|
|
Post by Phoebe on Jun 24, 2014 6:34:56 GMT 11
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hare on Jun 24, 2014 9:16:52 GMT 11
That's weird. Perhaps someone can set me straight on the science but my understanding is it takes more energy to harness the Hydrogen than it takes to power an EV for the same distance. Plus you are again locked to fill-up stations like petrol. Seems like a step backwards.
I can understand the perceived benefit of removing the need for the batteries, but it seems like with all of the attention on battery tech we're going to see some serious breakthroughs in the next few years so it's a odd time to be contemplating a Hydrogen Highway when the writing is on the wall.
Anyone have alternate points of view on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by riddick on Jun 24, 2014 19:03:07 GMT 11
Jim, the problem is not the fill up stations. The problem is that it is a myth that hydrogen is clean. Burning hydrogen is clean, that is true. But manufacturing hydrogen is not clean. It is made from fossil fuels and the by product is CO2. So, it is back to square one. EVs on the other hand CAN use absolutely clean energy from wind/solar/hydro. True solar panels/wind turbines/dams/batteries have an embedded cost in their production, but this is only once off and is usually offset to a large degree by their use. Also, with more innovation in this area, batteries could be made to last longer and perhaps be reused, etc. So, I think, we here made the right bet  Don't buy a Toyota, buy Nissan  |
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Jun 25, 2014 1:33:43 GMT 11
I believe hydrogen can be ' clean ' when renewables ( solar / wind /etc )are used to ' crack ' water ( H2O ) into hydrogen (H2), with oxygen (O) being the by-product.
One advantage of hydrogen is, that like petrol, it has higher energy density ( energy per kilo ) than present batteries.
One disadvantage is that it can be dangerous stuff ( think the Hindenberg disaster )
I find it simpler and easier to produce my own electricity from solar than the complexities required to produce, store and use hydrogen.
So I am happy to stick with battery EVs, and the LEAF in particular.
|
|
|
|
Post by riddick on Jun 25, 2014 16:31:40 GMT 11
Brian, unfortunately that is not how hydrogen is produced. 'Unburning' water takes a lot of energy, so you can burn it again into water. Water is a fairly stable molecule.
Hence they much prefer fossil fuels, it is much less energy intensive to produce from. I worry that if we take up hydrogen, then it will be simply hijacked by the oil and gas companies again... Also, you will not be allowed to make your own due to the dangers as you said, where as with solar/EVs we can be completely self reliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcan on Jun 25, 2014 18:04:31 GMT 11
Also don't forget that a "full tank" of hydrogen will boil off over a week or two without ANY driving. You will have an empty tank leaving the car sit. As mentioned creating Hydrogen requires a lot of energy in order to be separated, the least amount of energy to produce would be from natural gas (fracking issues. Then the refuel stations presently cost around 2 million (us dollars) a piece... vs a quick charge station at around 50k ea. The costs of both stations will of course drop considerably over time.. Another point to be aware of is the "waste" hydrogen from other industrial processes. From my understanding the fuel cell requires a very pure high quality hydrogen, around 99.9%. Industrial waste hydrogen is nowhere near suitable for a fuel cell. The west coast of the U.S and Canada were supposed to have a hydrogen hwy put in, talk is cheap, hydrogen fuel stations are not The cars themselves will still be battery powered, just topped up by the fuel cell, so like a hybrid using gas, only hydrogen instead. Finally if you're still with me , I got to meet Geoffrey Ballard briefly (2005) and I asked him about his fuel cell. Long story short, he didn't think it was suitable for the general automotive world. Special uses only, Mines, space, confined areas... who knows what others can figure out though... sorry for my ramblings but I get pretty worked up over Hydrogen and how the media keep showing it as the holly grail to our problems. One last thing is that hydrogen has VERY low energy density compared to gasoline... |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hare on Jun 25, 2014 18:44:50 GMT 11
Well I don't see anything in the above that would make anyone even consider developing hydrogen fuel cells and then creating the public infrastructure to support it, yet they clearly are. What on Earth led them to that conclusion? What am I still missing here?
|
|
|
|
Post by riddick on Jun 25, 2014 20:23:34 GMT 11
Jim, as jcan said, talk is cheap... What you may be missing is the gas and oil companies behind the scenes trying to diversify into future energy sources. Clearly they would hate EVs. At least we all love EVs and there will be more of us every day  |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hare on Jun 25, 2014 21:14:28 GMT 11
Toyota would be pretty stupid to follow the gas and oil companies, even if they paid for all the R&D, ridiculous path.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcan on Jun 25, 2014 21:46:13 GMT 11
Short answer: The State of California government is making it very attractive to produce a fuel cell vehicle with regards to taxes for the automotive industry. The fuel cell also benefits a lot more "old school" businesses (Fossil Fuel ) than the new battery economy... (?battery economy?), Point being energy being delivered via electricity instead of oil upsets a lot of old business, old money. Longish answer: The fuel cell is worth way more CARB credits than an electric plug in, so it's in Toyota/Honda/ any car maker that has invested money in fuel cell to push (lobby) the matter, I don't think they like fuel cells either though... This is how compliance vehicles come about. Toyota for example wanted/needed more Carb credits. They could either buy them from Tesla (a profitable side business for tesla)or create their own vehicle. I know they came up with an all electric RAV4 using Tesla battery packs. They built about 2600 of them in Canada and only sold them in the state of California to ensure they got all the credits. Being from Canada I wanted to at least have the opportunity to buy one... Nope, no way. On each RAV4ev that toyota sold they lost huge money on and of course the media takes this as electric cars not viable, too costly, blah blah blah. In reality though each RAV4ev sold eaned more CARB credits enabling them to sell less efficient high profit vehicles, and retaining the green halo of the car industry. Toyota have always hedged their bets (The whole point of Prius), so the fact they're pushing hydrogen fuel cells is not much of a surprise. I think ultimately Toyota would like the CARB mandate to go away like it did 10 years ago. I've attached a link written by someone way better than I could ever explain as to why the Hydrogen economy makes no sense. phys.org/news85074285.html |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hare on Jun 26, 2014 9:57:01 GMT 11
Great article, thanks for posting!
So what you're saying is Toyota didn't learn anything from the last exercise and, like GM in the 90s, are trying to tank the whole thing by making a monster they don't think will even work in hopes to get the regulations changed.
God I hope this tactic backfires on them and they get left behind by Nissan, GM, BMW, Mitsubishi and Tesla.
At least GM admitted they screwed up and then made the Volt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Jun 26, 2014 13:19:34 GMT 11
Very informative article, jcan. I see it was dated 2006. What Bossel wanted to see has already been happening with the ' Revenge of the Electric Car '.
As a footnote, Perth experimented with hydrogen buses some years ago, with much fanfare that their only emissions were water. However, they were quietly dropped after a while. I have been unable to get an official reason, but I am sure it would have been due to the huge cost in $$$ and CO2 of hydrogen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Jul 8, 2014 20:27:54 GMT 11
|
|
|
|
Post by markrmarkr on Jul 8, 2014 23:59:24 GMT 11
I am gob smacked at the inability of people to do simple arithmetic. Hydrogen can never be anything like competitive with batteries. At least for 99% of applications. And for the other 1%, if someone really must have extra long range, or some other application that needs hydrogen, why not just use petrol instead. All the problems with storage and distribution have already been worked out. In fifty years time, when oil has run out, hydrocarbons from other sources will still be around, and will still be able to use what's left of the old hydrocarbon fuel infrastructure. Why bother with hydrogen, and all it's problems.
Hydrogen is such a dumb idea, it makes me think that the supporters are just throwing it in as a red hearing to confuse people and obfuscate the real issues.
Can you imagine what a tragedy it would be if we invested millions (or billions) in developing the Pilbara into some kind of hydrogen production mega-centre, only to find there is no market for it, because no -one is dumb enough to use Hydrogen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 2:05:08 GMT 11
|
|
Don't buy a Toyota, buy Nissan 
