|
Post by Roger on Jul 16, 2021 19:31:35 GMT
For anyone who's interested in the facts surrounging the viability of Trucks and Lorries, you may like to look at these two presentations from Real Engineering and Undecided. Note that this first one was in 2017, before we knew about Tesla's new 4680 cell with its improved energy density and 56% lower cost. Yes, the initial cost is higher, and the range is less than a Diesel truck, but it turns out not to be a problem. Something that seems to be overlooked by the skeptics, is that drivers have their hours restricted by legislation, so they are forced to take regular breaks. These happen at Service Stations where the trucks can be recharged. The trucks also have to be loaded and unloaded, and this is another golden opportunity to recharge them. Special Mega-Chargers will charge them quickly, and at a fraction of the cost of Diesel or Hydrogen. The infrastructure is easy to roll out. Once again, if range is a pivotal factor, Diesel or Hydrogen wins. However, it turns out that this simply isn't the case, because of the above. This is only going to improve, with ever greater range, and shorter charging times in future. However, there comes a point when there's simply no advantage in having more range or faster charging. If you can charge a truck in 30 minutes when you have to have a break anyway, there's no advantage in being able to charge in 5 minutes. If you always have to stop every 300 miles, there's no point in having 1000miles of range. Take a look at Nikola, the biggest proponent of Hydrogen trucks, and see where they are now. If this was ever going to work, these were the people who said they could do it. What are they doing now? Well, they're developing an all electric truck... Hydrogen for Shipping, Aircraft, Earth moving or Motorsport is a different matter.
|
|
lesstoneuk
Part of the e-furniture
Retired Omnibus navigation & velocity adjustment technician
Posts: 373
|
Post by lesstoneuk on Jul 17, 2021 8:18:33 GMT
So I think we have established that everyone likes something different... With the greatest respect, I don't think it's us lot that matter. It's our kids and grandkids who will shape the market. My first car was a Reliant Robin....he pauses for the laughter to die down. I had it out of necessity as I'd just deposited my CX650TC in a ditch. They were a great, cheap, reliable car, 750cc,great mileage. Hell, I had a ton out of mine. The only problem was the instability with only the driver on board. This was cured by putting my heavy toolbox on the left of the boot. As has been said, we all have marvelous cars in our lives and we also have right lemons. It's all down to personal experience. The car that I'd avoid like the plague..... Austin Montego. The car I'd have again... Audi 200
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jul 17, 2021 8:41:45 GMT
There's a lot of misinformation about battery life and degradation, often based on one or two people's experiences. A sample of one or two anecdotes is meaningless. Here's an interesting video that has real world data of thousands of EVs, showing how the first generation of batteries is faring. You need to watch it all to get the full picture, but the graphs of capacity versus years is at timestamp 21:44. As you can see, they're mostly holding up really well. Always remember that this sort of data only reflects the battery performance of cells manufactured years ago, it's improving year by year.
|
|
|
Post by simplyloco on Jul 17, 2021 10:02:21 GMT
The car that I'd avoid like the plague..... Austin Montego. The car I'd have again... Audi 200 A good friend was issued with a Montego. The first time it rained he got a wet neck as the sunroof drain tube had been omitted. The car proved unreliable, and the final straw came when the 'M' on the boot lid rattled loose and turned upside down thus turning the car into a 'Won't go'!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2021 11:42:07 GMT
I've only given facts Roger... hydrogen is the way to go.. as pundits state, EV is very much a short-term gap fill, it's important and it will continue to be so but hydrogen is the future. Hydrogen isn't just for cars, it will be for everything and with zero waste, only water that is pure enough to drink. I mentioned BOC but they are only the tip of the iceberg with more investment growing daily, more ideas of how to use it too. IIRC another company in the UK called element2? will be building 40 biowaste hydrogen hubs which is a good way of also dealing with our waste while getting the best return from it. Once the gas supply is ditched for hydrogen, yes it will happen, the world opens up even more, after all, the national gas network is 3 times bigger than that of electricity. Not that hydrogen vehicles need to rely on the national grid, the hubs will supply a very large chunk if not all needs for the average car user and more importantly, also the cities, local authorities both town and rural across the UK. Teeside is going to be a major player in hydrogen supply/storage, the entire area will be zero-emission in less than a decade and the majority will be from hydrogen which means our industrial heartland will be zero-emission, that among other industries includes the steel industry. I think it's reasonable to say that all parts of the UK and the world will follow their lead. There's an interesting article by James May who owns both and thus is in a unique position to judge them properly, he gives a very fair appraisal of both but for him, hydrogen is the way to go. I also read an interesting article on how Musk and his anti hydrogen comments have perhaps slowed progress, he and as they call them 'teslaite's or something like that when talking of his supporters following him blindly...what was pointed out is yes today Musk commands approx 60% of the US zero-emission vehicles, but that's only 2% of the total and the pendulum is starting to swing the other way ( for example the US are building a long hydrogen pipeline now) and thus Musk needs to watch out as the threat to his business is real.
