What's the problem with electric vehicles

[Steven Lockey]

2 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

It has risen steadily since 90s, so you can count as disagreement... even if it is splitting hairs... I mean we already agree you have arbitrary time measurement for that... so not sure what else is there to discuss.

That's is true... the problem is that majority of people can't charge at home and there is nothing that government does to change this situation, the 2030 dates is quickly approaching and we still have massive housing project popping-up not only without charging, but even without parking. And obviously nothing is done to retrofit the existing homes with chargers either. It is not like I disagreeing here - just pointing out the obvious. And the charging is still an issue if you ever go above the range of BEVs, which isn't really that hard to do.

Again you talking theory here... "So long as they keep the cells charging at the correct level" basically means charging at 7-22Kw... anything faster than that and it requires cooling and all the fancy "battery management" which was already discussed. You can repeat the same sentence another 100 times, but it won't make you more correct (or rather more wrong). I have no issue with your theories, it is just a fact that it does not happen in practice.

Simply said in practice batteries can charge at much lower rate than you would like to think, yes they are managed at the cell level and that is why all the overprovisioning. Basically, no battery can fast charge at the cell level at the moment (depending where we put arbitrary "fast charging" line, according to government even 7Kw is "fast") and any charging at 100, 150, 250Kw are achieved by managing battery pack at cell level. And indeed all advertised charge levels are just up-to (you said that as well basically) and they do hurt batteries. Yes they are designed in such way that even if you always charge them at fast charger, they most likely going to meet or exceed their warranted capacity. But that is not because they don't degrade, but because there is built in spare cells to manage this and still have enough warranted capacity.

I don't know if you don't understand it, don't want to understand it or don't want to admit it... The reason there is no perceptible degradation at first is because 75Kwh battery isn't 75Kwh battery, it is most likely starting as 90Kwh or 100Kwh battery and all degradation is absorbed/hidden. You kind of said that in your last sentence, but you still maintain that you right... point is - when computer limits the charging speed is because charging at any faster rate would cause damage beyond the the level of degradation allowed.

I think it is you who splitting hair now. Dendrites are what and where they attach to? Still lithium structure, still material transfer between anode and cathode. I am sure you can explain chemistry of all this in more complex way, but that just doesn't matter. End result is same... overtime battery loses capacity and degrades. 

You calling me out where you disagree with me, whenever I am wrong it remains to be seen. 

Nothing but you keep raising it like its some big gotcha.... its not....

 

Quote

That's is true... the problem is that majority of people can't charge at home and there is nothing that government does to change this situation, the 2030 dates is quickly approaching and we still have massive housing project popping-up not only without charging, but even without parking. And obviously nothing is done to retrofit the existing homes with chargers either. It is not like I disagreeing here - just pointing out the obvious. And the charging is still an issue if you ever go above the range of BEVs, which isn't really that hard to do.

100% agree here. The infrastructure needs a lot of work, not to mention bolstering the electrical grid. I said several times that EVs are really only good at the moment if you can charge at home. 

 

Quote

Again you talking theory here... "So long as they keep the cells charging at the correct level" basically means charging at 7-22Kw... anything faster than that and it requires cooling and all the fancy "battery management" which was already discussed. You can repeat the same sentence another 100 times, but it won't make you more correct (or rather more wrong). I have no issue with your theories, it is just a fact that it does not happen in practice.

You said that charging the Battery faster causes it to degrade. I said that isn't true so long as you keep it below the threshold. 
The Battery management is NOTHING to do with this. All the Battery management does is ensure the Battery stays at ideal conditions because under non-ideal conditions that threshold is lowered.
The Battery threshold is an intrinsic part of the cell design 
It's not a theory, this is what the professional who actually work on batteries say happens in real life. Your lack of understanding doesn't make it any more or less true. 

The only time fast charging causes noticeable degradation of the Battery is if its done repeatedly in high ambient temperatures, basically cos the Battery management can't deal with the heat properly, that is from real-world studies of EVs on the road currently. 
Unless your ambient temperature is above 35' C, fast charging will be below the Battery threshold. Any difference otherwise is so small as to be completely unnoticable.

