Hydrogen powered commercial vehicles.

[Gromett]

Yes anything that reduces CO2 is to be encouraged I guess. I think you have to be concerned about where they get their Hydrogen form a very inefficient process. But hey you have got to try things to learn from them

Ethanol (C2H5OH) production doesn't need hydrogen. I think you may be confusing this with the Ammonia(NH3) based fuels?

Ethanol is an alcohol and generally produced using crops like corn, or in some small scale tests from algae or bacteria.

 

[gpat]

Ethanol (C2H5OH) production doesn't need hydrogen. I think you may be confusing this with the Ammonia(NH3) based fuels?

Ethanol is an alcohol and generally produced using crops like corn, or in some small scale tests from algae or bacteria.

I was talking about the hydrogen production. Hydrogen is most commonley produced using hydrocarbons of some type or other. It can be made carbon dioxide free by electrolysis but it is desperately inefficient

 

[Gromett]

I was talking about the hydrogen production. Hydrogen is most commonley produced using hydrocarbons of some type or other. It can be made carbon dioxide free by electrolysis but it is desperately inefficient

The start of this little bit of the conversation was about ethanol.
post #234
It was you that brought hydrogen into it totally out of nowhere

But you are correct on the facts about hydrogen and I totally agree with you.

 

[Gromett]

Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere at current 420ppm concentrations? In the volume required to propel massive ships?

That is how all plants grow and is the source of pretty much all ethanol production now. You know the E10 petrol at the pumps? I am sure you know the E is for ethanol and the 10 is 10%?
Where does that ethanol come from? Plants. Why are we using it, because it is carbon neutral because those plants pull the CO2 from the atmosphere

But I am sure you knew all that, and are just trying to bait me?

 

[Gromett]

I started a discussion on Hydrogen generators for motorhomes so time ago, a simple kit that is easily fitted, both here and in other forums. I was told it was a scam, couldnt work, if it was any use why are they not being fitted already etc etc. Now hydrogen fuelled vehicles are becoming part of everyday life.

Completely different thing to the scam you were pushing back then.

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

 

[gpat]

The start of this little bit of the conversation was about ethanol.
post #234
It was you that brought hydrogen into it totally out of nowhere

But you are correct on the facts about hydrogen and I totally agree with you.

I think there are two closely related threads running. That's more than enough to confuse an old scientist like me..

 

[SpeedyDux]

That is how all plants grow and is the source of pretty much all ethanol production now. You know the E10 petrol at the pumps? I am sure you know the E is for ethanol and the 10 is 10%?
Where does that ethanol come from? Plants. Why are we using it, because it is carbon neutral because those plants pull the CO2 from the atmosphere

But I am sure you knew all that, and are just trying to bait me?

My suspicion is that in reality the theoretical "carbon neutral" claim isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The plants don't grow inside fuel tanks and magically conveniently decompose into ethanol instead of methane. There needs to be more detail about how the crops are grown, whether that involves deforestation, petroleum derived agri-chemicals for fertiliser, weed and pest control, use of diesel tractors, harvesters, and trucks, factories and road transport involved, and all the additional energy needed to convert crops into ethanol.

Meanwhile I assume that Maersk's announcement is standard corporate greenwash. It boils down to ordering 8 additional container ships with dual fuel ICE engines. Big deal. Maersk will buy whichever fuel is most cost-effective for any voyage. Big companies (even oil companies) are trying hard to create a Net Zero corporate image, while the pace of meaningful change is somewhat glacial. The compliant media regurgitates their press releases, unquestioningly.

Meanwhile we read a growing number of stories about the bad effects that E10 petrol is having on cars, not just older ones. There are better ways to reduce CO2 emissions from cars than adding ethanol to petrol, which we could discuss. For good reasons I am sticking to E5 petrol even if the price is higher. Let the gullible buy E10 if they want.

 

[gpat]

My suspicion is that in reality the theoretical "carbon neutral" claim isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The plants don't grow inside fuel tanks and magically conveniently decompose into ethanol instead of methane. There needs to be more detail about how the crops are grown, whether that involves deforestation, petroleum derived agri-chemicals for fertiliser, weed and pest control, use of diesel tractors, harvesters, and trucks, factories and road transport involved, and all the additional energy needed to convert crops into ethanol.

