Electric cars emit 50% less greenhouse gas than diesel, study finds

[huff3r 347]

1 hour ago, Michael. said:

From BOC gas, in large bottles, easy.

Eventually, wait for gas stations to sell it like LPG.

Done! 

Have you looked into energy required to produce hydrogen gas? It's not very economical currently. Not even remotely. 

[Michael. 2313]

2 hours ago, huff3r said:

Have you looked into energy required to produce hydrogen gas? It's not very economical currently. Not even remotely. 

Meh oil companies will work it out when it's viable for them.

I bet it's no more difficult than making an oil platform, taking it 50km off the coast, sucking oil deep off the ocean floor, getting a huge oil tanker to take it back to a refinery for processing, then trucks or more tankers to transport it. They could just build their own small nuclear reactors for endless amounts of electricity to perform the procedures to extract hydrogen and bottle it. 

If they can produce it, distribute it and sell it when it's more cost effective than oil they will do it.

Do you really think they will sit back and watch less sales of oil take place while consumers plug in their battery cars to the electrical grid. Somehow I doubt that. They would rather them buy hydrogen!

Hydrogen is the only model that compares to diesel or petrol, giving constant output when being used (no performance or power drop like in battery cars as the battery goes lower and lower) and it would take a few minutes to fill up the gas tank, just like what people are used to today. 

The plug in and charge method is only going to suit a tiny tiny fraction of vehicle users out there, especially when rapid charge times are still at least 30 minutes and gives limited range. 

 

Edited December 31, 2017 by Michael.

[kiwi535 538]

at the moment hydrogen is a product of .(or byproduct of) oil refining....its a finite resource?

[huff3r 347]

3 hours ago, kiwi535 said:

at the moment hydrogen is a product of .(or byproduct of) oil refining....its a finite resource?

It is also produced by electrolosis of water, but the downside is it requires more energy to produce than the hydrogen holds. 

[Michael. 2313]

3 hours ago, huff3r said:

It is also produced by electrolosis of water, but the downside is it requires more energy to produce than the hydrogen holds. 

I think that's irrelevant in some ways. A least the way a HFC car uses the hydrogen for electrical power can be extremely efficient, up to 80 percent of the fuel converted to electrical energy some studies have shown. It would still be a viable product to produce, bottle and sell given it's purposefulness.

Meanwhile the thermal efficiency of petrol cars is pretty poor, 20-30 percent usually. So it could be argue petrol cars are self defeating in that aspect of how much of the fuel they waste as heat. Yet, here we are well over 100 years later, still using them despite the lack of efficiency.

I wonder how efficient the production of lithium ion or iron batteries is when it comes down to the way they are produced, I guess it's not so applicable as they can't be used as a fuel, and only work when, coal power plants charge them. 

[Gabe79 410]

5 minutes ago, Michael. said:

I wonder how efficient the production of lithium ion or iron batteries is when it comes down to the way they are produced, I guess it's not so applicable as they can't be used as a fuel, and only work when, coal power plants charge them. 

Except for them countries that don't use coal, like New Zealand, for example... Or for all them countries phasing out coal because natural gas is so much cheaper...

[huff3r 347]

9 minutes ago, Michael. said:

I think that's irrelevant in some ways. A least the way a HFC car uses the hydrogen for electrical power can be extremely efficient, up to 80 percent of the fuel converted to electrical energy some studies have shown. It would still be a viable product to produce, bottle and sell given it's purposefulness.

Meanwhile the thermal efficiency of petrol cars is pretty poor, 20-30 percent usually. So it could be argue petrol cars are self defeating in that aspect of how much of the fuel they waste as heat. Yet, here we are well over 100 years later, still using them despite the lack of efficiency.

I wonder how efficient the production of lithium ion or iron batteries is when it comes down to the way they are produced, I guess it's not so applicable as they can't be used as a fuel, and only work when, coal power plants charge them. 

Except fossil fuels even at that poor efficiency still provide far more energy than it takes to produce them.

Basically a hydrogen fuel cell is a poor performing, albeit cheap to manufacture, battery. 

[M3AN 4016]

BMW had a hydrogen powered 7 series way back in 2000/1 when I was in Munich, it's quite amazing how little progress seems to have been made since then.