 

Quote

Basically, no battery can fast charge at the cell level at the moment (depending where we put arbitrary "fast charging" line, according to government even 7Kw is "fast") and any charging at 100, 150, 250Kw are achieved by managing battery pack at cell level.

Well yes... this is because the term fast charging literally only applies at the Battery level. So your statement is completely nonsensical. 
 

Quote

Yes they are designed in such way that even if you always charge them at fast charger, they most likely going to meet or exceed their warranted capacity. But that is not because they don't degrade, but because there is built in spare cells to manage this and still have enough warranted capacity.

Again false. The EV will limit charge to their warranted capacity. There is also spare capacity but that is seperate. If you start charging them over their threshold, you also get other consequences not just increased degradation, like increased fire risk. 

 

Quote

I don't know if you don't understand it, don't want to understand it or don't want to admit it... The reason there is no perceptible degradation at first is because 75Kwh battery isn't 75Kwh battery, it is most likely starting as 90Kwh or 100Kwh battery and all degradation is absorbed/hidden. You kind of said that in your last sentence, but you still maintain that you right... point is - when computer limits the charging speed is because charging at any faster rate would cause damage beyond the the level of degradation allowed.

Again, incorrect. I've never mentioned the spare capacity because its irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not talking about the perceived degradation, I'm talking about ACTUAL Battery degradation. And real-world studies have shown that batteries in cars that are constantly fast charged suffered no noticeable degradation over trickle/slow charged EVs. 

 

Quote

I think it is you who splitting hair now. Dendrites are what and where they attach to? Still lithium structure, still material transfer between anode and cathode. I am sure you can explain chemistry of all this in more complex way, but that just doesn't matter. End result is same... overtime battery loses capacity and degrades. 

It's a different thing, but fine, if you don't want to try and understand, that is up to you. 

 

Quote

You calling me out where you disagree with me, whenever I am wrong it remains to be seen. 

I'm not calling you out cos I disagree with you, I'm calling you out because what you are saying has been proven false by studies and experiments.
And btw, that is the same thing flat earthers and intelligent design proponents say. You've already been proven wrong, but you've decided that you
know it all already so don't need to listen when people are telling you things or even look it up yourself from reputable sources. (and I don't mean car mags trying to get clicks online, I mean actual research sources)

[Steven Lockey]

On 2/12/2023 at 10:51 PM, Linas.P said:

Completely agree - net zero is basically anti-human policy. There was good video I have posted to other thread which nicely puts everything in right perspective. 

Human life means creation of pollution, it can be reduced, but it won't be eliminated and most importantly cars have nothing to do with reducing the pollution, they are way too minor source to make any difference. The focus should be on developing world, because that is where majority of people are and where poor people live... and poor people do not care about climate.

What net zero policy is... is basically dehumanizing policy... Government can't quite stand-up to their desire to reduce the numbers of "undesirables", so at very least they are trying to take away everything they can, cars, freedoms, homes and just make it look like a massive ant nest.

 

You mean the areas that will be most affected by global warming since they can't afford to do things the richer countries can like coastal defences, irrigation works e.t.c.
Also which regions do you think will be hit first by interruptions to food supply.... yep.... 

Just passenger cars ALONE emit 41% of all transport carbon. 
Even forgetting that... have you been to London or even worse some US and Chinese cities on a smoggy day? Cars are a massive part of that. 

Other than your dodgy conspiracy theory, do you have anything to backup your claims?

[toffee_pie]

3 hours ago, Mincey said:

The move to EVs is also affecting jobs: Ford to cut one in five jobs in the UK - BBC News

Hardly surprising, cars of the future are more akin to a laptop than a traditional combustion engine car with no complicated precision mechanical engineering involved. They will be easier to make the same way a laptop or smartphones are upgraded with firmware or some new logic board or such.

It's not just ford, all the other manufacturers will lay off scores of workers over the next few years. 

It's all about control, EVs just another weapon in the dystopian climate change future taking shape, nefarious deeds going on for years. 

Trust the science are brainwashing people to accept all this information as the new normal so that when draconian measures like 15 minute commutes appear that too is accepted as normal. It's no different than what that guy with a moustache done, he used posters - now we have news agencies and endless social media spread across the world which is a different beast entirely, especially when it comes from the government itself 

[Mr Vlad]

2 hours ago, Steven Lockey said:

Just passenger cars ALONE emit 41% of all transport carbon. 
Even forgetting that... have you been to London or even worse some US and Chinese cities on a smoggy day? Cars are a massive part of that. 

Where the hell did you get that False percentage number from? Its utter false fake wrong. Transport only chucks out a single figure like 5% of carbon into the air. Buildings 3-4x as much.

However maybe I've misread that figure. Do you mean that within the Transport sector that cars emit 41% of the carbon?

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

Where the hell did you get that False percentage number from? Its utter false fake wrong. Transport only chucks out a single figure like 5% of carbon into the air. Buildings 3-4x as much.

However maybe I've misread that figure. Do you mean that within the Transport sector that cars emit 41% of the carbon?

He is full of crap, misinformed and clearly confused between the stats - 41% claimed is flawed "kerbside" emissions test. These are 2 separate measurements - one is global pollution usually converted into CO2 to simplify stats and that is what matters for global warming... and that is clearly only 10-11% for transportation as a whole (road transportation is 5%, so that is probably the measure you mentioning), and private vehicles are only 2.4%, the rest is planes, ships, trucks, public transport etc. So maybe 41% could be private cars within the rest of road transport. 

There is different measure which has nothing to do with global warming is local/city air quality measures... for that they use so called "kerbside" methodology, which is extremely flawed, easily manipulated. Here is how test is set-up - they put measurement device 1m away from road at 1m height. Now this is all good so far. Seems like quite reasonable set-up representing the emissions from perspective of maybe pedestrian walking on the side of the road, they often like to take example of child being pushed in the pram, because that will be exactly the air they breathing in. This is why I am always amazed that people are so stupid and they do their runs on the side of the road... and cycle on the road... and have their cars set to fresh air (instead of recirculation) when driving in the city. Where this methodology falls apart is that measurements are only correct for that spot, it is not a measurement for overall air quality in the city. Stick the probe next to the exhaust for the gas boiler and you measurement will say that 90% of pollution in the city is from private homes, heating etc. It seems what the agencies conducting these tests are doing is trying to get most flawed results possible. For example I looked at the extensive test in Germany and what they did... they put the probe 20 metres before the traffic lights in busy intersection... they even say in the video "this is pollution hotspot"... Yes absolutely it is because all the cars come to the stop and idle before the intersection, if they for example put the same probe 20 metres after intersection, then measurements would be totally different, or if they put it next to free flowing motorway it would be way lower. Or if they fitted the probe say 25 metres away from the road in somebodies garden, the results will show a lot more pollution from household itself and a lot less from the cars. Besides they don't even know how much exactly private cars are contributing compared to the busses or HGVs, what they do they simply count the number of vehicles passing and attribute it to the number, but that is clearly flawed because bus emits more than a car and loaded HGV more than a bus... and sure in some other tests they specify the weighting e.g HGV is 4x, Bus is 3x, Car is 1x... but that is still way oversimplified and easily manipulated. And this is where they get the ridiculous numbers which The Guardian likes to put on the front page "70% of emissions in London comes from road traffic and 41% of that is from private cars!!!!". 

So two completely separate measurements which should be used for completely different purposes. The global emissions are important for global warming and this is where BEVs are basically useless and cars are minor issue - basically 2.4% of pollution, which BEVs reduces by about 30%, net improvement of 0.8% in best of circumstances. The second one ("kerbside emissions") which is in theory tool for city planning, logic says - don't put playground next to major intersection... I could figure that out without any measurements, but there is method to madness I guess. In theory it is nothing wrong with the test. For example improved intersection layout could be tested and justified by saying that when you put roundabout or flyover the pollution dropped by 50% in local area. However, this test is susceptible to manipulation and misunderstanding and in last decade was consistently used in anti-car propaganda as the way to "scientifically" claim cars are the issue and fool people who don't know better. Obviously BEVs looks like silver bullet if we just consider this test because they have no tailpipe emissions, but that is because people don't understand the set-up of the test and what it measures. That is like that saying goes - "when the only tool you have is hammer, then all the issues looks like nails"... and that is exactly the case here - if ones is using single flawed test which only measures tailpipe emissions, then the only solution is to eliminate tailpipe emissions. 

4 hours ago, Steven Lockey said:

Even forgetting that... have you been to London or even worse some US and Chinese cities on a smoggy day? Cars are a massive part of that. 

Other than your dodgy conspiracy theory, do you have anything to backup your claims?

Yes I have been in US, I live in London and I have been in China and I have never seen smog in my life... this thing does not exist since 80s. The dirtiest cities I have been in was Rio and Sao Paulo, Cairo is quite bad as well, and even there I have not seen any smog. Sure there are cloudy days in London, there are foggy days in London, but "smog" induced by sulphur and lead mixed-up with humidity didn't exist at least since leaded fuel was removed from sale. Sure near the major roads it stinks, but I would say major contributor are HGVs which are pumping visible smoke and which are diesel, not private cars and certainly not petrol. 

Likewise - please share your sources, I am interested!

[Mr Vlad]

Yeah you raised a point that triggered something in my useless brain. Smog. I remember smog from decades ago but nothing g since the abolition of lead in petrol. Now that was a positive move even if it did cost £200 to do the valves on an Austin 1100. That was one helluva car. 4 of us learned how to drive in that car. Hee hee. I remember the guy bringing it to our house so my dad could see it. My eldest brother asked 3 mechanic mates to come inspect it. Oh they were Hells Angels too. That guy sha# himself who was selling it lol. 

Isn't weird how something triggers a memory.

[toffee_pie]

Another thing about where this is heading and I picked up on this years ago also - planned obsolescence. It's huge for automotive companies as they have control of the entire development process like never before, control of IP, supply chain, control of releasing new products. The days when people got cheap parts and fixed things at home are finished. That is why Govs have had dialogue with auto manufacturers probably a decade ago about this bs, you cannot ask someone who's been making combustion engine cars since the 1800s reliably and successful to stop making them just like that. There's stuff going on in the background that of course is kept from our eyes, auto manufacturers have probably done NDA agreements as such. 

The only winners from electric cars are

1. Auto manufacturers

2. Banks

3. Governments 

Never trust a politician

[toffee_pie]

7 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

Where the hell did you get that False percentage number from? Its utter false fake wrong. Transport only chucks out a single figure like 5% of carbon into the air. Buildings 3-4x as much.

However maybe I've misread that figure. Do you mean that within the Transport sector that cars emit 41% of the carbon?

Nonsense figure, that is trust the science again 

[toffee_pie]

In reality, away from skulduggery figures it's more like this. The UK as I previously said accounts for less than 1 percent of global greenhouse gases from its automotive cars, with engines you know.

https://imgur.com/QtfATv0

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Mr Vlad said:

Yeah you raised a point that triggered something in my useless brain. Smog. I remember smog from decades ago but nothing g since the abolition of lead in petrol. Now that was a positive move even if it did cost £200 to do the valves on an Austin 1100. That was one helluva car. 4 of us learned how to drive in that car. Hee hee. I remember the guy bringing it to our house so my dad could see it. My eldest brother asked 3 mechanic mates to come inspect it. Oh they were Hells Angels too. That guy sha# himself who was selling it lol. 

Isn't weird how something triggers a memory.

I travelled across most of the world, if there is one thing I done then travel would be that... been in every single country in Europe, been on all continents and I have never seen SMOG in my life. I only know how it looks from historic footage of like 70's US and then maybe 90's China. But last time there was real smog problem in Europe I was either too young or not even born. 

I remember when I was a kid they used to spray roads with water in summer, but that was particulate matter issue, not smog. I guess this goes to the same visuals as "child in the pram and smoke being blown from the street in the child's face"... except "it is not smoke, just water vapour on cold foggy morning... and picture is so blurry that one can't even tell if it is coming away from the street or towards the street". Or that picture of pollution raising from the funnels... except they are not funnels, but instead nuclear power station cooling towers... 

Honestly, I think people nowadays don't know what the smog looks like and with our vegetable vegan pedocylists media they think every time there is fog in the air it must be smog. And by the way as I said - I don't know either as I have never seen smog in my life except of old videos, at least I know what ISN'T a smog. 

[toffee_pie]

Getty images are working wonders now, it's not unlike that WW II dictator. I expect riots next year when these 15 minute climate lockdown measures are taking place. Everyone's council tax going up yet all we are paying for is controlling measures taking foothold it seems of which there is no say from anyone or no referendums.

[toffee_pie]

There's hope yet. I love the way they're not taking comments, always a sign.

Has the electric car bubble BURST? Drivers are going back to petrol https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-11722057/Has-electric-car-bubble-BURST-drivers-returning-buying-petrol-vehicles.html?ito=native_share_article-top

[Steven Lockey]

10 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

Where the hell did you get that False percentage number from? Its utter false fake wrong. Transport only chucks out a single figure like 5% of carbon into the air. Buildings 3-4x as much.

However maybe I've misread that figure. Do you mean that within the Transport sector that cars emit 41% of the carbon?

Yes exactly. 41% of carbon pollution caused by transportation comes from cars.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1185535/transport-carbon-dioxide-emissions-breakdown/

Transport overall is around 27%, so we are talking just over 10% total emissions are from cars alone.
https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/carbon-pollution-transportation#:~:text=Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,contributor of U.S. GHG emissions.

And even if that doesn't float your boat, I kinda like the idea of cars not emitting toxic fumes right next to where I walk 😉
 

[flotsam]

Lexus have opted to ditch hydrogen. So once again we're being given VHS rather than Betamax or Video2000.

As I understand it, maintenance on a hydrogen fuel cell consists of only swapping a few filters, whereas a Battery just loses the ability to retain charge which is why a Tesla owner blew up his car after receiving a €30,000 bill to have it replaced.

The Mercedes EQS can charge from 10% to 100% in half an hour. But that still means long queues.

[Las Palmas]

8 hours ago, Steven Lockey said:

And even if that doesn't float your boat, I kinda like the idea of cars not emitting toxic fumes right next to where I walk 😉
 

I am sure that you are not the only one.

But the places where material for batteries are taken out of the earth and where batteries are made and where sooner or later all the not reusable parts of batteries are stored will pollute a lot more than many think and pollution is not something that you can keep where you pollute. It spread to even the place where you live.

 

[Mr Vlad]

Interesting articles Steven. Blimey global transportation chucks out billions of tons of CO2. That's only a fraction what heavy industry produces. (might have got the billions bit wrong but ruddy lots). 

Isn't it funny within that article it stated China produces less CO2 than expected and less than Canada and the US. 

To me those kind of articles are blinkered and oh so misleading. No wonder things are going to the dogs.

[Las Palmas]

5 hours ago, flotsam said:

Lexus have opted to ditch hydrogen. So once again we're being given VHS rather than Betamax or Video2000.

As I understand it, maintenance on a hydrogen fuel cell consists of only swapping a few filters, whereas a battery just loses the ability to retain charge which is why a Tesla owner blew up his car after receiving a €30,000 bill to have it replaced.

The Mercedes EQS can charge from 10% to 100% in half an hour. But that still means long queues.

Nobody know exactly what is going on in the closed chambers in Toyota building. The former pro hydrogen is now CEO and no matter who replaced him in his former job, the CEO might have the final say.

Had a Betamax camera, real great thing, better than any VHS camera at the time. Now the top smartphones have higher resolution (not as good lenses) and can take 4K movies in reaonable quality, so no reason to cry over the Philips 1 vs. Sony 0. Money rules!

Some politicians are getting better advice now as I have read that it is said that only gasoline and diesel engines will be non grata and quite a few governments are now investing in hydrogen start-ups.

Many here on the forum think only of cars when talking about transporting whatever we think we need from one end of the world to another, even though container-ships and airplanes are polluting so much more than the micropart our cars pollute. Cement factories are not taxed for polluting as politicians have the idea the we need cement as starting using other materials would need somebody to start thinking and that hurt. Aalborg Portland (biggest polluter in Denmark) and Maersk (maybe biggest shipping company in the world transporting containers all over) joined forces (and some money) to start using hydrogen.

