RE: 'I think by 2028 you will be able to buy a Hy4'
Discussion
Hydrogen and has two big problems that must be overcome before being taken seriously by the automotive world. It leaks through everything, and it can be damaging to most metals.
Hydrogen, while not a direct greenhouse gas itself, plays a significant role in amplifying climate change. This is because it acts as a potent indirect greenhouse gas, reacting with other atmospheric gases to enhance their warming effects. Furthermore, hydrogen's small size makes it incredibly difficult to contain. Estimates suggest that between 5% and 20% of all industrially produced hydrogen leaks directly into the atmosphere. This leakage presents a serious challenge for the widespread adoption of hydrogen as a clean energy source, as it undermines its potential climate benefits.
Hydrogen embrittlement is a serious threat to the integrity of metal structures, particularly those under stress. This phenomenon arises when hydrogen atoms permeate the microstructure of metals, such as steel or titanium, causing them to become brittle and prone to failure. The severity of hydrogen embrittlement depends on several factors, including the type of metal, the concentration of hydrogen, the applied stress, and environmental conditions. Understanding these factors is crucial for mitigating the risks associated with hydrogen embrittlement and ensuring the safe operation of critical infrastructure.
These issues are not going away anytime some - so EVs it is.
Hydrogen, while not a direct greenhouse gas itself, plays a significant role in amplifying climate change. This is because it acts as a potent indirect greenhouse gas, reacting with other atmospheric gases to enhance their warming effects. Furthermore, hydrogen's small size makes it incredibly difficult to contain. Estimates suggest that between 5% and 20% of all industrially produced hydrogen leaks directly into the atmosphere. This leakage presents a serious challenge for the widespread adoption of hydrogen as a clean energy source, as it undermines its potential climate benefits.
Hydrogen embrittlement is a serious threat to the integrity of metal structures, particularly those under stress. This phenomenon arises when hydrogen atoms permeate the microstructure of metals, such as steel or titanium, causing them to become brittle and prone to failure. The severity of hydrogen embrittlement depends on several factors, including the type of metal, the concentration of hydrogen, the applied stress, and environmental conditions. Understanding these factors is crucial for mitigating the risks associated with hydrogen embrittlement and ensuring the safe operation of critical infrastructure.
These issues are not going away anytime some - so EVs it is.
The reactive force of vehicles is going to come from electric motors not ICE, the sheer thermal inefficiency of the combustion process guarantees that.
Sure as a fuel storage medium hydrogen is interesting, when used in a fuel cell, but the disadvantages are huge.
Batteries aren’t a limiting factor for most people even now, but the recharging infrastructure is for some.
That requires political and economic action more than technological innovation, and that is happening.
Reimposing the 2030 ban on ICE should give some more confidence to consumers and manufacturers.
Sure as a fuel storage medium hydrogen is interesting, when used in a fuel cell, but the disadvantages are huge.
Batteries aren’t a limiting factor for most people even now, but the recharging infrastructure is for some.
That requires political and economic action more than technological innovation, and that is happening.
Reimposing the 2030 ban on ICE should give some more confidence to consumers and manufacturers.
big_rob_sydney said:
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.
But the 'EVs don't work for many people' argument is built around a snapshot in time and the illogical and erroneous assumption that the product won't evolve, people can't evolve and the most important misunderstanding which is that everyone has to have an EV right now.
It's amazing just how few are comprehending reality and instead totally confused by the excess weight of EV marketing and political coverage.
It's not some revolutionary switch but an incredibly slow evolution that frankly many on PH won't even live to see. The change is hoped to occur over an entire generation in terms of time span and that's only if things keep plodding along to plan.
Many drivers today will never have an EV. They will happily stick with ICE for the next twenty years and die or stop driving long before they get to switch.
People are just seeing the top down approach to EV adoption where the first decade of cars are expensive and they have to find their own depreciation curve and think that this is what the market is, only new cars and only out of their price range.
