

Green hydrogen is made on-site to power the enormous truck's fuel cells.




					arstechnica.com
				




Interesting article here, this makes a lot of sense for hydrogen.


----------



## Aquinus (May 6, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> The world’s biggest hydrogen fuel cell EV has started work in South Africa
> 
> 
> Green hydrogen is made on-site to power the enormous truck's fuel cells.
> ...


The article says:


> Of course, the hydrogen has to come from somewhere, which is why Anglo American will make it on-site using a 3.5 MW electrolyzer, with electricity coming from a 100 MW solar array. When fully operational, it should be capable of producing up to a metric ton of hydrogen a day.


Unless it's being done under high heat and high pressure like those that use waste heat from nuclear plants, it's bound to not be that efficient. This is the way to do it though, using some renewable source to create the H2. Photovoltaic solar is probably better for something like pumped storage though as there fewer losses compared to run of the mill electrolysis. Something like nuclear power is probably the best way to electrolyze water to make H2 because the reactor provides both the electricity to run the electrolyzer, but also the heat to improve efficiency (it also doesn't stop when the sun goes down.) For those that don't know, electrolysis is fairly efficient at really high temperatures and pressures and reduces the amount of power needed to produce H2. This is not anywhere near STP or what you would encounter in nature on Earth though, hence nuclear being a good choice.

With that said though, something like a combo of photovoltaic and thermal solar could have a similar result in theory, but it doesn't sound like that's what this company is planning on doing since parabolic mirrors that move with the sun tend to cost more than stationary panels do. I'm still not sold on the idea that hydrogen is a good way to store energy. Even if we do manage to produce it efficently at scale without breaking the bank, there are a lot of safety considerations with hydrogen considering how volatile and reactive it is.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 6, 2022)

Aquinus said:


> The article says:
> 
> Unless it's being done under high heat and high pressure like those that use waste heat from nuclear plants, it's bound to not be that efficient. This is the way to do it though, using some renewable source to create the H2. Photovoltaic solar is probably better for something like pumped storage though as there fewer losses compared to run of the mill electrolysis. Something like nuclear power is probably the best way to electrolyze water to make H2 because the reactor provides both the electricity to run the electrolyzer, but also the heat to improve efficiency (it also doesn't stop when the sun goes down.) For those that don't know, electrolysis is fairly efficient at really high temperatures and pressures and reduces the amount of power needed to produce H2. This is not anywhere near STP or what you would encounter in nature on Earth though, hence nuclear being a good choice.
> 
> With that said though, something like a combo of photovoltaic and thermal solar could have a similar result in theory, but it doesn't sound like that's what this company is planning on doing since parabolic mirrors that move with the sun tend to cost more than stationary panels do. I'm still not sold on the idea that hydrogen is a good way to store energy. Even if we do manage to produce it efficently at scale without breaking the bank, there are a lot of safety considerations with hydrogen considering how volatile and reactive it is.




yeah that is what I mean, it is great for unique type of vehicles in certain work situations. i don't think it will ever be scaled for everyone, but like you know, take the Nevada Lithium locations where the big mines are there for that mineral, Nevada is perfect for another situation like this, some massive solar farms, and some giant ass hydrogen miner trucks


----------



## Aquinus (May 6, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> yeah that is what I mean, it is great for unique type of vehicles in certain work situations. i don't think it will ever be scaled for everyone, but like you know, take the Nevada Lithium locations where the big mines are there for that mineral, Nevada is perfect for another situation like this, some massive solar farms, and some giant ass hydrogen miner trucks


A hydrogen leak in a confined area like a mine scares the hell out of me. That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Regardless of the use case, hydrogen is an extremely dangerous substance that needs to be handled with extreme care.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 7, 2022)

Aquinus said:


> A hydrogen leak in a confined area like a mine scares the hell out of me. That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Regardless of the use case, hydrogen is an extremely dangerous substance that needs to be handled with extreme care.



When I look at these giant trucks doing giant mining sites, they really don't drive into "cave like" areas, these trucks are too big for that, the ones from the South Africa article I linked anyway.

I am sure they know it is dangerous in South Africa too and take precautions, its massive amounts of money invested, so I am sure they have massive amounts of protocols too... unlike BP offshore oil drilling anyway...


----------



## X71200 (May 7, 2022)

Hydrogen does make more sense towards big rigs than cars (not in for having a huge tank and conversion equipment in car). Though, like when nearly every truck is rocking diesel... and the other bits such as carrying of hydrogen with diesel trucks added in... it still isn't implemented all properly, even in trucks. Nikola was a cool idea but not a lot came out of it in the recent years. To be honest though, hydrogen is nowhere to be as commonly found down the tanks as diesel... so yeah. Maybe in the future, since price of diesel is not exactly cheap.


----------



## DOA (May 7, 2022)

I am not sure where the size vehicle will favor hydrogen, maybe trains and bigger?

If it's at all possible to use electricity directly (or batteries) you have about a 40% efficiency advantage. The electricity - hydrogen - electricity cycle just cannot be made very efficient. But hydrogen does store well and scales to larger sizes.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 7, 2022)

DOA said:


> If it's at all possible to use electricity directly (or batteries) you have about a 40% efficiency advantage. The electricity - hydrogen - electricity cycle just cannot be made very efficient. But hydrogen does store well and scales to larger sizes.



Why not? NiMH batteries are literally the electricity - hydrogen - electricity conversion for example and modern NiMH are in excess of 90% efficient charge/discharge.

--------

Now instead of storing Hydrogen in Nickel or other metals, you bulk-store hydrogen in a pressurized canister, so that you can add/remove energy to portable applications. Bam, you have fuel cells.

All of these forms of energy are related to each other. Its just physics and chemistry.


----------



## Shrek (May 7, 2022)

Let us not confuse terminology

Fuel cell - Wikipedia
A fuel cell is an electrochemical cell that converts the chemical energy of a fuel (often hydrogen) and an oxidizing agent (often oxygen[1]) into electricity through a pair of redox reactions.


----------



## Aquinus (May 7, 2022)

DOA said:


> hydrogen does store well


No it doesn't. You need to be very careful to make sure the tanks don't become brittle due to the reactive nature of hydrogen. It's not like storing other fuels because not only is it very dangerous if there is a leak, it reacts with a heck of a lot more things than other fuels. So the difficulty of storing it safely is actually a relatively hard problem.


----------



## Shrek (May 7, 2022)

I seem to recall that hydrogen can slowly leak through steel (the hydrogen atom being so small).


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 7, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Let us not confuse terminology
> 
> Fuel cell - Wikipedia
> A fuel cell is an electrochemical cell that converts the chemical energy of a fuel (often hydrogen) and an oxidizing agent (often oxygen[1]) into electricity through a pair of redox reactions.



What is there to be confused?

Hydrogen stores chemical energy. Inside of a NiMH battery, the Hydrogen is released on anode, travels to the Cathode where it is stored. And the process is then reversed.

In Fuel Cells, the source of hydrogen is external. In NiMH, the hydrogen is internal and transfers between two different sides. Otherwise, its the same element / molecule that's performing the energy storage.

In life itself, Hydrogen is still the source of energy storage, its just being trapped in the Carbon element (aka: Hydrocarbons). Those hydrocarbons can turn into ethanol or even synthetic gasoline with the right processes. All of this technology is related. The ultimate goal is to try to find a technology that uses Hydrogen's energy-storage potential and wraps it up into an easy-to-use package.


----------



## Aquinus (May 7, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Inside of a NiMH battery, the Hydrogen is released on anode, travels to the Cathode where it is stored.


NiMH does not utilize elemental hydrogen, it's hydroxide ions that are involved in that reaction.


----------



## X71200 (May 7, 2022)

Let's be real here, though... hydrogen tanks are just Shrek in size, lol. Battery technology, on the other hand, is consistently improving. Samsung developed fully charging ones that do themselves in some 15-20 minutes... couple years back. Nowadays with some cars moving towards alternative batteries than Li-On, things will certainly lead towards pure electric. Like no brainer.


----------



## Shrek (May 7, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> What is there to be confused?



A fuel cell is not a storage device, it is a conversion device.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 7, 2022)

X71200 said:


> Battery technology, on the other hand, is consistently improving.


What isn't improving is their weight, having to haul around half a ton worth of batteries in a regular sized car is and will always be inefficient. Not to mention that this makes EVs effectively worthless for heavy duty  transport when half your payload will have to be batteries alone.


----------



## X71200 (May 7, 2022)

Vya Domus said:


> What isn't improving is their weight, having to haul around half a ton worth of batteries in a regular sized car is and will always be inefficient. Not to mention that this makes EVs effectively worthless for heavy duty  transport when half your payload will have to be batteries alone.



That's because companies are doing the lazy by stacking loads of li-on which is old tech. If you look at the early Mercedes EQC battery configuration, you could see a massive luggage sized, 384-cell li-po or something. It was impressive especially for an SUV. 

A lot of Chinese EVs are coming out, and many Tesla's are still floating with a huge rack of li-on underneath. Korean companies like Hyundai are just using li-on as well.

Things will probably change down the years when you get the more advanced batteries with faster chargers.


----------



## Shrek (May 7, 2022)

Is heating the limiting factor for fast charging?


----------



## X71200 (May 7, 2022)

It's more of not having the uber fast chargers usually available, that's the issue. Outside of Tesla, in the U.S you're bound to using slower chargers with other electricity companies. It's like that in other regions too, say you live in a 3rd world country, you'll be putting it to some charger down the mall and spending time while it's charged.


----------



## DOA (May 8, 2022)

"Why not? NiMH batteries are literally the electricity - hydrogen - electricity conversion for example and modern NiMH are in excess of 90% efficient charge/discharge."

This thinking is so wrong on so many levels. Battery chemistry and storing hydrogen from electrolysis are not really comparable for efficiency. Batteries cannot approach large pumped hydro and hydrogen capacity and suffer vampire drain.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 8, 2022)

I had no idea how bad lead was.... wow... just finished this new video from Veritasium.  Highly recommend it... also, in regards to the graph used in that video correlating crime rates to lead usage, I believe I also read somewhere part of the Roman Empire's fall may have been attributed to lead.










Piston engine airplanes need to go to hydrogen asap (I believe UK already had a successful test flight of one recently)... piston still uses lead fuel... 









						The epic attempts to power planes with hydrogen
					

During the Cold War, both the US and USSR researched liquid hydrogen as a way to fuel aircraft. Could this cleaner fuel finally be around the corner?




					www.bbc.com
				




interesting read there.


----------



## Aquinus (May 8, 2022)

DOA said:


> vampire drain


self-discharge is the proper term for this and NiMH tends to be worse in this respect than a lot of other types of rechargeable batteries.


CallandorWoT said:


> Piston engine airplanes need to go to hydrogen asap (I believe UK already had a successful test flight of one recently)... piston still uses lead fuel...


At least it's low lead in the sense that it's nowhere near how much was used in the past, but you're right. Ultimately to replace it, you need a more cost effective option that also achieves the same anti-knock characteristics since avgas (100LL,) has an octane rating of 100 RON which is higher than your typical unleaded equivalents. There are formulations that can achieve this, but they tend to cost more and nobody likes paying more than they have to (and avgas is pretty expensive.)


----------



## Mussels (May 9, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> I had no idea how bad lead was.... wow... just finished this new video from Veritasium.  Highly recommend it... also, in regards to the graph used in that video correlating crime rates to lead usage, I believe I also read somewhere part of the Roman Empire's fall may have been attributed to lead.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Egyptian Pharaohs used lead makeup, romans used lead pipes, america used lead in controlled explosions so they could go fast

When it comes to any technology, even one as simple as commonly used metals - it will take generations of human lives to find the slow-acting harmful ones.
Either it kills you instantly, kills you fast, or kills you over decades - very little isn't harmful.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 9, 2022)

Mussels said:


> Egyptian Pharaohs used lead makeup, romans used lead pipes, america used lead in controlled explosions so they could go fast
> 
> When it comes to any technology, even one as simple as commonly used metals - it will take generations of human lives to find the slow-acting harmful ones.
> Either it kills you instantly, kills you fast, or kills you over decades - very little isn't harmful.



Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huang was told that mercury would grant him immortal life. So he ate a few mercury pills.

There's also a few emperors / kings who loved to show up at parties in asbestos robes. The party trick was to throw the robe into a bonfire, and then pick it up later (as Asbestos has incredible fire-resistance).

Ahhhhh... the joy of luxury items being made out of literal poisons...


----------



## 95Viper (May 10, 2022)

Stay on topic.


----------



## cvaldes (May 10, 2022)

We have already gone over this before in this discussion, the technology isn't the limiting factor.

The biggest inhibitors for hydrogen vehicles are distribution and infrastructure. For cars the infrastructure is too expensive for the return.

Hydrogen as a fuel for commercial aviation makes more sense than regular consumer motor vehicles.

For commercial aviation, this might be more attainable due to the fact that airports are the refueling stations. It's not like a cross-country flight from LAX to JFK randomly stops in Wichita, KS or Des Moines, IA to take on more fuel, use the restroom and buy some snacks.

That said, there would have to be some sort of agreement between major governments to push for the distribution of hydrogen fuel for aircraft. It's not like a brand-new hydrogen-powered jetliner will fly from LAX to CDG or LHR only to find out that those European airports don't have hydrogen refueling available.

Trust me, I'm not blind to the issues with leaded fuel. There's a push to shut down a local general aviation airport (Reid-Hillview in San Jose, CA) due to lead-related pollution and health hazards due to their continued usage of 100LL avgas. It was built in 1937 when most of the surrounding land was farmland. Population growth pushed development right to the airport's fences. Humans have greater awareness of the dangers of lead today but also we have worsened the situation by developing real estate. If the general aviation industry had adopted hydrogen fuel 20-30 years ago, this particular community conflict might have been moot but here we are in 2022.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 19, 2022)

The reason why hydrogen for transportation is kept at 700 bar is because it isn't explosive like that.  If the tank is punctured, the hydrogen wants out more so than to react.  There is absolutely no evidence that hydrogen vehicles are less safe than comparative combustion vehicles.

I suspect hydrogen aircraft will be like the roll out of the Concorde.  Initially planes will be built to fly between only a handful of airports and those airports will have the infrastructure at them to produce hydrogen.  Airports will have to fundamentally become hydrogen fuel plants too.  They often own a lot of land so not much reason why they couldn't install solar panels on some of that land for the purpose of performing electroylsis.  Further, there's no reason why they couldn't sell surplus fuel to the local economy too.  Most airports also have freight hubs close by so the freigh hubs could reasonably change to HFCEV too and partnership with the airports on initial investment in the infrastructure.


What we need, and what Nikola is working on, is deployable water-plus-electricity-in/compressed-hydrogen-fuel-out systems.  Businesses of all kinds need to be able to phone up company to get a quote and have it installed in a year or two.

Keep in mind that grids have a lot of capacity at night that is unused.  Generating hydrogen fuel with that excessive capacity is a no brainer.


Leading fuel has been banned for decades.  I don't know of anyone that still does it.  It represents great environmental harm and the only benefit is that gasoline engine designers could be lazier.  Modern engines in the West, at least, are everything but lazy.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 20, 2022)

ITM Power is making 100% green hydrogen fuel today.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 20, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ITM Power is making 100% green hydrogen fuel today.



Thank you for sharing this, watching it now!


----------



## Bomby569 (May 20, 2022)

Renault reveals electric-hydrogen hybrid concept car, says it will have range of up to 497 miles
					

Renault's idea of developing a passenger vehicle that uses hydrogen technology is not unique.




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## r9 (May 20, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The reason why hydrogen for transportation is kept at 700 bar is because it isn't explosive like that.  If the tank is punctured, the hydrogen wants out more so than to react.  There is absolutely no evidence that hydrogen vehicles are less safe than comparative combustion vehicles.
> 
> I suspect hydrogen aircraft will be like the roll out of the Concorde.  Initially planes will be built to fly between only a handful of airports and those airports will have the infrastructure at them to produce hydrogen.  Airports will have to fundamentally become hydrogen fuel plants too.  They often own a lot of land so not much reason why they couldn't install solar panels on some of that land for the purpose of performing electroylsis.  Further, there's no reason why they couldn't sell surplus fuel to the local economy too.  Most airports also have freight hubs close by so the freigh hubs could reasonably change to HFCEV too and partnership with the airports on initial investment in the infrastructure.
> 
> ...


Nikola motor ?
If that is the same Nikola only thing he is working on is scamming people out of their money.


----------



## Operandi (May 20, 2022)

r9 said:


> Nikola motor ?
> If that is the same Nikola only thing he is working on is scamming people out of their money.


Its the same company but what you are talking about is how the CEO operated the company (and its not his first time either).  If you look past the sensational and scandalous headlines you'll see they have a lot of talent in both the hydrogen and automotive field and what Nikola is working on is the real deal.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 20, 2022)

Operandi said:


> Its the same company but what you are talking about is how the CEO operated the company (and its not his first time either).  If you look past the sensational and scandalous headlines you'll see they have a lot of talent in both the hydrogen and automotive field and what Nikola is working on is the real deal.



Ehhh. Nikola is very hype-based. I find it difficult to believe in anything they do. If they end up being some kind of sleeper-success, good on them. But they really burned a lot of public trust with their shenanigans already.

But Hyundai, Daimler, Toyota betting on Hydrogen, and those are automakers I can respect. It seems like Hydrogen is the real deal, the question now is of economics more so than technology.


----------



## r9 (May 20, 2022)

Operandi said:


> Its the same company but what you are talking about is how the CEO operated the company (and its not his first time either).  If you look past the sensational and scandalous headlines you'll see they have a lot of talent in both the hydrogen and automotive field and what Nikola is working on is the real deal.


Dude is a scam artist. End of story.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 21, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> But Hyundai, Daimler, Toyota betting on Hydrogen, and those are automakers I can respect. It seems like Hydrogen is the real deal, the question now is of economics more so than technology.


Trucks, trains, and planes have far more to gain from hydrogen than cars do simple because of the energy density involved.  Put bluntly: if you're really honest about zero emission, batteries cannot achieve that for trucks, trains, and planes.  This is why companies like Nikola are important: they're building the infrastructure and vehicles to reach zero emission.  Cars that need endurance can piggy back on truck, train, and plane hydrogen infrastructure but cars definitely won't be the driving force behind it because battery electric works well enough in most cases (especially with hyper-efficient offerings coming like Aptera that solve the range problem entirely).

To be honest, trucks are at a crossroad now: either they go natural gas or they go hydrogen.  Luckily, Russia/Ukraine politics has made natural gas soar so over the last few months, hydrogen has become the best viable fuel for zero emission trucking.

An electric truck is really only good for moving trailers around a yard or short delivers in cities.  They are wholly unsuitable for city-to-city deliveries because they'll spend more time charging than driving and deliver far less freight than a comparative diesel truck when they arrive (because battery weight has to be countered by cargo weight).


----------



## Space Lynx (May 21, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Trucks, trains, and planes have far more to gain from hydrogen than cars do simple because of the energy density involved.  Put bluntly: if you're really honest about zero emission, batteries cannot achieve that for trucks, trains, and planes.  This is why companies like Nikola are important: they're building the infrastructure and vehicles to reach zero emission.  Cars that need endurance can piggy back on truck, train, and plane hydrogen infrastructure but cars definitely won't be the driving force behind it because battery electric works well enough in most cases (especially with hyper-efficient offerings coming like Aptera that solve the range problem entirely).
> 
> To be honest, trucks are at a crossroad now: either they go natural gas or they go hydrogen.  Luckily, Russia/Ukraine politics has made natural gas soar so over the last few months, hydrogen has become the best viable fuel for zero emission trucking.
> 
> An electric truck is really only good for moving trailers around a yard or short delivers in cities.  They are wholly unsuitable for city-to-city deliveries because they'll spend more time charging than driving and deliver far less freight than a comparative diesel truck when they arrive (because battery weight has to be countered by cargo weight).



Aptera solar powered cars for people who live in the southwest or other very very sunny areas,  new hydrogen infrastructure for semi-trucks, planes, trains (and hopefully coincide along with long haul specific autopilot semi trucks and hydrogen refill stations strategically placed for these autopilot long haul trucks (but leaving most other trucks alone and you still keeping real life drivers for the shorter and medium hauls and still on diesel at first), a staged improvement over time... and nuclear power plants ala bill gates and warren buffets in Wyoming as the new model to make, and coincide those along say Nevada where the largest lithium mine is, wait for solid state battery tech to progress - EV's for cloudy/less sunny areas...

I think we are in agreement that the answer is very simple, in that the answer must be varied and deployed in stages... sadly for me and you we live in a failed nation state who just spent over a trillion dollars on old world tech infrastructure and throwing money at EV because it makes them feel good on the inside and sleep well at night. I'd be fine with spending money on EV if it included a government mandate moving to solid state battery tech ala Toyota sharing their tech with everyone else (toyota has solid state EV's coming soon) in return Toyota would get a tax credit on their cars for x amount of years, and possibly some of the money would also go into a united effort where solid state batteries all come from the same factory and all companies chip in to make it a good one outside of Nevada where we have plenty of lithium, and a water pipeline built to the lithium mine from one of the great lakes. 

I don't know. Honestly, I don't have much hope for the future, there is so much complexity needed, and government officials just don't have that level of detail nor that freedom from lobbyists required to do well.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 21, 2022)

Material and chemical sciences will keep pushing technology forward. Look at how far things have come. There are things we won't reach for some time (Fusion), others will be dead ends. But there are breakthroughs across the globe all the time.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 21, 2022)

BEVs have 98% efficiency where HFCEVs are about 30% (talking the entire process of converting water into hydrogen/water, compressing it, transporting it, and converting it back into water for electricity).  In all instances where BEVs make sense (especially urban areas), BEVs are going to dominant.  Yes, they have enormous up front purchase cost but electricity, especially off peak, is significantly cheaper than fossil fuels.  A new F-150 Lightning, for example, would only cost $6 to fully charge off peak here which is enough to get 230 miles by their claims.  The same money will only buy about 1.5 gallons of gasoline which will translate to about 40 miles in a regular F-150.  That fact makes BEVs really attractive to everyone that doesn't have to travel very far.

By comparison, hydrogen is going for about $12/kg and in power terms, a kg is about equal to a gallon of gasoline.  When gasoline starts hitting $10/gallon, suddenly hydrogen starts looking a whole lot more attractive.

I'm convinced there's a lot more research and innovation to be done with hydrogen; there's not much for batteries.  Hydrogen production can also solve a lot of problems associated with power grids (act as a very inefficient battery) so it's attractive for a variety of reasons.  The problem is that market forces haven't made hydrogen competitive yet.  If governments do something stupid like banning fossil fuels in trucks/trains/planes, then the industry will be forced into hydrogen because it's the only viable zero emission solution.  Without that nudge, hydrogen will keep improving until it becomes competitive with fossil fuels.


What we really need is a nuclear power plant constructed for the primary purpose of generating hydrogen fuel.   I don't know if anyone ran the numbers for how much per kg that would be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being cheaper than diesel.  The upfront investment cost is _huge_ though.

If a company like Westinghouse started producing 10 MW fission reactors w/ hydrogen loop that can be transported virtually anywhere via truck and requires nothing for 40 years except water and filter replacement then any company could buy these things, plop them down anywhere, and start selling hydrogen and surplus electricity, they would trigger a hydrogen age.  They could even have modules on them to use salt water, for example.  Combine that with a regulation requiring all vehicles to recover and store water from the hydrogen fuel cell, this infrastructure could transport water from places where it is abundant (like oceans) to places where is not (like deserts) and almost all of the water in the system is recycled/kept out of the environment.  Fuel pumps would have two nozzles: one to vacuum water and one to push hydrogen so fill up time would be the same.  This kind of regulation is what the government needs to be doing now so when hydrogen does take off, everyone is on the same page and prepared for an almost truly zero impact fuel system on the environment.

Not only that, it would democratize energy like never before seen in human history: remote villages would have equal access to energy as urbanites. It has the potential to end poverty permanently.  Sounds like a fantasy but isn't.  We already have all the technology to do all of this.  The only thing missing is government approval.  I wish I were joking.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 21, 2022)

@FordGT90Concept

I was just wondering about this https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/zero-emission/hydrogen/zeroe and it could deliver the clay below:









						Minerals Used in Kitty Litter Could Help Fight Climate Change
					

A MIT study shows how, when treated with copper, a clay called zeolite can convert methane to carbon dioxide, a less powerful greenhouse gas




					www.smithsonianmag.com
				




so if we use this zeolite clay on methane leaky areas, I wonder if we could really halt climate change much better than we realize? like if the permafrost in Siberia melts and releases all that methane, could we not take airplanes loaded to max with zeolite clay, and drop it over the methane leaky areas (satellites would show the biggest methane leaks I imagine)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 21, 2022)

Planes are a lot harder because electric motors have limits on how much thrust they can produce.  Here's hoping Airbus (and others) find a viable solution.  I think if hydrogen fuel were plentiful, there would be an incentive to design a jet engine that isn't electric based but still gas expansion based.  It might be possible to provide a linear environment (like a jet) where hydrogen can fuse, expanding into water vapor, which drives the compressor fins.  There would have to be really strong, water-resistant blades in the compressor and getting the hydrogen conditions right will probably take supercomputers to solve.


It's better to just sequester and burn methane.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 22, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Planes are a lot harder because electric motors have limits on how much thrust they can produce.  Here's hoping Airbus (and others) find a viable solution.  I think if hydrogen fuel were plentiful, there would be an incentive to design a jet engine that isn't electric based but still gas expansion based.  It might be possible to provide a linear environment (like a jet) where hydrogen can fuse, expanding into water vapor, which drives the compressor fins.  There would have to be really strong, water-resistant blades in the compressor and getting the hydrogen conditions right will probably take supercomputers to solve.
> 
> 
> It's better to just sequester and burn methane.



Syngas Kerosene for airplanes seems like the most reasonable (short term anyway) 100% renewable jet fuel.

Hydrogen -> syngas -> Kerosene is the steps IIRC from a chemical perspective.


----------



## Shrek (May 22, 2022)

At that point we might as well make synthetic gasoline for cars.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 22, 2022)

Shrek said:


> At that point we might as well make synthetic gasoline for cars.



Each step is a loss of efficiency. Hydrogen would be preferred, but has severe volume restrictions.

Heavy pressure canisters seem to solve the problem from a car / vehicle perspective, but those canisters are too heavy for airplanes IIRC.


----------



## Shrek (May 22, 2022)

I think you are right, and ships and trucks might be the place for them.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 22, 2022)

Or smaller, lighter, autonomous drones.  There's really no economical reason going forward that 100 people should crowd into one aircraft.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 22, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Or smaller, lighter, autonomous drones.  There's really no economical reason going forward that 100 people should crowd into one aircraft.



USA airports are liftoff/landing bound. More people crowding into one airplane means more bandwidth for our system. More airplanes with fewer people per-airplane basically means cutting the throughput of our airplane system significantly.

Airplanes also benefit greatly from the efficiencies of scale, much like trucks and boats. Bigger means more efficient. Drag is surface area, but carrying capacity is volume. So drag increases with meters-squared, while volume / capacity increases with meters-cubed.

