Hydrogen powered cars: Your news and views please

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Hydrogen powered cars: Your news and views please

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 19

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2256988 12-Jun-2019 19:45

Obraik:

Dingbatt: $US88 ($NZ132) for 600 kms! My current car costs about that to fill and can do just under 1200km on a tank. And of that $NZ132 about 40 bucks is government fuel excise.
So by the time a fuel cell vehicle pays RUCs that is a pretty expensive per km rate to scratch a green itch. BEVs and even PHEVs make better sense.
My biggest concern would be buying an 'orphan' technology that isn't properly supported and as a consequence has no resale value. Especially if you are talking nearly $100000. At least CNG and LPG vehicles last century could be converted back to petrol.

Yeah, this isn't the VHS vs Beta war that you want to be on the wrong side of

He mentioned RUC. When EV gets to 2%, around 70,000, EV will pay 60 odd c per litre equivalent. What happens then? Serious question as fuel savings is the key reason to go EV

frednz

1431 posts

Uber Geek

#2256989 12-Jun-2019 19:51

Linuxluver:

The emissions from hydrogen fuel cells are water and warm air. In that sense, they could be argued to be better than fossil fuels, which emit carbon and other things.

But water vapour is, itself, a powerful greenhouse factor.....and a billion fuel cell vehicles could end up making little difference to the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

EVs emit nothing.

Yes, water vapour is described as a greenhouse gas in this quote from Wikipedia:

If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and so on until other processes stop the feedback loop. The result is a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. Although this feedback process causes an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air, the relative humidity stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly because the air is warmer.[45] Climate models incorporate this feedback. Water vapor feedback is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur.[59] Water vapor feedback is considered a faster feedback mechanism.[49]

Has there been any published research to support the view that hydrogen powered vehicles are in fact not all that good for the environment because of the emission of water vapour? Surely this should be a key point for future research as one of the main objectives of electric vehicles is to reduce emissions, not add a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere?

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2257000 12-Jun-2019 20:15

tdgeek:
Obraik:

Dingbatt: $US88 ($NZ132) for 600 kms! My current car costs about that to fill and can do just under 1200km on a tank. And of that $NZ132 about 40 bucks is government fuel excise.
So by the time a fuel cell vehicle pays RUCs that is a pretty expensive per km rate to scratch a green itch. BEVs and even PHEVs make better sense.
My biggest concern would be buying an 'orphan' technology that isn't properly supported and as a consequence has no resale value. Especially if you are talking nearly $100000. At least CNG and LPG vehicles last century could be converted back to petrol.

Yeah, this isn't the VHS vs Beta war that you want to be on the wrong side of

He mentioned RUC. When EV gets to 2%, around 70,000, EV will pay 60 odd c per litre equivalent. What happens then? Serious question as fuel savings is the key reason to go EV

So you’re saying 60c/l equivalent is “uneconomical” when the average price of petrol has been $2.40-$2.90 for the last 10 years?

EV also have almost zero ‘servicing’ cost, and very little moving parts to go wrong (and need replacing) too.

Mine has 3 months to go until fuel cost savings ALONE have fully paid for its purchase price, so if I’d been paying RuC this may have taken another year or two to achieve, but in what world is the 60c/l RuC equivalent you mention not worthwhile anyway?

Dingbatt

5873 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2257040 12-Jun-2019 20:44

tdgeek:
Dingbatt: $US88 ($NZ132) for 600 kms! My current car costs about that to fill and can do just under 1200km on a tank. And of that $NZ132 about 40 bucks is government fuel excise.
So by the time a fuel cell vehicle pays RUCs that is a pretty expensive per km rate to scratch a green itch. BEVs and even PHEVs make better sense.
My biggest concern would be buying an 'orphan' technology that isn't properly supported and as a consequence has no resale value. Especially if you are talking nearly $100000. At least CNG and LPG vehicles last century could be converted back to petrol.

US$88 gets 1200km? Is it a 34cc uni cycle ?

No, it's a Camry Hybrid which I average 5.1l/100km in. It has a 60 litre fuel tank, takes 91 petrol, which the last time I filled up was $2.11/litre (I used $2.20 for the above calculation). So definitely not a unicycle, just a four door family car that I probably fill up less than once a month. But it will do just under 1200km on a tank of gas.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

frankv

5118 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2257043 12-Jun-2019 20:50

PhantomNVD: EV also have almost zero ‘servicing’ cost, and very little moving parts to go wrong (and need replacing) too.

I don't think this is quite true... whilst the motor and drive-train are relatively simple, there are still lots of moving parts on an EV... doors, wipers, suspension, windows, etc

And the large number of moving parts in an engine and gearbox are actually pretty much trouble-free for the life of the ICE. All you're saving is a couple of oil changes a year, and maybe a timing belt replacement.

Technofreak

5549 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2257060 12-Jun-2019 21:26

I'm still not convinced battery powered EVs, or Hybrids for that, matter are an environmentally sound proposition. They are definitely not as environmentally friendly as we are being led to believe.

While there may be no emissions from and EV car I'm not sure I would call EVs a "green" option.

How much energy is spent in mining the raw materials and then in the manufacture of the batteries? Then at the end of their life we have some pretty environmentally damaging waste if it's not recycled properly plus there is the energy required for the recycling process.

I believe the real game changer will be nuclear fusion. This has the ability to produce an abundance of very cheap electric power which then can be transformed into other forms of energy for use in vehicles. Whether that be making hydrogen or some other energy source.

While burning hydrogen may create a "greenhouse gas" - water vapour, the electrolysis process turns water into hydrogen and oxygen. Effectively a net sum process. If there was some way to capture/contain the water vapour when the hydrogen is burned surely the water vapour problem can be solved, or am I missing the point?

If we have an abundant supply of cheap electricity then surely this all becomes possible?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

jonathan18

6204 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2257064 12-Jun-2019 21:32

frankv:
PhantomNVD: EV also have almost zero ‘servicing’ cost, and very little moving parts to go wrong (and need replacing) too.

I don't think this is quite true... whilst the motor and drive-train are relatively simple, there are still lots of moving parts on an EV... doors, wipers, suspension, windows, etc

And the large number of moving parts in an engine and gearbox are actually pretty much trouble-free for the life of the ICE. All you're saving is a couple of oil changes a year, and maybe a timing belt replacement.

Amount spent on servicing my ICE car (2.2l diesel) in the past year - approximately $550 (and that’s cheap given it’s for two comprehensive services at the dealers).

Amount spent servicing my wife’s Leaf in the past 18 year - about $8 (for windscreen washing concentrate).

Sure, the latter will need new wiper blades etc at some point, but the costs of these kinds of parts are usually minimal compared to the usual service costs of an ICE.

elpenguino

2524 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2257091 12-Jun-2019 23:11

frednz:

https://www.driven.co.nz/news/news/hyundai-s-high-tech-hydrogen-powered-nexo-confirmed-for-fieldays/

Extracts from the above:

Hyundai New Zealand is using the opening of Fieldays tomorrow to reveal this country’s first zero emissions hydrogen powered SUV, the all-new Nexo.

The Nexo is Hyundai Motor Company’s second-generation of commercialised fuel cell electric vehicle; it’s a first for New Zealand.

The Nexo has an on-board electric motor that produces 120kW of power and 395Nm of torque drawing power from an under-bonnet fuel cell stack, which combines oxygen from the surrounding air with hydrogen from the SUV’s high-pressure storage tanks.

The result is electricity to power the motor and charge the battery.

With full tanks of hydrogen on board, Nexo is capable of travelling 660km before it needs to refuel, which takes just a few minutes.

Sinclair didn’t know when the Nexo would be available for sale here.

“Ultimately it depends on New Zealand’s ability to provide the infrastructure for the hydrogen fuelling stations.

“New Zealand has an abundance of renewable electricity that could be used to produce hydrogen in a sustainable way so we are working closely with the New Zealand Hydrogen Association towards a solution.”

It will certainly be interesting to follow the progress of hydrogen vehicles in New Zealand. With a range of 660km and being able to refuel in just a few minutes, fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) could represent the future of motoring.

A report on Seven Sharp tonight introduced the Hyundai Nexo:

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/seven-sharp/clips/take-a-spin-in-one-of-just-two-zero-emission-hyundai-nexo-s-in-new-zealand

The advantages and disadvantages of hydrogen fuel cells are discussed here:

https://futureofworking.com/10-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-hydrogen-fuel-cells/

So what do you think of hydrogen powered vehicles, are they the future of motoring in New Zealand?

I think they've got great potential as they unite some of the best features of current liquid fuel cars with battery EVs.

- electric cars are more efficient - e.g. no energy loss during urban idling

- quick refueling - good for long distance or high mileage users

With the extra benefit that the fuel they use can be stored and transported like current liquid fuels (i.e. carefully ).

H2 could also nicely tie in with renewable energy and off preak power generation.

H2 is in effect energy that can be stored without the cost of batteries and using current methods.

I've also seen fuel cells touted as an alternative for emergency power sources and manufacturers are selling UPS-type units for remote power generation.

Unfortunately there are some gotchas with these remote power units units such as warm-up time (or a constant minimum consumption to keep the cell running) and I wonder whether cars also have this behaviour.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2257093 13-Jun-2019 01:02

elpenguino:

I think they've got great potential as they unite some of the best features of current liquid fuel cars with battery EVs.

- electric cars are more efficient - e.g. no energy loss during urban idling

- quick refueling - good for long distance or high mileage users

With the extra benefit that the fuel they use can be stored and transported like current liquid fuels (i.e. carefully ).

H2 could also nicely tie in with renewable energy and off preak power generation.

H2 is in effect energy that can be stored without the cost of batteries and using current methods.

I've also seen fuel cells touted as an alternative for emergency power sources and manufacturers are selling UPS-type units for remote power generation.

Unfortunately there are some gotchas with these remote power units units such as warm-up time (or a constant minimum consumption to keep the cell running) and I wonder whether cars also have this behaviour.

Actually, quick refuelling is about the only advantage of hydrogen compared to EVs. And even then, if you are refuelling using gaseous H2. If you just connect the 2 tanks together, the pressures will equalise. And you will need to use a compressor to completely empty the supply tank and to be able to completely fill the receiving tank. Lots of electricity needed compared to a small pump that would be used to move petrol or diesel.

The boiling point of liquid hydrogen is -252deg Seriously cold cryogenic temp. While it has a very low "heat value" (energy content in relation to volume of gas at atmospheric pressure) So to transport or store large amounts of hydrogen. It has to be kept at very high pressures and / or very cold temperatures. Far more difficult than petrol or diesel - both of which can be transported and stored at room temp and atmospheric pressure. Perfect insulation for cryogenic temps is impractical. Therefore there will be losses due to heat absorption. Since H2 atoms are so small, they will migrate through most common materials. Which makes storage under pressure also difficult.

Lots of energy is required to either compress the H2 or supercool it. And even transferring H2 between 2 different storage vessels is also difficult as well. Therefore you end up needing to use lots of energy from outside sources, or you have to consume / loose quite a lot of the H2. Just to get it to the point of final use.

Safety - H2 has upper and lower flammability ranges of 4% and 75%. In comparison, Petrol has a range of 1.4% to 7.6%, Natural gas has a range of 5.4 to 17%. Therefore a hydrogen leak is far more dangerous than a petrol or natural gas leak. The need for extremely high pressure tanks for H2 storage. Also means that such tanks will need to be hydrostaticly tested every 10 years. (same as for LPG cylinders, diving air cylinders etc) This will be a significant extra cost that the pro hydrogen brigade has failed to consider. Yet is an important part of safely storing highly compressed gases.

As for off peak power generation. The cost of building a H2 production plant Vs the cost of electricity. It will likely be cheaper to build a smaller capacity H2 plant, and operate it 24/7. Than it would to build one that is twice the size, so it would only need to run for 12 Hours per day to obtain the same amount of H2. And due to storage difficulties, Production at the time of immediate usage / refuelling will likely still be cheaper. Therefore H2 production is unlikely to be an economic use of off peak power generation Vs peak time generation.

The ripple control system on hot water cylinders could easily be expanded to Ev chargers as well (to make Ev charging an interruptible load). And that would be by far the lowest cost method of integrating large amounts of solar or wind generation into the grid.

And fuel cells still produce lots of waste heat. Which is yet more losses, just to finally get to the end use point.

Hydrogen only make sense from an environmental point of view, if you assume that you have lots of extremely cheap electricity available, which is also fully renewable generated. But if such electricity is available, Then it is better to use it to replace fossil fuels in non transport use cases. And if we still have lots of renewable generation available. Then we should try to attract electricity intensive industries to NZ. More aluminium smelting. More server farms. More bitcoin mining, blockchains, AI supercomputing etc.

Consider how much power is used wordwide for Bitcoin mining alone. Then consider that most of that power is generated using fossil fuels. Bitcoin mining might be worse for the environment than gold mining. Especially when you allow for the coal mining and oil drilling in addition to the carbon emissions. And the embodied emissions to build the computers needed as well.

Edit to add.

Hydrogen also has a much faster flame front speed compared to Natural gas and petrol. Meaning a sudden ignition of a large amount of escaped H2 would be more of an explosion than a woosh. Again a bad thing in relation to hydrogen safety.

The extremely high pressures in H2 storage systems and tanks, means that the risk of compression ignition of H2 and any oxygen needs to also be managed.

jonathan18

6204 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2257095 13-Jun-2019 05:51

Obraik: After a hydrogen refuelling station explosion in Norway they've had to shut down all stations in Norway for an investigation while Toyota and Hyundai has put a halt on car sales. Toyota is also offering loan vehicles during the shutdown.

https://electrek.co/2019/06/11/hydrogen-station-explodes-toyota-halts-sales-fuel-cell-cars/

I went googling to read about this explosion, but also found coverage of a hydrogen explosion at a chemical factory that occurred while a tanker was refuelling. Multiple tankers were destroyed. This happened earlier this month:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/cause-of-santa-clara-hydrogen-explosion-and-fire-under-investigation

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2257121 13-Jun-2019 07:09

PhantomNVD:
tdgeek:

Obraik:

Dingbatt: $US88 ($NZ132) for 600 kms! My current car costs about that to fill and can do just under 1200km on a tank. And of that $NZ132 about 40 bucks is government fuel excise.
So by the time a fuel cell vehicle pays RUCs that is a pretty expensive per km rate to scratch a green itch. BEVs and even PHEVs make better sense.
My biggest concern would be buying an 'orphan' technology that isn't properly supported and as a consequence has no resale value. Especially if you are talking nearly $100000. At least CNG and LPG vehicles last century could be converted back to petrol.

Yeah, this isn't the VHS vs Beta war that you want to be on the wrong side of

He mentioned RUC. When EV gets to 2%, around 70,000, EV will pay 60 odd c per litre equivalent. What happens then? Serious question as fuel savings is the key reason to go EV

So you’re saying 60c/l equivalent is “uneconomical” when the average price of petrol has been $2.40-$2.90 for the last 10 years?

EV also have almost zero ‘servicing’ cost, and very little moving parts to go wrong (and need replacing) too.

Mine has 3 months to go until fuel cost savings ALONE have fully paid for its purchase price, so if I’d been paying RuC this may have taken another year or two to achieve, but in what world is the 60c/l RuC equivalent you mention not worthwhile anyway?

Where did I say it was uneconomical? I wish people would stop making things up. Maybe the EV crowd, which I'd like to be part of, is anti everything.

Going back to the "discussion", the RUC will make it less beneficial cost wise. If you buy a second hand LEAF, doesn't matter too much. If you buy a Kona Elite at 80k where the Kona Elite ICE is 40k, that's a LOT is fuel to save, let alone when 60c+ is taken off. Hence my "what happens then"

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2257123 13-Jun-2019 07:12

frednz:

Linuxluver:

The emissions from hydrogen fuel cells are water and warm air. In that sense, they could be argued to be better than fossil fuels, which emit carbon and other things.

But water vapour is, itself, a powerful greenhouse factor.....and a billion fuel cell vehicles could end up making little difference to the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

EVs emit nothing.

Yes, water vapour is described as a greenhouse gas in this quote from Wikipedia:

If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and so on until other processes stop the feedback loop. The result is a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. Although this feedback process causes an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air, the relative humidity stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly because the air is warmer.[45] Climate models incorporate this feedback. Water vapor feedback is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur.[59] Water vapor feedback is considered a faster feedback mechanism.[49]

Has there been any published research to support the view that hydrogen powered vehicles are in fact not all that good for the environment because of the emission of water vapour? Surely this should be a key point for future research as one of the main objectives of electric vehicles is to reduce emissions, not add a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere?

Years ago I watched CC doco that included global cooling. The premise was, more smoke particles in the atmosphere, more water is in the atmosphere. Water sticks to dust, and as smoke particle is larger, more water. This has a filtering effect by reducing direct sunlight, hence reducing heat taken in

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2257126 13-Jun-2019 07:18

Technofreak:

I'm still not convinced battery powered EVs, or Hybrids for that, matter are an environmentally sound proposition. They are definitely not as environmentally friendly as we are being led to believe.

While there may be no emissions from and EV car I'm not sure I would call EVs a "green" option.

How much energy is spent in mining the raw materials and then in the manufacture of the batteries? Then at the end of their life we have some pretty environmentally damaging waste if it's not recycled properly plus there is the energy required for the recycling process.

I believe the real game changer will be nuclear fusion. This has the ability to produce an abundance of very cheap electric power which then can be transformed into other forms of energy for use in vehicles. Whether that be making hydrogen or some other energy source.

While burning hydrogen may create a "greenhouse gas" - water vapour, the electrolysis process turns water into hydrogen and oxygen. Effectively a net sum process. If there was some way to capture/contain the water vapour when the hydrogen is burned surely the water vapour problem can be solved, or am I missing the point?

If we have an abundant supply of cheap electricity then surely this all becomes possible?

That's my feeling. Fusion seems to be a long way off though. Id like every roof in the country to have solar panels. Why not every car roof, bonnet, boot as well? Re the water vapour, if that was cooled in the exhaust, its water. Sounds easy, is it that easy?

GV27

4307 posts

Uber Geek

#2257137 13-Jun-2019 07:31

frankv:

PhantomNVD: EV also have almost zero ‘servicing’ cost, and very little moving parts to go wrong (and need replacing) too.

I don't think this is quite true... whilst the motor and drive-train are relatively simple, there are still lots of moving parts on an EV... doors, wipers, suspension, windows, etc

And the large number of moving parts in an engine and gearbox are actually pretty much trouble-free for the life of the ICE. All you're saving is a couple of oil changes a year, and maybe a timing belt replacement.

Tell this to the owners of DSG gearboxes, which don't like creeping forward in traffic.

Or the clutches in manual cars.

Or the perscribed services that you have to get done to maintain a manufacturer warranty.

Total reliability is a really, really new thing in the world of motoring.

GV27

4307 posts

Uber Geek

#2257138 13-Jun-2019 07:34

tdgeek:

Id like every roof in the country to have solar panels. Why not every car roof, bonnet, boot as well?

It's not economic to do, sadly. I know the Leaf has a solar panel, but it doesn't charge the traction battery, it just helps deal with drain on the 12v (as is my understanding).

There are currently a couple of cars in development with this, however even under best case scenarios, they're only capable of adding a mile or two of range a day.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 19