Meanwhile I assume that Maersk's announcement is standard corporate greenwash. It boils down to ordering 8 additional container ships with dual fuel ICE engines. Big deal. Maersk will buy whichever fuel is most cost-effective for any voyage. Big companies (even oil companies) are trying hard to create a Net Zero corporate image, while the pace of meaningful change is somewhat glacial. The compliant media regurgitates their press releases, unquestioningly.

Meanwhile we read a growing number of stories about the bad effects that E10 petrol is having on cars, not just older ones. There are better ways to reduce CO2 emissions from cars than adding ethanol to petrol, which we could discuss. For good reasons I am sticking to E5 petrol even if the price is higher. Let the gullible buy E10 if they want.

I agree with you. Its good that people are thinking up ideas although I suspect many of the initiatives are just sales patter and the real effect is at best minimum and at worst, worse than fossil fuels.

They need to stop thinking 'net' zero and focusing on things that are actually zero.

 

[Gromett]

My suspicion is that in reality the theoretical "carbon neutral" claim isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The plants don't grow inside fuel tanks and magically conveniently decompose into ethanol instead of methane. There needs to be more detail about how the crops are grown, whether that involves deforestation, petroleum derived agri-chemicals for fertiliser, weed and pest control, use of diesel tractors, harvesters, and trucks, factories and road transport involved, and all the additional energy needed to convert crops into ethanol.

Meanwhile I assume that Maersk's announcement is standard corporate greenwash. It boils down to ordering 8 additional container ships with dual fuel ICE engines. Big deal. Maersk will buy whichever fuel is most cost-effective for any voyage. Big companies (even oil companies) are trying hard to create a Net Zero corporate image, while the pace of meaningful change is somewhat glacial. The compliant media regurgitates their press releases, unquestioningly.

Meanwhile we read a growing number of stories about the bad effects that E10 petrol is having on cars, not just older ones. There are better ways to reduce CO2 emissions from cars than adding ethanol to petrol, which we could discuss. For good reasons I am sticking to E5 petrol even if the price is higher. Let the gullible buy E10 if they want.

Here is the way I look at it. There is a certain amount of carbon in the environment that goes through a cycle of being pulled in by plants and using photo synthesis converted to oxygen. This oxygen is then breathed in by all animals (not just us) and released as CO2.

This is the natural cycle and the CO2 in the atmosphere will be fairly stable.

The problem only comes when we start digging up sources of carbon that have been locked away for millions of years and burning the stuff.

The BIG job is to simply stop digging up carbon, once we do that we should head towards a steady state of carbon in the cycle.

I agree with you on Ethanol. I don't think it adds up from an environmental point of view as long as we are using fossil fuel to fertilise the plants that are grown to make the ethanol. Most inefficient.

I prefer Bio Diesel grown from crops grown in a regenerative manner.

 

[Gromett]

I agree with you. Its good that people are thinking up ideas although I suspect many of the initiatives are just sales patter and the real effect is at best minimum and at worst, worse than fossil fuels.

They need to stop thinking 'net' zero and focusing on things that are actually zero.

Actual zero is impossible. You breath out CO2.. The only way to prevent that is you know... Death.

Net zero is a way of measuring CO2 pushed into the atmosphere vs CO2 pulled out of it. The scientific methods used to calculate it are pretty good. The problem is the marketing people use the term for plant a tree so we can keep on polluting rather than fixing the problem at source.

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

 

[gpat]

Actual zero is impossible. You breath out CO2.. The only way to prevent that is you know... Death.

Net zero is a way of measuring CO2 pushed into the atmosphere vs CO2 pulled out of it. The scientific methods used to calculate it are pretty good. The problem is the marketing people use the term for plant a tree so we can keep on polluting rather than fixing the problem at source.

Yes I agree. There is no zero carbon option but there are schemes which are a hell of a lot closer than others. For example using offshore wind to power hydrogen generation and then burning hydrogen to produce electricity is a lot closer to zero than planting a few trees everytime you fly to Sydney.

 

[Gromett]

For example using offshore wind to power hydrogen generation and then burning hydrogen to produce electricity

Why go through that cycle? Highly inefficient. It would be less than 35% efficient. Much better to store the electric in the form of electric. Using grid scale batteries. Much cheaper and more effective.

