Alternative fuel Not electric

[Mr Vlad]

I came across this video and it really blew me away. Extremely interesting and full of information which basically is the answer to alternative fuel which isn't electric. Just hope the link works.

https://youtu.be/19Q7nAYjAJY

[Herbie]

50 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

Just hope the link works.

Yes, it works, but if you just paste the link for a YouTube video directly into the body of the post without going through the chain-link icon as you normally would do, it'll embed the video directly in the post insted of posting a link.

[Linas.P]

Not really surprising, but for some reason ignored by goverment and BEV cult. Now to say it is the only way forward would be wrong, I think there applications where it works and where it doesn't.

I would start from saying that claims in the video are not completely right and at least some of machinery could work fine as BEV. For example to smaller excavators where they claim 4-5 hours Battery life are completely viable. Assuming it isn't Saudi Arabia and we follow basic human rights on construction site, then worker will need a break after 4 hours anyway. With existing technology we know we can charge BEV in ~60 min... so whilst the operator is having a break it could charge for another 4-5 hours of work. Secondly, when it comes contraction sites the charging is not an issue, because the builders themselves decide how they will set-up the site - if they think they need 8 charging points, then they are free to install them - so standard limitations of not having parking space or electricity is not an issue here. 

Where it starts making sense, that is those large 20-50 ton excavators which may be working in remote arrears and which are manned by multiple shifts, not only it would be impossible to keep it charged for 3 shifts in a row, but there are as well other valid points. Like you 20ton excavator suddenly becoming 35ton excavator and just by becoming bigger "class" it will probably go in price from £200k to £300k +70% because of the Battery cost. As well these machines may be operated in the middle of nowhere without any source of electricity or charging possible. So here hydrogen is really the best option.

Finally, the technology for hydrogen ICE isn't new. In fact first ever ICE was hydrogen, before technology to refine diesel and petrol was even invented. Other convenient thing is that diesel engines can pretty easily be converted to hydrogen and most of existing technology and production lines for diesel can be reused. However, it is much harder to do it with petrol. This is because hydrogen (like diesel) has much higher combustion temperature, much higher compression ratio, requires much leaner fuel to air ratio etc. Basically Hydrogen engine is like diesel engine just with the spark plug. So replacing diesel with hydrogen in most ICE applications is quite simple... the only remaining issue is refuelling and range.

So what is missing is hydrogen refuelling stations and currently the range would be not great if used as ICE instead of Fuel-cell technology. But I guess range isn't an issue for tractors and excavators, just for passenger cars. 

[royoftherovers]

1 hour ago, Mr Vlad said:

I came across this video and it really blew me away. Extremely interesting and full of information which basically is the answer to alternative fuel which isn't electric. Just hope the link works.

https://youtu.be/19Q7nAYjAJY

It works just fine Vlad. I enjoyed its content and it confirms discussions a number of us have had.

Politicians have arguably jumped the gun and may well have to review their intent re 2030.Hybrids could perhaps be extended to 2045?

It would be interesting to learn of Gangzooms view on the video. He has struck me over time as being too messianic in his extolling the virtues of Musk and Electric vehicles. I do wonder whether he has an interest he has not declared?

[Linas.P]

I would argue that politicians not jumped the gun... they are just indecisive and lazy bunch... So they were simply happy to flow don't the river where ever it takes. because of their indecision hydrogen network was not built, so companies started focusing on next best thing, because electrical networks at least exist and many people have electricity at home in some form. 

In the end decision which were made by our goverment are not proactive, well understood and strategic decisions. This is reactive decision, doing the least what is needed to get re-elected. Because climate is now public concern, they just needed literally anything to put in their agenda, so again they just did the thing which they need to do least about - "ohh there seems to be some BEVs being made now... let's just say we agree with it (despite not understanding it) and as well let's say we ban ICEs... that will do". 

So I really doubt there was "jump the gun" moment i.e. doing some analysis and coming up with premature or wrong solution. No... there were no analysis at all, they just accepted things as they are and left everyone to workout by themselves of how that actually suppose to look. 

[Las Palmas]

Somebody else have been mentioning this too often and been criticized for that.

Where to get the electricity to take hydrogen out of sea water will probably be ridiculed as well:

 

 

[Barry14UK]

In relation to cars, hydrogen presents problems with large and heavy tanks.  This is overcome with the fuel cell but introduces a lot of complexity and extra cost.

Battery technology as a means of propulsion for cars arguably presents greater problems in so far as requiring major upgrade to National Grid, creation of many additional supply points, the cost of and limits to rare materials in batteries and charging time being some of them.  So batteries power is not the complete answer that politicians seem to think and hydrogen power needs to be developed as an alternative option.

[Las Palmas]

1 minute ago, Barry14UK said:

In relation to cars, hydrogen presents problems with large and heavy tanks.  This is overcome with the fuel cell but introduces a lot of complexity and extra cost.

Battery technology as a means of propulsion for cars arguably presents greater problems in so far as requiring major upgrade to National Grid, creation of many additional supply points, the cost of and limits to rare materials in batteries and charging time being some of them.  So batteries power is not the complete answer that politicians seem to think and hydrogen power needs to be developed as an alternative option.

Battery power is OK as long as the batteries are kept really small such as for phones, laptops etc. For cars with power they are too costly to the environment and heavy and use so much power to drag along that the batteries needs being larger to get the power and the screw is never ending.

To overcome the little problems with hydrogen is a microscopic thing compared to the damage Battery material search is. Spend the funds to upgrade the national power grid on something useful instead: make ready for hydro fuel cells and for the motor-heads that wants combustion engines modify the cars so they can have the thunder of engines revving.

[Linas.P]

1 minute ago, Barry14UK said:

So batteries power is not the complete answer

Exactly this. For some people who have ways to charge and who just need a car to go to shop or work for few miles a day it is fine, but not everyone are like that. I would argue majority are not. 

Battery technology feasibility is based on technologies which are yet to be invented making it huge gamble. Hydrogen technology is based on existing technology, but lacks infrastructure - so it is fairly clear what is needed to make it viable and it is just matter of political will and infrastructure build, costly, but not risky. 

This is why I support both technologies - BEVs for limited scale deployment taking out most polluting ICEs e.g. Taxis and CABs are good example, last-mile delivery trucks/vans... that makes sense and is achievable. But we need to look at hydrogen in long terms as it is applicable for much wider range of use and covers far more needs. 

Trying to focus on just one or another is not feasible if we want to achieve results by 2030-2040s. But if we apply both technologies where they are most applicable we can have good results and quickly. Sadly all this banks on politicians actually having brain and having comprehensive strategy, and political will to implement it... this last bit is the biggest risk as it is most difficult to achieve.

[Mr Vlad]

@Herbie. The only way I know is via the 'share' icon. I click on that and the only option I see where I can copy it in any way is to clipboard. Then from clipboard to either a text or WhatsApp message or email or a post in a forum. I do 99% of Internet on my phone by the way.

Linas. I think you missed some points in the video. Yes hydrogen was used well before  petrol or diesel. 1803 is the year I think. JCB are using a sparkplug to ignite the hydrogen which means they've converted the diesel block using a head similar to that from a petrol engine. Years back a major complaint was a knocking. That was because of the very high temperature. Now they've cured that with a much lower temperature c/o a lean mixture.

Personally I'm all for hydrogen engines. Yes BEV is much better for small low use vehicles but for large vehicles then definitely hydrogen. 

There is a company that has got a truck I'd say the size of a class 2 truck. Its a rigid truck which is BEV. Its Battery weighs 8 tonnes and apparently its payload is 8 tonnes. That company states its purely for inner city use with low mileage etc etc. Actually that vehicle is impressive but is the limit in size of vehicle. 4 plus axle vehicles can't be BEV coz it just won't work. But powering with hydrogen is totally possible. 

The great thing about hydrogen as the fuel is that you can hear the engine. You can't in a BEV.

I really do hope that the boss of JCB ( I forget his name) can show the world just how right it is what his company is doing. God bless them I say.

[Linas.P]

6 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

Linas. I think you missed some points in the video. Yes hydrogen was used well before  petrol or diesel. 1803 is the year I think. JCB are using a sparkplug to ignite the hydrogen which means they've converted the diesel block using a head similar to that from a petrol engine. Years back a major complaint was a knocking. That was because of the very high temperature. Now they've cured that with a much lower temperature c/o a lean mixture.

Did I... I actually haven't watched the video past ~ 5min, but it seems I have covered same things:

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Finally, the technology for hydrogen ICE isn't new. In fact first ever ICE was hydrogen, before technology to refine diesel and petrol was even invented.

Other convenient thing is that diesel engines can pretty easily be converted to hydrogen and most of existing technology and production lines for diesel can be reused. However, it is much harder to do it with petrol. This is because hydrogen (like diesel) has much higher combustion temperature, much higher compression ratio, requires much leaner fuel to air ratio etc. Basically Hydrogen engine is like diesel engine just with the spark plug. So replacing diesel with hydrogen in most ICE applications is quite simple... the only remaining issue is refuelling and range.

