hydrogen conversion?

[TonyS9]

Originally Posted by Jimsiss

I seem to remember Honda’s hydrogen test facility was powered by a waterfall running through a turbine to create the electricity to split the hydrogen atoms from the water.

The main hydrogen systems are either combustion like our current ICE cars or passed through a device that created electricity to run a motor. Storing the hydrogen was the main concern in the vehicle from what I remember, doesn’t take a lot to combust hydrogen.

Battery technology is coming on in leaps and bounds with new inventions using things like graphene etc. Unfortunately it’s a long time coming until we get to see the benefits of it for anything available to the public.

I'm not a fan of Hydrogen, due to its inefficiency, but they have sort-of resolved storage for cars with exotic tanks, pressure relief and explosion ontrol. The Toyota Mirai uses carbon and Armid composite tanks, they weight about 100kg and can store enough Hydrogen for 400 miles (2020 model). The tanks and safety have to be inspected every 2000 miles and changed no later than 15yrs. It needs a ladder chassis and its heavier than an equiovalent BEV. One, not well known, fact about their constuction is they need a 15kW air pump.

Hydrogen combustion cars have been tried but the efficiency is terrible and pollution is not zero.

Its also extremely expensive, costing more than taxed petrol per mile. Lots of promises and plans to build Hydrogen networks but very little in reality.

What is an interesting observation is that of all the Hydrogen vehicles there are no range extender battery Hydrids. An ideal vehicle would have a large battery a small fuel cell and a small tank. Yet even lorries with 300kWh batteries and fuel cells can't be plugged in. Why is that?

[Othen]

I don’t want to ignite a row, but I have just read this piece in the newspaper, and it rather confirms my feeling about the efficacy of BEVs:

Electric car’s carbon footprint criticised
An electric car could need to be driven 50,000 miles before its carbon footprint was better than a petrol model because of the CO2 involved in its manufacture, according to a new report.

Commissioned by Honda, McLaren, Aston Martin and Bosch, the report says making a Polestar 2 electric car involves 24 tons of CO2, compared with 14 tons for a Volvo XC40, meaning it would take 48,000 miles before the carbon footprints of the two cars matched.

The report called for greater transparency from carmakers over the carbon impact of manufacturing electric vehicles. Lithium-ion battery manufacture is particularly energy intensive, as is the process to recycle them, it said.

Matt Western MP, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Groups for Motor and Electric Vehicles, said: “We need to address the decarbonisation of both vehicle and fuel to have any real hope of meeting our CO2 reduction ambitions.”

Perhaps someone will rubbish this as being irrelevant or wrong because it does not accord with their own views, that would be a pity as I don’t think it should be ignored.

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

I don’t want to ignite a row, but I have just read this piece in the newspaper, and it rather confirms my feeling about the efficacy of BEVs:

Electric car’s carbon footprint criticised
An electric car could need to be driven 50,000 miles before its carbon footprint was better than a petrol model because of the CO2 involved in its manufacture, according to a new report.

Commissioned by Honda, McLaren, Aston Martin and Bosch, the report says making a Polestar 2 electric car involves 24 tons of CO2, compared with 14 tons for a Volvo XC40, meaning it would take 48,000 miles before the carbon footprints of the two cars matched.

The report called for greater transparency from carmakers over the carbon impact of manufacturing electric vehicles. Lithium-ion battery manufacture is particularly energy intensive, as is the process to recycle them, it said.

Matt Western MP, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Groups for Motor and Electric Vehicles, said: “We need to address the decarbonisation of both vehicle and fuel to have any real hope of meeting our CO2 reduction ambitions.”

Perhaps someone will rubbish this as being irrelevant or wrong because it does not accord with their own views, that would be a pity as I don’t think it should be ignored.

Alan

I read a similar report online the other day Alan and although it didn't cite who had commissioned the report, similar results were listed.

I actually found it from something i'd looked up out of curiosity, that of the carbon footprint of getting "exotic" veggies and veggie-based meat-substitutes being extraordinarily high.

It all points to the vegan eco-warriors being the worst enemy of the planet yet their very raison d'etre is to save the planet.

Either those are two (maybe three) very misguided reports or they've been fed some serious cowshed confetti and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Based on those reports alone, i would say it's the latter but there are often more than two sides to stories/reports like this..........

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

I read a similar report online the other day Alan and although it didn't cite who had commissioned the report, similar results were listed.

I actually found it from something i'd looked up out of curiosity, that of the carbon footprint of getting "exotic" veggies and veggie-based meat-substitutes being extraordinarily high.

It all points to the vegan eco-warriors being the worst enemy of the planet yet their very raison d'etre is to save the planet.

Either those are two (maybe three) very misguided reports or they've been fed some serious cowshed confetti and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Based on those reports alone, i would say it's the latter but there are often more than two sides to stories/reports like this..........

Well, you know my views on this Dave, and so I'm not surprised at the report.

In some ways it makes me quite pleased about still running the RB, the energy Mr Volvo used to manufacture it has been amortised over the past 40 years, so its total carbon footprint will be pretty small (in spite of 25-29 MPG).

:-)

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

Well, you know my views on this Dave, and so I'm not surprised at the report.

In some ways it makes me quite pleased about still running the RB, the energy Mr Volvo used to manufacture it has been amortised over the past 40 years, so its total carbon footprint will be pretty small (in spite of 25-29 MPG).

:-)

I'm not surprised at these reports either although i was shocked at the carbon footprint of exotic veggies and even more so at synthetic meat-substitute products made from veggie stuff (think Quorn and similar) as it was ridiculously high just for the manufacture.

As for the carbon footprint of a classic/modern classic, it's more or less zero, even with the extra fuel consumption compared to a modern day car. In fact, i wouldn't mind betting that a smaller, modern engine driven at the same speeds with the same acceleration of either of my beasts would actually consume more fuel than either of them and would almost certainly not be as comfortable (or quiet) as either of them. It would almost certainly wear out certain components quicker as well so factor in the carbon footprint of making those replacement parts with the difference in fuel economy and the modern, small engined car is suddenly worse.

There's a lot to be said for running an older car, especially one designed to give reasonable economy with sound engineering behind it.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

I'm not surprised at these reports either although i was shocked at the carbon footprint of exotic veggies and even more so at synthetic meat-substitute products made from veggie stuff (think Quorn and similar) as it was ridiculously high just for the manufacture.

As for the carbon footprint of a classic/modern classic, it's more or less zero, even with the extra fuel consumption compared to a modern day car. In fact, i wouldn't mind betting that a smaller, modern engine driven at the same speeds with the same acceleration of either of my beasts would actually consume more fuel than either of them and would almost certainly not be as comfortable (or quiet) as either of them. It would almost certainly wear out certain components quicker as well so factor in the carbon footprint of making those replacement parts with the difference in fuel economy and the modern, small engined car is suddenly worse.

There's a lot to be said for running an older car, especially one designed to give reasonable economy with sound engineering behind it.

I suspect you are right about those vegetables Dave, that is why Dan and I (and Bob and Millicent) hardly ever eat them.

We agree about running older cars being a good way to save the world (which is hardly surprising on a website catering for the owners of 30-40 year old motor cars). Assuming it took about the same energy to make the RB as it does a XC40 today (14 tons on CO2), and that has been spread over 40 years then that is only 350 kg/year. I read that typical EVs produce the 'well to wheel' equivalent to 2 tons/year, and the car in the report created 24 tons in its production.

I think the RB is well ahead of BEVs when it comes to saving the world :-)

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

I suspect you are right about those vegetables Dave, that is why Dan and I (and Bob and Millicent) hardly ever eat them.

We agree about running older cars being a good way to save the world (which is hardly surprising on a website catering for the owners of 30-40 year old motor cars). Assuming it took about the same energy to make the RB as it does a XC40 today (14 tons on CO2), and that has been spread over 40 years then that is only 350 kg/year. I read that typical EVs produce the 'well to wheel' equivalent to 2 tons/year, and the car in the report created 24 tons in its production.

I think the RB is well ahead of BEVs when it comes to saving the world :-)

Strangely this has just come to light on another forum i'm on Alan, i'll copy and pste someone elses post and then my response to it. First of all, the other persons post :



According to "The Times" yesterday, EV vehicles need to do 50,000 miles before they offset their carbon footprint with a zero miles petrol vehicle.

This due to the manufacturing process , an example quoted was the Volvo Polestar 2, takes 24 tonnes of CO2 to produce it whereas an equivalent petrol XC40 only takes 14 tonnes.



Says it all really.



Then my response to it :

That's just to get the Polestar 2 level with a zero mile petrol equivalent. The electricity needed to get there, based on Polestars own figures is ~110kW per week or 300 miles. That's about 170 weeks (doing rough mental arithmetic) or 18700kW - this is assuming the electricity used to charge it is totally carbon-free. If it isn't it will take longer.

Also if EVs aren't as carbon friendly as has been suggested elsewhere (the new Diesegate) then these figures could be a lot higher, possibly double. That means it might have to do 100k miles to break even with the zero mile petrol car!


The information i used from the Polestar site :

https://www.polestar.com/us/polestar-2/electrification/




Really makes you wonder if it's actually worth it! Especially as other reports are questioning the carbon footprint for producing the lithium in the Lithium-Ion batteries and another report that came recently suggests the actual carbon footprint of EVs is a minimum of twice what they are "officially" said to be by manufacturers with some up to 6 times higher!

Pretty scary when you think of it that way!

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Really makes you wonder if it's actually worth it! Especially as other reports are questioning the carbon footprint for producing the lithium in the Lithium-Ion batteries and another report that came recently suggests the actual carbon footprint of EVs is a minimum of twice what they are "officially" said to be by manufacturers with some up to 6 times higher!

Pretty scary when you think of it that way!

Like you Dave, I have my misgivings about this issue, I can't help thinking the main thing we are doing in exporting the environmental effects somewhere else (China).

No doubt someone will rubbish my thoughts and tell me why I don't understand later.

:-)

[griston64]

Most problems could all be solved by walking or cycling on all the stupid short journeys people take in their cars !! One of my neighbours drives his Mercedes 400 yards to the shop !! Which is actually the long way round as there is a path facing his house which is about 150 yards

Do that and then we can all have moooshive V8's

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by griston64

Most problems could all be solved by walking or cycling on all the stupid short journeys people take in their cars !! One of my neighbours drives his Mercedes 400 yards to the shop !! Which is actually the long way round as there is a path facing his house which is about 150 yards

Do that and then we can all have moooshive V8's

Tempting though the thought of a mahoosive V8 is Mark, walking to the shop isn't an option for me and i daresay for many others.

It doesn't help that the shop is ~3/4 mile each way either!

When i lived much closer to the local shop and was able to walk, i often used to walk as usually it was quicker than driving, parking, going to the shop, getting back out of the car park, round the one-way system and back home.