[Michael. 2313]

That hydrogen V12 E38 actually ran on the gas as a combustible fuel, lower power density so didn't really perform that well. Better off with LPG!

Was an interesting experiment though 

[tawa 150]

On 1/1/2018 at 6:38 PM, huff3r said:

Except fossil fuels even at that poor efficiency still provide far more energy than it takes to produce them.

Basically a hydrogen fuel cell is a poor performing, albeit cheap to manufacture, battery. 

When you think about it, fossil fuels are also like a battery, just one which takes thousands of years to trickle charge, and has incredible power density at the expense of an incredibly high internal resistance.

Bingo. Not sure the JFM pixie converters are any cheaper or last any longer than current batteries do anyway.

Edited January 2, 2018 by tawa

[gjm 3258]

2 hours ago, 3pedals said:

Hydrogen fuel cells are viable now, they are efficient and the hydrogen product costs are reasonable and facilities are scaleable.

Hydrogen has been a commercially viable fuel for vehicles for over 40 years. (Obviously not the same as hydrogen fuel cells.)

[tawa 150]

3 hours ago, 3pedals said:

More home work needed you guys are trotting out last decades' excuses for science,

Hydrogen fuel cells are viable now, they are efficient and the hydrogen product costs are reasonable and facilities are scaleable.

Fossil fuels are not batteries because the use combustion to produce energy (heat)  - fuel cells use chemistry to produce electrons - vastly different 

75% on electrolysis init? Or have you got some updated numbers from this decade? Then about the same for electricity generated in a fuel cell. It's viable in the same way the horse and cart is viable, it works but has been superceded by better technology.

[Michael. 2313]

15 hours ago, tawa said:

 it works but has been superceded by better technology.

What is a better tech than hydrogen fuel cell? 

[kiwi535 538]

5 hours ago, 3pedals said:

Decent contribution please - yes there are losses in the conversions but also consider the full hydrocarbon extraction/ distillation and consumption process in an internal combustion engine or industrial heating system - same with battery storage - where do you source the electrons to fill the battery / Hydrocarbon powered generation ? thats not efficient or renewable. 

Hydrogen is the emerging energy / tehnology that is superceding batteries ( unless you believe Musk the battery maker ) 

 

 BTW the horse and cart is very viable - bio fuel in , about a horse power and some sh*t out - reasonable efficiency - 100% renewable 

 

Please educate the ignorant as to how you will produce the hydrogen.Currently the vast bulk of hydrogen gas is produced as a by product of the petrochemical refining process.What is your scaleable hydrogen producer and how is the energy required for it produced?

[aja540i 1906]

it's a pointless argument at this stage, you can buy an electric car and use it now, you can't buy a hydrogen car at the moment and use it.

[M3AN 4016]

True that.

 

[aja540i 1906]

How many in NZ, where I live?

[Gabe79 410]

10 minutes ago, 3pedals said:

None because we are fixated with gas guzzlers- but working on it. 

The irony being that switching to the magical hydrogen still depends on gas guzzlers existing. 

It makes no sense to still rely on petroleum refining for a country that is self sufficient on electricity in a way that is nearly entirely renewable. 

[Michael. 2313]

Wow I agree with you 3pedals. 

[Gabe79 410]

4 hours ago, 3pedals said:

Really, How? 

NZ has cheap hydro power which can be used to sustainably produce hydrogen which then replaces fossil fuels no petroleum required. 

I think there is a considerable misunderstanding, or perhaps, redefinition of the word "cheap" here. There is nothing about hydrogen fuel cells that makes it cheap if you take away the existing context of it being part of the refining process for petroleum. This definition of "cheap" simply looks the other way when faced with the prospect of creating an entire supply chain which doesn't currently exist in this, or any other country. The difference with electricity being that obviously there are outlets everywhere... Even if we're talking about fast chargers not existing en-masse yet, there isn't a new infrastructure that needs to be created for their use, we already have that infrastructure (again, here and everywhere else already...)

[No name user 379]

Issue with either Hydro, petrol or electrics  there still a massively high consumption of fossil fuels to  build these vehicles.

I believe the highest consumption of oil goes into every day products as in plastics, roads and panels wiring,tires etc etc in vehicles let alone whats used for house hold goods and cell phones etc.

