Is hydrogen, rather than electric, the future for big-engined machinery?

Fretwired

Harry Metcalfe is a British motoring journalist who set up EVO Magazine. He is also a farmer. He goes to JCB to look at their combustion engines which can run on hydrogen.

Interesting discussion as the head of JCB points out that electric battery costs will rise due to the shortage of rare earth materials. The head of the Peugeot group fears electric cars will be too expensive for ordinary people.

Hydrogen could be the way forward for heavy-duty machinery, trucks, and so forth. Interesting video.

monquixote

Bill Gates recent book has massive amounts of info on all this.

Essentially electric doesn't work for ships and planes and barely works for trucks in certain circumstances.

Hydrogen is also problematic.

The ideal solution would be electrofuels, but efficient manufacturing hasn't been achieved.

more

The U.K. is struggling to meet the current demand for electricity. To shift transport and gas to electric is not actually possible. Battery cars have been around for a long time .but it has not been popular because it  is expensive and not very good . The loss of duty is also a problem for the government .The  governments favourite idea is to introduce road charging , like London , on all roads . Basically the government are setting targets that can't be delivered . I believe hydrogen is a possible viable alternative, but currently it not supported by the UK government .   

ToneControl

I've been banging on for years about hydrogen (as an obvious initial option for a renewable gas), without really looking into it

It looks like people have been exploring these options
Renewable natural gas - Wikipedia


AFAIK battery-cars have issues:

• need for massive amount of mining to get the rare earths
• hard to recycle  (not sure why, need to read up on that, I'd have hoped that mining was harder than recycling)
• lifespan
• weight
• cost
  

I had 2 LPG-converted cars, they worked fine, it's a fast way to change most petrol cars to carbon-neutral if you can generate the methane. Surely better than scrapping all ICE cars or waiting until they stop working?

Simonh

e fuels are the way forward, carbon neutral synthetic petrol. Porsche are among a few people investing heavily in the tech.

Bridgehouse

more said:

The U.K. is struggling to meet the current demand for electricity. To shift transport and gas to electric is not actually possible. Battery cars have been around for a long time .but it has not been popular because it  is expensive and not very good . The loss of duty is also a problem for the government .The  governments favourite idea is to introduce road charging , like London , on all roads . Basically the government are setting targets that can't be delivered . I believe hydrogen is a possible viable alternative, but currently it not supported by the UK government .   

Running a business where net zero is our primary product driver, and now being someone who is writing materials for major organisations involved in carbon literacy training, I’ve got the badges to comment on one bit of your reply - the question of electricity demand and how we can or can’t meet targets in the future..

At the heart of net zero is a significant lowering of electricity usage and demand. The whole built environment question for net zero isn’t just converting all power to electricity, but significantly reducing its usage. I’m currently working on the first new build net zero schools in the U.K., and the reality is that not only are they converting to 100% electric, but their annual consumption is planned to drop by 55% overall. If it doesn’t, then they aren’t net zero. 

We can’t assume that transport conversion to electric will merely add to our current consumption - because most carbon reduction projects seek to heavily reduce consumption. Our ability to produce electric isn’t the main issue with electric vehicles. Their initial carbon footprint for manufacture still is, as is the infrastructure required to charge them either at the roadside or at home. 

Mattharrier

Hydrogen is, on the face of it, an ideal alternative to petrol/diesel, largely because it involves filling a car with a substance which is stored in a tank - the infrastructure already exists for this, and the limitations of electric cars (not being able to replenish your fuel and extend your range practically instantly) are overcome. The fact that water vapour is the only exhaust matter is also - again, on the face of it - perfect. You could even probably come up with a way to automatically top up the washer bottle - no more running out halfway through a long trip, no more frozen pipes in the winter.

The inefficiency of hydrogen is the most cited problem - figures like 75% of the energy being lost prior to actually moving a vehicle forward do make it less than ideal. Part of the issue (for me) is that any comparisons between electric and hydrogen vehicles always start off with the water required to obtain the hydrogen and work from there, but take the electricity needed for the electric vehicle as a the starting point, without taking into account the generation of that electricity, or the manufacture of the batteries required, and so don't give a true reflection of what's involved. Yes, an electric vehicle can use 75% of the initial electricity to power the vehicle, but that electricity isn't sucked out of the air, there's an enormous amount involved in the generation, storage and distribution of it.

It looks as though investment in, and public interest in, hydrogen is waning, but I suspect this is due to the incredibly successful marketing of electric vehicles rather than an indication that the technology is simply not viable. Electric vehicles can only be a stop gap (admittedly a long term stop gap, perhaps) due to the fact that it relies on finite resources, and processes that are incredibly polluting - it may be that EVs save the world from climate change, only for an entirely new, and currently unknown, issue to result from all those batteries being made (the hole in the ozone layer, for example, was an issue that nobody knew was happening until it was already an enormous problem). Disposal of old batteries is an issue - recycling them is more expensive, and far less efficient, than mining new materials and making new batteries. Lots of them will end up in landfill, and even the recycled ones are only 50% reclaimed, which leaves a lot of scrap being buried, and leaching toxic chemicals into the environment.

A large part of the issue with EV cells is that they aren't made to be recycled - lots of different types of cell, assembled in different ways, all with different requirements for recycling. Tesla cells are uniquely cylindrical, and also held together by polyurethane cement which is incredibly difficult to break apart. If EV manufacturers change the design, it will make them easier to recycle - but potentially cause more issues with maintenance (batteries getting shaken to pieces under normal use, leading to increased breakdowns, more maintenance, and therefore more hassle and cost to owners) and so on.

Electric vehicles are being made more efficient, more reliable, and more cost effective, but will the charge time ever get as quick as filling up with fuel? If hydrogen cars can be made more efficient, from the initial capture of the hydrogen to the efficiency of the vehicles, they could be a real alternative - in theory, if the ability to obtain hydrogen from water is made efficient enough, you could simply fill your tank with water, and everything could be done on board, with the resulting exhaust being oxygen - maybe some of that could even be used to sweeten the air inside the car?

Electric vehicles are here to stay for a while, but I think a different solution is needed to be truly sustainable in the future.

Reverend

Simonh said:

huge catapults are the way forward, a vast network of trebuchets. Porsche are among a few people investing heavily in the tech.

FTFY

crunchman

Given the scarcity of lithium, the massive environmental problems of mining it, and recycling the batteries, hydrogen should be the future of cars as well as heavier stuff.   The government is being irresponsible by pushing batteries so heavily and not investing enough in hydrogen.

If you use intermittent renewables to extract the hydrogen from water, then you also solve the problem of storing the energy from the intermittent renewables.  You can save on the cost (financial and environmental) of building huge banks of batteries to store energy generated from solar and wind.

You also save on the need for massive upgrades to the electricity grid, and the cost of millions of electric car charging points.

Fundamentally though, the bigger problem is that there are far too many unnecessary journeys.  Some of those are at a local level, where people drive when they should be walking or cycling.  Something like two thirds of car journeys are under 5 miles.  We have to get people out of cars.

We also have a massive problem with unnecessary freight transport.  We are transporting goods and food all around the world.  We should be looking to source food and manufacture stuff locally.

The other thing is that we need to make stuff last longer.  For most things, a large part of the carbon footprint is during the manufacturing, but they aren't made to last.

Fretwired

One of the main issues in the video for large JCB-type machinery is weight. A battery pack could add 8 tons to the weight of a large vehicle which will make it bigger than current models and will require major reengineering thus putting up the cost.

F1 is going down the biofuels route and if Porsche joins (they have been doing research on combustion engines powered by biofuels for years) and it is seen to work that could create some impetus to look at other solutions.

stickyfiddle

Ooh, this is my area. Loads of work going on at the moment and the next couple of decades will see huge changes beyond what we've already seen. 

I haven't watched this vid yet but Harry's stuff is good so will over the weekend. It essentially will come down to who can get the most efficiency from the end-to-end process, as well as the most convenience for the end user. 

Key challenges:

• batteries are very heavy per-unit-capacity, which becomes a vicious cycle when you try and increase vehicle range
• batteries are slow to charge 
• batteries don't last forever - go about 3 years and your phone battery is half as good as it was when new. That's not sustainable.
• batteries need raw materials which are messy and expensive to extract
• hydrogen is currently inefficient and expensive to produce
• hydrogen engine tech is still very new and will take time to develop into commercial products.But hydrogen theoretically has a very high energy density (approx 120 MJ/kg compared with 45 MJ/kg) so it's too obvious not to pursue. 

I see a mix of things happening - the likes of KSA (and anywhere else with empty land and heavy sunshine) are likely to move towards using solar generation to crack hydrogen for export in the same way we currently see oil & gas shipped around the world. Depending on how well battery tech develops I could see them moving towards exporting charged batteries and importing discharged ones, though the current cost/benefit equation for batteries certainly doesn't work for that model yet.

I'm also firmly in favour of Tesla's "solar roof plus home battery" model. Again, the tech isn't really there yet but in another 10 years I can see this being an obvious part of every new build and refurb that happens to a building. 

grungebob

If you put aside the efficiency of hydrogen and the massive amount of electricity required to produce it your left with the problems of storage. 

You can’t think of it like other liquid fuels, it’s far less energy dense so volume is your first issue then it’s physical storage.  As it’s the smallest element on the current known periodic table leaks are 100% certain to occur .There is simply no device,tank, membrane or coating etc capable of retaining  it for long periods of time. 

So yes, it’s quicker to refuel than recharge but it’s the least effective method of energy of the two options. 

That said though it does have a case for useage  in heavy industry  once world governments impose the sanctions on fossil fuels,it would then make some financial sense. The size and weight of battery packs for say an excavator or HGV would be ridiculous to achieve current service times (hours in use/miles driven) of Diesel engines. 

However not everywhere will be able to generate it, poorer nations with already tight water balances will simply not be able to provide their own requirements and it may retard their fiscal advancement. 

Fretwired

Saudi Arabia is banking on hydrogen having a role. They believe they can produce vast quantities of green hydrogen and export it globally.


https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201112-the-green-hydrogen-revolution-in-renewable-energy

ToneControl

Bridgehouse said:

more said:

The U.K. is struggling to meet the current demand for electricity. To shift transport and gas to electric is not actually possible. Battery cars have been around for a long time .but it has not been popular because it  is expensive and not very good . The loss of duty is also a problem for the government .The  governments favourite idea is to introduce road charging , like London , on all roads . Basically the government are setting targets that can't be delivered . I believe hydrogen is a possible viable alternative, but currently it not supported by the UK government .   

Running a business where net zero is our primary product driver, and now being someone who is writing materials for major organisations involved in carbon literacy training, I’ve got the badges to comment on one bit of your reply - the question of electricity demand and how we can or can’t meet targets in the future..

At the heart of net zero is a significant lowering of electricity usage and demand. The whole built environment question for net zero isn’t just converting all power to electricity, but significantly reducing its usage. I’m currently working on the first new build net zero schools in the U.K., and the reality is that not only are they converting to 100% electric, but their annual consumption is planned to drop by 55% overall. If it doesn’t, then they aren’t net zero. 

We can’t assume that transport conversion to electric will merely add to our current consumption - because most carbon reduction projects seek to heavily reduce consumption. Our ability to produce electric isn’t the main issue with electric vehicles. Their initial carbon footprint for manufacture still is, as is the infrastructure required to charge them either at the roadside or at home. 

if we have LED lighting already, and heat pump dryers, etc, won't domestic electricity consumption rise if/when gas/fossil heating is phased out? (On top of car usage)

crunchman

Fretwired said:

Saudi Arabia is banking on hydrogen having a role. They believe they can produce vast quantities of green hydrogen and export it globally.


https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201112-the-green-hydrogen-revolution-in-renewable-energy

I'm not sure about the idea of transporting it all around the world.

