Had a presentation from my company yesterday saying we will be using hydrogen powered trucks by 2030. Just been reading up on them, looks like they are almost in prototype stage already. Though according to the article below there might be a technology battle between hydrogen and pure electric similar to VHS betamax!
Merc and volvo are betting on Hydrogen, Scania/MAN on batteries.
What did the presentation people say about supply and infrastructure ? Your own tank installation is ok if just out and back .
The efficiency pro rata isn’t as good , neither is the loss of payload.
Maybe these don’t matter in your operation and by 2030 who knows where the world will be.
That’s correct. The media keep on about different ’ colours’ of hydrogen depending on the production method, and there isn’t enough of it.
Methane/ Lng is at least here and now technology with infrastructure in place.
Swordsy:
Is methane ‘green’ though? Does it still produce emissions?
Methane unburned is a greenhouse gas and currently one of the biggest contributors to climate warming with an effect 80 times more than CO2, mostly coming from the emissions from cows and landfill sites. The only “good” thing about methane is it breaks down very quickly, within months. But methane is actually one of the biggest targets for reduction in the war against climate change because the effects of reducing it are quite quick whereas with other emissions it can take years.
When you burn it it does release less CO2 into the atmosphere but it still releases it. Basically if you’re burning anything for producing power then it’s not good for the climate.
The only waste product from Hydrogen fuel is water. Batteries - nothing.
Is sadly untrue. Creating hydrogen uses electrolysis so both hydrogen fuel and batteries require electricity and whilst there may be no harmful emissions at the point of use what there are at the point of generation is an entirely different kettle of fish. And I don’t know about you but the idea of breaking down water, something we rely on to stay alive and which has a finite supply, doesn’t really seem like an awfully good idea.
Unfortunately the only way to reduce pollution from transportation is to do less transportation. Even if you have an EV that is charged from solar or wind there’s still particulates being put into the air from the tyres and brakes, there’s a significant amount of pollution that comes from making the vehicle and the amount of water pollution from lithium mining for the batteries is staggering.
Conor:
Methane unburned is a greenhouse gas and currently one of the biggest contributors to climate warming with an effect 80 times more than CO2, mostly coming from the emissions from cows and landfill sites. The only “good” thing about methane is it breaks down very quickly, within months. But methane is actually one of the biggest targets for reduction in the war against climate change because the effects of reducing it are quite quick whereas with other emissions it can take years.
When you burn it it does release less CO2 into the atmosphere but it still releases it. Basically if you’re burning anything for producing power then it’s not good for the climate.
The only waste product from Hydrogen fuel is water. Batteries - nothing.
Is sadly untrue. Creating hydrogen uses electrolysis so both hydrogen fuel and batteries require electricity and whilst there may be no harmful emissions at the point of use what there are at the point of generation is an entirely different kettle of fish. And I don’t know about you but the idea of breaking down water, something we rely on to stay alive and which has a finite supply, doesn’t really seem like an awfully good idea.
Unfortunately the only way to reduce pollution from transportation is to do less transportation. Even if you have an EV that is charged from solar or wind there’s still particulates being put into the air from the tyres and brakes, there’s a significant amount of pollution that comes from making the vehicle and the amount of water pollution from lithium mining for the batteries is staggering.
Your premise looks less credible when you factor in the fact that methane only forms 0.0001% of Earth’s atmosphere.
As for CO2 it’s at the minimum required to sustain photosynthesis at 0.04% and could never be an issue here even if we burnt all of the fossil fuel reserves.
That’s even assuming that CO2 cooked Venus as opposed to 90 bar pressure and 30 million miles closer to the Sun.
As for hydrogen you get the water back when it’s burnt.
It can be burnt in an ICE just like petrol.
It’s also a zero CO2 emission fuel even if CO2 was a problem.
Brake and tyre dust you’ll still get that from shoe soles and bicycle tyres and brakes.
Even if you succeed in your Green Party activist crusade to send us back to the stone age.
Conor:
Methane unburned is a greenhouse gas and currently one of the biggest contributors to climate warming with an effect 80 times more than CO2, mostly coming from the emissions from cows and landfill sites. The only “good” thing about methane is it breaks down very quickly, within months. But methane is actually one of the biggest targets for reduction in the war against climate change because the effects of reducing it are quite quick whereas with other emissions it can take years.
When you burn it it does release less CO2 into the atmosphere but it still releases it. Basically if you’re burning anything for producing power then it’s not good for the climate.
The only waste product from Hydrogen fuel is water. Batteries - nothing.
Is sadly untrue. Creating hydrogen uses electrolysis so both hydrogen fuel and batteries require electricity and whilst there may be no harmful emissions at the point of use what there are at the point of generation is an entirely different kettle of fish. And I don’t know about you but the idea of breaking down water, something we rely on to stay alive and which has a finite supply, doesn’t really seem like an awfully good idea.
Unfortunately the only way to reduce pollution from transportation is to do less transportation. Even if you have an EV that is charged from solar or wind there’s still particulates being put into the air from the tyres and brakes, there’s a significant amount of pollution that comes from making the vehicle and the amount of water pollution from lithium mining for the batteries is staggering.
Your premise looks less credible when you factor in the fact that methane only forms 0.0001% of Earth’s atmosphere.
As for CO2 it’s at the minimum required to sustain photosynthesis at 0.04% and could never be an issue here even if we burnt all of the fossil fuel reserves.
That’s even assuming that CO2 cooked Venus as opposed to 90 bar pressure and 30 million miles closer to the Sun.
As for hydrogen you get the water back when it’s burnt.
It can be burnt in an ICE just like petrol.
It’s also a zero CO2 emission fuel even if CO2 was a problem.
Brake and tyre dust you’ll still get that from shoe soles and bicycle tyres and brakes.
Even if you succeed in your Green Party activist crusade to send us back to the stone age.
I can’t believe it, for once, you are actually talking sense, and gets gradhed the party as a popular person… make the most of your 5 minutes of joy.
Also, how about more trees are planted … and charge electric cars to use the road after all they still pollute and don’t pay RFL duties.
i forget the exact figures but i think it takes 10 years for a modern car to produce as much poloution as it does to make it.
i did work it out once but hyrogen is nowhere near as efficent or calorific for want of a better word as diesel so a lot more has to be burnt to get the same amount of power/ distance
cooper1203:
i forget the exact figures but i think it takes 10 years for a modern car to produce as much poloution as it does to make it.
i did work it out once but hyrogen is nowhere near as efficent or calorific for want of a better word as diesel so a lot more has to be burnt to get the same amount of power/ distance
If it’s supposedly all about not using fossil fuel in an all electric nuke and wind powered utopia it doesn’t matter.
Also hydrogen fuelled ICE doesn’t mean all the weight and expense of mining and shipping and hauling tonnes of lithium around.
While hydrogen still provides better energy density than batteries.
All moot in a price environment of 26p per kWh + road fuel taxes.
Also the potential destruction caused by nuclear disaster.
Carryfast:
Your premise looks less credible when you factor in the fact that methane only forms 0.0001% of Earth’s atmosphere.
It’s not me saying it’s 80 times worse than CO2 it’s the scientists. It may only form a very small percentage of the atmosphere but it can have a significant effect on the climate. The gases causing the holes in the ozone layer, CFCs, formed an even smaller percentage but that didn’t stop them creating huge gaping holes in the ozone layer which allowed higher amounts of UV radiation from the sun to come through. And since we stopped using CFCs the holes repaired themselves over time.
As for CO2 it’s at the minimum required to sustain photosynthesis at 0.04% and could never be an issue here even if we burnt all of the fossil fuel reserves.
And yet there’s a correlation between the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the average global temperature.
It’s almost like scientists whose job it is to investigate such things know more than you but then again knowing more than you about any subject seems to quite easy to do given how many times you’re wrong on everything you post about.
Carryfast:
Your premise looks less credible when you factor in the fact that methane only forms 0.0001% of Earth’s atmosphere.
It’s not me saying it’s 80 times worse than CO2 it’s the scientists. It may only form a very small percentage of the atmosphere but it can have a significant effect on the climate. The gases causing the holes in the ozone layer, CFCs, formed an even smaller percentage but that didn’t stop them creating huge gaping holes in the ozone layer which allowed higher amounts of UV radiation from the sun to come through. And since we stopped using CFCs the holes repaired themselves over time.
As for CO2 it’s at the minimum required to sustain photosynthesis at 0.04% and could never be an issue here even if we burnt all of the fossil fuel reserves.
And yet there’s a correlation between the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the average global temperature.
It’s almost like scientists whose job it is to investigate such things know more than you but then again knowing more than you about any subject seems to quite easy to do given how many times you’re wrong on everything you post about.
You seem to conveniently miss the fact that there are man made climate change sceptic scientists.
So show us the exact supposed ‘correlation’ between CO2 and temperature.
What would the temperature be if we burnt all the remaining fossil fuel resources.
You can’t even show proof that CO2 cooked Venus let alone Earth.
As opposed to its pressure.
How do you explain the fact that you can fly at 36,000 feet in a T shirt as opposed to the temperature outside.
The truth is none of the planned fossil fuel use reductions mean leaving it in the ground.
As it stands were burning trees instead of coal and gas and we’ve doubled our gas exports.
While I doubt that you’ve ditched the gas boiler and rushed out to buy an EV.
Not surprising at 26p per kWh.
Meanwhile Europe is whining about Russia cutting off its gas supply.
Your Climate beliefs are as credible as that.