I suspect the most vociferous antis are not anti the product at all but just scared because they're in the group that get new cars all the time but haven't a home they can charge them from. The question there is why should we concern ourselves over someone who is distressed at not being able to get the latest, shiny thing for their own self gratification? Well of course we shouldn't, such consumers aren't important but just part of the noise and they'll just have to fix what is an issue of their own making.
Others are just not able to work out how markets evolve over time. People who possibly haven't even noticed the enormous changes to how they live and move about over the last 20-30 years and how the entire infrastructure of the U.K. Just seamlessly evolved around them and they evolved with it not ever noticing.
And others have been programmed by political agendas and marketing agendas. Told what they want to hear in order to get their money or support.
Hydrogen happens to be a really prominent example of the latter. People who refuse to accept what hydrogen is, refuse to accept what we need it for, refuse to accept how grant pools work and why, refuse to accept any rational thought or true reality but just want to devoutly believe that there will appear some mystical fuel that can be combusted to propel a vehicle exactly like petrol does but just as affordable.
We have had hydrogen fuel and hydrogen combustion engines fully available for nearly 150 years. The reasons why we have never used them for generic transport can and will never change they are set in the laws of physics and chemistry. It can only ever be a niche solution as a propulsion fuel but moreover it can never be cheaper than the raw material it is made from, electricity.
People are basically arguing that they need flour but want to buy cake made from that flour and then get the flour they need back out of that cake. If you asked someone to go to the shop and buy you a bag of flour and they came back with a cake and tried to tell you that making flour from cake was the future of flour production you'd very swiftly realise that you were conversing with either a medical idiot or an extremist loon.
It's petrol all the way until each person decides for themselves when it's best for them to switch to EV. And the people choosing to live outside of that simple reality are, unfortunately, idiots.
In response to the argument, why are multinationals still pursuing hydrogen for cars?
I think you have to look at each geographical region where the manufacturers are pursuing it in isolation to find the compelling reason/s.
It's almost always the case that they have no choice.
In Japan, the difficulty is access to renewable electricity for a relatively large population, forcing them to rely on the expensive import of green hydrogen.
In France, green hydrogen is a strong part of their decarbonisation pathways for their industrial sectors and heavy goods transportation.
They also have a land mass more than twice the size of ours, so arguably, range in winter is more relevant.
Conversely in the UK, the geography, weather patterns, coastline and vehicle usage all scream wind turbine+ev as the quickest, easiest, cheapest route to decarbonisation of the passenger car sector.
We are not the only country like that of course, and I think it's very telling that when you look at the global prospects for hydrogen in the passenger car sector, it's multinational companies like BP and Shell that we should be looking to in order to get a worldwide perspective on this.
BP's energy forecast for 2024 is out next month, last year, they had hydrogen down as playing a 1-2% global role for cars in all 2050 decarbonisation scenarios and around 20% for HGVs.
In their mid-case scenario for 2050 (accelerated scenario), around 1.5 billion EVs globally vs about 10-20 million hydrogen cars.
Sure, all of those hydrogen cars could be in the UK, somehow, I doubt it.
The three scenarios below are 'new momentum' (NM) accelerated (Acc) and net zero (NZ).
Note that the more aggressive the decarbonisation is, the less role hydrogen plays...
I think this is fundamentally why we have so much heated discussion around this topic, in that the whole point of the exercise is decarbonisation, not feel or soul.
Source: BP Energy Outlook 2023
I think you have to look at each geographical region where the manufacturers are pursuing it in isolation to find the compelling reason/s.
It's almost always the case that they have no choice.
In Japan, the difficulty is access to renewable electricity for a relatively large population, forcing them to rely on the expensive import of green hydrogen.
In France, green hydrogen is a strong part of their decarbonisation pathways for their industrial sectors and heavy goods transportation.
They also have a land mass more than twice the size of ours, so arguably, range in winter is more relevant.
