I wonder why this didn't get to production ? Better than an a battery !

[Social Media]

 

[JBChiangRai]

Ah a FOOL cell, Hydrogen, there was a vehicle that ran on hydrogen, it was an airship, I think it was called the Hindenburg.

 

What could possibly go wrong.

[Crossy]

Replace the fuel cell system with a battery and you have something cool and workable.

 

BUT

 

There are issues in most jurisdictions with not having a physical connection between the controls and the steering and braking systems.

 

Officer;- "What caused the accident?"

Driver:- "I had a BSOD at 70mph in the fast lane of the M25".

 

 

[KannikaP]

8 minutes ago, Crossy said:

There are issues in most jurisdictions with not having a physical connection between the controls and the steering and braking systems.

Tell that to most airline pilots.......and their passengers. 555

[JBChiangRai]

5 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

Tell that to most airline pilots.......and their passengers. 555

But not the dead ones…Thank you Boeing

[degrub]

and Airbus

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

Ah a FOOL cell, Hydrogen, there was a vehicle that ran on hydrogen, it was an airship, I think it was called the Hindenburg.

 

What could possibly go wrong.

Hydrogen was used to make the Hindenburg lighter than air, not as a fuel for propulsion.

As a fuel, hydrogen is superior to EV's for environmental sustainability, as most EV's still derive their recharge electricity from fossil fuel generators.

The options for hydrogen storage include as liquefied, as a metal hydride, or as ammonia, the most energy-dense hydride. CSIRO researchers already have the membrane technology for reforming ammonia to hydrogen at pilot plant stage. I daresay it will be safer than 60KWh packed into a battery.

 

What could possibly go wrong? Your post.

[JBChiangRai]

27 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Hydrogen was used to make the Hindenburg lighter than air, not as a fuel for propulsion.

As a fuel, hydrogen is superior to EV's for environmental sustainability, as most EV's still derive their recharge electricity from fossil fuel generators.

The options for hydrogen storage include as liquefied, as a metal hydride, or as ammonia, the most energy-dense hydride. CSIRO researchers already have the membrane technology for reforming ammonia to hydrogen at pilot plant stage. I daresay it will be safer than 60KWh packed into a battery.

 

What could possibly go wrong? Your post.

You’re missing a couple of important points. Hydrogen is still highly inflammable and explosive, whether it is used for fuel or buoyancy.

 

Secondly, how are you going to produce the hydrogen? With the same dirty fossil technology that is currently used to charge EV’s.

 

Market forces will determine which one is going to be successful, and right now, it does not look like hydrogen.  It very much looks like EV.

[JBChiangRai]

1 hour ago, degrub said:

and Airbus

I believe Airbus too. I think the only claim for a fly by wire accident is this one. The pilot of the A320 that crashed at Habsheim claimed the fly-by-wire engines failed to spool up on command.

it was vital to the state & Airbus that it be pilot error. Ultimately, he was found guilty and sentenced to 10 months in prison and 10 months probation.
 

Analysis of photographs, showing the black boxes being carried away from the aircraft by the worlds most prestigious photograph certification company in Lausanne, Switzerland showed that the black boxes being presented to the court were not the same ones photographed being carried away from the aircraft. Additionally, further analysis by experts identified numerous problems with the digital flight data recorder, four seconds missing, no timing marks on the tape, wrong leaders on the tape etc etc.

 

IMHO, the captain was right, and it, most likely was a fly-by-wire error, it would’ve been disastrous for Airbus, if that was found to be the case on their first ever, A320 aeroplane.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

You’re missing a couple of important points. Hydrogen is still highly inflammable and explosive, whether it is used for fuel or buoyancy.

 

Secondly, how are you going to produce the hydrogen? With the same dirty fossil technology that is currently used to charge EV’s.

 

Market forces will determine which one is going to be successful, and right now, it does not look like hydrogen.  It very much looks like EV.

Generate the hydrogen by electrolysis of water, using renewable solar or wind power. Convert the hydrogen to ammonia, transport to anywhere in the world with better outcomes than transporting fossil fuels. Reconstitute as hydrogen for distribution.

 

The technology is already there, it is a matter of scaling it up with capital investment. The Chinese are very interested in what's coming out of Australian research.

It's the ideal answer to their major pollution problems.

 

You may be right, EV's win out. However, you are missing a couple of reasonably important points.

 

The first - it takes very little adaptation to convert an ICE to being fuelled by hydrogen. We are already doing it with LPG and CNG. There's a lot of sunk cost in ICE factories, car makers would be delighted to extend plant life.

 

The second - EV supply has a major bottleneck. Manufacturers simply can't get enough lithium, cobalt, manganese, neodymium and praseodymium to meet current EV demand, let alone future requirements. For lithium alone, mine production has to be about ten times what it is now.

 

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" ( John Maynard Keynes )

 

 

[JBChiangRai]

22 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Generate the hydrogen by electrolysis of water, using renewable solar or wind power. Convert the hydrogen to ammonia, transport to anywhere in the world with better outcomes than transporting fossil fuels. Reconstitute as hydrogen for distribution.

 

The technology is already there, it is a matter of scaling it up with capital investment. The Chinese are very interested in what's coming out of Australian research.

It's the ideal answer to their major pollution problems.

 

You may be right, EV's win out. However, you are missing a couple of reasonably important points.

 

The first - it takes very little adaptation to convert an ICE to being fuelled by hydrogen. We are already doing it with LPG and CNG. There's a lot of sunk cost in ICE factories, car makers would be delighted to extend plant life.

 

The second - EV supply has a major bottleneck. Manufacturers simply can't get enough lithium, cobalt, manganese, neodymium and praseodymium to meet current EV demand, let alone future requirements. For lithium alone, mine production has to be about ten times what it is now.

 

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" ( John Maynard Keynes )

 

 

Generate the hydrogen by electrolysis of water. Where dos the electricity cone from?

 

that is the same argument used by people with EV is, that it can come from renewable sources, but does it? Not just now it doesn’t?

 

So, instead of putting electricity in a battery, and taking it out again to drive the car, we take electricity, we electrolyse water, we produce hydrogen. We liquefy it or reacted to create something else, we store it, we ship it to a filling station, and ultimately we put it back in an EV and we turn it back into electricity, or we explode it to move all those 2000 moving parts in an internal combustion engine m, all these extra steps, complete nonsense, and that is why people are buying battery EV’s and not hydrogen cars like the Toyota Mirai , which is the biggest flop they have ever had.

 

The problem you talk about with lithium, it’s not it’s abundance, it’s the number of battery factories and refiners that we have, that has to scale up massively, and it will do, supply and demand.

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, Crossy said:

Driver:- "I had a BSOD at 70mph in the fast lane of the M25".

Just in case there are people out there who don't know the Blue screen of death:

 

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

Generate the hydrogen by electrolysis of water. Where dos the electricity cone from?

 

that is the same argument used by people with EV is, that it can come from renewable sources, but does it? Not just now it doesn’t?

 

So, instead of putting electricity in a battery, and taking it out again to drive the car, we take electricity, we electrolyse water, we produce hydrogen. We liquefy it or reacted to create something else, we store it, we ship it to a filling station, and ultimately we put it back in an EV and we turn it back into electricity, or we explode it to move all those 2000 moving parts in an internal combustion engine m, all these extra steps, complete nonsense, and that is why people are buying battery EV’s and not hydrogen cars like the Toyota Mirai , which is the biggest flop they have ever had.

 

The problem you talk about with lithium, it’s not it’s abundance, it’s the number of battery factories and refiners that we have, that has to scale up massively, and it will do, supply and demand.

Can't you read? I said "using renewable solar or wind power". In case you have not noticed, Australia gets a lot of sunshine, wind and even tidal power. 15 metre tides anywhere north of Roebourne.

 

A lot of hydrogen currently is produced by cracking methane, which I agree for fuelling an ICE is a pointless exercise. Just as pointless as recharging an EV from a fossil fuel power station, in terms of environmental sustainability.

