2030 no new diesel vans. What's your plan?

[chrisgreen]

A big fat diesel turbo van, a big fat diesel turbo 4x4 and a V8 petrol what ever.
No5 interested on any way in washing machine motors. They’re for doing your washing not driving.

You do know that electric motors predate the internal combustion engine and electric cars predate the washing machine.

 

[glenn2926]

You do know that electric motors predate the internal combustion engine and electric cars predate the washing machine.

Yes, kind of makes you wonder why we changed to ice cars doesn’t it?

 

[63720]

Read a comment in the Telegraph recently of one EV user with up to 9(?) charging apps on his phone with wildly differing prices.

 

[EuroTrotters]

By 2030 you won't be able to afford the fuel to run your big v8's

But my V8 diesel attains better MPG Than my vans or motorhomes. So does that mean most of us won’t be able to afford fuel for them?.

 

[EuroTrotters]

A big fat diesel turbo van, a big fat diesel turbo 4x4 and a V8 petrol what ever.
No5 interested on any way in washing machine motors. They’re for doing your washing not driving.

That’s lost on me

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Arnside037]

Last night we had THREE power outages at around 6pm, albeit only about 1 min each but it played havoc with everything from alarms to clocks and timers and would perhaps have implications for those recharging batteries using timers or such like. What will happen if everybody with an e-car in the street charges up overnight at 10.30? We could lose MOTD too! And we'd have to like our steaks rare. As well as that I could.t get my car out of the garage to go for my Covid jab at 7.00 as the door is electric up and over. No override.
Incidentally, as all the active alarms went off, a n'ere-do-well would now know which of us in the street had a dummy security alarm on the house.

 

[SpeedyDux]

You do know that electric motors predate the internal combustion engine and electric cars predate the washing machine.

In about 1911 the majority of cars were BEVs. I saw that on TV so it must be true! Not that there were many cars.

 

[Coolcats]

I have had a look around for a video on hydrogen that is balanced and fair and explains it in enough detail without risking being over the head of the average joe on the street.

This is a pretty good video.



I agree with pretty much all of it, except for a few bits but those are a matter of opinion not of fact so am happy to let them go.

This is pretty much the future I see with hydrogen although I think the depth of penetration won't be quite so much as some of the commentators think.

For instance I don't see trucking being a big destination for the green hydrogen short range and medium range trucks as they will stick with batteries, with only the longest range or trucks dealing with the remotest destinations going with hydrogen.

Hydrogen is Coming and the cars won't be far behind (I suggest)

First UK homes with hydrogen boilers and hobs to be built by April​

Scottish homes to be first in world to use 100% green hydrogen​

'Green hydrogen' from renewables could become cheapest ...

Can a hydrogen boom fuel a green recovery for Britain? | Hydrogen ...

 

[joe and sue]

Just pondering: what came first, the petrol engine or the refining of the crude oil into petrol ,??

 

[Gromett]

Hydrogen is Coming and the cars won't be far behind (I suggest)

Suggest all you want the economics dictates otherwise.

First UK homes with hydrogen boilers and hobs to be built by April​

A trial in two houses custom built for it.

Scottish homes to be first in world to use 100% green hydrogen​

Another trial. Please note. I have never said it can't be done from a technical perspective. I have said it can't be done from an economic perspective.
Hydrogen cannot be distributed via the gas grid without a massive upgrade of all the pipes. For a short term trial in a local area it would probably work but will flag up the problems.

'Green hydrogen' from renewables could become cheapest ...

That is in Australia. They do not have their own fossil fuel resources but do have an abundance of free land and loads of sun. They can use solar to make hydrogen and they are looking at the export market. It won't work here in the same way.
They are looking at it as an export product... Did you not see the quote "Major economic powers including Germany and Japan are eyeing Australia as a potential source of hydrogen as the world moves away from fossil fuels, in line with the goals of the Paris agreement."
Do we want to go from importing gas and oil to importing hydrogen?

Can a hydrogen boom fuel a green recovery for Britain? | Hydrogen ...

This one is about blue hydrogen. This is a viable method of producing hydrogen in this country at a reasonable cost. But it is not green. CCS tech is expensive and the first time there is a leak it will be a massive problem. Just look at the issue that happened with the natural gas leak in America.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[joe and sue]

How will any Hydrogen be transported around the world, if by ships, what will power them?
Or will UK gov create another Carillion with unlimited funds, from us, to build a pipeline.

 

[Gromett]

How will any Hydrogen be transported around the world, if by ships, what will power them?
Or will UK gov create another Carillion with unlimited funds, from us, to build a pipeline.

Hydrogen will be transported by ship, powered by hydrogen. We already do this with LPG. That is not an issue.

 

[The Lobster]

I am not talking about now, nor am i talking about the future. I am talking about physics which doesn't change. I am talking about if the systems in place were 100% efficient.

You seem to have convinced yourself of the 'truth', fair enough for trying to base this on logical thinking - but market economics aren't only driven by physics - that's why I like to see where people are actually making big investments for the long term. And that isn't mobile batteries. Of course there might be some much promised break through in battery technology, but you can't bet your business on those.

 

[The Lobster]

Hydrogen will be transported by ship, powered by hydrogen. We already do this with LPG. That is not an issue.

And actually, that would be a fantastic improvement in its own, given that these container ships currently use the most polluting available fuel.

 

[Gromett]

You seem to have convinced yourself of the 'truth', fair enough for trying to base this on logical thinking - but market economics aren't only driven by physics - that's why I like to see where people are actually making big investments for the long term. And that isn't mobile batteries. Of course there might be some much promised break through in battery technology, but you can't bet your business on those.

Economics are not driven by physics, but physics is an absolute cap on what can be achieved, that is my point. I am struggling to explain this any better as some people don't seem to get my point?

Physics describes the laws of the universe. It is a universal fact that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put in. To split a hydrogen atom from a water molecule requires a very specific amount of energy. Any less energy and the water merely heats up by the amount of energy you put in.

So given that it takes a minimum of 38KWh to split 1KG of hydrogen from water in a 100% efficient system this is the base level that can be achieved. Currently we are using a lot more than 38KWh per KG for hydrolysis. So the difference between what we can achieve now and what is the practical and physical limit is what research, engineering and material science can work on. How close we get to that 100% efficient system will be driven by economics and this will be on a diminishing returns basis. The first 50% will always be easier than the last 50%. At some point there will be a point of diminishing returns. £100M in research may get you half way there, but it may require £1,000M to get to 80% then £10,000M to get to 90% and so on. Each percentage improvement will cost more and you will never reach 100% efficiency it just isn't possible.

So based on this I did the maths as have others with a lot more knowledge in this field. The conclusion is plain to see that even at 100% efficiency Green Hydrogen will require 3X the amount of electricity than simply charging a battery. These calculations have been done in such a way as to give every advantage to hydrogen and still it fails to make economic or practical sense. We would need 3x as many wind turbines to convert to a hydrogen economy than if we just stick with batteries.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Coolcats]

Economics are not driven by physics, but physics is an absolute cap on what can be achieved, that is my point. I am struggling to explain this any better as some people don't seem to get my point?

Physics describes the laws of the universe. It is a universal fact that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put in. To split a hydrogen atom from a water molecule requires a very specific amount of energy. Any less energy and the water merely heats up by the amount of energy you put in.

So given that it takes a minimum of 38KWh to split 1KG of hydrogen from water in a 100% efficient system this is the base level that can be achieved. Currently we are using a lot more than 38KWh per KG for hydrolysis. So the difference between what we can achieve now and what is the practical and physical limit is what research, engineering and material science can work on. How close we get to that 100% efficient system will be driven by economics and this will be on a diminishing returns basis. The first 50% will always be easier than the last 50%. At some point there will be a point of diminishing returns. £100M in research may get you half way there, but it may require £1,000M to get to 80% then £10,000M to get to 90% and so on. Each percentage improvement will cost more and you will never reach 100% efficiency it just isn't possible.

So based on this I did the maths as have others with a lot more knowledge in this field. The conclusion is plain to see that even at 100% efficiency Green Hydrogen will require 3X the amount of electricity than simply charging a battery. These calculations have been done in such a way as to give every advantage to hydrogen and still it fails to make economic or practical sense. We would need 3x as many wind turbines to convert to a hydrogen economy than if we just stick with batteries.

Grommet we get it, but Hydrogen will have a future in our green transport and other fuels, it’s coming the R&D can be seen and deployments happening. The actual take up will be based on market forces not physics.

 

[Gromett]

Grommet we get it, but Hydrogen will have a future in our green transport and other fuels, it’s coming the R&D can be seen and deployments happening. The actual take up will be based on market forces not physics.

You don't get it apparently. I have never said the take up would be based upon physics. I have always said it is the economics that make it impractical, and used physics to explain the economics. Please don't misrepresent my position.

There is very little R & D where cars are concerned. In fact more and more car and heavy truck companies are realising it is a losing battle and pulling out of hydrogen fuel cells.

To clarify.
1) I have said all along that cars, vans and most trucks will not be hydrogen driven in the future because green hydrogen is too expensive. (This is for the UK only, other countries may be able to make it work)
2) Green hydrogen will always be too expensive in the UK due to the limits of physics.
3) It is also the economics catch 22 of there being no hydrogen cars so no one will invest in a country wide filling station network and without a country wide filling station network no one will buy the cars.

Volvo has dropped all hydrogen development for passenger vehicles and light transport last year.
Audi dropped all hydrogen development.
VW have dropped all hydrogen development.


In fact I can only find 3 companies that still do hydrogen cars today or plan on releasing one in the future. Toyota, Hyundai and Honda. With only Toyota being all in on it. Both Hyundai and Honda also have BEV's and are hedging their bets. Toyota is nowhere on BEV's.
Honda has sold less than 2,000 of it's Clarity hydrogen FCEV in the last 5 years or so. In 2019 before automotive sales crashed the total sales of all hydrogen vehicles was 7,500 world wide. In 2020 these figures crashed. Yet BEV's have increased dramatically in that year.

The Market has spoken.

Can you imagine any company wanting to invest in a country wide filling station even for a small country like the UK when there were only 7,500 sales of hydrogen cars worldwide?

The market will continue to speak.

 

[The Lobster]

Economics are not driven by physics, but physics is an absolute cap on what can be achieved, that is my point. I am struggling to explain this any better as some people don't seem to get my point?

Physics describes the laws of the universe. It is a universal fact that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put in. To split a hydrogen atom from a water molecule requires a very specific amount of energy. Any less energy and the water merely heats up by the amount of energy you put in.

So given that it takes a minimum of 38KWh to split 1KG of hydrogen from water in a 100% efficient system this is the base level that can be achieved. Currently we are using a lot more than 38KWh per KG for hydrolysis. So the difference between what we can achieve now and what is the practical and physical limit is what research, engineering and material science can work on. How close we get to that 100% efficient system will be driven by economics and this will be on a diminishing returns basis. The first 50% will always be easier than the last 50%. At some point there will be a point of diminishing returns. £100M in research may get you half way there, but it may require £1,000M to get to 80% then £10,000M to get to 90% and so on. Each percentage improvement will cost more and you will never reach 100% efficiency it just isn't possible.

So based on this I did the maths as have others with a lot more knowledge in this field. The conclusion is plain to see that even at 100% efficiency Green Hydrogen will require 3X the amount of electricity than simply charging a battery. These calculations have been done in such a way as to give every advantage to hydrogen and still it fails to make economic or practical sense. We would need 3x as many wind turbines to convert to a hydrogen economy than if we just stick with batteries.

Perhaps you need to consider the difference between science and technology. Science gives you the theory.. in theory nuclear fusion is the future for compact limitless energy, but you'd hardly believe it would be economic to put it in a car. You can't just quote science without considering alternative energy sources and their relative economics.

 

[Gromett]

Perhaps you need to consider the difference between science and technology. Science gives you the theory.. in theory nuclear fusion is the future for compact limitless energy, but you'd hardly believe it would be economic to put it in a car. You can't just quote science without considering alternative energy sources and their relative economics.

Again you are missing the point.

I haven't just quoted science. I have used science as the underpinnings of my argument. Whereas others are trying to ignore the science and just use wishful thinking.

ok. I will try this yet again and not come close to mentioning science, purely economics.

Please explain to me who will invest in a national hydrogen filling station based on the fact that they cost millions each and worldwide there were only sales of 7,500 hydrogen cars. Who will invest in this national hydrogen filling network?
Second part, without the filling station network who in their right mind would choose a hydrogen car over a battery car? Bearing in mind we already have a national distribution network for electric (which will need some minor upgrades admittedly).

Explain this catch 22 convincingly to me and I will be happy to accept I am wrong on this point.

 

[SpeedyDux]

You don't get it apparently. I have never said the take up would be based upon physics. I have always said it is the economics that make it impractical, and used physics to explain the economics. Please don't misrepresent my position.

The Market has spoken.

Can you imagine any company wanting to invest in a country wide filling station even for a small country like the UK when there were only 7,500 sales of hydrogen cars worldwide?

The market will continue to speak.

Much of the "market" for green vehicles is driven by tax incentives especially for company car drivers and their BIK charge. Hence the long waiting list for cars like the E-Niro.

If the tax system had been skewed in favour of hydrogen instead of EVs (and hybrids) the situation might have been reversed. A big company where I once worked had its own petrol station, and service and body repair workshop at its HQ because it made financial sense including reduced insurance costs. Its Directors probably would have invested in a hydrogen filling station for all company vehicles if there was a significant tax advantage.

Tax and physics are strangers. When did we last have a Chancellor with a science degree? How about all the mandarins at HMRC?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Coolcats]

You don't get it apparently. I have never said the take up would be based upon physics. I have always said it is the economics that make it impractical, and used physics to explain the economics. Please don't misrepresent my position.

There is very little R & D where cars are concerned. In fact more and more car and heavy truck companies are realising it is a losing battle and pulling out of hydrogen fuel cells.

To clarify.
1) I have said all along that cars, vans and most trucks will not be hydrogen driven in the future because green hydrogen is too expensive. (This is for the UK only, other countries may be able to make it work)
2) Green hydrogen will always be too expensive in the UK due to the limits of physics.
3) It is also the economics catch 22 of there being no hydrogen cars so no one will invest in a country wide filling station network and without a country wide filling station network no one will buy the cars.

Volvo has dropped all hydrogen development for passenger vehicles and light transport last year.
Audi dropped all hydrogen development.
VW have dropped all hydrogen development.


In fact I can only find 3 companies that still do hydrogen cars today or plan on releasing one in the future. Toyota, Hyundai and Honda. With only Toyota being all in on it. Both Hyundai and Honda also have BEV's and are hedging their bets. Toyota is nowhere on BEV's.
Honda has sold less than 2,000 of it's Clarity hydrogen FCEV in the last 5 years or so. In 2019 before automotive sales crashed the total sales of all hydrogen vehicles was 7,500 world wide. In 2020 these figures crashed. Yet BEV's have increased dramatically in that year.

The Market has spoken.

Can you imagine any company wanting to invest in a country wide filling station even for a small country like the UK when there were only 7,500 sales of hydrogen cars worldwide?

The market will continue to speak.

The part about there is very little R&D regarding cars cannot be correct when there are vehicles available. There has been and continues to be R&D in Hydrogen powered vehicles and other uses for Hydrogen. The arguments you use are similar to those that had been used fir Battery technologies, I am not saying Batteries will be replaced by Hydrogen I am saying that Hydrogen can be a viable alternative particular in winter when the cold weather drops battery performance and the energy requirements to warm inside of the car do impact performance.

 

[Gromett]

Much of the "market" for green vehicles is driven by tax incentives especially for company car drivers and their BIK charge. Hence the long waiting list for cars like the E-Niro.

If the tax system had been skewed in favour of hydrogen instead of EVs (and hybrids) the situation might have been reversed. A big company where I once worked had its own petrol station, and service and body repair workshop at its HQ because it made financial sense including reduced insurance costs. Its Directors probably would have invested in a hydrogen filling station for all company vehicles if there was a significant tax advantage.

Tax and physics are strangers. When did we last have a Chancellor with a science degree? How about all the mandarins at HMRC?

Erm, The BIK tax breaks and all other tax breaks apply to hydrogen vehicles as well as battery ones. It applies to ALL zero emissions vehicles.

It may make financial sense to spend £100K or less on a petrol filling stations. But would it still make sense when you have to spend £3M on the infrastructure then 10's of thousands of pounds each month on electric? I am certain that most companies would rather buy EV's (which are cheaper) and invest £100K on solar panels and another £100K on a battery storage bank. The economics make a lot more sense for batteries than for hydrogen irrespective of tax breaks. Even if hydrogen was given a 100% tax break on infrastructure investment it still costs more due to the basic physical requirements.

For some companies making hydrogen yourself makes a LOT of sense. The steel industry is one. It really does make sense for them to invest in a hydrogen plant and lots of renewables and batteries. But for transport the maths and economics just don't add up.

 

[Gromett]

The part about there is very little R&D regarding cars cannot be correct when there are vehicles available. There has been and continues to be R&D in Hydrogen powered vehicles and other uses for Hydrogen. The arguments you use are similar to those that had been used fir Battery technologies, I am not saying Batteries will be replaced by Hydrogen I am saying that Hydrogen can be a viable alternative particular in winter when the cold weather drops battery performance and the energy requirements to warm inside of the car do impact performance.

There was quite a bit of hydrogen investment for cars until the last few years. Most of it has stopped. As I stated above there are only 3 manufacturers still investing in hydrogen for cars and two of them are only hedging their bets. There is only one that is seriously committed to it still.

As for batteries failing in the winter. This is a solvable problem and is only an issue for a small minority of car drivers who require long range all year round.

You only have to look at Bjørn Nyland youtube channel to see what is possible with EV's in arctic condition in Norway.

Some manufacturers like Rivian are actually targetting this market segment with developments aimed at sub arctic conditions.

Rivian tests R1T electric pickup in sub-zero temperatures

Rivian just released footage of the testing an refining of its R1T under extreme elements including temperature as low as -40ºF.

electrek.co

Rivian shares details on the R1T pickup's clever battery heating strategies

Rivian engineers visited one of North America’s largest cold-weather testing facilities in Minnesota to refine the R1T and R1S vehicles’ dynamics and battery performance. While there, Rivian engineers tested self-heating strategies for its battery pack. “In extremely cold conditions we use some...

www.teslarati.com

Other manufacturers will pick up on this tech if there is demand for it.

Also Tesla has moved to heatpumps in all it's cars now which are massively more efficient. See their octovalve for details.

Range loss in winter will become less of a thing over time. Due to new tech like octovalve/heatpump and new battery chemistries.

Were you aware for instance that LTO batteries don't suffer any loss of range down to -10°C and have an operating range of -30°C to +55°C

 

[Gromett]

PS: I f you wondering what the octovalve does. It allows heat to be moved around the vehicle.
When you are running the battery, inverter and motor all generate heat. This can now be used to heat the cabin. If the batteries are too cold then the heat from the motor/inverter is directed to the batteries to prevent them getting too cold.
There are a couple of heat exchangers built in and the octo valve shuffles heat round the vehicle to maintain efficiency.

As with other heat pumps, you only need 1KWh of electric to create 5KWh of heat. So this improvement over resistive heating further preserves battery capacity.

Tesla are currently the only people doing this to that extent.

 

[Coolcats]

But for transport the maths and economics just don't add up.

Which is why alstrom are providing Hydrogen powered trains for the U.K. and Germany ( I assume they will also supply other countries) and meanwhile in Canada

<Broken link removed>​

It was once said it was impossible for battery powers cars to be sold to the general public and now look what has happened. It is constrained thinking that our MoHo’s will only be battery powered in the future.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[glenn2926]

Which is why alstrom are providing Hydrogen powered trains for the U.K. and Germany ( I assume they will also supply other countries) and meanwhile in Canada

<Broken link removed>​

It was once said it was impossible for battery powers cars to be sold to the general public and now look what has happened. It is constrained thinking that our MoHo’s will only be battery powered in the future.

I do hope you are correct. I think relying on on one fuel source for everything is setting a very dangerous precedent. We all know not to put all our eggs in one basket. Having electricity as the only power source is doing exactly that.
There will be absolutely nothing to stop the suppliers talking to each other and raising the price ten fold if they wish and we, the consumer will have no choice but to pay. As it stands now we have numerous fuel sources. From electricity, gas, diesel, petrol, LPG. If one fails we can use another.

 

[Coolcats]

I do hope you are correct. I think relying on on one fuel source for everything is setting a very dangerous precedent. We all know not to put all our eggs in one basket. Having electricity as the only power source is doing exactly that.
There will be absolutely nothing to stop the suppliers talking to each other and raising the price ten fold if they wish and we, the consumer will have no choice but to pay. As it stands now we have numerous fuel sources. From electricity, gas, diesel, petrol, LPG. If one fails we can use another.

Absolutely agree it gives options and choice plus as you ar pointing out a bit of competition between suppliers, only time will tell but once Hydrogen has a take up, the manufacturers will want to sell more of what they produce for a bigger profit. It may be Hydrogen will be market specific but it is not going away which is good to see.

 

[Gromett]

Which is why alstrom are providing Hydrogen powered trains for the U.K. and Germany ( I assume they will also supply other countries) and meanwhile in Canada

No Alstrom are not providing hydrogen trains to the UK. There are no orders for them at all. They started trying to punt them to UK rail companies back in 2018. Not seen any movement on it so far.

<Broken link removed>​

Five companies who no one has heard of and don't sell directly to the market? Basically development companies trying to punt their goods.

It was once said it was impossible for battery powers cars to be sold to the general public and now look what has happened. It is constrained thinking that our MoHo’s will only be battery powered in the future.

No one has ever said it was impossible for battery powered cars. The GM EV1 was a massive success back in 1996, but was only intended to be a compliance car. As soon as the pollution laws were relaxed GM scrapped the car and even pulled them back from owners to crush them. It is the first and last time in history I can recall a funeral being held for a car. And that car was using Lead acid batteries.

 

[chrisgreen]

Fossil fuel cars make 'hundreds of times' more waste than electric cars

Analysis by transport group says battery electric vehicles are superior to their petrol and diesel counterparts

www.theguardian.com

 

[Coolcats]

No Alstrom are not providing hydrogen trains to the UK. There are no orders for them at all. They started trying to punt them to UK rail companies back in 2018. Not seen any movement on it so far.


Five companies who no one has heard of and don't sell directly to the market? Basically development companies trying to punt their goods.


No one has ever said it was impossible for battery powered cars. The GM EV1 was a massive success back in 1996, but was only intended to be a compliance car. As soon as the pollution laws were relaxed GM scrapped the car and even pulled them back from owners to crush them. It is the first and last time in history I can recall a funeral being held for a car. And that car was using Lead acid batteries.

As Glenn points out it will be healthy for a mix of technologies to power future vehicles, I am not an EV/ Battery denier however:

There is fairly compelling evidence Grommet that Hydrogen Trains (and Buss,) are coming and that Alstom along with Siemens (and others) have a part to play in this.

September 2020 Hydrogen Trains runs on UK Railway for the first time

30th September 2020 HM Gov UK embraces hydrogen-fuelled future as transport hub and train announced
July 22nd 2020 Eversholt Rail and Alstom invest a further £1 million in Breeze hydrogen train programme

Plans unveiled for new Multimillion pound hydrogen production plant in Scotland (£45 Million)

January 27th 2021 Worlds First Hydrogen double deckers to start thier routes tomorrow in Aberdeen

Kittybrewster, Aberdeen: UK’s largest hydrogen vehicle refuelling station

Prior to Lithium no one was interested in EV's, Battery vehicles just would not sell so yes it was impossible unless it was a milk float!

Just because you have not heard of a company does not mean no-one else has, two of those companies mentioned in Canada have quite a healthy return on the stock market (I have not checked out the others)

The first is Hydrogenics (owned by Cummins who I suspect you may have heard of) and Ballard power systems again not a familiar name but clearly well known on the stock market

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}