Knowing the wide interest, this seems to me to be quite a sensible long term review
Interested in the efficiency comparison between electric and hydrogen vehicles, once you add in all the conversion efficiencies.
Still sounds like a pitch for snake oil.
So far the best way to store hydrogen, is to bolt on a carbon and maybe oxygen atoms.
another idiotic article that ignores the basics
Please explain
The article pretty much did it for you.
That's the problem with too much mass media. It allows people with little aptitude for critical reasoning to pick up three word (or two if they struggle with three) slogans as if they are somehow magic bullets.
Articles like that are really intended as a sort of greasy primer to help open peoples wallets.
Fairy nuff, but will try to keep it quick, just dropping in for a moment at the mo.
I note the article began by blinding itself to the real issues with the 'om g we HAVE to use C-free fuels regardless of the cost' nonsense.
NT
I don't think we read the same article.
Nick Cat is just another troll....
Tim
No, those were selected quotes from idiots in the intro. The *headline* was
Hydrogen is big news but is it really the answer to de-carbonisation?
If you have surplus electrical energy, then you can use to extract H out of H2O. So, it's a temporary storage medium
Like he said.
And as the article said, for anything but planes, when you look at the end to end efficiency batteries look to be the better option. Maybe for lorries the potential weight saving and speed of refuelling shifts you a bit towards hydrogen. But it looks technically feasible to put in overhead power for lorries on motorways so maybe they don't need the long range of present lorries.
Yes, it's a problematic storage option.
NT
H2 is in theory an option for any of them, but it would not be a wise option. Petrol, diesel & LPG are better cheaper safer easier options.
Re safety, turning your transport into a bomb is not a plus. Yes it's possible to design tanks that are crashproof, but a) it costs even more b) they can not survive all crashes, and will on occasion produce an almighty explosion c) the gas has to come out of the tank and can leak there, producing an unexpected explosion occasionally. d) the added weight is not so practical in planes.
NT
can't dig it up, you can only convert other fuels to H2. Converting anythin g to H2 is not 100% efficient and requires costly plant. Bottling it also e ntails energy losses & costs. And as an intermediate it is worse than every other option in other ways too. It is the most dangerous of all options, s ignificantly more so than LPG (which can be drilled out of the ground) and petrol/diesel. Its use will kill additional people. So in short there is no advantage to turning anything else into H2.
omg we HAVE to use C-free fuels regardless of the cost' nonsense.
You are entirely correct. The advantage with hydrogen is it's high calorific value and its carbon fre e. Burning it does produce NOx. Hydrogen ICE engines have to be larger than pe trol equivalent for the same power It can be used in fuel cells, again very inefficient. Surplus green energy can be used to make hydrogen by electrolysis.
Quite a lot of bollix in the article. Carbon capture has been largely abandoned as unworkable for many reasons. For home heating we are more likely to be going for heat pumps and using gas in power stations All this has been long established. Looks to me like private firms looking to scrouge taxpayers money.
What's the point in using heat pumps if you're going to generate the electricity using gas?
Lets Do Sums. ============= The thermal efficiency of a good modern CCGT is around 57% (66% is theoretical max)
The 'uplift' of a heat pump - heat out to electricity in, is between 4:1 in summer , to maybe not much better than 2:1 in winter, so with transmission efficiencies of 85%, overall 'efficiency' gas in to heat out of a heat pump is
.85 x .57 x 2 worst case...
... which is 96%. Rising to maybe 200% in warmer periods near the equinoxes, and 400% in summer.
I doubt many gas boilers can do 96% thermal. They certainly cannot do
200%!!!As with all these things there is a grain of sense there, as there is with electric cars, that becomes a lot more sensible when you chuck in a few dozen nuclear power stations, and chuck out 'renewable' energy.
So even gas power stations with heat pumps use a bit less gas that gas boilers.
The answer is of course nuclear power stations and if possible use the coolant to heat a nearby town. In Iceland I believe they use geothermal hot water piped down meter wide pipes..the bigger the pipe the less heat it loses proportionally.
Which is why the Earth still has a molten core.
Or pump water into a high reservoir off peak for use at peak.
I was thinking last night that if we'd started with that as the best way to use green energy, we'd be sorted by now. Rather than (still) pissing around looking for that holy grail in batteries. (See also: nuclear fusion).
Suits me.
Probably best not mention Iceland. IIRC they don't charge for the hot water. Unlikely to catch on in the UK where it would be viewed as outright communism.
That and gravitational compression and expansion ?
We did, but we soon ran out of suitable mountains, just as we will run out of lithium
Hydrogen round trip efficiency as secondary storage it dire and its frantically dangerous.
one days electricity stored is half a dozen Hiroshima bombs, and the more electric vehicles we have the more storage we will need
The safest place to have stored energy in, is in nice stable uranium and plutonium. Next best is coal.
Then a reasonable balance of safety and with and size is hydrocarbon fuels in the diesel range.
Then its natural gas, and the worst possible thing is hydrogen.
As far as other storage goes, batteries are fricking dangerous and so is water up a hill.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.