Forum menu
and we don't really know how to store hydrogen yet...
Er, what?
Apart from the fact we ship tonnes of the stuff every day we have a convenient national distribution system in place that could easily be converted from methane to hydrogen.
With the right infrastructure in place you could easily generate hydrogen. Desalination plus solar would easily give you the means, there just lacks a certain will at the moment to make it a reality. North Africa could easily be the next big player, in Europe at any rate.
Isn't hdyrogen less efficient?
You've got to convert solar energy to make electric. Use electric to extract hydrogen. Then transport the hydrogen. Then use the hydrogen to make electricity. Then convert electricity to kinetic energy with the motor.
Every step has associated conversion losses presumably??
Apart from the fact we ship tonnes of the stuff every day we have a convenient national distribution system in place that could easily be converted from methane to hydrogen.
No it couldn't.
1) hydrogen will find leaks that methane can't, it will fit through the gaps in the crystal structure of most metals, let alone a leaking flange.
2) as a result of fitting through the gaps in metals crystal structure it will turn normal metals brittle, so needs specific grades of steel for the pipework.
3) it's incredibly low energy density on a volume basis (roughly double by mass), because 1kg of hydrogen takes the same space as 8kg of methane as a gas, and you can liquefy methane practically to increase it's density orders of magnitude further)
As a result of those three, no you can't just put it in the gas mains and expect it to work.
Well if you do it like that, yes. But there are huge losses in generating electricity, sending it all over the country in wires and stuffing it into a battery too.
The thing with hydrogen is that there are places in the world that have huge spare renewable capacity, as said above.
Storing hydrogen is possible now, but shipping it is harder because large scale infrastructure is hard without lots of leakage - as I understand it.
there just lacks a certain will at the moment to make it a reality.
Not quite, but partly. The litre of petrol you buy was shipped as crude oil which gets has thousands of very high value uses. These usages mitigate the cost to a large extent. A tanker laod of crude goes a lot further than a tanker of pure H destined for cars, and yet the latter is probably more expensive to handle and ship.
Hopefully it'll come, cos it's a great solution, but the infrastructure needs work.
The Chinese are driving their economic growth with coal and yet we are happy to lap up their cheap goods whist paying £100k for an electric car thinking we are saving the planet. Madness.
Very true, no point doing anything until the Chinese improve...
But it's still new technology it's still being developed and the infrastructure isn't there so some bribery is needed. If you can move people in cities to electric cars and use home solar, wind, storage and off peak generation to charge them then you get cleaner cities and a chance to develop the technology and lead the way selling around the world (you know focus on the Asian markets like you keep banging on about)
Governments should be subsidising or funding renewable and nuclear to reduce carbon usage. Want to be the one out of carbon before its 10x the price?
@mike the interesting thing is we already pay 5x the cost of "carbon" for petrol due to taxes and the reality is if it was £2 or £3 a litre we'd still buy it. I read the other day Germans pay 50% taxes on home energy, we in the uk pay 5% - my point being the demand is quite price insenstive and as shale has proved there is a lot left. (admittedly with serious concerns about extraction). In Singapore a basic car costs £60k not £25k due to taxes yet the roads are still packed.
The energy cost for hydrogen as a fuel is ridiculously high, completely uneconomic
I'm sure they had a van that ran on water too.
it's free for now to try and stimulate the electric car industry.. which is working, by the look of it. So yes, progress.But in that case I thought it was Tesla that paid for the charging points?
Indeed, it's only "free" in as much as it's basically included in the price of the car, so if you've bought one you might as well use as much of their electricity as possible.
They've always been up-front about their plan to get electric cars to the masses, with each step trying to encourage uptake while financing the next. Free use of superchargers is an optional extra for the Model 3; presumably if you don't take that out it'll be some kind of pay-as-you-go system. It'll undoubtedly still be much cheaper than petrol.
Ecotricity have said the same about their Electric Highway system; they're paying for it now, but they won't forever.
I can highly recommend Robert Llewellyn's "Fully Charged" youtube channel, there's a wide variety of very interesting stuff on it.
oh and with some makes you don't actually own the batteries in them.
It'll undoubtedly still be much cheaper than petrol.
9e for recharge for a Zoe on French autoroutes. Given that you will probably fill up when you still have 20% charge and the fast charger stops when the battery is 80% full you get about 50km at motorway speeds. A Clio would use about 4.5e of petrol to cover the same distance.
philxx1975 - MemberI'm sure they had a van that ran on water too.
that's about 200m from me as i type.
it is: interesting.
it isn't: a robust example of an economically viable hydrogen fuel station.
(a business on the AMP needs a supply of hydrogen, they produce their own as it's cheaper* than buying it, and they're selling the surplus)
(*i suspect this may be down to a subsidised wind turbine, but can't be sure)
I got quite close to buying an electric to go with the PV, energy positive house, bikes, Madame walking to work etc.. The more I investigated the worse it got. I was lucky to do a test drive with a salesman who only wanted the sale if I fully understood all that he's learned by running an electric himself. So:
Leasing a battery costs more than petrol for less than 12500km a year. On top you have to pay for the electricity.