Just like with Toyota, what is being talked about in top floor offices in so big companies is not public entertainment so we may not hear much about what is happening before it has happened.

The batteries that today can be charged very fast are not the batteries lasting the longest time.

[Shahpor]

3 hours ago, Las Palmas said:

 

I am sure that you are not the only one.

 

But the places where material for batteries are taken out of the earth and where batteries are made and where sooner or later all the not reusable parts of batteries are stored will pollute a lot more than many think and pollution is not something that you can keep where you pollute. It spread to even the place where you live.

 

 

 

This is a classic case of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).

The average person will only care about the pollutions and issues in their own area/country and everything else is someone else's problem.

A perfect example is apple products.  How many of you own iPhones?  Did that change when you found out that Foxconn installed netting around its factories to stop their workers from jumping to their deaths because they were basically slaves? I doubt many, if at all.

[Las Palmas]

1 hour ago, Shahpor said:

This is a classic case of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).

The average person will only care about the pollutions and issues in their own area/country and everything else is someone else's problem.

A perfect example is Apple products.  How many of you own iPhones?  Did that change when you found out that Foxconn installed netting around its factories to stop their workers from jumping to their deaths because they were basically slaves? I doubt many, if at all.

Since 2004 Samsung. Because it is easy to get rid of all the spam Google and Samsung think they are allowed to put in the phones in order to get user data that are exactly none of their business.

apple chose the company that give most money. So does most other companies. Ethics are written on the wall and that is where they stay.

[Mr Vlad]

I've just watched an interesting video. 

and from an EV tesla owner 

 

[Las Palmas]

Hydrogen can power very many things. Transporting people and goods in the air is one of the very much polluting.

First here in from Holland and after that another on the other side of the earth.

Hydrogen fuel collaboration forms with ZeroAvia, Shell, RHIA and Rotterdam The Hague Airport

 By BRET WILLIAMS                https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/author/bret-2-2-2/

The partners will be working together to begin green flights using H2 to decarbonize starting in 2025.

Zero-emission commercial aviation solution developer ZeroAvia has announced that it has signed a significant hydrogen fuel collaboration agreement with Shell, Rotterdam the Hague Innovation Airport (RHIA) and Rotterdam The Hague Airport.

The group will be working together to develop H2 airport operations and demonstrate clean flights.

The companies will be working together to create an operation concept for using hydrogen fuel in airports and for demonstration flights to European destinations by the close of next year. They will then begin commercial passenger flights by the end of 2025.

As a next step along the cooperation commitment journey first announced in 2022 for the launch of the first H2-powered commercial flight, this particular collaboration will be directing its attention to providing the first H2 flight from Rotterdam. This will include everything from airport operation to on-the-ground infrastructure and operations development for achieving pilot distribution, storage, and dispensing of H2 as an aviation fuel, with a long-term aim to decarbonize the entire airport ecosystem.

The project aims to support hydrogen fuel aircraft operations using ZeroAvia’s H2-powered engines.

Through this project, further support will be provided to developing the operations required for flying planes using H2 gas as a fuel, using ZeroAvia’s zero-emission ZA600 engines. In this particular case, the demonstration flights will be used as a method of establishing airport routes in Europe within a 250 nautical mile radius of Rotterdam.

In January, ZeroAvia conducted its first flight demonstration of its ZA600 engine prototype in a 19-seat aircraft. This new project will go beyond that technology and will aim to further develop the standards and protocols specific to aviation with respect to refueling, H2 management, and safety. In this way, when the engine’s rollout and the use of hydrogen fuel is ready, it will occur seamlessly.

In this collaboration, each of the participants will be working together in discussions with various potential airline operators for a first demonstration of the technology, operations and procedures, for the purpose of establishing commercial flights within the next few years.

 

Next is New Zealand:

Hydrogen plane granted experimental airworthiness certificate by the FAA

By JOHN MAX                        https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/author/john-2-2-2/

Universal Hydrogen completed its first taxi tests, received its certificate, inked an Air New Zealand agreement.

Universal Hydrogen has announced that following the first taxi tests of its hydrogen plane, it has been granted a special airworthiness certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA issued the certificate in the experimental category, giving the company the go ahead for the first flight of the H2-powered regional aircraft.

The company released a video showing the first taxi tests of the aircraft, and its successful performance.

The video showed that the hydrogen plane performed successfully during the taxi tests, which are intended to provide an evaluation of the craft’s ground handling qualities in addition to the performance of the fuel cell electric powertrain’s use at low airspeeds and power settings.

The test involved the use of a Dash 8-300 flying testbed, which was equipped with a megawatt-class H2 fuel cell powertrain which was built into one of its nacelles. The aircraft’s powertrain is similar to the first product configuration the company developed, which was a conversion kit for ATR 72-600 regional airliners. The company expects that it will receive its certification in order to start commercial passenger service in two years.

The design of this fuel cell hydrogen plane doesn’t require the use of a hybrid Battery layout.

Instead of using a hybrid architecture for its powertrain, Universal Hydrogen’s power is transmitted entirely from the fuel cells into the electric motor. In this way, weight is considerably reduced, as is the lifecycle cost.

The new approval from the FAA has paved the way for the company’s first flight of the aircraft. It will conduct this flight in Washington state, from the Grant County International Airport located in Moses Lake. This first flight will represent the largest fuel cell powered craft to fly, and will be the second largest H2-powered aircraft to fly, second only to a test craft flown by the Soviet Union in 1988. That was a Tupolev Tu-155 airliner with a jet engine converted for burning H2 instead of jet fuel.

At the same time as the announcement about the hydrogen plane taxi tests and the FAA certification, Universal Hydrogen also announced that it has entered into a strategic agreement with Air New Zealand as a component of that airlines growing Mission Next Gen Aircraft program.

[Las Palmas]

Hydrogen is the only source for power that is possibly good for the world.

Why? Because hydrogen is made from water and when used will return to water which can be used to make hydrogen. Hydrogen can be stored.

No matter how much material there is in the world. When it is used up, there is no more and what is worse: taking it from the ground where it is a lot of nature is destroyed. Right now, a company that had before been granted the right to start mining in Portugal is suddenly having problems. First with the locals and after a while now also with some of the politicians that liked the idea of getting people working there.

Why shall we continue to destroy the earth, nature, animals living there in order to make something that when it is no longer functioning will be thrown out?

Only fools and horses consider batteries as a permanent and excellent power source.

All power sources have their problems, but the only source where they all can be solved without pollution is HYDROGEN!

Electricity to make hydrogen can first come from nuclear plants. Later there may be enough from other greener sources. Nuclear plants do not pollute, but the left overs are dangerous. Unfortunately, time is against us. Water level is rising. Copenhagen is right now building artificial island and preparing the city against rising sea level. Flat countries know what can happen when sea is showing teeth. Holland has its dams and so far, they are sufficient there, but very many island around the world where salt water is making farm land useless are in big trouble.

[Las Palmas]

Honda reveals new 2024 CR-V hydrogen car details

 

 By ALICIA MOORE                 https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/author/alicia-2-2-2/

The vehicle will be equipped with two H2 tanks installed in its rear, among other notable alterations.

 

Honda has announced that it is developing a new hydrogen car, which will be a version of its popular CR-V SUV, and that it will have plug-in capability.

 

 

The automaker first began talking about its intentions to work with H2 once again last year.

 

The automaker had previously worked on the Clarity Fuel Cell, which it discontinued in 2021. Now, it is taking a new angle with a hydrogen car, which will take shape as an altered version of its popular SUV, the CR-V.

Last year, the company announced that its next-generation H2 fuel cell passenger vehicle, which would be based on its CR-V SUV, will roll out for sale in North America and Japan next year. It will be powered by a fuel cell system the automaker developed in a collaboration with GM. This will involve two H2 tanks stored at the rear of the SUV, as well as an intelligent power unit under the seat and a drive unit and fuel cell system mounted as a single unit under the hood.

