Looks like hydrogen is getting a push.

[9secondko]

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/10/hydrogen-powered-startups-shine-at-the-paris-auto-show/

Pretty cool stuff and once an infrastructure is establish for convenient distribution (I.e.getting gas stations equipped), this would remove dependence on oil, clean up the air, and exceed benefits EV in every waywhile removing the cons.

much prefer a hydrogen Mustang to a possible EV.

Sponsored

 

[KeyLime]

90-95% of hydrogen is produced from petroleum. Mostly by steam cracking with the by product being CO2. Until there is a cost efficient alternative you're still dealing with the cost and political problems of oil.

 

[IceGamer]

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/10/hydrogen-powered-startups-shine-at-the-paris-auto-show/

Pretty cool stuff and once an infrastructure is establish for convenient distribution (I.e.getting gas stations equipped), this would remove dependence on oil, clean up the air, and exceed benefits EV in every waywhile removing the cons.

much prefer a hydrogen Mustang to a possible EV.

Except the fact that it’s much less efficient to produce hydrogen over pure electricity… The amount of energy that is needed is somewhat 60% higher compared to an EV, if I remember correctly… It would only make sense if renewable energy would be available basically for free and could be spared. Otherwise it’s just not really an option.
Besides, the infrastructure isn’t there and it would have to be rebuild entirely… ‘just put another tank in the ground and we’re done’ sounds cheap and simple but in reality building an EV infrastructure is way more efficient. Just don’t think it as a gas station… If electricity is available almost everywhere it would be much more convenient to recharge your car wherever you like instead of driving to a ‘gas’ station.

I know you don’t like EV’s but I think you lack the necessary imagination to see what’s possible with EV’s… Imagine cars that can be recharged almost everywhere e.g. the grocery store, public parking lot (think of replacing old coin machines that where once there with EV chargers) or at home. Wherever you park your car you have the option to plug it in. Furthermore, recharging might need 10 minutes or so… Think about modern smartphones (not the apple crap). They offer 120W recharging, which can almost recharge your entire phone in a couple of minutes… And most importantly: home owners are NOT dependent on pathetic corporations that force you to their will. An independent home can produce its own energy, power every electric device you have and might even earn you money. There would be no need for governmental dependencies.

EV’s are on the market for what? 10 years? The first gasoline engines where loud, inefficient, heavy and expensive. There was no infrastructure and for the vast majority it was much more convenient to travel (longer distances) by horse… We’ve come a long way and EV’s will go the distance as well. Are they flawless at the moment? Absolutely not. Are they a better alternative for everyone? Again, no. However, we’re only at the beginning and the speed at which EV’s improve is almost mind-blowing. Are they entertaining to drive? Maybe, depends on what entertains you but there will be much more ‘fun’ EV’s than there are now. I don’t like the new Charger EV, the sideline looks awful and the transition towards the end is utter garbage in my eyes. However, that car produces real sound and can produce an exhaust note around 120db… Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the presented sound but there will be enjoyable sound in the future and those who want a fitting exhaust note will have options to choose from.

 

[KeyLime]

Let me correct my earlier statement. Hydrogen is typical produced using natural gas, not oil. But still the same problems.

Also a lot of people talk about using nuclear energy to produce H2 from water. As IceGamer mentioned it's energy intensive to do. I ran the numbers once, someone should check, and it doesn't look feasible. A 1-gigawatt reactor can produce about 150,000 tons of H2 per year (according to DOE estimates). To convert the entire US automotive fleet to H2 would require something like 900 nuclear reactors.

Charging a battery is so much easier.

 

[9secondko]

Guys, all that was included in the article.

I mentionedcinfrastructure. Everything is resource intensive when it’s first attempted to mass produce. Everything has pros and cons. I. E. It actually creates pollution to produce lithium batteries.

we are talking potential. As more folks look into it, more innovation results and things become viable. Electric wasn’t viable en masse for a very long time. Now it is - except for power grid issues. Hydrogen simply takes effort to liquify. More upsides than down, including 3 minutes to fill the ta k vs a day or two (or 5 if you have a hummer) with electric.

imsgine a mustang with insane horsepower,insane gas mileage, zero emissions, great exhaust note, and no change in fueling habits. It’s s winner once infrastructure is worked out.

of course it may never happen as well. But people are investing in it. And that means it’s chances are going up. Outside of current production/ storage limitations, it’s the way to go. Bmw is betting big on it and they understand engineering hurdles better than most.

 

[Rated R]

I'm good with gas. Every other option has failed to improve on the benefits of an ICE vehicle. Everything is made with and transported by oil and will likely continue to be in our lifetimes anyway so all of the EV stuff makes no sense whatsoever. Proven reserves will serve humanity well beyond several generations. EV can only take over through government intervention which tells me that it sucks. Not on board with it, never will be and will only be behind the wheel of one if the government bans gas power.

 

[Conman1138]

From the wikipedia article on Hydrogen combustion engines:

"The differences between a hydrogen ICE and a traditional gasoline engine include hardened valves and valve seats, stronger connecting rods, non-platinum tipped spark plugs, a higher voltage ignition coil, fuel injectors designed for a gas instead of a liquid, larger crankshaft damper, stronger head gasket material, modified (for supercharger) intake manifold, positive pressure supercharger, and high temperature engine oil. All modifications would amount to about one point five times (1.5) the current cost of a gasoline engine.[33] These hydrogen engines burn fuel in the same manner that gasoline engines do.

The theoretical maximum power output from a hydrogen engine depends on the air/fuel ratio and fuel injection method used. The stoichiometric air/fuel ratio for hydrogen is 34:1...

...However, at a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, the combustion temperature is very high and as a result it will form a large amount of nitrogen oxides (NOx), which is a criteria pollutant. Since one of the reasons for using hydrogen is low exhaust emissions, hydrogen engines are not normally designed to run at a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio.

Typically hydrogen engines are designed to use about twice as much air as theoretically required for complete combustion. At this air/fuel ratio, the formation of NOx is reduced to near zero. Unfortunately, this also reduces the power output to about half that of a similarly sized gasoline engine. To make up for the power loss, hydrogen engines are usually larger than gasoline engines, and/or are equipped with turbochargers or superchargers.[34]"

See the portions I've boldened. They need to be bigger, more expensive, and would typically make half the power as their gasoline-powered counterparts in order to see near-zero emissions without forced induction. It's easy to see why the industry is moving forward with EVs instead of this, especially from an infrastructure standpoint.

 

[IronG]

From the wikipedia article on Hydrogen combustion engines:

"The differences between a hydrogen ICE and a traditional gasoline engine include hardened valves and valve seats, stronger connecting rods, non-platinum tipped spark plugs, a higher voltage ignition coil, fuel injectors designed for a gas instead of a liquid, larger crankshaft damper, stronger head gasket material, modified (for supercharger) intake manifold, positive pressure supercharger, and high temperature engine oil. All modifications would amount to about one point five times (1.5) the current cost of a gasoline engine.[33] These hydrogen engines burn fuel in the same manner that gasoline engines do.

The theoretical maximum power output from a hydrogen engine depends on the air/fuel ratio and fuel injection method used. The stoichiometric air/fuel ratio for hydrogen is 34:1...

...However, at a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, the combustion temperature is very high and as a result it will form a large amount of nitrogen oxides (NOx), which is a criteria pollutant. Since one of the reasons for using hydrogen is low exhaust emissions, hydrogen engines are not normally designed to run at a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio.

Typically hydrogen engines are designed to use about twice as much air as theoretically required for complete combustion. At this air/fuel ratio, the formation of NOx is reduced to near zero. Unfortunately, this also reduces the power output to about half that of a similarly sized gasoline engine. To make up for the power loss, hydrogen engines are usually larger than gasoline engines, and/or are equipped with turbochargers or superchargers.[34]"

See the portions I've boldened. They need to be bigger, more expensive, and would typically make half the power as their gasoline-powered counterparts in order to see near-zero emissions without forced induction. It's easy to see why the industry is moving forward with EVs instead of this, especially from an infrastructure standpoint.

Pretty sure you just need this.... Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Cars | DriveClean

 

[5.0ALM]

FYI, if you have a spare 15 minutes to watch this.

The Unfortunate Truth About Toyota's Hydrogen V8 Engine

Sponsored