Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
View attachment 5476

It is only a lower fire risk if you are using batteries made of C-4....
Sorry i don't agree, first of zeppelins used hydrogen gas not liquified hydrogen, and we have modern technologies like a release valve, that combines with the fact that hydrogen is lighter than air and therefore diffuses very quickly makes the comparison with a zeppelin a bit silly. In the zeppeling the ideal circumstances for an explosion where created, it was also which made the zeppelin fly, but on a fuel cell powered car the release valve would release the hydrogen in very small amounts, and therefore prevent a fire form happening in the first place. This is an well documented fact from our goverment '' Hydrogen has a wide flammability range (4-74% in air) and the energy required to ignite hydrogen (0.02mJ) can be very low. However,
at low concentrations(below 10%) the energy required to ignite hydrogen is high--similar to the energy required to ignite natural gas and gasoline in their respective flammability ranges--making hydrogen realistically more difficult to ignite near the lower flammability limit'' (source: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf ) Batteries on the contrary do not catch fire very quickly although, the sudden enormous rise in demand has lead to many cowboys trying to make a big buck, and therefore a much higher risk although technically most fires start in control boards as (chinese) companies are good in making an one fits all design that works really well until it doesn't and the circuits overloads. but the problem with a battery that is on fire is that is very hard to put out.

Hyrdogen is certainly a option which will have its place in the inherently diversified energy production and storage world we need to create post fossil fuels. But it has significant challenges and comparing with battery technology doesn't make sense for a large number of use cases (including cars).
Such as? I mean numerous truck companies, Toyota Hyundai beg to differ, they both make these vehicles for multiple years now.

Battery technology advances have been primarily around making it cheaper to produce which has been extraordinarily successful. It is true that other measures have been much slower, but we have got too used to the lightening fast technical progress of things like silicon chips. Most things don't progress quickly, and neither does solving the problems around using Hydrogen for energy storage.
No battery technology is canibalising itself, the only survivors are the cheaper but slightly better cells but new battery technologies, like Ericson's Li-polymer, like the numberours attemps to create batteries that use nuclear waste don't come from the ground. Because we live in a word where everything for the big buck and the least amount of efforts gets rewarded. i'm pretty sure(but it still is an opinion) that 90% of the so called green industries do not gave a fark about the planet.


Some companies are promoting Hydrogen. Mostly fossil fuel companies who rather like the idea of it because currently there isn't really another economic game in town other than obtaining it as the by product of the oil refining process. Electrolysis is a fine option for Hydrogen (water is plentiful after all) if one ignores the eye watering energy demands to do so. Then recombining to recoup the energy isn't currently energy efficient leading to system efficiencies well below battery technology. It isn't much good having capacity to store twice as much energy if half of it is lost in the process.
You always gonna have those companies, however with hydrogen it was mainly after the 2000's with Al-gore instead of Greta when they where still trying to make combustion engines run on hydrogen.(which can be done but with a huge performance penalty) yet i read you above writing hydrogen has no future, but truck companies in many countries, busses, andin the US also normal cars are using it, so how do you explain that? Is the UK that one exception where there are big thing against hydrogen that work everywhere except for the uk?


On home energy heating, the problems are huge. Hydrogen, being a tiny molecule, has a capability to leak through pipes as well as being corrosive to the types of pipes in homes. It wouldn't be simply changing the boiler. Storing and moving involves low temperatures or high pressures which brings its own challenges - certainly against natural gas which is a far more amenable chemical.
Yes but compared with heat pumps what is now hailed the solution the problem is exactly the same. it's just going to be a bigger unit, or an system with one big unit that generates and smaller unit that heats it up locally. You can buy that for your tap too a little boiler that you put in between your boiler and tap so you have warm water quicker. a electric shower also is that very same principle, so it's not like we haven't dealt with those issues before, i don't known how populair those red-diesel heating was here but that was also a massive machine with often smaller boilers around the house.
Also Simply swapping the boiler wouldn't happen anyway if someone come completely off gas, but the problem shouldn't also be made bigger than it is, on a house that does not use gas for cooking, the gas only comes in at the boiler, there it heats the water for either heating or hot water, it's not like all heating pipe are needing to be replaced or something

Now none of this means Hydrogen is a waste of time. It just isn't in the same ballpark as battery energy storage. It may find its way into heavy vehicle transportation as an alternative to hugely polluting fuels. It will have a role in energy management but the challenges are big and batteries are here to stay.
Well obviously batteries are here to stay, it's an technology that has already had a lot of development and it's easy to invest a little in it and claim huge advancements but realistically battery technology isn't going that fast at all or better said it's going fast in the direction that benefit those making an quick buck not the direction that is best for us as humanity or real advancement of the technology.
 