 

[gpat]

Why go through that cycle? Highly inefficient. It would be less than 35% efficient. Much better to store the electric in the form of electric. Using grid scale batteries. Much cheaper and more effective.

That's true. I was meaning for hydrogen only. Gonna be along time until batteries are availability for 100s of gigawatts though.

Hydrogen generation by electrolysis is hideously inefficient and always will be....unless you are using excess power.

 

[Gromett]

Gonna be along time until batteries are availability for 100s of gigawatts though.

Possibly not as long as you would think. Flow batteries are coming on well and they scale very easily and are relatively cheap.

Lots of companies are getting into batteries currently because there is a lot of money in it. You may find this interesting from a domestic point of view. Now think of this scaled up for grid scale.

Please note, I disagree with him on the direction of electric. It will go up until April, but as soon as the Nordstream 2 pipeline comes online and things level out after the covid spike electric will stabilise.
Long term electric will get cheaper but there will be price spikes until the system is sorted.

 

[SpeedyDux]

Possibly not as long as you would think. Flow batteries are coming on well and they scale very easily and are relatively cheap.

Lots of companies are getting into batteries currently because there is a lot of money in it. You may find this interesting from a domestic point of view. Now think of this scaled up for grid scale.

Please note, I disagree with him on the direction of electric. It will go up until April, but as soon as the Nordstream 2 pipeline comes online and things level out after the covid spike electric will stabilise.
Long term electric will get cheaper but there will be price spikes until the system is sorted.

I am sceptical about your suggestion that in the long term electricity tariffs becoming cheaper. What is the basis for this? More nuclear generating capacity? Hinckley under construction, and new Sizewell still in planning would do no more than replace end-of life nuclear capacity that is going to be decommisioned in the next few years. What orders have been placed for the RR modular ones?

I doubt that wind energy (relied on more than solar in winter) is going to provide cheaper electricity when most needed. The economics of the existing wind farms depends on hidden subsidies we are paying via electricity tariff add-ons. The government might decide to move those subsidies as a charge on gas tariffs instead, I suppose in order to discourage domestic consumers from keeping gas CH boilers, but that still means wind farms are not competing on a level playing field against other generators. Claims that the total amount of energy generated by a wind turbine during its useful life of about 20 years is less than the energy used to build, ship and install it may or may not be correct. If that is not far from the truth, the implication is that wind generation needs subsidies forever. If about 50% of our generating capacity is going to be from wind energy it is difficult to see how this produces lower costs for the end customer in the long term. Regardless of whether the economics are fudged by subsidies we are such a long long way from experiencing the somewhat overstated benefits of "free energy from wind".

Meanwhile I calculated that my average daily electricity consumption is 4.2 Kwh compared to the 12 Kwh assumed by the video blogger above. I am going to look into the home battery as a possible back-up. an 8.2 Kwh battery installation would keep my house cosy for nearly 48 hours of power interruption (assuming that is the worst case scenario). Eventually it might pay for itself.

The saving grace is that despite the alarmism and arbitrary target dates, the necessary infrastructure for Net Zero will be late (especially the domestic ASHPs at the rate of 600,000 p.a.) so with luck the UK's demand for electricity will still be met partly by fossil fuel in the medium term unless the Westminster loons shut down and demolish prematurely the existing generating capacity. Which would be incredibly foolish.

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

 

[Gromett]

I am sceptical about your suggestion that in the long term electricity tariffs becoming cheaper. What is the basis for this? More nuclear generating capacity? Hinckley under construction, and new Sizewell still in planning would do no more than replace end-of life nuclear capacity that is going to be decommisioned in the next few years. What orders have been placed for the RR modular ones?

The RR SMR don't actually have any order placed yet as I understand it. They are just heading into Phase 2 development and have secured government and other funding. The thing is though this is based on their submarine nuclear reactor experience so I have no doubt they will get them built.
The huge advantage of these SMR's is that they are mass produced in factories and shipped to the installation location. This means fast production and lower costs than the traditional monolithic reactor designs. Once the first couple have been installed, I foresee an avalanche of new orders being placed from not just the UK but globally.

I doubt that wind energy (relied on more than solar in winter) is going to provide cheaper electricity when most needed. The economics of the existing wind farms depends on hidden subsidies we are paying via electricity tariff add-ons. The government might decide to move those subsidies as a charge on gas tariffs instead, I suppose in order to discourage domestic consumers from keeping gas CH boilers, but that still means wind farms are not competing on a level playing field against other generators. Claims that the total amount of energy generated by a wind turbine during its useful life of about 20 years is less than the energy used to build, ship and install it may or may not be correct. If that is not far from the truth, the implication is that wind generation needs subsidies forever. If about 50% of our generating capacity is going to be from wind energy it is difficult to see how this produces lower costs for the end customer in the long term. Regardless of whether the economics are fudged by subsidies we are such a long long way from experiencing the somewhat overstated benefits of "free energy from wind".

You are looking at current economics. The subsidies were applied to get investment and development money into the system. That is there now. The last round auctions produced prices that were at or below wholesale without any subsidy required. Existing subsidies are going into reverse more and more often with them paying the government money. In south australia where they have gone hell for leather on wind and solar they are now seeing prices drop as they have an over production of electric for much of the day. When supply exceeds demand then prices fall. Add to this the grid scale, local and domestic battery storage kicking off people and companies will be able to choose when to buy their electric, this will also have a forcing factor on price.

Meanwhile I calculated that my average daily electricity consumption is 4.2 Kwh compared to the 12 Kwh assumed by the video blogger above. I am going to look into the home battery as a possible back-up. an 8.2 Kwh battery installation would keep my house cosy for nearly 48 hours of power interruption (assuming that is the worst case scenario). Eventually it might pay for itself.

That is really low. Nice one.

The saving grace is that despite the alarmism and arbitrary target dates, the necessary infrastructure for Net Zero will be late (especially the domestic ASHPs at the rate of 600,000 p.a.) so with luck the UK's demand for electricity will still be met partly by fossil fuel in the medium term unless the Westminster loons shut down and demolish prematurely the existing generating capacity. Which would be incredibly foolish.

I don't expect us to meet the target of 2050, but it is a target and there is little that can be done to the government if it fails to meet it. As for westminster loons, I wouldn't put anything past them. They have already done this by closing down the rough storage facility early when it should have been kept open until we were not reliant on gas anymore. That was short sighted and ridiculous.

 

[TenBobDave]

COP 26 | 'Widespread use of green hydrogen in heating and cars is not only stupid — it’s practically impossible’ | Recharge

The Recharge View | Those advocating for fuel-cell electric vehicles and H2 boilers are using misinformation to try to make money, and don't care if they slow down the fight against climate change, writes Leigh Collins

www.rechargenews.com

The plot thickens ………

 

[Snowflakes]

I was talking to Baldrick the other day and we have come up with a cunning plan. We are developing Elastic driven vehicles, going into production to manufacture large elasticated bands that you wind up and let go to drive the vehicle, WHAT, its as good at the moment as current EVs.

In the future we looked forward and decided we could start to develop wind up spring cars, but I have said enough, Patent Pending.

 

[Coolcats]

I was talking to Baldrick the other day and we have come up with a cunning plan. We are developing Elastic driven vehicles, going into production to manufacture large elasticated bands that you wind up and let go to drive the vehicle, WHAT, its as good at the moment as current EVs.

In the future we looked forward and decided we could start to develop wind up spring cars, but I have said enough, Patent Pending.

You should have a conversation with Trevor Baylis he is far more enlightened on wind up technology than Baldrick.

 

[jp11]

I'm often surprised at the way Funsters dismiss new technology. Maybe they simply can't see too far into the future. Maybe they don't want to.
Mind you, I'm not over-enamoured by battery technology (either for storage in leisure batteries, or for motive power). I'm 71 and I've lived internal combustion since I was sixteen. But I was involved with the production of the eight London "RV1 route" hydrogen-cell single deck buses back in 2011, albeit only from a manufacturing safety perspective (I'm not an engineer). I had the privilege of having a ride in the first one produced.
I'm convinced Hydrogen is the future for transportation. It's battery power that isn't sustainable, and isn't practical.

