Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[claes]

I don’t think you understand your own claims, their implications (let alone how contradictory you’re being — “modern life and consumerism is great and something we should maintain, we just need to curb it and our freedom of consumer and employment choice drastically!”), or how much of the content you are posting is off-topic — nor did you state any intention to stop being off-topic. Take care.

 

[AusWolf]

I don’t think you understand your own claims, their implications (let alone how contradictory you’re being — “modern life and consumerism is great and something we should maintain, we just need to curb it and our freedom of consumer and employment choice drastically!”), or how much of the content you are posting is off-topic — nor did you state any intention to stop being off-topic. Take care.

But let me stop the off-topic now. I've said what I wanted.

There. You obviously had to comment on this.

I never said we needed to curb our freedom of anything. I said the exact opposite: that curbing our freedom isn't necessary in order to be greener with the right changes in society.

That's all.

 

[the54thvoid]

Thread isn't really doing what it's meant to be doing (hydrogen auto engine tech discussion). I'll not lock it but I'll delete and reply ban for the next infracting posts and posters.

Please get back on topic. If you've nothing to add to the topic, don't post.

Thanks.

 

[KLiKzg]

about future containment hopes, well, they just got dashed by this: a syn-gas-powered ship to bypass all the h2 distribution issues!

Wallenius Wilhelmsen signs contract for “next generation” vessels

Wallenius Wilhelmsen's ambition to lead the maritime industry towards net zero is the thinking behind the new craft’s name: The Shaper Class.

www.ship-technology.com

even if it takes us forever to switch to carbon-neutral shipping, the transition to earth-extracted methane (from bunker fuel) alone will cut emissions impressive;y. you only need look at how much transitioning diesel city buses to cng brought massive benefits of just a fossil fuel change..and once cheap oil runs-out, you can continue to distribute syn-gas based ship fuel.

so no, I don't foresee any miracles improving upon the already impressive methane energy density (and if you're already paying the massive cost of h2 electrolysis, the added cost of syn-gas is lost-in-the-noise)!

Where did you get that info?

Lets say something:
1. CH4 has less kJ (or kcal) than any other fuel.
2. Using CH4 is extremely dangerous, as it is hazardous for people!
3. It is also a solvent, so engines which run on that - are hard to make & expensive.
4. It would be far easier to put methane in:
a) propane or butane with chemical process, which are not so harsh to humans & engines
b) to ethanol as an alcohol, so it can be consumed like in normal engines

Otherwise, I have heard so many "glorious ideas", which never worked in real life. & this for sure is one!

 

[Shrek]

Correction to an earlier post I made in this thread:

When I suggested the Toyota Prius, I really meant the Toyota Prius Prime (which is about $5,000 more); same body, but the Prius is not a plug-in hybrid while the Prius Prime is (with a 44 mi non-gas range)

A prime competitor to hydrogen power (forgive the silly pun)

 

[Shrek]

Interesting article

Hydrogen Combustion Engines: The Dirty Secrets That Cost Them The Spotlight (msn.com)

 

[Totally]

Where did you get that info?

Lets say something:
2. Using CH4 is extremely dangerous, as it is hazardous for people!
3. It is also a solvent, so engines which run on that - are hard to make & expensive.

Was just perusing but couldn't help but call this bit of nonsense out.

2. This made me lol. Moreso than gas, diesel, electricity? How? Methane is non-toxic, and needs to be in significant concentrations to pose a flame hazard or become an asphyxiation risk. This is just a case of too much of anything can kill you.
3. So are gasoline and ethanol. *looks at all the ICE vehicles on the road that run on gasoline and ethanol* Don't think that'll be a issue that can't be figured out.

Other than energy density, none of those are serious concerns.

 

[the54thvoid]

Yeah, CH4 is pretty much the majority part of natural gas.