It would make more sense to produce it locally.  It's not something that's constrained by location like oil.  All you need is water and electricity, and a small amount of some electrolyte to add to the water.

There is no reason that a large filling station couldn't extract it on site.  It will already be connected to the water supply, and electricity grid.

I think solar is already the cheapest form of electricity generation.  Put solar panels on the roof of every building in the country, and there will be plenty to extract hydrogen from water, which solves the problem of storing that energy.  With electric cars, people will want to charge at night, when there is no solar.  That creates a fundamental problem, which will require huge amounts of expensive battery storage on the grid.  Those batteries will need replacing every few years as well.

Even if you don't do it an an individual filling station, you should be extracting it locally, and avoid transporting it hundreds or thousands of miles.

Gassage

We are already working on hydrogen rolling stock future projects at Arcadis.

Fretwired

crunchman said:

I'm not sure about the idea of transporting it all around the world.

It would make more sense to produce it locally.  It's not something that's constrained by location like oil.  All you need is water and electricity, and a small amount of some electrolyte to add to the water.

There is no reason that a large filling station couldn't extract it on site.  It will already be connected to the water supply, and electricity grid.

I agree. I think in another video Harry Metcalf said farmers could produce their own hydrogen to drive their plant and machinery and run generators to grow crops in greenhouses 24/7. They have land, water and could install solar panels and wind turbines to generate electricity.

Axe_meister

For shipping I can see more use of Bio fuels and potentially a return to wind power. As long as the bio fuels are net carbon neutral. I have seen studies of ship launching massive kites to high altitudes to pull the ships along.
Trucking is a hard one as not only do we want to reduce carbon but other particulates as well, may well have to be hydrogen but it is hard to handle and store. 

Fretwired

Gassage said:

We are already working on hydrogen rolling stock future projects at Arcadis.

Like these hydrogen-powered trains being tested in the UK?

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200227-how-hydrogen-powered-trains-can-tackle-climate-change

Gassage

Fretwired said:

Gassage said:

We are already working on hydrogen rolling stock future projects at Arcadis.

Like these hydrogen-powered trains being tested in the UK?

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200227-how-hydrogen-powered-trains-can-tackle-climate-change

Exactly those.

Danny1969

The trouble with electric cars is charging, it's too slow for a lot of people who don't have a drive. One of the reasons it's slow isn't to do with the power available or the battery but the conversion in the car. AC comes into the car and gets converted to DC at a lower voltage but this current is limited by the cars internal inverter. Something like a Tesla supercharger can bypass the cars inverter and directly charge the car with DC at a very quick rate but the cost of building these mega inverters is about 40K a pop. That price could come down a lot if there was more demand for superchargers but there won't be until there's more electric cars ..... but people are put off buying an electric car because of the lack of quick charging  so it's a kind of catch 22 situation 

Solid state batteries look promising, they have a higher energy density than Lipo and are safer. Toyota announced they hope to have a car with SS battery in production by 2030

What would suit most people is a light small EV with 2 battery packs, each capable of 30 miles and each one removable and carry-able indoors to charge. There are people who drive all day and some people drive 70 miles to work but I would guess most people do only a 40 mile round to work and back and these people don't need a huge battery that can't be removed. At the moment even a 30 mile range battery pack made from current 18650 type cells  would be too heavy for some people to carry but a solid state battery is much lighter due not needing the fire protection. All these removable battery packs could be made to a common physical dimension spec with a common connector so changing a depleted battery would be simple and cost effective. Plus recycling would be simpler due to the common construction standard. 

It will never happen though, every manufacturer  thinks their own standard is superior