Last edited:

matticus

Guru
1707763365842.jpeg

That's a funny-looking EV car stowie!
 

icowden

Squire
Well obviously batteries are here to stay, it's an technology that has already had a lot of development and it's easy to invest a little in it and claim huge advancements but realistically battery technology isn't going that fast at all or better said it's going fast in the direction that benefit those making an quick buck not the direction that is best for us as humanity or real advancement of the technology.
Any evidence for this at all? I mean, given that numerous tech firms are working on higher density, reducing lithium, developing solid state or removing the flammable electrolyte etc etc...
 
D

Deleted member 121

Guest
Such as? I mean numerous truck companies, Toyota Hyundai beg to differ, they both make these vehicles for multiple years now.

Toyota sold 3900 Hydrogen powered vehicles last year, out of their 10 million vehicles they sold.... They are not giving up, but admit sales are rubbish and are ramping up battery powered electric cars.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news...ramps-up-production-of-battery-electric-cars/

but truck companies in many countries, busses, andin the US also normal cars are using

Really, not many. Hydrogen, despite it's abundance is difficult to refine and store in an environmentally friendly way, currently. Mass produced hydrogen still requires fossil fuels to refine and to remain cost effective. The city of Montpellier cancelled their order of 51 of hydrogen powered busses because operational investment wasn't there, ie it wasnt going to be subsidised by government. The original plan was that EDF was going to build a 2.8mw solar farm to power an electrolyzer to create 800kg of Hydrogen gas a day. But it was all cancelled as it would have cost 95 cents per kilometer vs 15 cents on batteries.

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/1...ydrogen-bus-contract-opts-for-electric-buses/

Sorry i don't agree, first of zeppelins used hydrogen gas not liquified hydrogen

That's because the Zeppelins were airships and not rockets...
 
Toyota sold 3900 Hydrogen powered vehicles last year, out of their 10 million vehicles they sold.... They are not giving up, but admit sales are rubbish and are ramping up battery powered electric cars.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news...ramps-up-production-of-battery-electric-cars/
But if we look at it fairly, surely battery electric cars have the advantage of being able to be charged at home, but still without all the charging infrastructure being made around us, electric cars would be far less popular, so similarly if more charging fueling stations for hydrogen cars would be build they would sell better. I assume that's also where Toyota is building on otherwise they obviously wouldn't keep a hydrogen cars in their line up and / or even add a other model.



Really, not many. Hydrogen, despite it's abundance is difficult to refine and store in an environmentally friendly way, currently. Mass produced hydrogen still requires fossil fuels to refine and to remain cost effective.
Yes considering solar panels at least in the Netherlands can't exist or better said be profitable without a lot of goverment funding/subsided, maybe tis should be an option too, i think it much better to build lots of storage tanks under the ground next to those solar parks then go green by Rishi and claim it's actually great to drill up more natural gas.. and those people experiencing those earthquakes most likely would be too.

The city of Montpellier cancelled their order of 51 of hydrogen powered busses because operational investment wasn't there, ie it wasnt going to be subsidised by government. The original plan was that EDF was going to build a 2.8mw solar farm to power an electrolyzer to create 800kg of Hydrogen gas a day. But it was all cancelled as it would have cost 95 cents per kilometer vs 15 cents on batteries.
In Eindhoven and Amsterdam they drive, in Eindhoven they made the typical goverment like mistake of ordering the buses, but not building an station where they could be charged so they had to be transported(on a diesel truck) to be charged until they finally build it.
But i can understand why they cancelled that project batteries are hard to beat in price, conversion values have improved a lot but the advantage of a battery is off course it's electricity efficiency, on of the biggest downsides is still they relative short lifespan., fuel cell on the other hand would solve any range anxiety as you can fill them up quite similar to regular refueling especially in time, so i think if the infrastrure is finally there it would be a good alternative for those who make long miles.