Conversely in the UK, the geography, weather patterns, coastline and vehicle usage all scream wind turbine+ev as the quickest, easiest, cheapest route to decarbonisation of the passenger car sector.
We are not the only country like that of course, and I think it's very telling that when you look at the global prospects for hydrogen in the passenger car sector, it's multinational companies like BP and Shell that we should be looking to in order to get a worldwide perspective on this.
BP's energy forecast for 2024 is out next month, last year, they had hydrogen down as playing a 1-2% global role for cars in all 2050 decarbonisation scenarios and around 20% for HGVs.
In their mid-case scenario for 2050 (accelerated scenario), around 1.5 billion EVs globally vs about 10-20 million hydrogen cars.
Sure, all of those hydrogen cars could be in the UK, somehow, I doubt it.
The three scenarios below are 'new momentum' (NM) accelerated (Acc) and net zero (NZ).
Note that the more aggressive the decarbonisation is, the less role hydrogen plays...
I think this is fundamentally why we have so much heated discussion around this topic, in that the whole point of the exercise is decarbonisation, not feel or soul.
Source: BP Energy Outlook 2023
Would have any one of the Alpine's. The A290 is one of the very few EV's at the moment that will turn heads and even be fun. This is just a superb design.
I hope they do not get side tracked by hydrogen. It seems to be a very resource intensive technology and other than to appease people hooked on F1 V10's and fossil cars, will it ever really take off, especially as EV's are getting better and synthetic fuel has come up alongside.
I hope they are more successful in motorsport too.
I hope they do not get side tracked by hydrogen. It seems to be a very resource intensive technology and other than to appease people hooked on F1 V10's and fossil cars, will it ever really take off, especially as EV's are getting better and synthetic fuel has come up alongside.
I hope they are more successful in motorsport too.
Edited by smilo996 on Monday 24th June 09:51
GT9 said:
In response to the argument, why are multinationals still pursuing hydrogen for cars?
I think you have to look at each geographical region where the manufacturers are pursuing it in isolation to find the compelling reason/s.
It's almost always the case that they have no choice.
In Japan, the difficulty is access to renewable electricity for a relatively large population, forcing them to rely on the expensive import of green hydrogen.
In France, green hydrogen is a strong part of their decarbonisation pathways for their industrial sectors and heavy goods transportation.
They also have a land mass more than twice the size of ours, so arguably, range in winter is more relevant.
Conversely in the UK, the geography, weather patterns, coastline and vehicle usage all scream wind turbine+ev as the quickest, easiest, cheapest route to decarbonisation of the passenger car sector.
We are not the only country like that of course, and I think it's very telling that when you look at the global prospects for hydrogen in the passenger car sector, it's multinational companies like BP and Shell that we should be looking to in order to get a worldwide perspective on this.
BP's energy forecast for 2024 is out next month, last year, they had hydrogen down as playing a 1-2% global role for cars in all 2050 decarbonisation scenarios and around 20% for HGVs.
In their mid-case scenario for 2050 (accelerated scenario), around 1.5 billion EVs globally vs about 10-20 million hydrogen cars.
Sure, all of those hydrogen cars could be in the UK, somehow, I doubt it.
The three scenarios below are 'new momentum' (NM) accelerated (Acc) and net zero (NZ).
Note that the more aggressive the decarbonisation is, the less role hydrogen plays...
I think this is fundamentally why we have so much heated discussion around this topic, in that the whole point of the exercise is decarbonisation, not feel or soul.
Source: BP Energy Outlook 2023
Thanks for all the useful info.I think you have to look at each geographical region where the manufacturers are pursuing it in isolation to find the compelling reason/s.
It's almost always the case that they have no choice.
In Japan, the difficulty is access to renewable electricity for a relatively large population, forcing them to rely on the expensive import of green hydrogen.
In France, green hydrogen is a strong part of their decarbonisation pathways for their industrial sectors and heavy goods transportation.
They also have a land mass more than twice the size of ours, so arguably, range in winter is more relevant.
Conversely in the UK, the geography, weather patterns, coastline and vehicle usage all scream wind turbine+ev as the quickest, easiest, cheapest route to decarbonisation of the passenger car sector.
We are not the only country like that of course, and I think it's very telling that when you look at the global prospects for hydrogen in the passenger car sector, it's multinational companies like BP and Shell that we should be looking to in order to get a worldwide perspective on this.
BP's energy forecast for 2024 is out next month, last year, they had hydrogen down as playing a 1-2% global role for cars in all 2050 decarbonisation scenarios and around 20% for HGVs.
In their mid-case scenario for 2050 (accelerated scenario), around 1.5 billion EVs globally vs about 10-20 million hydrogen cars.
Sure, all of those hydrogen cars could be in the UK, somehow, I doubt it.
The three scenarios below are 'new momentum' (NM) accelerated (Acc) and net zero (NZ).
Note that the more aggressive the decarbonisation is, the less role hydrogen plays...
I think this is fundamentally why we have so much heated discussion around this topic, in that the whole point of the exercise is decarbonisation, not feel or soul.
Source: BP Energy Outlook 2023
I have no skin in the game as some have put it, I drive ice and can't currently afford ev, though ev definitely works for my use case. I've always found the hydrogen combustion and fuel cell use interesting, can't say as I know, though have read up, or necessarily understand all the physics and chemistry involved, and certainly wouldn't comment on why manufacturers take grants for hydrogen as a decarbonisation fuel, as I simply have no idea, but I have never thought of hydrogen as a personal car fuel, even though it's been trialled in that arena, simply because it would mean another massive infrastructure change, considering how slowly we are improving our EV infrastructure, but it is improving, I can't see how we could pivot away from it to something else in any of the time frames implied by statements of intent at being able to purchase a hydrogen car. I am sure a lot of knowledge has been gained for it's possible use in other industries though.
DonkeyApple said:
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.
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.
Get past all the vitriol and anger in this post and theres a lot that makes sense, I don't think hydrogen supporters are as you suggest though, generally they're just trying to remain open minded as they don't know.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.
Taz73 said:
...I don't think hydrogen supporters are as you suggest though, generally they're just trying to remain open minded as they don't know.
But they also don't seem to want to hear the truth, maybe they can't handle the truth.On here and pretty much any other forum/website that you can find, it has been explained time and time again that Hydrogen as a fuel for personal car transport is simply a non starter. It's not happened yet and never will given the physics and infrasructure required.
By all means discuss Hydrogen for industry and for commercial vehicles, that may, and that is a BIG may, work in limited scenarios, even then it's not going to be widespread as we again come back to physics and the infrastructure required.
Battery technology can already support HGV's in a limited sense, Tesla for example. It's only going to take another 10-20% improvement in capacity/size/weight for them to become even more viable in HGV's. Remember the infrastructure is already in place, you can get electricity pretty much everywhere in the world already. And if there is somewhere where you can't get electricity, i'd wager it's easier to put in the infrastructure to supply electiricity than it would be to supply Hydrogen to the same location.
This site has an interesting chart showing the cost and density of batteries over the last 30 years, and quite cleary shows the dramatic improvements over the last 5-10 years.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/30/the-rise-of-b...
Taz73 said:
Get past all the vitriol and anger in this post and theres a lot that makes sense, I don't think hydrogen supporters are as you suggest though, generally they're just trying to remain open minded as they don't know.
Seeing as DA stuck up for me earlier in the thread, I shall reciprocate.Both he and I have been posting in the Alternative Fuels sub-forum for as long as I can remember.
We both have a scientific background but different careers in finance and engineering respectively.
The source of the frustration we both exhibit (although much of it is satire to be fair) stems from seeing how much the 'magic gas' has been manipulated to represent something it just isn't.
