RE: 'I think by 2028 you will be able to buy a Hy4'
Discussion
Lets say that they do produce a Hydrogen car in 2028.
The biggest question would be where would you fill it up?
At the moment, there are just over 200 hydrogen filling stations in the whole of Europe and just 1 in the UK that is currently in service.
https://h2.live/en/
Hydrogen for personal car transport is simply not viable, not now, and given the physics and battery advancements, never will be.
How can I know that? I can't, but everything is pointing in that direction.
If you think Hydrogen can work, please outline the road map of how we get from where we are today to a viable Hydrogen network and cars that can use it.
The biggest question would be where would you fill it up?
At the moment, there are just over 200 hydrogen filling stations in the whole of Europe and just 1 in the UK that is currently in service.
https://h2.live/en/
Hydrogen for personal car transport is simply not viable, not now, and given the physics and battery advancements, never will be.
How can I know that? I can't, but everything is pointing in that direction.
If you think Hydrogen can work, please outline the road map of how we get from where we are today to a viable Hydrogen network and cars that can use it.
GTRene said:
must say it looks cool in this picture, not so the picture from the side, but in this picture cool, Batman's car.
Does look cool. Made to take a V6 and paid for by a taxpayer grant to 'investigate' hydrogen. Now that 'investigation' is done they can get on with selling a rather nice looking V6 petrol car. The project just needs to go quiet for a while so everyone forgets about the taxpayer money that was meant for something else. 
Terminator X said:
Hold on GT9 told us this wasn't possible. I don't believe Alpine for a second, gonna go with GT9 on this one.
TX.
Except he didn't did he? TX.
Everyone knows you can combust hydrogen in an ICE. It was done as far back as 1863. Anyone can do it. That's not the bit that's not possible. The main bit that isn't possible is that elderly skint blokes can't have one.
740EVTORQUES said:
As well as the sheer inefficiency of converting green electricity into hydrogen and then back to electricity again in a fuel cell, or worse burning it with the associated thermal waste and NOx emissions.
Dumb idea
Yes, but it feels so good! And that's what counts to the unthinking.Dumb idea
t train. Some “investment” of horses
Jon_S_Rally said:
DonkeyApple said:
The key is that for the last few years there has been $billions of grant funds available so everyone who has taken the money must deliver something to show for it. But as mentioned in the article there are avenues to explore re commercial uses or it's conversion to more stable fuels and there are also likely to be some global niche markets where it is the more viable solution at some point. But what many are at pains to point out is that this isn't of any use for private car users in the U.K., there's just not any viable case for it in such a usage scenario. For us it petrol and electric with the electric side just slowly growing over the next 30 years.
People keep saying this kind of thing, but they're often the same people that keep telling us how the next generation of batteries are going to change everything - a generation of batteries that has (so far) always remained just out of reach. They've been two years away for the last 10 years.I'm not an EV denier. I believe that battery-powered cars will become the norm for most people and there is nothing at all wrong with that, but I also don't buy the idea that manufacturers are talking about hydrogen solely to try and grab some cash to produce prototypes that will never see the light of day. What would be the point of that?
Maybe hydrogen won't go anywhere long-term for passenger cars but, where the the environment and cleaning up personal transport is concerned, I would argue that we and those who lead us should keep an open mind. And, as I said before, if car makers are willing to look into different technologies to make cars for enthusiasts, that should be celebrated on this website of all places.
If you now want to backtrack and suggest that batteries have to do some weird distance like 3,000 miles on a charge, go right ahead. But the use case for average distances travelled is well within the range of EVs sold today. It's most certainly is not a case of waiting 2 years or 10 years, or whatever other ridiculous claim you're intending on making.
Olivergt said:
Lets say that they do produce a Hydrogen car in 2028.
The biggest question would be where would you fill it up?
At the moment, there are just over 200 hydrogen filling stations in the whole of Europe and just 1 in the UK that is currently in service.
https://h2.live/en/
Hydrogen for personal car transport is simply not viable, not now, and given the physics and battery advancements, never will be.
How can I know that? I can't, but everything is pointing in that direction.