We shall have to wait and see what unfolds, my money is on a world powered by hydrogen, whether that be directly or with fuel cells.. it's a no-brainer and should have happened decades ago, but back then decades ago the oil cartels were too strong, the world has changed.
|
|
timb
Statesman
Posts: 512
|
Post by timb on Jul 17, 2021 12:17:21 GMT
Totaly agree with GG. We have hydrogen powered busses in Sheffield for the past two years and they have been a great success, First transport are now rolling them out to Aberdeen (forgive the pun) and many more areas are in the pipeline . AMRC and Mclaren in Sheffield are at the forefront of the technology and it is gaining pace. Yes there are things to work out yet but it will come. The ONLY reasons that battery vehicles are being pushed are that the technology is current, relatively low cost and quick to implement and satisfy the co2 emmissions targets.
Hydrogen technology has stalled until recently because of the influence of the oil producing nations. This influence is becoming more diluted as public opinion changes. Relatively few petrol cars were sold in the beginning because the infrastructure for refuelling was not there, that changed very quickly once companies realised there was money to be made..
It needs to be born in mind that over 90% of battery manufacture involves China somewhere along the line, either with raw materials or actual production. And that brings me to why batteries are not the solution. Like oil the resource is finite, there is simply not enough raw material on the planet to provide for the worlds needs. The largest, almost unlimited resource we have is seawater, and that is where hydrogen comes from. The electrolysis technology combined with solar/wind (and very soon nuclear fusion) power is already there. Hydrogen is a by-product in desalination plants already working to provide fresh water to many arid countries today.
As I say it may not be the immediate answer but hydrogen is most definitely the future.
Just my thoughts.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jul 17, 2021 12:19:32 GMT
I've only given facts Roger... hydrogen is the way to go.. as pundits state, EV is very much a short-term gap fill, it's important and it will continue to be so but hydrogen is the future. Hydrogen isn't just for cars, it will be for everything and with zero waste, only water that is pure enough to drink. I mentioned BOC but they are only the tip of the iceberg with more investment growing daily, more ideas of how to use it too. IIRC another company in the UK called element2? will be building 40 biowaste hydrogen hubs which is a good way of also dealing with our waste while getting the best return from it. Once the gas supply is ditched for hydrogen, yes it will happen, the world opens up even more, after all, the national gas network is 3 times bigger than that of electricity. Not that hydrogen vehicles need to rely on the national grid, the hubs will supply a very large chunk if not all needs for the average car user and more importantly, also the cities, local authorities both town and rural across the UK. Teeside is going to be a major player in hydrogen supply/storage, the entire area will be zero-emission in less than a decade and the majority will be from hydrogen which means our industrial heartland will be zero-emission, that among other industries includes the steel industry. I think it's reasonable to say that all parts of the UK and the world will follow their lead. There's an interesting article by James May who owns both and thus is in a unique position to judge them properly, he gives a very fair appraisal of both but for him, hydrogen is the way to go. I also read an interesting article on how Musk and his anti hydrogen comments have perhaps slowed progress, he and as they call them 'teslaite's or something like that when talking of his supporters following him blindly...what was pointed out is yes today Musk commands approx 60% of the US zero-emission vehicles, but that's only 2% of the total and the pendulum is starting to swing the other way ( for example the US are building a long hydrogen pipeline now) and thus Musk needs to watch out as the threat to his business is real. We shall have to wait and see what unfolds, my money is on a world powered by hydrogen, whether that be directly or with fuel cells.. it's a no-brainer and should have happened decades ago, but back then decades ago the oil cartels were too strong, the world has changed. Hydrogen may well have its place in Aircraft, Earth Movers and Shipping, but the window of opportunity for personal transport, vans and lorries closed when Tesla showed that BEVs could already do the job. This isn't a short term move, it's a permanent shift and for very good reasons. The overall efficiency of Hydrogen end to end is at least 3 times worse than when using batteries directly, and that isn't going to change. They will only use Hydrogen if it's cheaper overall than using batteries. Ask yourself who's going to invest in the Hydrogen infrastructure when BEVs outnumber Hydrogen cars 100:1? What's in it for anyone setting up a Hydrogen network when they can't charge the customer anywhere near the price that a full charge would be for an EV? Then ask yourself what advantages Hydrogen has over batteries? Energy density and weight are the only ones. Everything else is a disadvantage. Elon Musk evaluated Hydrogen before choosing Battery electric. He's anti Hydrogen because it's hideously inefficient and a nightmare to roll out. Has that impacted on the introduction of Hydrogen? I very much doubt it. If the business model is there, Hydrogen will win the investment and be successful. Some companies have spent a fortune in developing Hydrogen cars, but have you ever seen one? Have you ever seen a Tesla? The bottom line is that you don't have to wait to see the future in personal transport, it arrived almost a decade ago with the Tesla Model S. You can't go anywhere without seeing a Tesla these days, and the only thing you're going to see is more of them, and more offerings from the big manufacturers. Just take a look at who's going all in on Battery EVs compared to Hydrogen. There's not one company that I can find that is all in on Hydrogen cars. Obviously some of the big players have spent an enormous amount of money on Hydrogen, and they will want to recoup some of that investment. They will surely find a home for some of them in those applications I mentioned at the start. As for Hydrogen being a no-brainer for Cars, the facts simply don't support that view.
|
|
|
Post by andyhigham on Jul 17, 2021 12:20:28 GMT
I cannot get my head around hydrogen power. Hydrogen has to be manufactured by the electrolysis of water, this will consume a large amount of electricity. A hydrogen fuel cell will produce electricity to drive electric motors. Less electricity will be produced than consumed in the production of the hydrogen. Why not just miss out the hydrogen stage?
|
|
timb
Statesman
Posts: 512
|
Post by timb on Jul 17, 2021 12:30:33 GMT
I cannot get my head around hydrogen power. Hydrogen has to be manufactured by the electrolysis of water, this will consume a large amount of electricity. A hydrogen fuel cell will produce electricity to drive electric motors. Less electricity will be produced than consumed in the production of the hydrogen. Why not just miss out the hydrogen stage? The electrolysis of water is done by wind or solar power which costs nothing after the initial building costs, is infinitely sustainable and produces zero emissions.
Agree about hydrogen fuel cells when converted to electricity, but use hydrogen as a conventional combustion fuel - hydrogen has an explosive power neaarly four times that of petrol - 143MJ v 46MJ per kg of fuel - and it makes much more sense, again the emission is water which can be re-used infinitely. It really is taking energy from the sun and converting it into a useful commodity without damaging the planet in any way.
Using any raw material that has to be mined is going to cost the planet in some way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2021 12:51:46 GMT
Well Roger, I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree, reread what you type, your arguments are getting weaker.
Hydrogen is the new oil and will dominate the worlds power supply and demand.
Regarda
Pete
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jul 17, 2021 12:59:08 GMT
I cannot get my head around hydrogen power. Hydrogen has to be manufactured by the electrolysis of water, this will consume a large amount of electricity. A hydrogen fuel cell will produce electricity to drive electric motors. Less electricity will be produced than consumed in the production of the hydrogen. Why not just miss out the hydrogen stage? Exactly, it makes no sense in any application where battery electric provides sufficient range. The efficiency of a fuel cell is less than 60%, so even if the rest was 100% efficient, it would still be at a huge disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jul 17, 2021 13:32:29 GMT
Well Roger, I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree, reread what you type, your arguments are getting weaker. Hydrogen is the new oil and will dominate the worlds power supply and demand. Regarda Pete My arguments haven't changed, I've just expanded on them as different arguments have been put forward. Hydrogen only made sense when battery EVs couldn't provide the range. Now that's not the case for Cars, Vans and Lorries, it's game over for Hydrogen in that sector. Efficiency is the killer for Hydrogen, and nothing can be done to bring it even close to that of batteries. I really can't see how that argument can be refuted. Oil will play its part for power generation for some time, and Hydrogen will also find it's place. However, that place is not in Cars. The bulk of the car industry has already made its choice, with only a few still flogging the dead horse of Hydrogen. They're just wasting valuable time and resources, developing products that are never going to compete with pure EVs. The smart people are those who are putting vast resources into developing better Cell chemistries and production methods. They stand to make a fortune if they are successful. This is a relatively new area of research because until a decade ago, there was simply no requirement for this application for batteries. We're currently using the best of the old tech, designed for portable appliances, not optimised for automotive use. That's why the Tesla 4680 cell is so important in terms of energy density and cost.
|
|
timb
Statesman
Posts: 512
|
Post by timb on Jul 17, 2021 13:43:12 GMT
Well Roger, I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree, reread what you type, your arguments are getting weaker. Hydrogen is the new oil and will dominate the worlds power supply and demand. Regarda Pete My arguments haven't changed, I've just expanded on them as different arguments have been put forward. Hydrogen only made sense when battery EVs couldn't provide the range. Now that's not the case for Cars, Vans and Lorries, it's game over for Hydrogen in that sector. Efficiency is the killer for Hydrogen, and nothing can be done to bring it even close to that of batteries. I really can't see how that argument can be refuted.Oil will play its part for power generation for some time, and Hydrogen will also find it's place. However, that place is not in Cars. The bulk of the car industry has already made its choice, with only a few still flogging the dead horse of Hydrogen. They're just wasting valuable time and resources, developing products that are never going to compete with pure EVs. The smart people are those who are putting vast resources into developing better Cell chemistries and production methods. They stand to make a fortune if they are successful. This is a relatively new area of research because until a decade ago, there was simply no requirement for this application for batteries. We're currently using the best of the old tech, designed for portable appliances, not optimised for automotive use. That's why the Tesla 4680 cell is so important in terms of energy density and cost.
The highlighted statement is simply wrong.
www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogen
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jul 17, 2021 14:14:36 GMT
My arguments haven't changed, I've just expanded on them as different arguments have been put forward. Hydrogen only made sense when battery EVs couldn't provide the range. Now that's not the case for Cars, Vans and Lorries, it's game over for Hydrogen in that sector. Efficiency is the killer for Hydrogen, and nothing can be done to bring it even close to that of batteries. I really can't see how that argument can be refuted.Oil will play its part for power generation for some time, and Hydrogen will also find it's place. However, that place is not in Cars. The bulk of the car industry has already made its choice, with only a few still flogging the dead horse of Hydrogen. They're just wasting valuable time and resources, developing products that are never going to compete with pure EVs. The smart people are those who are putting vast resources into developing better Cell chemistries and production methods. They stand to make a fortune if they are successful. This is a relatively new area of research because until a decade ago, there was simply no requirement for this application for batteries. We're currently using the best of the old tech, designed for portable appliances, not optimised for automotive use. That's why the Tesla 4680 cell is so important in terms of energy density and cost.
The highlighted statement is simply wrong.
www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogenI don't see anything in that report that negates what I've stated. The fact is that the number of EVs are exponentially taking off with production number soaring and new factories being built for models that exist today. That would not be happening if their range, cost or efficiency was unacceptable? Clearly not. Where are the equivalent Hydrogen cars? There are a few, but if you google them, you will find that their sales have collapsed in the USA, a market that ought to put them at an advandage if range was an issue. Please explain to me how the efficiency of Batteries is being challenged by Hydrogen? That isn't addressed in that piece as far as I can see. The facts speak for themselves. The terrible efficiency + the cost of the infrastructure are the killer issues for hydrogen that make it uneconomic. Would you pay three times as much for fuel if you had a choice to buy it cheaper? I know I wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2021 14:57:14 GMT
Hydrogen will rule, this I can guarantee you...EV is useless for heavy haulage, ask any haulage company. We have got on fine for transport using diesel for a very long time, despite it's pifalls. Hydrogen is much, much better... quote: 'hydrogen has an energy density of approximately 120 MJ/kg, almost three times more than diesel or gasoline. In electrical terms, the energy density of hydrogen is equal to 33.6 kWh of usable energy per kg, versus diesel which only holds about 12–14 kWh per kg.' End quote:
How EV's compare to the above is irrelevant, they are just not practical for the job in hand, as was explained in the JCB video.
Companies will invest in hydrogen, electric has also been used but things are changing and the speed of this change will surprise many.
|
|
timb
Statesman
Posts: 512
|
Post by timb on Jul 17, 2021 15:02:24 GMT
Forgive me Roger but I think you are missing the point. The efficiency may not be there, hydrogen fuel cells will not be the way forward in their current form, infrastructure costs are there (as with any emerging technology) BUT the mistake of allowing a finite fuel source to dominate the market will not be allowed to happen again. Relying on batteries is not dealing with the problem, just kicking it down the road. The IEA report shows that the G20 governments have realised this and will force the issue.
As for costs, after the infrastructure there are very little. The cost of hydrogen as a fuel is on par with diesel at the moment and that will only get cheaper. If you want numbers that do not add up try every household plugging their car in to charge at 17:00 after work. The surge is bad enough with plugging in a kettle during the advert break in Corrie! - as I said earlier the attractiveness of EV's in the short term is that the tech is available now and allows governments to address their voters immediate concerns over global warming, this is only because of the percieved green credentials of the battery which are definitely not there.