This has hoovered up an impressive amount of funding and motivated what feels like an army of people to litter social media with outlandish claims about batteries and hydrogen in an attempt to win something or other.
I post as I find, from my own work, or from sources I feel satisfied that they have done sufficient work to understand the topic in all its complexity.
You might argue, why not let people do what they want, it's just s
ts and giggles.If that was the case, I'd think be happy to.
To me, it goes beyond that though.
Hydrogen is a hazardous industrial gas the requires specific technology and working practices that are not normally seen outside of hazardous industry.
It's alway been that, and it will always be that.
Once you understand its wide flammability range, extreme flame speed and very low ignition energy in comparison to other fuels, the penny starts to drop. Combine that with the tiny molecule size, embrittlement characteristics and the physical properties around it's liquid storage temperature and the pressure required to store it effectively as a gas, and what we actually have is something so far removed from petrol that I actually wince everyone some says, but its just like petrol.
Trying to shoehorn it into unsuspecting people's homes, cars, pockets, i.e. places where it just doesn't belong feels irresponsible to me.
The biggest problem is that it seems that the targets are the least informed and the least able to afford the necessary technology and safety protocols that are an intrinsic part of living and working with hydrogen.
Then factor in the UK's approach to decarbonisation of hydrogen, the lion's share of which is simply trying to capture the CO2 during the process of stripping the hydrogen from methane.
If this process is combined with an increase in methane consumption and the CO2 capture results in an increase in methane leakage to the atmosphere than we currently have, it's a complete f
k-up, other than for those making a tidy profit out of the supply.We end up paying more for an expensive fuel that isn't achieving any decarbonisation, possibly even making it worse than just burning that methane and turning it into electricity.
Hydrogen is the world's most perfect snake oil, its source can very easily be masked, and despite all the colours of the rainbow we've given it, it's a clear, colourless, tasteless gas that burns with an invisible flame.
That's where the vitriol stems from.
Taz73 said:
Get past all the vitriol and anger in this post and theres a lot that makes sense, I don't think hydrogen supporters are as you suggest though, generally they're just trying to remain open minded as they don't know.
There's no anger, just sadness at the reality that we do actually know as we know the science and have done for a hundred years. And being open minded is about accepting proven physics not denying it, which is obviously closed minded. 
All fair and well explained comments above.
I don't profess any expertise, have worked with liquid oxygen on aircraft and know how dodgy that can be, as such have a healthy wariness regarding the use of liquified gases.
But even then I find it difficult to understand why there were grants for manufacturers to get their grubby mitts on when all the knowledge regarding it's unsuitability and lack of viability was already available, to those offering the grants, from the scientific community. So with the information available, why offer the grants unless there was some hope of success?
This can only be naivity on my part in assuming the governments of the world carry out due diligence before offering out tax payers money.
I don't profess any expertise, have worked with liquid oxygen on aircraft and know how dodgy that can be, as such have a healthy wariness regarding the use of liquified gases.
But even then I find it difficult to understand why there were grants for manufacturers to get their grubby mitts on when all the knowledge regarding it's unsuitability and lack of viability was already available, to those offering the grants, from the scientific community. So with the information available, why offer the grants unless there was some hope of success?
This can only be naivity on my part in assuming the governments of the world carry out due diligence before offering out tax payers money.
pheonix478 said:
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.
What exactly are you claiming GT9 said wasn't possible? TX.
First thing to clear up though, the article makes reference to liquid hydrogen tanks and -253C.
Yet on the bonnet, just below the windscreen it clearly says '700 bars hydrogen'.
Liquid hydrogen has a volumetric energy density of around 8 MJ/litre (internal volume of the tank/s) and is stored at close to atmospheric pressure.
Gaseous hydrogen at 700 bar (10000 psi) has a volumetric energy density of around 5 MJ/litre (internal volume of the tank/s) and is stored at close to ambient temperature.
