Bye bye Electric & Hello Hydrogen?

[lopburi3]

20 hours ago, Crossy said:

Simple question.

 

Where will the hydrogen come from?

 

[Photoguy21]

20 hours ago, Crossy said:

Simple question.

 

Where will the hydrogen come from?

 

Water?

[spidermike007]

Read this recently. Does anyone with knowledge of this know if this is true, or accurate? If so, surely electric cars must be made a thing of the past. Hybrids would seem to make alot more sense, or future versions, such as hydrogen, as is suggested here.

Here comes the Tesla battery.
To produce it you need to excavate:
12 tons. of rock for Lithium
5 tons. of cobalt minerals
3 t. of mineral for nickel
12 tons. the mineral for the copper
Need to move 250 tons. of land to obtain:
12 kg of Lithium
13.6 pounds of nickels
22 kg of manganese
6.8 kg of Cobalt
100 Kg of Rams
200 kg of aluminum, steel and plastic.
The Caterpillar 994A used to move this earth consumes 1000 litres of diesel in 12 hours.
Here is the “zero emissions” car.
The biggest scam in history. "

 

Your thoughts? Do you agree, or is this nonsense?

[eisfeld]

6 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Hydrogen is significantly more energy dense than batteries, it is only at this stage of development that batteries are more efficient than fuel cells. expect that to change. 

You also need to consider the following.

I am sure you are familiar of the famous F=ma equation. Current conventional EV batteries are very heavy. part of the current increase of conventional battery EV goes towards accelerating the battery weight. 

And please don't say that is is recovered with regenerative braking. because both types of vehicles have regenerative braking. 

The extra weight of batteries,is particularly important in payload issues. 

 

Doesn't help if hydrogen is more energy dense when used in a hydrogen combustion engine which just extracts a fraction as useable power to the wheel. The weight of batteries in EVs is less than a third of the total weight. And the hydrogen is not weightless either. So there is just a percentage of less efficiency due to added weight. As for regen breaking: hydrogen combusion powered cars can't store that as hydrogen because the water is gone through the exhaust. So that leaves fuell cell vehicles. Their weight advantage is minimal and I'm not sure if they can do electrolysis as fast. They probably buffer the generated power in batteries and/or capacitors first.

[sirineou]

I don't understand the vehement reaction EV enthusiasts have against Hydrogen Fuel Cell batteries 

There are all short of batteries under development, and no one seems to have a problem with any of them. yet mention hydrogen fuel cell and you all get an epileptic reaction.

It is just another battery!! but instead of you having to charge an electrical potential into your chemicals and minerals  at home or at the charging station. The electric potential is in the Hydrogen.

 

[eisfeld]

14 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You would not have to engage in the gymnastics you do now  nessacery to maintain and extend battery life. 

 

What gymnastics? Every EV owner that I know is just using the car totally normally. And as mentioned we are seeing already Li batteries approaching cycle times of 2000. Enough to easily cover the lifetime of the vehicle for most private ones.  Once you reach lifetimes of 20 years there's little point in improving further.

[sirineou]

5 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

 

Doesn't help if hydrogen is more energy dense when used in a hydrogen combustion engine which just extracts a fraction as useable power to the wheel. The weight of batteries in EVs is less than a third of the total weight. And the hydrogen is not weightless either. So there is just a percentage of less efficiency due to added weight. As for regen breaking: hydrogen combusion powered cars can't store that as hydrogen because the water is gone through the exhaust. So that leaves fuell cell vehicles. Their weight advantage is minimal and I'm not sure if they can do electrolysis as fast. They probably buffer the generated power in batteries and/or capacitors first.

convectional EV batteries are 12 times heavier than  Hydrogen fuel cells

A =F/m

[eisfeld]

11 minutes ago, lopburi3 said:

 

Hydrogen bombs use hydrogen, they don't produce it 🙂

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

What gymnastics

many of you have posted charging regiment to extend the life of your battery, I am sure you all dont to that as a hobby. 

[lopburi3]

Just now, eisfeld said:

 

Hydrogen bombs use hydrogen, they don't produce it 🙂

But if you capture the energy from that bomb you would be driving the world for life.  But real fear is some nut will likely be using to end our world at the rate we are sinking.

[eisfeld]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

convectional EV batteries are 12 times heavier than  Hydrogen fuel cells

A =F/m

 

Have you calculated how much more energy per kilometer driven a lithium battery powered vehicle uses compared to fuel cell? And then compare to electric efficiency. Because what you really care about is dollar per kilometer driven, that's what matters. The result does not favor fuel cells. And that's why they didn't gain traction.

[eisfeld]

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

many of you have posted charging regiment to extend the life of your battery, I am sure you all dont to that as a hobby. 

 

I haven't mentioned anything like that. You seem to put me into some kind of group of people that I don't belong to.

[eisfeld]

4 minutes ago, lopburi3 said:

But if you capture the energy from that bomb you would be driving the world for life.  But real fear is some nut will likely be using to end our world at the rate we are sinking.

 

Well, that's what fusion reactors will be doing. Using hydrogen isotopes like tritium or deuterium to fuse them into stuff like helium. I'm not scared of someone ending the world. We already had hydrogen fusion bombs for decades.

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

 

I haven't mentioned anything like that. You seem to put me into some kind of group of people that I don't belong to.

Why they are nice people

[JBChiangRai]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

I don't think it is easy, I think it is easier than to upgrade all of the worlds electrical grid, for a conventional EV battery system that also has other limitation, where there is another  system that also has less limitations. 

By the way not hydrogen storage has to be done under pressure,  there is also research and major breakthroughs with solid state hydrogen storage 

If you are interested read the following article or do a google search for "Hydrogen solid state storage" 

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/09/02/hydrogen-storage-techniques/

less explosion risk the ICE 

https://www.topspeed.com/why-shouldnt-fear-hydrogen-powered-cars/#:~:text=However%2C this is a myth,this way as technology advances.

Hydrogen is significantly more energy dense than batteries, it is only at this stage of development that batteries are more efficient than fuel cells. expect that to change. 

You also need to consider the following.

I am sure you are familiar of the famous F=ma equation. Current conventional EV batteries are very heavy. part of the current increase of conventional battery EV goes towards accelerating the battery weight. 

And please don't say that is is recovered with regenerative braking. because both types of vehicles have regenerative braking. 

The extra weight of batteries,is particularly important in payload issues. 

Toyota is still betting on Hydrogen so is GM as of lately. 

https://www.topspeed.com/toyota-betting-big-on-hydrogen-despite-745-mile-solid-state-battery/#:~:text=Indeed%2C hydrogen figures prominently in,cars per yer by 2030.

Don't confuse toyota's participation in the current EV market for giving up on Hydrogen,

Toyota is one leading manufacturer of cars in the world, and is not willing to give up it'd market share for future  Hydrogen considerations. 

 

Toyota, GM, Ford and others are left with little choice other than to bet on non-Lithium based solutions, because they don't have any Lithium and the only people who could sell it to them want their own auto manufacturers to win the EV race so will price it accordingly.

 

I am sure efficiency of fuel cells will continue to improve but the laws of physics means a BEV will always be cheaper per km as it cuts out many of the intermediate stages.  Unless we can find a scalable way to produce Hydrogen without using electricity.

 

I believe there is a place for Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars alongside BEV's, but they will have to be priced cheaper and they won't have the same performance capability, we are unlikely to see high-performance Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars.  I think they may also be more popular in some very cold climates, not only because they behave better but the fuel cell produces waste heat which can heat the cabin.

 

 

 

[MangoKorat]

2 hours ago, eisfeld said:

Costs them probably something like 2k THB to produce

Much less than that I suspect.  All these items are sealed so that they can't be interfered with (read fixed).  I had a BMW 12d on which the ABS unit failed.  The ABS unit comprises of a mechanical side (pump and valves) and an electronic control unit, this particular one was used on several BMW models and was only available as a complete unit at a cost of £1600!  When they first started giving problems, BMW (as usual) denied there was a problem but strangely, started selling the electronic control unit separately - still very expensive though.

 

Luckily I found a company in the UK that repaired my unit, I think for £120 and gave a lifetime warranty on it.  You can bet that the fault was a small transitor or something that cost pennies.

 

The airbag light in my car is on currently and diagnostics indicate the control has failed, they cost around £600 but again, an independent company will repair it for £70.

 

From what I hear from friends still in the trade, the situation with these electronic controls is getting worse and given the electrickery on some of electric cars around, they will no doubt be even more expensive to repair.  Motors, I suspect, will not be repairable (until an independent learns how and sources the parts) and will cost zillions to replace.

 

I believe that one of the problems with ICE Hydrogen powered cars is storage of the gas within the car - I've heard it said that you would in effect be driving around in a H Bomb.  If that can be overcome and the supply network put in place, I think that would beat fighting for a charging point in a supermarket car park.

 

Coming soon, to a cinema near you: Charge Wars!

[MangoKorat]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

I don't think it is easy, I think it is easier than to upgrade all of the worlds electrical grid,

And this is a very underestimated problem.  The UK government for example, has for years claimed there is adequate supply capacity in the UK - given the massive power requirements of other 'new tech' such as The Cloud - that must now be questionable.  However, when examined by industry experts, the truth is that the total capacity is not the problem (at the moment), the problem is where that power is.  Much of the capacity currently available is located in ex industrial areas and not necessarily where its going to be required.

 

To provide a reliable power supply, across the country is going to mean years of roads being dug up and heavier cable being installed.  From what I'm told, only a slow charge unit can currently be used at a domestic home due to supply limitations. Anyone requiring a fast charge will have to visit a charging point and in the UK currently that also means, if you can find one.

 

I suspect the problems in Thailand will be even worse - even though my area doesn't suffer from as many outages these days, it does suffer from low voltage as there is simply not enough power to meet current requirements - how about when people have EV's? I suspect that Solar Power for homes will start to make more sense - so maybe a bonus?

 

I realise that climate change is a massive problem that we must do something about - its just seems that we are currently putting the cart before the horse.  After years of inaction on climate change, the world's governments seem to think they can put that right by trying to move on EV's before the infrastructure required to power them is in place.

 

If they can get it right ICE hydrogen seems a much better bet but I suspect its a big IF.

Edited February 20 by MangoKorat

[eisfeld]

10 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Much less than that I suspect.  All these items are sealed so that they can't be interfered with (read fixed).  I had a BMW 12d on which the ABS unit failed.  The ABS unit comprises of a mechanical side (pump and valves) and an electronic control unit, this particular one was used on several BMW models and was only available as a complete unit at a cost of £1600!  When they first started giving problems, BMW (as usual) denied there was a problem but strangely, started selling the electronic control unit separately - still very expensive though.

 

Luckily I found a company in the UK that repaired my unit, I think for £120 and gave a lifetime warranty on it.  You can bet that the fault was a small transitor or something that cost pennies.

 

The airbag light in my car is on currently and diagnostics indicate the control has failed, they cost around £600 but again, an independent company will repair it for £70.

 

100% agreed. The situation is ridicolous. Companies just don't want to sell the parts unless forced to.

10 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

From what I hear from friends still in the trade, the situation with these electronic controls is getting worse and given the electrickery on some of electric cars around, they will no doubt be even more expensive to repair.  Motors, I suspect, will not be repairable (until an independent learns how and sources the parts) and will cost zillions to replace.

Yea because with the electrics they can lock them down really good and only let "authorized" dealers do repears. The lawmakes need to step in or it's going to be really ugly. "Right to Repair" is something I fully support. It needs to also make sure parts are available at reasonable cost with just a small profit margin for the manufacturer.

 

11 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

I believe that one of the problems with ICE Hydrogen powered cars is storage of the gas within the car - I've heard it said that you would in effect be driving around in a H Bomb.  If that can be overcome and the supply network put in place, I think that would beat fighting for a charging point in a supermarket car park.

 

Well it's not exactly an H bomb which is a fusion bomb. Hydrogen ICE cars don't do that luckily. But yes they are rolling bombs and no further development can change that physics fact unfortunately. They can make the tanks safer but they can't eliminate the risk completely. When it does happen then it's ugly because the explosion is so fast and violent.

[Lacessit]

5 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

It's impossible to get more energy from recombining H₂ & O₂ than you put in cracking 2H₂0 into 2H₂ & O₂  

 

 

I don't know if you are aware of it, but your statement is a good expression of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Personally, I think there is room for both EV's and hydrogen-fuelled cars, with wealthier people buying EV's, and poorer people having to buy the alternative as fossil-fuelled vehicles are phased out by mandate. That process could take 30 years.

 

It reminds me of when I was one of the first people to put solar panels on my house in Australia. A modest addition, six panels, but they reduced my electricity bill to nearly zero with the feed-in tariff.

 

I was a member of a golf club which had some very wealthy people. After they realized the payback and cost savings of solar, it developed into competition between them to see how many solar panels they could cram onto the roofs of their houses.

 

Tough luck for people who can't afford solar panels. Their mains supplier has to increase the cost of electricity, to compensate for a shrinking market.

[JBChiangRai]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

I don't know if you are aware of it, but your statement is a good expression of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Personally, I think there is room for both EV's and hydrogen-fuelled cars, with wealthier people buying EV's, and poorer people having to buy the alternative as fossil-fuelled vehicles are phased out by mandate. That process could take 30 years.

 

Yes I was aware, Physics was my best subject at school, my father was a Physics teacher.

 

I agree on your assessment about the room for both Hydrogen and BEV's, the BEV's will be the more desirable and hence the more expensive.

[vinny41]

It would appear the old saying of don't put all your eggs in one basket is working for some manufacturers

Toyota hikes annual profit forecast after Q3 beats expectations

Hikes full-year profit forecast by about 9% to 4.9 trillion yen

Toyota's Q3 operating profit surges almost 76%

The improved outlook from the world's best-selling automaker contrasts with a downbeat forecast from many rivals that have warned of tepid sales growth and announced output cuts amid high interest rates and slowing demand for electric vehicles.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota-posts-76-jump-q3-operating-profit-2024-02-06/

[vinny41]

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Toyota, GM, Ford and others are left with little choice other than to bet on non-Lithium based solutions, because they don't have any Lithium and the only people who could sell it to them want their own auto manufacturers to win the EV race so will price it accordingly.

 

I am sure efficiency of fuel cells will continue to improve but the laws of physics means a BEV will always be cheaper per km as it cuts out many of the intermediate stages.  Unless we can find a scalable way to produce Hydrogen without using electricity.

 

I believe there is a place for Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars alongside BEV's, but they will have to be priced cheaper and they won't have the same performance capability, we are unlikely to see high-performance Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars.  I think they may also be more popular in some very cold climates, not only because they behave better but the fuel cell produces waste heat which can heat the cabin.

 

 

 

It seems that Ford and GM have directly sourced Lithium for their requirements

Eager to avoid falling further behind Tesla and Chinese car companies, many Western auto executives are bypassing traditional suppliers and committing billions of dollars on deals with lithium mining companies.

They are showing up in hard hats and steel-toed boots to scope out mines in places like Chile, Argentina, Quebec and Nevada to secure supplies of a metal that could make or break their companies as they move from gasoline to battery power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/02/business/lithium-mining-automakers-electric-vehicles.html

[RayWright]

5 hours ago, eisfeld said:

 

Water as in hydrogen and oxygen? I'm confused by your post. You can't power something with just water unless it's a water mill or hydro power station at a dam. Or maybe a steam engine?

Water is H2O, so break down into H and O by electrolysis (you'll need a source of electrical energy,  e.g. a battery). Then you've got 2 options, use Hydrogen as is, i.e. H2 as in hydrogen gas, or use an additional step (Haber-Bosch process) to mix the H2 with air sourced Nitrogen (N) to create NH3. Admittedly Ammonia doesn't have same flame effect as traditional fuel (hydrocarbons), however adding Oxygen (by product of the electrolysis process) will improve the combustion effect. By product of Ammonia combustion is Nitrogen oxide (NOx), which apart from being un-environmental, could be looped back in part into the combustion process for added Fast & Furious performance, or use of a catalytic converter to remove it. The other by product is water, so use it as a top-up.

The really clever bit is fitting this into something the size of a car.

 

[JBChiangRai]

11 minutes ago, RayWright said:

Water is H2O, so break down into H and O by electrolysis (you'll need a source of electrical energy,  e.g. a battery). Then you've got 2 options, use Hydrogen as is, i.e. H2 as in hydrogen gas, or use an additional step (Haber-Bosch process) to mix the H2 with air sourced Nitrogen (N) to create NH3. Admittedly Ammonia doesn't have same flame effect as traditional fuel (hydrocarbons), however adding Oxygen (by product of the electrolysis process) will improve the combustion effect. By product of Ammonia combustion is Nitrogen oxide (NOx), which apart from being un-environmental, could be looped back in part into the combustion process for added Fast & Furious performance, or use of a catalytic converter to remove it. The other by product is water, so use it as a top-up.

The really clever bit is fitting this into something the size of a car.

 

There are issues with Ammonia currently, it’s not ready for use in transport.

 

It’s also extremely toxic to humans and corrosive to humans, metals and plastics.

 

I am sure @Lacessitwill have something to say on this.

[eisfeld]

10 minutes ago, RayWright said:

Water is H2O, so break down into H and O by electrolysis (you'll need a source of electrical energy,  e.g. a battery). Then you've got 2 options, use Hydrogen as is, i.e. H2 as in hydrogen gas, or use an additional step (Haber-Bosch process) to mix the H2 with air sourced Nitrogen (N) to create NH3. Admittedly Ammonia doesn't have same flame effect as traditional fuel (hydrocarbons), however adding Oxygen (by product of the electrolysis process) will improve the combustion effect. By product of Ammonia combustion is Nitrogen oxide (NOx), which apart from being un-environmental, could be looped back in part into the combustion process for added Fast & Furious performance, or use of a catalytic converter to remove it. The other by product is water, so use it as a top-up.

The really clever bit is fitting this into something the size of a car.

 

 

Right but I wouldn't say that the car is powered by water then. Water is just the source for the hydrogen. Same as current ICEs are not powered by crude oil. Especially not when Ammonia is added to the equation because you don't get that from water.

[RayWright]

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

There are issues with Ammonia currently, it’s not ready for use in transport.

 

It’s also extremely toxic to humans and corrosive to humans, metals and plastics.

 

I am sure @Lacessitwill have something to say on this.

Steel or PVC-U is used commercially for Ammonia storage, so readily available. Agree it's toxic, hence the limited number of options as a storage vessel.

In terms of not ready, then here's a pic of the first commercially available car, launched last November.

Rated at 161HP.

[RayWright]

1 hour ago, eisfeld said:

 

Right but I wouldn't say that the car is powered by water then. Water is just the source for the hydrogen. Same as current ICEs are not powered by crude oil. Especially not when Ammonia is added to the equation because you don't get that from water.

Okay, semantic point noted, water and air powered.

Ammonia is a combination of Hydrogen, so via electrolysis sourced from water and Nitrogen which is 78% of the air we breath, hence air sourced.

[zhounan]

The goal is voluntarily lock you in the room. You'll drive your car sitting on the armchair.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

There are issues with Ammonia currently, it’s not ready for use in transport.

 

It’s also extremely toxic to humans and corrosive to humans, metals and plastics.

 

I am sure @Lacessitwill have something to say on this.

Apparently there are membrane technologies at pilot plant stage for conversion of hydrogen to ammonia, and subsequent reformation to hydrogen and nitrogen. The Haber process may be on the way out. Most of the research is being done by CSIRO in Australia.

 

The strategy is to manufacture hydrogen from seawater in Australia, which is one of the best sites for renewable energy. Solar, wind and tidal power are all in the mix. Convert to ammonia, ship to China, reconstitute as hydrogen. Understandably, the Chinese are very interested. It remains to be seen how much capital goes into development.

 

Ammonia is non-flammable, which is more than can be said for refined petroleum products which are shipped all over the world. It's also less toxic than liquid chlorine, phenol and formaldehyde, which humans have been transporting in bulk for decades.

 

AFAIK stainless steel tankers can handle ammonia quite comfortably. OTOH, it chews through copper and its alloys quite rapidly.

 

 

 

[JBChiangRai]

39 minutes ago, RayWright said:

Steel or PVC-U is used commercially for Ammonia storage, so readily available. Agree it's toxic, hence the limited number of options as a storage vessel.

In terms of not ready, then here's a pic of the first commercially available car, launched last November.

Rated at 161HP.

 

I think ammonia powered cars won't take off.  It's better to run a mixture of ammonia and hydrogen (or petrol), I am more interested in what GAC Group aren't saying, is it running on 100% ammonia? 

 

Every time I hear of an alternative to BEV's, Toyota is involved somewhere.  Toyota's involvement with GAC and this car 

further fits with my assessment that they are trying to obfuscate the fact that EV's are going mainstream and trying to spread FUD, typically, this or that solution is round the corner, the reality is it isn't and Toyota and the other legacy manufacturers are scrabbling around to source Lithium.  Tesla & China have already locked down all the major producers of Lithium.

 

This highlights some of the issues, When it does burn, it is a carbon-free emission and produces zero CO2, zero hydrocarbons, and zero soot. Don't celebrate yet, without an engine using a high compression ratio or boost, it does release a lot of nitrogen into the atmosphere which leads to ammonia and ozone being made in the atmosphere which can lead to acid rain and impair our ability to breathe. That's why we're rather doubtful that this is a meaningful development. As BloombergNEF's head of transport and automotive analysis, Colin McKerracher, stated, "Ammonia is hellish to handle, I can't see it taking off in passenger cars." With its toxicity issues, there just isn't an infrastructure that exists to even fuel these engines. Even though hydrogen has a tougher time when compared to the EV charging infrastructure network, it would potentially be far better to use ammonia in hydrogen production rather than use as a combustible fuel for ICE vehicles.

 

China’s GAC Introduces New Car Engine That Runs On Toxic Ammonia (motortrend.com)

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Apparently there are membrane technologies at pilot plant stage for conversion of hydrogen to ammonia, and subsequent reformation to hydrogen and nitrogen. The Haber process may be on the way out. Most of the research is being done by CSIRO in Australia.

 

The strategy is to manufacture hydrogen from seawater in Australia, which is one of the best sites for renewable energy. Solar, wind and tidal power are all in the mix. Convert to ammonia, ship to China, reconstitute as hydrogen. Understandably, the Chinese are very interested. It remains to be seen how much capital goes into development.

 

Ammonia is non-flammable, which is more than can be said for refined petroleum products which are shipped all over the world. It's also less toxic than liquid chlorine, phenol and formaldehyde, which humans have been transporting in bulk for decades.

 

AFAIK stainless steel tankers can handle ammonia quite comfortably. OTOH, it chews through copper and its alloys quite rapidly.

 

 

 

 

So the issue here is an extra step over producing just Hydrogen, producing hydrogen then turning it into ammonia, even less efficient than hydrogen cars which is less efficient than BEV's.