RE: 'I think by 2028 you will be able to buy a Hy4'
Discussion
If you were being a bit more charitable than Donkey Apple...
You could say that the governments are desperate to a) be world leaders in something b) have solutions for their upcoming CO2 issues. So with a pot of money they go to any companies who might be able to give them options, and ask them to work on them.
The companies take the money, and do whatever they need/want with it to tick the governments boxes and at the same time, help the company. If it goes well the company will have made something they can sell and profit from in the future, irrespective of whether they solve the problem the government was after.
If you want a PH example of that, have a look at the Ariel Hypercar: https://www.apcuk.co.uk/news-events/news/ariel-hip... "Ariel’s HIPERCAR is a state-of-the-art high-performance electric vehicle designed in partnership with a consortium of innovative UK SMEs. The car demonstrates the clean-tech possibilities of UK businesses and was made possible thanks to UK government investment channelled through the Advanced Propulsion Centre (APC)."
It's basically the government investing just like the investors, but with more of a long term aim of solving problems, and enriching the british economy, as opposed to holding 51% of the final venture.
That all being said, I fully expect as Donkey Apple outlines, if there's a way of syphoning some millions off to enrich individuals it'll also be being done.
You could say that the governments are desperate to a) be world leaders in something b) have solutions for their upcoming CO2 issues. So with a pot of money they go to any companies who might be able to give them options, and ask them to work on them.
The companies take the money, and do whatever they need/want with it to tick the governments boxes and at the same time, help the company. If it goes well the company will have made something they can sell and profit from in the future, irrespective of whether they solve the problem the government was after.
If you want a PH example of that, have a look at the Ariel Hypercar: https://www.apcuk.co.uk/news-events/news/ariel-hip... "Ariel’s HIPERCAR is a state-of-the-art high-performance electric vehicle designed in partnership with a consortium of innovative UK SMEs. The car demonstrates the clean-tech possibilities of UK businesses and was made possible thanks to UK government investment channelled through the Advanced Propulsion Centre (APC)."
It's basically the government investing just like the investors, but with more of a long term aim of solving problems, and enriching the british economy, as opposed to holding 51% of the final venture.
That all being said, I fully expect as Donkey Apple outlines, if there's a way of syphoning some millions off to enrich individuals it'll also be being done.
phil4 said:
If you were being a bit more charitable than Donkey Apple...
You could say that the governments are desperate to a) be world leaders in something b) have solutions for their upcoming CO2 issues. So with a pot of money they go to any companies who might be able to give them options, and ask them to work on them.
The companies take the money, and do whatever they need/want with it to tick the governments boxes and at the same time, help the company. If it goes well the company will have made something they can sell and profit from in the future, irrespective of whether they solve the problem the government was after.
If you want a PH example of that, have a look at the Ariel Hypercar: https://www.apcuk.co.uk/news-events/news/ariel-hip... "Ariel’s HIPERCAR is a state-of-the-art high-performance electric vehicle designed in partnership with a consortium of innovative UK SMEs. The car demonstrates the clean-tech possibilities of UK businesses and was made possible thanks to UK government investment channelled through the Advanced Propulsion Centre (APC)."
It's basically the government investing just like the investors, but with more of a long term aim of solving problems, and enriching the british economy, as opposed to holding 51% of the final venture.
That all being said, I fully expect as Donkey Apple outlines, if there's a way of syphoning some millions off to enrich individuals it'll also be being done.
Agreed. After 30 years in the markets and having seen everything and the folks on my side who run that 'craft' I just have nothing charitable to say but there is good in there. You could say that the governments are desperate to a) be world leaders in something b) have solutions for their upcoming CO2 issues. So with a pot of money they go to any companies who might be able to give them options, and ask them to work on them.
The companies take the money, and do whatever they need/want with it to tick the governments boxes and at the same time, help the company. If it goes well the company will have made something they can sell and profit from in the future, irrespective of whether they solve the problem the government was after.
If you want a PH example of that, have a look at the Ariel Hypercar: https://www.apcuk.co.uk/news-events/news/ariel-hip... "Ariel’s HIPERCAR is a state-of-the-art high-performance electric vehicle designed in partnership with a consortium of innovative UK SMEs. The car demonstrates the clean-tech possibilities of UK businesses and was made possible thanks to UK government investment channelled through the Advanced Propulsion Centre (APC)."
It's basically the government investing just like the investors, but with more of a long term aim of solving problems, and enriching the british economy, as opposed to holding 51% of the final venture.
That all being said, I fully expect as Donkey Apple outlines, if there's a way of syphoning some millions off to enrich individuals it'll also be being done.
British Vault was a massive wheeze that luckily was seen through by Boris and he just used it to further his PR campaign post Brexit but never intended for them to get a penny of our money as he tied it to them getting institutional investment which wasn't ever going to happen as they knew what it was
DonkeyApple said:
Agreed. After 30 years in the markets and having seen everything and the folks on my side who run that 'craft' I just have nothing charitable to say but there is good in there.
I guess the thing we all (especially those who haven't seen it happen) is that it's much less about questioning whether people are corrupt, nor making millions... but more why there's been a press release about the thing, or a PR event, or an interview. What is Alpine making this statement? When you look at how all these funds are being distributed and what's expected of the companies, no wonder they put out some PR and no wonder they say wonderful things about the area that's being funded. It's the future. For as long as the grant lasts.In general look at any press release/PR type thing, and ask why is it being said and who's behind it, and you'll be much better informed.
phil4 said:
I guess the thing we all (especially those who haven't seen it happen) is that it's much less about questioning whether people are corrupt, nor making millions... but more why there's been a press release about the thing, or a PR event, or an interview. What is Alpine making this statement? When you look at how all these funds are being distributed and what's expected of the companies, no wonder they put out some PR and no wonder they say wonderful things about the area that's being funded. It's the future. For as long as the grant lasts.
In general look at any press release/PR type thing, and ask why is it being said and who's behind it, and you'll be much better informed.
Well, they get to say 'look at us. We exist. We aren't just RenaultSport with a different badge. We make hypercars. Look. A really expensive looking thing. Now you all associate us with really expensive things that we don't make we can lob an extra £10k onto the next car you buy from us'. In general look at any press release/PR type thing, and ask why is it being said and who's behind it, and you'll be much better informed.
Look at Porche banging on about eFuels and getting all the punters really excited. Then consider they're making all U.K. cars electric asap so very obviously no plans to let any consumer monkey anywhere near their eFuels but they need to whip up the excitement of consumers to get what they really want which is a tax credit sign off for taking fossil fuel CO2, shipping it to Chile, combining it with hydrogen and then shipping it back for burning in race cars but where the CO2 that gets released back has been laundered since leaving the coal fired power station and now can be released into the atmosphere while generating a carbon credit.
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.
Desperation I guess.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.
The shortcomings of battery electric propulsion are very well documented and widely understood.
The problem comes when that leads to the simplistic assumption that there must be a better way, and hydrogen is just like petrol innit.
What very few people have ever experienced is what happens when things go wrong with hydrogen.
One of the most challenging scenarios is the event of an explosion in a confined space where other vehicles and people are present.
A huge amount of work has been done over the last 50 years to try to model and better understand the risk in tunnels for example.
One of the latest studies is described here:
https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/hydrogen...
Unfortunately, that website now requires registration to see the full article, but I can describe the content.
There are 3 scenarios described for a situation where a car's 700 bar hydrogen storage tank is compromised in an accident, the worst being something like a truck crushing the vehicle and causing the tank/s to either fail in a controlled manner or, worse, rupture uncontrollably. Given that hydrogen has an extremely wide flammability range in air, when you combine that with a ridiculously low ignition energy, you can pretty much 100% guarantee it will ignite when released, especially if a vehicle is in an accident situation.
For reference, the flammability range is 10 times wider, the flame speed is 10 times higher and the ignition energy 5-10 times lower than for hydrocarbon fuels. The value of the carbon atoms that were removed should start to be become obvious.They act like a cage to a tiger, without them, all hell breaks loose.
In scenario 1, the tank has a valve that releases the pressurised hydrogen in a controlled jet of flame directed towards the ground to limit the damage zone.
In scenario 2, the tank ruptures prior to being vented and a massive explosion occurs. This is where the very high flame speed becomes relevant, as the explosion is over in an instant with a very high energy release rate, resulting in temperatures of 2000C close to the explosion and a very powerful shock wave is sent along the entire length of the tunnel.
The study (from TU Graz) states that within 30 metres of the explosion there is a risk of death and that within 300 metres of the explosion, bystanders could be at risk of serious internal injuries such as bleeding to the lungs, or ruptured eardrums if further away.
In scenario 3, the tank vents to atmosphere and by some miracle doesn't ignite, the hydrogen then rapidly rises to the top of the tunnel and collects in a cloud, only to be ignited by a hot lightbulb on the ceiling or a ventilation fan switching on, and then a similar blast wave occurs anyway.
What concerns me is when these cars start to age, and their ownership falls into the hands of people who are less able to maintain them to a high standard, or worse, start tampering with the fuel system themselves.
Put a 10-15 year old fuel cell car into an underground car park, say under a shopping centre, it starts to leak hydrogen into the ceiling space. Nobody knows anything about it, it can't be seen, smelled, touched, heard, nothing. No warning signs, no flames come out of the car to tell people to run. No diesel or petrol spilling onto the floor.
And then bang.
How many people are going to be injured or killed by just a single car leaking away undetected like that?
Sure, we could fit H2 detectors in all these confined spaces, but are they going to give enough warning or just give people a few seconds to contemplate their lives before it's all over.
This is the sort of destruction that I'm referring to, this happened in the USA about 5 years ago where hydrogen was leaking undetected into the building, and then inevitably, ignited. Four people died and the building was reduced to a pile of smouldering wreckage.
It's also a toxic, corrosive greenhouse gas that cannot be stored so it's never going to be put into millions of private cars that all sit outside leaking to empty into the atmosphere. It is an industrial chemical of great importance that must be used as close to point of creation as possible.
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.
the big problem with ev is the infrastructure for those that cant charge at home, lets face it visiting a fuel station for a few mins and getting a full tank of whatever fuel is very attractive to most people
It's categorically not the answer for everyone today. But the key is that is not being expected or asked.
If you consider that we have over 36m cars in the U.K. fleet but only buy 2m new cars a year then one can soon appreciate that is 18 years to replace all current ICE with EV if from today we only ever buy EVs going forward. But it will be ten years until 100% of new car purchases are EV so the time to switch the entire fleet is going to be in the region of 30 years.
The point at which one realises it does not matter one iota what anyone says, does, wants, demands or threatens is of zero relevance because nothing at all will ever change the average rate of new car purchases per annum is the point at which one can appreciate that the issues presented by those worried about changing today are not relevant.
For the next 15 years minimum the only people switching are those who can and wish to do so. There will be pressures, nagging, b
hing and bribes but whether we respond to those remains up to us. And every single year the number of people who could switch is only going to increase, whether it's because more used EVs become available, more remote charging expands, battery tech improves, there are multiple factors steadily at work that guarantee every year there are more people able to switch. Which in turn means more people willing to switch.
It really isn't the massive issue many are making out. The confusion stems from absorbing too much marketing while not applying some extremely basic common sense related to the number of new cars purchased each year. A fixed figure and a percentage (5% of fleet) that is uniform across the entire West.
From 2010 to 2020 the U.K. bought about 100k EVs. This year we finally hit the 1m mark. That os only going to grow by the ZEV Mandated levels so we can see that by 2035 we will have somewhere between 10-15m EVs between 1 and 10 years old, with 20-25m ICE still in use. The entire future market for the next decade won't even exceed the size of the car user demographic with home parking.
The entire Boomer generation will basically be dead and a large chunk of GenX before the switch is mostly done. The Millenials will even be dying. And $10 oil will have gone so will OPEC as the Saudis will be out and the price of oil will have more than doubled, meanwhile the U.K. will be mostly renewables and not giving a fk.
We're barely 4 years into the very slow change. People do need to get a grip and stop being the potato stooges of third parties who are too old to change their industry bit have debts they want you to pay for them.
If you consider that we have over 36m cars in the U.K. fleet but only buy 2m new cars a year then one can soon appreciate that is 18 years to replace all current ICE with EV if from today we only ever buy EVs going forward. But it will be ten years until 100% of new car purchases are EV so the time to switch the entire fleet is going to be in the region of 30 years.
The point at which one realises it does not matter one iota what anyone says, does, wants, demands or threatens is of zero relevance because nothing at all will ever change the average rate of new car purchases per annum is the point at which one can appreciate that the issues presented by those worried about changing today are not relevant.
For the next 15 years minimum the only people switching are those who can and wish to do so. There will be pressures, nagging, b
hing and bribes but whether we respond to those remains up to us. And every single year the number of people who could switch is only going to increase, whether it's because more used EVs become available, more remote charging expands, battery tech improves, there are multiple factors steadily at work that guarantee every year there are more people able to switch. Which in turn means more people willing to switch. It really isn't the massive issue many are making out. The confusion stems from absorbing too much marketing while not applying some extremely basic common sense related to the number of new cars purchased each year. A fixed figure and a percentage (5% of fleet) that is uniform across the entire West.
From 2010 to 2020 the U.K. bought about 100k EVs. This year we finally hit the 1m mark. That os only going to grow by the ZEV Mandated levels so we can see that by 2035 we will have somewhere between 10-15m EVs between 1 and 10 years old, with 20-25m ICE still in use. The entire future market for the next decade won't even exceed the size of the car user demographic with home parking.
The entire Boomer generation will basically be dead and a large chunk of GenX before the switch is mostly done. The Millenials will even be dying. And $10 oil will have gone so will OPEC as the Saudis will be out and the price of oil will have more than doubled, meanwhile the U.K. will be mostly renewables and not giving a f
k. We're barely 4 years into the very slow change. People do need to get a grip and stop being the potato stooges of third parties who are too old to change their industry bit have debts they want you to pay for them.
DonkeyApple said:
It's also a toxic, corrosive greenhouse gas that cannot be stored so it's never going to be put into millions of private cars that all sit outside leaking to empty into the atmosphere. It is an industrial chemical of great importance that must be used as close to point of creation as possible.
Thanks for the informative words. DonkeyApple said:
It's categorically not the answer for everyone today. But the key is that is not being expected or asked.
If you consider that we have over 36m cars in the U.K. fleet but only buy 2m new cars a year then one can soon appreciate that is 18 years to replace all current ICE with EV if from today we only ever buy EVs going forward. But it will be ten years until 100% of new car purchases are EV so the time to switch the entire fleet is going to be in the region of 30 years.
The point at which one realises it does not matter one iota what anyone says, does, wants, demands or threatens is of zero relevance because nothing at all will ever change the average rate of new car purchases per annum is the point at which one can appreciate that the issues presented by those worried about changing today are not relevant.
For the next 15 years minimum the only people switching are those who can and wish to do so. There will be pressures, nagging, bhing and bribes but whether we respond to those remains up to us. And every single year the number of people who could switch is only going to increase, whether it's because more used EVs become available, more remote charging expands, battery tech improves, there are multiple factors steadily at work that guarantee every year there are more people able to switch. Which in turn means more people willing to switch.
It really isn't the massive issue many are making out. The confusion stems from absorbing too much marketing while not applying some extremely basic common sense related to the number of new cars purchased each year. A fixed figure and a percentage (5% of fleet) that is uniform across the entire West.
From 2010 to 2020 the U.K. bought about 100k EVs. This year we finally hit the 1m mark. That os only going to grow by the ZEV Mandated levels so we can see that by 2035 we will have somewhere between 10-15m EVs between 1 and 10 years old, with 20-25m ICE still in use. The entire future market for the next decade won't even exceed the size of the car user demographic with home parking.
The entire Boomer generation will basically be dead and a large chunk of GenX before the switch is mostly done. The Millenials will even be dying. And $10 oil will have gone so will OPEC as the Saudis will be out and the price of oil will have more than doubled, meanwhile the U.K. will be mostly renewables and not giving a fk.
We're barely 4 years into the very slow change. People do need to get a grip and stop being the potato stooges of third parties who are too old to change their industry bit have debts they want you to pay for them.
What an absolutely brilliant post. Reassurance for those not ready to switch, evidence based, balanced, and cuts straight through the polarised nonsense that so many threads on here descend into these days. If you consider that we have over 36m cars in the U.K. fleet but only buy 2m new cars a year then one can soon appreciate that is 18 years to replace all current ICE with EV if from today we only ever buy EVs going forward. But it will be ten years until 100% of new car purchases are EV so the time to switch the entire fleet is going to be in the region of 30 years.
The point at which one realises it does not matter one iota what anyone says, does, wants, demands or threatens is of zero relevance because nothing at all will ever change the average rate of new car purchases per annum is the point at which one can appreciate that the issues presented by those worried about changing today are not relevant.
For the next 15 years minimum the only people switching are those who can and wish to do so. There will be pressures, nagging, b
hing and bribes but whether we respond to those remains up to us. And every single year the number of people who could switch is only going to increase, whether it's because more used EVs become available, more remote charging expands, battery tech improves, there are multiple factors steadily at work that guarantee every year there are more people able to switch. Which in turn means more people willing to switch. It really isn't the massive issue many are making out. The confusion stems from absorbing too much marketing while not applying some extremely basic common sense related to the number of new cars purchased each year. A fixed figure and a percentage (5% of fleet) that is uniform across the entire West.
From 2010 to 2020 the U.K. bought about 100k EVs. This year we finally hit the 1m mark. That os only going to grow by the ZEV Mandated levels so we can see that by 2035 we will have somewhere between 10-15m EVs between 1 and 10 years old, with 20-25m ICE still in use. The entire future market for the next decade won't even exceed the size of the car user demographic with home parking.
The entire Boomer generation will basically be dead and a large chunk of GenX before the switch is mostly done. The Millenials will even be dying. And $10 oil will have gone so will OPEC as the Saudis will be out and the price of oil will have more than doubled, meanwhile the U.K. will be mostly renewables and not giving a f
k. We're barely 4 years into the very slow change. People do need to get a grip and stop being the potato stooges of third parties who are too old to change their industry bit have debts they want you to pay for them.
What I find really frustrating is that it only takes a few minutes to actually think about what's happening and the timescales involved to pretty much come up with what DA has just said.
It really isn't rocket science, some simple maths will get you pretty much there in a few minutes if people just bothered to sit down and think for a moment.
It really isn't rocket science, some simple maths will get you pretty much there in a few minutes if people just bothered to sit down and think for a moment.
The fuel of the future suffered another setback this week.
A refuelling station in Germany has exploded and is closed until further notice.
A brand new station open for less than a week...
https://www.hazardexonthenet.net/article/206191/Ex...
It's almost as if there is something unique about hydrogen and its ability to find a way to escape and ignite.
A refuelling station in Germany has exploded and is closed until further notice.
A brand new station open for less than a week...
https://www.hazardexonthenet.net/article/206191/Ex...
It's almost as if there is something unique about hydrogen and its ability to find a way to escape and ignite.
GT9 said:
The fuel of the future suffered another setback this week.
A refuelling station in Germany has exploded and is closed until further notice.
A brand new station open for less than a week...
https://www.hazardexonthenet.net/article/206191/Ex...
It's almost as if there is something unique about hydrogen and its ability to find a way to escape and ignite.
So what? Accidents does happen. In Korea there were battery factory fire which did kill 23 people. Didn't bother you i assume.A refuelling station in Germany has exploded and is closed until further notice.
A brand new station open for less than a week...
https://www.hazardexonthenet.net/article/206191/Ex...
It's almost as if there is something unique about hydrogen and its ability to find a way to escape and ignite.
There are few posters which does just write bulls
t about h2 - and those same guys are HC EVangelist. If you are interested about hydrogen and hydrogen mobility, you can skip theyr messages. They "forget" to tell you all the positive news about hydrogen and overpromotes problems.I give you few examples.
They did forget to tell you that hydrogen pipelines can be made from same metals what they use in natural gas pipelines. In short, hydrogen transportation via pipelines is cost effective. This is a huge thing. Here is an example of hydrogen pipeline project:
https://gasgrid.fi/en/development/finland-into-the...
They also forget to tell you that salt caverns are very potential storage systems for huge amount of h2:
https://www.uniper.energy/news/uniper-to-develop-h...
Smaller amount of h2 gos for tanks and there are several kind of tanks for different purposes. This is not a showstopper.
They also forget to tell you that green hydrogen production is ramping up. Almost every week there is somewhere a new plant commissioned and ready to produce green hydrogen. Yes, thet are still quite small (1-40MW) but they do make an impact locally.
This is also good example. It does produce 80 tons of hydrogen per day for mobility market in South-Korea. Hydrogen is by-pass product and this facility purifies it and makes it liquid for cheaper transportation. And this hydrogen goes to mobility.
https://hydrogen-central.com/sk-es-builds-worlds-l...
They also forget to tell you that hydrogen race series is starting next year:
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2024/06/20240628-...
https://www.extreme-e.com/en/news/1279_Unveiling-t...
They also did forget to tell you that Extreme E battery racers were charged with rapid chargers which were powered by HYDROGEN. So, this organisation does know how to handle hydrogen in remote parts of the world. I think this is the perfect example that h2 is viable solution for cars.
Extreme H starts in april 2025.
Btw, doesn't it make you wonder why they did they change their race cars main power plant from battery to hydrogen fuel cells?
Anyway, these EVangelist doesn't accept that there are multiple different kind of powertrains in the future, not just battery electric ones.
About this article, i did find a little mistake here. It is quite sure that they will use liquid hydrogen in endurance racing, but gaseous hydrogen in road cars. They will inject hydrogen gas to the engine in both applications so no difference there. Gas is more easier for consumer market but liquid offers longer range in racing cars.
BTW, Hy4 is a beauty and that sound was so sick
LasseV said:
So what? Accidents does happen. In Korea there were battery factory fire which did kill 23 people. Didn't bother you i assume.
There are few posters which does just write bullst about h2 - and those same guys are HC EVangelist. If you are interested about hydrogen and hydrogen mobility, you can skip theyr messages. They "forget" to tell you all the positive news about hydrogen and overpromotes problems.
I give you few examples.
They did forget to tell you that hydrogen pipelines can be made from same metals what they use in natural gas pipelines. In short, hydrogen transportation via pipelines is cost effective. This is a huge thing. Here is an example of hydrogen pipeline project:
https://gasgrid.fi/en/development/finland-into-the...
They also forget to tell you that salt caverns are very potential storage systems for huge amount of h2:
https://www.uniper.energy/news/uniper-to-develop-h...
Smaller amount of h2 gos for tanks and there are several kind of tanks for different purposes. This is not a showstopper.
They also forget to tell you that green hydrogen production is ramping up. Almost every week there is somewhere a new plant commissioned and ready to produce green hydrogen. Yes, thet are still quite small (1-40MW) but they do make an impact locally.
This is also good example. It does produce 80 tons of hydrogen per day for mobility market in South-Korea. Hydrogen is by-pass product and this facility purifies it and makes it liquid for cheaper transportation. And this hydrogen goes to mobility.
https://hydrogen-central.com/sk-es-builds-worlds-l...
They also forget to tell you that hydrogen race series is starting next year:
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2024/06/20240628-...
https://www.extreme-e.com/en/news/1279_Unveiling-t...
They also did forget to tell you that Extreme E battery racers were charged with rapid chargers which were powered by HYDROGEN. So, this organisation does know how to handle hydrogen in remote parts of the world. I think this is the perfect example that h2 is viable solution for cars.
Extreme H starts in april 2025.
Btw, doesn't it make you wonder why they did they change their race cars main power plant from battery to hydrogen fuel cells?
Anyway, these EVangelist doesn't accept that there are multiple different kind of powertrains in the future, not just battery electric ones.
About this article, i did find a little mistake here. It is quite sure that they will use liquid hydrogen in endurance racing, but gaseous hydrogen in road cars. They will inject hydrogen gas to the engine in both applications so no difference there. Gas is more easier for consumer market but liquid offers longer range in racing cars.
BTW, Hy4 is a beauty and that sound was so sick
What's a HC EVangelist?There are few posters which does just write bulls
t about h2 - and those same guys are HC EVangelist. If you are interested about hydrogen and hydrogen mobility, you can skip theyr messages. They "forget" to tell you all the positive news about hydrogen and overpromotes problems.I give you few examples.
They did forget to tell you that hydrogen pipelines can be made from same metals what they use in natural gas pipelines. In short, hydrogen transportation via pipelines is cost effective. This is a huge thing. Here is an example of hydrogen pipeline project:
https://gasgrid.fi/en/development/finland-into-the...
They also forget to tell you that salt caverns are very potential storage systems for huge amount of h2:
https://www.uniper.energy/news/uniper-to-develop-h...
Smaller amount of h2 gos for tanks and there are several kind of tanks for different purposes. This is not a showstopper.
They also forget to tell you that green hydrogen production is ramping up. Almost every week there is somewhere a new plant commissioned and ready to produce green hydrogen. Yes, thet are still quite small (1-40MW) but they do make an impact locally.
This is also good example. It does produce 80 tons of hydrogen per day for mobility market in South-Korea. Hydrogen is by-pass product and this facility purifies it and makes it liquid for cheaper transportation. And this hydrogen goes to mobility.
https://hydrogen-central.com/sk-es-builds-worlds-l...
They also forget to tell you that hydrogen race series is starting next year:
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2024/06/20240628-...
https://www.extreme-e.com/en/news/1279_Unveiling-t...
They also did forget to tell you that Extreme E battery racers were charged with rapid chargers which were powered by HYDROGEN. So, this organisation does know how to handle hydrogen in remote parts of the world. I think this is the perfect example that h2 is viable solution for cars.
Extreme H starts in april 2025.
Btw, doesn't it make you wonder why they did they change their race cars main power plant from battery to hydrogen fuel cells?
Anyway, these EVangelist doesn't accept that there are multiple different kind of powertrains in the future, not just battery electric ones.
About this article, i did find a little mistake here. It is quite sure that they will use liquid hydrogen in endurance racing, but gaseous hydrogen in road cars. They will inject hydrogen gas to the engine in both applications so no difference there. Gas is more easier for consumer market but liquid offers longer range in racing cars.
BTW, Hy4 is a beauty and that sound was so sick
Not sure which bit of it will never happen in passenger cars at commercial scale you couldn't read.
If you hate EVs so much just keep your petrol car. Even if you're 20 they'll still be enough around to see you out.
LasseV said:
Anyway, these EVangelist doesn't accept that there are multiple different kind of powertrains in the future, not just battery electric ones.
I've accepted it entirely, I've even posted in this very thread to state the predicted mix for 2050 between EV and H2 for both passenger cars and trucks.I've posted up the forecasting from one of the major oil and gas companies, forecasting that is reflected by multiple large organisations in this sector, or even in the financial investment sector, such as this one:
https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/el...
The reasons behind my posting on H2 threads is to give a perspective on what H2 might mean for the UK.
Including information about the practical limitations and the risks. Have I made any false statements?
The Finnish perspective is different to the UK perspective, your country is pursuing this fuel in a totally different way to my country.
Would it be fair say the you would agree that blue hydrogen is not a good pathway to combine with the passenger car sector?
If you agree, then we are actually on the same page.
GT9 said:
LasseV said:
Anyway, these EVangelist doesn't accept that there are multiple different kind of powertrains in the future, not just battery electric ones.
I've accepted it entirely, I've even posted in this very thread to state the predicted mix for 2050 between EV and H2 for both passenger cars and trucks.I've posted up the forecasting from one of the major oil and gas companies, forecasting that is reflected by multiple large organisations in this sector, or even in the financial investment sector, such as this one:
https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/el...
The reasons behind my posting on H2 threads is to give a perspective on what H2 might mean for the UK.
Including information about the practical limitations and the risks. Have I made any false statements?
The Finnish perspective is different to the UK perspective, your country is pursuing this fuel in a totally different way to my country.
Would it be fair say the you would agree that blue hydrogen is not a good pathway to combine with the passenger car sector?
If you agree, then we are actually on the same page.
LasseV said:
Yes, i agree with you 100% about blue hydrogen. Green hydrogen is the way to go in hydrogen mobility. It is more longer and harder route but outcome is much better. It will take time, like this whole transition to carbon neutrality, but it will happen.
Of course GH will happen. Firstly it's the only means for many industrial users of fossil fuel hydrogen to decarbonise and avoid huge tax penalties. No one is denying the importance of GH but rather simply pointing out that it will never be wasted on private cars where petrol and electricity are cheaper, easier and superior.
That's the bit you never understand and then go off frothing like a zealot about while comedically trying to claim those who don't devoutly believe your lunatic beliefs are somehow the zeolots.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff