Proposed petrol car bans weakening but not by much

[markslawson + 1,057]

This is from the UK Daily Telegraph March 29

A looming British ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars was thrown into chaos on Tuesday after Brussels watered down its own restrictions amid opposition from the German auto industry. Experts and politicians warned that British rules due to take effect in 2030 are untenable following the European climbdown, which will allow internal combustion engines as long as they burn carbon-neutral petrol alternatives. The European Union will now ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2035 but permit these so-called e-fuels following a backroom compromise forced on it by the German authorities and signed off on Tuesday night.

One of the E-fuels is a synthetic alternative to petrol made by mixing carbon dioxide captured from the air with hydrogen obtained by splitting water molecules using renewable energy.

Not a major concession perhaps and the petrol-car ban remains as impractical as it ever was but interesting none the less. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

14 hours ago, markslawson said:

One of the E-fuels is a synthetic alternative to petrol made by mixing carbon dioxide captured from the air with hydrogen obtained by splitting water molecules using renewable energy.

My question on this is just how expensive and how readily available is this E-fuel? I bet its way more expensive than plugging an EV into your power supply and the nearest E-fuel re-fill station is 50 miles away.

This EU nonsense is just that nonsense, its not a concession to ICE at all in the real world.

The only viable alternative to EV's in my view is Hydrogen powered fuel cells for cars. With a hydrogen boom hitting Europe with loads of new hydrogen projects already happenning it appears to me that this fuel will become far more available and reduce in cost significantly due to mass production and increased competition. Vehicle manufacturers are already taking note and it may not be an EV revolution but a hydrogen one long term unless there is a significant breakthrough in battery tech for both range and refilling time.

The below is a breakthrough in hydrogen fuel cells and will mean vehicle cost will reduce as well as range increase 3-4 fold.

https://hydrogen-central.com/new-hydrogen-car-travels-2000-kilometers-single-tank/

The below is another breakthrough in producing green hydrogen directly from sea water at an estimated cost of $2/KG of hydrogen. The above car if it can travel 2000KM on a single tank of hydrogen (roughly 6.3KG) would cost $12.60!! $0.0063/KM

https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2023/feb/hydrogen-seawater

Example below of how big oil are catching on to this and the type of project investment that is currently happening.

bp launches plans for low-carbon green hydrogen cluster in Spain’s Valencia region

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-launches-plans-for-low-carbon-green-hydrogen-cluster-in-spains-valencia-region.html

Edited March 31, 2023 by Rob Plant

[markslawson + 1,057]

On 3/31/2023 at 7:40 PM, Rob Plant said:

The only viable alternative to EV's in my view is Hydrogen powered fuel cells for cars. With a hydrogen boom hitting Europe with loads of new hydrogen projects already happenning it appears to me that this fuel will become far more available and reduce in cost significantly due to mass production and increased competition.

Rob, sorry but this is delusional. As for your query on the E-fuel I don't know and don't much care. As I noted its a minor weakening of the ban that might give a loophole to permit the production of conventional engines is all. But Hydrogen is one of those green obsessions that obviously won't get any traction. The gas is simply too difficult to store and use, and far too inefficient as a store of energy. Sure costs might come down from astronomical to extremely expensive. Cars with hydrogen fuel cells have been produced but they are a niche. Granted everyone is talking about H2 and you have various announcements, but you'll find they won't amount to very much. If you want to store energy use a battery (still inefficient but way better than hydrogen). If you want to transmit energy use a high voltage line (vastly more efficient). If you want to ship energy over very long distances why bother at all. Make the renewable energy closer to its point of use (renewable energy can be generated anywhere).  

[notsonice + 1,255]

On 4/1/2023 at 5:22 AM, markslawson said:

Rob, sorry but this is delusional. As for your query on the E-fuel I don't know and don't much care. As I noted its a minor weakening of the ban that might give a loophole to permit the production of conventional engines is all. But Hydrogen is one of those green obsessions that obviously won't get any traction. The gas is simply too difficult to store and use, and far too inefficient as a store of energy. Sure costs might come down from astronomical to extremely expensive. Cars with hydrogen fuel cells have been produced but they are a niche. Granted everyone is talking about H2 and you have various announcements, but you'll find they won't amount to very much. If you want to store energy use a battery (still inefficient but way better than hydrogen). If you want to transmit energy use a high voltage line (vastly more efficient). If you want to ship energy over very long distances why bother at all. Make the renewable energy closer to its point of use (renewable energy can be generated anywhere).  

The gas is simply too difficult to store and use, and far too inefficient as a store of energy. ..?????

The number one reason for the production of hydrogen is the availability of very cheap electricity that is overproduced in the night hours when demand is the lowest...

