Is electric really the answer?

[Dan E]

watched Seaspiracy the other night on Netfliks, well worth a watch and seriously worrying. The sea could be completely wiped out of life by 2048, then that is us pretty much finished. 

And them &*^ts who eat shark fin soup 🤬

[Bibs]

Took my EV to the beach yesterday to take my daughter horse riding which she loved! 110 miles there and back, still have 67% charge so a third of the battery used and on my new cheap overnight tariff that comes to about a pound of electricity! EV's (even with a heat pump) love the warm weather! That's about 1/10th the cost of my 60MPG Scirroco! 

[PAR]

2 hours ago, eUKenGB said:

but Climate Change? Nah.

Haha, I thought for a moment you were serious before I realised it is April fools day. Almost got me there. 😂 

[C8RKH]

All this climate change stuff just pisses me off as it is full of hypocrisy!

 

Too many people using too much stuff = fooked up planet.

Reduce the population. Use less. = better planet

It really is that simple.

The rest is all about publicity for different agendas and you can bet your life people are making a lot of money out of it!

 

[au-yt]

something to ponder

 

[exeterjeep]

Perhaps a new thread ?  -  is hydrogen the answer instead of electricity..

Citroen, Peugeot and Vauxhall light commercial vehicle (LCV) dealers must prepare for an influx of hydrogen-powered vans as the three Stellantis brands prepare to launch fuel cell vehicles.

https://www.am-online.com/news/manufacturer/2021/04/07/citroen-peugeot-and-vauxhall-to-launch-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vans-in-2022

[C8RKH]

This is more like it

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-9540603/Toyota-Mirai-review-second-generation-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car.html

[C8RKH]

On 07/04/2021 at 16:44, exeterjeep said:

Perhaps a new thread ?  -  is hydrogen the answer instead of electricity..

Citroen, Peugeot and Vauxhall light commercial vehicle (LCV) dealers must prepare for an influx of hydrogen-powered vans as the three Stellantis brands prepare to launch fuel cell vehicles.

https://www.am-online.com/news/manufacturer/2021/04/07/citroen-peugeot-and-vauxhall-to-launch-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vans-in-2022

Go back 20 odd pages on this thread and you will I was accused of all sorts for suggesting Hydrogen was a viable alternative to the Patron Saint Duracell!

Seems like some of my "self projecting" was seen...  hahahahaha....

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-9540603/Toyota-Mirai-review-second-generation-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car.html

 

Battery will never be an option for shipping and probably even commercial aviation. HGV transportation is very borderline. Man in a duracell van, yep, can certainly see that...

Green hydrogen has problems and issues, but I think for large scale use, it will be a go'er so don't all cash in your shares in current petrol forecourt businesses.

[eUKenGB]

I don't understand this need to champion Hydrogen as an alternative/better power source for cars. There are massive problems with trying to use Hydrogen. I used to think it was THE answer, but then I looked into it more it was obvious how impractical it actually is. Expensive to produce, really hard to store in quantity, cannot be simply piped around like natural gas, just what is its supposed 'advantage'?

Range? No doubt convinces many, but what is currently being touted will soon be surpassed by batteries and more to come with further battery development. How will the range of Hydrogen cars increase beyond what is now offered? Bigger tanks? Better Hydrogen? Ha.

Re-fuelling speed? With the latest BEVs and 800v charging, capable of 80% charge in under 20 minutes, is that really a problem? Especially when the majority of cars will only ever need to be charged at home, overnight and never actually take advantage of any rapid charging ability of their car.

Easier to find somewhere to refill with Hydrogen than recharge? You're having a laugh or haven't done the maths. There are already more re-charging points in the UK than petrol pumps. They're so easy to implement everyone can have one in their home and commence every journey with the equivalent of a full tank. How many homes will have their own personal Hydrogen production plant? I think we all know the answer to that.

Better for the environment? Nope. So the car doesn't use power directly from the grid, but where do you think the energy to produce the hydrogen comes from? Hydrogen production is not a simple or efficient process. It requires a lot of energy and from where is that going to come?