If you wanna see inefficiency, look at the costs of general aviation, 1-person Cessnas and whatnot. The joke is that small-airplanes use *money* to generate lift because its so absurdly expensive / inefficient.


----------



## KLiKzg (May 23, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Is heating the limiting factor for fast charging?


In a way, it is...as more power insertion into cells, will generate more heat...while more heat will irreversibly damage the cells!



FordGT90Concept said:


> The reason why hydrogen for transportation is kept at 700 bar is because it isn't explosive like that.  If the tank is punctured, the hydrogen wants out more so than to react.  There is absolutely no evidence that hydrogen vehicles are less safe than comparative combustion vehicles.


This is simply not true, as they are threated as CNG vehicles - which do have a compressed fuel in tank. So does the HEV!

That is why in most countries they have a sticker saying that it has tank under pressure.


----------



## defaultluser (May 23, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Planes are a lot harder because electric motors have limits on how much thrust they can produce.  Here's hoping Airbus (and others) find a viable solution.  I think if hydrogen fuel were plentiful, there would be an incentive to design a jet engine that isn't electric based but still gas expansion based.  It might be possible to provide a linear environment (like a jet) where hydrogen can fuse, expanding into water vapor, which drives the compressor fins.  There would have to be really strong, water-resistant blades in the compressor and getting the hydrogen conditions right will probably take supercomputers to solve.
> 
> 
> It's better to just sequester and burn methane.




Hydrogen fuel in a plane will also  require  a complete redesign of the in-wing fuel tanks.









						Why are fuel tanks located in wings?
					

Passenger aircraft have fuel tanks in the wings. Why? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this location ?  examples of disadvantages I would suspect: added weight increases the structural...




					aviation.stackexchange.com
				




putting a pressure vessel inside such a  sharply-angled surface means allot  of wasted space!


----------



## Space Lynx (May 23, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> Hydrogen fuel in a plane will also  require  a complete redesign of the in-wing fuel tanks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why are you even discussing this? They already have the design sorted out...









						ZEROe
					

Discover ZEROe, Airbus’ hydrogen-powered concepts that are shaping our future zero-emission commercial aircraft.




					www.airbus.com


----------



## defaultluser (May 23, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> Why are you even discussing this? They already have the design sorted out...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Because "Single plane concept" definitely screams to me "ready for ,mass-production?"

.Just like the flying Wing passenger aircraft  that keeps making a pitch every decade?  From the exact same company?









						Airbus’ Maveric Brings B-2 Bomber Style to Passenger Jets
					

Starting with the small-scale model Maveric, the planemaker says this new design could produce major efficiency gains.




					www.wired.com


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 23, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> USA airports are liftoff/landing bound. More people crowding into one airplane means more bandwidth for our system. More airplanes with fewer people per-airplane basically means cutting the throughput of our airplane system significantly.
> 
> Airplanes also benefit greatly from the efficiencies of scale, much like trucks and boats. Bigger means more efficient. Drag is surface area, but carrying capacity is volume. So drag increases with meters-squared, while volume / capacity increases with meters-cubed.
> 
> If you wanna see inefficiency, look at the costs of general aviation, 1-person Cessnas and whatnot. The joke is that small-airplanes use *money* to generate lift because its so absurdly expensive / inefficient.


You assume drones need airports.


----------



## Assimilator (May 23, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm convinced there's a lot more research and innovation to be done with hydrogen; there's not much for batteries


People who say "there's not much more that can be done in field X" generally end up looking rather foolish a decade or so down the line.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 25, 2022)

It's physics.  Compare capacitors (high power, short duration) with batteries (low power, long duration).  The fundamental concept of both is trapping electrons and the higher energy those electrons have, the more inclined they are to escape entrapment.  This tradeoff is inescapable. Batteries have not improved much over the last 20 years (latest breakthrough was lithium-ion).  They've also not improved much in terms of energy density nor cost (about 100% since proof of concept).  Li-ion was coming down in $/kwh but now it's going up again because of excess demand versus supply.

Meanwhile, look at Toyota Mirai between the first generation and second generation. Everything about it improved by double digits (20% more power, 15% more hydrogen capacity, 30% more range, etc.) in the space of six years.  Toyota isn't even trying that hard because it's such a low volume product.


----------



## Assimilator (May 25, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Meanwhile, look at Toyota Mirai between the first generation and second generation. Everything about it improved by double digits (20% more power, 15% more hydrogen capacity, 30% more range, etc.) in the space of six years.  Toyota isn't even trying that hard because it's such a low volume product.


It improved so much because hydrogen hasn't received nearly as much R&D as batteries and li-ion in particular, so there's a lot more low-hanging fruit to be plucked from the hydrogen research tree. Those impressive increases are going to drop off fast once all the easy wins are won.

That's not to say that it's not worthwhile to invest into hydrogen R&D - the more options we have to get away from fossil fuels, absolutely the better - but writing off battery tech in favour of hydrogen is certainly premature.


----------



## Massdeth (May 26, 2022)

I dont know if anyone has mentioned it, but Bob Lazar made his own Corvette a hydrogen powered car that does full speeds and goes 400 miles. He used 4 heavy pressure canisters and a electrolysis setup he inventted to store water on one side and split only what you need as your driving with very little actual hydrogen/oxygen stored, which makes the dangers of it almost nil. It could be done so easily in a mass scale but it would cut the into the energy cartels and car makers so hard they fight it. He explains the whole setup and process here:


----------



## Space Lynx (May 26, 2022)

@FordGT90Concept @Shrek @lexluthermiester

I just watched the above video in the post before this one, is this legit? Is it really that easy to do hydrogen? I don't know if I buy what this video is selling, because if it were that easy, wouldn't Toyota just have made lots of hydrogen stations easily in California for their Mirai hydrogen car?


----------



## DrCR (May 26, 2022)

Hold up. I’m not in a situation where I can watch that video right now, but if I’m understanding what you said, his setup makes no sense as any electricity for on the fly electrolysis would be far more efficiently used running an electric motor.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 26, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's physics.  Compare capacitors (high power, short duration) with batteries (low power, long duration).  The fundamental concept of both is trapping electrons and the higher energy those electrons have, the more inclined they are to escape entrapment.  This tradeoff is inescapable. Batteries have not improved much over the last 20 years (latest breakthrough was lithium-ion).  They've also not improved much in terms of energy density nor cost (about 100% since proof of concept).  Li-ion was coming down in $/kwh but now it's going up again because of excess demand versus supply.
> 
> Meanwhile, look at Toyota Mirai between the first generation and second generation. Everything about it improved by double digits (20% more power, 15% more hydrogen capacity, 30% more range, etc.) in the space of six years.  Toyota isn't even trying that hard because it's such a low volume product.





Assimilator said:


> It improved so much because hydrogen hasn't received nearly as much R&D as batteries and li-ion in particular, so there's a lot more low-hanging fruit to be plucked from the hydrogen research tree. Those impressive increases are going to drop off fast once all the easy wins are won.
> 
> That's not to say that it's not worthwhile to invest into hydrogen R&D - the more options we have to get away from fossil fuels, absolutely the better - but writing off battery tech in favour of hydrogen is certainly premature.



So, I'm not sure if you guys are trolling, revising history, or simply have such a limiting view that it's funny.  I think it's time to reconcile.

That is to say, batteries based on electronegativity stretch back to ancient Egypt.  Lithium ion batteries are also batteries that store energy through electronegativity...and literally began life as canopic jars that held ionic fluids.  The "much more research" here is a vague and poorly defined transient interest in a specific chemistry of electronegative chemistry...which itself has mostly been focused on the terminal construction to allow for increased charging rates and increased battery life before the chemical make-up of these batteries starts to degrade. 
Remember, there are tutorials out there regarding the common sulfuric acid-lead batteries that have been around basically as long as electrical power has been commonly adopted.


Now, likewise, hydrogen is ancient.  Did nobody ever think to look at the primary source of hydrogen, electrolysis, and do any sort of thinking?  What about the isolation of excess hydrogen from the petroleum distillation process used on the Hindenburg? 
Let me be even less obtuse, in chemistry there are an entire branch of reactions which are called electrolytic...most of which separate elemental gasses from compounds utilizing either chemical reactions or outside energy inputs.


Now that we've laid waste to the history argument, why do you not see hydrogen vehicles out on the road?  Why was Toyota able to do it in very limited demonstrative form?  Why am I so angry about the above...when it's history? 
Let me answer these posed questions in order.

1) Why aren't hydrogen vehicles on the road?
Let me start by stating that energy density is the largest single factor here.  The reaction in question is 2 H2+ O2 = 2H2O.  You don't carry around the O2, just like the octane reaction.  That, for the record, is 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 = 16 CO2 + 18 H2O.  If you do some basic chemistry on this, you basically need a bunch more hydrogen to create the same energy as a single octane molecule...but the problem is in storing that hydrogen.
Let me now state some more basic chemistry.  In most materials solids are more dense than liquids, liquids and more dense than gasses, and that elemental hydrogen follows these rules.  Thus, an elemental gas needs to be under immense pressure to both have the amount of atoms to rival a simple hydrocarbon combustion reaction and to store that energy in the same volumetric space.
Did you catch that?  I hope you did...because the operative words there were that hydrogen gas needs to be stored under immense pressure and in great quantities to rival the much cheaper and more stable technology of a tank full of hydrocarbons.

This is to say nothing of the storage, leakage, and crash safety of the technology.  Hydrogen atoms are tiny...so they have the tendency to leak very easily.  Imagine not running your car for a few days...and having 20% of the fuel gone.  Imagine storing that car inside a garage...and the leaked hydrogen being a stupidly high risk for any spark anywhere to cause a detonation.  Now if that wasn't enough, imagine an accident.  Hydrogen tanks represent an immediate risk of explosive decompression, a less immediate risk of detonation by spark, and finally a risk of kinetic shock should they decompress without the other bad things happening.  All of this is basic physics.

2) Why was Toyota able to do it?
Well, Toyota retrofitted a common car with a hydrogen power cell.  Really easy, and really expensive.  Store the hydrogen, burn through it immediately after fueling, and never deal with the longer term issues.  Cool.
Why did they have double digit break-throughs on performance?  Well...math.  If you look at current technologies your car has a fuel-air ratio, and a compression ratio.  The earliest cars did a very bad job with this...and were inefficient.  We've had hundreds of years to refine the input materials (which hydrocarbons), and the compression ratios (remember tetra-ethyl lead...that leaded gas was introduced to raise compression ratios before auto ignition) to make engines run efficiently.
Toyota had the same place to start, and the same refinements to make.  In the business, we call this low hanging fruit for optimization.

So...Toyota ignored the fundamental storage issues, by not having this in a consumer vehicle.  They showed vast improvements...by optimizing reactions.  They did all of this without worrying about a consumer price tag...because this was a research project rather than a production vehicle.  Once you do all that math, it's easy to see why they might not have as many issues demonstrated to the public...and despite this never get close to a consumer release.




So....what is the way forward?  Well, that's hard to say.  There are two hydrogen technologies that matter.  That'd be combustion as a stop-gap replacement to hydrocarbons, and a means to directly convert elemental hydrogen and oxygen to electrical potential via a membrane transfer.  Basically, instead of blowing up the hydrogen and getting expanding gas that converts to linear mechanical potential energy you get straight electrical potential energy.
The thing about both of these technologies is still the thing that we started with.  How do you store the immense amount of hydrogen safely?  How do you access it?  How do you make it cheap?  How do you make it safe?

These are not new questions.  Humans have spent hundreds of years trying to make hydrogen safe.  Hundreds more have been spent trying to store energy.  The failure here is physics, but it's not a magically recent failure.  It's literally hundreds of years of failures, improvements, and break-throughs.  Ignoring all of that, and pretending that some sort of short term break-through is going to make anything more viable, is a joke.



As an aside, it may be possible to fix the storage issue.  If you can do that, then you'll be fabulously wealthy.  Good luck though...people have spent literal lifetimes looking for that answer.  I find it frustrating when people continue to spout the nonsense that all of the problems will be fixed in our lifetimes...completely disregarding the lifetimes already spent on this issue.  Maybe instead of dreaming, we educate ourselves.  The past is a prelude to the present and future...and there's a reason things like rigid airships are a thing of fiction...rather than non-fiction.


----------



## Shrek (May 26, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> I just watched the above video in the post before this one, is this legit? Is it really that easy to do hydrogen? I don't know if I buy what this video is selling, because if it were that easy, wouldn't Toyota just have made lots of hydrogen stations easily in California for their Mirai hydrogen car?



A particle accelerator to make hydrides...


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 26, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> @FordGT90Concept @Shrek @lexluthermiester
> 
> I just watched the above video in the post before this one, is this legit? Is it really that easy to do hydrogen? I don't know if I buy what this video is selling, because if it were that easy, wouldn't Toyota just have made lots of hydrogen stations easily in California for their Mirai hydrogen car?


No idea. Certainly sounds interesting and at least on a basic level the chemistry should work, if I'm understanding it correctly. The viability as an infrastructure is what I would question.


----------



## dylricho (May 26, 2022)

64K said:


> Just doing a quick look around I found some definite negatives for using hydrogen as fuel:
> 
> Investment is Required. ...
> Cost of Raw Materials. ...
> ...



Two years ago, a group of scientists in China worked out how to create pure hydrogen from a reusable alloy of gallium, indium, tin and bismuth, using an aluminum plate and water. The output was a breakdown of water molecules, with pure hydrogen and oxygen at 92% efficiency.

Hydrogen is indeed flammable, and it's highly reactive because of its simple atomic structure. That said, it's no more dangerous than any other flammable substance we use today when you have all the required safety measures in place. The system requires significantly less pressure than petroleum and diesel to burn hydrogen, which is both a blessing and a curse.




moproblems99 said:


> The largest issue for any alternative fuel (not electric) is infrastructure.  There are more gas stations than stars.  So building new stations would be troublesome and converting the others a logistical headache (and costly) which means it won't happen until necessary.
> 
> Electric cars largely are unaffected by this but suffer from their obviously longer 'refuel' times.



All the more reason for governments to get behind new alternative fuels. California and Japan are leading the way.



CallandorWoT said:


> Toyota is already doing lots of research in it, and Toyota just came out with this recently, a hydrogen combustion engine, no Fuel Cell:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hydrogen fuel cells are a big topic for me for my degree. Hydrogen combustion engines aren't new, but it is Toyota that has developed the technology the most. Outside of Japan, Hyundai has also dabbled in hydrogen fuel cells with developments that also dwarf those of the western world.

There's one caveat to hydrogen combustion engines compared to fuel-cell vehicles, and that's the production of nitrogen oxides during the combustion process. Compared to petroleum and diesel engines, it's miniscule, but it's there. One way to offset this, is to burn the hydrogen at a reduced temperature which can be achieved by supplying less fuel relative to the air mixture. Nitrogen oxide production is practically eliminated, and you also gain fuel economy/range from this process.

Off topic for HFCs, but also worthy of note, is that you can have internal combustion engines in V-configurations that output the power (and sound) you would expect, but consume the fuel of a standard I-configuration engine. Connaught in the UK has developed a modular V10 engine which outputs 300 bhp and achieves 40 mpg. As the engine is modular, it could also be made into an "X20" engine, or cut down into a V4 engine.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 27, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> @FordGT90Concept @Shrek @lexluthermiester
> 
> I just watched the above video in the post before this one, is this legit? Is it really that easy to do hydrogen? I don't know if I buy what this video is selling, because if it were that easy, wouldn't Toyota just have made lots of hydrogen stations easily in California for their Mirai hydrogen car?


Seems so...

#1 He says hydride without saying what is blended with to make it presumably solid. 9:30 he finally says he can't say it because it's "classified as a weapon material in thermo-nuclear weapons."  He runs a company (United Nuclear) that deals in exotic materials so this is plausible.

#2 When he produces hydrogen/oxygen, he mentions peroxide and other chemicals to accelerate electrolysis which have to leave the process somehow...may potentially be toxic.

#3 I have no idea if the text at the end is the hydride Lazar was talking about (lithium-6 deuteride) but it checks out: it is used in fusion bombs to stabilize the fuel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_hydride#Lithium_deuteride

#4 Lazar never explains how energy is extracted from the hydrogen in the vehicle to propel it.  Is it pure combustion? Explains why that's not smart here:
















That said, Toyota is trying it:








I doubt he actually converted the Corvette into a fuel cell otherwise he wouldn't have kept the gas tank.

Assuming lithium-6 deutride is the magical ingredient, I have no idea how difficult that is to produce and how much quantity of it is required to power something large like an airliner, ship, train, or truck.

We also don't know how advantageous using a hydride is compared to compressed hydrogen.  And this point is really the only thing different about Lazar's approach.


----------



## KLiKzg (May 27, 2022)

Assimilator said:


> People who say "there's not much more that can be done in field X" generally end up looking rather foolish a decade or so down the line.


Or get without a job.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 27, 2022)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> That is to say, batteries based on electronegativity stretch back to ancient Egypt.


I was talking specifically about lithium-ion and is there much room to increase energy density from there.  Obviously I don't think so.  Battery tech has evolved at a snail's pace and each evolution, although significant in terms of batteries, is pitiful compared to chemical stores of energy like hydrocarbons, methane, or hydrogen.  Even if there's three more breakthroughs, it's still not going to solve humanity's need for more energy.  He talks about this here:


----------



## KLiKzg (May 27, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's physics.  Compare capacitors (high power, short duration) with batteries (low power, long duration).  The fundamental concept of both is trapping electrons and the higher energy those electrons have, the more inclined they are to escape entrapment.  This tradeoff is inescapable. Batteries have not improved much over the last 20 years (latest breakthrough was lithium-ion).  They've also not improved much in terms of energy density nor cost (about 100% since proof of concept).  Li-ion was coming down in $/kwh but now it's going up again because of excess demand versus supply.


This is simply NOT TRUE. Take it from someone working in Rimac, as batteries will soon have productional version of "breakthrough" technological leap.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 27, 2022)

KLiKzg said:


> This is simply NOT TRUE. Take it from someone working in Rimac, as batteries will soon have productional version of "breakthrough" technological leap.


Explain. Gasoline is 13x more energy dense than li-ion by volume and 50x more dense by weight.  Batteries have to massively close that gap to become a 1:1 replacement (e.g. use it in planes, trains and trucks).


----------



## KLiKzg (May 27, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Explain. Gasoline is 13x more energy dense than li-ion by volume and 50x more dense by weight.  Batteries have to massively close that gap to become a 1:1 replacement (e.g. use it in planes, trains and trucks).


Without crossing NDA, there are batteries which will reduce the mass, while keeping the same or similar wattage...which will make EV far more competitive on the market.

On top that electric motors have far more superiority than any otto or attkinson driven engine. But we will see.


There is also possibility of return of diesel in hydrodiesel form, which make 20% of water in diesel. Lowers emissions by at least 30%.
We will see if that same principle will get in gasoline also.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 27, 2022)

KLiKzg said:


> This is simply NOT TRUE. Take it from someone working in Rimac, as batteries will soon have productional version of "breakthrough" technological leap.


Unless this "breakthrough" you mention can produce batteries with 5 to 6 times the current best energy density of LiPo, it's not enough to become a viable replacement to IC.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 27, 2022)

Yeah, as much as gasoline sucks, its also really, really, really good as a fuel source. I still say that PHEV is best of both worlds. Enough Li-ion to grossly reduce gasoline usage, but still using that gasoline tank  when you want to travel 300, 400, 500+ miles on one fillup.

That people are seriously considering Hydrogen-Syngas as an intermediate step and are experimenting with synthetic hydrocarbon fuels just demonstrates how good (low-volume / low weight / low-flashpoint / high-auto ignition) hydrocarbons are in general.

As I said earlier in this thread: Hydrogen research is worthwhile, because even if it "fails" as a consumer technology, green-hydrogen production is still needed for ammonia (aka: Fertilizer production) and other chemicals. Using hydrogen as a fuel would be ideal since it has fewer processing steps compared to another syngas -> kerosene (or whatever hydrocarbon) is out there, and is worthwhile to experiment with.


----------



## dylricho (May 28, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Using hydrogen as a fuel would be ideal since it has fewer processing steps compared to another syngas -> kerosene (or whatever hydrocarbon) is out there, and is worthwhile to experiment with.



It's also the most abundant element in the universe.

It's not like we'll be travelling to the Sun and taking huge chunks out of it anytime soon, but let's just be glad that we're not forced to rely on synthetic elements as a replacement.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 28, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Yeah, as much as gasoline sucks, its also really, really, really good as a fuel source. I still say that PHEV is best of both worlds. Enough Li-ion to grossly reduce gasoline usage, but still using that gasoline tank when you want to travel 300, 400, 500+ miles on one fillup.


This. I currently get between 500 and 540 mpg in my current car, which is now 18years old. I am NOT downgrading my driving experience for EV.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 31, 2022)

Aptera can go 1000 miles for $6.


----------



## Shrek (May 31, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> This. I currently get between 500 and 540 mpg in my current car, which is now 18years old. I am NOT downgrading my driving experience for EV.



Some people would say accelerating like a Ferrari was an upgrade.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 31, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Some people would say accelerating like a Ferrari was an upgrade.



Accelerating like a Ferrari without the suspension to handle it is... well...










Hear that *bouncy* suspension. Dude slams on his breaks and nothing happens, just continues to "bounce" until he hits the building. Its like 4500lbs of batteries and weight in that form factor is hard to make a suspension for or something.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 31, 2022)

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Looks to me like going over that feature in the pavement _broke_ the aero dynamics of the car (probably high pressure) sending the rear of the vehicle into the air. The car doesn't have a spoiler to generate downforce while at the same time, the weight of the car trying to come down yet again generates high pressure sending it air borne again. He was trying to stop using the front wheels alone and you need a lot more pavement for that.

In short, what transpired in that video exceeds the expectations of Tesla engineers and the driver.  This is why high-speed driving should only be done on the track.



Back on topic, Germany wants to convert their steel industry to hydrogen...and they're trying to source it from Australia.  Kind of bizarre:








						Germany looks to speed up green hydrogen development in Australia
					

Germany wants to speed up its green hydrogen work with Australia as the country's effort to ditch fossil fuels has become more urgent after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Germany's research minister said on Friday.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Mussels (May 31, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Accelerating like a Ferrari without the suspension to handle it is... well...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nothing to do with a kid who cant drive, going into some bushes over a jump or anything - the noises was the car saying "yeeeet" over this


----------



## The red spirit (May 31, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Hear that *bouncy* suspension. Dude slams on his breaks and nothing happens, just continues to "bounce" until he hits the building. Its like 4500lbs of batteries and weight in that form factor is hard to make a suspension for or something.


Has nothing to do with suspension. Tesla is heavy as fuck. More mass takes more time to stop. Most of the time tires were on the ground, meaning suspension worked fine. Bakes seemingly worked fine as well, but ABS may not have. Besides driver being an idiot, it seems that tires were the weakest link there.


----------



## Shrek (May 31, 2022)

More mass also means more friction the tires can deliver


----------



## The red spirit (May 31, 2022)

Shrek said:


> More mass also means more friction the tires can deliver


Eh.... That's more than outweighted by more inertia and it depends of where that mass actually is. In moving body, center of mass is ever changing. Not to mention that wheels have some centrifugal force too. Also if we take into account aerodynamics (since it seems that dude was doing more than 80 mph) most cars at higher speeds have more lift than downforce, therefore they become "lighter" the faster they go. It's complicated, but no, heavier cars aren't supposed to handle better. You want to have car as light as possible with biggest contact patch and with as much downforce as you can for maximum grip.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 31, 2022)

The red spirit said:


> Has nothing to do with suspension. Tesla is heavy as fuck. More mass takes more time to stop. Most of the time tires were on the ground, meaning suspension worked fine. Bakes seemingly worked fine as well, but ABS may not have. Besides driver being an idiot, it seems that tires were the weakest link there.



Why does the squealing come "in-and-out"? Listen carefully, if the tires were in full contact on the ground, you'd hear a singular squeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaalllll.

Suspension is *very* important to ensuring those wheels in fact have "Weight" on them. If there's no "weight" on a tire, it has no traction. Traction = weight * Mu after all, in physics, the less weight, the less traction. That's why downforce airfoils exist on fancy cars, so that at these speeds the "weight" goes higher and provides more traction.



FordGT90Concept said:


> In short, what transpired in that video exceeds the expectations of Tesla engineers and the driver. This is why high-speed driving should only be done on the track.



Your explanation is an interesting counter-point and I didn't consider that. Aerodynamics is certainly a thing and you're right that the car seems to be missing a spoiler. In either case, my point is that this is a zero-to-sixty car in 4-seconds without the proper design elements to actually handle that speed.

I'm still leaning towards my suspension theory, but I'll have to more carefully think about your airfoil / downforce theory as well. Either way, I agree it should be done at a track.

-------

In either case, listen carefully when the car goes over this stormdrain right here.






This is why I think its a suspension issue. The very **second** the car runs over that minor bump, the whole thing loses control. (*Listen* to the audio. The car is bouncing). Fortunately, they didn't need to turn the car anywhere, but the car no longer has traction with the ground, so even if they slammed on the brakes, nothing would happen. But your theory that this is an air-bubble (or similar) forming under the car also sounds legitimate, especially since the tail-end of that car is also an obviously crap shape.

So instead of "bouncing on the springs" (my theory), the car could be "bouncing on an air-bubble" (in your theory??)



Shrek said:


> More mass also means more friction the tires can deliver



Not if the car is "bouncing". When the car is on the "upswing" of a bounce, there's literally zero traction in the wheels.

That's why suspension systems are incredibly important, you need to minimize bouncing. The heavier the car, the more complicated it is to suspend correctly and apply consistent force to the wheels. Really, listen again. The driver almost certainly is "holding the brakes" very strongly throughout this clip, why would the brakes be "squeee-squeee-squeee-squeeee", instead of "squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" ??

Answer: the car is bouncing. Now whether that's a suspension issue or an airfoil issue, well that's another story that goes beyond my personal abilities to diagnose. But the car is definitely *bouncing*, and therefore losing traction in a periodic fashion.

I'm no car engineer, but a lot of serious racers keep Unsprung Mass / design in mind with their cars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass , among many other suspension issues that they optimize. All that acceleration and speed, without a good suspension system and rear spoiler, is just a danger to everybody.

IMO: the "fun" cars are the ones that are lightweight and easier to drive at higher speeds. "Hot Hatches" for example. And of course, on a track where little bumps / storm-drains don't exist to throw you off course. Heavier-and-heavier cars have their own dangers, due to the shear mass involved that makes suspension and other issues harder (even if you do have an air-foil, its "combating more weight", and airfoils will have less of an effect)


----------



## Bomby569 (May 31, 2022)

In that video the only problem was thr lack of downforce on the rear. I like Teslas but they aren't designed for the speeds they can achieve, it's still a basic car chassis for a normal old school sedan. Designing and accounting for that takes a lot of know how that Tesla doesn't have.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 31, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Back on topic, Germany wants to convert their steel industry to hydrogen...and they're trying to source it from Australia. Kind of bizarre:



Nice. I know that electrolyser and all that are big news. The biggest one in Europe seems to be in Denmark right now, but that's not too far from Germany.