The biggest consumer of this hydrogen will be the injection of hydrogen into the natural gas network (up to 20 percent with no effect on the end users) ....very simple to use and the second end use of hydrogen is the production of liquid ammonia.......which right now is a huge consumer of nat gas 

Storing of liquid ammonia is easy ....and ammonia can be used as a replacement of bunker oil

 

lots of hydrolysers being built right now........

Granted everyone is talking about H2 and you have various announcements, but you'll find they won't amount to very much.????

you are not dealing with the reality of the production of cheap electricity via Wind during the night hours.....

 

1 -2 cent a KWH is todays cost for the excess electricity

 

Wholesale daily electricity and natural gas prices were bifurcated in January, with prices high across the western US and much lower east of the Rocky Mountains. Wholesale electricity prices peaked between $175/MWh and $226/MWh at the four western price points (El Paso San Juan, SoCal Border, PG&E Citygate, and Sumas), while high prices east of the Rockies remained below $95/MWh during the month. Prices in the Midwest and eastern US fell enough to set new 12-month lows in New England (ISONE) at $36/MWh, the Mid-Atlantic (PJM) at $32/MWh, Louisiana (into Entergy) at $24/MWh, and in Texas (ERCOT) at $15/MWh.

[markslawson + 1,057]

12 hours ago, notsonice said:

The gas is simply too difficult to store and use, and far too inefficient as a store of energy. ..?????

The number one reason for the production of hydrogen is the availability of very cheap electricity that is overproduced in the night hours when demand is the lowest...

The biggest consumer of this hydrogen will be the injection of hydrogen into the natural gas network (up to 20 percent with no effect on the end users) ....very simple to use and the second end use of hydrogen is the production of liquid ammonia.......which right now is a huge consumer of nat gas 

Storing of liquid ammonia is easy ....and ammonia can be used as a replacement of bunker oil

 

lots of hydrolysers being built right now........

Granted everyone is talking about H2 and you have various announcements, but you'll find they won't amount to very much.????

you are not dealing with the reality of the production of cheap electricity via Wind during the night hours.....

notsonice - again this is all straight delusion. The same fantasies repeated by those in thrall to H2 as some way out of the problem that energy production causes emissions. Sure you tend to get more wind energy at night but you're still talking about the mass storage of energy in H2 systems. Electrolysis itself is not very efficient as a means of conversion.

Here is a quote from an article that is otherwise very favourable to hydrogen.

As a chemical feedstock, of course, hydrogen is irreplaceable. However, as an energy storage medium, it has only a 50% round-trip efficiency – far worse than batteries. As a source of work, fuel cells, turbines and engines are only 60% efficient – far worse than electric motors – and far more complex. As a source of heat, hydrogen costs four times as much as natural gas. As a way of transporting energy, hydrogen pipelines cost three times as much as power lines, and ships and trucks are even worse.

The writer still thinks that H2 will have role to play. That's hopeful, as its also difficult to store in any quantity. The molecules are much smaller than that of natural gas it also has quite different explosive properties. Sure H2 was used to supplement methane in town gas systems back in the 1950s, before the advent of LNG shipments. But present day gas systems are run at much higher pressures. The leakage is bad enough with methane - best not to make matters worse. 

Here is another article on the waste involved in H2.

Another headache is storage. When storing liquid hydrogen, some gas must be allowed to
evaporate for safety reasons—meaning that after two weeks, a car would lose half of its fuel, even
when not being driven. Also, Bossel found that the output-input efficiency cannot be much above
30%, while advanced batteries have a cycle efficiency of above 80%. In every situation, Bossel
found, the energy input outweighs the energy delivered by a factor of three to four.

The same article points out that only about 25 per cent of the energy captured can be recovered. That's far too high. There are other articles I could quote including one that points to horrendous storage costs but I think you should have the idea. Sorry but H2 is out. Time to move on.   

[turbguy + 1,540]

From ChatGTP:

What are the pros and cons of using hydrogen as a fuel?

Hydrogen is a versatile fuel that has the potential to revolutionize the energy industry. However, there are both pros and cons associated with using hydrogen as a fuel:

Pros:

1. Zero emissions: When hydrogen is used as a fuel, the only byproduct is water, making it a zero-emission fuel.
2. Abundant: Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and can be extracted from a variety of sources, including natural gas, biomass, and water.
3. High energy density: Hydrogen has a high energy density, meaning that it contains a lot of energy per unit of weight.
4. Versatile: Hydrogen can be used in a variety of applications, including transportation, power generation, and industrial processes.
5. Efficiency: When used in a fuel cell, hydrogen can be converted into electricity with a high efficiency.

Cons:

1. Production: The production of hydrogen can be energy-intensive, depending on the method used. Currently, most hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels, which contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Storage: Hydrogen has a low volumetric energy density, meaning that it takes up a lot of space compared to other fuels. This can make storage and transportation of hydrogen challenging.
3. Cost: The cost of producing, storing, and transporting hydrogen is currently higher than that of conventional fuels.
4. Safety: Hydrogen is a highly flammable gas and can be dangerous if not handled properly.
5. Infrastructure: The infrastructure for hydrogen production, storage, and distribution is currently limited, making it difficult to scale up the use of hydrogen as a fuel.

Overall, hydrogen has the potential to be a clean, abundant, and versatile fuel source, but it will require significant investment in research and infrastructure to overcome its current limitations.

 

What is the efficiency of a hydrogen air fuel cell?

 

 

 

The efficiency of a hydrogen air fuel cell can vary depending on several factors, such as the design of the fuel cell, operating conditions, and the quality of the materials used. However, in general, hydrogen air fuel cells have an efficiency range of 40% to 60%.

This efficiency refers to the amount of electrical energy produced by the fuel cell compared to the chemical energy of the hydrogen and oxygen fed into the cell. In addition to producing electricity, hydrogen air fuel cells also produce heat and water as byproducts.

It is worth noting that the overall efficiency of a hydrogen air fuel cell system is not just determined by the efficiency of the fuel cell itself but also by the efficiency of the hydrogen production and storage methods, as well as the overall system design and integration. Therefore, it is essential to consider the entire system when evaluating the efficiency of hydrogen air fuel cells.

Edited April 3, 2023 by turbguy

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 4/1/2023 at 12:22 PM, markslawson said:

Rob, sorry but this is delusional. As for your query on the E-fuel I don't know and don't much care. As I noted its a minor weakening of the ban that might give a loophole to permit the production of conventional engines is all. But Hydrogen is one of those green obsessions that obviously won't get any traction. The gas is simply too difficult to store and use, and far too inefficient as a store of energy. Sure costs might come down from astronomical to extremely expensive. Cars with hydrogen fuel cells have been produced but they are a niche. Granted everyone is talking about H2 and you have various announcements, but you'll find they won't amount to very much. If you want to store energy use a battery (still inefficient but way better than hydrogen). If you want to transmit energy use a high voltage line (vastly more efficient). If you want to ship energy over very long distances why bother at all. Make the renewable energy closer to its point of use (renewable energy can be generated anywhere).  

Delusional??

I reference new breakthroughs in electrolysers where they can use straight sea water vastly reducing cost, a car that can travel 2000KM on 1 tank of fuel meaning the cost per KM less than $0.01, an oil major spending €2b converting a refinery into a hydrogen plant and I'm delusional.

Why would an oil major waste €2b on a "delusional" project? In my experience they dont and simple economics regarding cost of fuel above tells me it definitely has legs and worth investment. Notsonice is spot on when he references other uses such as 20% in the NG pipelines https://www.hvnplus.co.uk/news/uk-gas-grid-ready-to-deliver-hydrogen-blend-by-2023-operators-claim-14-01-2022/

Mark you either arent up on the latest developments in electrolysers and the huge investment in hydrogen or you have your head buried in the sand.

The below is a couple of years out of date but still gives a good idea of the investment being put into hydrogen.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1220805/global-hydrogen-projects-by-region/#:~:text=Globally%2C 522 hydrogen projects have been announced to,be located in Europe%2C at 261 hydrogen projects.

Leave it with you.

[markslawson + 1,057]

17 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Why would an oil major waste €2b on a "delusional" project? In my experience they dont and simple economics regarding cost of fuel above tells me it definitely has legs and worth investment. Notsonice is spot on when he references other uses such as 20% in the NG pipelines https://www.hvnplus.co.uk/news/uk-gas-grid-ready-to-deliver-hydrogen-blend-by-2023-operators-claim-14-01-2022/

Rob - I am becoming impatient with this nonsense. H2 is a delusion. The oil majors are spending $2 billion on it because the aviation industry will be forced to use sustainable aviation fuels. Go and look at the material. They're not talking about storing H2 or using it as a store of energy or as a fuel by itself but as a feed into this other fuel which will be forced onto airlines. Once you strip away stuff like that and various "proposals" which will never go ahead you won't be left with much. Even then the headline figures you quote don't amount to very much at all compared to the money being spend on oil and gas. As for the reference to H2 in gas supplies go and look at my earlier comment. Sure it could be done but its expensive and there are major safety issues. As far as I know the UK government has not decided to do this and, considering the problems they are having, I doubt they'll do it. The one point of interest in your earlier post is the reference to electrolysis using sea water. Okay if the technology works at scale and is affordable hey, one of the huge barriers to the use of the technology would be removed, but you still have all the problems of using hydrogen. About all that can be said about any of this is that you have a different set of fantasies from notsonice, which is interesting from a psychological point of view, I guess. H2 has its uses but its no substitute for methane.  Dump it and forget it. I am now becoming sufficiently annoyed with this topic to exit the debate. Leave it with you.     

