Research shows it costs more to run an EV on long journeys

[flotsam]

On 3/1/2023 at 9:55 AM, wharfhouse said:

Yes, it's looking like hydrogen is making some big strides now for commercial vehicle use (and aircraft, ships etc.) which IMHO means that the technology and economies of scale will accelerate and any remaining technical hurdles will quickly get resolved.

With the recent announced interest in hydrogen fuel cells again from a number of large and influential car manufacturers then trickle down to personal automotive is already underway. Regards the hydrogen infrastructure, then that largely exists within the existing fuel station network (so long as commercial deals can be done of course) as large scale hydrogen production will be needed for commercial (and possibly office/domestic heating etc.) and so not a huge leap to start and create the distribution to existing and/or new fuel station sites

Let's face, with the dismal roll-out of electric charge points in this country (and many others) actually creating a hydrogen distribution network when both commercial and many automotive manufacturers are starting to back it, which will likely bring in the major fuel providers too, is a more likely proposition than the hot-potch and fragmented underfunded network of electric chargers ever been up to the task. I've been to a few motorway services areas recently in the south of the country - these are busy motorways and yet the number of charging points was only 4 in each... Yet there were some 12 - 18 fuel pumps... (even if due to their ludicrous price of fuel they were largely unused). And at busier times those 4 electric charger points were busy with people waiting - I didn't stay for more than 1/2 hour at the services but the same people were still waiting for a charger to come free when I left - and then they would also have to wait for the car to charge too!

I suspect owners of Battery powered cars will be left high and dry.

[08ISF]

I's easy to fall into the trap of thinking of a one size fits all solution. Sure electric cars that are used for short journeys and can be charged at home, fine- reduces local pollution , reasonable cost to charge , no issue with finding a charge point. But heavy  vehicles or those that require long range , electricity not the best solution and hydrogen will probably be the answer.  In short electricity replaces petrol and hydrogen  replaces diesel.

We also need to factor in how we are going to heat our homes. Banning of gas boilers when a third of the country's homes are poorly insulated and not easy to insulate is going to render the heat pumps idea  of limited value. But boilers can be converted to run on hydrogen and we have a ready made distribution system in place. Everything I read is pointing away from electricity as the global solution and pointing to Hydrogen as a sensible alternative. I can only assume the naysayers have some vested interest which makes them back electricity.

[Shahpor]

On 2/28/2023 at 11:02 AM, Shahpor said:

This site explains it well:

https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/what-is-hydrogen-storage#:~:text=Why is it Difficult to Store Hydrogen%3F,easily lost into the atmosphere.

 

"Hydrogen is difficult to store due to its low volumetric energy density. It is the lightest of and simplest of all elements, being lighter than helium, and so is easily lost into the atmosphere.

Another challenge is the very low boiling point of liquid hydrogen (−252.8°C), which means that it needs to be kept cryogenically stored at low temperatures. Storing hydrogen as a gas also has its challenges as it typically requires the use of high pressure tanks (350-700 bar or 5000-10,000 psi)."

"However, there are still hazards related to hydrogen that mean additional engineering controls need to be put in place to ensure its safe use. With a lower ignition energy than petrol or natural gas, hydrogen has a wide range of flammable concentrations in the air meaning that ventilation and leak detection are important for hydrogen systems. Special flame detector are also required as hydrogen burns with a near-invisible flame.  Material selection for hydrogen systems is also important as some metals become brittle when exposed to hydrogen."

 

So, as you can see, some difficult engineering challenges need to be overcome before hydrogen becomes commonplace in forecourts.

6 hours ago, flotsam said:

That's not true.

The Rough storage facility, Britain's largest doesn't store natural gas as super-cooled, LNG and was recently considered for storing hydrogen.

It appears that you are suggesting that the same facility that is currently used for other gases can be used to store hydrogen as is?  If so, that's an 'interesting' statement.  I presume you read that somewhere, so I don't suppose you could say where please?

From Centrica's own site (they own Rough):

https://www.centrica.com/media-centre/news/2022/centrica-and-equinor-sign-co-operation-agreement-for-east-yorkshire-hydrogen-hub/

"Centrica is advancing plans to convert its Rough offshore gas storage facility for hydrogen storage as part of its transition to a net zero future."

https://www.centrica.com/media-centre/news/2022/centrica-re-opens-rough-storage-facility/

"Centrica’s long-term aim is to turn the Rough gas field into the largest long duration energy storage facility in Europe, capable of storing both natural gas and hydrogen."

