I saw this the other day -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvWwrfRqbIA&t=5s

I know there are quite a few people in the forum who believe that hydrogen is the future but refuse to see the problems that it has today and will be in the short-term future. Most specifically, the kind of transitory loss The fossil fuel industry in many ways is like the present UK Government or the Indian Govt. for that matter. All words, no action.

Also, if one looks at the prices of the so-called hydrogen fuel car, the business and use case just doesn't make sense. it would and will need two-three decades of engineering probably to put the technoogy at par to whiat EV's are today. By that time EVs would be multi-generation vehicles.

I think this article sums it up really well, what the big issue is, but much of what applies to hydrogen has a corollary in the fossil fuel industry.

https://electrek.co/2022/02/15/study-hy ... -vehicles/


The final issue thought will be in how we produce electricity.

The goal is to reduce the use of fossil fuels, if power comes from solar, wind, hydrogen, it doesn't matter - as long as it helps achieve the goal.

I have argued "against" hydrogen often here (I'm not really against it just find it impractical compared to alternatives as casinterest points out). I think the one advantage it does have is energy density. Just like gasoline, energy stored as a liquid fuel had greater energy density that a battery plus relatively infinite recharge/refill ability.

However this just cannot overcome the need to distill it, transport it, and keep it supercooled and pressurized, which also makes it a hazard risk.

Tugg

Hydrogen fills a need in the total energy landscape. Hydrogen isn't a fuel, it is a means of storage energy for middle long term. I see a future for hydrogen-fueled trucks, not normal cars. And in the far future, a means to store renewable energy if there is an excess of it. Currently, we have such days in the Netherlands where the spot energy prices are negative, in such a market it actually makes sense to make hydrogen, even though it isn't all that efficient to do so.

Dutchy wrote:

Hydrogen fills a need in the total energy landscape. Hydrogen isn't a fuel, it is a means of storage energy for middle long term. I see a future for hydrogen-fueled trucks, not normal cars.

Yup, especially long haul trucks here in North America. Our Provincial Environment Minister for the NDP which is a very progressive party towards fighting climate change said the same thing not too long ago - EV long haul trucks in the Province simply won't work in the near future, one of the best options is to go hydrogen.

Tesla will have real road experience with electric long distance trucks by this time next year. At least the ever optimistic tweeter has claimed.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Tesla will have real road experience with electric long distance trucks by this time next year. At least the ever optimistic tweeter has claimed.

Is that the same ever optimistic Tweeter that claims they're only one year away from successful fully autonomous cars every year for the last 10 years?

ACDC8 wrote:

The goal is to reduce the use of fossil fuels, if power comes from solar, wind, hydrogen, it doesn't matter - as long as it helps achieve the goal.

Yeah but does it help ?

Even in the context of making green H2, I'm more and more believing in applications where H2 isn't the final used product, because it's too impractical. For example for aviation, synthetic kerosene made from green H2 and captured CO2 (from air, not from fossil power plants) seems much easier, even in an electrified aircraft (hybrid). For cars, the race is already over with battery electric. Batteries improve all the time, new materials are used that are less rare, cheaper, etc.

Long range trucking, I don't know. I'd say for starters that it shouldn't exist anyway, use trains, ships, boats on rivers...

Maybe hydrogen makes sense in cargo ships that are already gigantic so the size of tanks doesn't matter much. With the added benefit of less pollution in case of a wreck.

casinterest wrote:

I think this article sums it up really well, what the big issue is, but much of what applies to hydrogen has a corollary in the fossil fuel industry.

https://electrek.co/2022/02/15/study-hy ... -vehicles/


The final issue thought will be in how we produce electricity.

