The arguments for EVs over Hydrogen fuelled cars

[Deep purple]

I came across this discussion about the use of hydrogen as part of the solution to achieving net zero. The discussion is based on hard facts delivered by a very eminent Professor (David Cebon of Cambridge University) and should be required viewing for all MPs and the media who frequently spout all sorts of claims as to how hydrogen will save us all and free us from using BEVs.
The conclusion is that hydrogen vehicles would be very impractical, even if the fuelling could be managed, and could be worse for the environment than using diesel!
Spread the word!

 

[johnb80]

I came across this discussion about the use of hydrogen as part of the solution to achieving net zero. The discussion is based on hard facts delivered by a very eminent Professor (David Cebon of Cambridge University) and should be required viewing for all MPs and the media who frequently spout all sorts of claims as to how hydrogen will save us all and free us from using BEVs.
The conclusion is that hydrogen vehicles would be very impractical, even if the fuelling could be managed, and could be worse for the environment than using diesel!
Spread the word!

I watched this a while ago, the prof is really good, there are a few more presentations on youtube by him, all really good.

 

[Gadget Geek]

Hydrogen only makes sense if it's using surlpus electricity to electrolyse water, otherwise it is more energy efficient to just use the electricity to fill a battery. and don't get me started on steam reformation of natural gas.

 

[Rolfe]

Instinctively it seemed a mad idea to me. I thought there was something I must be missing, but apparently not.

 

[mailmannz]

Hydrogens problem is…hydrogen itself.

 

[johnb80]

Hydrogen only makes sense if it's using surlpus electricity to electrolyse water,

Even then it doesnt have a strong case.

otherwise it is more energy efficient to just use the electricity to fill a battery.

Absolutely correct

and don't get me started on steam reformation of natural gas.

Go on, you know you want to, please do tell

 

[tsedge]

Hydrogen may make sense for commercial aircraft, if battery technology cannot provide the required power/energy per kg. It would mean at least no pollution at altitudes.

Solving the supply problems just at major airports would be much easier.

 

[johnb80]

Hydrogen may make sense for commercial aircraft, if battery technology cannot provide the required power/energy per kg. It would mean at least no pollution at altitudes.

That really doesnt work, 3 x the amount of fuel needed compared to JET A1, extremely thick metal tanks needed to carry the fuel (weight). Specialist metal for tanks and pipework to avoid embrittlement. Apart from that its a winner.

Solving the supply problems just at major airports would be much easier.

Really? you think? They would have to harvest the Hydrogen on site, deliver it in specialist pipework or tankers. It really is not a solution.

 

[tsedge]

That really doesnt work, 3 x the amount of fuel needed compared to JET A1, extremely thick metal tanks needed to carry the fuel (weight). Specialist metal for tanks and pipework to avoid embrittlement. Apart from that its a winner.


Really? you think? They would have to harvest the Hydrogen on site, deliver it in specialist pipework or tankers. It really is not a solution.

They already deliver the aviation fuel via a convoy of trains with tanker cars (Heathrow), it isn't as ridiculous as you might think.

 

[tsedge]

The hydrogen revolution in the skies

A record-breaking commercial-scale hydrogen plane has taken off in the UK, with more set to join it soon. How far can such planes go in cutting the aviation industry's emissions?

www.bbc.com

The epic attempts to power planes with hydrogen

During the Cold War, both the US and USSR researched liquid hydrogen as a way to fuel aircraft. Could this cleaner fuel finally be around the corner?

www.bbc.com

 

[tsedge]

I hear your skepticism, but it is being pursued.

 

[johnb80]

I hear your skepticism, but it is being pursued.

I'm glad it is but all of the evidence suggests it wont work, cant work for very good reasons. JCB are promoting their Hydrogen powered plant but it really has nowhere to go. Very frustrating really, as a fuel being burned it's great with only water as it's emission, it's just getting it, storing it and transporting thats the slight problem.

 

[johnb80]

They already deliver the aviation fuel via a convoy of trains with tanker cars (Heathrow), it isn't as ridiculous as you might think.

Have a watch of David Cebon at the head of this thread. Jet A1 is easily transported by tanker etc, no problem at all, very little danger. Hydrogen is a completely different matter, incredibly high pressure, really heavy thick metal tanks that are made of specialist materials and you need 6 x more Hydrogen than you do Jet A1.

 

[tsedge]

Have a watch of David Cebon at the head of this thread. Jet A1 is easily transported by tanker etc, no problem at all, very little danger. Hydrogen is a completely different matter, incredibly high pressure, really heavy thick metal tanks that are made of specialist materials and you need 6 x more Hydrogen than you do Jet A1.

Yeah, I know, not everyone has the same view though, they've now built hydrogen transport ships so I think it could be done.

Whether that's the best option, remains to be seen.

 

[Gomev]

Have a watch of David Cebon at the head of this thread. Jet A1 is easily transported by tanker etc, no problem at all, very little danger. Hydrogen is a completely different matter, incredibly high pressure, really heavy thick metal tanks that are made of specialist materials and you need 6 x more Hydrogen than you do Jet A1.

Hydrogen can be transported by pipeline, but in road tankers is in liquid form and only vapourised for use at site.

I'm glad it is but all of the evidence suggests it wont work, cant work for very good reasons. .

Perhaps you should pass this evidence on to those working on it and maybe save them some time and effort.

 

[Gadget Geek]

Perhaps you should pass this evidence on to those working on it and maybe save them some time and effort.

They probably wouldn't listen to all the expert evidence as they are being paid by Big Oil to promote it. The oil giants have seen the writing on the wall for petroleum and so are moving into steam reformation of natural gas to produce hydrogen.

 

[johnb80]

Hydrogen can be transported by pipeline, but in road tankers is in liquid form and only vapourised for use at site.

It can be transported by pipeline but not existing pipelines, road tankers as you say carry it in liquid form but only 1/3 of the energy if petrol or diesel. The weight of the tank is also far from insignificant.

Perhaps you should pass this evidence on to those working on it and maybe save them some time and effort.

I don’t there’s any call for sarcasm in a discussion like this. Prof David Cebon explains in very simple terms why Hydrogen cannot work at the moment, clearly people that are working on Hydrogen have chosen not to listen, why might that be ?

 

[Deep purple]

Unlike oil or natural gas, transporting hydrogen over long distances is not an easy task. Hydrogen liquefaction is an extremely energy-intensive process, while maintaining the low temperature required for long-distance transportation and storage purposes results in additional energy losses and accompanying costs.
Agree with johnb80, Prof Cebon has no axe to grind in his analysis of the facts of hydrogen use, whereas the oil and gas companies are desperately trying to find ways of staving off the inevitable by touting blue hydrogen as the answer to all our environmental challenges.

 

[Fluffykins]

They already deliver the aviation fuel via a convoy of trains with tanker cars (Heathrow), it isn't as ridiculous as you might think.

Er.... Not the whole story. The tank farm near Heathrow is fed by pipelines from one or two refineries (can't recall which ones - I've been asleep several times since I had dealings with the project but I think Stanlow was involved).
Fuel is then distributed to the aircraft stands via a pipework and hydrant system, which is why you don't see endless fuel tankers on the apron.

I found all this out when I got involved many years ago. The Heathrow Hydrant Company wanted to upgrade their control systems and metering (needed bloody accurate and repeatable meters for pressure too. As well as needing fiscal accuracy flow metering, they tested for leaks by shutting in sections of pipeline and watching for pressure drops).

We quoted for the project but didn't get it, unfortunately, as it had looked like a fun one.

The whole enterprise was divvied up with one company running the tankage, another the pipeline's and another the hydrants, iirc. All designed so the money went round and round too fast for the tax man to siphon off very much.

 

[Skippy]

I'm glad it is but all of the evidence suggests it wont work, cant work for very good reasons. JCB are promoting their Hydrogen powered plant but it really has nowhere to go. Very frustrating really, as a fuel being burned it's great with only water as it's emission, it's just getting it, storing it and transporting thats the slight problem.

Unfortunately burning hydrogen in air with any sort of efficiency means higher temperatures and that means that NOx is emitted. this isn’t the case with fuel cells but they have their own massive stack of problems. Pun intended.