Toyota close to mass production of solid state car batteries.

thewanderer said:
It what way does it make more sense? The efficiency of this process is laughably bad.
Click to expand...
It’s not about overall efficiency or even overall reduction in co2 sometimes. With the rise of ULEZ’s, sometimes is about reducing nox and particulates at point of use of the vehicle to protect the local environment and tackle local air pollution.

If you ev isn’t charged with renewable electricity or your hydrogen ice or fuel cell car isn’t using green hydrogen, then you are simply exporting your emissions from point of use to the point of generation, and most cities with air quality problems don’t have power stations in the city. The power stations are usually in the middle of nowhere out inthe sticks.
 
SmallTown said:
Yeah that makes no sense
Click to expand...
Screen shot this post and come back to me in 10 years when hydrogen ice and fuel cells are the dominant technology.

The development of more efficient cost effective smaller batteries is currently one of the road blocks to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. But as we all know, that’s changing at a rapid pace.

A fuel cell car with 20kwh of battery is the end game.
 
Anyone who thinks hydrogen is the future clearly has absolutely no idea about how it's made and how efficient the process is. It's absolutely never going to work. Ever. You're chasing O&G created ghosts. Stop doing their work for them.
 
Billy69_uk said:
Screen shot this post and come back to me in 10 years when hydrogen ice and fuel cells are the dominant technology.

The development of more efficient cost effective smaller batteries is currently one of the road blocks to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. But as we all know, that’s changing at a rapid pace.

A fuel cell car with 20kwh of battery is the end game.
Click to expand...
Explain to me how, for small vehicles, they are better than EV?

Given things like efficiency of motors, energy used to create the fuel, problems with transporting the fuel I honestly can’t understand how. Tell me how that’s better than EV? Which have already been proven to work
 
Billy69_uk said:
It’s not about overall efficiency or even overall reduction in co2 sometimes. With the rise of ULEZ’s, sometimes is about reducing nox and particulates at point of use of the vehicle to protect the local environment and tackle local air pollution.

If you ev isn’t charged with renewable electricity or your hydrogen ice or fuel cell car isn’t using green hydrogen, then you are simply exporting your emissions from point of use to the point of generation, and most cities with air quality problems don’t have power stations in the city. The power stations are usually in the middle of nowhere out inthe sticks.
Click to expand...
Thing is, we do charge our cars with around 50% renewable energy. How much hydrogen is “green”

And the thing I can’t comprehend about green hydrogen is it uses renewable electricity to make the fuel. Why waste all that energy and have a laborious, industrial, inefficient process to make a fuel when you literally HAVE the fuel for an EV
 
SmallTown said:
Thing is, we do charge our cars with around 50% renewable energy. How much hydrogen is “green”

And the thing I can’t comprehend about green hydrogen is it uses renewable electricity to make the fuel. Why waste all that energy and have a laborious, industrial, inefficient process to make a fuel when you literally HAVE the fuel for an EV
Click to expand...
Some of the projects I have been involved with are using wind and hydro to produce green hydrogen which is then stored or piped somewhere else and used in fuel cells both mobile and stationary. It isn’t because it’s more efficient because it just isn’t. It’s because there are other limited ways to transfer or store power/ energy/electricity from renewable sources.

In most cases, where energy is produced is not where it’s used. The national grid is already at breaking point, and I don’t see the transmission capacity increasing significantly any time soon.
 
Billy69_uk said:
Some of the projects I have been involved with are using wind and hydro to produce green hydrogen which is then stored or piped somewhere else and used in fuel cells both mobile and stationary. It isn’t because it’s more efficient because it just isn’t. It’s because there are other limited ways to transfer or store power/ energy/electricity from renewable sources.

In most cases, where energy is produced is not where it’s used. The national grid is already at breaking point, and I don’t see the transmission capacity increasing significantly any time soon.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure the grid is at breaking point. I've seen so many articles from them themselves saying we can deal with the transition into EV. And as you say, it's more efficient as we use electricity as the fuel. Storage is a big issue for both forms of fuel. We will have to see solutions for that.

But yeah, the bit I'm struggling to get my head round is why commit to a much less efficient form of fuel when the more efficient one had already been proven to work. Maybe things will change as you say but I'm struggling to see how you you can overcome the efficency issue
 
SmallTown said:
Explain to me how, for small vehicles, they are better than EV?

Given things like efficiency of motors, energy used to create the fuel, problems with transporting the fuel I honestly can’t understand how. Tell me how that’s better than EV? Which have already been proven to work
Click to expand...
All the data I have seen projected out 10+ years points to a couple of things for the adoption rate of new technology, and let’s face it Ev’s are most definitely in the new technology bucket as opposed to the dominant ICE technology.

If you need an urban vehicle and do no more than 100 miles a day, then it’s almost impossible to make a business case for anything other than a battery EV. This applies to passenger cars, busses, delivery trucks etc.

Over 100 miles a a day, factors like energy density, charge rates, battery chemistry, infrastructure, packaging constraints like size and weight, all start to have differing affects.

IMHO long range battery EV’s are no more than a bridge technology, which will tide us over till the tipping point for the wider adoption oh hydrogen tech, which will include a wide range of things like hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen ice, as well as other hydrogen varying fuels like methanol and ammonia for much Larger energy dense requirements like shipping or rail.

Just my opinion, but all the current and future technologies will find a place somewhere. There is no one size fits all. Anyone who says there is only one solution either had a particular addenda, or they dont understand the larger problem at hand.
 
SmallTown said:
I'm not entirely sure the grid is at breaking point. I've seen so many articles from them themselves saying we can deal with the transition into EV. And as you say, it's more efficient as we use electricity as the fuel. Storage is a big issue for both forms of fuel. We will have to see solutions for that.

But yeah, the bit I'm struggling to get my head round is why commit to a much less efficient form of fuel when the more efficient one had already been proven to work. Maybe things will change as you say but I'm struggling to see how you you can overcome the efficency issue
Click to expand...
That’s the nub of the issue. It’s not about efficiency, think of it more of banking and trading in emissions, where some people export their emissions and some will import others emissions. It’s weird and makes no sense, but that’s where we are.
 
I'm still bot understanding why it's not about efficiency. Assuming the aim is to use 100% renewable energy then we should be looking to save as much as we can? To be more energy independent. We don't have a great deal of solar in this country. We have a tonne of wind we can harness and if it was better to extract we have a tonne of wave/tidal but probably not enough
 
SmallTown said:
I'm still bot understanding why it's not about efficiency. Assuming the aim is to use 100% renewable energy then we should be looking to save as much as we can? To be more energy independent. We don't have a great deal of solar in this country. We have a tonne of wind we can harness and if it was better to extract we have a tonne of wave/tidal but probably not enough
Click to expand...
its really not about energy efficiency being the main driver today, other than trying to use less fossil fuels.

Firstly is about reducing CO2 and greenhouse gasses produced largely by the use of fossil fuels.

Secondly, its about tackling local air quality and pollution issues which cause harm to people.

IF someone were able to mass produce (relatively cheaply or even close to the price of a barrel of crude) a synthetic fossil fuel replacement that produced zero CO2 and zero particulates, NOX or SOX, and didnt negatively impact the food chain and land or water use, then no one would care less about overall energy efficiency.

We do have a ton of untapped renewable potential, but all the time the fossil fuel alternative is cheaper, then the adoption of renewable will be stunted. Energy security and independence should be a much bigger thing, but its only used as political cannon fodder when it suits.

1698658593273.png
 
Given the sheer number of ICE vehicles in existence, and the obvious ecological arguement for using them until they fail, maybe there is life for them after traditional oil derived fuels run out/phased out.

Porsche seem to think so given the amount of investment by them in synthetic fuels, which are more eco-friendly than alternatives (including EV) and already in production.

www.carmagazine.co.uk

Porsche to put eFuel on sale by the end of the decade

Everything you need to know about Porsche's synthetic eFuels plan: a cleaner, low-carbon petrol that could save the 911 (along with every other petrol car on the road).
www.carmagazine.co.uk
 
Billy69_uk said:
Billy69_uk said:
its really not about energy efficiency being the main driver today, other than trying to use less fossil fuels.

Firstly is about reducing CO2 and greenhouse gasses produced largely by the use of fossil fuels.

Secondly, its about tackling local air quality and pollution issues which cause harm to people.

IF someone were able to mass produce (relatively cheaply or even close to the price of a barrel of crude) a synthetic fossil fuel replacement that produced zero CO2 and zero particulates, NOX or SOX, and didnt negatively impact the food chain and land or water use, then no one would care less about overall energy efficiency.

We do have a ton of untapped renewable potential, but all the time the fossil fuel alternative is cheaper, then the adoption of renewable will be stunted. Energy security and independence should be a much bigger thing, but its only used as political cannon fodder when it suits.

View attachment 66075
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It's pretty obvious we should be investing in renewables to reduce our FF needs. Every new home should be built with solar now, yes it will increase house costs by 2%, but it's investing in reducing our energy demand as a nation and therefore reducing emissions and costs for everyone else. It's a good use of tax money to do this.

Wind is obviously a huge part of our energy generation and I expect this to grow and help reduce gas. I'd like to see more done to switch homes off gas heating. Starting with a huge investment in insulation for older homes.

It's realistic to half that 30 gas and goal over the next 10 years, if the will is there.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
Given the sheer number of ICE vehicles in existence, and the obvious ecological arguement for using them until they fail, maybe there is life for them after traditional oil derived fuels run out/phased out.

Porsche seem to think so given the amount of investment by them in synthetic fuels, which are more eco-friendly than alternatives (including EV) and already in production.

www.carmagazine.co.uk

Porsche to put eFuel on sale by the end of the decade

Everything you need to know about Porsche's synthetic eFuels plan: a cleaner, low-carbon petrol that could save the 911 (along with every other petrol car on the road).
www.carmagazine.co.uk
Click to expand...
There is a lot of activity in the area of developing and testing alternate fuel solutions (for new as well as retro fitting) for large diesel engines used in mining shipping and rail etc, where the asset is very expensive and has a useful life of 30 + years in some cases. Not sure retro fit kits make a lot of commercial sense for a car whose average life span is much less due to the cost and complexity of integrating it.

There are "technology demonstrators" in service at the moment.

In some cases its currently blending alternate fuels like Hydrogen, methanol or ammonia with diesel or HVO diesel, then substituting at larger percentages as the technology gets better and more understood. This also has a benefit of being able to use fuel in a liquid state and not have the additional cost and headache of storing very high pressure dangerous gasses. But like with everything, there are trade offs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top