Hydrogen can be stored and distributed is its advantage instead of disadvantage. Especially when it come to applications like aircraft I suppose. Batteries are much heavier and costly.
However there have been lacking R&D to push scale adoption of Hydrogen engine. I fear it will lose to battery electric the same way Plasma TV lost to LCD TV

Tugger wrote:

I have argued "against" hydrogen often here (I'm not really against it just find it impractical compared to alternatives as casinterest points out). I think the one advantage it does have is energy density. Just like gasoline, energy stored as a liquid fuel had greater energy density that a battery plus relatively infinite recharge/refill ability.

However this just cannot overcome the need to distill it, transport it, and keep it supercooled and pressurized, which also makes it a hazard risk.

Tugg

However, cities and transportation vehicles are handling liquified LNGs absolutely fine.

c933103 wrote:

cities and transportation vehicles are handling liquified LNGs absolutely fine.

LNG is stored under fairly low pressure similar to propane, however Hydrogen storage requires very high pressures, even beyond that of a scuba tank.

The maximum working pressure for LNG tanks is normally 250 psig or lower, with product stored at 50–120 psig.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7504000979

Hydrogen can be physically stored as either a gas or a liquid. Storage as a gas typically requires high-pressure tanks (5000–10,000 psi).
(Storage of hydrogen as a liquid requires cryogenic temperatures)
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h ... e-basics-0

Aesma wrote:

Yeah but does it help ?

Hydrogen powered cars don't produce emission as far as I know, so one would think that yes, they do help.

Aesma wrote:

Long range trucking, I don't know. I'd say for starters that it shouldn't exist anyway, use trains, ships, boats on rivers...

We've got two rail lines going through the Rocky Mountains and they're at capacity - the costs of adding another rail line would be beyond astronomical and wouldn't even put a dent in reducing the amount of long haul trucks going through BC to Alberta. As far as using ships through the rivers here - now that would be a sight to behold

Vintage wrote:

c933103 wrote:

cities and transportation vehicles are handling liquified LNGs absolutely fine.

LNG is stored under fairly low pressure similar to propane, however Hydrogen storage requires very high pressures, even beyond that of a scuba tank.

The maximum working pressure for LNG tanks is normally 250 psig or lower, with product stored at 50–120 psig.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7504000979

Hydrogen can be physically stored as either a gas or a liquid. Storage as a gas typically requires high-pressure tanks (5000–10,000 psi).
(Storage of hydrogen as a liquid requires cryogenic temperatures)
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h ... e-basics-0

https://www.ieafuelcell.com/index.php?id=33
Apparently hydrogen storage doesn't actually need that high, but carmakers do so because of energy density

Actually six rail lines going through the Rockies,:North to South
1,2: Great Northern's now part of BNSF who also have Northern Pacific's,
3:Milwaukee some of which is now abandoned.
4,5: Southern Pacific's now part of Union Pacific
6 Santa Fe's, now part of BNSF, not an optimal route, but so important getting to Los Angeles it is rapidly being triple and quadruple tracked.
Santa Fe is actually between 4 and 5

RRs are experimenting with alternate energy sources. Maintaining electric over long distances has about always been too expensive to be competitive. At least two are experimenting with batteries.

Res hydrogen in general: those intermediate steps from electrons leaving the PV to entering the truck's wheels are all inefficient, far lower that transmitting electricity by wire and bringing it in and out of batteries. Green hydrogen must have a niche, it just has not been found.

c933103 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I think this article sums it up really well, what the big issue is, but much of what applies to hydrogen has a corollary in the fossil fuel industry.

https://electrek.co/2022/02/15/study-hy ... -vehicles/


The final issue thought will be in how we produce electricity.

Hydrogen can be stored and distributed is its advantage instead of disadvantage. Especially when it come to applications like aircraft I suppose. Batteries are much heavier and costly.
However there have been lacking R&D to push scale adoption of Hydrogen engine. I fear it will lose to battery electric the same way Plasma TV lost to LCD TV

Storing and transport of hydrogen is expensive, and costs a lot of energy. The article points this out. It would need nationwide distribution to work, and with gas/diesel/lng already out there. I don't think we will see a lot of pick up.

casinterest wrote:

c933103 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I think this article sums it up really well, what the big issue is, but much of what applies to hydrogen has a corollary in the fossil fuel industry.

https://electrek.co/2022/02/15/study-hy ... -vehicles/


The final issue thought will be in how we produce electricity.

