Hydrogen

[John OlsenParticipant @johnolsen79199]

The reason I asked above about the hydrogen mines is because of course there aren't any. All hydrogen has to be manufactured, at present mostly from fossil fuel stocks, in the process releasing lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a thing we were supposed to be trying to avoid. The Germans used to use a different process of passing steam over red hot iron, the iron of course having been made by the usual process involving coal and lots of carbon dioxide.

The point is that hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is merely another way of storing energy and transporting it from place to place. The question them becomes is it a good and economical one? Hydrogen is tricky stuff, it is a small molecule and loves to escape out of containers, through the pores of the metal if necessary. It also ignites quite easily. It takes a lot of energy to make the hydrogen, so the electricity generating system will need upgrading whatever you do.

If you are going to burn the hydrogen in an IC engine, you need to consider that the efficiency will be quite low, so you will probably need to carry more fuel. For this technique you would probably be better to synthesise hydrocarbon fuels, using water and CO2 extracted from the atmosphere. The resulting fuel can then be distributed using the same networks as at present. Since the C02 is extracted from the atmosphere, the process is carbon neutral, and the only major technology change is at the refinery and the power plant providing it with the energy needed for the synthesis. But the overall efficiency remains low since IC engines are pretty abysmal at best.

If you decide to use hydrogen fuel cells, the efficiency will be much higher, since from what I hear the fuel cell can be up around 90% or so, and the electric motor that it runs can also be pretty high, much better overall than the IC option. But the fuel cell currently requires pure hydrogen although I believe there is work being done on cells that can accept hydrocarbons. So you tend to need a new fuel distribution system. The other thing to consider is that the cells tend to require rare and expensive catalysts inside, more so than batteries. It seems that it is possible to eliminate the rare metals from Lithium batteries, it is going to be much harder to eliminate the catalysts from fuel cells.

So long term I don't know what the best solution will turn out to be, but hydrogen is not a panacea. In the meantime, if a battery electric suits your needs then you should probably consider one…they are not suitable for every use case, but if everyone who could use one had one it would make a difference.

John

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Despite being called a rare earth, lithium is quite common. It is the 25th most abundant element. There is even talk of mining it in Cornwall, but then they keep on talking about cornish mining and nothing ever happens. Can you imagine the greens allowing it even for zero emmision technology

[John OlsenParticipant @johnolsen79199]

Yes, Lithium is not really a problem. There was concern about things like cobalt being needed for some of the Lithium battery types, but I think the need for that has been reduced or eliminated now.

I don't think Lithium is actually a rare earth anyway, at least not on my copy of the periodic table. Where the rare earths come in is for permanent magnets which may be in the electric motors, but then, they don't have to be used there either. Electric cars can use ordinary off the shelf AC induction motors, and I have driven one that did.

Funny thing about mining, once it has stopped it is romantic and a great tourist attraction.

John

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

The new "mining" for lithium proposed in Cornwall (in fact has work started) is not conventional rock-breaking.

It is extraction of lithium ore that has become dissolved naturally in deeply-circulating water, including that flooding old mines.

The brine is pumped out of boreholes, the minerals are extracted and the water returned (presumably down a different hole.)

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Howard Lewis on 22/07/2021 14:34:32:

The insuperable problem that everyone faces is that of folk, often politicians, who make wild promises without understanding just what is involved in bringing those promises to completion, if possible.

The need is to think things through completely. But that is a task for mere mortals, such as civil, electrical and mechanical Engineers. THEY are the people who actually find and apply solutions to problems.

It is all very well someone saying things like "By 2030 we shall be Zero carbon" without thinking about […]

.

There’s a splendid example of that, here: **LINK**

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57927389

MichaelG.

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

There was a BBC news article re Cornwall lithium a while back. Presumably the concentration in water and whatever method is used to extract it is considered economic. One of my old school chemistry statistics was that there's 38lbs of gold in a cubic mile of seawater – just a matter of sorting it out from the 120 million tons of salt….

pgk

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Steviegtr on 22/07/2021 23:15:38:

Lord Bamford did explain that the Electric battery idea is dead in the water. Not enough rare minerals to make it work worldwide. He also said it all began with the Elton Musk thing…

…

The moral here is, did the oil company go bust. No The oil companies will be the people who will develop any product that will eventually rein in the motor industry. Pistons at dawn.