This appears this is becomming quite an emotive subject so I will bow out now, not wanting to cause any bad feeling. History will tell us the direction that was taken and whether it was the right decision or not.
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jul 17, 2021 15:12:13 GMT
Hydrogen will rule, this I can guarantee you...EV is useless for heavy haulage, ask any haulage company. We have got on fine for transport using diesel for a very long time, despite it's pifalls. Hydrogen is much, much better... quote: 'hydrogen has an energy density of approximately 120 MJ/kg, almost three times more than diesel or gasoline. In electrical terms, the energy density of hydrogen is equal to 33.6 kWh of usable energy per kg, versus diesel which only holds about 12–14 kWh per kg.' End quote: How EV's compare to the above is irrelevant, they are just not practical for the job in hand, as was explained in the JCB video. Companies will invest in hydrogen, electric has also been used but things are changing and the speed of this change will surprise many. I don't dispute the Earth moving, Farm Machinery and such like. Heavy haulage is currently at the limit of battery EV, but Tesla have demonstrated that this is feasible. Do you really think Elon Musk hasn't done the maths before building a factory? Energy density is only important if you can't get the range you need in a battery EV. As soon as you can, it's irrelevant. As I've explained already, but you don't seem to appreciate, they can recharge while they are being loaded and unloaded as well as on the legally required breaks. You're trying to consider Hydrogen power as if it's working in isolation from competition. Yes, it looks pretty good compared to Diesel, and until you look deeper, it looks like it ought to be better than pure EVs. However, if a pure EV CAN do the job, then the only advantage (range) is not important.
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jul 17, 2021 15:28:59 GMT
Forgive me Roger but I think you are missing the point. The efficiency may not be there, hydrogen fuel cells will not be the way forward in their current form, infrastructure costs are there (as with any emerging technology) BUT the mistake of allowing a finite fuel source to dominate the market will not be allowed to happen again. Relying on batteries is not dealing with the problem, just kicking it down the road. The IEA report shows that the G20 governments have realised this and will force the issue. As for costs, after the infrastructure there are very little. The cost of hydrogen as a fuel is on par with diesel at the moment and that will only get cheaper. If you want numbers that do not add up try every household plugging their car in to charge at 17:00 after work. The surge is bad enough with plugging in a kettle during the advert break in Corrie! - as I said earlier the attractiveness of EV's in the short term is that the tech is available now and allows governments to address their voters immediate concerns over global warming, this is only because of the percieved green credentials of the battery which are definitely not there. This appears this is becomming quite an emotive subject so I will bow out now, not wanting to cause any bad feeling. History will tell us the direction that was taken and whether it was the right decision or not. Efficiency IS the point for trucks and vans. Fuel makes up a huge percentage of the running costs, and Hydrogen is going to be three times as expensive. Batteries are not a 'fuel source', they are a storage medium. Better than that, they are agnostic as to where their energy comes from. Hydrogen can never be as cheap as when you're using the electricity in batteries, fact. We've already covered the peak charging issue, it isn't a problem. Even the National Grid say it won't be, and they ought to know. I've posted about this already, so there's no point in repeating myself. Battery production now minimises the amount of Cobalt, and some don't use it at all. Nickel and Lithium are abundant, and those will be recycled at the end of the battery life. It's not fair to target batteries as not being Green. The Catalysts in fuel cells currently use Platinum, which is hardly Green! All of these technologies will develop to use Greener materials over time. I'm not about to fall out with anyone, or harbour any bad feeling, it's just a discussion. Facts are facts, and opinion is opinon. We just have to be careful to not mistake one for the other. The problem with all these Hydrogen proponents out there is that they only promote their own case, and only highlight where their strengths are. However, they started the race years before BEVs came on the scene, have done little to up the pace, and are falling ever further behind. Whatever advantage they may have had for Cars has long since been made irrelevant, and all they're left with is the disadvantages. They could have had a good 10-15 years of successful operation in cars, vans and lorries if they hadn't been so slow off the mark. It's a shame, because it's an interesting technology. However, they're missed the boat, and it's too little too late.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2021 15:30:06 GMT
My personal view on Musk is not good, he's clearly not the 'full ticket' but then he said so himself... Anyway we are getting close to his first space x trip to mars, 2026, mind you it used to be 2024? Well these things do slip don't they?... With 1 million people on mars by 2050....no wonder share holders hold their breath each time be opens his mouth...🤣🤣🤣
|
|
uuu
Elder Statesman
your message here...
Posts: 2,816
|
Post by uuu on Jul 17, 2021 16:07:43 GMT
Goody - now we can start a debate about hydrogen vs electric rockets!
Wilf
|
|