Hydrogen Cars - something doesn't smell right

Interesting thread this one.

The renwable source that is glaringly absent from the discussion is tidal.  Can someone with a better knowledge please let me know why, as a nation, we are no doing more to generate our electricity from tidal?

I get that a tidal stream system, some sort of subsea turbine, is more expensive to make, install, maintain, and porobably has a shorter life span than a wind turbine.

And a tidal height system, some sort of barage, will have an ecological effect.

But it's the predicability of it.  At anytime of the day or night, the tidal stream is flowing around the UK, it doesn't just wash in and out.  High water and low water are in a cycle, literally, moving clockwise/anticlockwise, swinging around our islands.  Future tidal calculations are accurate and only effected slightly by weather, and even this can be accounted for.

My point being, yes, tidal power might be a less cost effective renewable solution, but surely the ability to generate a large amount of power on a predictable schedule offsets this?

When I was working on a offshore windfarm, I had this dicussion with the Client Rep who was on our ship.  Cynically, he said that the power companies are not keen on tidal systems as they can't be seen, and therefore harder to promote as a green alternative.  They love their marketting!

Less cycnically I worked with the guy who had done a lot of the impact assessment of the Avonmouth tidal barrier project decades ago ; the list of headaches was long, too long. Creating a brackish water swamp which will silt up being the main one. The Durance one in France works but it has impacted many aspects of life along the river for not very much electricity.

A French state funded underwater turbine project destined to take advange of tidal currents was abandonned a few years back:

https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2018/qSEQ180906729.html

TJ - you are talking nonsense and using incorrect data.  I'm on 100% renewables , end of story, and europe will go that way. Why? In the long term, cost and price.,  There are teething problems, and a complete solution isn't there yet, but ultimately the OPEX of renewables compared to fossil generation will get you there, compared to continually burning expensive stuff.

 Plus no one has come up with a way to make the battery green, or even recycle them once they are useless for powering a vehicle

And cost will make this happen as well.  They can obvs. be recycled , but historically it hasn't been done as there haven't been any large batteries to recycle, so ...

or even recycle them once they are useless for powering a vehicle

A French company is recycling EV batteries. Having validated the process they've opened a pilot factory. 99% of the metals are recovered and 70% of the lithium:

Edit: I see you've edited, wbo, you corrected your error whilst I was typing the response and finding the vid. 🙂

One thing to remember is it's not all about CO2

If I remember my chemistry correctly, methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. So if there is a demand for hydrogen, which can be made from methane, will we see an increase the capture of methane from industry emissions, as it is an in demand commidity?

There are loads of companies trialling wave and tidal stream energy. But it turns out that running machinery in moving salty water full of life is a bit difficult. And tidal lagoon power wrecks ecosystems.

If I remember my chemistry correctly, methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Between 20 and 100 times more potent, depending on where in the atmosphere, time scale and which report you read.

And pretty much every manufacturer of EVs or EV batteries is investing heavily in recycling/reuse/reclamation of used cells.

Even completely shagged cells (WCA's leaf for example) would work well in a domestic storage role. Will still produce more power than a house could even use. Even with a welder and/or three phase...

will we see an increase the capture of methane from industry emissions, as it is an in demand commidity?

It's already used as a fuel, it's just that emissions from landfills, wetlands, etc. may not be economically recoverable.

If I remember my chemistry correctly, methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. So if there is a demand for hydrogen, which can be made from methane, will we see an increase the capture of methane from industry emissions, as it is an in demand commidity?

Probably not,
a) "industrial" emissions are already tightly regulated, other large emitters like landfill sites and sewage treatment are better than they were 30-40 years ago (e.g. well managed landfill is now capped with soil overnight and once filled the top is covered in a membrane and the gas collected and used as fuel rather than just vent) the other large emitters are livestock and silage / manure treatment.
b) It's always been in demand, it's the main component of "gas" as in the stuff that fires your cooker/boiler.

TBH electric cars and hydrogen are really just solutions being presented by car manufacturer lobbying groups and get siezed on by people who don't want to face changing their behaviors now.

"Why should I change my behavior now, if I just keep driving for the next 30-100 years there'll be flying hydrogen* cars like Blade Runner".