If you think Hydrogen can work, please outline the road map of how we get from where we are today to a viable Hydrogen network and cars that can use it.
Is there any point in even discussing infrastructure before the fuel exists? There is no green hydrogen for generic road transport. And not will there be for at least two decades when looking at every single GH project on the planet that is raising funding. The biggest question would be where would you fill it up?
At the moment, there are just over 200 hydrogen filling stations in the whole of Europe and just 1 in the UK that is currently in service.
https://h2.live/en/
Hydrogen for personal car transport is simply not viable, not now, and given the physics and battery advancements, never will be.
How can I know that? I can't, but everything is pointing in that direction.
If you think Hydrogen can work, please outline the road map of how we get from where we are today to a viable Hydrogen network and cars that can use it.
Nor is a single one of these investments considering selling a single molecule of vital GH to people with cars.
The first vital demand for GH is the replacement of fossil fuel hydrogen demand within the existing industry. It won't be until nearly 2040 that sufficient GH is in production to even complete that essential first task. The subsequent vital role of GH is to then be a decarbonisation solution for other industries which don't currently use hydrogen but where it can be a means to evade swinging 2050 tax penalties. After that we have the potential need for GH in aviation and to make simple molecules that are more stable but still able to act as a fuel, such as to piggyback off the global fertiliser industry for an ammonia fuel.
The whole ignorant stance regarding GH being used for cars which can work with either petrol or batteries is simply a function of un dictated, angry, easily lead potato people being scared of things they've been told to be scared of by their programmers. Somehow in their minds they've been told that the highly corrosive, near impossible to store, highly explosive, very expensive greenhouse gas called Hydrogen is their right wing messiah which is why they then use it to shout about random objects that in their mind are left wing. So to them the slightest mention that no one who is investing in or building out the GH network has the slightest intention of selling any to mug punters somehow must mean that you randomly and devoutly believe in EVs because EVs are the opposing political object.
It's the logic of the screaming idiot like conspiracy theories and all the other things that fools who can't cope with a life where one thing doesn't have an exact opposite like a football match.
To them they just can't compute reality where people can be huge ICE fans, interested in the EV policy and it's upsides and how to deal with the downsides as well as being a big fan of green hydrogen but appreciating that no one is planning to burn it in generic cars where there is the slightest chance that an EV will work.
Nearly all the taxpayer pots for 'research into alternative fuels' have been exhausted. They fuelled nearly all these projects and stories where these overseas firms took govt money and did just enough pretend work on things like hydrogen to not face an inquiry.
As for combusting hydrogen in race cars, it's not really very sensible is it and that's why no one is genuinely planning to migrate motorsport to HICE.
. What GH will be used for is the extremely costly process of using industrial CO2 exhaust from the fossil fuel industry to combine and process into blends of long chain C6-C12 hydrocarbons, in other words petrol. Hugely expensive to create and can only be done in small volumes but fuel costs and volume isn't any issue to the motorsport industry. And what we will see is the continued advertising from the motorsport industry to the potato people about this fuel and how they'll obviously get some for their Mariva. In short, there is huge, huge profits and tax credits to be had with green hydrogen. It's happening and it is hugely important. It's just that none of this investment is for wasting the stuff in U.K. cars or trying to sell it to skint people. They're just the patsies being used by the already wealthy to make more money from them.
Morning all, well that was fun.
As for production HICE cars, here is the state-of-the-art:
https://www.toyota-europe.com/news/2022/prototype-...
1.6 litre 3 cylinder Corolla wagon.
Be still my beating heart.
As for production HICE cars, here is the state-of-the-art:
https://www.toyota-europe.com/news/2022/prototype-...
1.6 litre 3 cylinder Corolla wagon.
Be still my beating heart.
GT9 said:
Morning all, well that was fun.
As for production HICE cars, here is the state-of-the-art:
https://www.toyota-europe.com/news/2022/prototype-...
1.6 litre 3 cylinder Corolla wagon.
Be still my beating heart.
Say what you like about Toyota but like a door to door Solar panel salesman, they know their target customer well. As for production HICE cars, here is the state-of-the-art:
https://www.toyota-europe.com/news/2022/prototype-...
1.6 litre 3 cylinder Corolla wagon.
Be still my beating heart.
Water Fairy said:
Fastlane said:
I can only imagine he mentioned hydrogen combustion in order to appease the more "traditional" enthusiasts, who still don't trust a car that doesn't go vroom-vroom.
You sound rather sensitive to the fact some don't like EVs but you clearly do. It's nothing to do with 'trust'.Get over it already.
As for getting over 'it" I already have, hence why I drive both.
GT9 said:
Morning all, well that was fun.
As for production HICE cars, here is the state-of-the-art:
https://www.toyota-europe.com/news/2022/prototype-...
1.6 litre 3 cylinder Corolla wagon.
Be still my beating heart.
You mean a modified version of the engine used in the GR Yaris and Corolla? If we can get vehicles like that powered by alternative fuels it makes my heart beat more than dull-as-dishwater electric motors As for production HICE cars, here is the state-of-the-art:
https://www.toyota-europe.com/news/2022/prototype-...
1.6 litre 3 cylinder Corolla wagon.
Be still my beating heart.
Undercover McNoName said:
Dunbar871 said:
You are a bit “speshul” aren’t you?
Edited to add Alpine have a track record in ventures that never actually make production, the joint development programmes with Caterham and Lotus for example. And I say this as an Alpine owner.
Edited by TheMilkyBarKid on Sunday 23 June 21:43
Syndrome280 said:
GT9 said:
Morning all, well that was fun.
As for production HICE cars, here is the state-of-the-art:
https://www.toyota-europe.com/news/2022/prototype-...
1.6 litre 3 cylinder Corolla wagon.
Be still my beating heart.
You mean a modified version of the engine used in the GR Yaris and Corolla? If we can get vehicles like that powered by alternative fuels it makes my heart beat more than dull-as-dishwater electric motors As for production HICE cars, here is the state-of-the-art:
https://www.toyota-europe.com/news/2022/prototype-...
1.6 litre 3 cylinder Corolla wagon.
Be still my beating heart.
For me to have an interest in what the the Corolla HICE might mean for UK cars, I'd like to know its performance stats, what range they are getting between refills and how much of the rear load space is consumed by the H2 tanks.
Additionally, for me to have an interest in fuelling my car with hydrogen instead of petrol, I'd like to know when we plan to have copious amounts of true low-carbon hydrogen available in the UK that could supply millions of cars at a cost comparable to petrol.
And by true low-carbon, I mean green hydrogen not methane-derived.
Because right now all projections for that to be the case put it well beyond making any contribution whatsoever to our 2050 decarbonisation targets.
A wholesale shift to an entirely different and significantly more difficult to handle fuel (one that is banned from many enclosed spaces) that doesn't actually move the decarbonisation dial seems somewhat futile?
I started a thread a while back about ev at the cost of everything else, all who replied were ev all the way, we should embrace anything that works. maybe that is ev, maybe its something else, but lets have an open mind.
In my view, something that is like petrol and can be refilled like petrol will be the winner, let the market decide. At the moment ev seems to be the winner, but it only works for a few people, we need something that works for everyone.
In my view, something that is like petrol and can be refilled like petrol will be the winner, let the market decide. At the moment ev seems to be the winner, but it only works for a few people, we need something that works for everyone.
richhead said:
I started a thread a while back about ev at the cost of everything else, all who replied were ev all the way, we should embrace anything that works. maybe that is ev, maybe its something else, but lets have an open mind.
In my view, something that is like petrol and can be refilled like petrol will be the winner, let the market decide. At the moment ev seems to be the winner, but it only works for a few people, we need something that works for everyone.
Agreed but in reality that is exactly what you are seeing. The fuel for hydrogen cars doesn't actually exist yet. The infrastructure doesn't exist and almost no one is investing beyond making grant applications for free money. And we must remain rational and not try to bypass basic physics or economics. In my view, something that is like petrol and can be refilled like petrol will be the winner, let the market decide. At the moment ev seems to be the winner, but it only works for a few people, we need something that works for everyone.
So for example, Green hydrogen is made from electricity. So there, straight away one is on the back foot. The raw ingredient of the desired fuel is the very thing that already can power a car. That alone obviously means that GH will always be more expensive than electricity. And so straight away you know that economically it would only be viable where there was no electricity. Which incidentally, is absolutely nowhere in the U.K.
Then consider the losses to break the ultra strong HOH bonds with the oxygen atom to get the GH. That cannot ever change. It is fixed and one of the strongest bonds hence our planet is covered with HOH. You actually loose aboit 50% of the electricity just desalinating and breaking the bonds. At this point you have to built an entire network from scratch to transport what is a very corrosive gas and being the smallest of all atoms one that cannot easily be contained so you aren't talking about pipelines but cold storage, high pressure tanks that have to move around the U.K. Conversely, we already have the infrastructure in place to distribute electricity so electricity is much cheaper again. Finally, you have the losses when converting that GH back to to electricity or burning it in an ICE. It's about 25% for electrolysis and 50% for combustion so catastrophic losses making the fuel yet more costly. But on top of that the gas leaks constantly from the tanks so park your car for a week and the tank self empties.
So just by considering the known and unchangable physics we can see it's not viable for general car transport.
So then we have to ask why certain fossil fuel related entities are behind many of the projects and PR? Well, they are about to lose the hydrogen market to green hydrogen. Ie the true purpose of green hydrogen production is to replace existing industrial fossil fuel hydrogen use. So the hydrogen industry will be ending up with a surplus of fossil fuel hydrogen and that is why they are looking for new markets. But because this hydrogen is from fossil fuels it won't be mandated for use in countries such as the U.K.
But here is the real kicker. It's my money and your money that is being taken from the taxes that we pay and put into these grant pools. Foreign companies are then taking that money but if they ever deliver a product it's not for the U.K. but developing markets. So at the core of this hydrogen lie is our money being used to bolster the profits of non U.K. businesses for non U.K. clients. And U.K. tax payers want that?
richhead said:
I started a thread a while back about ev at the cost of everything else, all who replied were ev all the way, we should embrace anything that works. maybe that is ev, maybe its something else, but lets have an open mind.
In my view, something that is like petrol and can be refilled like petrol will be the winner, let the market decide. At the moment ev seems to be the winner, but it only works for a few people, we need something that works for everyone.
Just to add to what DA is saying above; you're stating that " ev seems to be the winner, but it only works for a few people, we need something that works for everyone."In my view, something that is like petrol and can be refilled like petrol will be the winner, let the market decide. At the moment ev seems to be the winner, but it only works for a few people, we need something that works for everyone.
What's your definition of it only working for a few people? The Tesla model Y was the most popular model of car sold in the world in 2023. It would seem on that basis that it works for quite a few people, no?
And yes, I would absolutely accept it doesnt work for everyone. We all have our own use cases. But, the exception does not prove the rule. A pretty good way of looking at this is just how far does the AVERAGE person drive in a day, and can these EV's support that. And the answer is most certainly they can.
If you happen to fall outside of that, okay, no issue, but just recognise that you're not the average use case and in a minority.
richhead said:
In my view, something that is like petrol and can be refilled like petrol will be the winner, let the market decide.
Hydrogen cars have been on sale for 10 years, the market has very much decided.The market has decided that electricity is 'just like' petrol, not hydrogen.
Electricity is affordable and available everywhere, just like petrol.
An open mind also needs to be an informed mind.
If the fact that hydrogen does not liquify until - 253C and the fact that it is much cheaper to produce from natural gas make zero difference to your perspective, then yes, you might conclude that 'its just like petrol' but can offer a decarbonisation pathway for millions or billions of cars.
If however, you take the time to understand why it's nothing like petrol, and the astronomical cost and timeline implications that has for both the cars and the fuel production/refuelling infrastructure, then you'll have a better chance of understanding why the market is choosing electricity over hydrogen.
Several posters on both your original thread and this one have taken time to describe these things in more detail, are you reading any of these posts with an open mind?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff