Menu
What's new
By:
Advanced search...

Hydrogen v electric

It's a bit like Betamax vs VHS. Betamax was better than VHS, but the latter won.

In that ****ogy it could be that fuel-cell = Betmax and Li-ion battery = VHS

In a car fire the batteries are far more dangerous than H2, as happened to the car that Richard Hammond was driving
pri_42926672.jpg




But the quote from Elon Musk about the overall efficiency is correct, making and storing H2 is inefficient compared with not having to do that with charging Li-ion batteries directly.

In effect a fuel cell is like a battery, but it's like replenishing the electrolyte instead of having to put electric current back in. Replenishment is faster than re-charging, which is the big advantage of a fuel cell. Note that a Flow Battery is a truer version of electrolyte replenishment..

Flow Battery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery

Fuel Cell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell



It's difficult to know whether Fuel Cells will win against Li-ion batteries because lithium is fairly abundant --> https://www.treehugger.com/cars/life-cycle-****ysis-of-electric-car-shows-battery-has-only-minor-impact.html and they can be recycled

The other thing that needs to be compared is the environmental impact of manufacture a fuel-cell vs Li-ion battery

Also the lifetimes of both.
 
I remember seeing talk at one time of swapping entire batteries in and out rather than recharging.
 
Yeah I remember that .

On paper a fuel cell does seem immensely superior to a standard rechargeable battery (Li-ion) particularly when you consider that there are thousands of Li-ion cells all wired up. But people like Musk have really pushed Li-ion so far forward that fuel-cells may never catch up.

I saw a Tesla in a retail park and the owner got in it and drove off. I was surprised at how totally silent it was, much quieter than hybrids. Also, I have 2 electric bikes, they are also not as silent as that Tesla was.

One of the bike Li-ion battery packs is 5 years old and doesn't retain full charge any longer so I opened it up to see if I could replace the batteries. It holds 40 batteries, all wired up in groups of 4 in parallel , the 10 groups connected in series. Each battery is 2.25 Ah and 3.7 volts, so the pack is 9 Ah and 37 volts when fully charged. But in this country each battery is about £10 , in the US quite a bit cheaper. But there is no way to wire them up as well as it was done in the pack, I was impressed with the way that each end was "spot" welded to a grid of steel bands. So I put it back together again and, an hour before I want to use it, I have to put it back on charge to maximise the range it will give. Even then it only goes about 5 miles, which is about half of the range when it was new.

This limited lifetime of Li-ion cells might be where fuel cells have the advantage, although I think I read somewhere that fuel cells also have a limited lifetime ?
 
Remember when James May was raving about the Honda Fuel Cell car on TG, that must've been 10 years a go. On the face of it it seems to perfect answer but I asked my uncle about it (was head of Physics at Manc Uni) and whilst I didn't really understand what he was talking about the basic problem seems to be it's a very slippery customer, literally, and it's very hard to contain safely plus natural gas is used for the production of hydrogen which creates Co2.
 
Ah yeah, I'd forgotten about the point regarding containment

H2 is the smallest molecule, so it cannot be sent down pipework, even natural gas does permeate very slightly through the transport network.

Propane is also larger molecule, so forecourt storage tanks of H2 would need to be substantially different.

In fires, H2 is not dangerous, there were many survivors of the Hindenburg, which burned very quickly because H2 rises upwards very quickly. But there is a potential risk in that if there was a leak from on on-board H2 tank into the car's cabin, nobody would smell it, so the car would explode if someone lit a cigarette.
 
The answer is certainly going to be non electric in the long term, since it depends on near instantaneous charging or swopouts to be viable, and the monopolies commission is there to put a stop to one supplier technology.

The use of ethanol is a logical first step by the car makers, to see how well the various parts hold up to non hydrocarbon fuels. What will be needed next is a move away from aluminium in the engine components exposed to combustion, and onto metalloceramic coatings.

My guess is that after a few years, there will be a move to increasingly concentrated methanol fuel mixes, which will be created regionally by scrubbing CO2 (and possibly CO) from the air and processed with a safe, underground supply of hydrogen. Vehicles will travel autonomously to local depots for filling up without the occupants ever needing to come into contact with the stuff.
 
Channel Hopper said:
The answer is certainly going to be non electric in the long term
Click to expand...
is that a typo or do you really believe this ?


Channel Hopper said:
the monopolies commission is there to put a stop to one supplier technology.
Click to expand...
eh ?
 
freddofrog said:
is that a typo or do you really believe this ?



eh ?
Click to expand...
The Prius has demonstrated that the cost and logistics of lumping round the additional weight of a battery is a turn off, and moving forward to personal airborne commuting it becomes even less attractive. It's difficult enough as it is to find a charging point on the ground.

Unless there is a dramatic advance in the method of generating and harnessing electricity directly in the vehicle itself a fuel source will have to be not far removed from what everybody is already used to. This will be mainly liquidy for the purpose of storing enough of the stuff for a decent range, no high pressurised onboard systems, and able to be refined on a relatively small scale almost anywhere.
 
Channel Hopper said:
The Prius has demonstrated that the cost and logistics of lumping round the additional weight of a battery is a turn off
Click to expand...
So why is uptake of PHEV on the increase /


Channel Hopper said:
and moving forward to personal airborne commuting it becomes even less attractive. It's difficult enough as it is to find a charging point on the ground.
Click to expand...
is this relevant ?


Channel Hopper said:
Unless there is a dramatic advance in the method of generating and harnessing electricity directly in the vehicle itself a fuel source will have to be not far removed from what everybody is already used to. This will be mainly liquidy for the purpose of storing enough of the stuff for a decent range, no high pressurised onboard systems, and able to be refined on a relatively small scale almost anywhere.
Click to expand...
ah yes, the disordered engineering approach
 
freddofrog said:
ah yes, the disordered engineering approach
Click to expand...
btw , I was short of time

what I'm saying is that hybrid cars have an entirely different raison d'etre

Hybrids are an attempt to increase mpg based on the fact that, below ~40mph, aerodynamic drag of a car is very much less than its rolling resistance. The problem with the IC engine is that it uses fuel just to run itself, so even if you drive slowly, you do not increase the mpg (because the rate of use of the fuel per mile is not improved). The hybrid is supposed to resolve that, because an electric motor has extremely high "mpg" at low speeds, and since power lost to rolling resistance is directly proportional to the car's speed, the slower the car goes, the further it will go on battery power <--> the opposite being true for an IC engine.

With fuel cells and battery powered vehicles that do not have an IC engine on board, it is only the range at higher speeds that are the issue. If the speed limit was 20mph everywhere, then purely electric vehicles would have a range higher than an IC engine, because, as I say, the mpg of an IC engine is optimum at speeds where the aerodynamic drag starts to become significant.

The issue of manufacturing the H2 or of finding the electricity to recharge the fuel-cell/battery electric vehicle, is a separate engineering issue.
 
freddofrog said:
So why is uptake of PHEV on the increase ?
Click to expand...
Short termism.
In soundbites, subsidies, incentives, extended warranties, positive reviews, pressure selling, zero interest credit, and hidden costs kept hidden until they are no longer hidden (core credit).

Of course it's good to be driving around in something that is helping the environment, but that is exactly the pitch diesel owners were sold a decade ago.

Every road going vehicle drives around with an energy source that is for the most part a dead weight, in an electric car battery cells are always onboard regardless of how much charge is in them. The Prius design carries around two of them, plus the necessary transfer mechanisms.
When I was in recovery a Prius stuck in an inclined driveway, an underground car park, or following an accident would often be around three times as long to get started or to load onto the truck.
 
As I say though, hybrid cars have an entirely different raison d'etre, and the thread ***le is "Hydrogen v electric".

I think Cliff actually means "fuel-cell vs rechargeable battery".

Summary of the contest

1. Lifetime of unit - not sure of lifetime of fuel-cell, but fuel-cell should win

2. Weight - not sure of weight of fuel-cell, but fuel-cell should win

3. Replenish time - fuel-cell wins

4. Range - fuel-cell wins

5. Cost of production of unit - currently rechargeable wins

6. Cost of infrastructure - rechargeable wins

7. End-to-end energy efficiency - rechargeable wins

8. Cost of production of "fuel" - rechargeable wins


So as a football match it's 4-all , but if you make it a rugby union match with items 5 to 8 being a try and conversion, then the score is rechargeable 28, fuel-cell 12.
 
freddofrog said:
As I say though, hybrid cars have an entirely different raison d'etre, and the thread ***le is "Hydrogen v electric".

I think Cliff actually means "fuel-cell vs rechargeable battery".

Summary of the contest.......
Click to expand...
If you read the article, Toyota is killing off the Prius with the Mirai and already know the weaknesses that Mr Musk is unaware of, which in my view is the scarecity of some elements that will be needed for their product, and the charges (sic) that will be imposed on dumping battery cores once they are beyond use.

If you need to dig underground or lay waste to huge amounts of land to get materials, you may as well get the hydrocarbons at the same time.

Hydrogen, as you have already mentioned is a pig to work with.

No, the future is methanol, at least until Cavorite production has been perfected.
 
Channel Hopper said:
If you read the article, Toyota is killing off the Prius with the Mirai and already know the weaknesses that Mr Musk is unaware of, which in my view is the scarecity of some elements that will be needed for their product, and the charges (sic) that will be imposed on dumping battery cores once they are beyond use.

If you need to dig underground or lay waste to huge amounts of land to get materials, you may as well get the hydrocarbons at the same time.

Hydrogen, as you have already mentioned is a pig to work with.

No, the future is methanol, at least until Cavorite production has been perfected.
Click to expand...
well "methanol vs electric" is not really the subject of the thread

To answer yet again --> production of methanol is not as environmentally clean as production of electricity, particularly when renewable sources are used. Note that on Wednesday 7th June 2017, electricity production in the UK from renewable sources exceeded 50% --> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40198567 . Fusion power stations are also getting closer all the time.

Regarding Lithium and the production and re-use of Li-ion batteries, treehugger says it's not an issue --> https://www.treehugger.com/cars/life-cycle-****ysis-of-electric-car-shows-battery-has-only-minor-impact.html
 
Lithium comes out of the ground, most characteristics can be recreated by substituting with Na.

You did not back up your claim that methanol is a dirty fuel, insofar as production.
 
Channel Hopper said:
Lithium comes out of the ground, most characteristics can be recreated by substituting with Na.

You did not back up your claim that methanol is a dirty fuel, insofar as production.
Click to expand...
Lithium Shortage? Not Anytime Soon
As for those who worry about Lithium supply, just know that Bolivia alone has enough of it for billions of electric cars and they only have about 1/3 of known world supplies

from treehugger --> https://www.treehugger.com/cars/life-cycle-****ysis-of-electric-car-shows-battery-has-only-minor-impact.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never said methanol is a "dirty fuel", I said production is not environmentally clean.in comparison with production and distribution of electricity, particularly when renewable sources are used.

Issues with methanol production and distribution are
  • High energy costs currently ***ociated with generating and transporting hydrogen offsite
  • Depending on the feedstock the generation in itself may be not clean
  • Presently generated from natural still dependent on fossil fuels (although any combustible hydrocarbon can be used).
  • Energy density (by weight or volume) one half of that of gasoline and 24% less than ethanol
  • Handling
    If no inhibitors are used, methanol is Corrosive to some common metals including aluminum, zinc and manganese. Parts of the engine fuel-intake systems are made from aluminum. Similar to ethanol, compatible material for fuel tanks, gasket and engine intake have to be used.
  • As with similarly corrosive and hydrophilic ethanol, existing pipelines designed for petroleum products cannot handle methanol. Thus methanol requires shipment at higher energy cost in trucks and trains, until new pipeline infrastructure can be built, or existing pipelines are retrofitted for methanol transport.
  • Methanol, as an alcohol, increases the permeability of some plastics to fuel vapors (e.g. high-density polyethylene). This property of methanol has the possibility of increasing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from fuel, which contributes to increased tropospheric ozone and possibly human exposure.

[*]Low volatility in cold weather: pure methanol-fueled engines can be difficult to start, and they run inefficiently until warmed up. This is why a mixture containing 85% methanol and 15% gasoline called M85 is generally used in ICEs. The gasoline allows the engine to start even at lower temperatures.
[*]With the exception of low level exposure, methanol is toxic. Methanol is lethal when ingested in larger amounts (30 to 100 mL).[SIZE=11.6667px] [/SIZE]But so are most motor fuels, including gasoline (120 to 300 mL) and diesel fuel. Gasoline also contains small amounts of many compounds known to be carcinogenic (e.g. benzene). Methanol is not a carcinogen, nor does it contain carcinogens. However, methanol may be metabolized in the body to formaldehyde, which is both toxic and carcinogenic.[SIZE=11.6667px] [/SIZE]Methanol occurs naturally in small quantities in the human body and in edible fruits.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy#Disadvantages
 
Methanol can be made with solar energy and locally sourced raw materials, and I mentioned earlier that, subject to the development of the combustion engine to work using ceramic and metalloceramics, it will be the main fuel within 50 years,
No car manufacturer that I know of is in the least bit concerned about the corrosive aspect, providing a viable income for the dealership until such a time as the market suggests it is unacceptable via car enthusiasts and the mass hysteria of social media.

I will concede that a methanol/ethanol mix will be utilised until such time as small scale hydrogen production is perfected.

Like ethanol, it can also be used in a similar fashion to hydrogen using reformer cells, as Daimler confirmed some twenty years ago, however a catalyst using rare earth compound is required.
 
freddofrog said:
good old grauniad , a catchy headline with content that doesn't actually support the headline

I like this .....
BEV_EPA_range_comparison_2016-2017_MY_US.png
Click to expand...

Bio-Weapon Defense Mode
Model S now features a Medical grade HEPA air filtration system, which removes at least 99.97% of particulate exhaust pollution and effectively all allergens, bacteria and other contaminants from cabin air. The bioweapon defense mode creates positive pressure inside the cabin to protect occupants.



Channel Hopper said:
it will be the main fuel within 50 years,
No car manufacturer that I know of is in the least bit concerned about the corrosive aspect, providing a viable income for the dealership until such a time as the market suggests it is unacceptable via car enthusiasts and the mass hysterial of social media.
Click to expand...
references please
 
The Guardian article does at least make the point that current battery technology is simply not up to the job! Lithium battery technologies have already been developed to the point where further advances will be minimal... a whole new energy storage technology is required.

To answer the topic question, hydrogen/fuel cell technology is the obvious way forward. Just need to find a cheap way to generate the necessary amount of cheap hydrogen...
 
freddofrog said:
Bio-Weapon Defense Mode
Model S now features a Medical grade HEPA air filtration system, which removes at least 99.97% of particulate exhaust pollution and effectively all allergens, bacteria and other contaminants from cabin air. The bioweapon defense mode creates positive pressure inside the cabin to protect occupants.



references please
Click to expand...
This is the easy-to-swallow version

http://kkft.bme.hu/sites/default/files/methanolsynth2016.pptx.pdf

Page 25 shows the options, with the ICI low pressure synthesis coming out favourably by use of readily available elements, and at temperatures attainable using solar energy (or hydrogen) .
 
Jon_G said:
The Guardian article does at least make the point that current battery technology is simply not up to the job! Lithium battery technologies have already been developed to the point where further advances will be minimal... a whole new energy storage technology is required.
Click to expand...
not the way I read it, because it mixed up several different auto manufacturers, the content just didn't live up to the headline the way your brief synopsis is written

hence this graph which, at the bottom, confirms some the part that almost lived up to the headline, yet at the top, also confirms some of the part that did not live up to the headline
BEV_EPA_range_comparison_2016-2017_MY_US.png



Jon_G said:
To answer the topic question, hydrogen/fuel cell technology is the obvious way forward. Just need to find a cheap way to generate the necessary amount of cheap hydrogen...
Click to expand...
bit trite there Jon, below I've re-written my summary from #14

1. Lifetime of unit - not sure of lifetime of fuel-cell, but fuel-cell should win

2. Weight - not sure of weight of fuel-cell, but fuel-cell should win

3. Replenish time - fuel-cell wins

4. Range - fuel-cell wins

5. Cost of production of unit - currently rechargeable wins

6. Cost of infrastructure - rechargeable wins

7. End-to-end energy efficiency - rechargeable wins

8. Cost of production of "fuel" - rechargeable wins

So as a football match it's 4-all , but if you make it a rugby union match with items 5 to 8 being a try and conversion, then the score is rechargeable 28, fuel-cell 12.
 
I've made a table that's an attempt to compare, in some kind of "system" fashion, power units based on Fuel Cell or Rechargeable Battery or Methanol or Petroleum.

FC = Fuel Cell
RB = Rechargeable Battery e.g. Li-ion

ME = Methanol
PE = Petroleum (Crude oil, from which petrol and diesel are refined)


The score in each row has a maximum of 10, except the last row, which has a maximum of 20 (because the infrastructure is the most important part).

The scores that I've given are obviously subjective, but they are relative to each other on each row.
The totals at the end suggest why alternative technologies are struggling to beat the Petroleum based technology, because the latter scores 83 out of 90.

-- FC RB ME PE

1. 07 03 10 10 - Lifetime of unit
2. 10 03 07 07 - Weight of unit
3. 10 03 10 10 - Replenish time
4. 10 05 10 10 - Range
5. 03 08 06 10 - Cost of production of unit
6. 02 10 06 08 - End-to-end energy efficiency
7. 03 10 05 08 - Cost of production of "fuel"
8. 04 20 08 20 - Cost of infrastructure

-- 49 62 62 83 - Total
 
freddofrog said:
not the way I read it, because it mixed up several different auto manufacturers, the content just didn't live up to the headline the way your brief synopsis is written

hence this graph which, at the bottom, confirms some the part that almost lived up to the headline, yet at the top, also confirms some of the part that did not live up to the headline
BEV_EPA_range_comparison_2016-2017_MY_US.png



bit trite there Jon, below I've re-written my summary from #14

1. Lifetime of unit - not sure of lifetime of fuel-cell, but fuel-cell should win

2. Weight - not sure of weight of fuel-cell, but fuel-cell should win

3. Replenish time - fuel-cell wins

4. Range - fuel-cell wins

5. Cost of production of unit - currently rechargeable wins

6. Cost of infrastructure - rechargeable wins

7. End-to-end energy efficiency - rechargeable wins

8. Cost of production of "fuel" - rechargeable wins

So as a football match it's 4-all , but if you make it a rugby union match with items 5 to 8 being a try and conversion, then the score is rechargeable 28, fuel-cell 12.
Click to expand...
Which of those considerations are most important to the end user ?
 
Cliffordski said:
Which of those considerations are most important to the end user ?
Click to expand...
infrastructure, range isn't a big issue as long as the places for replenishment are plentiful.

Take a look at the table in #28 as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top