So it really comes down to what seems to be an irrational hatred of batteries. Well, as I've said before, Hydrogen cars also have batteries so you're not avoiding them anyway. Admittedly, fewer batteries than a BEV, but with batteries being re-cycled it'll make little to no difference.

Does a hydrogen car provide the same aural thrill as an ICE? Nope. They're exactly the same to drive and listen to as a BEV (although to be as fast means more batteries).

So I say again, just what is driving this desire for hydrogen (with battery) power rather than just batteries.

[C8RKH]

19 minutes ago, eUKenGB said:

I don't understand this need to champion Hydrogen as an alternative/better power source for cars

This is what I said. Certainly not "championing" hydrogen for cars.  But by the same token I assume you are not saying batteries are right for sea and air heavy transportation.

 

Battery will never be an option for shipping and probably even commercial aviation. HGV transportation is very borderline. Man in a duracell van, yep, can certainly see that...

Green hydrogen has problems and issues, but I think for large scale use, it will be a go'er so don't all cash in your shares in current petrol forecourt businesses.

 

"So I say again, just what is driving this desire for hydrogen (with battery) power rather than just batteries."

 

Batteries are a great option. But they still do have environmental issues associated with them. Plus, right now, around 1% of all cars globally, if that, are battery powered. Scale that up to 100%, oh yes, we have issues on a global scale.

[mg4lotus]

Interestingly, well I think its interesting, some projects are using hydrogen as a battery. When there is surplus electricity it is used to make hydrogen from water, the hydrogen is stored like a battery stores energy, then when there is a need for electricity on the grid the hydrogen is used to generate it and the product is water.

[Barrykearley]

Our Hyundai Kona has now been highlighted for recall. As an interim the batteries should only be charged to 90% so we need to change a setting on the dash.

sometime soonish - the car needs to go to Hyundai uk to have the entire battery pack replaced. 

we’ve had absolutely no issues with it, range is great, apparently a couple have caught fire when charging.

i think what we all must accept as a race is there’s no silver bullet - we simply all need to live more sustainable lives and just using a different car ain’t gonna cut it.

my first covid jab tonight - I’ll take the esprit 👍

 

[C8RKH]

8 hours ago, mg4lotus said:

Interestingly, well I think its interesting, some projects are using hydrogen as a battery. When there is surplus electricity it is used to make hydrogen from water, the hydrogen is stored like a battery stores energy, then when there is a need for electricity on the grid the hydrogen is used to generate it and the product is water.

The big opportunity for Hydrogen is becoming financially viable due to the ongoing investment in key projects like offshore wind. For the UK the opportunity is exploiting the large investment in renewable offshore wind (which can provide an abundance of green electricity) to provide the "fuel" for the extraction of Hydrogen from seawater.  We have a large number of oil platforms that are coming to end of life/at end of life, for their original purpose of the extraction of carbon based oil and gas.  The topsides of these platforms can be repurposed with the equipment required to extract the hydrogen. The platforms could then be connected to the offshore wind farms for the supply of electricity. The production cycles for the hydrogen can be varied to make use of the excess capacity from the wind farms (i.e. the energy that is not sent to UK mainland for on land use) which will be "bought" at a lower wholesale price. This type of arrangement is what makes the production of green hydrogen viable as the energy required to extract the Hydrogen from water is considerable.

Still issues exist though (like with batteries but these for some reason are always played down). For example, hydrogen is quite corrosive so the pipes used to transport it cannot just be repurposed oil & gas ones. At the very least they need to be lined etc.