[markslawson + 1,057]

22 hours ago, turbguy said:

Overall, hydrogen has the potential to be a clean, abundant, and versatile fuel source, but it will require significant investment in research and infrastructure to overcome its current limitations.

Turbguy - while your comments are more reasonable than the others I've seen, the cons you cite really don't paint the full, grim pictures. There is no chance that H2 will be anything but a nice product in the energy industry - not without a few revolutionary breakthroughs. Call me when those breakthroughs happen, otherwise its a no go.. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

5 hours ago, markslawson said:

Rob - I am becoming impatient with this nonsense. H2 is a delusion. The oil majors are spending $2 billion on it because the aviation industry will be forced to use sustainable aviation fuels. Go and look at the material. They're not talking about storing H2 or using it as a store of energy or as a fuel by itself but as a feed into this other fuel which will be forced onto airlines. Once you strip away stuff like that and various "proposals" which will never go ahead you won't be left with much. Even then the headline figures you quote don't amount to very much at all compared to the money being spend on oil and gas. As for the reference to H2 in gas supplies go and look at my earlier comment. Sure it could be done but its expensive and there are major safety issues. As far as I know the UK government has not decided to do this and, considering the problems they are having, I doubt they'll do it. The one point of interest in your earlier post is the reference to electrolysis using sea water. Okay if the technology works at scale and is affordable hey, one of the huge barriers to the use of the technology would be removed, but you still have all the problems of using hydrogen. About all that can be said about any of this is that you have a different set of fantasies from notsonice, which is interesting from a psychological point of view, I guess. H2 has its uses but its no substitute for methane.  Dump it and forget it. I am now becoming sufficiently annoyed with this topic to exit the debate. Leave it with you.     

Mark the pipelines across the UK have been dug up and lined to prevent hydrogen embrittlement and hydrogen escaping via leaching through the pipes, this has been going on for 4-5 years now. Yes it has been an incredibly expensive thing to do but done it pretty much is so the UK absolutely WILL be using hydrogen in NG pipelines to supply both industry and houeholds. 

Both Notsonice and myself cite many reasons for the use of hydrogen and projects (many 100's of projects) that are actually happening now to facilitate the demand. We also show breakthroughs in tech that make this an incredibly cheap fuel in the future, why do you continue to deny this and bury your head in the sand? Its only very recently that hydrogen has become economic v FF/renewables.

In my experience Turbguy is very knowledgeable and has a rounded view on the whole energy transition argument.

Maybe you are becoming impatient with this topic because you realise youre wrong and didnt know the scale at which this fledgling industry is taking off?

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

6 hours ago, markslawson said:

Turbguy - while your comments are more reasonable than the others I've seen, the cons you cite really don't paint the full, grim pictures. There is no chance that H2 will be anything but a nice product in the energy industry - not without a few revolutionary breakthroughs. Call me when those breakthroughs happen, otherwise its a no go.. 

Ive posted 2 

1. Electrolysis direct from sea water lowering the cost of hydrogen to $2/KG

2. A hydrogen fuel cell that will power a car for 2000KM rather than 300KM on one re-fuel.

Simple economics make this an investible industry.

[notsonice + 1,255]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

Rob - I am becoming impatient with this nonsense. H2 is a delusion. The oil majors are spending $2 billion on it because the aviation industry will be forced to use sustainable aviation fuels. Go and look at the material. They're not talking about storing H2 or using it as a store of energy or as a fuel by itself but as a feed into this other fuel which will be forced onto airlines. Once you strip away stuff like that and various "proposals" which will never go ahead you won't be left with much. Even then the headline figures you quote don't amount to very much at all compared to the money being spend on oil and gas. As for the reference to H2 in gas supplies go and look at my earlier comment. Sure it could be done but its expensive and there are major safety issues. As far as I know the UK government has not decided to do this and, considering the problems they are having, I doubt they'll do it. The one point of interest in your earlier post is the reference to electrolysis using sea water. Okay if the technology works at scale and is affordable hey, one of the huge barriers to the use of the technology would be removed, but you still have all the problems of using hydrogen. About all that can be said about any of this is that you have a different set of fantasies from notsonice, which is interesting from a psychological point of view, I guess. H2 has its uses but its no substitute for methane.  Dump it and forget it. I am now becoming sufficiently annoyed with this topic to exit the debate. Leave it with you.     

 H2 has its uses but its no substitute for methane. ????

Most Nat gas is used for heating and electricity generation.....H2 is a substitute for methane 

Fantasies??? all the projects being built right now are real physical things that you can see and touch....fantasies??? sounds like you just live in denial

 

your becoming impatient with what??? no one is forcing you to participate in Hydrogen production or use

[turbguy + 1,540]

3 hours ago, notsonice said:

 H2 has its uses but its no substitute for methane. ????

Most Nat gas is used for heating and electricity generation.....H2 is a substitute for methane 

Fantasies??? all the projects being built right now are real physical things that you can see and touch....fantasies??? sounds like you just live in denial

 

your becoming impatient with what??? no one is forcing you to participate in Hydrogen production or use

You must admit, there is a HELLUVA lot of methane available right now.  It  is not as "environmentally friendly" as hydrogen promises to be, but it is cheap and it is quite available.

We might as well use it while transitioning occurs.

Coal?  Yuck!  Stop using that by all means possible, no matter how much it hurts someone's pocketbook.

[markslawson + 1,057]

13 hours ago, notsonice said:

H2 has its uses but its no substitute for methane. ????

Most Nat gas is used for heating and electricity generation.....H2 is a substitute for methane 

Fantasies??? all the projects being built right now are real physical things that you can see and touch....fantasies??? sounds like you just live in denial

 

your becoming impatient with what??? no one is forcing you to participate in Hydrogen production or use

I'll try one more time to get the message across. I was correct in all my other points. The H2 projects you claim to be able to touch are usually either small demonstration plants, or the production of H2 for industrial purposes. H2 is used extensively as feedstock in industry. However, its use as a store of energy is basically non existent outside certain niche applications (fuel cells in subs, the boosters on the space shuttle used H2 and so on). There is no indication that will change any time soon, mostly because the technology for doing so on any meaningful scale just doesn't exist, and is use is known to be many times more expensive than the alternatives. There have been proposals for its use in town gas supplies but I dealt with that point, and its just proposals. If you and Rob Plant want to deny this basic reality of H2 being a dead end then go ahead. About all that can really be said in favour of H2 being used in energy is that it serves as a comforting fairy story activists can tell one another. Anyway, leave it with you. I will use this exchange as an anecdote in a speech I have to give in a few weeks about how activists refuse to back down from losing positions, no matter what the evidence.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

7 hours ago, markslawson said:

I'll try one more time to get the message across. I was correct in all my other points. The H2 projects you claim to be able to touch are usually either small demonstration plants, or the production of H2 for industrial purposes. H2 is used extensively as feedstock in industry. However, its use as a store of energy is basically non existent outside certain niche applications (fuel cells in subs, the boosters on the space shuttle used H2 and so on). There is no indication that will change any time soon, mostly because the technology for doing so on any meaningful scale just doesn't exist, and is use is known to be many times more expensive than the alternatives. There have been proposals for its use in town gas supplies but I dealt with that point, and its just proposals. If you and Rob Plant want to deny this basic reality of H2 being a dead end then go ahead. About all that can really be said in favour of H2 being used in energy is that it serves as a comforting fairy story activists can tell one another. Anyway, leave it with you. I will use this exchange as an anecdote in a speech I have to give in a few weeks about how activists refuse to back down from losing positions, no matter what the evidence.

Is that speech to your family and friends?

https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/nine-of-the-largest-green-hydrogen-projects-2022/

Why are you denying it when all the evidence tells you its happening, not just with start ups but by oil majors and major utilities. These are at scale NOT demonstration plants, Giga scale projects Mark!

Are all these massive companies activists and telling fairy stories whilst at the same time investing billions in them, jeez! But obviously you know best!

"Globally, 522 hydrogen projects have been announced to be developed between 2021 and 2030, of which 43 are giga-scale green hydrogen projects. The majority of hydrogen activity will be located in Europe, at 261 hydrogen projects. Many European countries have been invested in finding non-carbon intensive alternatives for industrial and transportation usage in line with the European Unions Green Deal and an effort to strengthen the local value chain."

By your own admission you were not aware of the recent tech breakthrough in electrolysers using sea water saving huge amounts in cost, or the fuel cell breakthrough that quadruples distance for a car, so your opinion is out of date.

I reference what I am saying but you just spout your opinion. You're going to look mighty stupid in a few years time to those people who attend your speech. I suggest you research the topic thoroughly before making it.