While it will have a Battery, it won’t offer much power to the CR-V as it is quite small – small enough not to have been worthy of mention on Honda’s general diagram of the vehicle. According to the automaker, it will have an additional power export function.

 

 

It isn’t clear specifically where the Honda hydrogen car will be sold once it is available in 2024.

Honda has not yet announced specifically where it will be making the new hydrogen car available for sale. When it was selling the Clarity Fuel Cell, it was available only in California. That said, it has specified that the H2 CR-V’s production will start in 2024 and that it will be made at the Performance Manufacturing Center in Ohio. It also pointed out that the vehicles made there will include those intended for export to Japan.

Though the automaker hasn’t said much in terms of specifics about the hydrogen car, it did provide additional information about its next-generation fuel system. American Honda Motor Company Senior Manager and Division Lead of its energy solution business division Ryan Harty explained that the new system has twice the durability as their older model and is “significantly faster” startup times at very cold temperatures (below -22ºF). Moreover, the hew fuel cell system costs two thirds less to build than that of the Clarity.

[Linas.P]

18 hours ago, Steven Lockey said:

Yes exactly. 41% of carbon pollution caused by transportation comes from cars.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1185535/transport-carbon-dioxide-emissions-breakdown/

Transport overall is around 27%, so we are talking just over 10% total emissions are from cars alone.
https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/carbon-pollution-transportation#:~:text=Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,contributor of U.S. GHG emissions.

And even if that doesn't float your boat, I kinda like the idea of cars not emitting toxic fumes right next to where I walk 😉
 

Global warming is GLOBAL issue, so it does not matter what EPA says, because EPA is JUST US. This is exactly how vegetables contrive and conflate unrelated issues. There is huge problem with figures from EU and US... why? Because we don't have have industry, we outsourced that to China, India, Mexico etc. etc... and that is why in US and EU transport always has disproportionate % compared to global average. We import the CO2 and don't account it, all out crap is made in China, but we consider that to be China's CO2, but they are not making that crap for themselves, they are making it for us... so if we start correctly attributing the CO2 emitted by the crap we import, suddenly picture changes and transport becomes much smaller part of the issue.    

The global - that is what matters - global emissions from transportation is fluctuating between years and it is about 10-16%. Passenger cars are 41% of that 10%... but taxis would be passenger cars, police cars will be passenger cars and cars that are not buses and vans are passenger cars, and personal vehicles are subsection of that. What you, me and everyone on this forum are driving are personal vehicles. That is about 24% as far as transportation is concerned. 

How about not walking next to the road? Do you go to major harbour and complain about ships sailing there? Do you go behind the engine of the plane before boarding and complaining that it blows emissions into your face? Same here - just don't walk next to the busy road, take a walk on the side street (I always do), cycle on the side street or the path further away from the road. Granted it is partially and issue with city planners that they put walks next to the major roads (or none at all)... move them further away from the road and it will be fine. Roads is public infrastructure which helps to move goods and people around, they not meant to be pretty, they don't meant to be nice to walk on the side of... they are meant to bring the chinese crap you ordered on amazon, they meant to be there when you call ambulance or police and they meant for people with cars to get where they going FAST. 

Besides tailpipe emissions is just part of the pollution, there as well isparticulate matter is from tyres and brakes and road surface wearing down (which us about 25% off all pollution from the cars).. the BEVs being heavier (and all the so popular SUVs - as RX driver you surely part of the problem!) produces much more particle matter (approximately 8% more... that means minimum of 33% of pollution will stay even when tailpipe emissions is 0)... so anyway you cut it there is no avoiding the road pollution, unless you solution is to go back to stone age and just walk everywhere and live "off-grid". 

 

[toffee_pie]

More totalitarian nonsense, all part of the brainwashing getting your brains hardwired to accept everything as normality, when even more draconic measures occur nobody will bat an eyelid 

Full list of all 24 'harmful' terms scientists want to ban - including 'female', 'survival of the fittest' and 'invasive.

Race against time for a vaccine for Marburg virus: Fears over stealthy disease that masquerades as a cold for days then suddenly causes organ failure and bleeding from multiple orifices - as outbreak in Africa spreads