I do believe we will migrate to a totally different transport mix/system.  Personally owned transportation is very much in decline. COVID has done more to accelerate the change in habits in 12 months than the whole of the EV industry in the past 10 years!  Cities and towns are reclaiming the centres for people - personal transportation (apart from cycles) is being actively targeted and discouraged. Even in the countryside, many of the B roads in my county are now littered with 40mph limits, previously 60 mph, and littered with signs declaring these roads "walking and cycling" friendly.  The mass influx of office workers to the city/town centres is a thing of the past. Very few people will go back to a full 5 days a week in the office. That habit has been broken.  Towns and cities are investing in mass transportation systems to further prevent personal transportation coming into the centre. Young people no longer aspire to car ownership as their way of life has changed. Their priorities are different.

So, the future will be less cars. Whether ICE, EV or HFC.  Households will move from 2, 3, 4 even 5 cars, to 1 maybe 2 cars as personal journeys (for work, shopping - look at the explosion in home delivery now, the new norm for weekly shopping) continue to decline. People are and will continue to divert their disposable income away from "things" like prestige cars/toy cars, to family experiences and quality of life "things".  The COVID lockdown has shown to many that health, family, happiness are far more important than meaningless expressions of wealth.

Motoring as a past time is in decline. Regulation and legislation will kill it further as the "enjoyment" is sucked out of it over the next 10 years. AI in cars. Snoopers and trackers in cars reporting on every indiscretion. More control. Less freedom.  The motoring revolution from the 50's through to the noughties was about "freedom" for the masses. That is now over and being reined in.

So ICE, EV or HFC. it's all rather moot as we will see the general decline in ownership and use of cars for personal transportation. The ultimate goal really, as that is how you make the changes required for sustainable living and preserving the planet for the future.

  

[eUKenGB]

12 hours ago, C8RKH said:

Batteries are a great option. But they still do have environmental issues associated with them. Plus, right now, around 1% of all cars globally, if that, are battery powered. Scale that up to 100%, oh yes, we have issues on a global scale.

Not really. Once we reach saturation, there would be no need to make 'new' batteries as they're all re-cycled. So no new minerals need to be mined. The only throughput is energy, but everything needs that. Burning fossil fuels can never achieve such balance and will ALWAYS be depleting a finite resource, i.e. it WILL run out. Some people either don't get this or are prepared to shrug their shoulders in an apparent 'not my problem' attitude. Future generations will not appreciate that selfishness. But I digress…

Hydrogen or pure battery, that is the question. I agree that for commercial transportation, particularly trains and planes, Hydrogen could be an option with the transport suppliers large enough to have their own plant and also that type of usage only requires a constant source of power. Cars however have very variable requirements and Hydrogen fuel cells cannot produce the massive current spikes that are necessary and batteries can easily provide. Horses for courses as they say.

Speaking of horses, back in the day no-one complained about a horse not being able to go for 600 miles without rest. Everyone simply accepted their limitations and planned accordingly. Same for BEVs. We will simply need to adapt to their shortcomings, while taking advantage of their huge benefits. Not only to the environment, but also to our pockets and the convenience of always starting out from home with a full 'tank'. There are cars now that would satisfy 99.9% of everyone's requirements. Who regularly drives over 400 miles per day (cars, not trucks)? For those very few, they'll just have to take into account a stop to re-charge which quite frankly they should be doing anyway after driving 400 miles.

So it's back to batteries. They are not the root of all evil and Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars will also need them, so everyone has to accept them. In the brief time that batteries have been seriously researched and developed for cars, they are already twice as energy dense and I believe about 20% of what they used to cost and there are new technologies on the horizon that promise to improve that twofold at least. In 20 years time, things will be very different. In 50 years? 100 years it would probably be unrecognisable to us. One thing is for SURE though. There'll be less oil left, or even none at all.

Batteries, hydrogen, nuclear, chemical. It's all about energy and how best to produce and use it in a sustainable way. Perfect solution would be if we could fill up with water, crack that into Hydrogen and Oxygen, re-combine into water which is released back into the atmosphere, releasing enough instant energy to power a vehicle without need of additional battery storage. I agree, that would be marvellous, but currently that takes more energy than is released. If anyone can solve that, they'd be on to a winner.

[C8RKH]

Ken - I don't see how your first paragraph relates to what is being said here and certainly don't see anyone just shrugging their shoulders.

I also do not agree that Hydrogen or pure battery is the question.  It is not a binary decision, but should be the best fit for what is required based on the variables of each requirement.

I also don't understand why you say "batteries are not the route of all evil" - who is saying they are evil?

And finally, yes, at some point in the future we may well have the ability to recycle all batteries. But that doesn't fix the environmental impact and destruction caused by building the batteries now, that we may be able to recycle in the future, does it? 

So, the right tool for the job, at the right time. And so what if fossil fuels will run out. When they are gone they are gone. But not for ever. Who knows, in a hundred million years your carbon may be used to fuel an ICE engine for a few metres. You see fossil fuels are renewable. it just takes millions of years for the cycle to complete

Now we just need the "graphene kid" to chip in.

 

 

[eUKenGB]

10 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

The big opportunity for Hydrogen is becoming financially viable due to the ongoing investment in key projects like offshore wind. For the UK the opportunity is exploiting the large investment in renewable offshore wind (which can provide an abundance of green electricity) to provide the "fuel" for the extraction of Hydrogen from seawater.  We have a large number of oil platforms that are coming to end of life/at end of life, for their original purpose of the extraction of carbon based oil and gas.  The topsides of these platforms can be repurposed with the equipment required to extract the hydrogen. The platforms could then be connected to the offshore wind farms for the supply of electricity. The production cycles for the hydrogen can be varied to make use of the excess capacity from the wind farms (i.e. the energy that is not sent to UK mainland for on land use) which will be "bought" at a lower wholesale price. This type of arrangement is what makes the production of green hydrogen viable as the energy required to extract the Hydrogen from water is considerable.

Still issues exist though (like with batteries but these for some reason are always played down). For example, hydrogen is quite corrosive so the pipes used to transport it cannot just be repurposed oil & gas ones. At the very least they need to be lined etc.

I do believe we will migrate to a totally different transport mix/system.  Personally owned transportation is very much in decline. COVID has done more to accelerate the change in habits in 12 months than the whole of the EV industry in the past 10 years!  Cities and towns are reclaiming the centres for people - personal transportation (apart from cycles) is being actively targeted and discouraged. Even in the countryside, many of the B roads in my county are now littered with 40mph limits, previously 60 mph, and littered with signs declaring these roads "walking and cycling" friendly.  The mass influx of office workers to the city/town centres is a thing of the past. Very few people will go back to a full 5 days a week in the office. That habit has been broken.  Towns and cities are investing in mass transportation systems to further prevent personal transportation coming into the centre. Young people no longer aspire to car ownership as their way of life has changed. Their priorities are different.

So, the future will be less cars. Whether ICE, EV or HFC.  Households will move from 2, 3, 4 even 5 cars, to 1 maybe 2 cars as personal journeys (for work, shopping - look at the explosion in home delivery now, the new norm for weekly shopping) continue to decline. People are and will continue to divert their disposable income away from "things" like prestige cars/toy cars, to family experiences and quality of life "things".  The COVID lockdown has shown to many that health, family, happiness are far more important than meaningless expressions of wealth.

Motoring as a past time is in decline. Regulation and legislation will kill it further as the "enjoyment" is sucked out of it over the next 10 years. AI in cars. Snoopers and trackers in cars reporting on every indiscretion. More control. Less freedom.  The motoring revolution from the 50's through to the noughties was about "freedom" for the masses. That is now over and being reined in.

So ICE, EV or HFC. it's all rather moot as we will see the general decline in ownership and use of cars for personal transportation. The ultimate goal really, as that is how you make the changes required for sustainable living and preserving the planet for the future.

  

Cannot disagree there, except that transportation of Hydrogen is even more problematic than you describe. It CANNOT be compressed to a liquid at normal (room) temperatures, so storing it in bulk requires massive pressure and massive cooling, both of which use up much of its potential energy. Plus it leaks, from anything. Those single protons just cannot be contained by anything larger and EVERYTHING is larger. Obviously this is not a rapid process, but as with the previously mentioned shortcomings, it makes long term storage for Hydrogen impossible. BMW's Hydrogen test cars with cooled and insulated pressure tanks for the Hydrogen would leak to nothing in just 2 weeks. Improvements have come from storing Hydrogen over special materials that hang on to the protons and allow lower pressures to be used etc, but these are very specialised materials and no doubt as 'unpleasant' as the constituents of batteries. Did I say that Hydrogen fuel cell cars also require batteries. 😀

I have yet to hear a compelling argument for the use of Hydrogen in cars. I wish it were not so, but the laws of physics dictate otherwise. All we need is a portable way to store energy that can be released as electricity to drive electric motors. Hydrogen has so many fundamental problems with no conceivable solutions. Batteries however are improving at a rapid rate and will continue to do so with no laws of the universe imposing any conceivable upper limit on their capacity and practicality.

But as you say, whatever the method of propulsion, driving will never again be what it once was. 😠

[eUKenGB]

7 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

Ken - I don't see how your first paragraph relates to what is being said here and certainly don't see anyone just shrugging their shoulders.

I also do not agree that Hydrogen or pure battery is the question.  It is not a binary decision, but should be the best fit for what is required based on the variables of each requirement.

I also don't understand why you say "batteries are not the route of all evil" - who is saying they are evil?

And finally, yes, at some point in the future we may well have the ability to recycle all batteries. But that doesn't fix the environmental impact and destruction caused by building the batteries now, that we may be able to recycle in the future, does it? 

So, the right tool for the job, at the right time. And so what if fossil fuels will run out. When they are gone they are gone. But not for ever. Who knows, in a hundred million years your carbon may be used to fuel an ICE engine for a few metres. You see fossil fuels are renewable. it just takes millions of years for the cycle to complete

Now we just need the "graphene kid" to chip in.

 

 

Battery hatred is a big thing. Really. I come across it everywhere and if memory serves me correctly you've been pretty vociferous in condemning them. Even in your post above you complain about the damage done due to mining their raw materials. But the reality is there is no great problem there with plenty available for all the batteries we'll ever need - as long as we re-cycle and that's another issue. It is possible, but not enough is being done due to there being insufficient obvious profit and "there lies the rub". Sadly it's still all about money.

I wasn't trying to say it's 100% Hydrogen or 100% batteries. I did state I see Hydrogen as possible for commercial fleet usage, but there is no getting away from the fact that it offers no advantage for cars over just batteries. At least, none that I've yet heard.

Trains are not a problem. They are already largely electric as it is possible to feed them the required power from overhead lines or along the tracks, without a need for mobile energy storage. It's already being done.

For shipping, what about nuclear? I was astonished to discover a few years ago that submarines are built around a lifetime nuclear power plant. A self contained module that is installed when the sub is constructed and is never replaced and the sub never refuels in its entire lifetime. The output is electricity that drives electric motors that turn the screws. This is already being done and has been for years, tried and tested. So why not simply apply this to ships. No need then for huge battery storage, nor massive Hydrogen tanks, nor some on-board Hydrogen conversion plant. No new technology needs to be developed.

So that's trains and ships sorted. Now, planes. Hmm. Not so simple. Fly less?

[C8RKH]

3 hours ago, eUKenGB said:

Battery hatred is a big thing. Really. I come across it everywhere and if memory serves me correctly you've been pretty vociferous in condemning them. Even in your post above you complain about the damage done due to mining their raw materials. But the reality is there is no great problem there with plenty available for all the batteries we'll ever need

I have been very vociferous about the fact that battery cars do not appeal to me. Guilty m'lord. However, I have not "condemned" them. But unlike some, I am not blind to the environmental problems that they have created. Go and see for yourself the damage the mining has done. Just because the damage is not being done here does not mean it is not being done. You need to stop denying that battery production has had an impact. The reality is that it has, and the facts are out there. And, we will need to build millions more batteries before we get into the cycle of mass recycling of them.  just facts. Not condemnation. but also not denial of the issues either Ken.

Have a look here to see - it's a UN site so not full of the usual one side versus the other side BS.

"There is no problem" - Hmm. Not here, no. But elsewhere? Oh yes. Here's some info from the report.

Reserves of the raw materials for car batteries are highly concentrated in a few countries. Nearly 50% of world cobalt reserves are in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), 58% of lithium reserves are in Chile, 80% of natural graphite reserves are in China, Brazil and Turkey, while 75% of manganese reserves are in Australia, Brazil, South Africa and Ukraine.

 

The report shines a light on the social and environmental impacts of the extraction of raw materials for car batteries and underlines the urgent need to address them.

For instance, about 20% of cobalt supplied from the DRC comes from artisanal mines where child labour and human rights abuses have been reported. Up to 40,000 children work in extremely dangerous conditions in the mines for meagre income, according to UNICEF.

And in Chile, lithium mining uses nearly 65% of the water in the country's Salar de Atamaca region, one of the driest desert areas in the world, to pump out brines from drilled wells.

This has caused groundwater depletion and pollution, forcing local quinoa farmers and llama herders to migrate and abandon ancestral settlements. It has also contributed to environment degradation, landscape damage and soil contamination.

The adverse environmental impacts could be reduced by increasing investment in technologies used to recycle spent rechargeable batteries, according to the report.

 

So tell me again there is "no problem". No environmental impact. Raising the issues is not "battery hatred". Choosing to ignore the "issues" or gloss over them is, well, as bad as the climate change deniers, the flat earthers, etc.  People can stick their fingers in their ears, shout I can't hear you, and proclaim that everyone hates them. Activist groups have been doing that since before Jesus. The only time we really make progress is when we accept the issues. understand the issues. And work collaboratively to over come them.

Remember, in the 50's, Nuclear Power was the answer that was going to provide cheap power for the masses and clean up the skies.  The dream lasted around 25 years before we realised we had created another monster, a different monster, whose shit we will be cleaning up for the next 300 years and more. Blind faith in technology and change does not equal utopia. Ignoring or denying issues. Leads to hell.

 

So. to be clear. Mo HATRED here from me. I know batteries are inevitable. But I am honest that they are not my first choice for a car. Other uses, yes. Are they the only answer to our energy crises and climate issues?  No. Do they cause environmental harm and impact now. Absolutely.

[gregs24]

On 01/04/2021 at 21:22, au-yt said:

something to ponder

 

Two important factors to consider here:

Firstly CO2 is not the only driver of global temperature and there were some very strong drivers of global temperature millions of years ago that are not changing at present. Secondly almost that entire graph has no human derived input until the very last little squiggle - as in it is driven by natural factors. The link between CO2 and temperature during the time humans have been able to influence CO2 is dramatic and clear. That sort of graph is trotted out by climate change deniers regularly but don't be fooled. The first graph uses Ice core samples to correlate CO2 and temperature the latter is just CO2 but shows the recent dramatic uptick.

 

 

[eUKenGB]

2 hours ago, C8RKH said:

So. to be clear. Mo HATRED here from me. I know batteries are inevitable. But I am honest that they are not my first choice for a car. Other uses, yes. Are they the only answer to our energy crises and climate issues?  No. Do they cause environmental harm and impact now. Absolutely.

I think everyone is aware that there is room for improvement in the production of materials required for current battery technology, but it IS and will continue to improve with enormous research being conducted to reduce the requirement for those materials that create such objection and that's the point about batteries, the technology is changing, improving and ultimately they're re-cycleable which can never be said for fossil fuel despite your humorous point made earlier as of course the way we are currently deforesting the planet means there will not be the vegetation required to make more oil for use in a million years or so.

So, however you want to describe your dislike or, or concern about batteries, how does Hydrogen power solve the battery problem when they still require batteries?

Something of a rhetorical question as there is no current answer to this debate. The world does still require personal (and commercial) transportation. Reliance on fossil fuel HAS to be eliminated (or we wait until it runs out which leads to the same problem) and you want no batteries, so what's your solution because Hydrogen fuel cell power ain't it.

[gregs24]

6 hours ago, eUKenGB said:

Battery hatred is a big thing. Really. I come across it everywhere and if memory serves me correctly you've been pretty vociferous in condemning them. Even in your post above you complain about the damage done due to mining their raw materials. But the reality is there is no great problem there with plenty available for all the batteries we'll ever need - as long as we re-cycle and that's another issue. It is possible, but not enough is being done due to there being insufficient obvious profit and "there lies the rub". Sadly it's still all about money.

I wasn't trying to say it's 100% Hydrogen or 100% batteries. I did state I see Hydrogen as possible for commercial fleet usage, but there is no getting away from the fact that it offers no advantage for cars over just batteries. At least, none that I've yet heard.

Trains are not a problem. They are already largely electric as it is possible to feed them the required power from overhead lines or along the tracks, without a need for mobile energy storage. It's already being done.

For shipping, what about nuclear? I was astonished to discover a few years ago that submarines are built around a lifetime nuclear power plant. A self contained module that is installed when the sub is constructed and is never replaced and the sub never refuels in its entire lifetime. The output is electricity that drives electric motors that turn the screws. This is already being done and has been for years, tried and tested. So why not simply apply this to ships. No need then for huge battery storage, nor massive Hydrogen tanks, nor some on-board Hydrogen conversion plant. No new technology needs to be developed.

So that's trains and ships sorted. Now, planes. Hmm. Not so simple. Fly less?

Hydrogen trains are already being trialled as are Hydrogen busses and hydrogen heated houses.

Nuclear ships sounds good but I don't think it is likely outside of a military environment - the security risk would be huge.

Planes - again hydrogen is being trialled together with synthetic fuels

[eUKenGB]

3 minutes ago, gregs24 said:

Hydrogen trains are already being trialled as are Hydrogen busses and hydrogen heated houses.

Nuclear ships sounds good but I don't think it is likely outside of a military environment - the security risk would be huge.

Planes - again hydrogen is being trialled together with synthetic fuels

Hydrogen powered trains is a stupid idea. The do not need a mobile power source as they can suck it up as they are moving. Why create a problem that doesn't exist. That's what really worries me, that those in charge get so caught up in the popular trends that they don't see the obvious solutions and even even problems that they then apparently solve. Utterly stupid.

[gregs24]

10 minutes ago, eUKenGB said:

Hydrogen powered trains is a stupid idea. The do not need a mobile power source as they can suck it up as they are moving. Why create a problem that doesn't exist. That's what really worries me, that those in charge get so caught up in the popular trends that they don't see the obvious solutions and even even problems that they then apparently solve. Utterly stupid.

A large part of the UK rail network does not have either overhead or third rail power. It will take decades to fit it if it is even possible on small rural branch lines. 

So far from stupid - actually really sensible practical solution to speed up the removal of diesel powered trains

[exeterjeep]

18 minutes ago, gregs24 said:

A large part of the UK rail network does not have either overhead or third rail power. It will take decades to fit it if it is even possible on small rural branch lines. 

So far from stupid - actually really sensible practical solution to speed up the removal of diesel powered trains

Down in the South West rail lines do not have overhead lines or 3rd rails. Imagine all the lost overhead wires every few months along the sea wall at Dawlish, new trains have been introduced in the last 12-18 months, to replace the IC125s

[C8RKH]

49 minutes ago, gregs24 said:

A large part of the UK rail network does not have either overhead or third rail power. It will take decades to fit it if it is even possible on small rural branch lines. 

So far from stupid - actually really sensible practical solution to speed up the removal of diesel powered trains

Yup are so right. I don't get this hatred of Hydrogen.  😂🤣😂🤣