__





						Shell starts up Europe’s largest PEM green hydrogen electrolyser
					

The project, backed by a European consortium, will accelerate hydrogen production and contribute to Europe’s goal to achieve climate neutrality.




					www.shell.com
				




10 MW is kinda small all else considered though. I'd expect that green-hydrogen electrolysers will be spinning up more and more now that the technology has been proven.


----------



## Bomby569 (May 31, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Nice. I know that electrolyser and all that are big news. The biggest one in Europe seems to be in Denmark right now, but that's not too far from Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> ...











						Iberia fast becoming Europe's green hydrogen hub after fourth large-scale project unveiled this year | Recharge
					

CIP and partners announce the 500MW MadoquaPower2X scheme in Portugal, adding to the 11.4GW of projects already unveiled in region in past three months




					www.rechargenews.com
				




i think Shell is very bad with numbers, or very good with self promoting lies


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 31, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> Iberia fast becoming Europe's green hydrogen hub after fourth large-scale project unveiled this year | Recharge
> 
> 
> CIP and partners announce the 500MW MadoquaPower2X scheme in Portugal, adding to the 11.4GW of projects already unveiled in region in past three months
> ...



The 10MW shell station is the largest in Europe right now, but almost everybody is investing into bigger plants.

This is a very new technology. Rapid progress (10MW, 100MW, and then 500MW) is to be expected in times like this. I don't expect Shell's 10MW plan to remain the biggest for very long. Too many competitors.

Its like these new "supercomputers" that keep coming out, they're bigger and bigger each year.


----------



## The red spirit (May 31, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Why does the squealing come "in-and-out"? Listen carefully, if the tires were in full contact on the ground, you'd hear a singular squeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaalllll.


How I am supposed to judge from potato video? Might be just poor ABS, might be slightly turned steering wheel before jump, thus once car landed front tires lost grip.




dragontamer5788 said:


> Suspension is *very* important to ensuring those wheels in fact have "Weight" on them. If there's no "weight" on a tire, it has no traction. Traction = weight * Mu after all, in physics, the less weight, the less traction. That's why downforce airfoils exist on fancy cars, so that at these speeds the "weight" goes higher and provides more traction.


And I will say that suspension is not important for that. It's all about center of mass or weight distribution. Suspension at best just reduces center of mass swings and car instability. Suspension may determine wheel alignment, but on road legal cars it's usually a non factor, since they are often tuned to not have anything special, only straight wheel. No bizarre camber, toe, caster or etc. 

Either way, you are overthinking Tesla. There's nothing wrong with it, twat went too fast, realized that tires don't have infinite grip and found out that the hard way. This shit happens all the damn time with various cars and drivers like him. The only special thing here is that he picked a car with way too much power, car that has unusually low center of mass and car that is also unusually heavy.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 31, 2022)

Hydrogen cars, or things related to hydrogen. No more Tesla talk.

Stay on topic, please.

Thank you.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 31, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Some people would say accelerating like a Ferrari was an upgrade.


Wrong kind of upgrade for the everyday driver.


----------



## Shrek (May 31, 2022)

the54thvoid said:


> Hydrogen cars, or things related to hydrogen. No more Tesla talk.
> 
> Stay on topic, please.
> 
> Thank you.



While I agree with you, the issue might be

"Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?" because electric cars are better.

and no, I don't mean that justifies discussing some kid crashing a Tesla

If this post is inappropriate, I am happy to delete it (I'm not here to rack up points)


----------



## ThrashZone (May 31, 2022)

Hi,
Maybe they didn't like a lot of hydrogen bombs rolling around


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 31, 2022)

Shrek said:


> "Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?" because electric cars are better.



I don't think that's the situation.

EVs bootstrapped themselves by taking 18650 laptop cells, and wiring them up together until they could run a car. Newer EV developments finally changed the shape of the battery to something more useful to a car (18650 is just a little bit larger than AA Alkaline cells... really designed for laptops). But building years upon laptop-manufacturer expertise is the secret of EVs and their early advances.

Hydrogen never really existed until... well... last year. Hydrogen is a newer tech by any measurement. There's no incremental step, no way to make a small-scale proof of concept (like buying 18650 laptop cells). Its all or nothing. We're finally reaching the point where this all-or-nothing approach is showing gains, and suddenly huge numbers of countries are interested. (There was Toyota Mirai and a few others, but they were running on non-green Hydrogen created from natural gas. Today, we're getting real electrolysers and real "green" hydrogen. Albeit at small "10MW" scales for now but bigger and bigger plants are under construction right now)



ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Maybe they didn't like a lot of hydrogen bombs rolling around



H2 Bombs are fusion bombs, and operate on a different principle than combustion.

The only way a Hydrogen-bomb goes nuclear is if you compress the hydrogen with a plutonium bomb. And the only way you can ignite a plutonium bomb is with a uranium bomb. If you have a compressed cylinder of hydrogen, surrounded in plutonium, surrounded in uranium... I think there's more worries than the explosion risk factor there...

I've brought up the explosivity of Li-Ion before. People don't seem to mind. I know that gets a bit more off topic, but its clear that people are willing to overlook the explosion risks of other technologies. Now I'm not comfortable with liquid-hydrogen (which *is* being experimented with in fact!!), because liquid-hydrogen is beginning to look a bit too much like a rocket-engine too me, and we all know how explosive those things are.

But compressed H2 gas doesn't seem to be too much more dangerous than other, comparable, car technologies. (Indeed, I'd argue that Li-ion is more dangerous). Feel free to PM me if you want to see some fiery Li-ion explosions or other statistics, since that stuff is off topic for sure.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 31, 2022)

Shrek said:


> "Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?" because electric cars are better.





dragontamer5788 said:


> I don't think that's the situation.


Oh, that's most definitely the situation. EV is much more practical and sustainable than Hydrogen is currently. EV is still unacceptably deficient in many ways, but it's doable for many people.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 1, 2022)

They even know EVs are not the way.

There is Plenty of coverage on this topic.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 1, 2022)

eidairaman1 said:


> They even know EVs are not the way.


They would if battery chemistry were improved. But so long as batteries fail to perform any better than they are, then yes EV's are very much less than adequate.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 1, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> They would if battery chemistry were improved. But so long as batteries fail to perform any better than they are, then yes EV's are very much less than adequate.



Yeah I test drove a 2016 Nissan Leaf in October of last year, the dealer said the battery on it was in amazing shape. Like most dealers, he was full of shit and then some. During the test drive, I kid you fucking not, every 2-3 minutes driving the battery indicator would lose 1% of charge, to be fair it was super cold that morning and the heat was on, and the electric heated seats were on, and so on.... but still... fucking pathetic. I'm glad I am sticking with the good old trustworthy Toyota Corolla gas only variant. It will last me 20 years I bet, maybe more, as I intend to take care of it.


----------



## regs (Jun 1, 2022)

64K said:


> Just doing a quick look around I found some definite negatives for using hydrogen as fuel:
> 
> Investment is Required. ...
> Cost of Raw Materials. ...
> ...


Add another point - refueling safety.
It's filling up at a high pressure. So no chance, but there will be accidents when nozzle will be disintegrating. Even if it won't flame up, you will still have too much of hydrogen spelt on you. Lidenfrost effect will help you from little amounts, but not when you will be entirely drowned into hydrogen bubble.


----------



## defaultluser (Jun 1, 2022)

eidairaman1 said:


> They even know EVs are not the way.
> 
> There is Plenty of coverage on this topic.




Cause, you know, Toyota  can totally be trusted with not making mistakes with their other supercar?

*Until they release a desirable, on-tine LFA revision , I'm not touching this with q ten foot pole (supposed o be 2025, but you know how these delays go?)*


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 1, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> Cause, you know, Toyota  can totally be trusted with not making mistakes with their other supercar?
> 
> *Until they release a desirable, on-tine LFA revision , I'm not touching this with q ten foot pole (supposed o be 2025, but you know how these delays go?)*



I'm of the school of thought that any progress is good progress. I think Toyota is going to do very well in the next few decades. I think they were smart for waiting for solid state battery tech before going all in on EV as well.


----------



## defaultluser (Jun 1, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> I'm of the school of thought that any progress is good progress. I think Toyota is going to do very well in the next few decades. I think they were smart for waiting for solid state battery tech before going all in on EV as well.




And meanwhile, how many decades  behind will Toyota's full EV manufacturing be by  the time they hit solid-state?  Nobody is even  close, fyi.,

*And that pure H2 engine will never end-up shipping  in anything*;  When CNG is so  much easier oi acquire ( and  cheaper, given  the fact that it's the soyrce of all h2 produced!),  it will have t compete wiith existing bus infrastructure!









						India Launches First CNG Bus which can run 1000 Kms in one fill - Green Clean Guide
					

Green Clean Guide (GCG) aims to be an easy to use approach created to make available environment, climate change, sustainability, clean energy, and technology related information in a single place.




					greencleanguide.com
				




And Green H2 will be Doa at every pump you sell it at. ( be prepared to pay twice qas much as Blue H2  n)


----------



## Bomby569 (Jun 1, 2022)

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/39na1_en.pdf
		


A different look into hydrogen:



> British scientists have recently reviewed current understanding of the fate and behaviour of hydrogen in the atmosphere and characterised its major sources and sinks. They show that, contrary to most expectations, hydrogen is an indirect greenhouse gas with a potential global warming effect. They then quantified the global warming potential of hydrogen in comparison to CO2 and the global warming consequences of replacing the current fossil fuel-based economy with one based on hydrogen. The results suggest that because hydrogen reacts in the atmosphere with tropospheric OH radicals, the emission of hydrogen into the atmosphere would disrupt the distribution of methane and ozone, the second and third most important greenhouse gasses. Emissions of hydrogen lead to increased burdens of methane and ozone and hence to an increase in global warming. Therefore, hydrogen can be considered as an indirect greenhouse gas with the potential to increase global warming. The scientists have estimated that the potential effects on climate from hydrogen-based energy systems would be much lower than those from fossil fuel-based energy systems. However, such impacts will depend on the rate of hydrogen leakage during its synthesis, storage and use. The researchers have calculated that a global hydrogen economy with a leakage rate of 1% of the produced hydrogen would produce a climate impact of 0.6% of the fossil fuel system it replaces. If the leakage rate was 10%, then the climate impact would be 6% of that of the fossil fuel system.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 1, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/39na1_en.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> A different look into hydrogen:


 
Interesting but that's from a 2006 paper and storage may have come some way since then. Regardless, the paper estimates the % impact on greenhouse warming is minimal in comparison to fossil fuel. 6% with 10% leakage is still only 6%.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 3, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/39na1_en.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> A different look into hydrogen:



We would be burning hydrogen though right? So the end product that is ejected from the car is no longer hydrogen? Or is my thinking incorrect?



the54thvoid said:


> Interesting but that's from a 2006 paper and storage may have come some way since then. Regardless, the paper estimates the % impact on greenhouse warming is minimal in comparison to fossil fuel. 6% with 10% leakage is still only 6%.



Makes sense, more research should be done to clarify some stuff though before we go all in on something.


SOME MAJOR cool news though:  https://www.techspot.com/news/94804-toyota-shows-off-portable-swappable-hydrogen-cartridges.html

This is really cool news out of Toyota, and it's kind of been mentioned in this thread a few times I believe, you would pull up to a "gas station" and just hot swap your hydrogen canister, pay, and away you go. Imagine giving your car 400 miles of range with only a 15 second hot swap and scan your credit card to pay for it, and you are off driving again... and imagine the hydrogen stations everywhere... the future could be really awesome my friends.

Small nuclear power plants like the one Bill Gates is doing in Wyoming, combined with hydrogen making facilities, combined with autopilot hydrogen semi-trucks that will deliver all over the country...

Will humans be capable of so much? Or will I still keep saying "yet so little" a decade from now.

Probably the latter, but one can still dream.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 4, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> We would be burning hydrogen though right? So the end product that is ejected from the car is no longer hydrogen? Or is my thinking incorrect?


They're talking the inevitable leaks.  If hydrogen is properly combined with oxygen, the result is water.  If hydrogen escapes and interacts with oxygen in the wild, it can form hydroxide which is a greenhouse gas.

BEVs make sense for urban environments, HFCEV makes sense for rural vehicles.  I still don't have much faith in Toyota's hydrogen reciprocating engine.


----------



## Shrek (Jun 4, 2022)

Actually, water is a greenhouse gas, but one that rains out.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jun 4, 2022)

the54thvoid said:


> Interesting but that's from a 2006 paper and storage may have come some way since then. Regardless, the paper estimates the % impact on greenhouse warming is minimal in comparison to fossil fuel. 6% with 10% leakage is still only 6%.



The focus i think it's just to alert that we just got to do things right, no corner cutting. The worst thing i think is when people label things as "green" and then they are used lightly because of the label. It's green if.

We all know how things work, if with leakeage it gives 10% profit, and with no leakeage (because you need to implement measure x or y) gives 5% profit...

Scientists say we need to start capturing carbon. Just stopping emissions isn't enough anymore. So any solution that keeps pilling on the problem should be carefully implemented.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 5, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Actually, water is a greenhouse gas, but one that rains out.


Fair, but there's also no reason why HFCEVs can't have tanks so the water never returns (unless leaked) back to the environment.  When you fill up with hydrogen, it also sucks out the water to electrolyze.



Bomby569 said:


> We all know how things work, if with leakeage it gives 10% profit, and with no leakeage (because you need to implement measure x or y) gives 5% profit...


Considering how expensive hydrogen is compared to fossil fuels (about 2.5x even at these inflated gas prices), it makes a compelling market reason to prevent and rapidly fix any leaks.


----------



## Shrek (Jun 5, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Fair, but there's also no reason why HFCEVs can't have tanks so the water never returns (unless leaked) back to the environment.



It was a joke, although water vapor is actually the strongest green-house gas; it really will rain out.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia
"Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect"


----------



## Bomby569 (Jun 7, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Considering how expensive hydrogen is compared to fossil fuels (about 2.5x even at these inflated gas prices), it makes a compelling market reason to prevent and rapidly fix any leaks.



Hydrogen is not expensive in itself, i mean it's more expensive then burning coal or oil for sure, but that's a very low bar. Cost also increase if (as we all hope) it uses renewable sources, that are always a bit more expensive.

But i bet that a cargo ship at sea will probably live with a small leak, when parking one of those monsters literally costs millions a day in lost revenue.
Or a car manufacturer may not care in the least what it costs a few leaks for the customers, they aren't the ones paying, and they do have a record of lying and misleading data for profit.
etc
etc
etc


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 7, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> Hydrogen is not expensive in itself, i mean it's more expensive then burning coal or oil for sure, but that's a very low bar. Cost also increase if (as we all hope) it uses renewable sources, that are always a bit more expensive.


Markets only respond to price pressures.  As long as hydrogen remains more expensive than the alternatives, it won't be used en masse.  The cheapest way to produce green hydrogen in massive volumes is going to be performing thermolysis in close proximity to a fission or fusion reactor:








						High-temperature electrolysis - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




INL dabbled back in 2008:








						Steam Heat: Researchers Gear Up For Full-scale Hydrogen Plant
					

Hydrogen has many industrial uses and may one day replace fossil fuels such as gasoline to power vehicles without emitting carbon dioxide. But finding an environmentally friendly way to produce hydrogen in large quantities is still a big challenge. At Idaho National Laboratory, a team of...



					www.sciencedaily.com
				



I wonder if this was just a proposal because I can't find any evidence that it actually happened.

In 2020, INL is involved in the new projects:








						Idaho laboratory joins national research programs for making ‘green’ hydrogen - INL
					

Idaho National Laboratory is a member of two new DOE research consortia charged with exploring new methods and technologies for hydrogen production.




					inl.gov
				





> The end goal is to be able to produce hydrogen at a generalized cost of $2 per kilogram. Today, carbon-free hydrogen from electrolysis costs about $5 to $6/kg to make assuming electricity prices of $0.05/kWh to $0.07/kWh.











						A step closer to clean hydrogen - INL
					

Clean hydrogen research will play a vital role to help decarbonize the steel, agriculture, petroleum refining industries.




					inl.gov
				





			https://www.bloomenergy.com/news/bloom-energy-and-idaho-national-laboratory-to-generate-hydrogen-powered-by-nuclear-energy/
		



Pretty sure it's possible to design a *molten uranium* fission reactor (2500C) that consumes a _lot_ of water, breaks water down into its respective parts, and produces an enormous amount of electricity in the process of cooling the resulting gases.  It'd be a hell of an undertaking (to safely contain the molten uranium and prohibit gas explosions), not unlike ITER.  If the theory works out, it would raise nuclear reactor efficiency above 40% it's at now because you're getting two energy products from the heat instead of one.





Bomby569 said:


> But i bet that a cargo ship at sea will probably live with a small leak, when parking one of those monsters literally costs millions a day in lost revenue.


The idea is to produce hydrogen where it is needed.  If it's transported by any kind of vehicle that isn't using it as fuel, that's a systematic inefficiency that's best removed.



Bomby569 said:


> Or a car manufacturer may not care in the least what it costs a few leaks for the customers, they aren't the ones paying, and they do have a record of lying and misleading data for profit.


Never heard of regulations and product recalls?


----------



## ARF (Jul 18, 2022)

Does anyone here own and drive Toyota Mirai?

2022 Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell Vehicle | Innovation is Power



Bomby569 said:


> Hydrogen is not expensive in itself, i mean it's more expensive then burning coal or oil for sure, but that's a very low bar. Cost also increase if (as we all hope) it uses renewable sources, that are always a bit more expensive.



Is this actually true? I mean do you include the cost of climate change in the burning coal or oil equation?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 19, 2022)

Considering unlreaded petrol is $2.20 a liter here in Au right now, i get the feeling our cost efficiency estimates are about to change in favour of alternative tech really suddenly


I cant believe americans are complaining when their fuel is so much cheaper than everywhere else


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 19, 2022)

ARF said:


> Does anyone here own and drive Toyota Mirai?
> 
> 2022 Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell Vehicle | Innovation is Power
> 
> ...




no, because were not idiots who yearn to pay two times the cost of gasoline (for blue hydrogen), or three time that for the green stuff









						Living With A Toyota Mirai Didn’t Go As Expected…Here’s What Happened: Video
					

The new Toyota Mirai isn't just a better looking car than the before, but it can drive farther. What is it like to actually live with one, though? Well, it's not without some hiccups.




					tflcar.com
				




I just filled my car at a normal gas pump for $40 (same range as Mirai gets)

I could buy a KIA Nero for half that price of this hydrogen thingy, and although I get 100 miles less range, I don't have to have range anxiety just trying t find h2 pumps in whatever neighborhood I'm at *(THERE ARE WAY MORE FAST CHARGERS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAN THERE ARE h2 PUMPS, and outside CA, you're screwed.)*

You can get the 250mi  Nero for half the price of the  H2 vehicle, and then spend way less money filling it up than even my gas car.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 19, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> no, because were not idiots who yearn to pay two times the cost of gasoline (for blue hydrogen), or three time that for the green stuff
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's called economy of scale. Gasoline is cheaper because it's 99% of the market.


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 19, 2022)

dgianstefani said:


> It's called economy of scale. Gasoline is cheaper because it's 99% of the market.




And your point is?  we already make H2 at massive scale using methane (so, the delivery costs are all that's adding price at the pump.)

The big problem H2 pumps have is that requires massively more pressure than Gasoline (so there will always be a higher cost of infrastructure, even after you start mass-producing things)

The cost of adding electric fast chargers is way less than the  cost of adding in a usable amount of H2 stations, plus delivery network to every state in the union.  You also save a whole lot more money refueling that pure electric.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 19, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> And your point is?  we already make H2 at massive scale using methane (so, the delivery costs are all that's adding price at the pump.)
> 
> The big problem H2 pumps have is that requires more pressure than Gasoline (so there will always be a higher cost of infrastructure, even after you start mass-producing things)
> 
> The cost of adding electric fast chargers is way less than the  cost of adding in a usable amount of H2 stations, plus delivery network to every state in the union.  You also save a whole lot more money refueling that pure electric.


The point is obvious, if more people get hydrogen cars, infrastructure will become more widespread and logistics will be cheaper.


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 19, 2022)

dgianstefani said:


> The point is obvious, if more people get hydrogen cars, infrastructure will become more widespread and logistics will be cheaper.



Did you miss the part where it costs twice the amount to refuel with H2 versus gas?  Also, at between 10-15 per fill-up for every Tesla mdel in rtheir entire catalog, it makes the Mirai's $90 fill-up cost absolutely exorbitant.

*Twice the price of a Nero, and six times more per fill-up id the reason why H2 has failed, not because of missing mass-production (mass-production in CA would only get h2 down tb a 5x premium, because you still need to put methane through an expensive process of steam reforming / or water electrolysis  to create it.,)  

Fast chargers still cost several times less than H2 to build and then refuel, even though that entire infrastructure is brand-new (so it also still has to be paid-off, just like the H2 pumps + delivery infrastructure ) - that is te reason why H2 cars have died well before they could  see anything mass-produce.*


----------



## Shrek (Jul 19, 2022)

If you have methane, why would you not use that directly.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 19, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> Did you miss the part where it costs twice the amount to refuel with H2 versus gas?  Also, at between 10-15 per fill-up for every Tesla mdel in rtheir entire catalog, it makes the Mirai's $90 fill-up cost absolutely exorbitant.
> 
> *Twice the price of a Nero, and six times more per fill-up (mass-production in CA would only get h2 down tb a 5x premium, because you still need to put methane through an expensive process of steam reforming / or water electrolysis  to create it.,)  *


Wow that's cool, wonder what the price would be like if hydrogen received the same subsidies and incentives as oil?


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 19, 2022)

dgianstefani said:


> Wow that's cool, wonder what the price would be like if hydrogen received the same subsidies and incentives as oil?



cause we have a much more efficient solution than ungodly overpriced Electrolysis plus H2 storage


Instead of just pointing fingers, how abut you read some H2 qnaysis papers.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 19, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> cause we have a much more efficient solution than ungodly overpriced Electrolysis plus H2 storage
> 
> 
> Instead of just pointing fingers, how abut you read some H2 qnaysis papers.


Yes the manufacture of limited lifetime, rare earth dependant, potentially explosive batteries, with less than half the range is so much more efficient than retrofitting a hydrogen tank to mostly existing automobile technology.


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 19, 2022)

dgianstefani said:


> Yes the manufacture of limited lifetime, rare earth dependant, potentially explosive batteries, with less than half the range is so much more efficient than retrofitting a hydrogen tank to mostly existing automobile technology.




Most of the industry has transition tom lithium iron phosphate  batteries (no explode), and the lifetime of everything h2 touches is just as in need of replacement after the same rough time-frame as a EV battery.

Must replace every 150k miles on Mirai : multiple fuel tanks, plus fuel cell stack plus the battery.  Must replace every 150k miles on a BEV: the battery.

And we can recycle those batteries.:









						The Truth About Lithium Ion Battery Recycling
					

There is a right way of approaching lithium ion battery recycling... and a wrong way. In this guide, we'll teach you how to do it the right way.



					greencitizen.com


----------



## DOA (Jul 19, 2022)

ARF said:


> Does anyone here own and drive Toyota Mirai?
> 
> 2022 Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell Vehicle | Innovation is Power
> 
> ...


I don't but a neighbor has one. He has a 3 year lease, on last year.

He now hates the car. While fuel is free with the lease, it's $12 - $16 USD if he kept the car. He has had a loaner Camry twice due to no fuel available. 

 He has had no mechanical problems, but some unexpected driving problems. This is anecdotal, I understand, but here's the story: He drives regularly from SF to LA, never a problem in his Camry. His second trip in the Mirai was his last, he takes wife's Prius now. The trip down to LA went normally, stop at Harris Ranch for fuel and again in LA. On the return he left about 7 PM  on a hot September night with an almost full tank. Traffic was light and moving fast (85 - 90 mph) and he was headed into some stong Santa Anna winds. He had encountered this before in the Camry and the Mirai handled well enough. But it started slowing before he got to the top of the Grapevine, the AC, fast speed, uphill climb and head winds conspired to use all the battery and he was on fuel cell power alone. He barely held 75 mph and was debating turning around, thinking something was wrong with the car. Soon after he crested the summit and used less power things returned to normal and he was back at 80 mph. He ran out of fuel before Harris Ranch and had to be flat bed trucked there. There was another Mirai taking the station since only one fuel station was working and it was slow. He made it home safely, but it was a LONG trip. 

I have a BEV so we used to talk fairly often to compare. He has stopped talking cars. Some of his discontent is he cannot get green hydrogen, only 30% green while I fill with my rooftop solar. He has to find H2 and go fill up, I just plug my car in at home. Yes, this requires my car being home during peak solar hours, but working from home makes that easy. 

FCVs were given up on quickly as most people can see that using the electricity directly will be much better than losing 50% to the hydrogen cycle. 

Also there is time savings of home charging, convenience of "filling up" almost anywhere (if the lights are on, you can charge). FCVs can have more range, but present cars do not. FCVs can have performance, but again present offerings do not.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 20, 2022)

Shrek said:


> If you have methane, why would you not use that directly.


accidents become rather explosive

as stated above, battery tech might not be more powerful or efficient yet, but they HAVE drastically improved the safety and recyclability at least


----------



## Shrek (Jul 20, 2022)

I was answering to



defaultluser said:


> *Twice the price of a Nero, and six times more per fill-up id the reason why H2 has failed, not because of missing mass-production (mass-production in CA would only get h2 down tb a 5x premium, because you still need to put methane through an expensive process of steam reforming / or water electrolysis to create it.,)*



and asking about getting hydrogen from methane: 'If you have methane, why would you not use that directly.'


----------



## Khonjel (Jul 20, 2022)

I thought the revival of this thread meant you guys were talking about the new Hyundai H2 car. Boring!


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 20, 2022)

Shrek said:


> I was answering to
> 
> 
> 
> and asking about getting hydrogen from methane: 'If you have methane, why would you not use that directly.'


Well yes, I already mentioned methane buses earlier in the thread making the entire concept of blue hydrogen completely pointless.  The only reason I have to keep repeating things like this is because nobody actually cares to engage their brains 

Once you make inroads with buses (been aroung for over 30 years in certain cities), the transition to semis isn't that difficult.





__





						Natural Gas | Freightliner Trucks
					

Agility Fuel Systems: Agility Fuel Systems is the leading designer and producer of alternative fuel storage and delivery systems for heavy duty trucks, buses and specialty vehicles.




					freightliner.com
				












						Cummins Brings 15L Natural Gas Engine to North America
					

Find out how bringing the Cummins 15-liter natural gas engine for heavy-duty trucks to the North American market plays into the company’s zero emissions strategy.




					www.truckinginfo.com
				




And once you get CNG firmly-established (already a lot cleaner than diesel), you can start to add plug-in-hybrid or overhead centenary (on mayor highways, see  Trolleybus system) to the mix.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 20, 2022)

With the recent problems of heatwaves and the war, i wonder if people will finally start to take the transition seriously. More money needs to go to alternative fuel sources for vehicles and fast.

Regarding the trolleybus topic, I was watching a video, and it's insane how many cities had them (in Europe, Asia and North America), and just destroyed everything to go with traditional buses. Insane. I guess much of the complaints were they couldn't get around an obstacle, but we now have trolleys with small batteries (something very small) to give them a bit of autonomy to go around obstacules, and they are much cheaper to acquire, run and maintain than a fleet of electric buses and don't use as much precious resources by not using those massive batteries


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Jul 20, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> With the recent problems of heatwaves and the war, i wonder if people will finally start to take the transition seriously. More money needs to go to alternative fuel sources for vehicles and fast.
> 
> Regarding the trolleybus topic, I was watching a video, and it's insane how many cities had them (in Europe, Asia and North America), and just destroyed everything to go with traditional buses. Insane. I guess much of the complaints were they couldn't get around an obstacle, but we now have trolleys with small batteries (something very small) to give them a bit of autonomy to go around obstacules, and they are much cheaper to acquire, run and maintain than a fleet of electric buses and don't use as much precious resources by not using those massive batteries



Hybrid buses have become somewhat common in the 'States.  It makes a ton of sense IMO; lots of stops to run the regen system, with an ICE for the long segments.


----------



## KLiKzg (Jul 22, 2022)

Mussels said:


> Considering unlreaded petrol is $2.20 a liter here in Au right now, i get the feeling our cost efficiency estimates are about to change in favour of alternative tech really suddenly
> 
> 
> I cant believe americans are complaining when their fuel is so much cheaper than everywhere else
> View attachment 255204


Well, with these prices...even Mad Max looks more promising, then 2010 Odyssey in Space.


----------



## KLiKzg (Jul 23, 2022)

Wanted to share something else with all of you:










Enjoy.


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 24, 2022)

not a bad video , but will have to see what the effects are on air pollution plus paste waste

dos seemtoonly be  viable for ai8ircraft


----------



## Shrek (Jul 24, 2022)

My same old question, why turn methane into hydrogen?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 24, 2022)

Shrek said:


> My same old question, why turn methane into hydrogen?


methane is a dirty fuel
hydrogen is not

They're trying to reduce global warming, not switch to another fuel that pumps out Co2


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 24, 2022)

Mussels said:


> methane is a dirty fuel
> hydrogen is not
> 
> They're trying to reduce global warming, not switch to another fuel that pumps out Co2



Blue H2 is just as dirty a process as burning the  Methane directly into the atmosphere (and loses ton of efficiency in the process!)  Burning the same methane in an engine is a way better return on your investment (assuming you have it, say, from a landfill, its carbon-neutral)

Green H2:he part where H2 reduces global warming is when you  make it through electrolysis *(even more expensive than Blue , and why not just charge An EV battery directly?the same electric supply?* )


----------



## KLiKzg (Jul 24, 2022)

Mussels said:


> methane is a dirty fuel
> hydrogen is not
> 
> They're trying to reduce global warming, not switch to another fuel that pumps out Co2


If you use Methane for producing H2, then you also release the CO2.

So you either do not use H2 from methane source or contribute to pollution if you do.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 24, 2022)

Hydrogen is just as green as whatever you use to "produce" it, hydrogen is not a fuel source. That is sad because you see more and more shenanigans with hydrogen to trick people.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 24, 2022)

Mussels said:


> methane is a dirty fuel
> hydrogen is not
> 
> They're trying to reduce global warming, not switch to another fuel that pumps out Co2



Where does the carbon in methane go? (when producing hydrogen from methane)

Just asking, not trolling.


----------



## KLiKzg (Jul 24, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Where does the carbon in methane go? (when producing hydrogen from methane)
> 
> Just asking, not trolling.


Easy...see here, chemistry 101:


----------



## Shrek (Jul 24, 2022)

Much appreciated, that confirms my suspicion; I was hoping I was wrong.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 24, 2022)

One advantage of converting methane to hydrogen is that the carbon dioxide can be cleaned and possibly captured, being in a centralized plant instead of in cars. But then you may as well burn it and generate electricity to power cars.


----------



## Morgoth (Jul 24, 2022)

best way to make hydrogen is to split it from water using nuclear engergy... 
current climate crysis is a scram in a hole. i do agree that we need to change our consumtion but not at this drastic level... bit by bit

mining the moon for raw materials and rifining it there wil do so mutch good for our biosphere


----------



## Shrek (Jul 24, 2022)

Why not solar?

They say the Moon has tritium (generated by radiation that reaches the surface), the Earth not.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 24, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> Hydrogen is just as green as whatever you use to "produce" it, hydrogen is not a fuel source. That is sad because you see more and more shenanigans with hydrogen to trick people.



Well, the important bit is to support electrolysis to make green hydrogen. Which is beginning to exist btw.



Shrek said:


> Why not solar? and save the nuclear for nighttime power.



It doesn't matter. The important thing about electrolysis is that it can take energy when the grid is overloaded (ie: nighttime nuclear is usually cheaper than solar, because we have so many air-conditioners in the USA that we almost never have "too much electricity" during the daytime, even with a large amount of solar panels).

Electrolysis Hydrogen (and other high-electricity usage production facilities, like Aluminum smelting), can be used to help "load balance" the grid. Run the machines when excess power is detected, turn them off during peak energy hours.



Count von Schwalbe said:


> One advantage of converting methane to hydrogen is that the carbon dioxide can be cleaned and possibly captured, being in a centralized plant instead of in cars. But then you may as well burn it and generate electricity to power cars.


This is also true of coal power. "Green Coal" has very high densities of centralized CO2, which in theory could captured.

Centralizing fossil fuels and capturing CO2 from those plants probably should take priority. Its one of the easiest ways we can mitigate CO2 emissions IMO. Its still net negative (its impossible to capture all the CO2), but we should capture what we can.

But any usage of methane / Fossil Fuels is "dirty" so to speak.  Even if we capture / recycle the CO2 (ex: put it into a greenhouse, where CO2 can help plants grow faster), that's carbon that didn't exist in our atmosphere before... since it was dug up from underground. We're seeking to minimize damage here.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 24, 2022)

Electrolysis implies we have electricity, at which point just go with electric cars.


----------



## Panther_Seraphin (Jul 24, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Why not solar?
> 
> They say the Moon has tritium (generated by radiation that reaches the surface), the Earth not.


Energy usage tends to peak when Solar is generating electricity so there isnt much spare capacity there to make Hydrogen in the amounts needed to make it viable.

Using Nuclear you could run a Nuclear plant at 100% safe load between maintenace/fuelings and when the demand disappears overnight etc you can dedicate that to mass H2 production. While using Solar to boost/cover increase loads during the day.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 25, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Electrolysis implies we have electricity, at which point just go with electric cars.



1. Much faster to fill up with Hydrogen than electric. H2 is even faster than gasoline actually, especially for large trucks.

2. High-speed electric chargers are very, very, very bad for our grid. We absolutely cannot sustain daytime superchargers. Not only are these devices sucking hundreds-of-kW over 30-minute periods, they will be doing so during peak daytime hours (ie: when traffic is heaviest) on the average.

3. Hydrogen, especially electrolysis, can be done to use "off-peak" energy. Which for all practical purposes, is free (or at least is very cheap). There are many times where off-peak energy goes even negative, because our USA grid is starting to become unstable (ie: utility companies will pay other companies if they can "guarantee" a load-source and/or a load-reduction for stability).

4. Hydrogen-energy is largely stored in steel containers, rather than lithium-ion batteries. Large scale storage of hydrogen, be it in trucks, busses, or H2 stations, will be far cheaper than building out electrical batteries. In fact, this has been demonstrated in a commercially successful project already: https://www.gmhydrotec.com/product/public/us/en/hydrotec/Home.html

Its actually better to ship-in H2 in many cases (IE: Army bases and far-away places), rather than to connect up to the electrical grid. And moving H2 through steel containers is surprisingly effective in terms of energy transferred.

-------

No matter how you cut it, using steel-and-concrete containers to store (and move) pressurized H2 is a more sustainable future than digging up Lithium, Cobalt, rare-earths, and other such mining operations. We can store more energy in steel containers than Lithium-ion containers, cheaper and more effectively.


----------



## simlife (Jul 25, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> The more I look at what Toyota has done (and is doing) with a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine even... I just don't get it. I know storage costs of hydrogen are expensive, but if it were scaled up, wouldn't the cost dramatically lower? The Boring Company could dig giant underground storage facilities (its cold as crap if you dig far enough down)... and store the tanks of hydrogen there, and a driver will simply drive down a ramp, get the hydrogen tank replaced, and drive off.
> 
> I feel like clean energy with no messy batteries even... is staring us right in the face, why is Toyota taking a risk on it if there is no possible future for it? I don't get it. Someone educate me.
> 
> ...


why ask about a major world subject like billions of ppl world without doing any math or eshaerch are u just asking randos about this?!??! i mean the world isgoing to end thantaos is right... if you look at the las 900 years of the worlrd pop even if u are a werido on religion tech didnt exsist and now 100X more ppl are polotuing 400X faster and no one cares our record highs vs recorde lows is 10x.... 10.... how are the gen z ppl not worried????!?... oh wait they lit fallow on media and other stuff milllionare to billionares.... making them richer in the process why... i know 0 60k or less who can tell me why a good why the faloow a 300k+ person... can u?


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 25, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> 1. Much faster to fill up with Hydrogen than electric. H2 is even faster than gasoline actually, especially for large trucks.
> 
> 2. High-speed electric chargers are very, very, very bad for our grid. We absolutely cannot sustain daytime superchargers. Not only are these devices sucking hundreds-of-kW over 30-minute periods, they will be doing so during peak daytime hours (ie: when traffic is heaviest) on the average.
> 
> ...


You bring up some very good points. Not trying to argue, but there is some other aspects to consider for each point you make. 

1. Electric can be charged at home overnight.

2. Fuel cells and electrolysis are inefficient compared to batteries - and are unlikely to ever catch up. The overall load would be reduced, and the peak usage would be covered by the solution below:

3. Energy storage. Electrolysis and fuel cells to create and use power, or something more efficient such as pumped water. 

4. Modern batteries are safer in a vehicle, and the extra efficiency at passenger vehicle scale is fairly small. 

Many off-grid areas, especially army bases, would be better served by micronuclear, and the military is not super fast to adopt new technology (outside of weapons or communication systems), especially if it has reduced survivability in a combat situation. 

------

New battery technologies being developed could turn batteries into a clear winner in this situation. 

As an example:








						Developer Of Aluminum-Ion Battery Claims It Charges 60 Times Faster Than Lithium-Ion, Offering EV Range Breakthrough
					

The graphene aluminum-ion battery cells from the Brisbane-based Graphene Manufacturing Group (GMG) are claimed to charge up to 60 times faster than the best lithium-ion cells and hold more energy.




					www.forbes.com
				




Despite all of this, I just can't get a good feeling about the future of the battery - powered electric car. First, they seem to be all completely nutty (cybertruck, elio) and/or serious halo products (F150 Lightning). The main push is about ridiculous features or performance, and nobody seems to want to compete on price. 

With 5 minutes of research, I find that for around $25k USD I could convert a car to full electric with decent performance and range paying full retail prices for the parts. Yet the cheapest electric car on the market is over $28k, and the reliability of used cars is strongly suspect. Also, replacing battery packs is very expensive.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 25, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> New battery technologies being developed could turn batteries into a clear winner in this situation.



Hydrogen Fuel cells are simply batteries where you replace the electrolyte at a pump. If we can master electrolysis of Hydrogen, its effectively a battery. Electricity to turn water into Hydrogen. Hydrogen inside of a fuel cell to turn back into electricity and run an electric motor. 

This is one of the most promising technologies being developed right now. I see it as simply another form of electric power, especially when you consider how Fuel Cell cars actually work (ie: Hydrogen into electricity, electricity into motors).


----------



## theFOoL (Jul 25, 2022)

What about one day cars can run on water...


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 25, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Hydrogen Fuel cells are simply batteries where you replace the electrolyte at a pump. If we can master electrolysis of Hydrogen, its effectively a battery. Electricity to turn water into Hydrogen. Hydrogen inside of a fuel cell to turn back into electricity and run an electric motor.
> 
> This is one of the most promising technologies being developed right now. I see it as simply another form of electric power, especially when you consider how Fuel Cell cars actually work (ie: Hydrogen into electricity, electricity into motors).


Yes, however fuel cells are more of an issue for efficiency - they run around 55%. 

One method I see being possible is gas (petrol) stations turning into decentralized electrolysis locations and just pumping H2 like gasoline.



theFOoL said:


> What about one day cars can run on water...


Micronuclear to the next level, just add cooling water...


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 25, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Yes, however fuel cells are more of an issue for efficiency - they run around 55%.



Batteries aren't perfectly 100% efficient either. In fact, pumped-hydro is only about 80% efficient.

So long as the price of off-peak electricity is (55%/80%) == 68% (ie: 32% lower) than the price of on-peak electricity, then H2 electrolysis is actually as good, or better, than even pumped-hydro economically. And lo-and-behold, off-peak energy is in fact that much cheaper (or more).

In fact, off-peak in my area is 7-cents/kW-hr, while on-peak is 30+-cents / kW-hr. So off-peak is 23% the cost of on-peak energy prices. Plenty of opportunity to energy arbitrage and make money even with only 55% efficiency (and future tech will improve). So its economically feasible today, and will only get better.

When a nuclear power plant is running at night, it is making too much electricity. Almost no one uses electricity at night. Therefore, we use that excess for H2 electrolysis.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 25, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Electrolysis implies we have electricity, at which point just go with electric cars.



i would agree if it weren't for the batteries problem. 

And what about planes and boats, using batteries there is simply impossible


----------



## Panther_Seraphin (Jul 25, 2022)

People are also missing that if we actually start making enough H2 we can remove the reliance on burning gas for home heating/cooking etc and focus its use on production of materials that require it such as plastics etc therefore streching out strained/limited supplies for even longer. It is something that is seriously being looked at for UK gas network replacement due to the spike in prices of natural gas.

Is Electrolysis efficent? Currently no but just like anything when it becomes comercialised/used enough efficency will rise as money is put towards development.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 25, 2022)

Geothermal heating/cooling is efficient, and one can cook by electricity, so I don't quite follow the reasoning.


----------



## Panther_Seraphin (Jul 25, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Geothermal heating/cooling is efficient, and one can cook by electricity, so I don't quite follow the reasoning.


When electricity is 0.30 to 0.50c per kwh you still think people are going to be willing to shift to electrictiy? Cause thats the prices in the UK/EU and are only going up!!!


----------



## Shrek (Jul 25, 2022)

How does that help if one is generating hydrogen by electrolysis?


----------



## Panther_Seraphin (Jul 25, 2022)

Shrek said:


> How does that help if one is generating hydrogen by electrolysis?


Cause Commerical get massive discounts on Energy Usage vs home (up to 66%) and more discount with more usage

Also with our gas prices being 15-20% of our electricity costs again why are we going to change over to pure electricity? We get absolutly awful buyback on kwh generated by solar (20-25% effective) so unless you have 5-10k for a battery solution on top of the 5-10k of the solar install your 100% relying on the grid.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 25, 2022)

Shrek said:


> How does that help if one is generating hydrogen by electrolysis?



Hydrogen can be made using off-peak energy, rather than on-peak energy.

My area is ~7-cents off-peak energy costs, and ~30-cents on-peak electricity costs. Even with a 55% efficiency rate, using off peak energy "all the time" for Hydrogen-related stuff is a net-cost of 12-cents per kW-hr, far more economical than paying for 30+ cents peak energy usage.

These are residential figures, but I assume that commercial off-peak vs on-peak rates are similarly priced.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 25, 2022)

Panther_Seraphin said:


> why are we going to change over to pure electricity?



Because with geothermal heating, 1 kWh of electricity results in more than 1 kWh of heating.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 25, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Because with geothermal heating, 1 KWHr of electricity results in more than 1 KWHr of heating.



*Hydrogen is electricity* thanks to fuel cell technology. Use Hydrogen to run a heat pump, with Hydrogen serving as an effective "battery" of sorts to your fuel cell generator. Then run a heat pump with your electricity.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 25, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> *Hydrogen is electricity* thanks to fuel cell technology. Use Hydrogen to run a heat pump, with Hydrogen serving as an effective "battery" of sorts to your fuel cell generator. Then run a heat pump with your electricity.



So, you are saying don't use the electricity directly, but use it to generate hydrogen and then use the hydrogen to generate electricity?


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 25, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> And what about planes and boats, using batteries there is simply impossible


Drones quite readily illustrate this to be false.  It would require a redesign sure but it would not be "impossible."


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 25, 2022)

Shrek said:


> So, you are saying don't use the electricity directly, but use it to generate hydrogen and then use the hydrogen to generate electricity?



Yes.

Instead of using electricity directly, we use pumped-hydro stations to convert the electricity into water+gravity storage, and turn it back into electricity later. Instead of using electricity directly to run our EV cars, we put it into Li-ion batteries and use it later. Etc. etc.

The big problem with today's grid is one of *storage*. We see that H2 is a possible storage mechanism, especially when you understand the economics of peak vs off-peak energy usage (which is so huge that your concerns of "55% efficiency" are miniscule compared to the challenges of peak vs off-peak). Off-peak energy / 55% efficiency is still a hell of a lot cheaper than using on-peak energy.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 25, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Instead of using electricity directly to run our EV cars, we put it into Li-ion batteries and use it later. Etc. etc.



Now you are talking... and have perhaps explained "Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?"


----------



## Panther_Seraphin (Jul 25, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Drones quite readily illustrate this to be false.  It would require a redesign sure but it would not be "impossible."


For aircraft turn around times is one of the harder things to do with batteries vs a "fuel"

Replaceable batteries could/should work for this but I can see how replacing 130 tonnes of batteries per flight could be problematic. Vs connecting 2 hoses to an aircraft for 20 mins to pump 130 tonnes of fuel in.

Cargo ships shouldnt run into this issue as they could be put on charge the moment they dock, but you also now run into needing to massively upgrade the capacity of the electricity grid for all the extra demand being placed on the grid for people charging mass amount of vehicles even with people charging vehicles overnight there is still that issue.


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 25, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Yes, however fuel cells are more of an issue for efficiency - they run around 55%.
> 
> One method I see being possible is gas (petrol) stations turning into decentralized electrolysis locations and just pumping H2 like gasoline.


Anytime you shrink the size of any complex industrial process, you inherently increase inefficiency  (this goes for electrolysis machines).




Count von Schwalbe said:


> Micronuclear to the next level, just add cooling water...



Speak of the devil -  micro nuclear planets still require almost as much monitoring and maintenance, plus backup safety devices ( by qualified and pricey folks) as a full-sized plant - so, when you get the same amount o total power is created as a big nuc, the total costs are higher


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 25, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Now you are talking... and have perhaps explained "Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?"



We haven't abandoned H2 Cars though.









						XCIENT Fuel Cell | HYUNDAI Truck & Bus
					

Eco-friendly and still energy-efficient solution for transportation




					trucknbus.hyundai.com
				




The H2 Xcient Fuel Cell refills faster, cheaper, goes further, can be more fully loaded, etc. etc. than any Li-ion truck. If anything, ask yourself why the Tesla Semi isn't out yet: because Li-ion on larger scales is just not sustainable or reasonable. It takes too long to charge to be practical.


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 25, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Drones quite readily illustrate this to be false.  It would require a redesign sure but it would not be "impossible."


Propeller-driven planes would takes back to the good-old-days f sub 350 mph cruising speeds (unless you like your aircraft's propulsion to produce sonic booms )

Vertical flight is typically limited to half that speed (and thus light  helicopters are a good idea for electric).


----------



## Panther_Seraphin (Jul 25, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> Propeller-driven planes would takes back to the good-old-days f sub 350 mph cruising speeds


Eh. not really anymore, propellor tech has came on a long ways since 1945 as well as engine tech. A400m (latest cargo plane for NATO) for example cruisers around mach 0.65 (485 Mph)

Jets still hold the advantage at around 0.8-85 mach cruise speeds but this is where things like the unducted fan technology could be translated to electric motors.



The main thing is turn around times. 
For the average every day driver a 2-300 mile range is perfectly adequete for 95%+ of journey made without ever having to really use a charger beyond overnight charging
300-500 miles (realisticall 270 -450 based on historical comparisons of realistic vs stated range) for the Tesla Semi where your now talking an hour+ charge time at a super charger station vs 800+ for diesel fuel which is about a 10 minute fill up

The other thing is charge cycles
How many people go from say 90-100% charge to 20-10% charge on the battery in the EV every day?
How many HGVs would do the same once or multiple times per day? 

What about sleepers? Do the power everything of the main driveline batteries or keep some dedicated leisure batteries for that sort of thing?

What about pack replacements. If a Model X battery pack cost is already 10-15k how much is a semi pack going to cost? An inframe overhaul of a traditional engine is only 10-15k and thats anywhere from 500k-750k+ miles


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 25, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> The big problem with today's grid is one of *storage*. We see that H2 is a possible storage mechanism, especially when you understand the economics of peak vs off-peak energy usage (which is so huge that your concerns of "55% efficiency" are miniscule compared to the challenges of peak vs off-peak). Off-peak energy / 55% efficiency is still a hell of a lot cheaper than using on-peak energy.


But I fail to see the advantage of H2 as energy storage over more traditional means on a grid scale. And in a distributed situation, safety could be a major concern - gravity storage would most likely be similar in setup costs, while being much much safer. And battery storage in a distributed method is already happening, like it or not.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 26, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> Propeller-driven planes would takes back to the good-old-days f sub 350 mph cruising speeds (unless you like your aircraft's propulsion to produce sonic booms )
> 
> Vertical flight is typically limited to half that speed (and thus light  helicopters are a good idea for electric).


He said "impossible" not " impractical"


----------



## Steevo (Jul 26, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Drones quite readily illustrate this to be false.  It would require a redesign sure but it would not be "impossible."



Like a ski boat it would never work. Like a boat that needs to be safe, it would never work, a plane where it's supposed to be very light weight to carry more cargo it will never work. Energy density.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 26, 2022)

Steevo said:


> Like a ski boat it would never work. Like a boat that needs to be safe, it would never work, a plane where it's supposed to be very light weight to carry more cargo it will never work. Energy density.


This same argument was used against flight in general.  The problem is not insurmountable, it's a question of practicality and compromise.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 26, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> But I fail to see the advantage of H2 as energy storage over more traditional means on a grid scale. And in a distributed situation, safety could be a major concern - gravity storage would most likely be similar in setup costs, while being much much safer. And battery storage in a distributed method is already happening, like it or not.



Electric Battery storage is measured in lol hundred-Megawatt-hours. Batteries are so laughably small that they are basically irrelevant, despite the hype.

Meanwhile: https://www.hydeal.com/hydeal-ambition



> HyDeal Ambition aims at producing 3.6 Mt of green hydrogen in 2030 with 95 GW of solar and 67 GW of electrolyzer capacity, in an integrated upstream, midstream and downstream system spanning from Spain to France and Germany



You ain't getting 67GW of power from batteries. You just ain't. Now assume 10-hours of operation, and we're at 670GW-hrs of energy storage. (Energy is power x time).

And the hydrogen revolution is just beginning. It will continue to grow as technology improves in the foreseeable future.

Electrolyzer Hydrogen is needed to improve the efficiency of our food system anyway. Its going to happen whether or not you use it as a fuel. Fertilizer plants need that hydrogen to make ammonia, and ammonia to make fertilizer. Thanks to Fuel Cell technology, other people can benefit from this technology to generate electricity, and use it as a chemical energy solution rather than just fertilizer.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 26, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> This same argument was used against flight in general.  The problem is not insurmountable, it's a question of practicality and compromise.


At the current energy density of batteries it is impossible to build aircraft that are commercially viable. Have you considered the power/weight ratio of a drone, or the flight time when loaded? Not even close to a traditional aircraft. 

Now, as battery tech improves, it may move into lighter, smaller aircraft. I can see the piston engine being replaced by batteries, but not the turbine. However, H2 may be a good alternative fuel for the turbine.


dragontamer5788 said:


> Electric Battery storage is measured in lol hundred-Megawatt-hours. Batteries are so laughably small that they are basically irrelevant, despite the hype.
> 
> Meanwhile: https://www.hydeal.com/hydeal-ambition


I was by no means promoting battery storage. I was merely remarking that things like Tesla Powerwall exist. 

I just can't see how H2 electrolysis and fuel cells will be the best method of energy storage no matter how distributed.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 26, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> commercially viable.


I'm hearing a lot of words like this.  You have to remember the poster I was replying too was claiming it was "impossible" outright, NOT impractical or any variant of that.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 26, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I'm hearing a lot of words like this.  You have to remember the poster I was replying too was claiming it was "impossible" outright, NOT impractical or any variant of that.


Yes, I was agreeing with you
I am not sure it would be possible to construct a passenger jet replacement at current tech though.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 26, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> I was by no means promoting battery storage. I was merely remarking that things like Tesla Powerwall exist.
> 
> I just can't see how H2 electrolysis and fuel cells will be the best method of energy storage no matter how distributed.



Because in 2030, we're looking at 250GW of worldwide H2 power capacity, which probably correlates to ~2500 GW-hrs of H2 energy storage (assuming 10 hours of operation).

There's no battery technology with any plan over the next 8 years that takes place on the same scale. Sure, H2 has all sorts of disadvantages. But if we're talking about grid-scale electricity, tiny 13kW-hr installations are a blip, a billion or even trillion times smaller than what we need.

Tesla Powerwall is irrelevant. Its too small to matter. We need a technology that's far larger. California alone needs hundreds of GW-hrs, let alone the rest of the world.


----------



## Panther_Seraphin (Jul 26, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> I just can't see how H2 electrolysis and fuel cells will be the best method of energy storage no matter how distributed.


All depends on how we change current processes. IF we went purely into renewables then the amount of battery we would need would be unsustainable either electrochemical or other methods like gravity based water storage.

If we went purely nuclear focused for the next decade plus then we miss out on what the baseline of the plants COULD put out vs utilisation. Without investing heavily in things like H2 production, mass areas dedicated for water gravity systems or insane amounts of things like Tesla Megapacks.

H2 integrates into already existing infrastructure especially in Europe where we have far more reliance on gas for heating and cooking vs America. Let alone power generation via powercells in cars or perhaps backup generators. On top of the already existing industiral uses of Hydrogen.


Its going to be a combination I believe going forward that is going to the be the best in the short-mid term. Then the encouragement/enforcement of say Solar being require on ALL new builds in beneficial areas can remove demand off the central grid with the increasing useage of energy especially in the next 10-25 years. If EVs become adopted en mass on top of every one having more and more electrical devices in the household which only seems to be growing year on year. 

We are also going to need mass investment into new battery technologies to try and use less rare materials when possible. Some speculations are thinking that with current growth of lithium usage in batteries we would be exhausting "known" lithium reserves in around 2070 on top of the extreme ecological problems mass Lithium mining causes.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 26, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Yes, I was agreeing with you
> I am not sure it would be possible to construct a passenger jet replacement at current tech though.



CO2 + Hydrogen synthesizes into kerosene. Kerosene is standard jet fuel.

We can capture the CO2 from coal plants or something as a temporary measure, at last until carbon sequestration becomes reasonable.

There is a lot of cool stuff we can do with Hydrogen gas.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Jul 26, 2022)

This thread just needs to die already


----------



## claes (Jul 26, 2022)

Like our species and planet? 

sorry off-topic


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 26, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Drones quite readily illustrate this to be false.  It would require a redesign sure but it would not be "impossible."



just answer me this, how many batteries would a NY to London plane need and the weight? or to illustrate this point better, how many batteries would one of those container ships need to go from China to Europe?


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2022)

The efficiency of hydrogen in terms of cost in electricity to generate it is almost irrelevant. As many others have said, Nuclear is the answer, and night production is the ideal time.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 26, 2022)

There's this insane push for nuclear everywhere, i have no idea were this is coming from. 

Building nuclear power plants is costly, insanely complex, requires specialised workforce, a very stable country to be able to acess the technology even if they want to use it, and it takes a lot of time to build a power plant. Rarely does a nuclear power plant not go over budget and over timeline by 2x and more. Not to mention were to put it, in many smaller countries if there were an accident, a large portion of the country would be inhabitable. People will protest. You have to deal with storage of waste, and when it gets to end of life the decommissioning it's insanely costly.

I bet more then half the countries on Earth have no possibility to use nuclear.

Why not just build solar farms, wind farms, wave power farms, etc...


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> There's this insane push for nuclear everywhere, i have no idea were this is coming from.
> 
> Building nuclear power plants is costly, insanely complex, requires specialised workforce, a very stable country to be able to acess the technology even if they want to use it, and it takes a lot of time to build a power plant. Rarely does a nuclear power plant not go over budget and over timeline by 2x and more. Not to mention were to put it, in many smaller countries if there were an accident, a large portion of the country would be inhabitable. People will protest. You have to deal with storage of waste, and when it gets to end of life the decommissioning it's insanely costly.
> 
> ...


Because all of those have a useful lifespan of less than 20 years. Are insanely unreliable, irregular in power generation, often producing power at times it's not needed, and being idle when it's critical, require rare earths and complex manufacturing and maintenance (more difficult especially when offshore), and expensive to recycle. Nuclear is the only logical option for our energy demands in any kind of green manner at scale.

For reference, UK nuclear plants produce 20% of the nations energy and is reliable in producing that consistently. Plans have been drawn to build more, despite the babbling of green activists.




https://www.energyforhumanity.org/en/briefings/energy/nuclear-power-and-safety-the-facts/ For those concerned about other risks, such as safety, please educate yourselves.

For every non nuclear plant that's been built since the conception of the technology, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of CO2, if not millions, has been released into the atmosphere, and pollutants have damaged the quality of life of those in the region.

If a country doesn't have the tech to build a reactor, outsource. Even the UK does that with it's reactors.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 26, 2022)

dgianstefani said:


> Because all of those have a useful lifespan of less than 20 years. Are insanely unreliable, irregular in power generation, often producing power at times it's not needed, and being idle when it's critical, require rare earths and complex manufacturing and maintenance (more difficult especially when offshore), and expensive to recycle. Nuclear is the only logical option for our energy demands in any kind of green manner at scale.
> 
> For reference, a single UK nuclear plant produces 20% of the nations energy and is reliable in producing that consistently. Build 5 of those, and you don't worry about energy for the next few decades.View attachment 255960
> 
> ...



The UK has 6 nuclear power plants producing 20% of the total energy output of the country, not one. I'm sure i'm the one that needs to be educated. Sure mate.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2022)

Yeah pick on that one typo instead of the actual point of the post - well done.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 26, 2022)

dgianstefani said:


> Yeah pick on that one typo instead of the actual point of the post - well done.



i'm also sure you don't know what a typo is. 

"a single UK nuclear plant produces 20% of the nations energy" for "UK nuclear plants produce 20% of the nations energy" it's not a typo, at most it would be a cluster of typos coherently forming a completely different sentence.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2022)

Still ignoring the point I see. Well done.

Keep focusing on correcting grammar! I'm sure the world's energy problems can be solved that way.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 26, 2022)

i'm not ignoring anything, i explained my point, i don't see anything relevant on your post for me to comment, i just corrected the wrong information on yours.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> The UK has 6 nuclear power plants producing 20% of the total energy output of the country, not one. I'm sure i'm the one that needs to be educated. Sure mate.



It's actually 11 reactors at five locations, if you want to be pedantic.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 26, 2022)

dgianstefani said:


> It's actually 11 reactors at five locations, if you want to be pedantic.



you quoted "nuclear plants" not "reactors". Was that another typo?


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2022)

Pedantic it is I see.

You're still wrong by the way.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 26, 2022)

@Bomby569 how about actually providing some tangible argument other than the indirection you keep adding to the discussion. @dgianstefani has made some pretty good points, you however, have not.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 26, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> There's this insane push for nuclear everywhere, i have no idea were this is coming from.
> 
> Building nuclear power plants is costly, insanely complex, requires specialised workforce, a very stable country to be able to acess the technology even if they want to use it, and it takes a lot of time to build a power plant. Rarely does a nuclear power plant not go over budget and over timeline by 2x and more. Not to mention were to put it, in many smaller countries if there were an accident, a large portion of the country would be inhabitable. People will protest. You have to deal with storage of waste, and when it gets to end of life the decommissioning it's insanely costly.
> 
> ...


These are not your grandfather's nuclear reactors. Look at the ones X-Energy is building for example - a 400 yard safety factor vs 10 miles, focusing on lowering cost and maintenance, like SpaceX did for the space industry. They are also building a portable reactor that fits into a ISO sized container. If a country can't build or safely use a nuclear power plant, let the UN administer portable reactors, to prevent proliferation.

Solar power is far less environmentally friendly than most people think. Old solar panels are threatening to dwarf the e-waste problem for m consumer electronics, and the production is not squeaky clean either. I like hydro power - wave, river, tidal - but those are strongly location-specific.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2022)

Bear in mind most new reactors aren't designed to produce plutonium as a by product (for weapons in cold war), making them inherently safer, alongside all of the other advantages from modern designs.


Count von Schwalbe said:


> These are not your grandfather's nuclear reactors. Look at the ones X-Energy is building for example - a 400 yard safety factor vs 10 miles, focusing on lowering cost and maintenance, like SpaceX did for the space industry. They are also building a portable reactor that fits into a ISO sized container. If a country can't build or safely use a nuclear power plant, let the UN administer portable reactors, to prevent proliferation.
> 
> Solar power is far less environmentally friendly than most people think. Old solar panels are threatening to dwarf the e-waste problem for m consumer electronics, and the production is not squeaky clean either. I like hydro power - wave, river, tidal - but those are strongly location-specific.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 26, 2022)

dgianstefani said:


> Pedantic it is I see.
> 
> You're still wrong by the way.
> View attachment 255961



Great so we went from a SINGLE nuclear power plant produces 20% of the countries needs, amazing. To 8 power plants to produce 20%. I think you made your point.



Count von Schwalbe said:


> These are not your grandfather's nuclear reactors. Look at the ones X-Energy is building for example - a 400 yard safety factor vs 10 miles, focusing on lowering cost and maintenance, like SpaceX did for the space industry. They are also building a portable reactor that fits into a ISO sized container. If a country can't build or safely use a nuclear power plant, let the UN administer portable reactors, to prevent proliferation.
> 
> Solar power is far less environmentally friendly than most people think. Old solar panels are threatening to dwarf the e-waste problem for m consumer electronics, and the production is not squeaky clean either. I like hydro power - wave, river, tidal - but those are strongly location-specific.



I already said, even if it was the solution, for the most part of the countries in the world, nuclear is not even an option. What problem will it solve exactly?
The countries that can do it, how many NPP went over budget and over the timeline lately? billions.








						The controversial future of nuclear power in the U.S.
					

As the climate crisis worsens, the discussion intensifies over what role nuclear power should play in fighting it.




					www.nationalgeographic.com
				











						Hinkley Point C delayed by a year as cost goes up by £3bn
					

The revised operating date for the Somerset site is June 2027 and is expected to cost up to £26bn.



					www.bbc.com
				











						EDF hopeful end in sight for long-delayed, budget-busting nuclear plant
					

At a sprawling nuclear site in north western France, a banner next to a crane and a still-under-construction water reservoir confidently states: "Final stretch to get Flamanville 3 started safely and securely."




					www.reuters.com
				





Solar panels can be recycled, that e-waste argument makes no sense. Everything can be e-waste if you don't care Nuclear costs billions of dollars to decommission a plant, if you don't do it you'll have even a bigger problem of waste.


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 26, 2022)

Panther_Seraphin said:


> Eh. not really anymore, propellor tech has came on a long ways since 1945 as well as engine tech. A400m (latest cargo plane for NATO) for example cruisers around mach 0.65 (485 Mph)
> 
> Jets still hold the advantage at around 0.8-85 mach cruise speeds but this is where things like the unducted fan technology could be translated to electric motors.
> 
> ...


Sure, looks promising on the propeller design

But  HGVs  area no-no for aircraft: there will never be enough infrastructure to handle the added complexity of  cryogenics on aircraft ( slurry maybe, but why not just create carbon-neutral fuel from that same mass-produced hydrogen?)









						The Air Force partners with Twelve, proves it’s possible to make jet fuel out of thin air
					

Air Force Operational Energy endorsed the carbon transformation company Twelve to launch a pilot program to demonstrate that their proprietary technology could convert CO2 into operationally viable



					www.af.mil
				




its a vastly easier to make av gas at one big H2 electrolysis plant plus C0 (no massive infrastructure required, and cuts-down on the cost of having to redesign every in-production aircraft on  earth)


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 26, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> Great so we went from a SINGLE nuclear power plant produces 20% of the countries needs, amazing. To 8 power plants to produce 20%. I think you made your point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I encourage you to read the linked article, it is very interesting.

Also, which countries did you have in mind? Any with a port could take a berthed ship with container-sized reactors. Heck, a pair of (new) Panamax-sized ships could power the entirety of Venezuela, and if security became a concern they could just sail off. Also, modular reactors with road-transportable pieces resolve many of the issues with the nuclear power plants currently under construction.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 26, 2022)

dgianstefani said:


> The efficiency of hydrogen in terms of cost in electricity to generate it is almost irrelevant. As many others have said, Nuclear is the answer, and night production is the ideal time.



Alternatively, if we mass produce solar panels to the point that the 11am sun is the "cheapest energy" point in our systems, then H2 Electrolysis could be run at 11am instead of at night.

It doesn't matter. Nuclear is a bad fit for reality, because nuclear makes too much energy at night and not enough during the day. Solar is a bad fit: too much energy made at 10am (sun hasn't heated the area up yet), not enough electricity at 7pm (sun heated the roads up, our ACs are running on full blast, but the sun is setting and the solar power is disappearing). Wind is a bad fit: less wind during daytime hours than nighttime.

The only thing that matches our use correctly is Natural Gas, which is why that's so popular despite its carbon emissions. Hydro is also another thing that matches perfectly, because we can let the turbines spin whenever we want (as long as we have adequate water reserves). But Hydro is quite geography limited. We probably should maximize the Hydro we have, but it won't be long before we run out of geography.

----------

Thinking of things like H2 that we can "run when we want to" is key to making green energy work. It doesn't matter if we use nuclear, solar, or wind. All of them fail to match real-world energy usage. So instead, we can invent new devices (like H2 Electrolysis) to be run at the cheapest time, responsive to the the conditions of the grid.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 26, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> I encourage you to read the linked article, it is very interesting.
> 
> Also, which countries did you have in mind? Any with a port could take a berthed ship with container-sized reactors. Heck, a pair of (new) Panamax-sized ships could power the entirety of Venezuela, and if security became a concern they could just sail off. Also, modular reactors with road-transportable pieces resolve many of the issues with the nuclear power plants currently under construction.



Look that's a good example, no one would ever give nuclear tech to Venezuela, and like them there are countless countries that aren't stable enough for anyone to even consider doing it, cross all of Africa, all of South America, most of Asia.  And i'm sure you can see the flaw in having a container ship with nuclear reactors capable of powering a country. And even if all of this was possible there was still the cost, construction, maintenance, decommissioning, most countries can't afford.
And assuming all these countries would want a nuclear ship on their shores. Countries like NZ are not some crazy nation and they have laws against nuclear.

Nuclear lives of unrealistic dreams and often detached from reality, always has.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 26, 2022)

You can turn down nuclear plants just like any other. It’s greener than “renewables” and depending on reactor design can Reuse waste from current generation plants and leave less waste overall than mining for the compounds needed for other energy sources, fusion is still 20 years away.

Hydrogen has the issue still of cost of production and energy density. If we create a nuclear base load reusing coal fired sites and or desalination for the cities running out of water and electricity we could also incorporate hydrogen and oxygen production into the same facility. Cars can be electric for short trips or hydrogen or hydrogen product powered for Ag, industrial, long haul, and aviation. Pull CO2 out of the air.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 26, 2022)

Steevo said:


> You can turn down nuclear plants just like any other.



In theory yes. Economically, no. Solar, Nuclear, and Wind cost lots of money to startup, but effectively have "free fuel". The only economic reason to ever "turn them down"  is if the price of electricity goes negative.

Nuclear costs are almost entirely in construction and safety. Similarly, Solar and Wind are "free fuel", all the costs are in building the devices to begin with, so it only makes sense to turn them off if the grid is so unstable that the spot-price of electricity goes negative.

But what if: instead of those devices turning off, we keep them running and take the "free energy" and dump it into Hydrogen? (Or really, any energy storage. Its just that Hydrogen is one of the best options right now after pumped hydro). With enough energy storage, the price of electricity will never go negative (there's always someone out there willing to store the energy). But we need to build large-scale energy storage for that to happen, we can't just assume it will happen naturally.

---------

To put it another way: any "renewable energy" source is high-CapEx / low-fuel costs (or even "free" fuel costs). In contrast, "carbon-producers" like Natural Gas, Coal, or Oil plants are low-CapEx / high-fuel costs. Completely different economically.

We keep trying to pound a square-peg into a circular hole. It only works if we have enough energy-storage to stabilize our grid as we transition to renewable energy. I personally don't care if the future is solar or nuclear, either way we're dealing with a high-CapEx / low-fuel cost plant over there, and need to solve the energy storage problem.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 26, 2022)

Why hydrogen for storage? why not a heavy weight that runs up and down a long shaft? efficiencies would be high.


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 26, 2022)

Steevo said:


> You can turn down nuclear plants just like any other. It’s greener than “renewables” and depending on reactor design can Reuse waste from current generation plants and leave less waste overall than mining for the compounds needed for other energy sources, fusion is still 20 years away.
> 
> Hydrogen has the issue still of cost of production and energy density. If we create a nuclear base load reusing coal fired sites and or desalination for the cities running out of water and electricity we could also incorporate hydrogen and oxygen production into the same facility. Cars can be electric for short trips or hydrogen or hydrogen product powered for Ag, industrial, long haul, and aviation. Pull CO2 out of the air.


Desalination to get your cooling water?  that will raise the already high nuke running costs into astronomical-vile.

See here, where having two independent water systems means you use almost twice s much water.









						Nuclear power and its water consumption secrets - Monarch Partnership
					

Following our brief introduction to nuclear power, it’s time to look into one of the industry’s biggest secrets: nuclear power’s extortionate water usage...




					monarchpartnership.co.uk
				




And as the planet heats-up, the temperature delta available becomes harder to deal with (and plants have to shut-down often)









						Nuclear Power Plants Are Struggling to Stay Cool
					

Climate change is reducing output and raising safety concerns at nuclear facilities from France to the US. But experts say adapting is possible—and necessary.




					www.wired.com
				




*As-opposed to wind, which needs no such cooling  And Solar (thanks to electrostatics may turn-out not to need very much water to keep panels clean in dusty regions):*



			https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abm0078
		


I'm sorry man, but nuclear has been heading in the wrong direction fr several decades.  *And, aside from France, no other country has found a way to make  reprocessed fuel the same cost as grabbing virgin fuel from the soil (and at that price, nobody will buy it)*


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 26, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Why hydrogen for storage? why not a heavy weight that runs up and down a long shaft? efficiencies would be high.



One GW-hr of energy is  3600 Gigajoules. That's 360 Kilotons of weight traveling 1-kilometer straight up-and-down to store. Feel free to tweak this however you like, but its not reasonable to use gravity storage  for this scale (unless you're emptying entire lakes like Pumped Hydro does). (One metric ton provides 9810 Newtons of force. 360 Kilotons * 9810 Newtons * 1000 meters == 3600 Gigajoules aka giga-Newton-Meters)

EDIT: Did the math wrong at first. I think I fixed it this time.
EDIT2: Kilotons, not megatons.

In contrast, one kg of Hydrogen stores 120MJ of energy. 3600 Gigajoules is 30,000kg of Hydrogen, (aka: 30 metric tons), which is a lot for sure, but like... actually physically doable.

If I'm doing my math right, 30,000kg of Hydrogen at 700-bar of pressure is 1200 cubic-meters of storage.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 26, 2022)

10 battleships... seems plausible.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 26, 2022)

Shrek said:


> 10 battleships... seems plausible.



And you're gonna hang 10 battleships on a chain and raise/lower them 1-kilometer... how? And do so within 10-hours (10 hours to store GW-hr of energy, and then 10 hours to release it). Safely, repeatably for the next 20 years?

What geography even supports this kind of insane project? (And don't say pumped Hydro, we all know that works, lol)


----------



## Shrek (Jul 26, 2022)

Rack and pinion with the motor/generator on the weight; just playing with ideas.

Maybe Li-ion
Tesla secures big 200 MWh Megapack order for a new energy storage project in Australia - Electrek
0.2 GWh


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 26, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Rack and pinion with the motor/generator on the weight; just playing with ideas.
> 
> Maybe Li-ion
> Tesla secures big 200 MWh Megapack order for a new energy storage project in Australia - Electrek
> 0.2 GWh



To give you an idea of the scale of these hydrogen solutions: https://global.kawasaki.com/en/corp/newsroom/news/detail/?f=20201224_8018

This singular tank of liquefied H2 is 710 tons of H2 storage, or 23 GW-hrs of energy storage. (If I did my math right, lol)


----------



## Shrek (Jul 26, 2022)

I seem to recall someone quoting 55% efficiency, so almost as much lost as stored?


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 26, 2022)

Shrek said:


> I seem to recall someone quoting 55% efficiency, so almost as much lost as stored?



You need to think of the economics of the future of energy. Nuclear, Solar, and Wind give us free energy, but at the wrong time.

55% efficient gathering of free energy is still free. The problem is energy storage. Nuclear, Solar and Wind creates energy at the wrong time, and requires natural gas to spin-up / spin-down to match the grid. Large-scale GW-hr scale energy storage is the only way we actually make Nuclear/Solar/Wind to work.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 26, 2022)

If Tesla can do 0.2 GWh today, imagine what industry could do.

Solar is not free; the cells are not exactly cheap. So, efficiency remains an issue.

Before there is any misunderstanding, I am all for Solar and storage; so, we are only quibbling about how.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 26, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> just answer me this, how many batteries would a NY to London plane need and the weight? or to illustrate this point better, how many batteries would one of those container ships need to go from China to Europe?


Someone missed the whole discussion about "practical" vs "impossible."


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 26, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Solar is not free; the cells are not exactly cheap. So, efficiency remains an issue.



Li-ion isn't free either. In contrast, steel-and-concrete structures are basically free compared to Li-ion. We can mass produce those H2 containers today, with our current tech. Its just steel and concrete.

I have to "imagine a future" where Li-ion production improves by 150x fold before its competitive. Meanwhile, the H2 tanks exist today to solve the problem. If Li-ion becomes competitive 10 years from now, we just build those battery systems then.

But today, we need to plan our production around what today's technology can do. There are huge issues about how dirty it is to mine those rare-earth metals of Li-ion (not just Lithium, but also Cobalt, Nickel, and other rare elements). Steel and concrete? That's basically available everywhere with less of an ecological issue of producing.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 26, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> I like hydro power - wave, river, tidal - but those are strongly location-specific.


As a resident of the pacific northwest, we both love and kind of hate them.  They are certainly better than carbon, but they devastate salmon runs.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 26, 2022)

My point was that an international organization such as the UN could own and operate such ships, say through the UNFCC. They have the power to provide them with sufficient security against non-state actors and could reserve the right to withdraw them at a moment's notice if they felt that there was a threat of sufficient level to endanger the ship. If an _Oliver Hazard Perry_-class frigate was retrofitted with reactors using TRISO fuel optimized for safety, replacing the existing engine systems with a steam generator system, I don't see why power could not be made available to developing countries, even ones with unstable political situations, if a port or even a coastline is available. A simple pressure vessel could also buffer the capacity so the reactor output could be decreased below peak energy demand.

Edit: the reason for the class of ship chosen is that they were recently decommissioned from the USN and several are in storage pending their fate. 


dragontamer5788 said:


> And you're gonna hang 10 battleships on a chain and raise/lower them 1-kilometer... how? And do so within 10-hours (10 hours to store GW-hr of energy, and then 10 hours to release it). Safely, repeatably for the next 20 years?
> 
> What geography even supports this kind of insane project? (And don't say pumped Hydro, we all know that works, lol)





Shrek said:


> Rack and pinion with the motor/generator on the weight; just playing with ideas.
> 
> Maybe Li-ion
> Tesla secures big 200 MWh Megapack order for a new energy storage project in Australia - Electrek
> 0.2 GWh


From a practical standpoint, that is 180 blocks of concrete about the length and width of the USS _Iowa_, 100m in height. I chose concrete as being reasonably dense and cheap. I strongly doubt that this is practical on a large scale. Also, I doubt there is enough lithium in the world to do battery storage, besides the not inconsiderable environmental impact of battery production.

Interesting image grabbed from Wikipedia:







R-T-B said:


> As a resident of the pacific northwest, we both love and kind of hate them.  They are certainly better than carbon, but they devastate salmon runs.


As a resident of Tennessee, I love them. Tennessee has one natural lake - six hours drive away from where I live. Thanks to the TVA, I have 5 lakes within 1 hour, and cheap electricity.


----------



## claes (Jul 26, 2022)

dgianstefani said:


> Plans have been drawn to build more, despite the babbling of green activists.


Dismissing green activists, which include a lot of scientists, and laughing at people that disagree with you when you make a mistake rather than just owning it, comes off as incredibly dismissive. Why not respond to the claims on face?

I have questions about solar, wind, etc, as well, particularly due to their dependence on rare earth materials, but most activists critical of nuclear power share those questions. The primary arguments from the left seem to be that nuclear takes way too long to build and is unsustainable.


dgianstefani said:


> https://www.energyforhumanity.org/en/briefings/energy/nuclear-power-and-safety-the-facts/ For those concerned about other risks, such as safety, please educate yourselves.


A film director and two entrepreneurs? Kirsty is the only one who is credentialed in anyway to discuss nuclear power. Half these orgs are just props to invest in nuclear. Not that “green technology” doesn’t have the same problem, but I think we both know the issue is way more complex than presented here.


----------



## anfazi54 (Jul 26, 2022)

Some says in gas industry worker, hydrogen isn't easy to work with


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 26, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Someone missed the whole discussion about "practical" vs "impossible."



practical isn't an issue as it is an impossibility, if someone were having that discussion, that should clear it up


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 26, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> practical isn't an issue as it is an impossibility, literally, if someone were having that discussion, that should clear it up


So, drones are impossible?  They fly.

You seem to be arguing in circles.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 26, 2022)

anfazi54 said:


> Some says in gas industry worker, hydrogen isn't easy to work with



and gas is? batteries are?



R-T-B said:


> So, drones are impossible?  They fly.
> 
> You seem to be arguing in circles.



man are we now comparing drones with planes with people and/or cargo or container ships crossing an ocean? that can't be what you meant for sure.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 26, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> man are we now comparing drones with planes with people and/or cargo or container ships crossing an ocean? that can't be what you meant for sure.


No, we aren't.  We never were.  I'm just taking your initial statement that started this whole comment chain, that battery powered flight is "impossible."  Any other insinuations are on you.  Frankly I'm tired of explaining this, so lets just drop it.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 26, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> No, we aren't.  We never were.  I'm just taking your initial statement that started this whole comment chain, that battery powered flight is "impossible."  Any other insinuations are on you.  Frankly I'm tired of explaining this, so lets just drop it.








There are some.... physics problems... associated with current battery tech compared to other forms of fuel... to say the least.

Airplanes have volume-constraints (energy-per-liter) and mass-constraints (energy-per-kilogram). Hydrogen has one problem: volume is terrible, but plenty of energy-per-kilogram.

Batteries, at least with today's technology, have both volume and mass issues. Any reasonable discussion about "batteries on airplanes" requires magical batteries with 10x the volume-density and 10x the mass-density.

--------

H2 on an airplane looks very, very difficult. Liquid Hydrogen is the only "reasonable" solution, but that requires cryogenics to store the Helium. Other solutions (700-bar pressure or 350-bar pressure) use up too much volume. Powering the cryogenics so that the Hydrogen can be used as the airplane flies seems non-trivial.

Airplanes are just a really hard problem. I'm not feeling bullish on either batteries or hydrogen for airplanes frankly. The best solution proposed seems to be Hydrogen + CO2 syngas -> Kerosene, and we continue to use Kerosense as jet fuel (but instead synthesize it from green sources). Unless some crazy other battery breakthrough happens, that's probably our best bet...


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 26, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> View attachment 256020
> 
> 
> There are some.... physics problems... associated with current battery tech compared to other forms of fuel... to say the least.
> ...


Yes.  That wasn't what I was disputing.

No one is going passenger plane on Lithium-Ion tech.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 27, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> Desalination to get your cooling water?  that will raise the already high nuke running costs into astronomical-vile.
> 
> See here, where having two independent water systems means you use almost twice s much water.
> 
> ...


Desalination as cities in the deserts are running out of water and power, two birds one stone.

Aside from France, who has the cleanest air from their massive nuclear power use, sells and stabilize the grids of neighboring “green” countries.





						Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association
					

France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.  France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.  France has been...




					world-nuclear.org
				





A few hit pieces from wired or Bloomberg about how it’s been hot so delta T means their plants are slightly less efficient…. Compared to any other power generation system that uses heat? So what? Build 2 more with 0 emissions and you still have 0 emissions.









						French Nuclear Power Crisis Frustrates Europe’s Push to Quit Russian Energy
					

France typically exports electricity, but now it risks blackouts and a need for imported power because of problems at the state nuclear operator.




					www.nytimes.com
				




This is at least mostly honest about the energy crisis in the EU, France has been using reactors from the 80s without any major reworking and selling power to other countries at too cheap of prices. Nuclear get 3 billion in subsidies for decommissioning, fossil fuels get 50 billion. Maybe take that 50 from the last 10 years and invest in actual clean new nuclear….






Aside from the fact that we do need more plutonium for deep space exploration and breeder reactors can reuse waste and or create said plutonium and are vastly safer to operate than designs from the 60 years ago which are still in use.

Aside from all the research that has told us subsidized solar, wind and other is worse than nuclear, and if the subsidies went to nuclear the cost drops, and the whole overarching theme is “green energy” but we aren’t using the greenest energy on a hope and prayer that enough other technologies will come along to save us while we continue to burn millions of tons of coal and now natural gas as well.

