Reply to: How amazing is this?

[TimberWolf]

I'm no hydrogen lover. But does it matter whether it is a primary energy source? Petrol also needs a shed-load of processing in refining. And it is running out. And it pollutes. Is that preferable?

I agree with you, petrol has a number of problems. The first being that it is such a good energy-dense and easily handled fuel, so less mature technologies have a lot to live up to. Second it comes out of the ground almost for free, but it will run out. Third the infernal combustion that burns it is carp (~75% of the petrol is wasted as heat). Fourth carbon, yada, yada (this last one is a biggie for some, but I'm not fussed). Make your own list here, suffice to say I agree with you.

But it is totally beside my point, because I don't care what energy sources are used. I don't particularly care about hydrogen, except that it is a step up from a hundred or so heavy batteries. I am merely supporting the principle of electrically-powered cars. Nothing delusional there - electricity is a transferable energy. If hydrogen is no good, I leave it up to "experts" to come up with something better.What, because I thought PCs might have a part to play in business? I used that example to demonstrate that so-called experts can be spectacularly wrong.The hydrogen used today - where does that come from?

The pure stuff is obtained by electrolysis (quite inefficiently) and the less pure stuff from fossil fuels (e.g. coal gas).

But if people buy them and use them, what's the problem? If that happened it sounds like success to me.

Hydrogen has a number of problems (even though it has excellent energy density by weight. I've covered a lot of them before. E.g. it needs to be kept at 20 degrees above absolute zero and is explosive, it is inefficient to convert to hydrogen and then to electricity (11% in some cases, depending on the source). My main gripe though is that people assume hydrogen is some kind of energy source. I know you are not one of these. Also, in all probability the hydrogen will be derived from fossil fuels (a better carrier will almost certainly be developed before we build the required nukes). Hydrogen would in that case be a wasteful, expensive, dangerous and inefficient energy carrier.

I never said hydrogen was simple, or a mature technology. Until we perfect the windmill generator on the roof or magic carpets, we might have to put up with less than perfect technologies.

I think electric batteries are our best bet currently, though changing our driving habits could make a big difference too (e.g. using a 10+ kg devices to transport us rather than a 1000+ kg vehicles).

[PM-Junkie]

Well, I didn't see topgear and can only judge from the honda website, but I think it's a pretty neat start so yah boo sucks to all you nay

[deano]

I never said hydrogen was simple, or a mature technology. Until we perfect the windmill generator on the roof or magic carpets, we might have to put up with less than perfect technologies.

Agreed.

It is better to use an imperfect, but usable technology now than wait for a perfect one that wont get out of the laboratory for another decade. In another decade we'll swap to the better technology.

Hydrogen is usable now. It isn't perfect but that can be improved upon when the market dictates. Preferebly by letting cars with hydrogen engines into motorsport!

We should scrap all taxes (corporation, VAT, the lot) on any fuel company that adds hydrogen pumps to its forecourts, and on the sales of the fuel itself. This will encourage companies to invest in the extraction and distribution of the hydrogen.

Further, we should also scrap all taxes on the sales of the vehicles, and also allow manufacturers to not pay tax on the sales of other cars in proportion to its range. For example if Ford has a 10-model range and it converts one to pure hydrogen power, then it will pay not tax at all on sales of the the hydrogen powered model, and will knock off 1/10 of the taxes payable on the other 9 models. If they have 3 models that are Hydrogen, they will get reduce by 3/10 the taxes they pay on the other models.

This will encourage them to sell more and more models with hydrogen. The more models, the less tax they pay.

Free market capitalism and the Governments can get the hell out of the way. It's the only way.

(When I say now, I mean with a time line of <3-4 years and not > 10 years)

[Doggy Styles]

You do yourself far too much justice. I wasn't querying anything, I was stating a fact - liquid hydrogen is not a primary energy source. This appears to be uncomfortable fact to hydrogen lovers, presumably because they are seduced by its apparent greenness. It is quite right and proper that people do point this fact out, as it is a crucial point.

I'm no hydrogen lover. But does it matter whether it is a primary energy source? Petrol also needs a shed-load of processing in refining. And it is running out. And it pollutes. Is that preferable?

[regarding obtaining the freaking energy]No, it is not 'all beside the point' and there is no arguing 'either way' unless you want to delude yourself.

But it is totally beside my point, because I don't care what energy sources are used. I don't particularly care about hydrogen, except that it is a step up from a hundred or so heavy batteries. I am merely supporting the principle of electrically-powered cars. Nothing delusional there - electricity is a transferable energy. If hydrogen is no good, I leave it up to "experts" to come up with something better.

This shows you have been wrong before and can be wrong again, and in fact are wrong again.

What, because I thought PCs might have a part to play in business? I used that example to demonstrate that so-called experts can be spectacularly wrong.

See above, these are fact not opinions. I particularly like James May's remark that because we are able to get oil out of oil wells, so we can manage to create hydrogen. How profoundly stupid is that?

The hydrogen used today - where does that come from?

As for Honda, they will produce anything that they think people will buy. People may well buy them, and liquid hydrogen fuel tanks may even be allowed to be used on the roads, but it still doesn't mean liquid hydrogen isn't a tulip fuel and that it isn't a primary energy source. Or even that making liquid hydrogen is as easy as sucking oil out of an oil well.

But if people buy them and use them, what's the problem? If that happened it sounds like success to me.

I never said hydrogen was simple, or a mature technology. Until we perfect the windmill generator on the roof or magic carpets, we might have to put up with less than perfect technologies.

[deano]

So, the only by-product is water?

Great.

But can anyone else see the local high street feeling like a Turkish Bath at rush hour?

Feed it into the windscreen washer tank.

[thelace]

So, the only by-product is water?

Great.

But can anyone else see the local high street feeling like a Turkish Bath at rush hour?

[TimberWolf]

True, those actual words were someone else's, but you were querying where the energy would come from, which was the point of my post.

You do yourself far too much justice. I wasn't querying anything, I was stating a fact - liquid hydrogen is not a primary energy source. This appears to be uncomfortable fact to hydrogen lovers, presumably because they are seduced by its apparent greenness. It is quite right and proper that people do point this fact out, as it is a crucial point.

That's all beside the point, I'm not arguing it either way, just using it as examples. Anyway, where do you get those figures from?I wouldn't be as quick to write it off. Honda seem to think it worth investing multi-millions of dollars in it.

No, it [regarding obtaining the freaking energy] is not 'all beside the point' and there is no arguing 'either way' unless you want to delude yourself.

I remember losing marks in an exam in the late 1980s because my solution to a business analysis question involved PCs. The British Computer Society considered them to be little more than toys, and should form no part of serious computer solutions in business. I was using one for work at the time.

This shows you have been wrong before and can be wrong again, and in fact are wrong again. See above, these are fact not opinions. I particularly like James May's remark that because we are able to get oil out of oil wells, so we can manage to create hydrogen. How profoundly stupid is that?

As for Honda, they will produce anything that they think people will buy. People may well buy them, and liquid hydrogen fuel tanks may even be allowed to be used on the roads, but it still doesn't mean liquid hydrogen isn't a tulip fuel and that it isn't a primary energy source. Or even that making liquid hydrogen is as easy as sucking oil out of an oil well.

[Doggy Styles]

I never said that.

True, those actual words were someone else's, but you were querying where the energy would come from, which was the point of my post.

10 nuclear power stations isn't going to cut the mustard. Try 300 1 gigawatt nuclear power stations to supply our current demands. We have 19 nuclear power plants at present. If the whole world went nuclear, it would have to do some serious uranium exploration pretty quickly (within decades), and/or move to Thorium and fast-breeder designs. A major breakthrough in the cost of solar panels and in energy storage could change everything.

That's all beside the point, I'm not arguing it either way, just using it as examples. Anyway, where do you get those figures from?

Liquid hydrogen however, is sadly tulip

I wouldn't be as quick to write it off. Honda seem to think it worth investing multi-millions of dollars in it.

I remember losing marks in an exam in the late 1980s because my solution to a business analysis question involved PCs. The British Computer Society considered them to be little more than toys, and should form no part of serious computer solutions in business. I was using one for work at the time.

[Cheshire Cat]

We need Fusion power. should be available AD2200

AD 2015 (surely you've seen Back to the Future part II)

[TimberWolf]

He was arguing against your criticism of electric cars that electricity currently still comes from coal-fired power stations, including electricity needed to make hydrogen.

I never said that.

The point is, if we build ten nuclear power stations over the next decade, or any other type of non-fossil power stations, electric cars can utilize that power and petrol cars cannot, so its good to develop electric technologies now.

10 nuclear power stations isn't going to cut the mustard. Try 300 1 gigawatt nuclear power stations to supply our current demands. We have 19 nuclear power plants at present. If the whole world went nuclear, it would have to do some serious uranium exploration pretty quickly (within decades), and/or move to Thorium and fast-breeder designs.

I saw the program and that car was a big improvement on the virtual milkfloats we saw a few years ago, maxing 50 miles at 50mph, where refuelling took 8 hours. So we've come a long way, perhaps a long way to go, but we're getting there.

A major breakthrough in the cost of solar panels and in energy storage could change everything. Liquid hydrogen however, is sadly tulip.

[Doggy Styles]

That's why I said you are thinking like a user. What you see is that you can fill up more or less as normal and can drive about as far as normal on a tankful of liquid hydrogen, so this appears to be a fantastic solution and the technicalities are mere detail. This ignores energy inefficiencies, where the energy comes from and how tricky hydrogen is to store. I'm surprised it will even be legal to leave a tank full of liquid hydrogen in a public place. Even though a tankful of liquid will have the same energy content of a tankful of petrol, it's properties are nowhere near as benign as petrol.

Other more practical means of containing may be developed, but liquid hydrogen looks to be over-hyped - it fails everywhere except in the sales hype. These include on-board extraction of hydrogen from water (a reaction with Aluminium) and other solid or liquid compounds of hydrogen (petrol being a one of these, albeit a complex one).

I don't think that was Stackpol's point. He wasn't saying the hydrogen technology was perfect.

He was arguing against your criticism of electric cars that electricity currently still comes from coal-fired power stations, including electricity needed to make hydrogen. The point is, if we build ten nuclear power stations over the next decade, or any other type of non-fossil power stations, electric cars can utilize that power and petrol cars cannot, so its good to develop electric technologies now.

I saw the program and that car was a big improvement on the virtual milkfloats we saw a few years ago, maxing 50 miles at 50mph, where refuelling took 8 hours. So we've come a long way, perhaps a long way to go, but we're getting there.

[BrilloPad]

Once you've abolished all that pollution, the glaciers will come.

Not for 200 years.

[dang65]

Because Honda, Ford, BMW etc all sell cars, so if they invest in the technology, they want a return on that investment by selling more cars.

Yeah, I'm not saying that the car companies themselves should concentrate on this necessarily, just that technologists in general should be. Anyway, companies like Honda make generators and other such equipment, Ford make agricultural machinery and so on.

It just seems to me that it would be so much more practical to be, well, practical. If it's not practical for a car to carry its own hydrogen then concentrate the advantages of hydrogen into places where hydrogen can be stored realistically - farms, local electricity sub-stations, large buildings, canal boats etc.

Those would all make money for the manufacturers of such technology, so the investment would be worthwhile, and it would negate some of the urgency of removing vehicle emissions.

[NotAllThere]

Once you've abolished all that pollution, the glaciers will come.

[TimberWolf]

That was the whole point of my caustic remark, and I guess you deserve it too.

This car is not INTENDED to address the problem of where the energy comes from (required to produce hydrogen). If a football team buys a good goalkeeper, you are doing the equivalent of criticising him for not scoring enough goals.

Energy is another problem, being addressed elsewhere, in parallel. Maybe hydrogen generation plants will be run on electricity generated from a nuclear power station, ten thousand windmills in the north sea, or 100,000 cows arses. Who knows?

The point of this vehicle is to run on a motor using electiricity, a transferable energy, however the electicity is generated in the future. Nit-pick all you like on the technology today, but it is early days and will mature.

That's why I said you are thinking like a user. What you see is that you can fill up more or less as normal and can drive about as far as normal on a tankful of liquid hydrogen, so this appears to be a fantastic solution and the technicalities are mere detail. This ignores energy inefficiencies, where the energy comes from and how tricky hydrogen is to store. I'm surprised it will even be legal to leave a tank full of liquid hydrogen in a public place. Even though a tankful of liquid will have the same energy content of a tankful of petrol, it's properties are nowhere near as benign as petrol.

Other more practical means of containing may be developed, but liquid hydrogen looks to be over-hyped - it fails everywhere except in the sales hype. These include on-board extraction of hydrogen from water (a reaction with Aluminium) and other solid or liquid compounds of hydrogen (petrol being a one of these, albeit a complex one).