Steve.

With respect Steve, Lord Bamford said no such thing, or anything like 'Batteries are dead in the water'. No need to believe me, watch the video! See the tag line 'Is hydrogen, rather than electric, the future for big-engined machinery?'

Lord Bamford is clear about the context, for instance he refers to: 'Issues with our type of product', and the requirement being 'a different thing from saloon cars'. The video has a nice graph showing where JCB think the boundary between batteries and Hydrogen IC is. Basically, batteries are OK for small earthmovers used for up to 6 hours at a time, but no good for heavy earth movers run round the clock, or the kind of American truck supplied with two drivers who work shifts in order to cover more than 1000 miles per day. The video also explains batteries are good for urban and short range motoring. He makes a good point about the cost of converting to electric cars : at the moment they are expensive and there is no second-hand market pushing prices down. However, he didn't explain (why should he) that the total cost of ownership of electric cars is already lower than the total cost of owning an IC vehicle. It's because electric vehicles are cheaper per mile and they require much less maintenance. From now on, electric cars will get cheaper, while IC cars get more expensive.

Most arguments in favour of petrol and diesel assume the price of oil at the pump will stay the same forever. Oh dear, it's not! There are about 30 million cars on the road in the UK; the Chinese market for new cars is about 25 million per year : lots of new customers are chasing a dwindling natural resource, so guess what will happen to the price.

I don't expect IC engines to be replaced by a single technology; there's no reason why it should. At the moment batteries look to be the best bet for commuter motoring, but they're not suitable for heavy duty. Storing Hydrogen is likely too dangerous for domestic use, but the risk could be managed in a commercial vehicle, in which case no objection to Hydrogen IC.

Matching different technologies to the job in hand has always been a feature of engineering. Imagine it's 1944 and we're considering how best to power a ship. Choices are reciprocating steam with saturated or superheated steam, reciprocating steam with a turbine driven by the exhaust, turbo-electric, geared turbine, diesel electric, geared diesel, and direct diesel. The debate is interesting as a man-in-pub discussion, but in 1944 the professional engineer had to carefully balance several factors. The speed and size of the ship, reliability, maintenance and personnel costs, fuel cost & availability, fuel efficiency, weight, space, relative cost, vibration and noise, the effect on powering auxiliaries and fuel consumption at fractional powers. (Gas turbines have the best fuel efficiency provided they are run flat out but efficiency at reduced power is dreadful. Good choice for cruising, rubbish for stop-start work.)

This graph, which is one of several ways of comparing maritime choices in 1944, illustrates the need to look closely at all the alternatives:

For example, ignoring poor fuel efficiency, in 1944 saturated steam was a poor choice for a big ship requiring more than 5000SHP because reciprocating steam maxes out below that power.. Another graph shows reciprocating engines are also overweight while a third shows they're high maintenance. But they were reliable, burned widely available cheap coal, and are good at stop-start work. However, in 1944 they were on the way out because super-heated engines were cheaper to run overall, and their clock was ticking because diesel is even better. However, the rise of Diesel depended on improving the purity of cheap diesel oil, which the chemists did during the 1950s.

At the moment diesel is king at sea. But it too will have to change… Technology and engineering never stand still.

As to the power of big oil, it's fading. Quite interesting that they are now being sued across the US because documentary evidence has emerged that oil companies knew decades ago that their product is damaging, and they've persistently lied about it.

Good for JCB I say – we need ways of powering large machines without burning carbon. The engine part of the problem is relatively easy and the difficulties weren't tackled by the video: how exactly do you distribute large quantities of Hydrogen safely? An unfortunate feature of Hydrogen is that small leaks form explosive mixes; wouldn't be difficult to demolish a garage if the car sprang a tiny leak!

