Hydrogen power

[roubaixtuesday]

Hydrogen doesn't seem very relevant in a UK motoring forum; BEVs seem the near perfect solution for cars, and I'd estimate will achieve market penetration of circa 90% within 2-3 decades unless the deadlines are changed or some other technology comes along.
But one size doesn't fit all.


Consider all internal combustion engines in all applications; you can't simply replace them with motor and battery because energy for charging isn't available/reliable in all locations. Solar/wind helps plug the gap where there are no grid connections, but there will aways be a need for a high density energy source that can be easily refilled.

Likely internal combustion will persist, but hopefully with greener manufactured fuels.
Fuel cells powered by ammonia or methanol are expensive options; they get away from the pure hydrogen storage issue; or alternately there's the metal hydride storage solution for hydrogen, but that's even more expensive.
Niche applications.

Methanol strikes me as a very good alternative to hydrogen; much easier to store and distribute and can be manufactured by reacting CO2 from the atmosphere with hydrogen from electrolysis. Maybe even a viable jetfuel?

It's just possible, of course, that actual experts in the field know better than my musings...

 

[FishFright]

Methanol strikes me as a very good alternative to hydrogen; much easier to store and distribute and can be manufactured by reacting CO2 from the atmosphere with hydrogen from electrolysis. Maybe even a viable jetfuel?

It's just possible, of course, that actual experts in the field know better than my musings...

So adding yet another energy sapping process to the long list between electricity and a useable fuel.
When you have the electricity why would using it to make something with less energy at the end be a sensible option ?

ETA All these ideas are based on having the spare electrical energy available to waste on turning non fuels into fuels instead of just using it to power things. Add to that the billions needed to create a whole new infrastructures makes building a few power stations look like spare change.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

So adding yet another energy sapping process to the long list between electricity and a useable fuel.
When you have the electricity why would using it to make something with less energy at the end be a sensible option ?

ETA All these ideas are based on having the spare electrical energy available to waste on turning non fuels into fuels instead of just using it to power things. Add to that the billions needed to create a whole new infrastructures makes building a few power stations look like spare change.

I'm only suggesting for applications (like jet fuel replacement) where there's no viable alternative. I agree for cars, batteries seem to be far the better option.

 

[lazybloke]

So adding yet another energy sapping process to the long list between electricity and a useable fuel.
When you have the electricity why would using it to make something with less energy at the end be a sensible option ?

ETA All these ideas are based on having the spare electrical energy available to waste on turning non fuels into fuels instead of just using it to power things. Add to that the billions needed to create a whole new infrastructures makes building a few power stations look like spare change.

Because you need infrastructure to generate and store electricity, and those aren't always at point of use.

So you go electric with batteries as a rule, but have a range of other options for where necessary.

 

[FishFright]

Because you need infrastructure to generate and store electricity, and those aren't always at point of use.

So you go electric with batteries as a rule, but have a range of other options for where necessary.

Options are nice to have but only if they can be produced efficiently and none of the current front runners come even close.

 

[lazybloke]

Options are nice to have but only if they can be produced efficiently and none of the current front runners come even close.

If the efficient battery/motor option isn't viable, then you HAVE to choose from one of the less efficient option; that's undeniable.

Your use of the word 'only' suggests you don't find any other option acceptable.
Do you really mean that? It's quite an ask to get rid of fossil fuels, internal combusion engines and jet engines?
It means goodbye to airfreight and international shipping, all helicopers are grounded including coastguard, search & rescue and air ambulances). I suppose domestic EV manufacturers will be delighted as they will benefit from a massive spike in demand for BEVs, but unfortunately you've just removed approx 40% of UK generating capacity so we're now doomed to planned and unplanned power cuts so might have difficulty charging.
The powercuts will be bad news for hospitals and operating theatres, because you banned generators too, but likely they'll have battery backup. For a while.

On the plus side, you did remove 97% of all cars from UK roads (just BEVs left) so cycling's going to be lovely in future - until bike shops run out of stock.

 

[cougie uk]

If the efficient battery/motor option isn't viable, then you HAVE to choose from one of the less efficient option; that's undeniable.

Your use of the word 'only' suggests you don't find any other option acceptable.
Do you really mean that? It's quite an ask to get rid of fossil fuels, internal combusion engines and jet engines?
It means goodbye to airfreight and international shipping, all helicopers are grounded including coastguard, search & rescue and air ambulances). I suppose domestic EV manufacturers will be delighted as they will benefit from a massive spike in demand for BEVs, but unfortunately you've just removed approx 40% of UK generating capacity so we're now doomed to planned and unplanned power cuts so might have difficulty charging.
The powercuts will be bad news for hospitals and operating theatres, because you banned generators too, but likely they'll have battery backup. For a while.

On the plus side, you did remove 97% of all cars from UK roads (just BEVs left) so cycling's going to be lovely in future - until bike shops run out of stock.

Well we have taken a lot of fossil fuel out of the Grid.

There's still more work to be done but we don't have any other option.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I think the talk of alternative fuels is several steps in to a discussion that should really start much earlier in the process, as there are serious questions to ask about the fundamental justifications for the removal of fossil fuels, and the cost benefit analysis so far are seriously skewed.

The Dutch resolved the problem of sea level rises long before industrialisation, which raises a couple of interesting and very pertinent questions in itself. There actions resulted in an increase in fertile agricultural land, which they have benefited from ever since.

