Agreed, this has absolutely nothing to do with supercharger thread. Please move discussion elsewhere.Mod's, should this talk of Hydrogen be in this thread Electric V Hydrogen
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Agreed, this has absolutely nothing to do with supercharger thread. Please move discussion elsewhere.Mod's, should this talk of Hydrogen be in this thread Electric V Hydrogen
Yes it’s a way of spending energy to make a high energy thing you can transport.Producing Hydrogen from Ammonia????? As I understand it Ammonia is produced by first producing Hydrogen, usually from natural gas or methane and combine it with nitrogen extracted from the air by refrigeration with nitric acid production somewhere as an intermediate step to ultimately becoming ammonia. So now they are saying use a load of energy to produce hydrogen, then use even more energy to produce ammonia from that hydrogen, then use even more energy to split out the hydrogen again and then turn the hydrogen back into energy again. Sounds super efficient. And ammonia leaks aren’t at all hazardous.....or are they?
Producing Hydrogen from Ammonia????? As I understand it Ammonia is produced by first producing Hydrogen, usually from natural gas or methane and combine it with nitrogen extracted from the air by refrigeration with nitric acid production somewhere as an intermediate step to ultimately becoming ammonia. So now they are saying use a load of energy to produce hydrogen, then use even more energy to produce ammonia from that hydrogen, then use even more energy to split out the hydrogen again and then turn the hydrogen back into energy again. Sounds super efficient. And ammonia leaks aren’t at all hazardous.....or are they?
Why does this race need to have a single winner?
Let's be fair, batteries have limitations. First globally we lack the capacity to make any more batteries or the materials to support more factories.
Secondly we're yet to demonstrate any meaningful recycling. Tesla say they will do it but logistics of getting spent cells to Fremont from Australia mean full recovery is unlikely.
So why not support a good healthy diverse mix of energy sources. That would encourage geopolitical risk mitigation, and sustainability.
If the whole population switched to electric too rapidly that would risk instability on our grid, probably increased coal usage and a rapid increase in spent cells 10 years from now before we know what to do with them.
Why don't all sides of the argument get together and promote a future that is balanced. I think a world with 30% electricity, 30% hydrogen, 20% lpg and 20% petrol/diesel sounds pretty good! Tweak those numbers to suit yourself but don't forget there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
Then we get on to energy consumption, there is this thought that our grid won't cope with electric vehicles, that's certainly not the case in Western Australia, in fact we have an oversupply, increasing solar installs on roof tops, lower cost wind farm construction, cheap north west gas and a coal mine/ coal power station community in Collie that the state government are trying to appease.
It doesn't, but then again limited resources should be prioritised towards the solution most likely to achieve success.Why does this race need to have a single winner?
Agreed that the best solution is to price carbon and let the market do its stuff.I'm not saying that more EVs is unmanageable for the grid. I'm saying too many to fast are a problem. The solution is diversity of energy sources and uses.
Agreed the government needs to stay away with their subsidies. Add a fair price on carbon the then let market pick.
In the far-far-future, the vehicle will choose when and where to charge according to location, availablility, charge rates, cost, convenience etc etc and man will have no input to worry about.Agreed that the best solution is to price carbon and let the market do its stuff.
I do think that EV adoption won't be too fast for the grid to keep up. The grid can add whole new suburbs when it needs to, and general electricity usage per household has been declining for years (I think? I remember reading 2%/yr for a while now?).
There will need to be protocols for staggering charging, to prevent the old "boiling kettle at half-time" problem, although in the far-far-future that would be solved by local grid batteries.
I skimmed the links. It spoke of a solid state way to produce ammonia with less energy input than a conventional process. It briefly mentioned a new way to turn ammonia back into hydrogen being developed by CSIRO.No, they not...maybe take a full read....my fathers been an environmental scientists well before climate change was on the agenda....he would not or would CSIRO be involved in such wasted energy productions...
Yep. 11-20% when batteries are around 80%+. That alone will make this 3-4x more expensive to use, and if the capital cost is even, then the whole thing is a failure. As battery production increases and prices come down it will be even cheaper to use batteries. In 20 years when there are lots of second hand batteries around then there will be a large opportunity to repurpose them - reducing the price even more. Imagine a second hand 100kWh battery that has deteriorated to 60kWh - a phenomenal house battery.I skimmed the links. It spoke of a solid state way to produce ammonia with less energy input than a conventional process. It briefly mentioned a new way to turn ammonia back into hydrogen being developed by CSIRO.
CSIRO themselves quote the round trip net energy efficiency of Ammonia production from renewable sources for use in a FCV of 11-20%.
Yes I can see applications where the concept can make sense. But FCV use isn’t one of those applications.
So was VHS.That alone will make this 3-4x more expensive to use, and if the capital cost is even, then the whole thing is a failure.
Not really, VHS machines were cheaper than BetaSo was VHS.
Depends who is pushing it.
Grid instability is solved by batteries. Big batteries. Lots of small batteries work too. You are assuming that everyone will charge at the same moment. That kind of assumption is like building petrol stations with 1000 pumps so everyone can refuel at the same moment. It doesnt happen. The load is spread. Indeed many (like me) dont even use the grid to refuel their electric car, its totally fueled by rooftop solar. There are many days that SA generates way more power than it can use. Its all from renewables. There is now talk of creating a special cheap solar sponge tariff to encourage people to use power when its abundant. Seems to me readily available well placed charge points used at the right time of day is something that will stabilise the grid, not destabilse it. To say we shouldnt buy electric cars because our grid cannot handle it is false. Our grid can handle well managed consumption of power. It actually needs more balanced consumption. Cars can help do that.Why does this race need to have a single winner?
Let's be fair, batteries have limitations. First globally we lack the capacity to make any more batteries or the materials to support more factories.
Secondly we're yet to demonstrate any meaningful recycling. Tesla say they will do it but logistics of getting spent cells to Fremont from Australia mean full recovery is unlikely.
So why not support a good healthy diverse mix of energy sources. That would encourage geopolitical risk mitigation, and sustainability.
If the whole population switched to electric too rapidly that would risk instability on our grid, probably increased coal usage and a rapid increase in spent cells 10 years from now before we know what to do with them.
Why don't all sides of the argument get together and promote a future that is balanced. I think a world with 30% electricity, 30% hydrogen, 20% lpg and 20% petrol/diesel sounds pretty good! Tweak those numbers to suit yourself but don't forget there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.