Hydrogen can be stored and distributed is its advantage instead of disadvantage. Especially when it come to applications like aircraft I suppose. Batteries are much heavier and costly.
However there have been lacking R&D to push scale adoption of Hydrogen engine. I fear it will lose to battery electric the same way Plasma TV lost to LCD TV

Storing and transport of hydrogen is expensive, and costs a lot of energy. The article points this out. It would need nationwide distribution to work, and with gas/diesel/lng already out there. I don't think we will see a lot of pick up.

Here, the gas company (LNG) already announced they will make existing gas infrastructure support refueling hydrogen

c933103 wrote:

Here, the gas company (LNG) already announced they will make existing gas infrastructure support refueling hydrogen

I am positive that is only as a way to stay relevant in the "clean energy" world we are moving toward which seems to be ruling out LNG in the future. Also it would not be hydrogen really, rather a "hydrogen blend" as pure hydrogen is damaging to LNG infrastructure. Additionally hydrogen has a greater risk of leaks (which the embrittlement it causes makes worse)

https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-i ... -turf-war/

Also hydrogen is less "energy efficient":

Assuming the same-sized ship, the delivered BTUs of energy would be about 27% of the LNG. This is because even liquified, hydrogen has less energy by volume than LNG, but also because liquifying hydrogen takes about 33% of the energy in the liquified hydrogen, as opposed to the 10% required for LNG

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/20/sh ... of-energy/

As you see hydrogen has less that a third (27%) of the energy contained in LNG. Right now, ammonia is looking more like the "liquid fuel of the future" with ocean freight shipping actually already exploring and actively running ships on ammonia, which contains 33 percent of the energy of LNG but importantly does not require cooling to remain liquid.
https://maritime-executive.com/editoria ... gy-density

Hydrogen will be a niche fuel at best in the future.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Here, the gas company (LNG) already announced they will make existing gas infrastructure support refueling hydrogen

I am positive that is only as a way to stay relevant in the "clean energy" world we are moving toward which seems to be ruling out LNG in the future. Also it would not be hydrogen really, rather a "hydrogen blend" as pure hydrogen is damaging to LNG infrastructure. Additionally hydrogen has a greater risk of leaks (which the embrittlement it causes makes worse)

https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-i ... -turf-war/

Also hydrogen is less "energy efficient":

Assuming the same-sized ship, the delivered BTUs of energy would be about 27% of the LNG. This is because even liquified, hydrogen has less energy by volume than LNG, but also because liquifying hydrogen takes about 33% of the energy in the liquified hydrogen, as opposed to the 10% required for LNG

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/20/sh ... of-energy/

As you see hydrogen has less that a third (27%) of the energy contained in LNG. Right now, ammonia is looking more like the "liquid fuel of the future" with ocean freight shipping actually already exploring and actively running ships on ammonia, which contains 33 percent of the energy of LNG but importantly does not require cooling to remain liquid.
https://maritime-executive.com/editoria ... gy-density

Hydrogen will be a niche fuel at best in the future.

Tugg

I am not aware of cooling facilities on the hydrogen bus just imported by bus company here.

c933103 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Here, the gas company (LNG) already announced they will make existing gas infrastructure support refueling hydrogen

I am positive that is only as a way to stay relevant in the "clean energy" world we are moving toward which seems to be ruling out LNG in the future. Also it would not be hydrogen really, rather a "hydrogen blend" as pure hydrogen is damaging to LNG infrastructure. Additionally hydrogen has a greater risk of leaks (which the embrittlement it causes makes worse)

https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-i ... -turf-war/

Also hydrogen is less "energy efficient":