What rarely gets included in the debates are the many benefits fossil fuels have brought us, including increased life expectancy, better health, both of which are liable to be far greater than the losses predicted by the doom sayers, which are themselves very debatable. There is also the massive decrease in the loss of life and property from natural disasters that have been possible largely due to the technology made possible by fossil fuels.

I don't see much discussion on how ancient monuments are going to be kept maintained when the funding from tourism is removed, or how countries like Italy, Spain, Greece etc will replace the 10% of GDP they currently gain from tourism, nor how Governments are going to replace the lost tax revenue gained from fossil fuels.

 

[FishFright]

If the efficient battery/motor option isn't viable, then you HAVE to choose from one of the less efficient option; that's undeniable.

Your use of the word 'only' suggests you don't find any other option acceptable.
Do you really mean that? It's quite an ask to get rid of fossil fuels, internal combusion engines and jet engines?
It means goodbye to airfreight and international shipping, all helicopers are grounded including coastguard, search & rescue and air ambulances). I suppose domestic EV manufacturers will be delighted as they will benefit from a massive spike in demand for BEVs, but unfortunately you've just removed approx 40% of UK generating capacity so we're now doomed to planned and unplanned power cuts so might have difficulty charging.
The powercuts will be bad news for hospitals and operating theatres, because you banned generators too, but likely they'll have battery backup. For a while.

On the plus side, you did remove 97% of all cars from UK roads (just BEVs left) so cycling's going to be lovely in future - until bike shops run out of stock.

It's not an ask , it's a need. Every holiday or leisure flight , ever unnecessary car journey et al powered by petrochemicals will only hasten it.
Life will have to change.

ETA It's important that we here are the generations that created and condoned all this so do we help future generations or do we preserve our own 'precious lifestyles' ?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

What rarely gets included in the debates are the many benefits fossil fuels have brought us, including increased life expectancy, better health, both of which are liable to be far greater than the losses predicted by the doom sayers, which are themselves very debatable. There is also the massive decrease in the loss of life and property from natural disasters that have been possible largely due to the technology made possible by fossil fuels.

This is a complete straw man. Could you please point to anyone saying there a no benefits from fossil fuels?

This issue is how to continue to deliver those benefits, given:
(1) A huge previously unaccounted for cost has been discovered - climate change and
(2) They are a finite resource, so by definition, cannot continue ad infinitum.

 

[cougie uk]

What rarely gets included in the debates are the many benefits fossil fuels have brought us, including increased life expectancy, better health, both of which are liable to be far greater than the losses predicted by the doom sayers, which are themselves very debatable. There is also the massive decrease in the loss of life and property from natural disasters that have been possible largely due to the technology made possible by fossil fuels.

The Great Smog of 1952 alone killed over 4000 people due to the pollution.
God knows how many miners have been killed down pits or had their lives shortened due to breathing issues.
Pollution in cities kills people every day.

Increased life expectancy is nothing to do with fossil fuels and everything to do with better healthcare.

Whatever technology you are talking about with natural disasters - they could probably be electric ?

 

[ClichéGuevara]

This is a complete straw man. Could you please point to anyone saying there a no benefits from fossil fuels?

This issue is how to continue to deliver those benefits, given:
(1) A huge previously unaccounted for cost has been discovered - climate change and
(2) They are a finite resource, so by definition, cannot continue ad infinitum.

Despite the claims, there are still some serious scientific discussions to be had on both of those claims.

Before anyone asks, no that is not based on any of the conspiracy stuff, quite a lot comes from the data and findings that form the basis of what is in the IPCC reports. The reports themselves do not always represent the science that underpins them.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

The Great Smog of 1952 alone killed over 4000 people due to the pollution.
God knows how many miners have been killed down pits or had their lives shortened due to breathing issues.
Pollution in cities kills people every day.

Increased life expectancy is nothing to do with fossil fuels and everything to do with better healthcare.

Whatever technology you are talking about with natural disasters - they could probably be electric ?

You are comparing apples to oranges with your example of the smogs, and they do not conflict with anything I put.

The other two claims of yours are not supported by the science or the data.

 

[Dadam]

Despite the claims, there are still some serious scientific discussions to be had on both of those claims.

Before anyone asks, no that is not based on any of the conspiracy stuff, quite a lot comes from the data and findings that form the basis of what is in the IPCC reports. The reports themselves do not always represent the science that underpins them.

Ah right, carry on as normal then, everything fine! I'm sorry but the time for debate on this passed decades ago. It's beyond reasonable doubt and even if it wasn't, if there's the slightest chance we could be adversely affecting the climate we should be acting. The stakes are too high.

 

[lazybloke]

It's not an ask , it's a need. Every holiday or leisure flight , ever unnecessary car journey et al powered by petrochemicals will only hasten it.
Life will have to change.

ETA It's important that we here are the generations that created and condoned all this so do we help future generations or do we preserve our own 'precious lifestyles' ?

My wording was a little clumsy at nearly 2am, but I think yours was too, because you suggested batteries were the only acceptable upgrade from fossil fuels. Sorry, but they're not viable for all options so there needs to be a variety of synthetic fuels available that might not be particularly efficient but are plentiful because they can be manufactured using renewable energy, and are hella clean compared to fossil fuels. That would seem a win.


To be clear, I did not mean to suggest we continue using fossil fuels. That should have been clear from my previous posts.