Windpower

No

No.

No.

Its just more unicorn fart and pixie dust.

No one is using it. Guess why?

But not that fast through metal piping and metal to metal joints. Until we had carbon canisters and sealed petrol tank lids, we lost fuel duel to evaporation too.

Yes. However, the tanks used have little chance of leaks and the fuel cell could presumably be mounted with the tank to minimise joints and potential movement. If it leaks, it rapidly disperses, whereas petrol has a fairly immobile and highly explosive vapour bubble around any leak.

As for any liquified gas - although Hydrogen is harder.

From the charts I have just looked at, petrol is about 3.4 times better than Hydrogen - however, a Hydrogen fuel cell and electric motors are about 2.6 times as efficient as a petrol engine ... so the difference is not huge.

It does make sense, as a "clean" fuel that due to the efficiencies is not much worse than petrol per unit volume.

While that would solve the supply of fuel and, done right, be close to CO2 neutral, it would still produce many of the airborne pollutants that we would be better without.

SteveW

No. Reactor 4 exploded in the early hours of the morning. Reactor 3 continued to run and was not shut down until 5am the *following* morning, while reactors 1 and 2 ran for another 24 hours. The effect on supplies was therefore manageable.

All three were put back into use for some years.

SteveW

ok, si9nce a IC engine tehse days is about 40% efficvient a fuel cell and motir must be..

TADA!

Oh dear.

In fact fuel cells at usable power levels are very inefficient.

Guess why no one uses them

Because you have been taking lessons from harry?

Does "no one" include Toyota, Hyundai and Mercedes?

You seem to be confusing engine efficiency with complete fuel cycle efficiency.

Petrol efficiency when you look at the whole oil extraction, refining, distribution cycle, in addition to the engine efficiency is around only

Of course that misses the key point that efficiency does not actually matter anyway - objectively, both are crap, but it has never hindered use of petrol.

To real people, what matters is the whole ownership experience. They are used to a world where you stop at a petrol station, spend 5 mins refuelling and get another 300 miles of range or better. That is an experience that fuel cell systems could match with appropriate infrastructure.

Yes, but with only 11 hydrogen stations in the UK, I doubt many will be queuing-up to buy a mirai ...

Hence the comment about appropriate infrastructure. It would only take one oil company to get behind it and deploy at a proportion of their existing filling stations for that situation to change dramatically. One may decide its a way for them to stay relevant and part of the supply chain in an electric driven future.

While Toyota are unique in prioritising HFCELL over battery only EVs (in fact I am not sure they even have any battery only EVs?), quite a number of other makers are considering a move into the market as a hedge against the looming supply constraints on EV batteries.

Oh purlease.

That manufacturers announce does not mean that product exists or that it is a commercial success

Just LOOK at the bollox in the Hyundai link

"Hydrogen is the key to a future of sustainable motoring."

Bollox.

I mean what F*CK are they on?

Its abundance as an element is not relevant.

Its how much energy it takes to cerate it an elemantal form....

" The process of passing hydrogen through a fuel cell creates energy much more efficiently than the chemicals used in gasoline"

Basically a lie. Fuel cells are NOT efficeint at high power levels

"It can also store the energy it creates unlike the electricity needed to power electric cars."

Excuse me? what the F*CK is a battery, then?

"Finding an infinite and efficient resource for powering cars is essential."

No, it isn't. And it is impossible. The universe has finite free energy ands its dying a heat death.

"However, the most important reason to develop hydrogen fuel cell technology is that each vehicle produces zero exhaust emissions."

Another lie. It produces water.

The lowest emissoin bevehicle is a nuclear grid cahrged BEV.

" With only clean and recyclable by-products emitted through driving"

Rathe neagtes the previous statement?

"the result is a sustainable motoring future."

Utter bollox.

I mean do you really BELIEVE this virtue signalling s*it?

You seem to be confusing engine efficiency with complete fuel cycle efficiency.

hydrogen *production* efficeiency is down in the 25% mnark

fuels cells are at senevbile p;ower levels very inefficient.

At 5 times the cost.

Why on earth would they do that?

They are primary energy companies. Hydrogen is secondary energy, and its a bitch to handle =- weher are they goiung to buy it from amyway?

Its the same as a battery. You need primary energy to charge your hydrogen tanks.

Probably by electrolysing water using grid electricity from coaal and gat power staions.

e.g. BP changing their slogan to 'beyond petroleum' and having a green flower for a logo doesn't show where they expect to reposition? though they shutdown their photovoltaics dept.

No comment on the viability of Hydrogen fuel cells but surely electrolysing water is something intermittent renewable sources are suitable for, i.e. in the UK = wind.

There are a handful but they are decidedly experimental. The problems of handling very high pressure hydrogen gas and not poisoning fuel cells means that they are mostly concept vehicles rather then production ones.

Running cars on natural gas or methanol is a more practical proposition.

I was at a green energy promotion held in Trafalgar Square where there were several large scale fuel cell systems that claimed to be able to power phone exchanges. But not one of them was working. Power to the entire exhibition was provided by several noisy smelly diesel electric generators on tickover. I was impressed with the electric motorbike.

The only fuel cells actually running to make power at the event were the educational toys intended for school science projects driving LEDs. I found this profoundly disappointing YMMV.

In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, at 11:20:18 on Thu, 15 Aug 2019, Andy Burns snipped-for-privacy@andyburns.uk remarked:

And to some extent the failure of LPG to get to a critical mass has prejudiced the chances of the next "wonder fuel" whatever it is.

No. It is pure virtue signalling. Did it fool you?

Exactly.

Bloody expensive and innefficient way to do it though

has to be aroudn 2000 when I attended an 'alternative energy ' cionference.

ALL these technologies were discussed and not one of them was viable economically, technically, or both.

Apart from flooding valleys, how else would you store electical energy in reasonable quantities?