 

I also said the mines can't produce enough to meet lithium demand. Battery factories and refiners are another part of the bottleneck. I did forget nickel as another element in short supply.

[JBChiangRai]

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Can't you read? I said "using renewable solar or wind power". In case you have not noticed, Australia gets a lot of sunshine, wind and even tidal power. 15 metre tides anywhere north of Roebourne.

 

A lot of hydrogen currently is produced by cracking methane, which I agree for fuelling an ICE is a pointless exercise. Just as pointless as recharging an EV from a fossil fuel power station, in terms of environmental sustainability.

 

I also said the mines can't produce enough to meet lithium demand. Battery factories and refiners are another part of the bottleneck. I did forget nickel as another element in short supply.

“Can’t you read” another of your many inappropriate comments.

 

Yes, I read what you said about renewables, but that same argument applies to battery EV’s, and guess what, the energy used to charge BEV’s is the same energy that would be used to produce hydrogen and generally not from renewables, but from fossil fuels.

 

Keeping on topic, whether it’s a battery EV or a hydrogen fool cell car, electricity used is to charge it or produce H2 is likely to be the same source.

 

Lithium is an abundant element, it’s simply a matter of scaling up, mining, refining, and battery production. Lithium is abundant in seawater, and guess what, there’s a hell of a lot of that!

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

“Can’t you read” another of your many inappropriate comments.

 

Yes, I read what you said about renewables, but that same argument applies to battery EV’s, and guess what, the energy used to charge BEV’s is the same energy that would be used to produce hydrogen and generally not from renewables, but from fossil fuels.

 

Keeping on topic, whether it’s a battery EV or a hydrogen fool cell car, electricity used is to charge it or produce H2 is likely to be the same source.

 

Lithium is an abundant element, it’s simply a matter of scaling up, mining, refining, and battery production. Lithium is abundant in seawater, and guess what, there’s a hell of a lot of that!

My question was entirely appropriate to someone who is either dyslexic, or chooses to read what only suits them. If you consider my post is abusive, use the report function.

 

I also stated currently hydrogen is mostly made from cracking methane, restating that in another form in your post is hardly original.

 

Lithium is not abundant in seawater in terms of concentration, at 0.17 mg/L. One would have to process 5800 tonnes of seawater to obtain just 1 kg of lithium, assuming a process operating at 100% efficiency.

 

The average EV battery requires about 8 kg of lithium. A Tesla Model S needs over 60 kg.

 

 I won't waste my time any further. Goodbye.

[JBChiangRai]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

My question was entirely appropriate to someone who is either dyslexic, or chooses to read what only suits them. If you consider my post is abusive, use the report function.

 

I also stated currently hydrogen is mostly made from cracking methane, restating that in another form in your post is hardly original.

 

Lithium is not abundant in seawater in terms of concentration, at 0.17 mg/L. One would have to process 5800 tonnes of seawater to obtain just 1 kg of lithium, assuming a process operating at 100% efficiency.

 

The average EV battery requires about 8 kg of lithium. A Tesla Model S needs over 60 kg.

 

 I won't waste my time any further. Goodbye.

Around 180 billion tons of lithium in seawater, we won’t be running out any time soon.

 

As I have said before, I don’t consider your posts abusive, just inappropriate and fairly often rude.

[thailandsgreat]

Pipelines will be used when EU takes control over Europe and sell hydrogen split from water in France's 56+14 Fukushima style reactors. End user power plants easily modified from Putin-gas to Macron-gas. Just move dependency from one dictator to another. Other countries are forbidden to produce anything but useless propeller power.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lstwaiawszfmp5upllrfu/XRecorder_13062023_093611.mp4?rlkey=e3mcoeelj68gidq51dnobxkon&dl=0

 

Are they still laughing?

 

Since Elon called them fool cells, they probably work fine.

[Furioso]

Producing hydrogen takes A LOT of electricity. It would require fossil fuels, not just solar and wind.

 

In short, it's dirty to produce clean hydrogen. 

[JBChiangRai]

22 minutes ago, thailandsgreat said:

End user power plants easily modified from Putin-gas to Macron-gas. 

 

Just hook those pipelines up to the Anti-EV’ers here, lots of gas and hot air here.

[billd766]

9 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Ah a FOOL cell, Hydrogen, there was a vehicle that ran on hydrogen, it was an airship, I think it was called the Hindenburg.

 

What could possibly go wrong.

There were many other airships at the time which didn't crash, made by Count Zeppelin.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin

 

If you pick out the Hindenburg as an airship that crashed, there was also the R101 a British airship.

 

The Hindenburg accident happened in 1937, some 94 years ago. A lot of progress has been made since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster

 

How many 'normal' powered aircraft have crashed in a similar period of time? As an example how about the Boeing 747 or the 787 or Concorde?

 

How many people have been killed in car, motorcycle, truck and bus crashes.

 

Picking something from the past without comparison is a waste of time.

[eisfeld]

9 hours ago, Crossy said:

There are issues in most jurisdictions with not having a physical connection between the controls and the steering and braking systems.

 

Officer;- "What caused the accident?"

Driver:- "I had a BSOD at 70mph in the fast lane of the M25".

I think we left that era behind us already since the introduction of ride-by-wire throttles many years ago and are taking it to the next level with autonomous driving. Crashes due to bugs in the electrically controlled driving are a reality.

[thailandsgreat]

Nah, you're exaggerating the problems

 

http://e-rabbit.org/global/other_material/2022_06/tesla_ai_day_satire_h264.mp4

[JBChiangRai]

39 minutes ago, billd766 said:

There were many other airships at the time which didn't crash, made by Count Zeppelin.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin

 

If you pick out the Hindenburg as an airship that crashed, there was also the R101 a British airship.

 

The Hindenburg accident happened in 1937, some 94 years ago. A lot of progress has been made since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster

 

How many 'normal' powered aircraft have crashed in a similar period of time? As an example how about the Boeing 747 or the 787 or Concorde?

 

How many people have been killed in car, motorcycle, truck and bus crashes.

 

Picking something from the past without comparison is a waste of time.

Actually, the Hindenburg didn’t crash, it caught fire.

 

They think it was probably a static electricity spark created at docking by earthing the superstructure.

 

I used the example of the Hindenburg because it’s the most famous Hydrogen fueled fire.  I am not sure whether Zeppelin’s were buoyed by Hydrogen or Helium.

 

There is little point in comparing other types of vehicle accidents like airplanes, the thread is about whether or not H2 power is superior to BEV’s.  My post was meant to be satirical. 

 

There are numerous issues with using Hydrogen in fueling cars.  Toyota’s Mirai has no less than 3 hydrogen fuel tanks, they take up so much space that the rear seats are unsuitable for adults and boot space is severely limited.

 

Ultimately, I don’t think it will make any difference, whether hydrogen fuel cells turn out to be better than battery electric vehicles, it’s going to be like the Betamax and VHS era, the market will go with the one that is most widely available and I think H2 has already lost.

 

 

[Eleftheros]

9 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Secondly, how are you going to produce the hydrogen? With the same dirty fossil technology that is currently used to charge EV’s.

Exactly. They use up electricity separating water into hydrogen and oxygen. Then they burn the hydrogen with oxygen to create electricity and claim they have found a great green 'solution'.

 

Just more green feel-good fantasy nonsense.

[billd766]

51 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Actually, the Hindenburg didn’t crash, it caught fire.

 

They think it was probably a static electricity spark created at docking by earthing the superstructure.

 

I used the example of the Hindenburg because it’s the most famous Hydrogen fueled fire.  I am not sure whether Zeppelin’s were buoyed by Hydrogen or Helium.

 

There is little point in comparing other types of vehicle accidents like airplanes, the thread is about whether or not H2 power is superior to BEV’s.  My post was meant to be satirical. 

 

There are numerous issues with using Hydrogen in fueling cars.  Toyota’s Mirai has no less than 3 hydrogen fuel tanks, they take up so much space that the rear seats are unsuitable for adults and boot space is severely limited.

 

Ultimately, I don’t think it will make any difference, whether hydrogen fuel cells turn out to be better than battery electric vehicles, it’s going to be like the Betamax and VHS era, the market will go with the one that is most widely available and I think H2 has already lost.

 

 

AFAIK hydrogen is a renewable fuel and is ideal for ICE engines.

 

OTOH helium is non flammable and also non renewable.

 

Another problem with EVs is that when the time comes (as it will) to replace the battery the cost of that battery is about 50% of the price of the vehicle when it was new.

 

You should however be able to fill the hydrogen fuel tank of your car just as you do now with gasolene, diesel and LNG/LPG which is used extensively in ICE powered vehicles nowadays.

 

Maybe the fuel tanks have to be made stronger (that I don't know) but given the option of an EV or a hydrogen powered vehicle, I would go for hydrogen every time.

 

This of course assumes that hydrogen refuelling stations, become more available as EV charging stations once were.

 

Not to mention filling you fuel tank with hydrogen will be much quicker than charging your EV battery.

 

The price of hydrogen will be high at the start and drop as more stations are built.

[eisfeld]

Hydrogen vs batteries has been discussed to death many times over. Yes hydrogen would be a massive step forward from fossil fuels but it has issues. It's a highly flamable gas at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure. Which means that faults in the tank can lead to very violent explosions. Explosions that can be so severe that they threaten the structural integrity of buildings should such an incident happen in an underground parking garage. Just for this reason and there being no fool proof way to prevent that they have a big handicap when it comes to general market adoption.

 

Many of the advantages of hydrogen like fast refuelling will go away with advancements in battery technology. We already have batteries that can be charged to 80% in 20 minutes and the 10 minute benchmark is around the corner. The pace at which battery tech is improving is very high.

 

Don't take the current state of the art as the deciding factor between battery vs hydrogen combustion in the future.

[JBChiangRai]

11 minutes ago, billd766 said:

AFAIK hydrogen is a renewable fuel and is ideal for ICE engines.

 

OTOH helium is non flammable and also non renewable.

 

Another problem with EVs is that when the time comes (as it will) to replace the battery the cost of that battery is about 50% of the price of the vehicle when it was new.

 

You should however be able to fill the hydrogen fuel tank of your car just as you do now with gasolene, diesel and LNG/LPG which is used extensively in ICE powered vehicles nowadays.

 

Maybe the fuel tanks have to be made stronger (that I don't know) but given the option of an EV or a hydrogen powered vehicle, I would go for hydrogen every time.

 

This of course assumes that hydrogen refuelling stations, become more available as EV charging stations once were.

 

Not to mention filling you fuel tank with hydrogen will be much quicker than charging your EV battery.

 

The price of hydrogen will be high at the start and drop as more stations are built.

I agree with most of what you say, but current thinking is most battery packs will outlast the car.  We should be able to recycle them at EOL too.

 

I think the massively complicated ICE has run it’s course and don’t think fuelling ICE cars with H2 is a good solution, I like fuel cell technology but think it’s too little, too late.

[xtrnuno41]

There are already trucks driving on H2. They use a membrane cell, they are expensive.(still?) They have a small tank of H2, about 5 ltr. Yup, was also stunned.

Now in EU they are busy on 600 busses for 22 countries(?) on H2 with the expensive H2 fuel cells. Difference in money between between battery bus and H2 bus is a whopping 100.000 euro./bus

 

Yes , we already had electric busses, by wire, decades and more cities ha(d)ve them. As long as I live they were there. Other cities have trams. Dont understand why trams are more used, as they need rails. OK you dont have to steer.

Just checked, but saw already a trolleybus in 1882!

Not long ago in AN you saw Toyota is setting in on H2 combustible engines. They developed such an engine.

 

"My"country is fanatic setting in on H2, will use gas pipe lines for H2 to transport. Using windmills for generating/converting water in H2. 

There are times there is an overflow of electricity and for controlling they ask companies  to use more power and just waste it! Implementation of wind energy on net has some issues, as gasturbines generating electricity arent just so easy to step down. They are engineered for specific working area, running on high rpm's. All designed for that. So the control is in the end of users using electricity. Also thus H2 generating by electrolysis, but not yet done.

However then you read aluminimum melting company bankrupt thanks to Ukraine war, probably used gas then? 

The making of H2 with windmills and a factory to do so g(i)ave "some" problems.

The government had an "argue" with SHELL (partner) about who has to control all, which probably resulted in SHELL leaving the country. Money.. it's  a drag.

No clue how it is going now.

Just checked, if it goes well, it will be 2027 ! It takes a while.

But then green H2 production of 800.000 tons/year, prevents 7.000.000 tons CO2-emission/year.

So they say.

 

The increase in demand for electricity gave problems for the net, it is too much and net has to be extended. People started switching on electricity, cars, cooking.

Well that will take a while. Also people having solar panels cant feed back on net. So you should invest in a ...battery?

Lithium, I red in Chile in a desert they extract Li, using a whopping 20000 ltr/sec of water to inject in earth to solve Li. Of course the water needs to be clean as extra salts will give problems in separating. Separating by... electrolysis. Electricity from... fossile fuels?!

How green a battery is if you dont use solar or windturbines for electricity?!

And then again, how green is a solar panel or windturbine? The blades of the windturbine have to be changed in time and they dont know what to do with the old ones. There is a company in Denmark, which with chemicals can break down the blades, however creating ..CO2.

What about vibrations, sound of turbines? What effect on nature?

Killer whales at Portugal started attacking boats, they dont know why.

And Li is quite rare, yes it is still to be found, but we need more and more and more.

And winning Li gives eventually big environmental issues.

 

In 1992, i was amazed in USA, they already had windturbines running then.

In the region of Las Vegas, a whole field with windturbines, though they were not that big as we have now. But was flabbergasted then.

 

SO we are waiting on nucleair fusion? A perpetuum?

As at first it needs "some" power to ignite.

Or isnt it about time we reduce the growth of humans?

For that matter, see youtube "10 billion"

 

 

 

[sirineou]

On 8/6/2023 at 2:40 PM, JBChiangRai said:

Yes, I read what you said about renewables, but that same argument applies to battery EV’s, and guess what, the energy used to charge BEV’s is the same energy that would be used to produce hydrogen and generally not from renewables, but from fossil fuels.

You are missing a few very important points. 

A) Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, accounting for about 75 percent of its normal matter Where Lithium, nickel and cobalt and other rare earths nessacery for the production of EV batteries are as the term implies rare  

b) Gasoline has a higher explosive potential Explosion occurs with gasoline at much lower concentrations, 1.1- 3.3%.where Hydrogen can be explosive at concentrations of 18.3- 59%. In addition the storage containers for hydrogen in cars are much more safe than tin fuel tanks. Many companies are working on  Solid-State Hydrogen storage,

"Fortunately, hydrogen cars are among the safest vehicles on the road "

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/get-in-an-accident-car/8557439/#:~:text=Fortunately%2C hydrogen cars are among,a solid five-star rating.

Natural gas which many of you don't have a problem with converting your car to run with, is explosive at a 5- 15% concentrations

C) A hydrogen fuel cell recharges 3-5 minutes as opposed to Hours for EVs. and has an unlimited range similar to ICE vehicles. 

D)Much of the electricity in the world comes from renewables . The global average right now is 17% (with in the next 3 years it is projected to increase to 35%  )  another 10% is generated from nuclear , and is also increasing with new safe reactor technology coming on line. and 40% is produced from clean natural gas. So at this point we have a 67% clean , soon to be 80%.

 

So IMO, and  supported by the above facts , there is a reason why Toyota is betting as much as it is on Hydrogen. When it comes to cars I think we can all agree they are not dummies, and have an idea what is coming in the pipeline. 

 

[3NUMBAS]

many     buses are using hydrogen   ,all over the world 

 

https://www.linde-engineering.com/en/plant-components/hydrogen-refueling-technologies/index.html