As well issue was not knocking/pre-detonation, but NOx emissions due to very high temperatures, this is cured by increasing air to fuel ratio making it very lean, but requiring turbocharger or supercharger. That I have as well mentioned in my previous post. 

[Mr Vlad]

Barry. I think you're wrong about hydrogen tanks being Big. From what I've seen they'll be no bigger than a petrol tank. But that's in a case of a 20 ton digger. 

Nicely put Linas your last post. Agree 100%

[Linas.P]

When it comes to passenger cars hydrogen tank would be 2-4 times bigger for given range. So yes hydrogen tanks are big in that sense. However when it comes to digger, the mileage is irrelevant - what is relevant is that with same size tank digger can still complete full shift and could be refuelled very quickly (which is not the case with batteries). So the size of the tanks on the digger may indeed be same size as diesel tanks, but with diesel it may be able to work 3 days straight, whereas with hydrogen it will be able to work for 1 day... but again that is simply not an issue for the application, because as long as it can complete the shift the refuelling process won't take more than 10 minutes before next shift can start. 

[Las Palmas]

As it is now fuel cells are the most reasonable way to use hydrogen, but with a bit more time something will reduce the volume needed to use hydrogen in combustion engines.

Though hydrogen has been known to be close to no pollution fuel for centuries it has not been evaluated very long.

A combustion engine fuelled on hydrogen will emit less than 1 - 5% of the pollution conventional engines do (depending of the way you calculate) and a fuel cell  in an electric engine powered car will emit 0%. Both are far better than all other ways to power machines. Unless you believe in the power plant in the DeLorean from "Back to the Future" that only needs a bit of waste material from a bin to power the car.

[Malc]

2 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

I think you're wrong about hydrogen tanks being Big

 

4 hours ago, Linas.P said:

So what is missing is hydrogen refuelling stations and currently the range would be not great

 

2 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

Yes hydrogen was used well before  petrol or diesel. 1803 is the year I think.

Gentlemen ...........  have none of you ever watched Dads Army ..  well, if a Butcher's van can run on Hydrogen fuel suspended in a balloon on the roof and based out in Walmington-on-Sea then I'm sure some 80 years later it's not beyond the wit of man in the UK to get it's act together and ................  c'mon Mr Mainwaring  

Malc

[NemesisUK]

I think you'll find those large bladders were filled with town gas.

https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/11/gas-bag-vehicles.html

[Mr Vlad]

Re the size of fuel tank needed for a hydrogen powered car. 1st example. The Honda Clarity. This car seats 5, has a good sized boot, has an EPA range of 350 miles and the tank I think is actually 2 well hidden within the gubbins of the car. This Honda is a fuel cell car at present but when it was featured on Top Gear a good few years ago James May clearly stated the car had an engine which ran of hydrogen but acted like a generator charging some batteries which powered an electric motor or two. He actually really liked that car.

2nd example. The Toyota Mirai. A true hydrogen cell car with a fuel tank size not much bigger than a similar sized cars petrol/diesel tank. 

So in those cars the fuel tank is Not 2 to 3 times bigger.

The JCB machines which have been converted to hydrogen their fuel tanks are no bigger than the diesel tanks of the diesel powered machines. 

JCB have the small digger machines purely BEV for the reasons within the video.

[Las Palmas]

6 hours ago, royoftherovers said:

Hybrids could perhaps be extended to 2045?

It would be interesting to learn of Gangzooms view on the video. He has struck me over time as being too messianic in his extolling the virtues of Musk and Electric vehicles. I do wonder whether he has an interest he has not declared?

As long as the batteries are not the Li-ion type no problem with hybrids.

With all the info now on the forum maybe fuel-cell cars will be looked at in a different light by some.

[Linas.P]

48 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

Re the size of fuel tank needed for a hydrogen powered car.

The size issue specifically relates to Hydrogen ICE, Hydrogen Cell is quite different technology. On Hydrogen cell car there is no engine, so you have entire engine bay to play with and that is why they can make relatively normal looking car with good range. Other thing is that Hydrogen Cell cars are actually extremely efficient as they use electric motor - so they can have both decent acceleration and amazing fuel economy, something you just can't do with ICE. And on top of that their tanks are still bigger then conventional car running on fossil fuel:

The tanks of JCB machines may physically be the same size, but it does not mean they hold same amount of fuel. Again in the alienation their are used that is not the issue, so I am not saying it is bad technology. But simply said you can't fit same amount of liquified hydrogen in the same space as you could fit diesel. 

[Barry14UK]

In mentioning that fuel tanks would be too heavy and large for use in a car, I meant as demonstrated in the video as linked to with Lord Bamford of JCB.  I differentiated by specifically referring also to the fuel cell alternative which seems more viable.  It doesn't get the publicity like BEV but if you look for it you can find the major car makers are developing hydrogen/fuel cell cars and some are on sale in a growing way in some markets.    

[Las Palmas]

I am sure there will rather soon come some hydrogen powered cars and infrastructure that will make BEV look like the mistake they are, except for driving around town for those having charging stations in their home.

[First_Lexus]

I’ll start by noting that I’m not a technically minded type of chap, and don’t understand science or technology at all. My education was entirely classical, as was the fashion of the time at the type of schools I attended. Science and maths were an afterthought, and that suited me fine (and still does!). Despite those caveats, I’ve enjoyed reading the debates about electric vs hydrogen vehicles. There have been lots of strongly held opinions, and I can see merit in the comments from both sides.

My own opinion - entirely based on my gut feel and global politics rather than on any technical understanding - is that electric vehicles will continue to evolve with longer range and faster charging. Despite the inevitable advances in technology, I’m not sure I see electric becoming the default choice for larger vehicles, as per the original video on this thread. Military vehicles, as one example, will likely need something other than electric power and that may be hydrogen or something else. Often solutions developed for military use trickle down and are used elsewhere.

I actually do think EVs will become the most common choice for personal transport in the First World, especially as we could move (back) to a more localised economy over the next century. There could be a greater reliance on countries being self-sufficient as the impacts of global climate change de-stabilise some regions, and renewable electricity supplied to charge personal transport would make a lot of sense in that scenario, although availability of raw materials for batteries could still be an issue. Longer ranges - whether that’s trucks, diggers, aeroplanes, ships or tanks - I would have thought will end up using something else. I don’t know that, obviously - it is just my hunch. In fact, there are those who believe that use of ‘personal’ transport will decrease, although in the UK the expansion of public transport needed to make that viable would be significant. Such a move would also require a major behavioural shift in the general population, but it is possible. 

The other thing that strikes me, is that in the (understandable) rush to EVs society risks throwing away already manufactured resources, and resources are finite. We should make sure that we make the greatest possible use of those already created resources until they become unserviceable, as that is the most sustainable option at least until there is data that supports new manufacture of EVs having a lesser impact than the emissions from existing vehicles (and I understand we’re years away from that). 

I will consider an EV next time as my mileage decreases and range capability increases, but for now my current NX has plenty of life left that I and others need to utilise. 

 

[Malc]

9 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

The other thing that strikes me, is that in the (understandable) rush to EVs society risks throwing away already manufactured resources, and resources are finite. We should make sure that we make the greatest possible use of those already created resources until they become unserviceable, as that is the most sustainable option at least until there is data that supports new manufacture of EVs having a lesser impact than the emissions from existing vehicles (and I understand we’re years away from that). 

and availability of vehicle spare parts for a minimum period should become mandatory methinks ......  especially for the Ls400s ( mine anyway - say 45 years ) 

BUT, seriously, this I note is now the upcoming LEGAL default position ( I read somewhere recently ) with washing machines and other white goods etc that people are to date just having to throw away when summat simple goes kaput .....  whether the labour content on repairs becomes sustainable or not, well, that possibly kills off many repairs anyway ...  notwithstanding zero supply of spare parts

Malc

[Mr Vlad]

Yes thanks Barry and Linas. I think I went a bit astray slightly confusing myself (which isn't hard lol). You both right in a way as I am. Moving the thread towards cars wasn't an intention as a hydrogen internal combustion engine is more suited to the large vehicles. 

Excellent picture of the Toyota Mirai showing its tanks. If I remember correctly comparing the equivalent of mpg then 1 gallon of petrol gives the same range as 0.5kg of hydrogen in a cell car. But anyway thanks for the replies which are excellent. Thought provoking. 

[NemesisUK]

My money's on the flux capacitor as the saviour of future vehicular power..

An interesting, somewhat tongue  in cheek write-up here, that does explore the realities of the possibilities of this form of energy generation, along with nuclear power for vehicles.

https://www.sandstoneproductions.co.uk/blogtothefuture/fluxcapacitor

And then there is the thorium rector..

https://www.caradvice.com.au/132921/the-thorium-powered-car-eight-grams-one-million-miles/

China are looking to start-up thorium powered reactors

https://www.livescience.com/china-creates-new-thorium-reactor.html

 

The future is out there .....