-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hydrogen vs. Battery
- Thread starter siry
- Start date
Unfortunately a lot of the public won't distinguish between a hydrogen bus, a hybrid bus or an electric bus.
It's just "that new fangled crap that doesn't work".
You guys need to read the story - it's the refuelling depot in Stratford that is deemed a threat due to its proximity to the park, not the busses themselves. There are plenty of hybrids still doing the rounds today. There are so few of the hydrogen buses in use that I doubt anyone will notice.
I did read it. Another major problem with hydrogen: is anyone going to want a hydrogen refueling station in their neighbourhood?
We had a thing a few years ago where there was a fairly major propane refueling station at a gas station, and a new neighbourhood got built all around it. The new residents lobbied the city to remove the station for safety reasons, and they got it shut down. Never mind it was there first.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
To be fair, propane is a higher fire/explosion risk than hydrogen (because hydrogen tanks are designed to a higher standard).
There was actually a recent case of a second such station in east London being thwarted because "we don't want a hydrogen bomb in our neighbourhood".
I can't believe that this hasn't been posted to this thread yet.
A picture is worth a thousand words. But I can bring up this picture with just a single word "Hindenburg".
This is the first thing I think of when I think of Hydrogen. The second is when we recreated this effect with a small balloon in high school chemistry class.
A picture is worth a thousand words. But I can bring up this picture with just a single word "Hindenburg".
This is the first thing I think of when I think of Hydrogen. The second is when we recreated this effect with a small balloon in high school chemistry class.
As I recall, there were 62 survivors and 36 deaths. That's actually better odds then the typical commercial airplane accident. More attention to the passenger compartment and there wouldn't have been any casualties.
I'm very dubious. I'd be far more concerned about careless operators than equipment quality.
What an absolute farce.
I like how it says they are going to build another station near Heathrow. If it's too dangerous for the games, surely it's too dangerous to have near the country's main airport...
I like how it says they are going to build another station near Heathrow. If it's too dangerous for the games, surely it's too dangerous to have near the country's main airport...
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Well the author concludes that Chu's support and government programs will actually delay FCV roll out, so maybe it's all part of Chu's plan to stifle FCV's development :wink: Other than that, disappointing.
Vger
Active Member
Read the second paragraph of this to see how dumb an idea this is. Where do get all this amazing hydrogen? Let's see, take a fossil fuel (natural gas), combine it with precious fresh water, and voila! get hydrogen, .. and oh by the way, ehem, CO2!! To recap: Frack some gas, combine it with essential human fuel (water), release a bunch of greenhouse gas, and you are all set!
These guys ITM Power have been gaining traction in the UK of late. Some of the claims in this presentation are, shall we say, hard to believe. Comments please...
The venue I recognise as City Hall, London, so they may have been presenting to the Mayor.
The venue I recognise as City Hall, London, so they may have been presenting to the Mayor.
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't hear enough about where the underlying power is coming from to drive the electrolysis, and whether the fully-embedded cost of that power was being added. In countries, like Denmark, that have seriously overbuilt their wind farms, there is "free" power at various times that could usefully be transformed into hydrogen. But you can't project the total cost from such opportunistic power purchases. At scale, you're going to need a lot of power to create hydrogen -- about 4x more than would be needed if you charged BEVs -- and that will require additional renewable power sources, none of which are cheap today.
I do wonder, though, whether a plug-in FCV might not be the right combination for many vehicles. Take, say, a 40kWh Model S and add FCV capability to provide power when the battery charge is insufficient. You could do 95%+ of your driving on pure electric, while having the fallback of the stored hydrogen. Instead of supercharging the car (which stresses the battery, loads the power grid suboptimally, and isn't really all that fast, you just top up your hydrogen supply. It would probably be straightforward to build a 500-mile range vehicle with this combination, at a price well below the 85kWh MS.
I do wonder, though, whether a plug-in FCV might not be the right combination for many vehicles. Take, say, a 40kWh Model S and add FCV capability to provide power when the battery charge is insufficient. You could do 95%+ of your driving on pure electric, while having the fallback of the stored hydrogen. Instead of supercharging the car (which stresses the battery, loads the power grid suboptimally, and isn't really all that fast, you just top up your hydrogen supply. It would probably be straightforward to build a 500-mile range vehicle with this combination, at a price well below the 85kWh MS.
Similar threads