Dave

 

 

 

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 23/07/2021 11:06:26

[Jon LawesParticipant @jonlawes51698]

I like wild Promises. Volvo originally pledged that no-one would die in a Volvo car by 2020. They didn't succeed, but if an outrageous target means strong progress derived from it then I'm alright with it.

If we set a wildly high goal then even making progress towards it is better than sitting around saying "That will never work" about everything.

[Bo’sunParticipant @bosun58570]

While nothing to do with hydrogen powered vehicles, although I 'm sure the arguments are valid.

I'm not convinced this electric vehicle lark has been thought out properly. Just a couple of examples: My Father lives in a col-de-sac on a green. Is he expected to trail an extension lead across the path and green to charge his car? In 2030 we come home from work at 5 o'clock and plug-in our cars (because we're s**t scared of not having enough charge) and then the lights go out.

[Ex contributorParticipant @mgnbuk]

that the total cost of ownership of electric cars is already lower than the total cost of owning an IC vehicle.

Where do you get that information from, Dave ?

One of the car magazines (Car IIRC) ran a comparison test recently using an current IC car & the equivalent BEV from 3 manufacturers – in all cases the total cost of ownership of the electric version was higher than the IC version. Considerably higher in some cases.

This may change in future, but right now BEVs appear to be an indulgance – those who can afford them do so & then crow about their supposedly "green" credentials. For some they are a genuine alternative, but for many not so. The only electric car I have seen so far that I may actually consider buying (and could afford to do so) is the Citroen Ami – a very different solution to urban mobility than just trying to replicate the performace of an IC car. Very basic, limited performance (28mph max) and range (5.5KwH battery gives around 30-35 miles & recharges overnight form a 13A socket) ) but cheap (around £6K in France – not available here yet) and made to suit a licence-free category of vehicles in France that makes driving one available to 14 year olds after limited instruction. As my weekly shopping trip is around 20 miles, mostly in built-up areas, such a vehicle would work for me there.

As to the power of big oil, it's fading.

I don't think that is the case. There is more to our use of oil than just burning it for fuel. One of the ingredients of lithium batteries is needle coke – an oil refining by product. Needle coke & pitch are the primary ingredients of manufactured graphite – used in many areas of manufacturing that you are probably unaware of (I know I was before I stared working with the stuff), particularly in metals manufacture (arc furnace electrodes etc.). Carbon black (oil product) used for rubber manufacture. Plastics for pretty much anything (mainly oil product). Carbon fibre starts out a s PAN yarn – oil product. Graphite felt insulation (used in vacuum & semiconductor furnaces) starts out as rayon fibre mixed with phenolic resin (oil products).

The list goes on – we are heavily dependant on oil at some point for virtually everything we make or use today & I don't hear much about finding "green", oil-free alternatives to those. There is a much bigger issue than what we use for a transportation energy source that does not appear to have been addressed by the "sound bite" politicians.

Nigel B.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

Nigel B is right.

Battery technology has long way to go match even a small IC engine vehicle.

My bottom of the range Euro 6 compliant 1 Litre, with a 35 litre petrol tank will, driven carefully, with a brimful tank, JUST cover 500 miles.

So I can brim the tank, drive to and from The WaterWorks Museum to volunteer, and arrive home with lots of range left. About the only BEV that cannot quite match that costs three times as much . So out of my price range, and even under winter conditions, with lights and heater in operation, my puddle jumper will still bring me home with mileage to spare.

Currently, the nearer cars in size to mine, without a time consuming recharge en route, would strand me before I got home..

On a commercial scale, a 44 ton truck would carry a lot less payload because of the weight of batteries, or gas cylinders.

Over 30 years ago, a friend was Chief Engineer on a large oil tanker. Propulsion? Steam turbine electric, fueled by bunker fuel (The stuff that has to be heated to make it flow). By modern standards, not green, but the best economically, at the time, presumably.!

The "Emma Maersk" and her sister ship are no longer the worlds largest container ships, but they are BIG, and powered by a huge .turbocharged two stroke diesel engine (100,000 + hp ) ,

Further development required in various fields before the internal combustion engine is sent for scrap, despite what the politicians say..

Howard

[Bo’sunParticipant @bosun58570]

Posted by mgnbuk on 23/07/2021 12:07:34:

One of the car magazines (Car IIRC) ran a comparison test recently using an current IC car & the equivalent BEV from 3 manufacturers – in all cases the total cost of ownership of the electric version was higher than the IC version. Considerably higher in some cases.

Heard exactly the same some years ago when the Toyota Prius burst onto the scene. From the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) if I remember rightly.

As a small island on a vast planet, we're not going to save it until the big players come to the party. Too many politicians ticking green boxes and companies wanting to "cash in" on peoples consciences if you ask me.

[VicParticipant @vic]

I’ve watched quite a few programmes involving the movement of very large bits of machinery. In many cases it was done with electric prime movers because of their compact size and tremendous power. Ironically they were fed by Diesel engines. I’m guessing size for size electric motors are far more powerful than ICE?

[Roger BestParticipant @rogerbest89007]

Another great thread. Pretty positive I would say.

Bamford's work is excellent, it should protect his share price enormously.

The graph showing when to use batteries was excellent. The position of the curve will move a bit as technology develops but it shows that Musk would be wise to look at Hydrogen for his semi tractor.

Another very good video about hydrogen cars is James May talking about his new car. What hit him was how much better the new car was, Toyota having shrunk the fuel cell and electrics to produce a car that was a vast improvement on the old model but with a reduced list price.

link

Toyota are famous for not embracing EV as hydrogen is better in their opinion. Japan is notable for not having its own fossil fuel supply so they invested heavily in nuclear and using hydrogen is seen to be better than importing oil, so a significant hydrogen distribution system has been built.

One point that I haven't noticed is that modern cars are very good. Our Honda Civic is 18 years old and is only just starting to need the TLC that other cars I have had needed well within ten years of duty. My 100,000 mile SMAX is not so well built but still drives very well and I am looking forward to several more years of use, there seems to be plenty of the early ones about and plenty that have done 150k so it should be good for at least 5 years more.

It is quite probable that many people will keep their cars on the road while they can afford the fuel rather than invest money and charging time in a BEV.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

I just watched that video.

Simply him comparing his new car with the old one? Yes. As a car journalist, would he provide all the down-sides? No. Not many of his profession would do that – they lose the ‘jollies’ they get from the car makers, wouldn’t they?

No mention of whether his hydrogen is ‘green’ or if it is simply produced from fossil fuels.

He could not really avoid the availability of re-fuelling points, but that does not affect Toyota.

Do Toyota not make battery only EVs? Oh yes they do!

’Orses for courses’? Definitely.

Fuel cells must refine the combustion air before use – or they become ‘poisoned’ (a bit like catalytic converters on cars if leaded petrol was used). There would not be any ‘vehicle engine emmission’ pollution to clean up if FF ICE cars were no longer running. But the fuel cells would still require cleaned combustion air, even if all other vehicles were BEVs (likewise with no ‘tail-pipe’ emissions).

We all need to watch/listen more carefully – and analyse/consider what is behind these videos. I’m quite sure of that.

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

What 'they ' are not telling you about the Cumbrian coal-mine.

'British/Tata/Corus/Bejing Steel Scunthorpe has been/is being bought by the Chinese. A major consideration is cheap steel-making coal .

"Fine ", we say , we have loads in Cumbria , we'll build a mine for you………………………..

[Roger ClarkParticipant @rogerclark]

Electric cars are promoted as lower maintenance costs but where is the cost of battery replacement factored in as I can't believe they would last the vehicles life and would there be a tail-off of performance as the batteries reach end-of-life?

And would the recycling/refurbishment of batteries be completely green?

Roger

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

And , the BIG one , the State hasn't factored in the loss of fuel duty onto the price of electrical energy used to charge your car.

Which means………..road pricing is on the way.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

The way I see it the primary problem facing humanity is Global Warming which is an existential issue. As such the 'greeness' of solutions are of secondary importance. Clearly one would like them to be as environmently freindly as reasonable but not to the cost of solving the primary issue. If the planet become uninhabitable it matters not a jot what the level of pollutants are including nuclear.

Reminds me if the film Apollo 13 where the main problem was AmpHours left in the batteries and getting the power consumption down. If they couldn't solve that everything else was irrelevant.

regards Martin

[Roger BestParticipant @rogerbest89007]

Posted by Rockingdodge on 24/07/2021 14:55:46:

Electric cars are promoted as lower maintenance costs but where is the cost of battery replacement factored in as I can't believe they would last the vehicles life and would there be a tail-off of performance as the batteries reach end-of-life?

And would the recycling/refurbishment of batteries be completely green?

Roger

The world has moved on the battery replacement problem, they last pretty well generally, but can fail like engines and gearbox's fail. yes they do tail off, but so does an engine and suspension parts. Plenty of Teslas have run up enormous mileages on original batteries. There is a good trade in upgrade batteries for Nissan Leafs. Apparently they make good taxis and can do amazing mileages.

No recycling is completely green. it needs people and they have a carbon foot print.

 

I do like the Apollo 13 analogy.

Edited By Roger Best on 25/07/2021 01:46:18

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

Posted by J Hancock on 24/07/2021 17:00:05:

And , the BIG one , the State hasn't factored in the loss of fuel duty onto the price of electrical energy used to charge your car.

Which means………..road pricing is on the way.

The State has – it’s been under discussion for some time. VED raises circa £6 billion and fuel duty £30billion, not absolutely clear whether the VAT on fuel is included in that figure. It’s just revenue. Gov has never had a problem inventing taxes just a problem in selling the tax to the public and whatever groups have strong membership and lobbyists. Claiming vehicle revenue pays for roads is as sellable as claiming parking meters pay for car parks and just as untrue – it's revenue raising and manipulation of people's behaviour. On the other hand there'd be riots and demonstrations if Gov created a wheelchair tax to pay for all those ramps in public buildings. The only certainty is that road pricing will affect every vehicle and won't lead to a reduction in fossil fuel duty.

income tax is the single largest source of government revenue in the United Kingdom, making up about 30 percent of the total, followed by National Insurance contributions at around 20 percent.

Total tax receipts are £550Billion so a 2% increase in income tax would recover fuel duty but not sellable. Call it 1% for the NHS and you have half your money back. The public never look at where it's spent…..

Direct and stealth taxes are going to slam into us all. National debt reported this am as £2.2Trillion equals every man, woman and child UK owing £32,000 The interest alone is £1500 a year per head.. Now take out the population too young to be earning and those below tax thresholds and those rich enough to hide their money – well there are only about 10 million taxpayers UK.

The math is frightening. The solution equally frightening – inflation to reduce the value of the debt, increases in VAT, income and national insurance, insurance tax rises, taxes on energy, pension taxes, death duties up….

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Re road usage tax.

Tesla can do it. So could the government. That is including software that can effectively prevent the vehicle using the roads. Computer software to monitor road usage and compare to tax paid. No payment snd vehicle could be immobilised. Simple enough?

Also the computer would obviously know where the vehicle was located – if in a public space it could simply be recovered and scrapped/crushed/re-sold/recycled to pay the debt – or whatever the government dreams up.

Systems such as this will be implemented – probably sooner than later.🙂

[Peter VennParticipant @petervenn53369]

I watched a good video last week showing an interviewed by Harry Metcalf (of Harry's Garage fame) on the work JCB have done on hydrogen engines for their plant. It seem this is the way to go but the hydrogen does have to be produced so that bit needs to be carbon neutral He suggests that even existing diesel engines could be converted and the video shows a large JCB digger working very well on hydrogen at the test quarry.

[SteviegtrParticipant @steviegtr]

Hello Peter Venn. Have a look at the 1st post i entered on this thread. Hence the whole debate on the pro's & cons of Hydrogen.

Steve.

[VicParticipant @vic]

https://youtu.be/6fF2F4zFt_A

[Author]

Posts