Hydrogen Power.

[t-tony]

Borrowed from MSN.

MSN

www.msn.com

Tony.

 

[Pingu]

It's the future if it can be made to work.

It's nearly all positves on the vehicles. The big negative is getting the stuff to the vehicle economically.

A tank full of petrol adds the weight of a small adult the car, a tank full of hydrogen adds the weight of a few bags of sugar. All for similar amounts of chemical energy.

 

[Mus Musculus]

A tank full of petrol adds the weight of a small adult the car, a tank full of hydrogen adds the weight of a few bags of sugar. All for similar amounts of chemical energy

Yeah, but Hydrogen storage is very tricky… As a gas, the thank must be able to sustain high pressures (350–700 bar [5,000–10,000 psi]), and in liquid form it must be stored at cryogenic temperatures (−252.8°C). The former would make the tank really heavy, and the latter just unfeasible on a car.

I very much doubt hydrogen as fuel for a car will ever pan out; it's possible for ships or airplanes, though.

 

[Redline]

The engineering problems of storing the hydrogen in a vehicle are inconsequential compared to the cost of producing it. It is unlikely to be worth while on a large scale until we can also get mass fusion generation of electricity. Then there's the cost and complexity of transporting hydrogen to forecourts. If it has to be cooled (as it is now), that's an extra cost.
The beauty of hydrogen power cars is the fact that most existing diesel engines can be modified to run on it.

 

[Mus Musculus]

The engineering problems of storing the hydrogen in a vehicle are inconsequential compared to the cost of producing it.

Eh, I would say 'inconsequential' is not quite the word I would choose. See this article from NASA to understand how hard it is to keep liquid hydrogen to simply boil off:

Liquid Hydrogen--the Fuel of Choice for Space Exploration

There is a reason for why most rockets use solid boosters or nasty chemicals like Hydrazine. The best rocket engines at the moment use liquid methane and liquid oxygen as oxidiser, which still requires cryogenic temperatures for storage, but are way easier to handle than hydrogen.

ETA: Regarding the conversion of diesel cars to running on hydrogen — that's really not how it is done. The only manufacturer still investing in the technology is Toyota (why?), and that's really an effort to develop fuel cell electric cars. Unlike a rocket engine where the hydrogen/oxygen mix is burned to wield the highest ISP, a fuel cell uses hydrogen and oxygen to generate electricity via chemical reactions. Producing the hydrogen is really expensive, yes, but using it to produce electricity is even dumber, as the conversion losses are huge.

Anyway, sorry for the long rant.

 

[Redline]

Eh, I would say 'inconsequential' is not quite the word I would choose. See this article from NASA to understand how hard it is to keep liquid hydrogen to simply boil off:

Liquid Hydrogen--the Fuel of Choice for Space Exploration

There is a reason for why most rockets use solid boosters or nasty chemicals like Hydrazine. The best rocket engines at the moment use liquid methane and liquid oxygen as oxidiser, which still requires cryogenic temperatures for storage, but are way easier to handle than hydrogen.

ETA: Regarding the conversion of diesel cars to running on hydrogen — that's really not how it is done. The only manufacturer still investing in the technology is Toyota (why?), and that's really an effort to develop fuel cell electric cars. Unlike a rocket engine where the hydrogen/oxygen mix is burned to weld the highest ISP, a fuel cell a fuel cell uses hydrogen and oxygen to generate electricity via chemical reactions. Producing the hydrogen is really expensive, yes, but using it to produce electricity is even dumber, as the conversion losses are huge.

Anyway, sorry for the long rant.

Think we may be at crossed purposes. We have many problems to fix in coming years. Short term solutions will be developed. But - Fusion will produce much much cheaper electricity when available and scaled up. That will unlock many opportunities. Production of clean hydrogen on a large scale then becomes economically viable. High pressure storage is possible but challenging. Existing ICE diesel technology can, with minimal changes, run on hydrogen but at lower power levels. JCB are chasing that as a solution on their existing diesel technology. No massive use of rare earth metals. Other technologies will have benefits such as fewer components and will likely be used. But, the cost of raw materials may be prohibitive on a massive scale. Production of safe high pressure tanks is an issue, but, if it unlocks cheap and clean transport, that problem is inconsequential compared to the solutions needed to make it viable.

Hydrogen is already introduced to gas supplies. The expectation is that gas will be converted to hydrogen. None of it is elegant, but it allows reuse of existing infrastructure.
There will be a multitude of solutions using different technologies in the near term. Fusion will unlock many things.
There isn’t just one part to the solution. Don’t expect hydrogen to be used economically anytime soon until the physicists unlock the fusion technology. Producing hydrogen cheaply becomes possible when it is. Using it in an ICE then makes sense because we already have them. Other solutions may be available and will get used but not necessarily viable on a global scale because they are not sustainable or clean. Things will change dramatically. Might be another 10 - 20 years, but, it will happen.

 

[Mus Musculus]

But - Fusion will produce much much cheaper electricity when available and scaled up

Not wanting to sound contrarian… But fusion has been predicted to be available in the 'next 30 years' since the the1920s.

Seriously tough, I hope you are right and we can get the promise of cheap, abundant power, realised soon (in 30 years, maybe? ).

 

[Redline]

Not wanting to sound contrarian… But fusion has been predicted to be available in the 'next 30 years' since the the1920s.

Seriously tough, I hope you are right and we can get the promise of cheap, abundant power, realised soon (in 30 years, maybe? ).

Much progress has been made in the last couple of years. A way to go but they are edging closer.

 

[Pingu]

The governmental and economic push for alternatives to fossil fuels wasn't there in the past. Fossil fuels were going to outlive the people who were chasing the solution.

We are getting to the point where a 25 year old who has just gained a PhD may live to see fossil fuels become unaffordable, and they will know it. That is an great incentive to solve the problem.

Fossil fuels will always be attainable, but the cost will become prohibitive for Joe Public. The dinosaurs are having another mass extinction, but this time we have a chance to be ready with a solution.

Climate change is happening, but it's not the real reason to develop alternative fuels.

 

[Scooblitz]

One of Hydrogen's pitfalls, much like electric powered vehicles, the start of the line is a 'fossil fuel'.

This is a Brian Cox, Horizon documentary from 2008 on fusion. Clickety Click .Tricky to find, but a real insight into the problems we face and the ways humanity is attempting to solve them.

 

[Mus Musculus]

Fossil fuels will always be attainable, but the cost will become prohibitive for Joe Public. The dinosaurs are having another mass extinction, but this time we have a chance to be ready with a solution

I am not saying that dinosaur's juice is the solution, but simply that hydrogen is not the answer. A combination of batteries (for both cars and at home for storage) combined with real green alternatives for production (solar and wind) must be incentivised by multiple governments. And that is true for multiple countries, not only the UK.

I am luck that I can afford a car fuelled by dino juice now and in the future (hopefully), but it's clear that electric cars are the future. I just don't think hydrogen as a fuel is that future...

 

[Pingu]

..., but it's clear that electric cars are the future. I just don't think hydrogen as a fuel is that future...

I have a Tesla battery in the house, and I would have an electric car if I could justify the expense, but that's the immediate point - the expense. The other BIG problem is that electric vehicles only have a very short (tens of decades) economic fuel storage lifespan. There's plenty of material to manufacture petrol or diesel fuel tanks, and those tanks don't stop working after ten years. We'll run out of material for batteries in tens of decades, not centuries.

Electrical batteries are NOT the solution. They are not chemically dense enough. They are fine for mass transportation. Using battery power to move 30 people (some jumping off, and some jumping on) by bus 25 miles is environomentally and economically justifiable. Moving the same people in their own boxes is not.

The bus will probably have a quarter of the batteries of the cars.

There ain't enough ore in the world to replace all the ICE-powered cars with battery-powered cars, so many will have to change the way they transport themselves, unless we find an alternative.

I suspect that it will be a mix and match. I also suspect it will be "haves" and "have-nots", but I hope it doesn't get to that.

 

[Mus Musculus]

Electrical batteries are NOT the solution.

I would say, yet. Battery's technology and storage density have been evolving at an amazing pace. My point so far was that hydrogen fuel and nuclear fusion are still but a pipe-dream. We don't seem to notice how batteries are becoming better in all senses. (No, batteries are improving under your nose)

But, I am a half-full glass kind of person, so am still rooting for any technology to surprise us. If (and that 'if' is lifting some), reports of a room-temperature, supper conducting material, are out to be true, then all bets are off regarding fusion power. Room Temperature Superconductor.

Anyway, we certainly need to come up with better ways of tackling the damage we, as a species, caused to the environment. It's looking dire out there, but I still hope...

 

[Jasn]

I think there is very little chance that in 50 years most homes will own a car. The idea that all the ICE cars today will be replaced by electric or H2 cars used in similar ways doesn‘t seem realistic (or necessary) to me.