Assuming the same-sized ship, the delivered BTUs of energy would be about 27% of the LNG. This is because even liquified, hydrogen has less energy by volume than LNG, but also because liquifying hydrogen takes about 33% of the energy in the liquified hydrogen, as opposed to the 10% required for LNG

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/20/sh ... of-energy/

As you see hydrogen has less that a third (27%) of the energy contained in LNG. Right now, ammonia is looking more like the "liquid fuel of the future" with ocean freight shipping actually already exploring and actively running ships on ammonia, which contains 33 percent of the energy of LNG but importantly does not require cooling to remain liquid.
https://maritime-executive.com/editoria ... gy-density

Hydrogen will be a niche fuel at best in the future.

Tugg

I am not aware of cooling facilities on the hydrogen bus just imported by bus company here.

You don't have to cool it, (it has to be super cooled in fact to be liquid), it can be a compressed gas, but that has significantly less energy.

Tugg

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Actually six rail lines going through the Rockies

We've only got 2 in Canada - CN and CP - both follow the Fraser/Thompson rivers from Vancouver to Kamloops, albeit one of each side of the river. In Kamloops, the CP line follows the Trans Canada Hwy to Calgary and the CN line follows Hwy 5 up to Edmonton.

The CP line alone sees up to 2 dozen trains a day, each anywhere between 2-3 miles long and additionally on the Trans Canada Hwy alone, the highway sees anywhere between 1500 to 2000 long haul trucks a day on average driving between Revelstoke and Calgary.

With that sheer volume of trucks is why our Government is saying hydrogen powered long haul trucks are really the only viable option at this point. With those amount of trucks, you simply just can't build enough charging stations for them and with the current performance limitations EV trucks have with range, going through a mountainous and isolated terrain like the Rogers Pass where there are constant road closures and delays to accidents, construction and avalanche controls, is simply an impossible reality.

A hydrogen vehicle doesn't have to store H2 in a compressed or liquid form.

https://maritime-executive.com/article/ ... -amsterdam

The construction contract has been awarded for a hydrogen demonstration vessel that will use a new solid form hydrogen for propulsion that researchers believe will pave the way for a safer and broader application of hydrogen to fuel vessels. Known as Neo Orbis, the demonstration vessel is expected to start trials in June 2023 as the next phase in the multi-year European H2Ships program.
...
According to the project organizers, it will become the first ship in the world sailing on electricity, propelled with hydrogen in a solid form as the energy carrier. The fuel is made by mixing sodium borohydride powder with a stabilizer and ultrapure water into an aqueous non-combustible liquid fuel. The dissolved sodium borohydride reacts with a catalyst, producing hydrogen while the spent fuel is converted back to sodium borohydride. In the long term, the project envisions creating a closed system, by turning the residual materials into new sodium borohydride fuel.

I expect hydrogen cars to eventually win out over battery-powered cars, though it might take a few decades. Battery-powered vehicles are heavier, so they're more dangerous to pedestrians.

CowAnon wrote:

A hydrogen vehicle doesn't have to store H2 in a compressed or liquid form.

https://maritime-executive.com/article/ ... -amsterdam

The construction contract has been awarded for a hydrogen demonstration vessel that will use a new solid form hydrogen for propulsion that researchers believe will pave the way for a safer and broader application of hydrogen to fuel vessels. Known as Neo Orbis, the demonstration vessel is expected to start trials in June 2023 as the next phase in the multi-year European H2Ships program.
...
According to the project organizers, it will become the first ship in the world sailing on electricity, propelled with hydrogen in a solid form as the energy carrier. The fuel is made by mixing sodium borohydride powder with a stabilizer and ultrapure water into an aqueous non-combustible liquid fuel. The dissolved sodium borohydride reacts with a catalyst, producing hydrogen while the spent fuel is converted back to sodium borohydride. In the long term, the project envisions creating a closed system, by turning the residual materials into new sodium borohydride fuel.

I expect hydrogen cars to eventually win out over battery-powered cars, though it might take a few decades. Battery-powered vehicles are heavier, so they're more dangerous to pedestrians.

Well weight isn't affected enough to make any vehicle not still a threat to pedestrians, so that is a spurious benefit. And reading up on the concept and what it entails, it will still be a heavy thing as the base material stays in place (one article notes how the vessel this will power as a test case benefits from it being also a good ballast).

Still, it could be promising.

Tugg

CowAnon wrote:

A hydrogen vehicle doesn't have to store H2 in a compressed or liquid form.

https://maritime-executive.com/article/ ... -amsterdam

That piece includes an ominous phrase:

while a safety system monitors the concentration of hydrogen and automatically suspends the process well before a dangerous concentration level is reached.

So, if anything goes wrong with that "safety system" there will be a big hole on the water left behind?

If hydrogen cars really do make it to mainstream, I'm calling dibs on the personalized license plate "HDNBRG"

Seriously though, IIRC there are currently only four hydrogen refuelling facilities where I live in British Columbia, all of which are in the Lower Mainland however there are 4 more planned in the near future - right now its at the chicken before the egg situation, people aren't buying the vehicles because the infrastructure is lacking and the infrastructure is lacking because not enough people are buying the cars. The Toyota Mirai is gaining in popularity though, more and more are being bought and registered.

casinterest wrote:

I think this article sums it up really well, what the big issue is, but much of what applies to hydrogen has a corollary in the fossil fuel industry.

The problem with the energy efficiency argument is time. If I'm on a long road trip, I want to be able to get at least a half mile per second when I recharge. So if my car has a range of 450 miles and takes 5 minutes to fill with gasoline, then that's 1.5 miles per second. If my EV has a range of 150 miles, then I would like to be able to charge it in 5 minutes.

We're nowhere near that yet. But with hydrogen, the fill times are comparable to gasoline. I was hoping for a hydrogen infrastructure, but it doesn't look like I'm going to get it. Tesla had a good idea with rapid battery replacement, but again, we need industry standards and the infrastructure. Tesla couldn't make that model work.

DocLightning wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I think this article sums it up really well, what the big issue is, but much of what applies to hydrogen has a corollary in the fossil fuel industry.

The problem with the energy efficiency argument is time. If I'm on a long road trip, I want to be able to get at least a half mile per second when I recharge. So if my car has a range of 450 miles and takes 5 minutes to fill with gasoline, then that's 1.5 miles per second. If my EV has a range of 150 miles, then I would like to be able to charge it in 5 minutes.

We're nowhere near that yet. But with hydrogen, the fill times are comparable to gasoline. I was hoping for a hydrogen infrastructure, but it doesn't look like I'm going to get it. Tesla had a good idea with rapid battery replacement, but again, we need industry standards and the infrastructure. Tesla couldn't make that model work.

Battery replacement will work for trucks and busses, bus and truck chassis are fairly similar across brands which makes it easier ti standardise on the battery and battery placement, cars are a lot more difficult with the battery forming a structural part of the chassis, car chassis are not similar across the board, at best you will be companies like NIO who are championing battery away but only within their range.

Most people don't do road trips every day (or every month even). So if you lose some minutes here and there charging during road trips, but charge at home/work losing 0 time the rest of the days, are you really losing anything ?

Tugger : yeah ammonia can be made from green H2. So H2 might make it in the form of liquid fuels, but not as H2, and not needing a complete H2 infrastructure with pipelines, storage tanks, compression facilities, decompression facilities...

Well hydrogen fuel cell buses are in use in my city. I guess if you have an industry that produces cheap hydrogen (maybe as a by-product), then concentrated usage of hydrogen fuel cell buses instead of electric battery onews might be a better use case. I acknowledge that widespread usage of hydrogen is properly impractical.

Aesma wrote:

Most people don't do road trips every day (or every month even). So if you lose some minutes here and there charging during road trips, but charge at home/work losing 0 time the rest of the days, are you really losing anything ?

Yes, on a road trip or family vacation, you only have a short period of time to accomplish the trip and delays can hamper what one wishes to accomplish - especially on this side of the pond where we're not blessed to have generous amounts of annual vacation.

When you only have one or two weeks for a trip, time is a very precious commodity let alone a weekend getaway.

Kiwirob wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I think this article sums it up really well, what the big issue is, but much of what applies to hydrogen has a corollary in the fossil fuel industry.

The problem with the energy efficiency argument is time. If I'm on a long road trip, I want to be able to get at least a half mile per second when I recharge. So if my car has a range of 450 miles and takes 5 minutes to fill with gasoline, then that's 1.5 miles per second. If my EV has a range of 150 miles, then I would like to be able to charge it in 5 minutes.

We're nowhere near that yet. But with hydrogen, the fill times are comparable to gasoline. I was hoping for a hydrogen infrastructure, but it doesn't look like I'm going to get it. Tesla had a good idea with rapid battery replacement, but again, we need industry standards and the infrastructure. Tesla couldn't make that model work.

Battery replacement will work for trucks and busses, bus and truck chassis are fairly similar across brands which makes it easier ti standardise on the battery and battery placement, cars are a lot more difficult with the battery forming a structural part of the chassis, car chassis are not similar across the board, at best you will be companies like NIO who are championing battery away but only within their range.

https://insideevs.com/news/592360/megaw ... cs-launch/

We don't need battery replacement with Megawatt charging.

https://insideevs.com/news/535918/megaw ... ev-trucks/

3.75 Megawatt charging will make most systems ready to go in 15 minutes or so, and that is reasonable for breaks and other items

Slower charging in rural isolated areas can be practical if it is done by reservation. We enjoy road trips to wilderness places, and can eat, do day hikes et alia while the car gains a couple hundred miles of range. Four hours of 60 amp level two charging would work. Those charging stations cost a couple thousand versus a few hundred thousand for level 3 chargers. The later need a lot of customers to amortize the capital costs.

Aesma wrote:

Most people don't do road trips every day (or every month even). So if you lose some minutes here and there charging during road trips, but charge at home/work losing 0 time the rest of the days, are you really losing anything ?

You're in Europe where the road trip isn't as much of an institution, but it very much is here. And if you told me that I'd have to spend a half hour charging every 150 miles, then that's basically a show-stopper.

casinterest wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

The problem with the energy efficiency argument is time. If I'm on a long road trip, I want to be able to get at least a half mile per second when I recharge. So if my car has a range of 450 miles and takes 5 minutes to fill with gasoline, then that's 1.5 miles per second. If my EV has a range of 150 miles, then I would like to be able to charge it in 5 minutes.

We're nowhere near that yet. But with hydrogen, the fill times are comparable to gasoline. I was hoping for a hydrogen infrastructure, but it doesn't look like I'm going to get it. Tesla had a good idea with rapid battery replacement, but again, we need industry standards and the infrastructure. Tesla couldn't make that model work.

Battery replacement will work for trucks and busses, bus and truck chassis are fairly similar across brands which makes it easier ti standardise on the battery and battery placement, cars are a lot more difficult with the battery forming a structural part of the chassis, car chassis are not similar across the board, at best you will be companies like NIO who are championing battery away but only within their range.

https://insideevs.com/news/592360/megaw ... cs-launch/

We don't need battery replacement with Megawatt charging.

https://insideevs.com/news/535918/megaw ... ev-trucks/

3.75 Megawatt charging will make most systems ready to go in 15 minutes or so, and that is reasonable for breaks and other items

Repeated rapid fast charging is bad for batteries, imagine the energy consumption required to run a charging station with 12/16 chargers, that’s going to be immense and probably a couple of decades away.

Toyota is going a very good job testing ICE engines with hydrogen fuel, performance is excellent , far better than BMW manged with there project.

Kiwirob wrote:

Repeated rapid fast charging is bad for batteries

Road trips are hardly a daily activity for 99% of drivers. Most cars just go from home to work and back, maybe 10-20 miles each way, so you can go about 1-2 weeks without charging. That one road trip a year isn't going to kill the battery.

ACDC8 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Most people don't do road trips every day (or every month even). So if you lose some minutes here and there charging during road trips, but charge at home/work losing 0 time the rest of the days, are you really losing anything ?

Yes, on a road trip or family vacation, you only have a short period of time to accomplish the trip and delays can hamper what one wishes to accomplish - especially on this side of the pond where we're not blessed to have generous amounts of annual vacation.

When you only have one or two weeks for a trip, time is a very precious commodity let alone a weekend getaway.

The US learning not to drive people that hard or they'll quit. I have hope for you.

Kiwirob wrote:

Toyota is going a very good job testing ICE engines with hydrogen fuel, performance is excellent , far better than BMW manged with there project.

The only performance that matters is efficiency. And burning hydrogen will never be efficient.

mxaxai wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Repeated rapid fast charging is bad for batteries

Road trips are hardly a daily activity for 99% of drivers. Most cars just go from home to work and back, maybe 10-20 miles each way, so you can go about 1-2 weeks without charging. That one road trip a year isn't going to kill the battery.

I would imagine since this is targeted at the Freight industry, that we will see lifespans increase in the batteries, or the savings from Fuel will make it much more likely that the batteries will be recycled easier.

Aesma wrote:

The US learning not to drive people that hard or they'll quit. I have hope for you.

Well, we're not there yet so until then, its an important factor in our vehicle requirements.

On the lighter side of things, came across this story earlier today:

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/3 ... g-stations

mxaxai wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Repeated rapid fast charging is bad for batteries

Road trips are hardly a daily activity for 99% of drivers. Most cars just go from home to work and back, maybe 10-20 miles each way, so you can go about 1-2 weeks without charging. That one road trip a year isn't going to kill the battery.

A lot of people who live in apartments don’t have charging facilities at home they use fast chargers. A lot of people living in Europe and the UK don’t have there own parking space, they park on the street.

Kiwirob wrote:

A lot of people who live in apartments don’t have charging facilities at home they use fast chargers. A lot of people living in Europe and the UK don’t have there own parking space, they park on the street.

That's still only one fast charging cycle per week, which should give you at least 8-10 years of use without noticeable range decreases.

[threeid][/threeid]

mxaxai wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A lot of people who live in apartments don’t have charging facilities at home they use fast chargers. A lot of people living in Europe and the UK don’t have there own parking space, they park on the street.

That's still only one fast charging cycle per week, which should give you at least 8-10 years of use without noticeable range decreases.

That’s all depends on how far you drive everyday. It could easily be 3-4 fast charging cycles or more per week.

Battery charging infrastructure will improve and will be on rise. And this 10 minute thing tells a lot about the electric charging infrastructure will take load on the grid (hint: It won't and actually free it up.)

And for somebody asking up, There are vehicles like Aptera (and I hope many more designs and ideas are played in that niche.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpiH-Y-HOvE

I love the way the bit about horse and oil and gas vehicles were talked about, and how the same myths/issues coming up again.

Electric cars won't cripple the grid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LMgmg0I0GA

pune wrote:

Electric cars won't cripple the grid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LMgmg0I0GA

Which is why many cities are telling people not to charge their EV's during periods of high electrical consumption such as in a heat wave

Not charging at home doesn't mean fast charging elsewhere. I can charge at work. I can charge at supermarkets, on some streets, at hotels, etc. Often these aren't fast chargers.

That's something that will never happen with hydrogen, incidentally.

I also expect many people to have qualms about hydrogen cars parked under their apartment building, office, etc.

Aesma wrote:

[...]
I also expect many people to have qualms about hydrogen cars parked under their apartment building, office, etc.

Yeah, look at how people are freaking out over battery electric car fires. I can only imagine that first hydrogen powered car fire will become quite a topic of conversation.

Tugg

Kiwirob wrote:

Toyota is going a very good job testing ICE engines with hydrogen fuel, performance is excellent , far better than BMW manged with there project.

Toyota's hydrogen vehicles use fuel cells. This is a much superior solution because it has all the advantages of an electric vehicle (full torque range, instant power, no combustion products) and the only exhaust is water. The fuel cell carefully controls the reaction to minimize side-products like NOx and in addition can pull >70% efficiency from the reaction, while ICE tops out at ~40%.

VW to end fossil car sales in Norway next year.

https://dinside.dagbladet.no/motor/drop ... r/76997484

Hydrogen came and went a few years ago, BTW, I don’t know why anyone’s still wastibg their time on fantasizing about it.

Aesma wrote:

Not charging at home doesn't mean fast charging elsewhere. I can charge at work. I can charge at supermarkets, on some streets, at hotels, etc. Often these aren't fast chargers.

Most of can't charge at work, using a charger whilst grocery shopping or going out for dinner would mean many will use fast chargers exclusively since most people don't spend hours at a grocery store.

Aesma wrote:

That's something that will never happen with hydrogen, incidentally.

Because filling up a hydrogen car is done within minutes.

Aesma wrote:

I also expect many people to have qualms about hydrogen cars parked under their apartment building, office, etc.

Same with EVs, especially after a string of fires we've had here in Vancouver recently from EV bikes being charged. We had one guy charge his EV scooter in our garage and he was told nope - fire hazard.

M564038 wrote:

VW to end fossil car sales in Norway next year.

And in Canada and the US, next year VW will still only have one EV option (ID4) for the North American market which will still only be offered in select Provinces/States - a second EV option will only be available to us in 2024 (ID Buzz) and only as the long wheel base model and no cargo variant. There are no immediate indications as to when a third option will be available let alone only offer EVs. Many are anxiously awaiting for the news of the ID3 making our shores but VW doesn't have any current plans to offer it here and when asked about a 9th generation of ICE GTI/R towards the end of the decade, we still might be offered one.

On a personal note, I think VAG has the best looking EVs on the market - the current VW, Porsche and Audi EVs are damn good looking cars and their concepts, simply stunning. I'd love to see the ID5 and ID3 here as well as the short wheel base ID Buzz and cargo variant, but nobody knows when or even if we will.

M564038 wrote:

Hydrogen came and went a few years ago, BTW, I don’t know why anyone’s still wastibg their time on fantasizing about it.

No one is fantasizing about it which is why hydrogen infrastructure is being ramped up in some parts of the world and is seen as a very viable option for some parts of the transportation sector such as long haul trucking.

What I don't understand is why some people are so hell bent over EVs - "its my way and only my way!" kind of attitude. If its really about climate change and saving the environment, then all options to reduce green house gases should be welcomed and stop arguing that mine is better than yours and if it works for me, then you have to make it work for you. Its like being in Church again "Our God is the only God and our God is the only way to eternal salvation - all other ways are false!"

Most hydrogen is produced from methane/natural gas. The big problem it has is in storage. It is either stored in a low energy density state as a gas or requires even greater energy and containment systems to be super-cooled to a liquid. There is also the problem of embrittlement of those systems as well. Hydrogen as vast infrastructure scale "thing" won't happen, it just is not efficient.

That doesn't mean fuel cells won't happen and be thing. Batteries aren't the be all and end all of energy storage. Quite frankly solid and liquid fuels are. Hydrogen peroxide or sodium borohydride and more like some new option that allows "room temperature" storage and transport at high density (higher than a gas) will be the real breakthrough for fuel cells.

It's the catalyst that is the really important thing that matters.

To me hydrogen as a fuel is like the SLS, it provides for the employment of smart people and creates jobs but there are much better ways of achieving the goal than what is being done.

Tugg