Your way of thinking is very Bureaucratic, and is why we are in this mess with climate change. Always the bandaid, we need to have a realistic view of what we can do in the next 20 years if we start now, not 50 years from now when we might finally have the technology and resources and a half dead planet almost out of easily accessible hydrocarbons and carbon based resources.


I’m on my phone so there may be some typos.


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 27, 2022)

Steevo said:


> Desalination as cities in the deserts are running out of water and power, two birds one stone.
> 
> Aside from France, who has the cleanest air from their massive nuclear power use, sells and stabilize the grids of neighboring “green” countries.
> 
> ...



When reactors were new, maintenance cos were cheap and mostly painless, but now that most of the fleet is 40 years old,the breakages are causing a lot more downtime










						French Nuclear Power Crisis Frustrates Europe’s Push to Quit Russian Energy
					

France typically exports electricity, but now it risks blackouts and a need for imported power because of problems at the state nuclear operator.




					www.nytimes.com
				




*45 billion dollars in debt doesn't sound like a healthy industry to me!

An earlier story, if you don't believe nytimdes*










						France's EDF takes more nuclear reactors offline after faults found
					

French power giant EDF said on Wednesday it had found faults on pipes in a safety system at its Civaux nuclear power station, and it would shut down another plant because it used the same kind of reactors.




					www.reuters.com
				




*And hey, look, even more reactors shutting down due to too high water temps*









						Warming rivers threaten France's already tight power supply
					

High water temperatures threaten to reduce France's already unusually low nuclear output, piling more pressure on operator EDF at a time when half its reactors are offline due to maintenance and corrosion issues.




					www.reuters.com
				





*no other renewable energy source in the entire planet has that same level of Cool Water hog™ than Nuclear ; requiring dual-independent cooling systems will do that for you (and  thus, you need even colder water to start with)*

As temps rise every year in southern Europe France is screwed; and you would have to be a complete idiot to keep buying the bull after any of the stories i linked!


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 27, 2022)

Steevo said:


> Your way of thinking is very Bureaucratic, and is why we are in this mess with climate change.


Somehow I doubt that's the reason...

I think all the technologies have a role to play in the future ahead, if we survive.  It is very much a regional circumstances question.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 27, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> When reactors were new, maintenance cos were cheap and mostly painless, but now that most of the fleet is 40 years old,the breakages are causing a lot more downtime
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suppose I will have to disagree and be OK with it.


R-T-B said:


> Somehow I doubt that's the reason...
> 
> I think all the technologies have a role to play in the future ahead, if we survive.  It is very much a regional circumstances question.



How much C02 did California save by shutting down their nuclear plant? None, instead they spew CO2 from natural gas turbines that now make almost 40 percent of their power, with the proposed closing of another ( their last) nuclear plant it will add another 15.5 MILLION tons of C02 in the next 10 years and probably more. 1.6 Million tons of C02 a year just cause nuclear scary to idiots who think food comes from the store, I bet their thinking changes when longer blackouts occur and they can’t charge their cars, and there isn’t clean water.









						California's last nuclear plant is poised to shut down. What happens next?
					

A large amount of carbon-free energy will come offline once the Diablo Canyon power plant retires, raising questions around how the state will replace it.




					www.utilitydive.com


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 27, 2022)

Steevo said:


> How much C02 did California save by shutting down their nuclear plant?


That is a complete deflection and attempt to make this thread partisan, something it really should not be.

Don't make it like that.  You know how bad Texas is if you want to talk blackouts.  I'd prefer we stick to the science and not the "libtards/regressives bad!" rheteoric.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 27, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> That is a complete deflection and attempt to make this thread partisan, something it really should not be.
> 
> Don't make it like that.  You know how bad Texas is if you want to talk blackouts.  I'd prefer we stick to the science and not the "libtards/regressives bad!" rheteoric.


Too true, science first.

Back to the topic at hand, hydrogen density until we master metallic hydrogen isn’t high enough to be cost effective VSjust directly using electricity to charge batteries. Unless we want to subsidize it which involves the same government that made our gas cans so effective.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 27, 2022)

Steevo said:


> Unless we want to subsidize it which involves the same government that made our gas cans so effective.


I'd argue that that's more corperate lobbyists that have congress by the balls, but same end game.

Other than that little detour I just made: thanks for sticking to the science, better for everyone.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 27, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> No, we aren't.  We never were.  I'm just taking your initial statement that started this whole comment chain, that battery powered flight is "impossible."  Any other insinuations are on you.  Frankly I'm tired of explaining this, so lets just drop it.



sure, we here are talking about recreational unmanned small drones, so i must agree with you, i'm sorry, where was my head.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 27, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> sure, we here are talking about recreational unnamed small drones, so i must agree with you, i'm sorry, where was my head.


The rest of us have moved on long ago.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 27, 2022)

Hydrogen is a very interesting topic, but let's not derail this with unrealistic dreams of battery tech we don't have or magical nuclear power that fixes everything. Magical planes and such.

Anyway








						Unigel announces $120m plans for Brazil’s ‘first’ green hydrogen plant
					

One of Latin America’s largest chemical companies, Unigel, has today (July 26) announced plans to build the first green hydrogen plant in Brazil.




					www.h2-view.com


----------



## Panther_Seraphin (Jul 27, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> and gas is? batteries are?


The big thing that needs to be considered is that Hydrogen will find places to leak natural gas will not.also as its so much more reactive you can imagine corrosion issues in older pipes etc wouldnt be "good" .






defaultluser said:


> *45 billion dollars in debt doesn't sound like a healthy industry to me!*


Not like Fossil Fuel focused energy generators are doing much better TBH. Pacific Gas & Electric and its owners which supplies North California is over $80 billion in Debt



> *And hey, look, even more reactors shutting down due to too high water temps*



Why yes a reactor designed in the late 60s, based on data collected in the 50s and 60s then modeled out, built in the 70s and only having issues now when temperatures are hitting highs never seen before. 



> *no other renewable energy source in the entire planet has that same level of Cool Water hog*


Its a fair point, but its not like its "consuming" the water vs some other "water hog" industries like Lithium Mining!!! Nearly all the water "used" by a nuclear plant is either evaporated or heated by heat exchangers for the condensors with most of it being pumped back into the source of the river, but because OMG NUCLEAR it gets media inches all over the place. But the same thing done by a coal or oil plant? Oh well......









						Hot-water lawsuit for closing power plant still simmering
					

A federal judge in Pittsburgh on Tuesday kept alive a lawsuit by the Sierra Club accusing power generator GenOn Power Midwest LP of illegally discharging overheated wastewater from a coal-fired power plant into the Allegheny River, even as the western Pennsylvania plant is planned to be retired.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 27, 2022)

BMW are reportedly betting quite big on this now, I wouldn't have expected that.

I'll try and find a link though I think you will see it soon enough anyway.









						Goodbye E-cars: BMW Wants to Mass-Produce Hydrogen Cars - Hydrogen Central
					

Goodbye e-cars: BMW wants to mass-produce hydrogen cars. BMW is advancing the series production of hydrogen cars. CEO Oliver Zipse announced




					hydrogen-central.com


----------



## defaultluser (Jul 27, 2022)

Panther_Seraphin said:


> Its a fair point, but its not like its "consuming" the water vs some other "water hog" industries like Lithium Mining!!! Nearly all the water "used" by a nuclear plant is either evaporated or heated by heat exchangers for the condensors with most of it being pumped back into the source of the river, but because OMG NUCLEAR it gets media inches all over the place. But the same thing done by a coal or oil plant? Oh well......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes it is - that delta t makes the cost of reusing the water afterwards incredibly expensive - you waste some percentage of the in cooling it down before you release it (but only to a little above ambient temperature)

I'm not saying that it's a "hog", but it's requires cooler water than most other plants to make the dual-coolant system operate (*its a "water stickler," if you must)

If the current plants installed (in multiple countries) are already exhausting the available input water temperature during summer months then it doesn't make much economic sense to build even more nukes does it?*


----------



## KLiKzg (Jul 27, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> One advantage of converting methane to hydrogen is that the carbon dioxide can be cleaned and possibly captured, being in a centralized plant instead of in cars. But then you may as well burn it and generate electricity to power cars.


It is called a "tree" & people used to install it in gardens or fields. 

Until they discovered de-forestation & FU most of the climate.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 27, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> Hydrogen is a very interesting topic, but let's not derail this with unrealistic dreams of battery tech we don't have or magical nuclear power that fixes everything. Magical planes and such.
> 
> Anyway
> 
> ...


I never was.  And the battery driven passenger "planes" aren't "magical."  Just slow and impractical.  Think old airship designs ala the "Hindenburg" though I'd advise less hydrogen...  and maybe less nazis too.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 27, 2022)

KLiKzg said:


> It is called a "tree" & people used to install it in gardens or fields.
> 
> Until they discovered de-forestation & FU most of the climate.


True, but I am not sure how it links to my post?


----------



## Panther_Seraphin (Jul 28, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> Yes it is - that delta t makes the cost of reusing the water afterwards incredibly expensive - you waste some percentage of the in cooling it down before you release it (but only to a little above ambient temperature)
> 
> I'm not saying that it's a "hog", but it's requires cooler water than most other plants to make the dual-coolant system operate (*its a "water stickler," if you must)
> 
> If the current plants installed (in multiple countries) are already exhausting the available input water temperature during summer months then it doesn't make much economic sense to build even more nukes does it?*


The thing is that pretty much ALL steam dependant power plants have this exact same issue. "requires cooler water than most other plants" actually not true. Its just that due to environmental concerns there are pretty strict limits in the temperature that can be discharge.

In France it is between 2-5 degrees above intake temperature after processing and mixing. These limits were NOT in place when the plants were designed and built and were an after thought once they realised that if a plant just discharged at max temp the animal/flora down stream of the plant basically would get slow cooked due to mass differences in the temperature between the river naturally and the discharge.


People also need to consider the requirements for renewables as well because looking it up was actually quite shocking.

"*1,000-megawatt* nuclear facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate"
So if we extrapotale that to the higher end 3000-megawatt facilities that are being put into service shall we say around 4 square miles?

One of the largest output solar farms is only 2200-megawatts capable and is using over 20 square miles

And dont even consider wind.....Holy moly the stats for that is heartbreaking.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 28, 2022)

Panther_Seraphin said:


> "*1,000-megawatt* nuclear facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate"
> So if we extrapotale that to the higher end 3000-megawatt facilities that are being put into service shall we say around 4 square miles?
> 
> One of the largest output solar farms is only 2200-megawatts capable and is using over 20 square miles
> ...



rooftops are wasted space, perfect square miles for solar. As to farms i bet there isn't a country on Earth with abundant sunshine that doesn't also have some remote place that is not used for anything, bad for agriculture, to remote for living, etc...

Wind can be put offshore, on top of mountains and hills in remote regions where no one lives

In a world people are increasingly concentrating in cities and abandoning the remote regions, this hardly seems like an issue. Anti renewable invent the weird issues with it. Even the bird killing thing is more of a concern then the space it occupies.


----------



## KLiKzg (Jul 28, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> True, but I am not sure how it links to my post?


Cleaning of CO2.

& yes, Hydrogen only make sense in generating from water by electricity. To do that, a renewable source of electricity should be used, to make it clean - otherwise it is not clean at all.

But I do not think Hydrogen is the future, at all. Especially with future development in batteries, that is coming in next 2~5 years time.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jul 28, 2022)

KLiKzg said:


> But I do not think Hydrogen is the future, at all. Especially with future development in batteries, that is coming in next 2~5 years time.



Do any of those developments compare with the 20GW-hr of H2 energy storage tanks being made today?

EDIT: See my earlier post here for calculations and my reasoning: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...n-cars-so-quickly.281925/page-28#post-4801862


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 28, 2022)

KLiKzg said:


> Cleaning of CO2.
> 
> & yes, Hydrogen only make sense in generating from water by electricity. To do that, a renewable source of electricity should be used, to make it clean - otherwise it is not clean at all.
> 
> But I do not think Hydrogen is the future, at all. Especially with future development in batteries, that is coming in next 2~5 years time.


Ah. I was more referring to the CCS systems installed on fossil fuel plants.


----------



## KLiKzg (Jul 31, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Do any of those developments compare with the 20GW-hr of H2 energy storage tanks being made today?
> 
> EDIT: See my earlier post here for calculations and my reasoning: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...n-cars-so-quickly.281925/page-28#post-4801862


At least, when someone is making a text, they should not steal pictures from a battery already today: https://www.energy-storage.news/vic...t-battery-storage-system-at-450mwh-is-online/
Already that storage has surpassed the 1GWh power given to users!

But you are missing the point...the lighter cells will also use different chemistry, abundant material & gave several times more energy density - for mobile devices...one of which is a car!  



Count von Schwalbe said:


> Ah. I was more referring to the CCS systems installed on fossil fuel plants.


CCS also use energy to be powered for conversion...which we also are getting from non-renewables. So CCS is a no go, when speaking of clean H2 industry!


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 31, 2022)

KLiKzg said:


> But you are missing the point...the lighter cells will also use different chemistry, abundant material & gave several times more energy density - for mobile devices...one of which is a car!


Unless you have some source for this, I have serious doubts.



KLiKzg said:


> CCS also use energy to be powered for conversion...which we also are getting from non-renewables. So CCS is a no go, when speaking of clean H2 industry!


Maybe I missed something, but what does carbon capture have to do with Hydrogen production like, at all?

Also it's H, not H2, correct?  The molecules aren't like oxygen, they do not bond to one another.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 31, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Also it's H, not H2, correct?  The molecules aren't like oxygen, they do not bond to one another.



It's diatomic


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 31, 2022)

Shrek said:


> It diatomic


Oh, there goes my brain.  *Mind blown*

Chemistry never sticks with me very well, but I try.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 31, 2022)

Ogres are gas experts...


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 31, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Maybe I missed something, but what does carbon capture have to do with Hydrogen production like, at all?
> 
> Also it's H, not H2, correct?  The molecules aren't like oxygen, they do not bond to one another.


5 pages back, someone mentioned converting natural gas to H2 in centralized plants to capture the carbon generated from that process, instead of burning fossil fuels in cars. I pointed out that at that point, it would be more efficient to burn the methane and run CCS on the fossil fuel plant and power cars directly with the electricity. 

Hydrogen likes forming one bond - a single hydrogen atom is an H+ ion. However, due to cool stuff called valence, two can bond and form a neutral molecule.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 31, 2022)

i'm not an expert on this, can someone explain this to me (someone quoted this somewhere else):

With carbon
capture and storage, hydrogen can be
produced directly from coal with near-zero
greenhouse gas emissions. Since growing
biomass consumes carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere, producing hydrogen
through biomass gasification results in
near-zero net greenhouse gas emissions
without carbon capture and storage.



			https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/fcto_hydrogen_production_fs.pdf
		


I'm assuming energy.gov is a governmental US thing.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 31, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> i'm not an expert on this, can someone explain this to me (someone quoted this somewhere else):
> 
> With carbon
> capture and storage, hydrogen can be
> ...


CCS basically collects the exhaust from a power plant and takes out the carbon dioxide. It was saying that producing hydrogen from biomass (plants, trees etc) is nearly carbon neutral without CCS, but CCS can be used for methane-based.hydrogen production.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 31, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> CCS basically collects the exhaust from a power plant and takes out the carbon dioxide. It was saying that producing hydrogen from biomass (plants, trees etc) is nearly carbon neutral without CCS, but CCS can be used for methane-based.hydrogen production.



Nature locked up a lot of CO2 in what became limestone mountain ranges

Collecting is one thing, locking away is another; what is the intended end product?


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 31, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Nature locked up a lot of Co2 in what became limestone mountain ranges
> 
> Collecting is one thing, locking away is another; what is the intended end product?


IIRC, CCS CO2 is stored under a layer of bedrock. Possibly in an old natural gas well.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 31, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> CCS basically collects the exhaust from a power plant and takes out the carbon dioxide. It was saying that producing hydrogen from biomass (plants, trees etc) is nearly carbon neutral without CCS, but CCS can be used for methane-based.hydrogen production.



how can you do it without CCS as they claim? is this like a magical claim from the Trump denial times?


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Jul 31, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> how can you do it without CCS as they claim? is this like a magical claim from the Trump denial times?


The biomass that they are burning has already collected the carbon from the atmosphere. They are just re-releasing the same carbon.


----------



## Bomby569 (Jul 31, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> The biomass that they are burning has already collected the carbon from the atmosphere. They are just re-releasing the same carbon.



probably something was missed in translation, but are you saying the carbon neutral is just releasing the carbon into the atmosphere? then any fossil fuel is neutral, it was collected at some point.

i hope i misunderstood.


----------



## Shrek (Jul 31, 2022)

I think he is saying that if one grows corn for ethanol then one first takes the CO2 out to grow the plant and then returns it; net zero here and now

Fossil fuel increases the amount of CO2 here and now


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Aug 1, 2022)

Fossil fuels are technically carbon neutral, but on a scale waaay bigger than climate change - think eras or eons. Biomass is more or less carbon neutral on an annual scale - one crop cycle if they are using ethanol based biomass systems. If timber, more like 20 year cycle at a guess.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 1, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Fossil fuels are technically carbon neutral, but on a scale waaay bigger than climate change - think eras or eons. Biomass is more or less carbon neutral on an annual scale - one crop cycle if they are using ethanol based biomass systems. If timber, more like 20 year cycle at a guess.



Not really. If you simplify one crop = the same CO2 re-absorbed in one growth cycle, you cannot equate that to the geological processes that created oil. It's not as simple as one tank of petrol, given millions of years = one tank of petrol undeground. Oil was deposited as organic matter over millions of years, many millions of years ago (in what were once oceans). If you burn carbon-based matter now, that CO2 moves to the atmospheric cycle. The photosynthesis required to lock it back in happens in algae (perfect anaology for sedimentation) and trees. Those trees though are being felled by man. The soils are being turned over by man. The natural processes are being disrupted by us, so the creation of oil itself can't be considered the same as it was millions of years ago. The natural cycle has been altered by our industrial activities.

Basically, when we burn oil, it's not going to go back through quite the same processes as that which created it.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Aug 1, 2022)

the54thvoid said:


> Not really. If you simplify one crop = the same CO2 re-absorbed in one growth cycle, you cannot equate that to the geological processes that created oil. It's not as simple as one tank of petrol, given millions of years = one tank of petrol undeground. Oil was deposited as organic matter over millions of years, many millions of years ago (in what were once oceans). If you burn carbon-based matter now, that CO2 moves to the atmospheric cycle. The photosynthesis required to lock it back in happens in algae (perfect anaology for sedimentation) and trees. Those trees though are being felled by man. The soils are being turned over by man. The natural processes are being disrupted by us, so the creation of oil itself can't be considered the same as it was millions of years ago. The natural cycle has been altered by our industrial activities.
> 
> Basically, when we burn oil, it's not going to go back through quite the same processes as that which created it.


Yes, true barring an extinction event. If we're are getting that technical though, the carbon from long-extinct plants and animals was once part of the atmospheric cycle... 

Really though, Biomass can claim to be carbon neutral because they are going through a constant recycling of the carbon.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 1, 2022)

Anyhoo.... I OT'd to your OT, which is in line with a lot of Off Topic in this hydrogen cars thread.

Thread needs put back on the right track. Or it's getting locked in the TPU thread capture cycle.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 1, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Fossil fuels are technically carbon neutral, but on a scale waaay bigger than climate change - think eras or eons. Biomass is more or less carbon neutral on an annual scale - one crop cycle if they are using ethanol based biomass systems. If timber, more like 20 year cycle at a guess.



assuming whatever biomass is used didn't grew on rocks or something like that, if it grew on a even moderately fertile grow (and most likely it just grew on very good soil) something else would be there and removing co2 in it's place and not releasing it afterwards and in many cases removing a lot more depending on what is used.

That's why i don't like the term carbon neutral, but i'm a bit guilty here, i don't think planting a tree and flying is carbon neutral. It's stupid shit we invented to keep polluting and felling better. We are planting a tree because we deforest in the 1st place. Overall nothing is neutral here.

I don't think that's a honest view, i think that's the type of shenanigans that makes the problem worst, using biomass is not carbon neutral. In a time we're it's already too late to just stop releasing co2, we should be actively capturing to effectively solve the problem, i think this is incredibly dishonest. It's label to trick people, just like the rainbow hydrogen.

Carbon neutral "label" to me should just be applied to something that we actively capture the co2 by mechanical, chemical means not by using replacement nature.

Scientists should not use the term like that.


----------



## KLiKzg (Aug 1, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Unless you have some source for this, I have serious doubts.
> 
> 
> Maybe I missed something, but what does carbon capture have to do with Hydrogen production like, at all?
> ...


Cannot reveal sources, but I do work in Rimac Tech. So either believe or not, to what I say in cells.

Check here, how you get from CH4 a H2 molecules (gas): https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Aug 1, 2022)

Shrek said:


> I think he is saying that if one grows corn for ethanol then one first takes the CO2 out to grow the plant and then returns it; net zero here and now
> 
> Fossil fuel increases the amount of CO2 here and now



Note: the calculations of this are stupidly complicated, because growing corn requires fertilizer and trucks, and those two use energy which releases carbon into the atmosphere.

Ethanol is net positive on CO2 emissions, but something like green hydrogen (which is needed for the fertilizer) would lower emissions.

This is important to remember the energy loops here. We pump energy into nitrogen/hydrogen chemicals so that our food grows quicker.

Hydrogen and green hydrogen is a good idea. But taking hydrogen out of fertilized food is just an idiotic loop reminiscent of a perpetual motion machine.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 1, 2022)

we really got to be more honest with the terms we use, on one side it tricks people intentionally or not, and on the other if fuels the climate deniers and random crazy people out there

we cannot call carbon neutral if we cut a forest and grow industrial tree plantations that will take some time to grow, it usually replaces natural forest for fast growing trees causing all sorts of other problems, and the burning causes all sorts of health problems, not all that comes out of burning is c02, etc...


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Aug 1, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> we really got to be more honest with the terms we use, on one side it tricks people intentionally or not, and on the other if fuels the climate deniers and random crazy people out there
> 
> we cannot call carbon neutral if we cut a forest and grow industrial tree plantations that will take some time to grow, it usually replaces natural forest for fast growing trees causing all sorts of other problems, and the burning causes all sorts of health problems, not all that comes out of burning is c02, etc...



While that's true, switchgrass ethanol looks extremely promising to me.

There's lots of different methodologies out there. Switchgrass uses natural grasses that grow in these locations without the need of fertilizer, removing one major source of "non-green-ness" from the puzzle. Without modern fertilizers, the primary source of CO2-emissions is negated.

Since it is the natural grass of these lands, Switchgrass is probably good for the environment as well. The fact that we can make ethanol from it suggests that we're close to a truly carbon-neutral source of ethanol, though more studies are needed.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Aug 1, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> While that's true, switchgrass ethanol looks extremely promising to me.
> 
> There's lots of different methodologies out there. Switchgrass uses natural grasses that grow in these locations without the need of fertilizer, removing one major source of "non-green-ness" from the puzzle. Without modern fertilizers, the primary source of CO2-emissions is negated.
> 
> Since it is the natural grass of these lands, Switchgrass is probably good for the environment as well. The fact that we can make ethanol from it suggests that we're close to a truly carbon-neutral source of ethanol, though more studies are needed.


Which could run in standard ICE vehicles, albeit at a lower lifespan (and maybe changing out seals etc.). Many ICE vehicles on the market right now can take 85% ethanol without issue - a good way to ease the transition to other methods of propulsion without forcing people to buy expensive cars they cannot afford.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 1, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> While that's true, switchgrass ethanol looks extremely promising to me.
> 
> There's lots of different methodologies out there. Switchgrass uses natural grasses that grow in these locations without the need of fertilizer, removing one major source of "non-green-ness" from the puzzle. Without modern fertilizers, the primary source of CO2-emissions is negated.
> 
> Since it is the natural grass of these lands, Switchgrass is probably good for the environment as well. The fact that we can make ethanol from it suggests that we're close to a truly carbon-neutral source of ethanol, though more studies are needed.



Sure as long as you apply it to a specific thing, it doesn't go broader, generalisations. Still i would say burning whatever it is shouldn't be the solution, probably the least of all evils.
But we already have "green" nuclear or "green" gas now in the UE, we had "clean" coal in the US. I would prefer they all died like carbon neutral in general.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Aug 1, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> Sure as long as you apply it to a specific thing, it doesn't go broader, generalisations. Still i would say burning whatever it is shouldn't be the solution, probably the least of all evils.
> But we already have "green" nuclear or "green" gas now in the UE, we had "clean" coal in the US. I would prefer they all died like carbon neutral in general.


There is no solution with current technology. There is only improvements until we can create a solution. 

The true solution is Fusion, but ... We really need options that can be used in the place of current  techniques without major disruption of the existing systems.


----------



## ARF (Aug 23, 2022)

Burning coal, oil and fossil gas is dangerous for our future because it causes climate change - for example western europe is now hot and dry, when it used to be cooler and wetter.

We have to move to hydrogen, all the oceans wait for it.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 23, 2022)

ARF said:


> Burning coal, oil and fossil gas is dangerous for our future because it causes climate change - for example western europe is now hot and dry, when it used to be cooler and wetter.
> 
> We have to move to hydrogen, all the oceans wait for it.



Again, hydrogen is not a fuel source, you have to use some source of energy to create the hydrogen. Hydrogen is functioning as energy storage. It only serves to complement the renewable fuel sources, on itself it solves nothing. It's important for things like storing solar during the day, to be used on planes or ships that can't use batteries, etc...
If we burn coal, gas, to create hydrogen we are going nowhere, that's the problem.


----------



## defaultluser (Aug 23, 2022)

ARF said:


> Burning coal, oil and fossil gas is dangerous for our future because it causes climate change - for example western europe is now hot and dry, when it used to be cooler and wetter.
> 
> We have to move to hydrogen, all the oceans wait for it.




Why not just turn those h2 plants into making syngas?

Container ship using it:










I don't see why we cant run  natural gas buses on the same;  Its carbon-neutral,and doesn't require any new infrastructure!


----------



## ARF (Aug 23, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> Again, hydrogen is not a fuel source, you have to use some source of energy to create the hydrogen. Hydrogen is functioning as energy storage. It only serves to complement the renewable fuel sources, on itself it solves nothing. It's important for things like storing solar during the day, to be used on planes or ships that can't use batteries, etc...
> If we burn coal, gas, to create hydrogen we are going nowhere, that's the problem.



Hydrogen is an energy source in the same way you burn gasoline. Educate yourself..


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Aug 23, 2022)

ARF said:


> Hydrogen is an energy source in the same way you burn gasoline. Educate yourself..



Not exactly.  We get gasoline from refining crude oil, which we pump from the earth.  That refinement does take energy, but it's energy that one can hypothetically get from the crude itself once the process is established.  The production of gasoline is thus net energy-positive.  If one wants to produce hydrogen from non-fossil sources, the only option is electrolysis AFAIK, which is HUGELY energy intensive.  The net energy loss is so great that once you include all the other losses in the H2-as-vehicle-fuel chain, you're better off using that energy for basically anything else.  This will remain true until we somehow manage to have a significant global energy surplus from renewable/sustainable sources.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 23, 2022)

80-watt Hamster said:


> If one wants to produce hydrogen from non-fossil sources, the only option is electrolysis AFAIK, which is HUGELY energy intensive.  The net energy loss is so great that once you include all the other losses in the H2-as-vehicle-fuel chain, you're better off using that energy for basically anything else.  This will remain true until we somehow manage to have a significant global energy surplus from renewable/sustainable sources.



that's not the point, when you build a battery it's also a "net energy loss", so should we use that energy for "basically anything else"?

This is not that complicated, you produce solar only during the day, but that's not when consumption is higher, so you need to storage it to use in peak hours (it's a simplification, it usually involves a lot more planing, other energy sources), it can be hydrogen.
You can't fill a plain with batteries or it wouldn't fly with the weight, so you need some other type of storage, like hydrogen).
Etc...

Your point of energy net positive would be valid if burning fossil fuels wasn't a net negative for the environment, life on earth, and even economically speaking with external costs like droughts, floods, etc...


----------



## mechtech (Aug 23, 2022)

Wow 31 pages.

answer is short and simple when it comes to personal vehicles anyway 
Money - cost more compared to other alternatives 
Safety - high pressure, explosive and other materials science stuffs
Needs - cheaper alternatives readily available 

But ya dirty.  People are dumb about stuff when it comes to money health and environment.  Look how long corporations ran leaded gas cause profits.

the closest cheapest/economical thing one could use/adapt to internal combustion engines would be propane and or with a bit more effort natural gas.


----------



## ARF (Aug 23, 2022)

I am afraid that the reason why they haven't allowed hydrogen to become mainstream is the same reason why they didn't allow any Nikola Tesla technology to become mainstream.
Lack of support and investment by the bankers, which are probably with blue blood, anyways...

Hydrogen is renewable, and should be the cheapest fuel because it is the most widely spread chemical element in the Universe!

Hydrogen: up to $1.80 per kilogram, miles per kilogram: 81.
Gasoline: more expensive, less milage.





Hydrogen Fuel Cost vs Gasoline (heshydrogen.com)

I guess there should be a strong public pressure on the likes of Elon Musk, Volkswagen, Toyota... and this will become mainstream sooner rather than later.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 23, 2022)

The carbon footprint of Hydrogen is "no" and the source is "water", it's also "cheaper", and some conspiracy doesn't want this magical abundant cheap energy source to be a thing. May i ask how you go from water to hydrogen? What magical cheap process is that?

The problem with this conspiracy theory that people aren't allowing hydrogen to become mainstream is that you have no idea what you are talking about. To go from water to Hydrogen you need a fuel source like idk crude oil


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 23, 2022)

80-watt Hamster said:


> Not exactly.  We get gasoline from refining crude oil, which we pump from the earth.  That refinement does take energy, but it's energy that one can hypothetically get from the crude itself once the process is established.  The production of gasoline is thus net energy-positive.  If one wants to produce hydrogen from non-fossil sources, the only option is electrolysis AFAIK, which is HUGELY energy intensive.  The net energy loss is so great that once you include all the other losses in the H2-as-vehicle-fuel chain, you're better off using that energy for basically anything else.  This will remain true until we somehow manage to have a significant global energy surplus from renewable/sustainable sources.


Did you know that most hydrogen produced today comes from cracking hydrocarbons? Unless that changes, hydrogen will *never *be a green option.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Aug 23, 2022)

Aquinus said:


> Did you know that most hydrogen produced today comes from cracking hydrocarbons? Unless that changes, hydrogen will *never *be a green option.



I did know that, and addressed that issue.



80-watt Hamster said:


> Not exactly.  We get gasoline from refining crude oil, which we pump from the earth.  That refinement does take energy, but it's energy that one can hypothetically get from the crude itself once the process is established.  The production of gasoline is thus net energy-positive.  *If one wants to produce hydrogen from non-fossil sources, the only option is electrolysis AFAIK*, which is HUGELY energy intensive.  The net energy loss is so great that once you include all the other losses in the H2-as-vehicle-fuel chain, you're better off using that energy for basically anything else.  *This will remain true until we somehow manage to have a significant global energy surplus from renewable/sustainable sources.*


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 23, 2022)

80-watt Hamster said:


> I did know that, and addressed that issue.


It was rhetorical. It was more for the greater audience, I figured that you did. The only feasible way to produce hydrogen at scale is with nuclear power. Between the waste heat and power that's generated, it's really the best green option; high temperature and pressure electrolysis. The only problem is that people get real bent out of shape when talking about nuclear because of the past when I personally think, that with modern technology, it should be a no brainer.


----------



## Frick (Aug 23, 2022)

80-watt Hamster said:


> If one wants to produce hydrogen from non-fossil sources, the only option is electrolysis AFAIK, which is HUGELY energy intensive.  The net energy loss is so great that once you include all the other losses in the H2-as-vehicle-fuel chain, you're better off using that energy for basically anything else.  This will remain true until we somehow manage to have a significant global energy surplus from renewable/sustainable sources.



I live in a place with pretty significant renewable energy surplus (because nobody has wanted to expand the big lines going south until now) and there are large scale projects going on for making steel using hydrogen instead of coal.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 23, 2022)

Frick said:


> I live in a place with pretty significant renewable energy surplus (because nobody has wanted to expand the big lines going south until now) and there are large scale projects going on for making steel using hydrogen instead of coal.



can't you just cut the middle man and produce steal from the renewables as usually a steel mill works 24/7? I actually live close to one to.


----------



## 1freedude (Aug 23, 2022)

ARF said:


> I am afraid that the reason why they haven't allowed hydrogen to become mainstream is the same reason why they didn't allow any Nikola Tesla technology to become mainstream.
> ...
> I guess there should be a strong public pressure on the likes of Elon Musk, Volkswagen, Toyota... and this will become mainstream sooner rather than later.


Tesla is the reason we (Earthers) have an AC electric grid system.

I find it very ironic that a DC battery powered car company is called Tesla.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 23, 2022)

mechtech said:


> Wow 31 pages.
> 
> answer is short and simple when it comes to personal vehicles anyway
> Money - cost more compared to other alternatives
> ...


Leaded gas or ANY additive to raw gasoline is a cost and reduces the profit. Stop thinking it was gas companies that forced lead onto people, and by the way, Aviation fuel (gas) is leaded still, think about that every time any person with a private plane wants to talk to the average person about how bad they are for the environment.

Lead was removed from fuel once cars were forced to burn unleaded fuel.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Aug 23, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> can't you just cut the middle man and produce steal from the renewables as usually a steel mill works 24/7? I actually live close to one to.


It is the refining of the ore that takes the coal (as coke). The hydrogen is burned with the ore to remove the oxygen from the ore.


----------



## MaddoggMiranda (Aug 23, 2022)

This is a Lithium leach field. 

This is what Electric Car batteries are made of. 

It is so neuro-toxic that a bird landing on this stuff dies in minutes. 

Chile, 2nd largest lithium producer, is having water-scarcity problems as this technology takes so much water to produce battery-grade lithium. 

Lead, nickel, lithium, cadmium, alkaline, mercury and nickel metal hydride.

Batteries are a collection of things that are extremely deadly.

So i fully Support the research of Hydrogen or any other energy to power cars because more EV's we have i personally think the more issues we are going to have globally in the future far worse than the CO'2 Produced by our Current ICE engines.


----------



## mechtech (Aug 23, 2022)

Steevo said:


> Leaded gas or ANY additive to raw gasoline is a cost and reduces the profit. Stop thinking it was gas companies that forced lead onto people, and by the way, Aviation fuel (gas) is leaded still, think about that every time any person with a private plane wants to talk to the average person about how bad they are for the environment.
> 
> Lead was removed from fuel once cars were forced to burn unleaded fuel.


Lead was added long ago as a miracle anti-knock agent.  It was taken out after 50 years or more of evidence of how toxic it is.  And yes I am aware of av-gas.
A short history on it











MaddoggMiranda said:


> View attachment 259185
> 
> This is a Lithium leach field.
> 
> ...


You forgot cobalt 

Let’s go back to donkeys and horses!!  Then I won’t have to cut my lawn anymore either


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 24, 2022)

MaddoggMiranda said:


> Chile, 2nd largest lithium producer, is having water-scarcity problems as this technology takes so much water to produce battery-grade lithium.



Chile is a toxic/hazard waste zone, i stopped counting the amount of documentaries about them and what they allow/allowed there. 





__





						Chile: Nearly 40 years on, still no remedy for victims of Swedish toxic waste – UN experts
					

GENEVA (7 June 2021) - UN human rights experts* said today they were deeply concerned by the continuous devastating impact on a local community of a dumping of toxic waste by a Swedish company in the northern Chilean city of Arica nearly 40 years ago. The toxic waste - which remains outdoors...




					www.ohchr.org


----------



## defaultluser (Aug 24, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> Chile is a toxic/hazard waste zone, i stopped counting the amount of documentaries about them and what they allow/allowed there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




they've always been short of water, given the fact that half the country is barren mountain highlands / deserts

*but, we have methodologies for recycling these  battery pack chemistries:*

1. this old article discussing concepts ( components labeling, automation, , cobalt extraction, etc









						Recycling lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles - Nature
					

Processes for dismantling and recycling lithium-ion battery packs from scrap electric vehicles are outlined.




					www.nature.com
				




2: the new EPA law now requires us to do most of theses suggestions:









						Battery Collection Best Practices and Battery Labeling Guidelines | US EPA
					

Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law the new program Battery Collection Best Practices and Voluntary Battery Labeling Guidelines is being developed.




					www.epa.gov
				




*if you don't need to extract as much metal from the ground, then you reduce the load on all these limited resources (and potentially cap the dumps that already exist around the world!)*


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Aug 24, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> The carbon footprint of Hydrogen is "no" and the source is "water", it's also "cheaper", and some conspiracy doesn't want this magical abundant cheap energy source to be a thing. May i ask how you go from water to hydrogen? What magical cheap process is that?
> 
> The problem with this conspiracy theory that people aren't allowing hydrogen to become mainstream is that you have no idea what you are talking about. To go from water to Hydrogen you need a fuel source like idk crude oil



Or, ya know, excess Solar Power / Nuclear Power which has no where else to go in the grid.

Its economically infeasible to temporarily turn off a Nuclear Power plant, or solar power. Solar's "fuel" is free, and Nuclear-fuel is almost free (it takes very, very little Uranium to create lots-and-lots of power. Even if Uranium is expensive, there's so little of it used in the nuclear power process).

The problem with today's electrical grid, and tomorrow's electrical grid, is that we're getting literally free sources of energy, but they're coming in at the wrong time. We need to invent storage devices that can absorb the free power. H2 is one such option.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 24, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Or, ya know, excess Solar Power / Nuclear Power which has no where else to go in the grid.



This is my plan, I still live with my parents and we are going to try to save up and pool our money together to get a new solar panel roof, and then a 2023 Chevy Bolt EV car, charge our own car 8 to 9 months out of the year. We'll see how it all pans out, but that is the plan right now.

I'm also hoping for hydrogen to come through someday, but not holding my breath. Elon Musk tweeted a week or so ago about hyperloop making a comeback... but he is a troll these days, so I never know whether or not to take him seriously. I thought he had given up on hyperloop... weird.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Aug 24, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> Elon Musk tweeted a week or so ago about hyperloop making a comeback... but he is a troll these days, so I never know whether or not to take him seriously. I thought he had given up on hyperloop... weird.



Hyperloop was a project designed to kill the California High Speed Rail system. Literally a political play to kill someone else's project.

It was never a serious option. Seriously, look at how shit his original proposal was: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf

Look at page 29. Dude drew 3 popsicle sticks in an FEA program, clicked "analyze" over the default materials, and called it a "structural simulation". Its hilariously awful. Hyperloop was literally the minute I began to see Elon Musk for the fraud that he is. My undergraduate FEA class was more rigorous than the crap he wrote in that proposal, and I'm a freaking electrical engineer, not a civil engineer / mechanical engineer. I can't imagine what the actual mechanical/civil/aviation engineers think of that awful analysis.

Hyperloop is, and always has been, an exercise in hype, fraud, and misdirection. It never was a serious engineering proposal. Even from the start.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 24, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Hyperloop was a project designed to kill the California High Speed Rail system. Literally a political play to kill someone else's project.
> 
> It was never a serious option. Seriously, look at how shit his original proposal was: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf
> 
> ...



He has dissapointed me as well, just took me longer to figure it out as I am not an engineer. Back on topic though, sorry for going into hyperloop mods, that was my bad.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Aug 24, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> I'm also hoping for hydrogen to come through someday



Well, going to the on-topic part of your post, H2 trucks look economically viable today.









						Hyundai Motor’s XCIENT Fuel Cell Heavy-Duty Trucks to Hit German Roads
					

Seven German companies in logistics, manufacturing and retail to put 27 XCIENT Fuel Cell heavy-duty trucks into fleet service wi... | Hyundai Motor Company news




					www.hyundaimotorgroup.com
				




This is current news, more freshly deployed Hyundai Xcient trucks hitting German roads. The Xcient trucks also hit California roads sometime last year IIRC. This is no longer a "someday" or "theoretical" thing. H2 is happening, albeit in small deployments. But real, long-distance semi-truck level hauling applications.


----------



## dgianstefani (Aug 24, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Hyperloop was a project designed to kill the California High Speed Rail system. Literally a political play to kill someone else's project.
> 
> It was never a serious option. Seriously, look at how shit his original proposal was: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf
> 
> ...


Interesting, although I'm not sure I would call the proposal shit. Seems to have reasonable scientific basis and a good concept to develop.

The basic idea of a low friction (air and rail) enclosed train fixes many of the issues with high speed railway.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Aug 24, 2022)

dgianstefani said:


> Interesting, although I'm not sure I would call the proposal shit. Seems to have reasonable scientific basis and a good concept to develop.
> 
> The basic idea of a low friction (air and rail) enclosed train fixes many of the issues with high speed railway.



The big concept / theory seems doable. But in terms of "will this survive a California Earthquake", you'd never draw just 3 pylons and call it a structural analysis of the concept.

When you consider the actual issue that California was worried about (ie: California Earthquakes), there's a level of analysis that requires more than like, 3-hours on a computer to figure out. (IE: I'd probably replicate that level of analysis within 3 hours, with the first 2 hours remembering how to use FEA programs and 1 hour to draw the thing). Its an incredibly shallow level of discussion / analysis in that document. *Incredibly* shallow, relying upon nearly the default materials/default settings of the program.

-----

Thanks to playing traffic simulator games (IE, OpenTTD), I've also become a bit better with throughput vs latency vs traffic when it comes down to analyzing mass transit proposals. Single-car designs (like Philadelphia TRAMS) can work, but you lose throughput significantly. Since throughput / people moved per hour is lower, such a proposal is seemingly designed as a boutique option, rather than a serious mass transit solution. I dunno how much traffic the SF to LA corridor has (I'm no civil engineer), but I have my doubts that Hyperloop, with a low throughput design as discussed, would make a dent in that traffic.

I admit this is video-game knowledge instead of real life knowledge though. But I can't imagine that fundamental laws of throughput/latency would change between real life and simulations (at least, from the simplistic model of throughput vs latency). That is to say: a singular train of eight cars will have fewer delays in the aggregate than 8x single-cars individually stopping at each location. You can't beat the fundamental traffic problem of throughput vs latency (individual pods are better latency, but far worse throughput).


----------



## dgianstefani (Aug 24, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> The big concept / theory seems doable. But in terms of "will this survive a California Earthquake", you'd never draw just 3 pylons and call it a structural analysis of the concept.
> 
> When you consider the actual issue that California was worried about (ie: California Earthquakes), there's a level of analysis that requires more than like, 3-hours on a computer to figure out. (IE: I'd probably replicate that level of analysis within 3 hours, with the first 2 hours remembering how to use FEA programs and 1 hour to draw the thing). Its an incredibly shallow level of discussion / analysis in that document. *Incredibly* shallow, relying upon nearly the default materials/default settings of the program.
> 
> ...


Where I can see hyperloop or the generic equivalent being useful is between towns and cities, to avoid flying. No more big airports taking space, just a next generation tube/underground equivalent, with much less noise and vibration, and much faster transit times, entry/egress points being more convenient. This could eliminate need for cars and planes, where you just have the London system of underground, but scaled up in distance and speed, commute by foot or bike at either end.

Obviously for earthquake zones anything underground is problematic and your analysis is correct there. I'm in the middle re ol' Musky, he is a salesman, but he also stimulated great advances, quickly.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Aug 24, 2022)

dgianstefani said:


> Where I can see hyperloop or the generic equivalent being useful is between towns and cities, to avoid flying. No more big airports taking space, just a next generation tube/underground equivalent, with much less noise and vibration, and much faster transit times, entry/egress points being more convenient. This could eliminate need for cars and planes, where you just have the London system of underground, but scaled up in distance and speed, commute by foot or bike at either end.
> 
> Obviously for earthquake zones anything underground is problematic and your analysis is correct there. I'm in the middle re ol' Musky, he is a salesman, but he also stimulated great advances, quickly.



But the issue here is that Musky is trying to kill the California High Speed Rail project, by pretending this fake system (which he has *no* interest in actually building Hyperloop) is an alternative option. I'm not against mass transit proposals. I'm against fake-mass transit proposals being presented to kill other mass-transit ideas.

The California high-speed line between SF and LA is ready to go. The entire argument by Musk is "Don't build it, I might build Hyperloop instead" (except he doesn't plan to build Hyperloop. He just wants to kill the rail project).

-------

If Hyperloop was in fact, a serious proposal, that had serious throughput metrics and real analysis behind it, then yes, it'd be worthy of discussion. But otherwise, its just a thinly veiled political ploy to distract us from serious projects. That's why I bring up the Hyperloop proposal's "analysis", to show how shoddy it is and how blatantly it is  just a political tool. No serious engineer would sign off on a document like that.

EDIT: If someone wants to experiment with cool new technologies, then cool. I'm not against that. But if someone wants to *pretend* to experiment with technologies, to kill *real useful* projects, then I'm going to have some major issues. If Musk wants to build Hyperloop, there's plenty of locations around the country that need high-speed transit that I'm sure would be willing to accept. I don't understand why he needs to do it in this way that jeopardizes the California SF to LA line.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 24, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Well, going to the on-topic part of your post, H2 trucks look economically viable today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This article was just posted today. It's like I said earlier in this thread, I think the answer is simple, a combination of all the new technologies based on geographical location. If you live in SouthWest USA you should probably have something like an Aptera solar powered car, or whatever other cars embrace that, in other places, hydrogen, in other places EV, and so on and so forth. The answer is a medley, and I think it is important we try to think of it this way. Unless government intervenes anyway like in a trillion dollar way, I don't see a universal blanket answer, and I don't see them doing that.









						The world's first hydrogen-powered passenger trains are here
					

The Coradia iLint trains, which have debuted in Lower Saxony, Germany, are emissions-free and run on one tank of hydrogen per day.




					edition.cnn.com


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Aug 24, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> This article was just posted today. It's like I said earlier in this thread, I think the answer is simple, a combination of all the new technologies based on geographical location. If you live in SouthWest USA you should probably have something like an Aptera solar powered car, or whatever other cars embrace that, in other places, hydrogen, in other places EV, and so on and so forth. The answer is a medley, and I think it is important we try to think of it this way. Unless government intervenes anyway like in a trillion dollar way, I don't see a universal blanket answer, and I don't see them doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The main issue with trains is that an electrified line seems to make more sense. In theory. Why carry batteries or H2 at all when you can just run off grid power?

Then again, H2 is stored energy and could have come from non-peak times. Furthermore, the 3rd rail is expensive (copper, transformers, etc. etc.). So maybe it is a good application of H2.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 24, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> The main issue with trains is that an electrified line seems to make more sense. In theory. Why carry batteries or H2 at all when you can just run off grid power?
> 
> Then again, H2 is stored energy and could have come from non-peak times. Furthermore, the 3rd rail is expensive (copper, transformers, etc. etc.). So maybe it is a good application of H2.



Our opinion is irrelevant though, the hydrogen train is already here, in southern Germany anyway.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 24, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> The main issue with trains is that an electrified line seems to make more sense. In theory. Why carry batteries or H2 at all when you can just run off grid power?


A lot of trains are hybrid in the sense that they run off grid power when they're attached to rails or overhead lines that are electrified, but then switch to diesel generators when they're off grid. I was on a train out of London that worked like this and it was really interesting because the diesel engines would only start if it needed power, would charge something, then turn off, just to start the cycle over again some time later. Either way, mass transit is economy at scale. It costs less to move a ton of people at once than everyone moving themselves.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 24, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Or, ya know, excess Solar Power / Nuclear Power which has no where else to go in the grid.
> 
> Its economically infeasible to temporarily turn off a Nuclear Power plant, or solar power. Solar's "fuel" is free, and Nuclear-fuel is almost free (it takes very, very little Uranium to create lots-and-lots of power. Even if Uranium is expensive, there's so little of it used in the nuclear power process).
> 
> The problem with today's electrical grid, and tomorrow's electrical grid, is that we're getting literally free sources of energy, but they're coming in at the wrong time. We need to invent storage devices that can absorb the free power. H2 is one such option.



ya know it

that's a band-aid, it doesn't solve the big problem, there is no conspiracy like the user was saying and that's what i was replying to. i'm sorry, no conspiracy, no contry has that much excess to solve their problems. But sure hydrogen is the way to go to store extra energy, it's been discussed several times before here.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Aug 24, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> that's a band-aid, it doesn't solve the big problem, there is no conspiracy like the user was saying



Hmm. Lemme go back and read that post.



ARF said:


> I am afraid that the reason why they haven't allowed hydrogen to become mainstream is the same reason why they didn't allow any Nikola Tesla technology to become mainstream.



Wait a second. I'm using radio to talk to my cell phone, and alternating-current to power up my computer. Last time I checked, we're using a lot of Nikola Tesla techs in the mainstream.

That being said: H2 Fuel Cells have been tried before. The issue 10 years ago was that we didn't have cheap, good tanks to contain the highly pressurized H2. Today, we have more options and we're beginning to see a revitalization of H2 technologies. Furthermore, electrolysis is getting much cheaper and scaling to 10MW and 100MW plants. After languishing for a long time, H2 technologies have seen a huge spur of innovations in the past couple of years. Its exciting to see.

I still have my personal hype on Redox Flow Batteries though, lol. Talking about some cool "theoretical" techs that haven't had much discussion recently. (Ex: Redox Flow is a liquid, so you can "recharge" batteries by transferring the "used up" liquid out, and replacing it with "fresh, charged" liquid). Alas, it seems like H2 + Fuel Cell technologies are reaching critical mass over the ol' Redox Flow concept. Maybe in like 20 years, we can get a good anime on the retro-concept (like how steampunk reimagines society with more 1800s era steam tech, we can get a retro Sci-fi flick about Redox Flow )


----------



## KLiKzg (Aug 24, 2022)

ARF said:


> Burning coal, oil and fossil gas is dangerous for our future because it causes climate change - for example western europe is now hot and dry, when it used to be cooler and wetter.
> 
> We have to move to hydrogen, all the oceans wait for it.


Actually no...it is far better to burn fossil fuel, then to burn wood-coal. Considering emissions of CO2!

So do not listen to Green, better listen to engineers & chemists, which actually do know what the heck they are speaking off!  



Bomby569 said:


> that's not the point, when you build a battery it's also a "net energy loss", so should we use that energy for "basically anything else"?
> 
> This is not that complicated, you produce solar only during the day, but that's not when consumption is higher, so you need to storage it to use in peak hours (it's a simplification, it usually involves a lot more planing, other energy sources), it can be hydrogen.
> You can't fill a plain with batteries or it wouldn't fly with the weight, so you need some other type of storage, like hydrogen).
> ...


Except the "peak electrical power usage" is in the afternoon, when everybody comes home, cooks or orders lunch & turns on TV & climate. & has been for years!  



1freedude said:


> Tesla is the reason we (Earthers) have an AC electric grid system.
> 
> I find it very ironic that a DC battery powered car company is called Tesla.


It has the AC motors, when you think about it. 

But not many people are so intelligent to invent an AC battery. Just wait for it, comes from Europe.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 24, 2022)

KLiKzg said:


> Except the "peak electrical power usage" is in the afternoon, when everybody comes home, cooks or orders lunch & turns on TV & climate. & has been for years!



completely lost, did i said anything opposite to that?


----------



## ARF (Aug 25, 2022)

We definitely don't need trains run by hydrogen, as have already been said those are best run on electricity.

What about airplanes, to retire the old kerosene ones?


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 25, 2022)

ARF said:


> We definitely don't need trains run by hydrogen, as have already been said those are best run on electricity.
> 
> What about airplanes, to retire the old kerosene ones?



in most places trains still run on diesel, no electric lines. It's probably cheaper to buy new hydrogen locomotives (if that was a thing) then electrifying all the lines, and we know this things are all about money

i'm no train expert but i think they aren't much of the issue anyway compared to all the other means of transport and all other fuel uses. They probably represent such a small percentage of the total carbon emission that they can be an afterthought


----------



## KLiKzg (Aug 28, 2022)

As I have promised, info about batteries is public now. So this is going to be the future of batteries:









With this, Hydrogen is going to be pushed back. Especially with advancement of new chemistry in batteries & their availability.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 29, 2022)

KLiKzg said:


> As I have promised, info about batteries is public now. So this is going to be the future of batteries:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i can't see the video now but the problem is energy density, it's still far away from replacing Lithium. But there are other promising replacements for lithium.


----------



## InVasMani (Aug 29, 2022)

Solid state batteries is what I look forward to improving and price getting better.


----------



## ARF (Aug 29, 2022)

I am not looking at all forward to any batteries. The batteries are as bad or even worse than the fossil fuels.


----------



## mb194dc (Aug 29, 2022)

InVasMani said:


> Solid state batteries is what I look forward to improving and price getting better.



Solid state batteries are vapoware? Massive challenges to get them in mass production at reasonable cost.


----------



## InVasMani (Aug 29, 2022)

For now, but it might sort itself out in the future AI can already surpass humans at many things give it time they'll do batteries better too.


----------



## defaultluser (Aug 29, 2022)

InVasMani said:


> For now, but it might sort itself out in the future AI can already surpass humans at many things give it time they'll do batteries better too.



its way too complex to get solid-state lithium batteries working, and we've already been working on the problem for at least two decades:



			https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.200502604
		




			https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359645412007811
		










						Benchmarking the performance of all-solid-state lithium batteries - Nature Energy
					

Considering the interdependence of performance measures and the lack of a basic reference system for all-solid-state batteries, JÃ¼rgen Janek and co-workers analyse literature performance data for major types of all-solid-state batteries and benchmark them against minimalistic reference cells.




					www.nature.com
				




And we still haven't found a viable solution amongst all those attempts!

*And, more pressing, the fact that Lithium Iron Phosphate has most of the benefits of solid state (cheaper, wont self-ignite, no cobalt, and have a much longer lifetime), all while already being available on Tesla model 3, and Ford Lightning!*

Even if Solid State were suddenly solved tomorrow, you have to almost double the capacity of iron phosphate to make any_ inroads - the entire cheap EV industry in China   has already chosen iron._


----------



## InVasMani (Aug 29, 2022)

The field of AI and robotics are relatively new and already quite promising. Give it another decade or two it'll probably sort itself out. We're already hearing rumblings of Volkswagen looking at solid state battery EV's. No one is going to argue that lithium isn't the easier short-term and mid-term solution that's viable for batteries. 

As for China who cares they will do whatever damn well please in most instances anyway and given lithium is the cheaper and easier alternative that what they will probably do. The minute they can steal the IP to better technology and copy it and mass produce it easily guess what they'll do and pretty have always done!!?

I think you're entirely shorting the future and the advancements to come with both technology larger concentrations of people to pool their minds on idea's and solutions and research around them at the same time. Human's have learn a lot in the last 10 years alone and more than previous 10 before that one can argue.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 29, 2022)

China mostly drives it all, if it weren't for their solar panels and batteries we would be far off. At least in this field we need their cheap stuff and we can't afford to think of IP's and everybody should work together before it's too late. This problem doesn't stop at the border.


----------



## InVasMani (Aug 29, 2022)

That's also in big part because everything shifted to China due to the larger work force and overlooked or tolerated at least the problems and issues surrounding any of that. It's a double edge sword, but you're not wrong about planetary concerns being a global matter to address. I'd say we're far off even in spite of, but it is what it is. I am inclined to agree though when it comes to green energy and same goes for food and medicine IP shouldn't be a barrier to the well being of the planet nor it's inhabitants and that should be universally agreed upon as better for society's well being and sustainability.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 30, 2022)

InVasMani said:


> That's also in big part because everything shifted to China due to the larger work force and overlooked or tolerated at least the problems and issues surrounding any of that. It's a double edge sword, but you're not wrong about planetary concerns being a global matter to address. I'd say we're far off even in spite of, but it is what it is. I am inclined to agree though when it comes to green energy and same goes for food and medicine IP shouldn't be a barrier to the well being of the planet nor it's inhabitants and that should be universally agreed upon as better for society's well being and sustainability.



this is not decision made in a vacuum, they all fit together. If it hadn't shifted to China they would be more expensive and that would only have made the problem worst. Even in the cold war there were things both sides agreed on and worked together. I fear we are going on a path that makes it harder then in the cold war for as crazy as it may sound.

This is not against you specifically, because i think this is a general issue.


----------



## InVasMani (Aug 30, 2022)

Population density rise is the elephant in the room. You can't simply expect to remain stable indefinitely with finite amounts of resources to share plus the rich and powerful aren't so great at that.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 30, 2022)

InVasMani said:


> Population density rise is the elephant in the room. You can't simply expect to remain stable indefinitely with finite amounts of resources to share plus the rich and powerful aren't so great at that.



A 2 problem part, in some places energy is just too cheap and people don't use it as they should considering the problem we have. The same goes to water especially but other resources btw.








						Energy use per person
					

Energy use not only includes electricity, but also other areas of consumption including transport, heating and cooking.




					ourworldindata.org
				




Then there is a finite world and we use it's resources as if it was infinite, the population growth and the unreal expectation that everyone in it should increase their living standards is a impossibility, Go forth and multiply is a stupid moto.

We all have been living absurd lies. If we fix the supply part we should consider the demand too for sure, even if power is solved there will always be other issues with our approach to resources.


----------



## ARF (Aug 30, 2022)

InVasMani said:


> Population density rise is the elephant in the room. You can't simply expect to remain stable indefinitely with finite amounts of resources to share plus the rich and powerful aren't so great at that.



Countries such as the Russian Federation, Canada, and whole continents like Africa or Australia are almost empty, there are no people living there to claim too high density. It is extremely low population density in large parts of the globe.

It is propaganda by the world "ellites" which don't like the human race, anyways, and want it to disappear.

There is enough for everyone need, but not enough for everyone greed..


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 30, 2022)

ARF said:


> Countries such as the Russian Federation, Canada, and whole continents like Africa or Australia are almost empty, there are no people living there to claim too high density. It is extremely low population density in large parts of the globe.
> 
> It is propaganda by the world "ellites" which don't like the human race, anyways, and want it to disappear.
> 
> There is enough for everyone need, but not enough for everyone greed..



There is a reason all those places you mentioned aren't more populated. It really isn't that difficult to understand it. I guess you forgot Antarctica


----------



## ARF (Aug 30, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> There is a reason all those places you mentioned aren't more populated. It really isn't that difficult to understand it. I guess you forgot Antarctica



Many reasons, actually. Wars, relatively recent development as is Canada or Australia, etc...


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 30, 2022)

ARF said:


> Many reasons, actually. Wars, relatively recent development as is Canada or Australia, etc...


 Both Canada and Australia are very big, but very small if you consider the land suitable for living. And yes people can live on Antarctica and even on the Moon or Mars but what cost, Canada energy consumption per capita is insane.


----------



## ARF (Aug 30, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> Both Canada and Australia are very big, but very small if you consider the land suitable for living Canada energy consumption per capita is insane.



Canada is fine - its position is almost as Europe's.
And yes, it is easier and more energy efficient to warm large apartment buildings than individual disperse houses.


----------



## InVasMani (Aug 30, 2022)

No mention of Chernobyl it's even got buildings...


----------



## ARF (Aug 30, 2022)

*BMW and Toyota just gave hydrogen cars a big vote of confidence
The two automakers will work together to jointly develop hydrogen fuel-cell-powered cars that we could see as early as 2025.*
BMW and Toyota just gave hydrogen cars a big vote of confidence (inputmag.com)
Google News - Search


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 30, 2022)

it's a bit off topic, but come on Toyota. This was the company that pioneered with the Prius, then decided to do nothing with it, then bet on hydrogen, and then decided to end that and leave their customers holding the baby, then came back to electric only to fail in the most spectacular of ways and again to bad for the idiots that bought them, and now his back on hydrogen, one has to wonder what will be the result   

back on topic, no batteries and all the bad it does and the problems sourcing materials, more range, faster charging, you'd actually think this is a no brainer.


----------



## KLiKzg (Aug 31, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> i can't see the video now but the problem is energy density, it's still far away from replacing Lithium. But there are other promising replacements for lithium.


No, it is not. Right now CaTL are some 5y back where LiIon was or same as worst batteries on the market.
That is NOT FAR, considering that they are abundant in source & does not go in flames & is considering now a "heavy industry & domestic" market.

There is also some other technology, which will put it in the car with energy density. But before it is outside, I cannot write about it, 'cause of NDA in the company.



defaultluser said:


> its way too complex to get solid-state lithium batteries working, and we've already been working on the problem for at least two decades:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your *bolded text *is simply NOT TRUE.  



Bomby569 said:


> it's a bit off topic, but come on Toyota. This was the company that pioneered with the Prius, then decided to do nothing with it, then bet on hydrogen, and then decided to end that and leave their customers holding the baby, then came back to electric only to fail in the most spectacular of ways and again to bad for the idiots that bought them, and now his back on hydrogen, one has to wonder what will be the result
> 
> back on topic, no batteries and all the bad it does and the problems sourcing materials, more range, faster charging, you'd actually think this is a no brainer.


This about Prius & Toyota, is simply not true...as it pawed the way for all hybrid Toyota vehicles.
Yes, they are pawing the way with hydrogen, now that Honda has pulled the plug with their FCX model. Now that was a f.u. with a car, that has almost no service or stations to fill.

Do you even understand the Automotive industry, 'cause you sure are not working in it!


----------



## InVasMani (Sep 1, 2022)

If they could scale it down and make it safe and affordable for bikes/motorcycles it would be rad. You're not suppose to hit people on bikes anyway so if you do enjoy your complimentary gift package.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Sep 1, 2022)

InVasMani said:


> If they could scale it down and make it safe and affordable for bikes/motorcycles it would be rad. You're not suppose to hit people on bikes anyway so if you do enjoy your complimentary gift package.



I'm a big fan of Hydrogen, but given our current understanding of it, it seems impossible to scale down.

My big hopes is for large vehicles: trucks, trains, busses. I have little hope for projects like Toyota's Mirai (smaller cars), let alone very small vehicles like motorcycles. I welcome the attempts of course, but I just have very low expectations of them.


----------



## InVasMani (Sep 1, 2022)

I don't know there were plenty of things that seemed far out of reach and then suddenly they weren't. Honestly the large vehicles is probably one of the safer starting points where it can make a good bit of sense, but regulation is going to be critical for anything hydrogen related of this sorta no matter what it is. I think society is going to need to evolve it's ways of doing things over the next coming decades in lots of ways if it wants to continue to sustain itself.


----------



## defaultluser (Sep 1, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> My big hopes is for large vehicles: trucks, trains, busses. I have little hope for projects like Toyota's Mirai (smaller cars), let alone very small vehicles like motorcycles. I welcome the attempts of course, but I just have very low expectations of them.




Why even bother  with hydrogen pumps for trucks/buses in the first place?  If you're already paying the gargantuan cost of re-manufacturing fuel tanks that only last 100k miles, plus the cost of compressing all that hydrogen, you might as well pay the small overhead of combining  carbon monoxide plus h2 to get stable syngas that will replace methane already used in buses/trucks with carbon-neutral replacements?

And here's a viable container ship proving how much easier CNG is to deal with onboard (not to mention, easily shipped over existing pipelines,  - *plus seamless operation once you switch the source to syngas plants from h2 electrolysis)

Even if it takes us decades to switch to carbon-neutral, it will sill be mountains lower greenhouse /emissionsthan the diesel current used in trucks, trains ansd the fuell oil used in ships.*









						The world’s first ‘carbon-neutral’ cargo ship is already low on gas
					

Shipping giant Maersk announced plans for a green methanol-powered vessel by 2023. But there isn't enough of the fuel to go around.




					grist.org


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Sep 1, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> Why even bother with hydrogen pumps for trucks/buses in the first place? If you're already paying the gargantuan cost of re-manufacturing fuel tanks that only last 100k miles, plus the cost of compressing all that hydrogen, you might as well pay the small overhead of combining carbon monoxide plus h2 to get stable syngas that will replace methane already used in buses/trucks with carbon-neutral replacements?



Because fuel cell H2 trucks/busses benefit from regenerative braking and any benefits from the electric-car industry. Which are substantial efficiency savings compared to traditional gasoline engines. That's the thing: H2 Fuel Cells *are* electric engines, just with H2 as the fuel. Every singular electric engine benefit (regenerative braking, advanced motors, etc. etc.) is 100% applied to H2 Fuel Cells.

-------

Like everyone's talking about "battery swap would be so nice if it were figured out". Guess what? They figured it out. H2 is the battery. Fill er up at a H2 pump. H2 Fuel cells is a well designed, electric, fuel-swap engine.


----------



## defaultluser (Sep 1, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Because fuel cell H2 trucks/busses benefit from regenerative braking and any benefits from the electric-car industry. Which are substantial efficiency savings compared to traditional gasoline engines. That's the thing: H2 Fuel Cells *are* electric engines, just with H2 as the fuel. Every singular electric engine benefit (regenerative braking, advanced motors, etc. etc.) is 100% applied to H2 Fuel Cells.
> 
> -------




cause obviously, a methane hybrid is beyond science?









						Mercedes delivers 93 natural gas hybrid buses - electrive.com
					

Mercedes-Benz has delivered 93 Citaro NGT Hybrid buses to the Dutch transport company EBS, which operates city buses in the Rotterdam-Den Haag metropolitan region in the Netherlands. The 83 solo and ten articulated buses are equipped with hybrid gas engines that can also run on bio natural gas. T




					www.electrive.com
				




*wold you actually care to join the discussion, or do you just plan ion finding new ways to get the discussion completely off-topic*


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Sep 1, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> cause obviously, a methane hybrid is beyond science?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting. Didn't know they got syngas practical outside of airplanes.

I'm willing to hedge on both H2 and Syngas. Both seem like decent tech, but I've heard more wins in the H2 world more recently. The main benefit of H2 is that its a "purer" form of energy compared to Syngas (ie: Syngas needs H2 as an input, as well as a condensed form of CO2 from somewhere).

H2 itself must be mass produced before Syngas is a reasonable solution. So it seems "simpler" to use H2 to me? But if Syngas (which has volume-density benefits) is more practical, then of course we should use that instead.


----------



## defaultluser (Sep 1, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Interesting. Didn't know they got syngas practical outside of airplanes.
> 
> I'm willing to hedge on both H2 and Syngas. Both seem like decent tech, but I've heard more wins in the H2 world more recently. The main benefit of H2 is that its a "purer" form of energy compared to Syngas (ie: Syngas needs H2 as an input, as well as a condensed form of CO2 from somewhere).
> 
> H2 itself must be mass produced before Syngas is a reasonable solution. So it seems "simpler" to use H2 to me? But if Syngas (which has volume-density benefits) is more practical, then of course we should use that instead.




of course.  but its not that much harder to create syngas from a local tank of h2, rather than figure out to transport the high-enough-density h2 (10k psi) that can natively be used as a fuel in a  Mirai

*bonus: once you create syngas, its a lot cheaper to keep contained than raw hydrogen (and already has tons of pipelines)*

the only use case for raw hydrogen from electrolysis  is making carbon-free steel; every other use case is better served by combining it wit some carbon-oxide


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Sep 1, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> the only use case for raw hydrogen from electrolysis is making carbon-free steel; every other use case is better served by combining it wit some carbon-oxide



Erm, green ammonia (NH3)? Aka the step before fertilizer? There's no carbon in Fertilizer.

The world uses 180+ Million tons of ammonia, 80% of which is used to make the food that you and I eat every day.

The transition to green-ammonia / electrolysis based Hydrogen Fertilizer is going to happen to improve our food economy and allow us the future of farming. The scale of Hydrogen production must grow to sustain our farms, and doing so in a green manner through electrolysis would be best.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Sep 1, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Erm, green ammonia (NH3)? Aka the step before fertilizer? There's no carbon in Fertilizer.
> 
> The world uses 180+ Million tons of ammonia, 80% of which is used to make the food that you and I eat every day.
> 
> The transition to green-ammonia / electrolysis based Hydrogen Fertilizer is going to happen to improve our food economy and allow us the future of farming. The scale of Hydrogen production must grow to sustain our farms, and doing so in a green manner through electrolysis would be best.



Does that come back around to H2O at some point? One of the attractions of fuel cells is that you get water back in the end.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Sep 2, 2022)

80-watt Hamster said:


> Does that come back around to H2O at some point? One of the attractions of fuel cells is that you get water back in the end.



So fertilizer needs H2 (Hydrogen), to make NH3 (Ammonia), which then does a bunch of other steps to make fertilizer (ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate, aka NH4NO3, one kind of fertilizer)

Today is a big process in optimizing the H2 process so that we don't use natural gas or other fossil fuels anymore. Effectively, we were "turning chemical energy" into the energy that plants needed to grow quickly.

This all relates back to H2 as fuel, because as H2 becomes mass produced *anyway* (we need to get our food chain off of fossil fuels), it turns out that its a pretty good "battery" solution. So instead of pumping H2 into N2 (Nitrogen from the air) to make NH3, we pump H2 into O2 (also from the air) in a fuel cell to move a car forward, making H2O.


----------



## Bomby569 (Sep 3, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> So fertilizer needs H2 (Hydrogen), to make NH3 (Ammonia), which then does a bunch of other steps to make fertilizer (ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate, aka NH4NO3, one kind of fertilizer)
> 
> Today is a big process in optimizing the H2 process so that we don't use natural gas or other fossil fuels anymore. Effectively, we were "turning chemical energy" into the energy that plants needed to grow quickly.
> 
> This all relates back to H2 as fuel, because as H2 becomes mass produced *anyway* (we need to get our food chain off of fossil fuels), it turns out that its a pretty good "battery" solution. So instead of pumping H2 into N2 (Nitrogen from the air) to make NH3, we pump H2 into O2 (also from the air) in a fuel cell to move a car forward, making H2O.



You're going round in circles, you need a fuel source to get hydrogen. Hydrogen in itself is not a fuel source, you need one to produce hydrogen.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Sep 3, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> You're going round in circles, you need a fuel source to get hydrogen. Hydrogen in itself is not a fuel source, you need one to produce hydrogen.


Solar, wind and nuclear.

Which match well with H2 electrolysis because you can turn the H2 plants off when the grid is stressed, effectively turning H2 into a battery that should use largely off-peak electricity (ie: 12noon electricity from solar, and 2am energy from nuclear).

H2 is best because 2am energy is cheaper than 7pm energy.

------

The grid stabilization problem is now the most critical problem, now that solar and nuclear offer enough electricity.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 8, 2022)

defaultluser said:


> carbon-free steel


I would encourage you to restate that. "Steel with reduced carbon emissions" is a little more accurate, as steel is iron alloyed with carbon.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 22, 2022)

30 Hydrogen trains have been ordered for delivery to USA by a company called Stadler.  Read this yesterday, seems really interesting. Honestly, I think this is great. Hydrogen should be focused in certain areas, EV in other areas, solar powered cars like Aptera in super sunny regions of the world, and so on and so forth. A targeted approach seems to be very smart imo. The idea everyone should be one or the other is a mistake, it should all depend on your region imo.

Also, the first hydrogen train in Germany is already up and running.









						Stadler unveils first hydrogen train for U.S., announces order for up to 29 more - Trains
					

BERLIN — The first hydrogen-powered trainset for use in the U.S. has been presented to its owners at the InnoTrans trade fair by manufacturer Stadler — which also announced an order for more of the equipment for use in Amtrak California intercity service. The two-car trainset was ordered by the...




					www.trains.com
				




edit:  mods it's kind of on topic, the hydrogen train, technically will be hauling train cars...


----------



## Voodoo Rufus (Sep 22, 2022)

Here's another good summary of the challenges of Hydrogen: https://doomberg.substack.com/p/the...?r=f58dl&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 23, 2022)

Voodoo Rufus said:


> Here's another good summary of the challenges of Hydrogen: https://doomberg.substack.com/p/the...?r=f58dl&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web


 
That linked article has *nothing* to do with the summary of the challenges of using hydrogen. It's solely about the Hindenberg. The piece actually talks of the merits of using hydrogen and only posts the question of what its limits are in a green future.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Sep 23, 2022)

the54thvoid said:


> That linked article has *nothing* to do with the summary of the challenges of using hydrogen. It's solely about the Hindenberg. The piece actually talks of the merits of using hydrogen and only posts the question of what its limits are in a green future.



I can't scroll past the intro, looks like its hidden for subscribers and I don't feel like giving my email to someone else, lol.

I should note that Hydrogen flames are nearly invisible to the naked eye. The fire people saw was the *paint* catching on fire, not the Hydrogen










We can rest assured that the H2 on the Hindenburg caught on fire. But we also know, from physics, that no one saw those flames.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 23, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> I can't scroll past the intro, looks like its hidden for subscribers and I don't feel like giving my email to someone else, lol.
> 
> I should note that Hydrogen flames are nearly invisible to the naked eye. The fire people saw was the *paint* catching on fire, not the Hydrogen
> 
> ...



That's all well and good, but I am pretty sure Toyota, and this Sadler train company have already through of that and designed excellent systems to prevent issues.

Personally, I am happy to see hydrogen trains in particular gaining traction.

edit:  pun was not intended, just noticed it. LOL


----------



## Bomby569 (Sep 23, 2022)

i honestly think trains would be better off with electricity, it's dumb to go Hydrogen unless they cross some desert in China or something like that. It's creating an unnecessary middle step and deviating H2 from other uses

A bit like natural gas buses, when most cities removed trolley bus, makes no sense in general terms. But sounds good and "green" and whatever.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 24, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> i honestly think trains would be better off with electricity, it's dumb to go Hydrogen unless they cross some desert in China or something like that. It's creating an unnecessary middle step and deviating H2 from other uses
> 
> A bit like natural gas buses, when most cities removed trolley bus, makes no sense in general terms. But sounds good and "green" and whatever.



I'm sure they have run the numbers and find hydrogen to be more cost effective for their use case. Electric trains would need massive batteries or whole new infrastructure... like if you have Amtrak going from Chicago to Pennsylvania, you can't install a tram like electric structure that entire length, especially with vandals about, hydrogen makes a lot more sense, and it is easier to keep secure. Humans will never have paradise, cause humans prove time and again they can't have nice things without ruining it. You have to design systems that can be kept secure.


----------



## cvaldes (Sep 24, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> i honestly think trains would be better off with electricity, it's dumb to go Hydrogen unless they cross some desert in China or something like that. It's creating an unnecessary middle step and deviating H2 from other uses
> 
> A bit like natural gas buses, when most cities removed trolley bus, makes no sense in general terms. But sounds good and "green" and whatever.



The USA is crushingly behind the times concerning rail technology. There's no electrification on most tracks and for much of the rural right-of-ways, it's not economically feasible to erect overhead catenary system for power.

California is in the early stages of building a high-speed rail line, intended to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles. It might take decades to complete at an astronomical price. It's also not taking the most direct and logical route but going to the middle of the state. And even when it's completely, it won't run fast in populated areas because they chose to use existing grade-level tracks; in these areas, it might run 110 km/h (about 75 mph).

Japan built their first HSR line (on elevated tracks) with overhead catenary power for trains that ran at 210 km/h (130 mph). *IN 1965.* Today they have trains that reach 285 km/h (177 mph) on that line and have faster service on other HSR lines in the country.

Caltrain -- one of the oldest commuter rail lines in the world -- runs between San Francisco and San Jose using diesel locomotives pulling a bunch of rolling stock that's over 35 years old. BART is still using cars that are over 50 years old, way beyond their expected life.

The hydrogen-powered Stadler locomotives are a compromise since the USA isn't going to electrify most of its tracks. Hydrogen fuel is an alternative to consider when building out the infrastructure to support electric-powered transport isn't cost effective.


----------



## mechtech (Sep 24, 2022)

The real question is why did we abandon horses so quickly??  

Cheaper and greener than any car 



CallandorWoT said:


> I'm sure they have run the numbers and find hydrogen to be more cost effective for their use case. Electric trains would need massive batteries or whole new infrastructure... like *if you have Amtrak going from Chicago to Pennsylvania, you can't install a tram like electric structure that entire length, especially with vandals about,* hydrogen makes a lot more sense, and it is easier to keep secure. Humans will never have paradise, cause humans prove time and again they can't have nice things without ruining it. You have to design systems that can be kept secure.


Hmmmmmm

Aren't the bullet trains in Japan electric?  Make it high voltage............no more vandals


----------



## Bomby569 (Sep 24, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> I'm sure they have run the numbers and find hydrogen to be more cost effective for their use case. Electric trains would need massive batteries or whole new infrastructure... like if you have Amtrak going from Chicago to Pennsylvania, you can't install a tram like electric structure that entire length, especially with vandals about, hydrogen makes a lot more sense, and it is easier to keep secure. Humans will never have paradise, cause humans prove time and again they can't have nice things without ruining it. You have to design systems that can be kept secure.



I was never thinking of batteries, more like overhead electric lines. The US has another problem, a old power grid and lacking connections (as far as i know anyway), you could just invest in the 2 in parallel.

My point was hydrogen will always be in high demand in the future (unless something better comes along, and i doubt it, at least in the near future), that will make it's price go up, not exactly the best for trains that never really meant nothing to Americans, unless you subsidise them (not a American think i guess), or just keep them as the current ones, eccentricities i guess.

H2 should used only for things that don't have a better solution i would say. Trains go down that one path, perfect for the lines. It's my view anyway.



cvaldes said:


> The hydrogen-powered Stadler locomotives are a compromise since the USA isn't going to electrify most of its tracks. Hydrogen fuel is an alternative to consider when building out the infrastructure to support electric-powered transport isn't cost effective.



like i replied to the other user, knowing the electric grid needs massive investment, is putting some lines over the train tracks that much of a difference to a budget like the US.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 13, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> We can rest assured that the H2 on the Hindenburg caught on fire. But we also know, from physics, that no one saw those flames.


Hydrogen burns other stuff, like the skin of the blimp:








Well documented that it went up in flames.


The problem with rail in the USA is that it's backwards.  Infrastructure projects need to start with making communities walkable, then connecting walkable communities via bus/tram, then connecting bus/tram between cities via rail. Each step creates a strong revenue base to expand to the next step.  Instead, they're doing it backwards begging taxpayers for investment money on a project that is designed to not have any users.  Mass transit only works when it's the fastest, easiest, and cheapest way to get from start to destination.

Because USA is so far behind on long distance infrastructure, hydrogen is the only feasible zero emission answer for ships, trucks, trains, and aircraft.  I have no faith that USA will revolutionize long distance infrastructure in the next century that permits electrification.

For the record, Atlanta is actually the closest to pulling off a mass transit system designed from the bottom up the right way, but it's having difficulty securing funding/permission to build streetcars connecting walkable parts of the city.  Video about the project here:









Electrified rails are definitely the ideal way to move a lot of people cleanly and efficiently.


----------



## Bomby569 (Oct 13, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Because USA is so far behind on long distance infrastructure, hydrogen is the only feasible zero emission answer for ships, trucks, trains, and aircraft.  I have no faith that USA will revolutionize long distance infrastructure in the next century that permits electrification.
> 
> For the record, Atlanta is actually the closest to pulling off a mass transit system designed from the bottom up the right way, but it's having difficulty securing funding/permission to build streetcars connecting walkable parts of the city.  Video about the project here:
> 
> Electrified rails are definitely the ideal way to move a lot of people cleanly and efficiently.



Near me the train stations are still far away from people. Only in the major cities you have a big train stations in the middle of the city and subway to get there. But 95% of the stations don't work like that, we have buses (no one likes those, it's mostly for poor people or young people) to the train station or big car parks (the preferred method) very close to the train station.
Lines are mostly electrified by now, even the ones that only do cargo. There are still some old style tracks but on older lines it little use.
And we are a poor country.

So you can leave your car at the station and take the train, that is the way we do it. You can commute or travel like that. 

I'm not doing it now, but when i commuted, i did a 5/10 minute car journey and then took the train to the "big city". I also did it a lot to travel inside the country like that, if it's just 2 people for example, train is almost always cheaper.

Anyway all this to say, i know what you mean, your houses inside a population are all very spread, you can't really walk to the station, but i don't think that's a deal breaker.


----------



## Khonjel (Oct 28, 2022)




----------



## Super XP (Oct 31, 2022)

64K said:


> Just doing a quick look around I found some definite negatives for using hydrogen as fuel:
> 
> Investment is Required. ...
> Cost of Raw Materials. ...
> ...


We may run out of oil in about 2000 years.


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 31, 2022)

Super XP said:


> We may run out of oil in about 2000 years.



or go 2000 kilometers in our hydrogen cars   


New VW hydrogen cars can go 2000km before needing a refuel.


I can't find the article at the moment, but I remember reading about it earlier today, apparently Toyota was using a different material for its hydrogen tanks/engine, or something like that. But VW is using ceramic or some new ceramic material that was a game changer for overall distance capabilities. Can't remember. Read an article on it earlier today though, and I thought it was kind of neat.


----------

