Electric cars.

[Rodcx500z]

I suppose a lot of this ev v hydrogen depends on how quick the return is on money invested, so your in your mid to late 50s with a million to invest, i believe hydrogen will one day make the planet truely net zero but the big money meantime is lithium batterie's, mr and mrs share holder is slowly sleep walking us to death

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Building dedicated nuclear plants to electrolyse water into hydrogen which can power inexpensive ICE vehicles, heat homes, brew beer etc.. would deliver the desired result with minimal disruption to people's lives - or their pockets.

- EVs are just plain idiotic

The problem with threads like this is when they get so long people dont read all the posts in them.

This has been covered before - If hydrogen was the big way forward ask yourself why we are moving to EV?

(the video explains why)





Full video -

 

[Brew_DD2]

There is the tale of the farmer asked for directions by a lost motorist..

"Well sir, if you want to be going there, you don't want to be starting from here"

If we accept the premise that a small increase in the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is undesirable, and that motoring should therefore avoid fossil fuels, no-one in their right mind would think fitting cars with costly half ton batteries that have an insane carbon footprint in their manufacture, and have to be charged from power stations that remain dependent on err.. fossil fuels.. was a great idea.

Building dedicated nuclear plants to electrolyse water into hydrogen which can power inexpensive ICE vehicles, heat homes, brew beer etc.. would deliver the desired result with minimal disruption to people's lives - or their pockets.

- EVs are just plain idiotic

Ill-informed claptrap.

 

[rclarke]

Building dedicated nuclear plants to electrolyse water into hydrogen which can power inexpensive ICE vehicles, heat homes, brew beer etc.. would deliver the desired result with minimal disruption to people's lives - or their pockets.

Whilst theoretically possible to build a nuclear power plant and use it to produce hydrogen, there is a reason why this isn't happening already, and never will. It's not commercially viable. By the time hydrogen prices reaches parity with oil, the economy will have collapsed no one will have a job to drive to.

Hydrogen expert Paul Martin on the topic.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

@rclarke - one hour and twenty minutes is a bit too long any chance you can give us the main points.

 

[Tom Archer.]

The video linked by Chippy appears wilfully misleading - talks only about fuel cells rather than hydrogen ICE and makes the assumption that the generation and distribution of electricity for EVs is 100% efficient, which of course it isn't.

rclarke's point that you wouldn't use hydrogen when there's oil around is 100% correct. If the climate alarmists are proved wrong then stick with oil and gas. I live in a country whose politicians have committed to the concept of 'net zero' by 2050. Whether or not that is a sane objective, the route currently being pursued toward that objective certainly isn't!

 

[Chippy_Tea]

alks only about fuel cells rather than hydrogen ICE and makes the assumption that the generation and distribution of electricity for EVs is 100% efficient, which of course it isn't.

You missed the part about the hydrogen production plant which as he says uses a lot of electricity and is only 75% efficient.

 

[rclarke]

@rclarke - Thanks for the video, i haven't got time to spend one hour and twenty minutes watching it and doubt many members have so any chance you can give us the main points.

I appreciate not everyone has interest in this field, although the ramifications are so serious, it would be mad not to show some concern. It's worth watching, here are the highlights in the hope it will convince some to give the podcast a chance:

Presently, 99% of our Hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, the the other 1% is from chemical processes in manufacturing. Currently virtually no green hydrogen is produced (perhaps outside fully funded research) because it's not economically viable.

It is a valuable resource for production of fertiliser (half of the nitrogen in our bodies is derived from our fossil hydrogen) and chemical precursor for other technologies and wasting it by burning it in ICEs would be foolish.

Hydrogen proponents often fail to understand the second law of thermodynamics, Hyrdrogen is an energy sink, not an energy source, and so converting electricity to hydrogen back to burn it in cars uses more electricity than charging an EV, and vastly worse than electrical public transit.

Transition from fossil fuels will take far longer than most anticipate, and highly unlikely we can transition at anywhere near the rate that would be needed

Hydrogen is notoriously 'leaky' and greatly slows the rate greenhouse gases breaking down in the atmosphere. Hydrogen doesn't burn 100% cleanly, burned in air creates Nitrogen Oxidies and creates acid rain and respiratory problems. It can also produce Nitrous oxide which is a greenhouse gas. Hydrogen leakage is worse for the environment than Methane.

Green hydrogen speculation often ignores the CO2 emissions of the infrastructure aka embodied CO2.

Many of these are engineering challanges, and can be overcome, but as we know, in a captialistic market economy, if the economics don't stack up, it ain't going to happen.

Long story short, there are no easy replacement for oil, we can expect a lot less motoring in the coming decades.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Presently, 99% of our Hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, the the other 1% is from chemical processes in manufacturing. Currently virtually no green hydrogen is produced (perhaps outside fully funded research) because it's not economically viable.

It is a valuable resource for production of fertiliser (half of the nitrogen in our bodies is derived from our fossil hydrogen) and chemical precursor for other technologies and wasting it by burning it in ICEs would be foolish.

Hydrogen proponents often fail to understand the second law of thermodynamics, Hyrdrogen is an energy sink, not an energy source, and so converting electricity to hydrogen back to burn it in cars uses more electricity than charging an EV, and vastly worse than electrical public transit.

Thanks for taking the time to post that.

The nail hit firmly on the head - so converting electricity to hydrogen back to burn it in cars uses more electricity than charging an EV

.