So regardless of how it runs there's no free lunches, we may reduce what vehicles use or don't but the fossil fuel will always be there to which i believe over 80% is used for every day products not vehicles.

We are polluting regardless what we do. 

[tawa 150]

On 1/14/2018 at 8:54 AM, 3pedals said:

Decent contribution please - yes there are losses in the conversions but also consider the full hydrocarbon extraction/ distillation and consumption process in an internal combustion engine or industrial heating system - same with battery storage - where do you source the electrons to fill the battery / Hydrocarbon powered generation ? thats not efficient or renewable. 

Hydrogen is the emerging energy / tehnology that is superceding batteries ( unless you believe Musk the battery maker ) 

 

 BTW the horse and cart is very viable - bio fuel in , about a horse power and some sh*t out - reasonable efficiency - 100% renewable 

 

You source the electrons from renewable electricity generation, which give you more bang for your buck in batteries than they do in hydrogen fuel cells. The comparison between hydrogen and batteries should not focus on where the electricity comes from since it is the same for each place, but the efficiency is markedly different. That's what makes hydrogen less attractive.

On 1/14/2018 at 2:06 PM, Michael. said:

What is a better tech than hydrogen fuel cell? 

Batteries.

[tawa 150]

2 hours ago, 3pedals said:

 

• Dragging around 5kg of hydrogen makes a lot more sense than 680kg of batteries. 

 

What does the fuel cell and hydrogen tank weigh? Let's at least try to be fair and compare the same factors eh...

 

Curb weight for example, the Mirai is 1850kg to the Tesla's 1961kg, both Luxury 4dr sedans.

Edited January 15, 2018 by tawa

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2957]

On ‎14‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 8:27 PM, aja540i said:

it's a pointless argument at this stage, you can buy an electric car and use it now, you can't buy a hydrogen car at the moment and use it.

You can use the electric car - to a point. In very many places, and for very many people an electric car would require a massive change to their daily routine to be able to "live with it", not everyone lives in a big city, drives 10km to work at a snail's pace and can charge it up for free during the day. So, yes, there are some people that can buy an electric car and use it now.

Also, there are people that could buy a hydrogen fuel-cell car, and use it now. They do exist, they are available, and there is a supply of Hyrogen. Again it may not be possible, or feasible for everyone, but it is for some.

One of the Aussie state governments has just committed to a hydrogen fuel-cell fleet, can't remember if it is ACT or NSW, using Hyundais I think it was. It will be interesting to see how that goes.

[tawa 150]

1 hour ago, 3pedals said:

The Tesla model S  with a 75kW battery sitting outside the office tips the scales at just under 2200kg on our weighbridge a bit more than the 1961 you quote. 

The new composite hydrogen tanks are relatively light -and for the battery version E.V's you need also to consider all the charge control hardware as additional weight so whilst we haven't included all the weight for hydrogen Ev,s the same is also true for battery ones. 

The batteries biggest problem is the mass associated with decent energy output  

Energy from one kg of hydrogen - weight for weight it is the highest energy fuel giving an equivalent of over 33kW-hrs /kg  so assuming a low 33% conversion rate in a fuel cell - that equates to  nearly 10kW-hrs per kg compared to 0.166 kW-hrs / kg for a Tesla battery. 

For a lithium or other conventional battery you first have to produce the electrons, then put them into the battery chemistry before you can extract them.  Generating them, putting them in and extracting them is the whole equation. 

Look at the Fuel cell as a direct conversion battery - you put hydrogen in, mix it with air (oxygen) and get a shitload of electrons out, plus  a little bit of wateral in in real time . 

Since I lack both, and a weighbridge I just went with their spec'd weight.

So include the relatively light 85kg tanks and the relatively light 60kg fuel cell for the hydrogen one to make it an accurate comparison. If you compare the weight of the fuel itself and not the containers it would be 5kg vs 0kg for electrics since charged batts weight no more than empty ones!

I'd say the biggest problem is the recharge time, what difference does weight really make?

And where do you get the hydrogen from? Fossil fuels (non-sustainable) or from the same electricity you put in batteries, just with far less efficiency; it's faster to refuel and weighs less, but it's a less efficient use of electricity. That's what makes it less viable.