Neither of these claim that Rough is ready to store Hydrogen or that it can do so in its current state.

[Mr Vlad]

Interesting articles Shahpor. One wonders then about the current gas storage containers could actually store hydrogen. I only know what I've seen on TV and YouTube. 

On YouTube I saw a video, which I've posted, from America showing how long does it take to fill up a hydrogen car. The station looked like an ordinary fuel station except for the addition of another building. That building was described as a mini factory. It was the storage tank with a cooling system.

On TV just this week Guy Martins programme on where does our electricity come from. Up in Orkney where they are cutting edge in wave energy and they have wind turbines too. Together those two systems produce Too much electricity for the habitants so they're using the excess to make hydrogen. The storage tanks and delivery tanks looked just like what one would expect gasses to be stored in.

Oh and the chances are most of us have seen those cylinder transporters. Some of those cylinders have hydrogen and have had for decades. 

The only thing that I can see needs to be done as those companies have inferred is to attach a cooling system. 

[Shahpor]

2 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

Interesting articles Shahpor. One wonders then about the current gas storage containers could actually store hydrogen. I only know what I've seen on TV and YouTube. 

On YouTube I saw a video, which I've posted, from America showing how long does it take to fill up a hydrogen car. The station looked like an ordinary fuel station except for the addition of another building. That building was described as a mini factory. It was the storage tank with a cooling system.

On TV just this week Guy Martins programme on where does our electricity come from. Up in Orkney where they are cutting edge in wave energy and they have wind turbines too. Together those two systems produce Too much electricity for the habitants so they're using the excess to make hydrogen. The storage tanks and delivery tanks looked just like what one would expect gasses to be stored in.

Oh and the chances are most of us have seen those cylinder transporters. Some of those cylinders have hydrogen and have had for decades. 

The only thing that I can see needs to be done as those companies have inferred is to attach a cooling system. 

As stated in the original link I posted, none of these issues are insurmountable, it is just a question of cost.  I'm sure keeping something at a temperature of below -252C isn't straightforward!

The same goes for maintaining a tank at up to 10,000psi for years at a time.

So, as I am sure you can imagine, it wouldn't be a cheap endeavour to convert all those forecourts and production facilities to include either new cryogenic plants or replacement of all their store tanks and associated systems.

[08ISF]

2 hours ago, Shahpor said:

As stated in the original link I posted, none of these issues are insurmountable, it is just a question of cost.  I'm sure keeping something at a temperature of below -252C isn't straightforward!

Not easy, but they've been doing something similar with LNG for many years. The LNG we import comes in liquid form  by boat and is unloaded into storage tanks that are kept  at  a similar temperature. Mature technology.

2 hours ago, Shahpor said:

The same goes for maintaining a tank at up to 10,000psi for years at a time.

Toyota Mirai  etc store hydrogen compressed and the filling stations have been around for a while. The technology is well understood and established.

2 hours ago, Shahpor said:

So, as I am sure you can imagine, it wouldn't be a cheap endeavour to convert all those forecourts and production facilities to include either new cryogenic plants or replacement of all their store tanks and associated systems.

Agreed not cheap , but neither is laying new electrical supplies to service multiple fast chargers. At least with H2 you get to fill the vehicle up quickly.

There is a wealth of information on the internet about the difficulties associated with hydrogen, but as I've said before the problems are technical and economic and are fixable, unlike the problems of where we are going to source the materials for the batteries and how much of the country needs to be dug up to lay new cables.

It is encouraging  that there seems  to be a growing groundswell of opinion, boosted by BMW's announcement of a H2 car, that perhaps H2 is a viable solution.

[Shahpor]

6 hours ago, 08ISF said:

Not easy, but they've been doing something similar with LNG for many years. The LNG we import comes in liquid form  by boat and is unloaded into storage tanks that are kept  at  a similar temperature. Mature technology.

I don't mean to be critical Graham, but why is it that whenever I have made a simple statement in this thread - backed up by facts - someone goes on a tangent trying to get around what I said?  Bearing in mind what you are referring to in your post is my answer to another point raised trying to suggest that the Rough installation somehow disproves what I posted?

Your example is easiest for me to highlight:  Can you please tell us where you got this information from?  I did a quick Google search to see if what you say is accurate and found the following:

https://escolaeuropea.eu/news/environmental-news/from-lng-to-hydrogen-pitfalls-and-possibilities/#:~:text=Dr Pratt says when it,kept at -253°C.