What I don't really understand is exactly what form they are storing it in, especially given the reference to cryogenic temperatures.
Maybe liquid for racing cars and gaseous for road cars, as per the Toyota Corolla.
You may recall that the Toyota racing car was originally fitted with 4 x 700 bar gaseous tanks.
Following a season or two of the trials and tribulations of attempting to quickly refill those tanks combined with the comically short race distance achieved between refills, Toyota switched to liquid hydrogen to improve matters significantly.
Problem is of course, this means venting the boil-off gas to atmosphere, which isn't the smartest idea for a road car.
Anyway, in the past, I've posted that 'all bets are off' when trying to build a powerful 4/5 seater hydrogen ICE road car that has a useable range.
My assumption being that the hydrogen would be stored as a gas in the road car, with an engine up front, a prop shaft to the rear and the carbon fibre tanks packaged somewhere between the front row of seats and the rear subframe with diff/drive shafts.
Getting the exhausts and the prop shaft to the rear of the car is compromised by the existence of 4 or more large cylindrical tanks getting in the way.
Anyway, clearly, it is possible to build a mid-engined 2-seat hydrogen racing car, with a pair of side-pod tanks, and to fuel it with either liquid or gaseous hydrogen.
It is also clearly possible to build a front-engined FWD 3 cylinder car with 4/5 seats, albeit as an estate car, probably to preserve rear storage volume. The range of the Corolla estate is not yet known.
What Tx may be referring to is that I've claimed that a V8 based road car (the Yamaha V8 that has featured in previous H2 threads) may only be viable with a mid-engined layout and short range, or maybe a long wheel base front-engined 2-seater.
If a manufacturer can somehow get a liquid hydrogen road car to production, and a cryogenic refuelling infrastructure to match, then I may just have to eat humble pie if it arrives with 4 seats. I'm not inclined to get the cutlery ready tomorrow though
GT9 said:
...
What Tx may be referring to is that I've claimed that a V8 based road car (the Yamaha V8 that has featured in previous H2 threads) may only be viable with a mid-engined layout and short range, or maybe a long wheel base front-engined 2-seater...
It's absolutely possible. We just have to think out the box on packaging!What Tx may be referring to is that I've claimed that a V8 based road car (the Yamaha V8 that has featured in previous H2 threads) may only be viable with a mid-engined layout and short range, or maybe a long wheel base front-engined 2-seater...
Even if the STEM illiterate don't want to think about the engineering of such vehicles the other clue is in the fact that Toyota/Yamaha reportedly spent something like $5m on that V8, IIRC 90% of that was from Japanese government grants. Meanwhile Toyota committed $11bn to EV R&D alone...
Edited by pheonix478 on Monday 24th June 22:54
Taz73 said:
All fair and well explained comments above.
I don't profess any expertise, have worked with liquid oxygen on aircraft and know how dodgy that can be, as such have a healthy wariness regarding the use of liquified gases.
But even then I find it difficult to understand why there were grants for manufacturers to get their grubby mitts on when all the knowledge regarding it's unsuitability and lack of viability was already available, to those offering the grants, from the scientific community. So with the information available, why offer the grants unless there was some hope of success?
This can only be naivity on my part in assuming the governments of the world carry out due diligence before offering out tax payers money.
Many of the grant pools have been created by local governments where they have taken funds that were meant for social housing and protecting the vulnerable they exist to serve and instead jumping on vanity PR bandwagons to try and be recognised by the outside world as 'playas'. I don't profess any expertise, have worked with liquid oxygen on aircraft and know how dodgy that can be, as such have a healthy wariness regarding the use of liquified gases.
But even then I find it difficult to understand why there were grants for manufacturers to get their grubby mitts on when all the knowledge regarding it's unsuitability and lack of viability was already available, to those offering the grants, from the scientific community. So with the information available, why offer the grants unless there was some hope of success?
This can only be naivity on my part in assuming the governments of the world carry out due diligence before offering out tax payers money.
So one can take the SNP as a primary example. They have taken tens of £millions given to them by taxpayers and instead of using that money to support taxpayers they have created funds around popular global buzzwords to that important people talk to them and they get mentioned in the media belongs their local village press. London based VCs then spot these pots of free money that are being administered by stupid, vain, insecure provincial choppers and get to work emptying them.
The most efficient way to open them is to find a university research team or some school project that is local to the pot of money and which can be 'adjusted' to fit the grant application criteria.
That's step one. You then hop on a plane to where these kids are and wave a bit of jingle jangle in front of them and the promise of an eventual IPO listing on NASDAQ and fabulous techbro riches. The kids go home that evening to mum and dad with dreams of buying Ferraris and manshuns and you fly back to London knowing they will sign whatever crap you put in front of them next week. The contract you draw up includes at least two 'special advisors' to the SPV to help and guide the young geniuses. You also give them a wodge of seed capital. The amount of seed capital being defined by how much the special advisors will draw out in salary over the 3 year period. So in reality it's not seed capital but just the advantage wages of a couple of your chaps being moved from your company to an SPV.
Then you're on to step two which is a flight back to the location to wave jingle jangle, jetskis and the dream of political prowess in front of the provincial prat the idiots have put in charge of the pool of money that should have been spent on social housing. This little weasel chap will pay anything to be recognised by important people outside of his village and it will be explained to him that investments such as this will put him on the map. Not only does he want to do this deal but he goes back to his office with dreams of being invited to dinners at Westminster and others bowing before him. Within a short while a few £m has been wired to the SPV in exchange for the SPV around 3 years down the line delivering some kind of story about the thing that the grant was about and mentioning all the great people who made it happen. Over the next three years all the grant money is extracted by the VC in fees and they then have the chaps at the university whose names they've long forgotten write some bit of junk for the local papers and you wind the SPV down and move on.
So one might look at all the hydrogen projects signed off for social housing funding by Glasgow since 2018 as a good example. It's not gone well for Hamza. He even lobbed other people's money at that absolutely insane Canadian 'carbon capture' funding wheeze that's spent over a decade now soaking up provincial funds in all sorts of markets without any of those idiots ever even realising that there is no CO2 in the atmosphere other than a barely measurable amount of less than 400ppm but they've been tricked into thinking it's as prevalent as nitrogen. You can just never under estimate just how f
king stupid these provincial punters are and how greedy and desperate to be famous. Check out the 4x4 forestry hydrogen grant and who is getting the money. And one of the best ones of all that is such a comedy pisstake they didn't even bother putting in any special advisors just a local bloke who used to sell opticians equipment, the Issa brother's comedy truck play. Even when you look at the big corporate applications like Toyota who got £11m from the U.K. taxpayer the money was spent on paying the salaries of various engineers who are working on a wide range of commercial projects and to just meet the U.K. govt criteria they imported a few Hilux trucks, imported some left over Mirai components and banged the two together quickly at a U.K. location. Box ticked. Money banked.
Now grants like that are where you start to drift into the whole are of govts subsidising the car industry to keep jobs. At one end you have overt payments to the likes of Nissan to assemble foreign parts in the U.K. which employs U.K. workers in areas where having good employment is more difficult. Sanctioned bribes where the U.K. taxpayer pays the bulk of the salaries etc. France and Germany are funnelling vast subsidies via regional grants into supporting their domestic car industry. They keep higher paid engineers on your soil and keep lots of workers off the dole.
And in the best cases there is actually some tech and advances that come out of it but for the most part they are mechanisms for subsidising entities that you are not allowed to subsidise.
Hydrogen was a big bubble starting from just before Covid so for the last 5 years or so it's been the easiest deal to sling together to get the grant money. It's kind of burst now. The grant pools from back then have been pretty much depleted and the new ones are being orientated to hydrogen as that hype ship has sailed.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff