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 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

1705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 943

# 2258766 15-Jun-2019 15:15

tdgeek:

As I mentioned, your figures are from a Solar PV seller. Designed to be low, to make the other calc of $ and panels much better. Those averages are about right for me. BUT I have gas cooktop, solar HW, so if I did not have these, it would be higher.

I just checked a few bills and I reckon our household average is around 800-900kWh per month, with a mixture of electricity and gas. That's a family of 4, three heatpumps, mostly LED lighting and efficient appliances. So 30kWh per day, maybe 25 in summer.

I think you'd have to have a very efficient house and/or like wearing warm clothes to get it down to 18kWh.

tdgeek

17018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3395

Trusted

# 2258835 15-Jun-2019 18:03

On Hydrogen, and the water vapour feedback loop. Interesting video. Adding CO2 increases temperature. 95% of greenhouses gases are water vapour. These are natural and give us what we have today, or what we had until the Industrial Revolution. If we add CO2 that will raise the temperature as its a greenhouse gas (a blanket or insulator). And it stays there for decades to hundreds of years. If we added water that wont increase temperature as water stays in the atmosphere just a few days, and its a feedback not a heater. If we add water now, that wont increase the temp now. The water vapour that can exist is dependent on heat. Add more heat by CO2, then more water vapour will exist. If we artificially added water right now, the temp is unchanged, so the water vapour will drop out. Literally. As we haven't added extra heat so that extra water vapour can stay up there. If water vapour stayed up there for say 10 years, then its a heater. As its insulating effect has 10 years to work. But it doesn't.

https://youtu.be/LAtD9aZYXAs

tdgeek

17018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3395

Trusted

# 2258836 15-Jun-2019 18:09

shk292:

tdgeek:

As I mentioned, your figures are from a Solar PV seller. Designed to be low, to make the other calc of $ and panels much better. Those averages are about right for me. BUT I have gas cooktop, solar HW, so if I did not have these, it would be higher.

I just checked a few bills and I reckon our household average is around 800-900kWh per month, with a mixture of electricity and gas. That's a family of 4, three heatpumps, mostly LED lighting and efficient appliances. So 30kWh per day, maybe 25 in summer.

I think you'd have to have a very efficient house and/or like wearing warm clothes to get it down to 18kWh.

I agree. Having said that, I do!! But, I am a special case. I have solar HW, so from Oct to April, I have zero hot water charges, that's a big kWh saving. Hence our 283 sqm home, 2 heat pumps, gas cooktop can and does achieve 11kWh per day. Plus as my wife is Chinese and her Mum who now lives here never use the oven (electric) only me or the 15yo occasionally, thats also a lower than average use case

Conclusion is, yes you can get those numbers but its NOT average by any stretch

jonathan18

3848 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1061

Subscriber

# 2259623 17-Jun-2019 16:28

Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. For real this time, IEA Says

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/113530601/hydrogen-is-the-fuel-of-the-future-for-real-this-time-iea-says

tdgeek

17018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3395

Trusted

# 2259628 17-Jun-2019 16:44

jonathan18: Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. For real this time, IEA Says

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/113530601/hydrogen-is-the-fuel-of-the-future-for-real-this-time-iea-says

It is. Since it was raised here at GZ, Ive read a lot online. I'm surprised what we are doing. The UK wants to use it for gas heating in all their homes that use gas, which is a lot. Electrolysis is the green way to make it, they are looking at other metals that produce part of the processes quicker and cheaper. Its green, its plentiful, but its not cheap. If it ended up being x% more expensive than the FF we use now, then we should do it. x% could be 20% to 30% more costly, maybe more. Its the price we need to pay to be green

Obraik

328 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 118

# 2259638 17-Jun-2019 17:07

One person supports this post

tdgeek:

jonathan18: Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. For real this time, IEA Says

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/113530601/hydrogen-is-the-fuel-of-the-future-for-real-this-time-iea-says

It is. Since it was raised here at GZ, Ive read a lot online. I'm surprised what we are doing. The UK wants to use it for gas heating in all their homes that use gas, which is a lot. Electrolysis is the green way to make it, they are looking at other metals that produce part of the processes quicker and cheaper. Its green, its plentiful, but its not cheap. If it ended up being x% more expensive than the FF we use now, then we should do it. x% could be 20% to 30% more costly, maybe more. Its the price we need to pay to be green

The issue is Electrolysis. It takes a lot of electrical energy to make enough hydrogen. As pointed out a lot in this thread, for vehicles at least it's much more efficient to put that electricity to powering EVs rather than making Hydrogen. For heating and the like I haven't looked at any figures but the same might apply - it's probably more efficient to use electric heat pumps for heating.

tdgeek

17018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3395

Trusted

# 2259646 17-Jun-2019 17:22

Obraik:

tdgeek:

jonathan18: Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. For real this time, IEA Says

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/113530601/hydrogen-is-the-fuel-of-the-future-for-real-this-time-iea-says

It is. Since it was raised here at GZ, Ive read a lot online. I'm surprised what we are doing. The UK wants to use it for gas heating in all their homes that use gas, which is a lot. Electrolysis is the green way to make it, they are looking at other metals that produce part of the processes quicker and cheaper. Its green, its plentiful, but its not cheap. If it ended up being x% more expensive than the FF we use now, then we should do it. x% could be 20% to 30% more costly, maybe more. Its the price we need to pay to be green

The issue is Electrolysis. It takes a lot of electrical energy to make enough hydrogen. As pointed out a lot in this thread, for vehicles at least it's much more efficient to put that electricity to powering EVs rather than making Hydrogen. For heating and the like I haven't looked at any figures but the same might apply - it's probably more efficient to use electric heat pumps for heating.

You should read up online about Hydrogen Gas, H2. There is a lot going on, already we use H in standard industrial processes, there is a lot of development going on. Electrolysis, they are looking at other metals that can process faster and cheaper. In gas form, you can use it for heating and cooking. You can use it in cars as we do with LPG. Its green, its plentiful but it not cheap. EV are not cheap either. H2 can be used to power what are now our coal fired power stations, so they become green. The only issue with hydrogen gas is cost. Climate Change will cost us. We have to buy a 40k Kona at 80k, thats a cost. As someone said here, most people buy an EV to save the planet not to save money on fuel. If thats the case, then we can pay more to use H2 instead of coal, and say more than petrol or LPG to heat and cook.

Shall we do H2 instead of EV? No. We develop both. Two green options are better than one. EV is obviously transport. H2 might also be transport or it might mainly be used for other FF replacements. Doesn't matter. If H2 was competing with EV, they will both become lower cost.

Obraik

328 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 118

# 2259679 17-Jun-2019 19:01

tdgeek:

You should read up online about Hydrogen Gas, H2. There is a lot going on, already we use H in standard industrial processes, there is a lot of development going on. Electrolysis, they are looking at other metals that can process faster and cheaper. In gas form, you can use it for heating and cooking. You can use it in cars as we do with LPG. Its green, its plentiful but it not cheap. EV are not cheap either. H2 can be used to power what are now our coal fired power stations, so they become green. The only issue with hydrogen gas is cost. Climate Change will cost us. We have to buy a 40k Kona at 80k, thats a cost. As someone said here, most people buy an EV to save the planet not to save money on fuel. If thats the case, then we can pay more to use H2 instead of coal, and say more than petrol or LPG to heat and cook.

Shall we do H2 instead of EV? No. We develop both. Two green options are better than one. EV is obviously transport. H2 might also be transport or it might mainly be used for other FF replacements. Doesn't matter. If H2 was competing with EV, they will both become lower cost.

The thing is, in the current ways we make it hydrogen doesn't make sense. The only clean way to get hydrogen is through electrolysis and due to the large amounts of electricity it takes to create it you're nearly always better off just using the electricity to directly do what you're wanting to use hydrogen for whether that be powering a car, for cooking or for heating. They've been trying to improve the hydrogen answer for decades now and it's barely better off today than when they first started.

With the amount of energy hydrogen takes to generate we're actually worse off by trying to make it. The other issue is that due to the amount of energy it takes to make it can never be cheaper than just running a pure EV. They'd have to really make some dramatic discoveries for it to become viable and it just doesn't look like that's going to happen.

tdgeek

17018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3395

Trusted

# 2259682 17-Jun-2019 19:11

Obraik:

tdgeek:

You should read up online about Hydrogen Gas, H2. There is a lot going on, already we use H in standard industrial processes, there is a lot of development going on. Electrolysis, they are looking at other metals that can process faster and cheaper. In gas form, you can use it for heating and cooking. You can use it in cars as we do with LPG. Its green, its plentiful but it not cheap. EV are not cheap either. H2 can be used to power what are now our coal fired power stations, so they become green. The only issue with hydrogen gas is cost. Climate Change will cost us. We have to buy a 40k Kona at 80k, thats a cost. As someone said here, most people buy an EV to save the planet not to save money on fuel. If thats the case, then we can pay more to use H2 instead of coal, and say more than petrol or LPG to heat and cook.

Shall we do H2 instead of EV? No. We develop both. Two green options are better than one. EV is obviously transport. H2 might also be transport or it might mainly be used for other FF replacements. Doesn't matter. If H2 was competing with EV, they will both become lower cost.

The thing is, in the current ways we make it hydrogen doesn't make sense. The only clean way to get hydrogen is through electrolysis and due to the large amounts of electricity it takes to create it you're nearly always better off just using the electricity to directly do what you're wanting to use hydrogen for whether that be powering a car, for cooking or for heating. They've been trying to improve the hydrogen answer for decades now and it's barely better off today than when they first started.

With the amount of energy hydrogen takes to generate we're actually worse off by trying to make it. The other issue is that due to the amount of energy it takes to make it can never be cheaper than just running a pure EV. They'd have to really make some dramatic discoveries for it to become viable and it just doesn't look like that's going to happen.

You are out of date. Or do you know more than Governments and car manufacturers? I was just reading an article, I'll get the link out. It's by a car magazine If you look at the overall carbon cost of H2 car and an EV, its close. EV are not clean, the carbon cost for batteries is 20 tonnes per set. Thats not to say I'm into H2 cars now. Its a real option. What I bolded, I have to ask you why do you say that, do you know more then the experts? Or is this an EV bias? You should want green fuels, no matter what they are.Oh, I already mentioned electrolysis twice, what being developed. You seem to ignore development of that green process?

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/93180/hydrogen-fuel-cell-do-hydrogen-cars-have-a-future

Obraik

328 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 118

# 2259695 17-Jun-2019 19:56

2 people support this post

tdgeek:

You are out of date. Or do you know more than Governments and car manufacturers? I was just reading an article, I'll get the link out. It's by a car magazine If you look at the overall carbon cost of H2 car and an EV, its close. EV are not clean, the carbon cost for batteries is 20 tonnes per set. Thats not to say I'm into H2 cars now. Its a real option. What I bolded, I have to ask you why do you say that, do you know more then the experts? Or is this an EV bias? You should want green fuels, no matter what they are.Oh, I already mentioned electrolysis twice, what being developed. You seem to ignore development of that green process?

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/93180/hydrogen-fuel-cell-do-hydrogen-cars-have-a-future

Firstly, the carbon cost your quoting comes from a flawed Swedish study that has been debunked as wrong from many different sources, this is just one of them that has done so. The biggest takeaway is that carbon cost assumes the batteries are made through power generated mostly from fossil fuels, which isn't the case. Using Tesla as an example, they published that they produce 282,000 tons of carbon in 2017 and in the same year they also produced around 103,000 cars, which works out to about 2.7 tons per car - far off the 20 tonnes. Even if it was, we would be better off putting our efforts into investing in renewable power sources for the battery factories than hydrogen technology.

Without spending anything more on our infrastructure, we can power more EVs than we can hydrogen cars simply due to a EVs superior efficiency. Since we can displace more ICE vehicles with EVs than we can with Hydrogen vehicles, any carbon advantage hydrogen might have is negated. The same is true for the likes of heating and cooking - a heat pump is so efficient that it's pretty much impossible for hydrogen to be better at heating. The only situation where hydrogen would be better for that is in areas that are in subzero conditions which is a very small % in NZ.

There's also the fact that where hydrogen development is mostly stagnant, battery tech is very much not stagnant. In the years where Hydrogen hasn't really developed, battery tech in EVs has gone from lead acid to NiMH to Li-On and we've developed ways to pump energy into them at a very fast rate. We're now about to move into the likes of solid state batteries and combinations of super-caps with batteries which is only going to make EVs even more efficient and greener.

It's not just me saying this, I'm not just making this up because I've got a foot in the race. This is what many, many scientists are saying. Here's just one example

tdgeek

17018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3395

Trusted

# 2259718 17-Jun-2019 20:23

There is no reason why the UK cannot safely switch from using natural gas to using hydrogen for heating, power and industry in order to meet climate change goals, engineers have said.

But a report by the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) also laid bare the huge increase in hydrogen production that would be needed to achieve that switch-over – ten times current levels.

Producing enough hydrogen for the UK’s heating needs alone would require 8 million tonnes of hydrogen a year, up from the annual 0.74 million tonnes made today, which is led by an Esso refinery near Southampton and is almost entirely used by industry. “We need to produce a lot more hydrogen,” says Jenifer Baxter of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

They think its good option, but they need more production. But its only 10X more. Thats replacing all natural gas. Your website now sings a different tune.

tdgeek

17018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3395

Trusted

# 2259721 17-Jun-2019 20:31

Dang, I thought Id sent a reply but I closed the wrong tab.

Quickly

Tesla set up green energy, great, no one else has, so 20 tonnes is correct

We should setup green energy for battery makers, what about everyone else?

EV is not more efficient. H2 is 3 times as energy intensive as petrol. Using renewables its almost zero emissions to produce. Its zero emissions to use. If it was cheap, then it becomes the only way forward. Its not cheap. It will get cheaper as I have already covered, twice.

Hydrogen development is stagnant?? You dont read the news. Google

And your one example. yes they dont like Hydrogen, like you, the same website now does see it as a way forward. Not at 20 tonnes of carbon per battery set too

H2 would be a good option to get rid of cool fired generation. Which will increase as EV's slowly grow. Thats more emissions.

Delphinus

231 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76

# 2259748 17-Jun-2019 21:13

Obraik:

It's not just me saying this, I'm not just making this up because I've got a foot in the race. This is what many, many scientists are saying. Here's just one example

This seems to support a lot of what I'm reading too.

Electricity > Electrolysis > Hydrogen > Burning = 62% efficient. Also requires building brand new infrastructure to pipe or store the Hydrogen around the country. And you're creating nitrous oxide

Electricity > Heatpump = 280 to 410%m ore heat energy than the electricity consumed. Also uses existing electrical grid infrastucture.

If you're building more power generation to make Hydrogen, just use that power directly right? Set some tarrifs that encourage overnight charging of EV's etc.

Delphinus

231 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76

# 2259754 17-Jun-2019 21:23

tdgeek:

H2 would be a good option to get rid of cool fired generation. Which will increase as EV's slowly grow. Thats more emissions.

If you're replacing a coal > electricity power station, why would you put in electricity > hydrogen > electricity plant? That seems like a horrific waste of energy at each conversion.

tdgeek:

Tesla set up green energy, great, no one else has, so 20 tonnes is correct

We should setup green energy for battery makers, what about everyone else?

VW are planning on making their Electric ID vehicle carbon-neutral.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/02/20190218-volkswagenid.html

tdgeek:

EV is not more efficient. H2 is 3 times as energy intensive as petrol.

What form are you storing the H2 to get 3x energy density?
"A 100 kg of hydrogen tank at 10,000 psi will hold 8 kg of hydrogen, or enough to travel about 350 miles in a fuel-cell car. This is about as far as a gasoline car goes carrying 60 kg of tank + gasoline." from http://www.rebresearch.com/blog/hydrogen-versus-battery-power/

That would make it less energy intensive per kg than petrol? 350miles from 60kg of petrol or 100kg of hydrogen (incl tanks in both cases).

frednz

1180 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

# 2259756 17-Jun-2019 21:26

jonathan18: Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. For real this time, IEA Says

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/113530601/hydrogen-is-the-fuel-of-the-future-for-real-this-time-iea-says

Here's a fairly relevant quote from the executive summary of the report:

Hydrogen is almost entirely supplied from natural gas and coal today. Hydrogen is
already with us at industrial scale all around the world, but its production is responsible for
annual CO2 emissions equivalent to those of Indonesia and United Kingdom combined.

Harnessing this existing scale on the way to a clean energy future requires both the capture
of CO2 from hydrogen production from fossil fuels and greater supplies of hydrogen from
clean electricity.

• Regulations currently limit the development of a clean hydrogen industry.
Government and industry must work together to ensure existing regulations are not an
unnecessary barrier to investment. Trade will benefit from common international
standards for the safety of transporting and storing large volumes of hydrogen and for
tracing the environmental impacts of different hydrogen supplies.

As other posters have mentioned here, the main global focus should be on the development of a "clean hydrogen industry".

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19