Which is great for you corona, but post strokes it takes me forever to type something long out and get my wife to check it usually, it can leave you retarded at times but it’s not something I can help, or I have to go over and correct it hence usually my long posts show so many corrections
I post links and expand on things but it usually gets ignored as it doesn’t fit with the narrative and agenda, which really f**** me off as well 
3 Likes
Some geographical bounds stop links from working for me or paywalls which are just annoying.
From my own viewing, I cant find anything that explains how hydrogen can be an alternative except by those who already produce most of it via the fossil fuels they already make.
There’s no real answer for hydrogen that doesn’t consume lots of resource. Producing Blue hydrogen releases lots of C02 and consumes lots of water too. Green hydrogen consumes lots of electricity, but that is renewable (for it to be called blue hydrogen), but it also consumes lots of water, and that has to be deionised water, which also uses energy to produce. So, even Green hydrogen isn’t really green.
Looking online suggests that for every 100km driven in a hydrogen powered car requires a minimum of 13.7l of deionised water. Multiply that by the number of kms driven in just France (from online sources), assuming all cars use hydrogen, and you get a staggering 615 billion litres of deionised water to generate the hydrogen used. If the hydrogen isn’t burned, but used in a fuel cell to drive an EV powertrain then the requirement is halved.
So, if you can find lots of pure hydrogen to use, then you may get around some of these limitations.
Edit : You would probably be much better off using all that green electricity to charge up EVs, as either way you need a car, and with a hydrogen fuel cell, you also need batteries, although nowhere near as many as an EV. You would need a detailed analysis of the three types of car throughout the whole lifetime to figure out which is best overall, but my bet is that the EV would be best just because of the amount of deionised water needed to produce ‘green’ hydrogen.
For lorries fuel cell technology is probably one of the best solutions, Bosh look to be doing well on that front.
Yes, hydrogen fuel cells are much more efficient than burning hydrogen. The storage issues I think have largely been solved, and the EV style drivetrain used by fuel cell vehicles is ideal for lorries. It should be a no brainer … except for the issue of producing the hydrogen, which I detailed above. For a niche application like just lorries then it may be possible, but unless we find some new way to separate out hydrogen from something else in a much easier way then widespread use will never happen.
They will probably quite easily find a way if hydrocarbon production stops, necessity usually galvanises finding solutions, which at this rate is going to be next century, they built all the refinerys world wide to meet that need after all, humans can be quite resourceful when cornered.
Replacing power plants to meet the rapidly escalating electricity consumption is going to be a real killer as there seems to be a total lack of will there as shown by Copout28.
Yes, electricity generation, and also the upgrading of the electricity grid to cope is a major issue. One of the advantages of hydrogen production is that the renewable energy can be produced locally without grid connection, and generation using PEM can work very well from fluctuating supplies without compromising the process. It’s still nowhere near as efficient as directly driving an EV with the electricity produced, but then the EV requires that grid upgrade so it’s swings and roundabouts. Bosch seem to be going full on for hydrogen fuel celled trucks, and for that small (in the grand scheme of things) market, they could probably make it work.
As for finding a better way to produce hydrogen, we’ve been looking for over a century, and it’s a bit like nuclear fusion … always 20 years in the future, and the laws of thermodynamics do preclude it somewhat. Not impossible though, just very unlikely.
Since when does efficiency come into it 
We are talking about governments here 
1 Like
The production figures sound great, but if you add up the production of all those countries for 2030, that still only comes to less that 10% of what would be needed to power all vehicles just in France in 2022 kms travelled. The figures really are mind boggling when you look at them, which is why niche markets like just lorries is doable, but widespread adoption is not.
Edit: I may have got that 10‰ figure wrong. Need to look at an earlier calculation to double check but can’t at the mo.
If they have to because they need to, they will find a way, hydrocarbon refining and the vehicles that use it aren’t exactly efficient are they😉
As far as efficiency is concerned, there’s probably not a great deal of difference as modern ICE engines are pretty good nowadays. The real issue is the petrochemical industry and the CO2 generation produced. As far as comparisons are concerned, we need to be comparing the various low or zero carbon options available, as well as reducing vehicle usage. All the alternatives have thier up and down sides, none is perfect or anywhere near. They all have thier choke points as far as mass adoption is concerned, so it’s difficult to judge.
Hydrogen fuel cells are generally between 40% to 60% energy efficient, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. This range compares to the typical internal combustion engine of a car, which is about 25% energy efficient.
That’s in the US, where there are worse standards for ICE energy efficiency. Your typical US SUV or station wagon, of which there are huge numbers, does typically less than 20mpg (imperial gallon, not US). European Euro 6 engines are I think around 45% efficient and can do over 60mpg.
From what I looked into before selling my diesel, the only real difference between euro 5 and 6 is the stop start feature of the engine. I think we were a bit premature at ditching LPG rather than keeping more polluting diesels.
Euro6 also uses AdBlue. Mine is Euro5 and currently does about 54mpg for me. If I lived in the valley rather than in the Black Mountains, I could easily do 60mpg or more.
1 Like
The most efficient ICE engine, run in a laboratory in order to measure it properly, is only around 33% efficient (I need to check for exact figures).
In other words, the best case scenario is that a vehicle wastes two thirds of it’s fuel just to produce heat. Make that three quarters as @Griffin36’s figure is about right.
Which, as @hairbear has already said, is why it’s better to charge batteries with renewable energy rather than using it to make hydrogen by electrolysis.
There is a future for the niche use of hydrogen but it’s currently not the silver bullet that is being pushed by vested interests.
Diesels are much more efficient than that. The best car engines are above 40%, with marine diesels having efficiencies of over 50%.
Usually at a constant rpm, less than that over a usual real world driving range of rpm or great in a hybrid.