Hydrogen and electric cars

[Tringa]

I saw an article on the news this morning about a prototype hydrogen powered car.

The point was made that this car is better for the environment because it emits only water as an exhaust instead of the copious amounts of CO2. This is correct but the hydrogen does not come free. Is there a way of getting an idea of the amount energy used and the amount of CO2 produced in the production of hydrogen for use in hydrogen powered cars.

I think that hydrogen is potentially the way forward as a means of transport to replace petrol/diesel vehicles, but the full cost to the environment needs to be part of any discussion. It seems all we hear is that H cars are great because they emit only water.

The issue is similar for electric cars - the electricity they use has to be made somehow. If all of it was made by wind, wave, solar or nuclear power then the amount of CO2 could be relatively small, but if it is generated from oil, coal or gas, then are electric cars not as good for the environment as they are made out to be?

Dave

[Paul mabbott]

The comment about electric cars is a bit of a diversion - as you say, it depends upon the source of the electricity.

Getting back to hydrogen as a fuel, you are quite right that most of the current means of collecting hydrogen involve an energy input, often a carbon-source. Some recent work suggests that hydrogen might be obtained in other ways: BBC News - Harvesting 'limitless' hydrogen from self-powered cells

Let's hope ....

Originally Posted by Tringa

I saw an article on the news this morning about a prototype hydrogen powered car.

The point was made that this car is better for the environment because it emits only water as an exhaust instead of the copious amounts of CO2. This is correct but the hydrogen does not come free. Is there a way of getting an idea of the amount energy used and the amount of CO2 produced in the production of hydrogen for use in hydrogen powered cars.

I think that hydrogen is potentially the way forward as a means of transport to replace petrol/diesel vehicles, but the full cost to the environment needs to be part of any discussion. It seems all we hear is that H cars are great because they emit only water.

The issue is similar for electric cars - the electricity they use has to be made somehow. If all of it was made by wind, wave, solar or nuclear power then the amount of CO2 could be relatively small, but if it is generated from oil, coal or gas, then are electric cars not as good for the environment as they are made out to be?

Dave

[John D]

This is a very interesting development! A windpower/hydrogen driven van.
Could this be a better use of wind generation ??????
See link --

BBC News - UK's first wind-powered electric van

John D

[YorkieT]

Originally Posted by John D

This is a very interesting development! A windpower/hydrogen driven van.
Could this be a better use of wind generation ??????
See link --

BBC News - UK's first wind-powered electric van

John D

The company that I work for are in the business of generating and storing hydrogen as a green fuel.

We currently have 2 vans and a family hatchback that run on hydrogen and we are currently involved with trials around the country showing off our hydrogen vehicle re-fueler.

Hydrogen can be made from solar panels and wind turbines if they are connected to the right piece of kit as well as a standard household electricity supply.

Using the wind farms to produce hydrogen would be a leap forward as the hydrogen could be stored and used at a later date and it is of course a premium fuel. Having just got back from a fortnight in Scotland where wind farms are on the increase I was saddened to see hardly any of them turning despite a very reasonable amount of wind being present. If nobody is using the power they generate then they are turned off which is a complete waste of resources. Produce hydrogen 24/7 and store it for use in vehicles / homes etc.

Hydrogen is THE future

YorkieT.

[catface1]

The future of cars is not just one type. It is petrol, Hydrogen, liquid nitrogen and electric.

Many people seem to misunderstand that oil company's will in the coming decades/century not be spending money on r and d for vehicles that do not run on petrol. Why???...Well because these companies have an asset and they wish to sell it and it's called oil. The whole low carbon/environmental thing has given them the opportunity to make more money than they could have ever imagined.

Let us say all the oil reserves left on Earth amount to a value of £10 trillion. If that tangible asset is running out, why should they not make as much money on it as they can, it's in their interest to. Most people would assume that to do this they simply just increase the price they are selling at. However the much more clever option is to not only increase it's price but to make it more efficient. Meaning bigger profits and for longer. Shell recently drove a vehicle over 3000 miles on one litre of petrol.

Now as a basic calculation and for arguments sake let us say that 1 litre of petrol currently equates to 3 miles distance, and without including population growth on the concept of Shell's 3000 mile car, oil companies can make their asset last 1000 times longer than it already is. So to say that fossil fuels will run out in our life time is a very uneducated, unintelligent and naive comment.

Stop relying on governments, politicians, activists and the media for solutions and information. It is the scientists and innovators of the planet that will change our world for the better not some demonstrater stood outside a power station with a Dictaphone and sign.

Also as a side note these oil companies are also investing and researching into how they can reduce and eliminate carbon emissions through the consumption of oil...and yes it is scientifically possible to do so.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by catface1

Also as a side note these oil companies are also investing and researching into how they can reduce and eliminate carbon emissions through the consumption of oil...and yes it is scientifically possible to do so.

umm no it isnt - if you burn hydrocarbons in oxygen you get co2 - simple chemistry , to suggest otherwise is, to borrow your phrase "undeducated, uninteligent and naive"

of course it is possible to reduce co2 emmisions by making engines more fuel efficient but you can't elimate them except by either running cars on a different power source which doesnt have such emmisions, or by absorbing the CO2 after production.

also oil companies are putting the price up (note the increase from under £1/litre to over £1.40/litre ) so to suggest they prefer to make cars more fuel efficient is also coblers - car manufacturers are pursuing eficiency because of consumer demand

also making the oil last longer without increasing the price wont increase oil company profits because 10 trillion litres is ten trillion litres - it doesnt magically become more just because you use it more slowly. Making the oil last longer would decrease yearly profits whilst also decreasing the rationale for scarcity increases - which iswhy oil companies are not in fact pursuing the route you suggest

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by catface1

. Shell recently drove a vehicle over 3000 miles on one litre of petrol.
.

and actually no they didnt - the shell ecomarathon challenges independent scientists and engineers to build a vehicle capable of 3000 miles on the equivalent of 1 litre of petrol - the actual race takes place over a much shorter distance in down town Houston, and the vehicles competing are nothing like actual consumer driven cars

[catface1]

Originally Posted by eeyore

umm no it isnt - if you burn hydrocarbons in oxygen you get co2 - simple chemistry , to suggest otherwise is, to borrow your phrase "undeducated, uninteligent and naive"

of course it is possible to reduce co2 emmisions by making engines more fuel efficient but you can't elimate them except by either running cars on a different power source which doesnt have such emmisions, or by absorbing the CO2 after production.

also oil companies are putting the price up (note the increase from under £1/litre to over £1.40/litre ) so to suggest they prefer to make cars more fuel efficient is also coblers - car manufacturers are pursuing eficiency because of consumer demand

also making the oil last longer without increasing the price wont increase oil company profits because 10 trillion litres is ten trillion litres - it doesnt magically become more just because you use it more slowly. Making the oil last longer would decrease yearly profits whilst also decreasing the rationale for scarcity increases - which iswhy oil companies are not in fact pursuing the route you suggest

WOW! How can you not understand this!!!! Oil companies have an asset that is depleting. Create far more fuel efficient cars, oil prices can rise without any complaints. If your car traveled 10times further on the same amount of fuel you would not have any logical complaint for being upset that fuel prices doubled!!

[catface1]

Originally Posted by eeyore

and actually no they didnt - the shell ecomarathon challenges independent scientists and engineers to build a vehicle capable of 3000 miles on the equivalent of 1 litre of petrol - the actual race takes place over a much shorter distance in down town Houston, and the vehicles competing are nothing like actual consumer driven cars

It is called R&D. Obviously they do not have the completed vehicle, it takes time. Google have created the best driver-less car which has done over 150,000 miles in tests on Californian streets. Not one accident in 150,000 miles (which is better than the average human).

You need to become more aware of advancements in science and technology. Because right now you sound like the politician holding these innovators back making multi billion dollar contracts with organisations that have lesser capabilities.

You shouldn't criticize the way you are, as after all these are ideas, concepts, theories and in practice examples of people who are far more intelligent than we could ever dream to be.

If you created something that was twice as efficient as its 1st generation you would be thrilled, so why put down the people who are looking to change the world. Put down me all you like but do not criticize them! You should encourage.

[FungiJohn]

catface, I would be very careful about your next post, it could be your last!