"No I've never actually seen Blade Runner and wasn't aware the whole premise of the film was an ecological collapse and that it was basically Mad Max but we invented hydrogen powered flying cars"

*I don't think this is cannon, but they do explode on impact so lets assume it's some sort of flammable fuel.

For anyone wanting to debate the wider renewables energy source and solutions - please, read this as it addresses a lot of the topics being brought up by several people on the thread in a factual, data based manner. It's freely available as a PDF download and written by David MacKay FRS -Regius Professor of Engineering at the University of Cambridge.

https://www.withouthotair.com/

It looks at the various options for energy sources and usage, and (spoiler alert) concludes that the solution needs to be a mix of various sources and usage models - at the time of writing he concluded that Nuclear needed to be part of the mix but of course things change.

TJ – you are talking nonsense and using incorrect data. I’m on 100% renewables , end of story,

Aye right - and where do you get your power from in a winter high pressure event - when its cold, little solar, little wind

TBH electric cars and hydrogen are really just solutions being presented by car manufacturer lobbying groups and get siezed on by people who don’t want to face changing their behaviors now.

this

This is why we have now hit 1.5C global warming , 2 C is now baked in and 3Cplus is looking likely as no one will take the action needed

https://www.withouthotair.com/
/blockquote>Yes it’s an excellent book by someone who knows what he’s talking about, rather than some bloke on You Tube with an opinion.

 

Isn't this just capitalism at work?

Everyone agrees that the age of the ICE is coming to and end, like the horse powered era 100-120 years ago everyone realised that the future wasn't horse shaped, but what shape it would be was still up for grabs. For a while it looked like it was going to be steam driven...Same thing here; which system the public like won't necessarily be the most efficient or 'best' it'll be the one that they go for...Whoever has that market (like the Model T) will make a killing...That's what's happening here. It's most likely going to be EVs but there's an outside chance that it won't, so have that "something else" ready to go...JIC

Place your bets

Aye right – and where do you get your power from in a winter high pressure event – when its cold, little solar, little wind

Drax burning imported Canadian spruce obviously.

The other big problem with these so-called green tariffs is they don't really work. The principle is you pay a bit extra for the certificates that come with the green energy to say this was yours*. The problem is that market isn't competitive, it adds about £2.50 to an annual bill so isn't really necessary. Renewable supply outstrips demand for renewables.

Then you hit the real problem that if you've ticked the box that says "my energy is renewable" then you're probably mentally no longer bothered by the ~1.5tonnes of CO2 your house produces per person each year, because it's not producing CO2 is it? Obviously it's not, you ticked the right box. It's that poorer family down the road on the cheap pre-pay meter, they need to get their act together. Doesn't matter that they don't have a car, use less energy because they can't afford to have the heating at 21C, and don't go abroad for their holidays. You're green because your on a green tariff, it charges your Tesla so that's green too right? And then you can justify a few flights a year with all that carbon you've saved.

*it's a hypothetical you not explicitly aimed at the quoted poster, a greenwashing straw man

Only at the tailpipe – not overall all as every bit of electricity used in an EV ( most of the time) comes from fossil fuel burning

Wrong - this is the UKs electrical energy mix for the last year. 66% renewable. Once you include the typical 2.5-4GW transfer from France (80% nuclear) and Norway (hydro), the % of non-co2 emissions is above 75%.  I'm sorry to break this to you TJ, but EVs are sustainable and so long as renewable generation and storage capacity is matched to EV (and ASHP) uptake, it will just get better.

Renewables are not zero co2 but lower as is nuclear

Yes those numbers are right - but whaty you miss is that renewables are maxed out most of the time - shortfall is made up by fossil fuels.  So increase demand and ( much of the time) that increased demand is supplied by fossil fuels as nuclear and renewables are maxed out.

Obviously on a windy day when renewables are not maxed out more turbines can be turned on.  But the reality is that most of increased demand caused by EVs comes from fossil fuels

Daffy - what about that winter high pressure event?  Pretty common.  What renewables are you getting then?

but EVs are sustainable and so long as renewable generation and storage capacity is matched to EV (and ASHP) uptake, it will just get better.

Storage  We have a few hours in the UK - a winter high pressure event can last weeks

Renewable generation - again - what about when the wind does not blow?

I agree that if those two things are met then yes EVs would be lower ( not zero) carbon and an improvement ( but still not sustainable) over ICEs

NOw how are you going to meet those two conditions?

Yes those numbers are right – but whaty you miss is that renewables are maxed out most of the time – shortfall is made up by fossil fuels.  So increase demand and ( much of the time) that increased demand is supplied by fossil fuels as nuclear and renewables are maxed out.

Obviously on a windy day when renewables are not maxed out more turbines can be turned on.  But the reality is that most of increased demand caused by EVs comes from fossil fuels

Daffy – what about that winter high pressure event?  Pretty common.  What renewables are you getting then?

Who gives a flying f*ck about individual events that happen seasonally?  Burn gas for those until hydrogen (which most gas turbines can burn at a 50% mix right now) comes online.    On AVERAGE, you're looking at a near 75% (minimum) reduction in emissions during the in life phase of use.

Everyone that's driving an EV right now in the UK is reducing their in-life emissions by 90% compared to a FF car based on 2023 data.  That's part due to the energy mix (75%) and part due to the burning products of gasoline vs natural gas (15%) as per unit of energy, you get 20% more Co2 from petrol, than from gas.

Assuming you ignore the co2 from making them and the shortened lifespan of EVs because batteries degrade much faster than fossils fuel tanks

On AVERAGE, you’re looking at a near 75% (minimum) reduction in emissions during the in life phase of use.

Still not so as they induce ADDITIONAL electricity demand which is mainly served by fossil fuel.
Additional demand comes from fossil fuels - no the average mix as nuclear and wind are often maxed out

@tjagain - PLEASE go and ready "sustainable energy without the hot air" .... it takes a realistic, pragmatic approach to the very concerns you are raising (which are real and need solutions - which are discussed and developed into a series of potential workable solutions)

Still not so as they induce ADDITIONAL electricity demand which is mainly served by fossil fuel.

How do you know it's the cars that are causing the demand and not the factory at the end of the road or kids playing on Playstations or whatever?

You seem to be suggesting that the additional load of cars is different to the additional load of anything else. But there's no reason to segregate cars from anything else.  Overall electricity consumption is going down anyway and renewable energy is going up.  If demand is falling in other areas then how about we say that EVs are taking up the spare renewable capacity that's not being used due to energy savings elsewhere?  You can if you like - this is what I mean by creative accounting, it's what you're doing.

But, EVEN IF a car really were powered purely by electricity generated from gas, you must remember that car would otherwise be powered by petrol, and that is less efficient and produces more CO2 than using electricity generated from gas.

the shortened lifespan of EVs

Do you have actual evidence for this that's not an oil-lobby sponsored FB post?

Assuming you ignore the co2 from making them and the shortened lifespan of EVs because batteries degrade much faster than fossils fuel tanks

My post specifically stated "in-life".  I have continually and consistently disproved your ill informed opinion on production vs total life along with providing supporting evidence - I'm not going to do it again.

Because with EVs you are creating a whole new class of electricity using thing and their usage places additional de4mands on the generation system that can only come from fossil fuels much of the time.  Also there is good evidence that EVs are used more as the cost per mile is low

Wind will always be intermittent.

Hydrogen will have its place i am sure.  I think in smoothing demand and storage will be its first commercial usage

Tidal was mentioned before.  shortsighted governments not investing in it - tidal flow the tech is here.  Its not zero carbon again tho

Again this needs to be remembered - all energy usage has a carbon cost

Daffy - you do need to look at "whole life" emissions but I agree that between EVs and ICEs whole life the EV is less pollution overall but far from zero

Still not so as they induce ADDITIONAL electricity demand which is mainly served by fossil fuel.
Additional demand comes from fossil fuels – no the average mix as nuclear and wind are often maxed out

Wrong again.  Grid demand and supply over the past 12 years.  Ignoring covid and despite record EV registrations in 2021-2023, the demand is being met by increased renewables...gas use is still decreasing, as is nuclear.  Imagine what will happen when Dogger Bank and Hinkley Point come online.  Where will all you luddites go?  2024 shows an upward trend as it's winter with only a single month of data.

batteries degrade much faster than fossils fuel tanks

You can't compare the battery against only the fuel tank.
You need to compare the whole drivetrain of an EV (i.e. including batteries, inverters, motors etc) with the whole drivetrain of an ICE (including engine, transmission, fuel and exhaust systems).

It appears that the current generation of EV drivetrains (inc batteries) are capable of 150-200+ miles, which is actually broadly in line with what ICE drivetrains are capable of. More real-world experience is needed of course but broadly they seem similar, and the reality is that the rest of the vehicle tends to fall apart first these days - what finishes off most old cars (assuming they havn't been crashes) is typically that it's just not economically feasible to keep them running , so that failed alternator, suspension bushing, clutch or whatever just isn't worth repairing.

Daffy - are you genuinely not understanding this?

Much of the time renewables are maxed out.  When they are all additional demand comes from fossil fuels. Its the intermittent nature of wind generation.  There is no other source for this additional demand

Now what are you going to do in a winter high pressure event when there is little sunshine, little wind and its cold?  happens every year.

Answer - burn fossil fuels or the slights go out

@tjagain I understand the point you are making. But you're wrong.

If we decide to stop building any more renewable capacity then your point about charging an individual car at a time when renewables aren't providing 100% of the grid's power, then yes the increase in demand due to that car is being met with gas.

But the extra demand due to that car is part of what is making it economic to build more renewable capacity.

Much of the time renewables are maxed out.

I'm not sure what fraction that 'much' is - but we're building more so it is reducing. But we need the demand there for that build to happen. No-one is going to build in advance of the EVs (and heat pumps) creating the demand.

what are you going to do in a winter high pressure event when there is little sunshine, little wind and its cold? happens every year.

Daffy has already answered this. In this instances, currently and for the foreseeable, you burn gas. That means that at the moment you're not going to be 100% renewable in your car. It doesn't mean you're 100% fossil fuel.

Answer – burn fossil fuels or the slights go out

Yes but so what?

How many days a year does that happen? If the vast majority of our energy comes from renewables then a small proportion from fossil fuels to fill the occasional gap simply doesn’t matter.

It appears that the current generation of EV drivetrains (inc batteries) are capable of 150-200+ miles, which is actually broadly in line with what ICE drivetrains are capable of.

Not even close to that far. 3 yr old Tesla batteries are already only giving half the original distance per charge. Literally millions is being spent on researching how to make batteries last and what to do with them once they are no longer holding enough charge for EVs. The university my wife works won over £5m a year to do primary research into this

im not pro oil. Oil is not the answer but neither are EVs. EVs are a short term thing until a proper solution is found

JR - the point is that you cannot claim your car is fuelled entirely on renewables and that any increase in demand is met most of the time by an increase in fossil fuel burning as most off the time wind is maxed out

If we decide to stop building any more renewable capacity then your point about charging an individual car at a time when renewables aren’t providing 100% of the grid’s power, then yes the increase in demand due to that car is being met with gas.

Whayhay  someone gets the point! - and not just gas but coal and even sometimes diesel

Thats the point - EVs are not the answer - the answer is to stop moving people around in individual 2 tonne boxes

Until we have massive surplus of renewables then this will remain so - and will still remain partially true as there will always be low wind periods.

tidal is what we need and practical stortage

Not even close to that far. 3 yr old Tesla batteries are already only giving half the original distance per charge

I simply don’t believe you. What is your source?

As a benchmark my 7 year old Zoe battery has degraded less than 5%. I don’t think the battery is any better than a Tesla.

My neighbours Tesla

3 yr old Tesla batteries are already only giving half the original distance per charge

That is total rubbish. Maybe some individual batteries will fail early as with any other product, but the vast majority last much longer. Chrismac - it sounds like your neighbour has a valid warranty claim then and will get the battery replaced for free by Tesla.

Look at the warranties being offered - Tesla is 8 years or 100,000-150,000 miles (dependent on model). BMW is 8 years / 160,000kM. Tesla criteria is 70% of capacity retained - not sure on BMW but expect it's similar.
If the vast majority of the units sold don't achieve this it will be ruiniously expensive for the manufacturers, hence design life will be significantly more.

"what to do with them once they are no longer holding enough charge for EVs."

