This is Davemart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Davemart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Davemart
Recent Activity
Lad said: 'In effect a hydrogen car is the same as burning hydrocarbons in the air because hydrogen is created by reforming fossil fuels. ' Why do you continue to make that claim when you know very well that in California 33% of hydrogen for transport is mandated to come from renewables and 100% in Denmark and Norway? And: ' Hydrogen from water is a dream and has proven to be impractical in the real world.' They are doing it right now in the US, and many other places, using renewables which would otherwise be wasted. Why you should continue to claim things that you know very well to be false is a mystery.
This hatchback without a CUV version looks so 20th century to my eyes.
Fuel cell trains are a far more economic way of electrifying rail. They are already in service in Germany, and their introduction will provide the volume needed to drive down the cost and build the infrastructure for hydrogen.
More work has now been done on assessing the very long energy and GHG emission pay back times of very big battery BEVs: https://www.thegwpf.com/new-study-large-co2-emissions-from-batteries-of-electric-cars 'Mats-Ola Larsson, their colleague at IVL, has calculated how long you need to drive a petrol or diesel car before it has released as much carbon dioxide as an electric car battery. The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of Tesla size, based on a series of assumptions.' It should be noted of course that as the link says it depends on how carbon intensive the energy used to produce the battery is, but nevertheless it is plain that a bigger battery is far from the slam-dunk proponents have bloviated endlessly on.
I hope I can get a filter retrofitted to my 2008.
Disregard my last post. I was confusing this with the integrated cycle work in an article below.
I look at this more as proof of concept than a model of how things will actually be done when the technology is more developed. There is a lot to be learnt by sticking all the building blocks together, although of course in a production set up it may be preferable to use the more concentrated CO2 stream from industrial processes etc.
sd: Your post that fuel cells have been under development since 1838 with the implication that they have not progressed very well forgot to mention that batteries have been under development since 1800! :-) And electrified delivery trucks for anything but short routes are tending to make use of fuel cells, whether by La Poste and Michelin, UPS or the grocery delivery truck on this forum today, where the fuel cell will also provide cooling.
Hi SJC. It is very true that testing and reliability trials go back a long way. The economics and durability are now very different to what they were a decade ago though, and hydrogen has now hit ~$4 kg in one of the bus depots.
400 vehicles is starting to hit serious numbers, of course not full scale mass production, but way over early demos and into the realm of final testing for costs and so on prior to really heavy volumes.
This is a great application for fuel cells. Delivery trucks for food churn out large amounts of pollutants chilling the food, as well as in stop start driving, so a fuel cell can take care of both needs far more flexibly and at lower weight than a battery solution.
Harvey: There was a debate right on this forum about how great the cleaning effect is. To refresh your memory: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/12/20161220-protononsite.html They certainly clean the air, the debate was about how much, to which we arrived at no very certain answer. However, cleaning it is certainly better than polluting it with fine particles, and FCEVs seem to take out more than they by non exhaust pollution, and enough extra so as to have a further cleaning effect, although the extent we have not determined as I noted. BEVs do not clean the air, they simply emit less than ICE, but all the non-exhaust elements are emitted.
There are a couple of advantages of fuel cell buses over BEVs, so long as the cost to buy and the cost of the hydrogen are reasonable. The first is that they offer more flexibility, with the ability to tackle longer journeys as required, so long as they provide hydrogen in depots. The second is that they actively suck up and clean city air as they need it clean to work, so not only do they clean up the remaining non exhaust emissions, or rather more than compensate for it, filtering out road dust, brake dust, tire dust and so on, but they do so in an ideal location, right on the busy city streets. If we can introduce the technology widely the health benefits will be enormous.
Fingers crossed on this one, that is doesn't fizzle out. There are valid causes for concern in cobalt supply, which is not easy to ramp and it is produced as by product of nickel and copper mining, so its output is tied in to a fair degree with the demand for those.
Pretty amazing stuff. It is difficult to keep up at all the solid progress being made on many fronts in fuel cells and hydrogen production, distribution and storage.
Hi laszioi: I wasn't aware of that, so thanks for the information. I did know about the particulate emissions from GDI, but forgot about it/did not prioritise it, and perhaps in the back of my mind since the filter is only around 50 Euros or so had thought that they might have fixed it. If the option to retrofit is available, then I will certainly do so.
Darn. I just avoided diesel and bought a car with a 1.2 turbo charged direct injection engine. It looks like that is just as bad or worse.
Hi SJC. We can do electric/fuel cell delivery trucks already without on the move charging. Check out this fairly substantial one from Renault, the Maxity H2: https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/the-maxity-h2-the-first-french-utility-100-electric-hydrogen/ And Toyota and others are designing Class 8 short range delivery trucks with combinations of batteries and fuel cells. What we can't do with any reasonable economy and drastically reducing the payload is long range Class 8. On the move charging would put that within reach, supplemented by batteries probably rather than fuel cells for the uphill bits and acceleration.
The big thing that this sort of system has going for it is that electric trucks can be powered, as their length means that they can have many charging pads. I would see that as the prime driver, with electric cars along for the ride.
It would be interesting to know on what grounds critics of the hydrogen economy have ruled out perovskite strontium titanate mesocrystals fopr the production of hydrogen, or if like me they have never heard of it either, but reckon that they can rule it out anyway along with any other method of producing hydrogen. Well, it saves studying the subject and subsequently forming an opinion I suppose. Whatever it is, it won't work anyway. Really profound.
Hi Arnold. I would much sooner use methanol or formic acid to store energy than ammonia, but the latter would work if needs be. So it seems to me that this is essentially a proof of concept, and we can now for the first time prepare a proper detailed proposal for shifting to renewables. This would be needed whether cars use batteries or fuel cells, as the problem of providing the power in winter remains the same, as does the need for back up. No doubt these various advances provide greater impetus to FCEVs, but it still comes down to how much the vehicles cost for FCEVs versus BEVs. In my view batteries need a further technical breakthrough to be truly competitive with ICE, perhaps solid state or lithium sulphur, whilst it appears that pretty much present technologies developed further but not reliant on breakthroughs should do most of the job for FCEVs, at least for larger or premium vehicles.
We are getting all the building blocks in place for a complete renewable system. Here is a possible very low energy source for the nitrogen in the ammonia: 'African farmers who are able to produce their own fertilizer from only air. Bhaskar S. Patil brings this prospect closer with a revolutionary reactor that coverts nitrogen from the atmosphere into NOx, the raw material for fertilizer. His method, in theory, is up to five times as efficient as existing processes, enabling farms to have a small-scale installation without the need for a big investment. He receives his doctorate on 10 May at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e).' https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170515095230.htm And of course just the other day we had this article here about the production of the hydrogen: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05/20170516-uh.html
Hi mahonj. I am not a great fan of would be universal solutions, and am very optimistic that a sheaf of technologies are becoming available which will offer many options in different circumstances. So even if fossil fuel use remains substantial, a topping cycle using fuel cells on NG or even coal plants turns the waste stream into more or less pure CO2, much easier to store or utilise to produce fuel etc. In addition for the areas needing really high amounts of winter power over that needed in the summer, pre-eminently Europe, I remain at least somewhat hopeful that reason even if much delayed will eventually prevail and that some build out of the many excellent nuclear options becoming available will happen, so enormously reducing the need for hydrogen storage etc. Chemical storage whether hydrogen or other can though do the job of providing cover for calms etc, or even winter power although the latter at considerable cost and loss of efficiency. Batteries alone can't. It really is that simple.
As far as I can tell from the write up, this is more or less immediately deployable with no long process of further development needed. Ideally it would be combined with this method of separate generation of hydrogen and oxygen, so that at the hydrogen pump all that would be needed would be needed at the station, with power generated by sometimes far away solar fields: http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2017/03/22/separate-cells-for-hydrogen-and-oxygen-in-water-splitting/ ' the vision of the Technion researchers is geographic separation between the sites where the oxygen and hydrogen are produced: at one site, there will be a solar farm that will collect the sun’s energy and produce oxygen, while hydrogen is produced in a centralized manner at another site, miles away. Thus, instead of transporting compressed hydrogen from the production site to the sales point, it will only be necessary to swap the auxiliary electrodes between the two sites. Economic calculations performed in collaboration with research fellows from Evonik Creavis GmbH and the Institute of Solar Research at the German Aerospace Center, indicate the potential for significant savings in the setup and operating costs of hydrogen production.'
What an amazing possibility! Perhaps those who have been droning incessantly about 'fool cells' should start to realise who the fools actually are.