The leased battery is replaced when it has less than 75% capacity. The lease companies check for and replace dud cells and send you on your way. If you reckon it still has less than 75% just because it's aged you have to be very persuasive to get a new battery.
Charging costs a lot more than you'd expect especially in hot or cold conditions. Cold I understood but was surprised to learn that over 25°C (common here) a powerful cooling fan runs non stop while the battery is on charge i.e. all the time it is plugged in.
Electricity consumption when it is fully charged but plugged in is more than you'd expect from the charge loss over time.
On a cold day with a battery coming up for replacement you'll be lucky to get half the claimed range.
The current draw when you first plug in often goes over 10A so using the cable with the household plug is likely to trip power supplies on campsites etc. which are rated 10A.
You'll need a mountain of plastic cards to charge in supermarkets and garages. So many the cost and hassle is significant.
Charging on a motorway will cost more per km than petrol.
If you get to a charge point near empty and it's out of order you may as well call the breakdown truck right off. Expect a long wait if there's a queue for the charge point. Three cars in the queue and you're there for at least two hours. 24 hours if they are all Kangoos!
Blimey I had a job interview with ITM Power way back in ~2005, sounds like they are plodding away, guess it shows how long it takes from a working model in the lab to an industrial trial.
[quote=mikewsmith ]But it's still new technology it's still being developed and the infrastructure isn't there so some bribery is needed. If you can move people in cities to electric cars and use home solar, wind, storage and off peak generation to charge them then you get cleaner cities...
The question is, how much cleaner would the cities be if instead of bribing (very well off) people to use cars which are slightly better for the environment, instead people were persuaded out of their cars and provided with an alternative? The wealth of the people currently buying these is significant, because whilst I get that the technology needs to be funded by these people, the cost of the vehicles is such that they're not going to be bought in large enough numbers to have a significant impact (that and not only does the bribery have a fairly insignificant effect on their purchasing decisions, bribing them with government money is regressive).
[quote=Edukator ]The current draw when you first plug in often goes over 10A so using the cable with the household plug is likely to trip power supplies on campsites etc. which are rated 10A.
Most of the rest of the issues seem reasonable, generic, and largely as I'd expect, but that is surely simply an implementation issue which could be fixed by the manufacturers (and probably isn't an issue for all makes and models). It's certainly not in inherent issue with electric vehicles.
Edukator, that's fascinating. Thanks
@Educator. Brilliant! Thank you, and that's electric cars crossed off my list, for now at least.
@Edukator those facts common across all electric cars? Not seen mention of battery leasing in the Tesla stuff.
The question is, how much cleaner would the cities be if instead of bribing (very well off) people to use cars which are slightly better for the environment, instead people were persuaded out of their cars and provided with an alternative?
Why not try both? The car still has a place in a lot of cities (fortunate and unfortunate) why not make them better and improve transport links.
You'll need a mountain of plastic cards to charge in supermarkets and garages. So many the cost and hassle is significant.Charging on a motorway will cost more per km than petrol.
Is that a current thing or locked in for all time?
It's not for everyone but there are some clear advantages
What would you rather use the world oil for?
[img] 
[/img]
Renault and Nissan lease batteries and they're the affordable cars that get closest to the cost of running a petrol car. The current Teslas includes the batteries but costs 800 000km worth of petrol in an economical car.
[url= https://www.fuelseurope.eu/knowledge/how-refining-works/diesel-gasoline-imbalance ]The petrol surplus in Europe from the horses mouth.[/url] If you are going to buy a new car with an internal combustion engine in Europe buy petrol at present.
Needing lots of cards is the current situation in France. I would have needed to get two, Renault and Leclerc, just to drive the car home. The 220km journey would have taken 3-4h driving and 3-4h sat charging depending on how fast I drove (mobile road block or just normal progress).
The best of the electrics I looked at had a CO2 equivalence of 68gmCO2/km because of the fossil fuel mix in electricity production. In France it's a little lower due to nuclear electricity providing 70% of production - a nuclear car. When you add the cost of maintaining charge when the car is not used it's nearer 80gm. A Sandero TCE90 is 110gm (the diesel is lower in CO2 but produces more NOX and very fine particles). Now consider the cost in CO2 terms of a new battery at least once in the life of the car.
The main advantage of electric cars is that they take the pollution out of towns which I'd like to do, but only when electric cars and the charging network to support them have improved.
The main advantage of electric cars is that they take the pollution out of towns which I'd like to do, but only when electric cars and the charging network to support them have improved.
Yep, another chicken and egg situation.
Can't fault Tesla for putting it out there to move things along to those situations.
In France it's a little lower due to nuclear electricity providing 70% of production - a nuclear car.
No issues with that, the UK could have been at a similar place if they had got stuck in properly.
Personally I see them as the future, hopefully the internal combustion engine will be off to the museum sooner rather than later, we have a lot of the technologies to drop the Carbon consumption, use the oil for some of the amazing things that it can create - it's far too valuable a resource to simply burn.
and on the power supply front, currently now we have some water back and the back up cable installed Tasmania is 80% renewable (hydro mostly) with over capacity at night so with some good home charging solutions then it should and could be an excellent place for the electric car.
There's a night surplus of electricity in France in Summer too. When intelligent metering comes along it will be possible to connect a car to circuit that only runs at the surplus times and tariffs. In France it's currently just based on times rather than when the gas and oil fired power stations are generating.
Despite all the negatives I've posted I was very close to writing a cheque. There's a 40Ah Zoe in the pipeline which would cover 80% of our use just charging at home. The current 30Ah leaf would struggle on our most common run in Winter, the ski resort and back, and there's no public charging point up there or 16A socket in our parking place.
Again thanks Edukator
I am firmly of the belief that a small efficient petrol car is the environmentally sound choice today and actually tomorrow too. I have been looking at Hybrids recently as they are starting to appear s/h but for me without the benefit of London congestion charge discounts I don't see the point.
In terms of range the Tesla my friend has will do circa 200 miles (I think), its 100 miles from their home to their weekend place which is their most common trip aside from pottering around London. They can charge at the weekend place overnight. Its about 5hrs of driving Paris/London and 400k and the Tesla would make that with a charge at Eurotunnel which may take 1hr plus so adding 20% to journey time. Trying to take it to the Alps from UK would require at least one more stop probably two
I am firmly of the belief that a small efficient petrol car is the environmentally sound choice today and actually tomorrow too.
No I think a small hybrid or electric as a 2nd car for driving around cities is better (says the owner of a small efficient petrol for days when I don't/can't cycle). But ultimately they will have at best a small dent in the overall green scheme of things. I'd far rather government money was spent on persuading people to walk or cycle in cities.
As for the family car that needs to do long distances I can't see it being anything other then petrol or diesel for 95% of people for a long time.
I'd far rather government money was spent on persuading people to walk or cycle in cities.
I'd be interested to see the breakdown of overall fuel use vs journey length. Now I'm not promoting driving short distances, of course, but whilst they are wasteful they are short.
I would imagine (without having done any maths) that people commuting between cities doing 60 miles a day *collectively* are using far more fuel than people going to the shops. Of course neither is good, before I get flamed; I am just wondering if we are demonising just one behaviour and ignoring another.
people commuting between cities doing 60 miles a day *collectively* are using far more fuel than people going to the shops
Commuting between cities probably uses more fuel, but it's far less damaging in terms of pollution and health problems because they are not in areas where there are high concentrations of people.
There's two issues here. Toxic pollution in cities causing poor health and fossil fuel emissions causing climate change.
[quote=mikewsmith ]
The question is, how much cleaner would the cities be if instead of bribing (very well off) people to use cars which are slightly better for the environment, instead people were persuaded out of their cars and provided with an alternative?
Why not try both? The car still has a place in a lot of cities (fortunate and unfortunate) why not make them better and improve transport links.
You appear to be missing the thrust of my post, which is that you get poor value for money spending public money on that rather than alternatives. Public money isn't limitless, you can't just "try both", you have to choose. Yet it seems it's acceptable to spend large sums on stuff like that for motorists, but a lot less acceptable to spend similar money on stuff which would vastly improve cycling etc.
The question is, how much cleaner would the cities be if instead of bribing (very well off) people to use cars which are slightly better for the environment, instead people were persuaded out of their cars and provided with an alternative?
Absolutely this.
No it couldn't.1) hydrogen will find leaks that methane can't, it will fit through the gaps in the crystal structure of most metals, let alone a leaking flange.
2) as a result of fitting through the gaps in metals crystal structure it will turn normal metals brittle, so needs specific grades of steel for the pipework.
3) it's incredibly low energy density on a volume basis (roughly double by mass), because 1kg of hydrogen takes the same space as 8kg of methane as a gas, and you can liquefy methane practically to increase it's density orders of magnitude further)
As a result of those three, no you can't just put it in the gas mains and expect it to work.
Yes, I was being somewhat simplistic with my original point as you rightly pointed out. No, hydrogen wouldn't work off the bat (I believe the working figure is 10% added to current mix) and would require substantial upgrading to distribute fully however my point was more that there is a means of transporting it in the longer term. I'm aware that to compress hydrogen sufficiently to reach a decent energy by volume requires a lot of material to get a compliant tank or pipework.
And yes, incredibly inefficient when you consider energy losses but considering Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis was considered viable for coal to oil conversion in Apartheid era South Africa I don't see why this should be any different if you build solar thermal plants in nice sunny places.
Remember that Tesla owner who posted vids of his self-driving Tesla doing amazing things such as avoiding an accident when he was cut up by a Brinks van? Well he died in his Tesla whilst watching a Harry Potter film rather than the road and the car crashed into a truck it didn't see. Report on N24 today.
I had a five-year-old Fluence as a courtesy car on Monday. Driving very gently on a run my petrol car does over 50mpg it used up 40km of range in just 22km. Time for a battery change I think as the Kango I used did roughly the kms it was supposed to.