It is however a potent, short-term greenhouse gas. Bettert than coal/diesel for energy generation but needs to be managed well to prevent leaks. Far less flammable than hydrogen.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

@AusWolf
funny how many thousands of years mankind survived, WITHOUT having ANYTHING (food etc) from another continent.

ignoring things like spices/salt (as in only growing in specific regions), its only been about 100y, of stuff being transported around the globe in large numbers,
and i dont remember having seen anything from say G.B. or even N.A. in a german store (incl larger cities) until the late 80s/early 90s,
so its clear to me, no one actually needs +60% of thing coming from other countries, that can already be sourced/made "locally".
and again, not talking about getting strawberries in Alaska, or Mangos in G.B. ...

i wont loose a single min of sleep, if someone thinks they cant see the next day without 20 different types of coffee creamer to chose from (as example),
but reducing things like that, especially if not made in the same area/country, will sure as hell reduce shipping thus emissions, one of the major problems we have (besides heat/power).


that is more related to not getting properly paid for the job you do.
look at places like Denmark, how much do they pay working at Mc D flipping burgers, and what benefits that come with having a job?

yet, the same int companies, (operating there without any "problems", and making profit), claim they cant operate under the same conditions (higher pay/taxes) in places like the U.S.

and local wasnt "expensive", as it was common, especially for everyday things like meat/poultry and eggs to name some.
it has become expensive, because ppl started buying things by the lowest price/disregarding quality, instead of looking for value.


@lilhasselhoffer
not just for energy, its about being greener overall, and NOT doing anything (like some suggest), is worse than trying something.

for me its about getting rid of "burning oil", and i dont care what does archive that (or where), as long as its not worse than burning oil,
e.g. making H2 with fossil fuel use, which is less green than burning oil.

never said solar is the holy grail, or that we need it everywhere, but you claiming things have to be "100% efficient" right from the start, is incorrect.
no tech, that has been invented by us (and is more or less used globally/everyday/every person), was "100% (efficient)" right away,
incl mankind itself (evolution).
but in case you know some, feel free to name them, so i can update my knowledge.

germany reached its 2020 goal for emissions in 2013, google how much this was for the "worse" for the country, financially speaking (vs doing nothing, and not having any cost)...

You....are not getting it. You are also trying to argue something stupid...which is not what I said. I pulled 100% because it is where you start from...which was 100% of the surface of the Earth. I then walked everything down to a reasonable value...because you quoted the solar energy hitting the earth total for the day. So we are clear, this was making your stupidly huge number something viable. It's fixing an entirely unreasonably large number into something we can actually presumably measure.

You are the one who started to measure this against 100% good...and are now walking it back with examples that would have supported me instead of you. I'm...really having an issue with the dishonesty of assuming one thing when you retort, and when I do the huge amount of math and you suddenly want to claim that what I'm saying is right...but it was what you said.

If you're going to be this dishonest when confronted then I'm 100% behind why people have issues with "green" tech. If your argument is never the same, then people are inevitably going to call your snake oil for it being snake oil. I will defer to my original argument, that you disagreed with. Green tech that is actually green and reasonably cost effective is something we should pursue...but right most "green" tech is just green in the sense that it is lining somebody's pockets with money so you can feel good.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Are there hydrogen fuel cells that electrolyze the waste water when power is applied to them?

 

[defaultluser]

Are there hydrogen fuel cells that electrolyze the waste water when power is applied to them?

sure,but at way higher cost than the existing fuel cell.you need a different mix of expensive catalysts, plus who knows how much different water temperature than exhaust?

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

I was more thinking of it as a more power-dense version of a high capacity battery.

 

[mb194dc]

Interesting write up:

Hydrogen cars: do they have a future? | Autocar

Are hydrogen cars viable? We run through all you need to know about this alternative fuel

www.autocar.co.uk

Per the end line. I actually think most use cases are best served by conventional fuel until Hydrogen electric takes over. Unless you've got off street parking and only do City / short distance driving.

We've got lots of renewable energy we don't use at night, it's obvious how you produce the fuel without using fossil fuels.

 

[defaultluser]

Interesting write up:

Hydrogen cars: do they have a future? | Autocar

Are hydrogen cars viable? We run through all you need to know about this alternative fuel

www.autocar.co.uk

Per the end line. I actually think most use cases are best served by conventional fuel until Hydrogen electric takes over. Unless you've got off street parking and only do City / short distance driving.

We've got lots of renewable energy we don't use at night, it's obvious how you produce the fuel without using fossil fuels.

but, acting like hydrogen production is somehow cheaper than just buying batteries or creating pumped hydro storage is just as foolhardy

there is a minimum cost for efficient electrolysis, involving a different mix of the same materials that already cost 5k per-fuel cell (IE Catalysis requ8ired for most efficient conversion))
l, plus minimum percentage pure water to input

 

[KLiKzg]

Was just perusing but couldn't help but call this bit of nonsense out.

2. This made me lol. Moreso than gas, diesel, electricity? How? Methane is non-toxic, and needs to be in significant concentrations to pose a flame hazard or become an asphyxiation risk. This is just a case of too much of anything can kill you.
3. So are gasoline and ethanol. *looks at all the ICE vehicles on the road that run on gasoline and ethanol* Don't think that'll be a issue that can't be figured out.

Other than energy density, none of those are serious concerns.

Well, you make me laugh with this statement, as:
2. Yes, methane is more toxic to humans then gasoline fumes or diesel fumes. Something to consider, when you want to fill up the tank on a car.
Then CH4 also has ~30 times "Global Warming Potential (GWP)" compared to CO2. Something to consider, when you have 50 stations in a town.
Also, concentrations of 2% of CH4 in any environment is lethal to humans. Not so for gasoline or diesel fumes.
3. It is not the issue of handling it in a car, but the handling it on stations & from spillage on stations. That is the issue, which needs to be addressed. You really have to learn more about safety standards & environment safety, before answering.

 

[Shrek]

CH4 also has ~30 times "Global Warming Potential (GWP)" compared to CO2.

Methane oxidises, but I don't know how quickly when out in the open.

 

[Totally]

Well, you make me laugh with this statement, as:
2. Yes, methane is more toxic to humans then gasoline fumes or diesel fumes. Something to consider, when you want to fill up the tank on a car.
Also, concentrations of 2% of CH4 in any environment is lethal to humans. Not so for gasoline or diesel fumes.

Wow, you doubled down. Show me a toxicity report of any kind for CH4 itself. Methane is non-toxic, only hazard it poses to humans is as an asphyxiant. If your lungs get filled with it you suffocate, just the same if the lungs were filled with water, so I guess water is toxic also.

Then CH4 also has ~30 times "Global Warming Potential (GWP)" compared to CO2. Something to consider, when you have 50 stations in a town.

Yeah so? It's a very short lived greenhouse gas since it precipitates out of the atmosphere extremely quickly. Yeah, it's being pumped it into the air faster than it can be removed and that's due to increased average global temps that's what matters. The majority of methane out there exists in solution in the ocean, frozen in ice in glaciers and poles and that's what matters since increase temps means more methane is escaping these natural resevoirs in a negative feedback loop but going oh "it's 30 times" means nothing on it own and and any amount of stations would harldy be a blip.

3. It is not the issue of handling it in a car, but the handling it on stations & from spillage on stations. That is the issue, which needs to be addressed. You really have to learn more about safety standards & environment safety, before answering.

You don't seem to have a clue on the subject so I don't know why you are telling me this. Ever been to a swamp or a wetland of any kind? There methane concentrations regularly exceed 2%, and no is dying in those areas due to it Mr." Also, concentrations of 2% of CH4 in any environment is lethal to humans." I have to learn more about safety before answering? LOL. You clearly know dick about methane but that didn't stop you.

 

[Shrek]

Reminds me of the story of the veterinarian who told the farmer that cows belch methane and demonstrated the fact to the disbeliving farmer... accidently burnt the barn down...

 

[KLiKzg]

Wow, you doubled down. Show me a toxicity report of any kind for CH4 itself. Methane is non-toxic, only hazard it poses to humans is as an asphyxiant. If your lungs get filled with it you suffocate, just the same if the lungs were filled with water, so I guess water is toxic also.



Yeah so? It's a very short lived greenhouse gas since it precipitates out of the atmosphere extremely quickly. Yeah, it's being pumped it into the air faster than it can be removed and that's due to increased average global temps that's what matters. The majority of methane out there exists in solution in the ocean, frozen in ice in glaciers and poles and that's what matters since increase temps means more methane is escaping these natural resevoirs in a negative feedback loop but going oh "it's 30 times" means nothing on it own and and any amount of stations would harldy be a blip.



You don't seem to have a clue on the subject so I don't know why you are telling me this. Ever been to a swamp or a wetland of any kind? There methane concentrations regularly exceed 2%, and no is dying in those areas due to it Mr." Also, concentrations of 2% of CH4 in any environment is lethal to humans." I have learn more about safety before answering? LOL. You clearly know dick about methane but that didn't stop you.