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

 

[Tony50]

I think Gromett will be along soon and say it just won’t happen but here is the Reuters news personally I think there is a market for Hydrogen alongside Battery vehicles. Hyperion have a car that is designed to travel 1000 miles in a single tank of Hydrogen

That's why I think Electric vehicles are a stop gap they are not practical for long distance Driver's, Cheap produced Hydrogen in the future may be the answer.

 

[Coolcats]

That's why I think Electric vehicles are a stop gap they are not practical for long distance Driver's, Cheap produced Hydrogen in the future may be the answer.

Indeed and The Guardian recently did a superb infographic article around Batteries.

A Honda Civic can carry around 77.5lb (35Kg) of Fuel and travels 360 Miles

If a Chevrolet Bolt carried batteries of the same weight it would travel 21 Miles, the Chevrolet Bolt will need 917lb (416kg) of Batteries for the equivalent energy to travel that 360 Miles

A 747-300 needs 120,000M lb (54431M Kg) of fuel to stay in the air for 5 hours it would need a battery weighing 5.8 M lb (26.3 M Kg) for the same energy

the CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin Cargo ship needs 33Mlb of Fuel and if run on batteries at 1.6 Bn lb ( enough batteries to sing the ship)

"In short, replacing fuel with a battery just gets too heavy. That’s why decarbonizing ships and planes requires a different kind of innovation."

I suspect that innovation will feed through to Motor Vehicles and one likely candidate could be Hydrogen

Its also the weight of the Batteries that makes Motorsport rather Dull

 

[Coolcats]

Given the recent storms and lack of electricity I suspect there are a few EV’s as mobile as a skip at the moment. So this would be another reason why a Hydrogen vehicle would be highly desirable if petrol and Diesel were no longer available…….just saying.

 

[Gromett]

Looks like most of the major truck manufacturers are putting more investment into BEV trucks than hydrogen.

Volvo, Daimler, and Traton invest €500 million to build out high-power electric truck network in Europe

The manufacturers will invest €500 million with a plan to install and operate some 1,700 charging points throughout Europe.

electrek.co

 

[Gromett]

A Honda Civic can carry around 77.5lb (35Kg) of Fuel and travels 360 Miles

If a Chevrolet Bolt carried batteries of the same weight it would travel 21 Miles, the Chevrolet Bolt will need 917lb (416kg) of Batteries for the equivalent energy to travel that 360 Miles

Really crappy comparison. You need to factor in the weight of the engine, gearbox and all the ancillaries not just the weight of the fuel vs the weight of a battery.

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

 

[Two Rivers]

There’s a company in Sheffield manufacturing hydrogen products the company ITM Plc and is one of the biggest in Europe It looks like Hydrogen is the future?

 

[Gromett]

There’s a company in Sheffield manufacturing hydrogen products the company ITM Plc and is one of the biggest in Europe It looks like Hydrogen is the future?

They make electrolysers. Look at how many they produce a year, look at current hydrogen demand which is 99% produced from natural gas using steam reformation. Once you see the scale of the problem you will realise hydrogen is not the answer to transport problems.

Companies like steel and cement producers need to replace their carbon fuels with hydrogen 1st and this is where the electrolysers should go. Hydrogen is not the future for transit except in some extremely tiny.

ITM are impressive, but their entire pipeline of orders both pending, in process or actually in production is 1,408 MW. That is not going to make a dent in the requirements.

 

[Tombola]

Interesting

City cancels order of 50 hydrogen buses after realizing electric buses make so much more sense

The City of Montpellier confirmed that it canceled an order for 50 hydrogen fuel cell buses after realizing that it...

electrek.co

 

[Coolcats]

Interesting

City cancels order of 50 hydrogen buses after realizing electric buses make so much more sense

The City of Montpellier confirmed that it canceled an order for 50 hydrogen fuel cell buses after realizing that it...

electrek.co

View attachment 575515

Oh dear if EV’s where that simple they would have been on our roads decades ago and it wouldn’t have cost So much to implement the infographic whilst in part is true does not mean Hydrogen is a dead duck and should never be implemented. That bus link was posted last week by Gromett.

 

[Coolcats]

For the Nay sayers

Go-Ahead forges ahead with plans to launch hydrogen buses in the UK this summer - edie

Public transport operator Go-Ahead Group has completed 15-year hydrogen supply deal, as it strives for a fossil-fuel-free fleet of buses in the UK by 2035.

www.edie.net

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