Some exerts for those that don't want to read it all:

"The bad news is that while your shipboard or bunkering design might look very similar, the components, like valves, hoses and piping are not necessarily interchangeable: “It’s a smaller molecule and it can escape through joints or seals that would retain LNG,” he adds. “You’d have to look to see if the current components would be suitable – but most likely I think you’ll have changes in your equipment,” says Dr Wuersig. And, he adds, it’ll work out quite a bit more pricey."

"Dr Wuersig explains that the normal 40cm LNG insulation “just won’t work”. He says a moderately large LNG tank could lose 0.2% of its total volume a day but “store hydrogen in the same kind of tank and you would actually lose 5% of the contents every day to vaporisation”."

"Dr Pratt says when it comes to bunkering, “the biggest difference is the much colder temperature of LH2” and explains that unlike LNG, H2 is actually colder than oxygen or nitrogen. While LNG can hover at -163°C, liquid hydrogen needs to be kept at -253°C."

Now, I don't want to beleaguer others by going on and on about this, so I hope this does the trick, but for the record, all I am (and have been) saying is that it is commercially difficult to store and distribute hydrogen as a fuel source for cars.  The technology to do so can be developed or, indeed, is already available, but the cost of such a venture is what I believe is putting manufacturer off being one of the first to embrace hydrogen as a car's power source.

[Mr Vlad]

Blimey Shahpor please don't get you underpants in a twist. How can I put it. Hydrogen has been stored for years all over the place.  There are experts here there and everywhere sprouting their 2 penneth worth. Only a fraction of experts are genuine and only come out when angered by the others who are paid by competitors.

Thanks to the Internet there are OMG numerous experts spouting their knowledge. Where that knowledge comes from who knows.

The problem is there are too many 'experts' that the true explanations are not heard.

This thread is about the difference in cost to run an ICE car and an EV. 

I went to Leeds today and I drove my is250 like I stole it. Uck my tin hat I averaged 27mpg. Did it in under 25 minutes. How that equates to in kwh per mile I dont know but I bet no EV could match my journey today. 

[Shahpor]

22 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

Blimey Shahpor please don't get you underpants in a twist. How can I put it. Hydrogen has been stored for years all over the place.  There are experts here there and everywhere sprouting their 2 penneth worth. Only a fraction of experts are genuine and only come out when angered by the others who are paid by competitors.

Thanks to the Internet there are OMG numerous experts spouting their knowledge. Where that knowledge comes from who knows.

The problem is there are too many 'experts' that the true explanations are not heard.

This thread is about the difference in cost to run an ICE car and an EV. 

I went to Leeds today and I drove my is250 like I stole it. Uck my tin hat I averaged 27mpg. Did it in under 25 minutes. How that equates to in kwh per mile I dont know but I bet no EV could match my journey today. 

Oh dear, did I do a Linas? 🙂 (sorry Linas!)

To be honest, the actual topic at hand wasn't even the point of my post - it could have been about anything.  It is simply that it is difficult to have any meaningful discussions if everything that is said is just deflected constantly, which is what my last two posts were related to.

I really hope it doesn't come across as a personal attack or some such and I am more than happy to be proven wrong if that turns out to be the case.

As for mpg, a steady cruise of 70mph for a roughly 300 mile round trip netted me a whole 32mpg for my Stinger.  Still, better than the 12mpg I managed a few days earlier 🙂

[08ISF]

10 hours ago, Shahpor said:

I don't mean to be critical Graham, but why is it that whenever I have made a simple statement in this thread - backed up by facts - someone goes on a tangent trying to get around what I said?  Bearing in mind what you are referring to in your post is my answer to another point raised trying to suggest that the Rough installation somehow disproves what I posted?

Your example is easiest for me to highlight:  Can you please tell us where you got this information from?  I did a quick Google search to see if what you say is accurate and found the following:

Oops, didn't mean to start an argument. My comments were based on my own experience working as an engineer on British Gas' transmission system for 16 years.  LNG has been stored for years in liquid form at various sites around the country but the characteristics of H2 are different. However the principles are the same. Rough was used to store natural gas for  a number of years until some bright spark decided we didn't need to store any gas we could get all we needed from others(!!). As you point out Rough is not yet suitable for H2 but it is encouraging that Centrica believe in H2 and are putting their (considerable amount of) money where their mouth is. I think it unlikely that they will  try and store H2 cryogenically in the Rough field which is vast (31 billion cubic metres I understand). If they did we might have icebergs in the North Sea. More likely they will store in gas form at some pressure which is deemed to  not allow too much to leak.