That's because the Zeppelins were airships and not rockets...
@stowie showed an picture of an exploded Zeppelin, the reason for that explosion is that it created the ideal circumstances for Hydrogen to explode, which in turn was because the Germans where forced to switch to hydrogen because of US export bans on the more safer Helium.
 

icowden

Squire
But if we look at it fairly, surely battery electric cars have the advantage of being able to be charged at home, but still without all the charging infrastructure being made around us, electric cars would be far less popular, so similarly if more charging fueling stations for hydrogen cars would be build they would sell better. I assume that's also where Toyota is building on otherwise they obviously wouldn't keep a hydrogen cars in their line up and / or even add a other model.
There were more fuelling stations for hydrogen. They keep closing because they aren't viable.
 
A

albion

Guest
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/lucid-aims-electric-cars-achieve-62-miles-kwh
'Lucid boss Peter Rawlinson has said improving the efficiency of electric cars so they can travel 10km (6.2 miles) per kWh is the “holy grail” that will ensure that EVs will help to “save the planet”. '
It would help if they taxed the cars according to weight.

ICE Suvs. https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/01/uk-tax-polluting-suv-green-thinktank-environment
Makes me also wonder how much our, above EU average weight, cars contribute to the pothole crisis. How much drivers pay in tax to buy a new SUV
BMW X5 (emissions of 196gm CO2/km) France €60,000 Netherlands €32,870 UK €1,805
Land Rover Discovery Sport (184g CO2/km) France €30,624 Netherlands €26,282 UK €1,199
Nissan Qashqai (142g CO2/km) France €1,172 Netherlands €8,770 UK €294'
 
Last edited:

icowden

Squire
'Lucid boss Peter Rawlinson has said improving the efficiency of electric cars so they can travel 10km (6.2 miles) per kWh is the “holy grail” that will ensure that EVs will help to “save the planet”. '
A very sound argument.
It would help if they taxed the cars according to weight.
Why?
Makes me also wonder how much our, above EU average weight, cars contribute to the pothole crisis.
Very little. Damage tends to be done by HGVs which weigh between 7.5 tonnes and 44 tonnes. 300 to 500kg on a family car isn't going to make that much difference. The damage is worsened by the fact that the Government has not funded road repairs either centrally or locally - so you don't get pot hole repairs until the pot hole is massive and deep and has destroyed the fabric of the road. Additionally when resurfacing roads, councils go for the cheapest option rather than the longest lasting. When a resurfaced or repaired road surface fails, the councils don't seem to go after the companies that did the work - there doesn't seem to be any sort of warranty period.
 
A

albion

Guest
Why?

Surely the laws of physics explains why. Reducing weight reduces energy usage, thus those big taxes from countries who wish to tackle climate change and other pollution variants.
On weight, I am proud of Musk for making his new heavyweight blob so attention seeking.
 
Last edited:

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/lucid-aims-electric-cars-achieve-62-miles-kwh
'Lucid boss Peter Rawlinson has said improving the efficiency of electric cars so they can travel 10km (6.2 miles) per kWh is the “holy grail” that will ensure that EVs will help to “save the planet”. '
It would help if they taxed the cars according to weight.

ICE Suvs. https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/01/uk-tax-polluting-suv-green-thinktank-environment
Makes me also wonder how much our, above EU average weight, cars contribute to the pothole crisis. How much drivers pay in tax to buy a new SUV
BMW X5 (emissions of 196gm CO2/km) France €60,000 Netherlands €32,870 UK €1,805
Land Rover Discovery Sport (184g CO2/km) France €30,624 Netherlands €26,282 UK €1,199
Nissan Qashqai (142g CO2/km) France €1,172 Netherlands €8,770 UK €294'

Which “tax” are you meaning in the case of UK purchases?
 
Top Bottom