The current plans for this are to repurpose the individual cells. They don't degrade equally so grading allows for high performance cells to be used for another life's worth of automotive use (in a cheaper / less capable package than the original battery of course), medium ones to do some less demanding work (powerwall type applications), and the truly low capability ones to be recycled. Yes, they are recyclable. There isn't much commercial capability to recycle yet largely because the demand isn't there yet - the cells are mostly still in cars in active use.

3 yr old Tesla batteries are already only giving half the original distance per charge.

That can happen occasionally - anything can fail, including a cell in a battery - but it is NOT common and it certainly is not the norm.  The average degradation of batteries is about 12% in 200k miles according to the company themselves - who admittedly aren't reliable sources. But there are tons of cars out there with 80k miles on their original range.  Even my basic Leaf on 66k is showing no signs of degradation.

My neighbours Tesla

A sample size of one is meaningless, as I'm sure you know.

Because with EVs you are creating a whole new class of electricity using thing

What difference does it make what 'class' the thing is in?  Renewable capacity is going up, electricity demand is going down, car charging is a 'smart' load that is usually  varied according to renewable availability, and EV usage displaces FF usage which is NEVER renewable and ALWAYS much dirtier than the grid mix.  How can you say my EV is using the FF portion of the grid and my computer is not?

Daffy – are you genuinely not understanding this?

Much of the time renewables are maxed out.  When they are all additional demand comes from fossil fuels. Its the intermittent nature of wind generation.  There is no other source for this additional demand

Now what are you going to do in a winter high pressure event when there is little sunshine, little wind and its cold?  happens every year.

Answer – burn fossil fuels or the slights go out

Do you not understand averages?  Renewables should be maxed, that's an optimal system.  As demand grows, you scale the system to the demand (you build more wind, nuclear and storage).  Outlier demand should be met by something flexible, in this case gas.  The gas power stations are maintained on tick over with gas storage ready to go as required.  MUCH easier than any other solution and will get us to 90% average renewables inside a decade.

chrismacFull Member
My neighbours Tesla

Oooh a single data point, huh?  You're a proper scientist your are!

How about a sample of 625 data points over 10 years?

[url] https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/study-real-life-tesla-battery-deterioration#:~:text=How%20long%20does%20a%20Tesla,80%25%20of%20the%20original%20range. [/url]

The university my wife works won over £5m a year to do primary research into this

£5m if absolutely naff all in terms of research.  We spent €3.5bn last year....

@thisisnotaspoon

Probably not,
a) “industrial” emissions are already tightly regulated, other large emitters like landfill sites and sewage treatment are better than they were 30-40 years ago (e.g. well managed landfill is now capped with soil overnight and once filled the top is covered in a membrane and the gas collected and used as fuel rather than just vent) the other large emitters are livestock and silage / manure treatment.

I was thinking more globally. There are countries which are not as strictly regulated. A demand for H2 might encourage more recovery of methane (if economically viable). Then if that's turned into H2, the impact of the emitted carbon it might be less than just releasing the methane unprocessed.

Normal anti0-EV nonsense and normal “I’m right your wrong listen to me you pathetic little car owner.”

250bn miles driven in the UK per year

33m vehicles on the road

0.185kgco2/mile for average ICE

Delta Co2 for Ev vs ICE production 4t average.

EV average is 3.5m/kWh

Assumed grid renewables 75%.

Assumed Grid c02/kWh  = 0.1kg/kWh

It costs on average between 3 and 12 tonnes of CO2 to manufacture the battery pack roughly analogous to 1tonne per 10kWh.  That's the total footprint.  Extraction, refining, assembly, etc. Surprisingly, less than 60% is in the lithium.

The average car pack at the moment is 80kWh, so 8 tonnes, but you don't need other things that ICEs need, so the delta is closer to 3-5 tonnes dependent on the ICE car.

It takes 1.5kWh of power to refine EVERY SINGLE LITRE of Petrol/Diesel.  Currently most of that energy and its associated emissions are as equally elsewhere (another country) as lithium mining/refining is.

We use 50bn litres of fuel for cars in this country, so need 75TWh of power just to extract, pump, refine and transport fuel we need.  In the global average power mix, that's 20m metric tonnes of Co2, just to provide fuel to the UK.  We than have another 46m metric tonnes of emissions from direct use of the fuel.

Over 10 years assuming no change and accounting only for the CO2 emissions associated with the delta from EV to ICE and the emissions in use.  That'd be 660m metric tonnes of CO2 for the ICE.  Assuming the grid stays at 75% renewables in the UK and that everyone buys an EV That's 33m vehicles at an average of 4tonnes Co2 Delta, so 132m metric tonnes in manufacturing and 71tWh of power demand per year. Which is 7.15m metric tonnes of CO2/y

Total emissions for a full ICE fleet over 10 years at current levels assuming it all happens in the UK = 660m metric tonnes of Co2

Total emissions for a full EV fleet including the battery manufacturing delta for the battery = 203m metric tonnes.

Now someone (TJ) will no doubt whine about infrastructure - A Halide X 14MW Turbine costs between 4k and 7k tonnes of Co2 to manufacture (it's mostly steel, so can be recycled) including the base, motor and cables to shore.  It provides an absolutely astonishing 74gWh of power per annum.    You'd need 100 turbines to support the whole fleet.  So yup, another 70000 tonnes of Co2 AT THE WORST CASE.  EV now at 204m (using a huge rounding up)

So even in the most favourable conditions for the ICE and the worst for the EV, the EV fleet + Infrastructure + batteries delivers a 70% reduction in UK car emissions over 10y.   70%!

In reality if you're making me equate the cost for infrastructure into the EV Co2 Total, we can assume a full green grid for EVs, so heck, it's now just the battery delta, so 132m vs 660m, so 80%!

My neighbours Tesla

Oh really?

And my neighbour’s new merc wrecked its engine after a year. So Tesla’s still last longer than ICE cars - if you rely on anecdotes as evidence.
As Daffy posted, independent analysis shows average Tesla batteries still working at 90% at 100,00 miles or more.

https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/study-real-life-tesla-battery-deterioration

I belive that a little bit more than “my neighbour”.

I reckon 40% of my street is Tesla, 40 % other EV and 20% ICE.  It's the ICE bit that breaks down from what I see.

And yes, TJ 100% renewable, mostly hydro topped up by wind.

Re battery degradation. That Harry's Garage video I mentioned earlier talks about this. See approx 15 mins onwards. Tesla appears to be amongst the best.

And yes, TJ 100% renewable, mostly hydro topped up by wind.

Do you have your own hydro station then?

I would like to to explain this because its completely impossible.  How are you charging when renewables are maxed out a fossil fuels arew  being used in the grid?

If you are charging off the grid you are using fossil fuels

Assumed grid renewables 75%.

Big assumption and yo are forgetting again ( because its convenient to do so ) that this is additional demand.  Much of the time additional demand is 100% fossil as renewables are maxed iout

When renewables are maxed out then all additional electricity comes from fossil fuels  there is no other source ( nuclear is on all the time)

I forget which tangent this had gone down to be talking about EVs and additional demand.

One of them main points of batteries is that you can charge them whenever it suits, not at time of use. Variable pricing of electricity means that users are incentivised to charge when excess power is available, e.g. overnight (due to low demand and non variable base load generation) or when the wind is blowing strongly. Most EV charging is done in this manner - the more visible fast chargers are generally a low portion of or total charging due to the high cost.

There’s a load of stuff on this thread where the author needs to consider the difference between extra energy requirement and extra power requirement.
EVs are relatively unusual in that they are a large load that takes no grid power when it is being used. And given they are not in use for 90+% of the time, there’s a lot of choice about when to charge them.
They are one of the things that is going to make intermittent renewable economically and technically viable.
That and you lot charging Makita impact drivers and e-MTBs.

How are you charging when renewables are maxed out

Maybe he doesn't? As said - you don't need to charge all the time...

How are you charging when renewables are maxed out

Maybe he doesn’t? As said – you don’t need to charge all the time…

Agree. In fact he’s highly likely to specifically NOT be charging at those times due to variable pricing encouraging him not to.

As the thread has gone on somewhat I suppose someone has pointed out already that:

hydrogen is a ridiculous idea for fuelling cars

hydrogen is a ridiculous idea for heating houses

hydrogen is being promoted as a ‘solution’ by the same fossil fuel companies that brought you the current climate crisis

Hydrogen is currently harvested from fossil fuels e.g. methane. Like ‘cracking’ any fossil fuel source into usable products this takes energy. ‘Green’ hydrogen is not really a thing.

It’s time to stop burning stuff.

https://theecologist.org/2020/dec/18/hydrogen-hoax

https://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/2023/04/20/hydrogen-for-home-heating-is-a-scam/

Plus , how many people are buying big lithium batteries for their PV array. To charge either on octopus flex or from sunshine. They then move this electricity to the car overnight.
Hence doubling the amount of lithium required.
These will also have a shelf life before capacity drops away

|I am not anti EV or Hydrogen  vehicles and do not subscribe to some of the nonsense the antis put out.  they have their place

I just want folk to realise that EVs and hydrogen vehicles are greenwash, that their usage means increased fossil fuel usage ( compared to reducing the use of private cars) and that while they are zero tailpipe emissions and do reduce greenhouse gases overall they are still hugely wasteful way of moving people about and that this fiddling around the edges makes little practical difference to global warming

We need lifestyle change not this greenwash that allows folk to pretend that they are doing something big when they are not

Maybe he doesn’t? As said – you don’t need to charge all the time…

So he is going for weeks without charging the vehicle?  Because we go weeks at a time when renewables are maxed out.  That pesky high pressure winter event

Sometimes, TJ, it would be nice if there was just a hint you were reading and understanding other members posts and assimilating them into your knowledge. As it is we get the same message reworded from you every other page which in no way reflects how the EV owning STW members are charging their cars and from which energy suppliers.

Of the EV owners among my friends and aquaintances all of them have a set of solar panels that more than covers their electiricty use. We have cut off the gas and insulated our homes, two of us are a bit naughty and use wood burners at times we'd be drawing fossil energy from the grid. We've stopped or drasticaly reduced flying and are prepared to cross the continent on public transport. Local produce is bought in preference but sometimes we sin and buy things like a guitar made in Mexico or Brompton derailleur made in China.

The EV is part of a philosophy - making the most of life with a much reduced carbon footprint.

You have decided not to own a car, fine, your life is organised such that you don't need one, good. However in other ways your life is carbon intensive but none of us is reproaching you not moving to Africa (on foot) and living in an off-grid community eating only locally produced and unpackage produce and living in a hemp loin skin.

Your simplistic crap on this thread is irritating many including me. I like your posts and Internet persona a lot but sometimes you're really irritating.

🙂

We need lifestyle change not this greenwash that allows folk to pretend that they are doing something big when they are not

Yes TJ we understand that, but that is not what this thread is about.

In a future scenario we may be able to reduce / abandon cars completely but right here right now it’s not feasible so the next best alternative is to make the cars that are used greener and be part of an overall energy transition.

Maybe start a separate thread about deleting / reducing car use completely in favour of other forms (which is a perfectly valid discussion).

Continually derailing this thread which was meant to be about Hydrogen though is just frustrating - your argument is about a different topic.

The EV is part of a philosophy – making the most of life with a much reduced carbon footprint.

Yes indeed - it can be and I know you do this

for many folk tho its a way of pretending they are doing something without those lifestyle changes and unless you are charging off grid completely then in the UK your vehicle charging will be partly fossil fuel

😉 or live somewhere where there are only renewables in the grid

Seriously , the big problem with hydrogen is the infrastructure, and well, making it in massive quantities as well. So too big, big problems.  So you need a really compelling reason to do this and an acceptance that it's not going to be cheap.  Hydrogen requires even better quality of infra than natural gas as it CANNOT leak for safety reasons - you can't even smell if it's leaking , so it just can't be allowed to happen unless you want to cover places it's used with detectors, and it likes to leak.  So add that price into the cost to consumer and how does it look? For me it looks like a dead end, and if any of the miracle batteries ever actually make it then it will be very redundant from a family car perspective (all in my opinion)

Electricity is a lot, lot easier on both counts.Almost all houses are capable of dealing with any extra load (except Trailrat's)

whatgoesup - folk are making claims for their EVs and for any future hydrogen vehicles that simply are not true such as charging off 100% renewables which is simply not possible

OK - I'll drop it now

Please do.

Because we go weeks at a time when renewables are maxed out. That pesky high pressure winter event

In the middle of the night there is always a generation / use imbalance. Renewables aren’t really the source at these times - it’s the non variable base load generation that is a neccesary fact of our approach to generation.

You seem to be thinking in an incredibly nieve, simplistic manner and only considering what a complete utopia might look like.

By these standards you should not posting on this forum, as power is used (to keep your computer / phone running, to power the internet connections, to power the datacentre that’s at the back of this somewhere), eating any food apart from what you’ve grown in your own back garden as that uses energy to grow and transport, wearing any clothes other than those you’ve woven yourself from sheep in that back garden etc etc.

Please try and work within the constraints of reality - that’s the only way we make progress.
Also - as Edukator says please try and listen to others arguments not just keep repeating the same idealistic argument.

Have you read the book I reccomended yet? From your discussions it sounds like you havnt but I honestly think you’ll find it both fascinating and also enlightening. Armed with that knowledge you could really make some interesting, more nuanced and realistic proposals and contribute to these discussions which I would welcome.

charging off 100% renewables which is simply not possible

<jumps up and down in frustration>

PLEASE GO READ THE (free pdf) BOOK IVE RECCOMENDED SEVERAL TIMES - it will be a game changer in understanding of the realities and options.

Until then it’s like arguing with an idealistic child who refuses to acknowledge facts that they don’t like but still insists on things being the way they want (which are impossible due to the facts that they have refused to acknowledge).

Arghhhh……….

One of those friends has an interesting EV. He bought an old Citroën Saxo EV with a dead Battery. He bought some old industrial Lithium battery packs that were being replaced in routine maintenance but still with years of potential life left. He sourced suitable BMSes (battery management systems) and wrote a load of software (his speciality) for the charging system. The result is a 23kWh car with a 150km Summer range that is 99% upcycled. He's a member of an association which finds sites suitable for solar panel instalations and has installed lots of capacity. I got dragged in recently using my climbing skills and head for heights to prepare a roof for panel installation on an off-grid eco-house with straw-insulated walls.

Whatgoesup - its a philosophical difference - read up on dark V light green to understand my viewpoint.  Its not I am ill informed - its a different philosophical approach and one you might find interesting  to look into

also 100% renewables charging is not possible in the UK at all unless yo0 are totally off grid.  That is a simple fact.  The claim you can is the greenwash

What do we do now ? It's down to:

"No it isn't", "yes it is"

"No it isn't", "yes it is"

"No it isn't", "yes it is"

"No it isn't", "yes it is"

One side is providing evidence and one is saying "100% not possible"

For those living in NW Scotland it's imossible to charge using fossil fuels most of the time. I'd have to make an effort to badly time my charges to create demand that would be for extra fossil.

It would also be nice if there were a bit more disclosure about other aspects of your carbon footprint, TJ. Nearly all the regulars on STW have contributed to the various energy threads disclosing their gas and electricty bills. Many have contributed to Gas/induction hob threads. You haven't.

Does the sun come out during a long term high pressure weather event or not?

Whatgoesup – its a philosophical difference – read up on dark V light green to understand my viewpoint. Its not I am ill informed – its a different philosophical approach and one you might find interesting to look into

also 100% renewables charging is not possible in the UK at all unless yo0 are totally off grid. That is a simple fact. The claim you can is the greenwash

I understand all of that. That is a separate discussion to the one that the rest of us are (trying) to have.

I'm not claiming you can currently charge the overall EV fleet 100% renewably (some individuals might be able to, but not most of us). Any thought that this is possible right now, or actually a realistic target is overly simplistic - the real world situation is far more nuanced.

Meanwhile in order to not just turn the lights off and send us all back to the stone age overnight, and actually make the world work, improve things and develop to a better place where we COULD have 100% renewables there is a LOT of thought and planning going into developing future solutions - this is a journey that the world is on right now - we're relatively close to the start, not the end of the journey now. You don't seem willing to accept any discussion that is not about the end state.

That however is NOT what this thread is about. If you want to talk about this please set up another thread, as you are ruining this one which is meant to be about Hydrogen use in cars (or rather it's non-use in cars as it's not a good solution for reasons that were being discussed until you derailed the thread).

Now - PLEASE READ THE BLEEDING BOOK