There is conflicting  information on the internet about H2 and not all of it comes from trustworthy sources, some if which is conflicting. In a trawl to find out how much electricity is required to generate 1kg of H2. I had answers ranging from 1.55kWh to 50kWh! Which is correct?? Who are we to believe? Often facts are quoted out of context to prove what ever the author is trying to prove.

And this is the layman's problem. One faction is saying H2 is the way to go  and one is saying no go electricity. The volume of noise for electricity is greater than that for H2 so people will not buy H2 cars  which makes them expensive  (£60k ish) due to low volume and suppliers will not install H2 filling stations due to low demand so people will not buy H2 cars because there are few filling stations. Chicken and egg!

I happen to believe that H2 is worth pursuing to a greater extent than it is at present for reasons I've already outlined. We just need to convince the invertebrates in Westminster.  BMW , Toyota and Centrica are obviously onboard to some extent.

[wharfhouse]

1 minute ago, 08ISF said:

Oops, didn't mean to start an argument. My comments were based on my own experience working as an engineer on British Gas' transmission system for 16 years.  LNG has been stored for years in liquid form at various sites around the country but the characteristics of H2 are different. However the principles are the same. Rough was used to store natural gas for  a number of years until some bright spark decided we didn't need to store any gas we could get all we needed from others(!!). As you point out Rough is not yet suitable for H2 but it is encouraging that Centrica believe in H2 and are putting their (considerable amount of) money where their mouth is. I think it unlikely that they will  try and store H2 cryogenically in the Rough field which is vast (31 billion cubic metres I understand). If they did we might have icebergs in the North Sea. More likely they will store in gas form at some pressure which is deemed to  not allow too much to leak.

There is conflicting  information on the internet about H2 and not all of it comes from trustworthy sources, some if which is conflicting. In a trawl to find out how much electricity is required to generate 1kg of H2. I had answers ranging from 1.55kWh to 50kWh! Which is correct?? Who are we to believe? Often facts are quoted out of context to prove what ever the author is trying to prove.

And this is the layman's problem. One faction is saying H2 is the way to go  and one is saying no go electricity. The volume of noise for electricity is greater than that for H2 so people will not buy H2 cars  which makes them expensive  (£60k ish) due to low volume and suppliers will not install H2 filling stations due to low demand so people will not buy H2 cars because there are few filling stations. Chicken and egg!

I happen to believe that H2 is worth pursuing to a greater extent than it is at present for reasons I've already outlined. We just need to convince the invertebrates in Westminster.  BMW , Toyota and Centrica are obviously onboard to some extent.

This could be the start of breaking the chicken and egg situation? https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/hydrogen-back-menu-uk-fuel-infrastructure-takes-shape

[dutchie01]

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221014IPR43206/car-recharging-stations-should-be-available-every-60-km-say-meps

 

[wharfhouse]

8 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221014IPR43206/car-recharging-stations-should-be-available-every-60-km-say-meps

 

And IMHO this should all be in palce before the mandatory phasing out of ICE or as at least hybrid cars so that new car buyers have the confidence that a workable infrastructure exists. Both for EU an md UK. 

[Shahpor]

3 hours ago, 08ISF said:

Oops, didn't mean to start an argument. My comments were based on my own experience working as an engineer on British Gas' transmission system for 16 years.  LNG has been stored for years in liquid form at various sites around the country but the characteristics of H2 are different. However the principles are the same. Rough was used to store natural gas for  a number of years until some bright spark decided we didn't need to store any gas we could get all we needed from others(!!). As you point out Rough is not yet suitable for H2 but it is encouraging that Centrica believe in H2 and are putting their (considerable amount of) money where their mouth is. I think it unlikely that they will  try and store H2 cryogenically in the Rough field which is vast (31 billion cubic metres I understand). If they did we might have icebergs in the North Sea. More likely they will store in gas form at some pressure which is deemed to  not allow too much to leak.

There is conflicting  information on the internet about H2 and not all of it comes from trustworthy sources, some if which is conflicting. In a trawl to find out how much electricity is required to generate 1kg of H2. I had answers ranging from 1.55kWh to 50kWh! Which is correct?? Who are we to believe? Often facts are quoted out of context to prove what ever the author is trying to prove.

And this is the layman's problem. One faction is saying H2 is the way to go  and one is saying no go electricity. The volume of noise for electricity is greater than that for H2 so people will not buy H2 cars  which makes them expensive  (£60k ish) due to low volume and suppliers will not install H2 filling stations due to low demand so people will not buy H2 cars because there are few filling stations. Chicken and egg!

I happen to believe that H2 is worth pursuing to a greater extent than it is at present for reasons I've already outlined. We just need to convince the invertebrates in Westminster.  BMW , Toyota and Centrica are obviously onboard to some extent.

I actually didn't want my post to sounds argumentative as that wasn't my intention at all, but from Vlad's reaction, I may have failed 🙂

Thanks Graham, that makes perfect sense.  I suppose when considering others' opinions on here the one thing that doesn't occur is that they may actual work in the field being discussed!  The notion of 'keyboard warriors' is strong on Internet forums.

Having said that, reading back on our respective comments, it does look like are in agreement on most aspects, it is just the costs implications where we differ slightly, which could very well be me being too cynical 🙂

Appreciate the info on Rough as well - Interesting stuff.

[Linas.P]

On 3/5/2023 at 9:30 AM, 08ISF said:

Often facts are quoted out of context to prove what ever the author is trying to prove.

Not often - always! That is why I said on many BEV discussion that it is extremely hard to find unbiased and reliable source. I would almost say - don't listen to what they say, loot at what they do!

I doubt Toyota would have invested as much in Hydrogen if it would be wrong solution, or BMW would have agreed to make Zupra just to peek at the technology. My guess as to why both now announcing more BEVs is that they cashing in on the hype, but I still believe long term they are planning to offer Hydrogen vehicle.

I personally think that key issue with Hydrogen at the moment is that it is unsustainable, kind of defeats whole purpose of replacing ICEV... but the same can be said about BEV... so what! Just as reminder - hydrogen is only made in two ways 1. gas reforming during oil extraction 2. is electrolysis.

It is clear why 1 not great - to get hydrogen we need to extract oil, and the whole point of transition is to stop it, so that makes no sense. The option 2 really depends on where our electricity is coming from, I think what we can all agree on is that it takes more energy to produce 1kg of H2 than can be made by using it and that is why it is simply better to charge the BEV directly with electricity, than use it to make H2... that is obviously assuming you have where to charge BEV and have time to wait. 

So it is kind of obvious that future for Hydrogen is electrolysis, but for that to happen we need to find the way to produce a lot of clean electricity. My solution for now would be nuclear (forget renewables - they all suck!), but really fusion should be our goal and then suddenly it no longer matter whenever it is 1.5KWh or 50KWh is required. Again just as reminder - single fusion reactor can make nearly limitless amount of energy, the only thing that matters is distribution, so assumption is that most countries will want to have at least one of them, but apart of that even single reactor can power the world. For now let's not forget that we waste 40% of ALL nuclear electricity produced and I think we can put it to better use. Why it isn't done? Because electricity from NPP is extremely cheap ~ 1.5p KWh, so NPP operators just doesn't care if it goes to waste (it is less than ~£7200 per day). As you can imagine it would take very long time (or more specifically 76 years) to pay back say £200m experimental hydrogen generation/hydrogen turbine reactor to save £7200 per day. So from our perspective it seems that even at absurd 50KWh/Kg consumption each reactor could produce 10 tons of H2 each night... it seems like at current cost of £12/kg this should be profitable enough for somebody to try, but it seems big business consider it too risk to put much effort into it... as realistically there is no demand (at least for automotive use) and as always we are in chicken and egg situation. Better solution would be to have separate hydrogen burning reactor to produce electricity from hydrogen during the day, but as always it is more complicated even than that.

In short - just wasted electricity for nuclear can produce 60 million tons of H2 a year, but nobody cares, because there is no demand for 60 million tons of H2 a year, yet it would require a lot of investment. For that reason I have always said - long term infrastructure project should be long term government policy, business will never stick their money and risk it. The problem is that out government as always are barely capable of scratching their balls and v*s, energy strategy is way above their head ( I am kind of making the picture of monkey in the zoo in my head when thinking about intelligence of our government in this particular subject)🙈🙉. 

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Linas.P said:

single fusion reactor can make nearly limitless amount of energy, the only thing that matters is distribution

Until 18 months ago I worked for UKAEA for a year on the STEP prototype fusion reactor, this prototype isn’t scheduled to run until 2040 (it may have changed now) so a production reactor is way off unless the private sector, USA etc come up with something quicker, I certainly don’t expect to be enjoying fusion generated electricity in my lifetime. 

[Mr Vlad]

You know what Antony I think you're right about not enjoying fusion generated electricity, in as you put, my lifetime. 

Again mentioning the TV programme Guy Martin did. The last episode did indeed talk about fusion generation. Where he went, somewhere in the south, was to a huge place where they have built a fusion reactor. Took years to build I believe. Anyway they gave him the honour to 'switch' the gizmo on. It worked for a matter of less than a second as it was a test session. It was however a success as it showed that it can happen but will take years to make 'proper' use of it.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

You know what Antony I think you're right about not enjoying fusion generated electricity, in as you put, my lifetime. 

Again mentioning the TV programme Guy Martin did. The last episode did indeed talk about fusion generation. Where he went, somewhere in the south, was to a huge place where they have built a fusion reactor. Took years to build I believe. Anyway they gave him the honour to 'switch' the gizmo on. It worked for a matter of less than a second as it was a test session. It was however a success as it showed that it can happen but will take years to make 'proper' use of it.

Yes it can be done, it has been done but like you say only for a fraction of a second, the other problem  is that at the moment it generates less electricity than it uses in that split second which is obviously a bit of a problem!! Didn’t see the programme unfortunately. ITER in France is another multi nation collaboration on Fusion which is way over budget which, if successful, will only prove the science, it will not produce any electricity for the grid, again this means way into the future for everyday use. On a positive the resources being put into it are huge so maybe it can be accelerated but the cynic in me sometimes wonders if it’s always going to be 30 years away and something else could well supersede it

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Derant said:

Until 18 months ago I worked for UKAEA for a year on the STEP prototype fusion reactor, this prototype isn’t scheduled to run until 2040 (it may have changed now) so a production reactor is way off unless the private sector, USA etc come up with something quicker, I certainly don’t expect to be enjoying fusion generated electricity in my lifetime. 

Yes I am aware of the timelines, but do you think that with correct priorities this can be done quicker? And by correct priority, assuming there is this "massive climate emergency" is true, I mean - putting ALL possible means... I have compared it with nuclear weapons programme in WW2 or Moon Landing before, do you think if we put as much money and attention it would still take until 2040s? Sure that is "just 17 years", but we need to consider various international and national programmes were running for at least 10 years, Apollo mission only took 8 years from the start to first moon landing with 60s technology, Manhattan project took only 3 years from the start until the bombs were dropped with 40s technology, so why does Fusion reactors is taking 30 years with 21st century technology? 

We are trying to tackle cars which are few % of pollution, yet not much is done about energy production which could see pollution reduction of 60%? Doesn't that look a little bit suspicious? What if BEV push is not about environment? 

So perhaps we starting it wrong way around - let's forget about the cars for the time being, let's put the priorities right first, let's focus on clean energy first and this actually solves all the other issues. That would enable carbon capture, it would enable synthetic fuels, it would enable hydrogen even BEVs would go from 30% more efficient to potentially 60-70% more efficient than ICEV... and then perhaps it would make sense to transition. 

And if we starting wrong way around - then WHY? Now if you say with best scientists in the world and with unlimited amount of money this still cannot be done before 2040s... okey I guess we can wait 17 years, but is it really true? Is it really the case that we really have all hands on fusion? Doesn't look to me like we do... and if we don't then WHY?  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Yes I am aware of the timelines, but do you think that with correct priorities this can be done quicker? And by correct priority, assuming there is this "massive climate emergency" is true, I mean - putting ALL possible means... I have compared it with nuclear weapons programme in WW2 or Moon Landing before, do you think if we put as much money and attention it would still take until 2040s? Sure that is "just 17 years", but we need to consider various international and national programmes were running for at least 10 years, Apollo mission only took 8 years from the start to first moon landing with 60s technology, Manhattan project took only 3 years from the start until the bombs were dropped with 40s technology, so why does Fusion reactors is taking 30 years with 21st century technology? 

We are trying to tackle cars which are few % of pollution, yet not much is done about energy production which could see pollution reduction of 60%? Doesn't that look a little bit suspicious? What if BEV push is not about environment? 

So perhaps we starting it wrong way around - let's forget about the cars for the time being, let's put the priorities right first, let's focus on clean energy first and this actually solves all the other issues. That would enable carbon capture, it would enable synthetic fuels, it would enable hydrogen even BEVs would go from 30% more efficient to potentially 60-70% more efficient than ICEV... and then perhaps it would make sense to transition. 

And if we starting wrong way around - then WHY? Now if you say with best scientists in the world and with unlimited amount of money this still cannot be done before 2040s... okey I guess we can wait 17 years, but is it really true? Is it really the case that we really have all hands on fusion? Doesn't look to me like we do... and if we don't then WHY?  

I am not saying it cannot be done quicker, indeed it may come from one of the many private companies who are doing there own programmes (UKAEA do work and collaborate with many private companies) but there are obviously many scientific challenges which are beyond my understanding. The biggest being getting a lot more electricity out than you are putting in. When I worked there it did seem to be fully backed by the government. I take your point about all the programmes that have been achieved in the past but against that I will raise you Channel Tunnel, HS2 and just about any British government major project of recent times, both Labour or Conservative. I found it quite fascinating during the short time I worked there but at the end of the day fusion has always been 30 years away for a good 50 years now.

if you haven’t already, look at UKAEA, STEP & ITER there are a number of videos and other resources which are really good

[Linas.P]

4 minutes ago, Derant said:

I am not saying it cannot be done quicker, indeed it may come from one of the many private companies who are doing there own programmes ...

I think that is the key issue I have here - imagine this attitude in WW2... Yeah nazis may end-us if they get nukes first, but maybe some "private company" can come-up with some novel weapon which may help us... maybe Lockheed or General Dynamics or somebody would privately fund the research and make atom bomb faster than government... That would be absurd!

I guess that goes to show that it is nowhere near the right priority. Likewise I agree, it seems like it was 30 years away for last 50 years - it isn't even new concept, as well we know it works (that is how all stars work in the galaxy). And I agree that anything in terms of long term infrastructure project our government touches turns into pile of shaite. But that is why I said - if this is such a major global issue, then perhaps it should be international super-governmental organisation working on it, not some private companies... 

But I guess what I am trying to say we can't treat climate change as both LOW priority and at the same time HIGH priority. When it comes to the cars, for some reason we have this ridiculous ban coming in 2030s despite clear shortcomings of BEV and our electrical infrastructure... so it seem the "climate catastrophe" is very HIGH priority when it comes to taking our cars, our rights and our freedoms away. Yet when it comes to solution which could basically resolve it by alone, and I kind of mean it, even thought energy production is like 60% of pollution, the abundant clear energy allows us to do thinks like carbon capture, make carbon neutral steel, concrete, plastics, synthetic fuels... burn coal is we wanted to... It all basically does not matter, because we would have abundant source of clean energy and it no longer has any cost to do whatever we like, it can not only stop climate change it can revert it. It is "civilization level achievement", and we saying "maybe some private company get us there"?! So when it comes to fusion - it seems suddenly it is LOW priority.

Now I guess we can argue climate change is LOW priority, we need to be mindful of it but it isn't the key thing... but then why we go so far to restrict ourselves when it comes to private transportation? Or we can say it is HIGH priority, but then why don't we do more about it, why we focusing on few % from private transportation and leaving like 90%+ of the issue on the size. 

I don't wan t to go into conspiracy theories, but I just can't explain why there is such focus on such minor issue and almost complete ignorance towards possibly large achievements which could help us to solve the issue? Just seems suspicious... 

[flotsam]

On 3/3/2023 at 10:07 PM, Shahpor said:

It appears that you are suggesting that the same facility that is currently used for other gases can be used to store hydrogen as is?  If so, that's an 'interesting' statement.  I presume you read that somewhere, so I don't suppose you could say where please?

From Centrica's own site (they own Rough):

https://www.centrica.com/media-centre/news/2022/centrica-and-equinor-sign-co-operation-agreement-for-east-yorkshire-hydrogen-hub/

"Centrica is advancing plans to convert its Rough offshore gas storage facility for hydrogen storage as part of its transition to a net zero future."

https://www.centrica.com/media-centre/news/2022/centrica-re-opens-rough-storage-facility/

"Centrica’s long-term aim is to turn the Rough gas field into the largest long duration energy storage facility in Europe, capable of storing both natural gas and hydrogen."

Neither of these claim that Rough is ready to store Hydrogen or that it can do so in its current state.

Huh?

Where did I say Rough could be used "as is"? I stated it was being considered for hydrogen which is all that your own links also state. The point I was making was that natural gas is stored there without being super-cooled.

I mean, do you enter a bar and five minutes later people start crashing through the windows because you've started a brawl?

The Rough facility is just an undersea cavern. There is nothing they can do to change it that would make it more suitable for hydrogen. I'm not an expert but I'm guessing that at most only the faciiities used in pumping the hydrogen into Rough would have to be altered.

The bottom line is that if everyone adopted battery-powered cars the grid would undergo a melt-down.

Hydrogen CAN and WILL be stored and transported at a third of the cost of transporting electricity over the grid. The gas-grid can be modified to transport hydrogen, presumably in un-compressed (or not very) and un-cooled form.

[Shahpor]

On 2/28/2023 at 9:35 AM, flotsam said:

Articles are claiming hydrogen is difficult to transport and store. HOW?

 

On 2/28/2023 at 11:02 AM, Shahpor said:

This site explains it well:

https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/what-is-hydrogen-storage#:~:text=Why is it Difficult to Store Hydrogen%3F,easily lost into the atmosphere.

 

"Hydrogen is difficult to store due to its low volumetric energy density. It is the lightest of and simplest of all elements, being lighter than helium, and so is easily lost into the atmosphere.

Another challenge is the very low boiling point of liquid hydrogen (−252.8°C), which means that it needs to be kept cryogenically stored at low temperatures. Storing hydrogen as a gas also has its challenges as it typically requires the use of high pressure tanks (350-700 bar or 5000-10,000 psi)."

"However, there are still hazards related to hydrogen that mean additional engineering controls need to be put in place to ensure its safe use. With a lower ignition energy than petrol or natural gas, hydrogen has a wide range of flammable concentrations in the air meaning that ventilation and leak detection are important for hydrogen systems. Special flame detector are also required as hydrogen burns with a near-invisible flame.  Material selection for hydrogen systems is also important as some metals become brittle when exposed to hydrogen."

 

So, as you can see, some difficult engineering challenges need to be overcome before hydrogen becomes commonplace in forecourts.

 

On 3/3/2023 at 3:50 PM, flotsam said:

That's not true.

The Rough storage facility, Britain's largest doesn't store natural gas as super-cooled, LNG and was recently considered for storing hydrogen.

 

49 minutes ago, flotsam said:

Huh?

Where did I say Rough could be used "as is"? I stated it was being considered for hydrogen which is all that your own links also state. The point I was making was that natural gas is stored there without being super-cooled.

I mean, do you enter a bar and five minutes later people start crashing through the windows because you've started a brawl?

The Rough facility is just an undersea cavern. There is nothing they can do to change it that would make it more suitable for hydrogen. I'm not an expert but I'm guessing that at most only the faciiities used in pumping the hydrogen into Rough would have to be altered.

The bottom line is that if everyone adopted battery-powered cars the grid would undergo a melt-down.

Hydrogen CAN and WILL be stored and transported at a third of the cost of transporting electricity over the grid. The gas-grid can be modified to transport hydrogen, presumably in un-compressed (or not very) and un-cooled form.

Apologies if I got the wrong impression, but I am just going by what was quoted above.

You said you didn't know how storing Hydrogen was difficult, I posted a site that claimed to explain why, you said that wasn't true and then brought up Rough in the same post.  Perhaps you didn't mean 'as is', so a bad choice of words on my part, but the inference is that it isn't difficult to store hydrogen because Rough proves it?  Again, this is my interpretation, but I hope it makes sense at least.

As for entering and bar and staring a brawl, I kid you not, I did find that funny as I was thinking the same thing about you 🙂  You have very strong views and aren't afraid to share them...

Having said that, I do hope you are right as I would happily buy a hydrogen powered car to replace my Stinger when the time comes.

 

[Mr Vlad]

Page 3 of this thread I posted a video. Watch it again. In the first couple minutes the guy is videoing what he describes as An Electro Hydrolizer. Basically the gizmo that makes hydrogen on demand. No need for storage of hydrogen. 

Looks like fuel prices have been falling slowly but the price of electricity not. So as the title of my thread its starting to look like it's costing more to run an EV on shortish journeys. 

And after reading/watching some articles that home chargers run on a special rate night rate. But the actual time in hours of the reduced rate is only 4 hours. Ooooop because of the cheaper rate the rest of the 20 hours the cost of the electricity has gone up ! Those with home chargers and a night time special rate please confirm or correct me please. 

[Shahpor]

3 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

And after reading/watching some articles that home chargers run on a special rate night rate. But the actual time in hours of the reduced rate is only 4 hours. Ooooop because of the cheaper rate the rest of the 20 hours the cost of the electricity has gone up ! Those with home chargers and a night time special rate please confirm or correct me please. 

My EV is being charged as I type this on the cheaper rate.

We are on the Octopus Go tariff, which means 12p per kWh between 0:30 - 4:30 every night, with the rate being 43p per kWh at all other times.

It does make it very cheap the 'fill' the car up as long as you are happy to charge it at these times.