 

[Tom Archer.]

so converting electricity to hydrogen back to burn it in cars uses more electricity than charging an EV

But.. with an EV you are not only transporting a half ton of battery wherever you go, increasing your energy consumption as you do so, but that battery is horribly expensive to buy and energy intensive to manufacture.

It can be argued that the relative efficiency of a battery compared to a tank of fuel offsets the lugging around aspect, but the purchase cost of the battery is still there.

There are also other negatives. In the UK at least EV insurance rates are much higher as they are not as readily reparable after suffering accident damage, and tyre wear is said to be a much bigger cost element due to their high weight and torque.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

The EV weighs more but that weight is not as great as some would assume and the EV is far more efficient.

EV weight vs Ice
Average EV batteries weight 454 kg which exceeds that of an ICE average 320 kg plus oil and coolant.

The average Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) has an efficiency of only around 40% (60% lost via heat and friction) As a result, ICEs consume far more energy travelling the same distance as an EV

but that battery is horribly expensive to buy and energy intensive to manufacture.

The ICE is not cheap to make and has to have its oil and filter changed every year of its life.
Then there is the air filter, coolant, spark plugs, timing belt etc that also need changing to keep it going.

It can be argued that the relative efficiency of a battery compared to a tank of fuel offsets the lugging around aspect, but the purchase cost of the battery is still there.

The battery comes with the car as does the engine in an ICE its not an optional extra, you are also lugging the weight of the ICE around and fuel 50kg (ish) for a tank full so the original 130kg extra suddenly becomes less of an issue for the EV.

and tyre wear is said to be a much bigger

Really that is not something i have ever read probably because the weight difference is not as big as some would have us believe

 

[rclarke]

You've also got to factor in the distribution and refuelling infrastructure. Neither EVs nor Hydrogen ICE are ready for scaling with current technology due to their limitations. Just because we could at some point in the future doesn't mean we should.

As you say, you can't get there from here.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

You've also got to factor in the distribution and refuelling infrastructure. Neither EVs nor Hydrogen ICE are ready for scaling with current technology due to their limitations

Most EV owners will charge at home so the charging infrastructure only becomes a problem when they travel longer distances, having said that i live in a small market town we have 4 pay and display car parks which have two chargers in each and a small supermarket that had 4 chargers.

Obviously if a huge amount of driver switched tomorrow lack of chargers could be a problem but that isn't going to happen as this shows -

 

[rclarke]

There will come a point whereby the obvious pitfalls of scaling inhibit future investment and subsidies, and if that's not enough to put off potential owners, the volatility in energy markets eventually will. This is why I said at the outset that unless owners are sufficiently wealthy to not care about electricity rates and/or have a solar array at home, they will soon become cost prohibitive. The current (relative) low price of electricity makes EVs seem inexpensive, but it won't last, they are not a viable long term solutions to our energy predicament and transport needs. If I were determined to keep motoring after oil production starts to decline, an EV is a good bet, but also DIY wood gasification is also worth looking at.

None of the options are scalable though, that's the crux of the issue.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I said at the outset that unless owners are sufficiently wealthy to not care about electricity rates and/or have a solar array at home, they will soon become cost prohibitive.

On the flip side as we move to EV and the 2035 cut off date for new ICE car sales gets closer the price of all ICE cars will increase and you can bet the price of fossil fuel will increase as the oil companies see their profits drop.

 

[rclarke]

Oil prices will definitely increase as supply declines, just like the last fish in the sea is worth millions. Oil has a plethora of essential used beyond powering private motors, the bam is to protect those uses as much as halt cc. I'm not arguing for or against ICE, EV, wood powered motoring, I'm just saying, the transport system is going to change radically, and if people are listening to car, hydrogen or oil salesman, they'll probably be selling you false assurances, look at what the actual experts are saying...

 

[Chippy_Tea]

look at what the actual experts are saying...

The problem with that is trying to find the expert that is telling the truth

 

[Chippy_Tea]

. I'm not arguing for or against ICE, EV, wood powered motoring,

Same here i have a ICE car and will probably have it for a long time but when it comes time to change i will buy my first Hybrid as i have no off street parking, i am looking at Toyotas as they have been doing Hybrids for years and have hybrid system nailed, i would love an EV as my commute is well within range of even the lowest range EV but charging is an issue for me.

 

[Nicks90]

I drove the new one ride all over the place. No refinement. Uncomfortable

How it's automotive power is delivered hardly affects your apparent dislike to it's suspension and seat engineering.
Or do the electrons zipping about move the car in an uncomfortable way?

As for this energy crisis, let's just read that post again.
4.5kw of electric to produce a gallon of fuel. Electric price goes up then so does petrol.

And yes the battery is heavy, but you only use it once for the cars entire life. A tank of petrol is lighter, but the 3000 gallons of petrol a typical car burns through in its life isn't
And 3000 gallons of burnt petrol isn't recyclable

And one last nugget for you. Petroleum refinement uses more cobalt as a sulphur removal catalyst than all EVs worldwide by a large factor
And EV batteries still account for a very small percentage of global battery manufacturing - mobiles, laptops and tablets are by far the biggest market.

 

[MashBag]

I have nothing against ev's or people who drive them i, just think it's not the way forward, i have nagging feeling it is a stop gap while we wait for these , this is the way forward always has been

Another way to spend your money is what it is.