Well, you need to check facts, as for:

• There is "water vapor" in lungs, as we are made of ~70% of water...so we do exhale more water, then inhaling it.
• For water to suffocate you, you must be submerged & we are not talking about drowning.
• If you meant to be "dry drowned with water vapor", well then you need to get your language skills sharpened...as you did not state that! & even for dry drowning with water vapor, you would need to have sthg like ~50% of water vapor in the air, to have more water outside of the body then inside of the lungs.
• While also, only 2% of mixture of CH4 in the air is hazardous to people.

So all this means you are comparing an elephant to the ant. Not only same species, but not the same class, phylum & kingdom of animals. As you are comparing a gas to a liquid.


Also, when comparing the fart to a breathing - you need to address those volumes also. Especially as there are about 8 billion of us on this planet Earth & about ~1 billion of us is refusing to eat all those bloody cows.


As for your last answer: are you trying to do some conversation or to make hate speech for moderators to step in? Which is it?

 

[Totally]

Well, you need to check facts, as for:

• There is "water vapor" in lungs, as we are made of ~70% of water...so we do exhale more water, then inhaling it.
• For water to suffocate you, you must be submerged & we are not talking about drowning.
• If you meant to be "dry drowned with water vapor", well then you need to get your language skills sharpened...as you did not state that! & even for dry drowning with water vapor, you would need to have sthg like ~50% of water vapor in the air, to have more water outside of the body then inside of the lungs.
• While also, only 2% of mixture of CH4 in the air is hazardous to people.

So all this means you are comparing an elephant to the ant. Not only same species, but not the same class, phylum & kingdom of animals. As you are comparing a gas to a liquid.


Also, when comparing the fart to a breathing - you need to address those volumes also. Especially as there are about 8 billion of us on this planet Earth & about ~1 billion of us is refusing to eat all those bloody cows.


As for your last answer: are you trying to do some conversation or to make hate speech for moderators to step in? Which is it?

I mention water vapor either yet here we are.

It seems like I'm comparing apples to oranges but too much CH4 kills you the same way H20 does by displacing oxygen(O2). Where do you keep guys keep quoting this 2% from, he's saying lethal and you seem to be walking it back to hazardous. To which I agree HAZARDOUS, not toxic, not outright lethal.

Hate speech? uh what?

 

[the54thvoid]

Gonna step in with science. CH4 is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas. Over the short term (20 years) it's far worse than CO2. Over 100 years, I think it levels out. As far as swamps, that's not a relevant scenario as that has been a constant source during human existence. The problem now is thawing of permafrost which is releasing huge amounts of CH4. Yet still, the biggest source is from natural gas where leaks release the largest amounts. Reducing those leaks would have a large impact on CH4 emissions.

Add for clarity, it's not toxic to us in normal situations.

Let's not conflate gaseous suffocation with environmental damage. One can be benign to the individual but harmful to all.

 

[Jetster]

Interesting

 

[defaultluser]

Interesting

completely ignoring the fact that this still has to compete with hydrogen stations(they do exist)

Toyota has this sort of pr prepared every time someone else announces something interesting -this is just an empty response to the recent Honda ev-palooza

remember when Honda was following Toyota into h2 history? yeah, they are now flying dangerously solo, approaching the sun now!

Toyota is going to be so lete to the ev party, they might end-up going out of business

 

[Totally]

completely ignoring the fact that this still has to compete with hydrogen stations(they do exist)

Toyota has this sort of pr prepared every time someone else announces something interesting -this is just an empty response to the recent Honda ev-palooza

remember when Honda was following Toyota into h2 history? yeah, they are now flying dangerously solo, approaching the sun now!

Toyota is going to be so lete to the ev party, they might end-up going out of business

Toyota isn't late, they're one of the earliest to the party, they own Yamaha. If this was a goldrush, they'd be the guys selling pickaxes and shovels. Rn there isn't a automaker not bleeding money every ev sold, Tesla sells telemetry data gathered from it's vehicles and other sources to make a profit. Doesn't make sense for an established brand to take unnecessary losses. Considering that there's downturn in EV adoption predicted (running out out early adopters to sell to while still falling short of critical milestones for mass appeal) they smartly stayed out of the EV race for now while focusing on infrastructure.

 

[KrazyT]

Toyota isn't late, they're one of the earliest to the party, they own Yamaha.

Hmmm ... Not sure Yamaha is owned by Toy' ?