Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, RFguy said:

The long and the short of it :

 

Hydrogen is hard to store volumetrically competitively.

 

Making hydrogen from electrolysis sux.

Best is reforming from natural gas etc. But then you might as well run AVGAS.

So, hydrogen might be good for buses, trucks.

Battery tech needs a 10x leap. Wait 10-15 years.

best option right now is a motor driving a prop, 15 minutes of battery , and a wankel engined gasoline generator holding the whole thing up.....

 

electric motor and 1 hour of circuits from a battery is quite feasible right now. good for training plane but little else.

 

 

 

Will that 10x battery tech come in 10-15 years? Would not all the alternative chemistry and limitations on current and future cathode and anode material be known right now?  Internal combustion have gotten about twice as efficient in 50 years.

  • Like 2
Posted

mm some theoreticals : Lithium Sulphur : 2700 Wh/kg theoretical (Watt hours/kg) (currently ~ 400Wh/kg) 

912ULS  = 74kW (74000 W)

so 1 hour at full smoke = 74000 Wh (so you would need 74000/2700 = 27kg best theoretical case, currently 74000/400 = 185kg

 

current  Lithium Ion Cobalt etc  180-250Wh/kg in packs. best cells 300Wh/kg

 

I reckon a bit will come from carbon nanotube based tech- essentially upping the available battery surface area.

 

gasoline, assuming engine efficiency 33% = 4000 Wh/kg ....

  • Like 1
  • Informative 2
Posted

here is a good chart

Hydrogen as a direct burnable fuel - 130 MJ/kg . but storing it densly is a bastard

lots of energy to store it at 700 bar .

BTW remember the energy density below assumes 100% reaction yield (only about 33% for petrol ICE) 

that's why petrol below is at 12 kWh/kg but I have 4kWh/kg - efficiency of use) 

 

 

 

Energy densities of various energy storage materials and technologies,... |  Download Scientific Diagram

 

 

Hydrogen Storage | Department of Energy

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Ian said:

Battery electric vehicles have basically won the race. All urban transport will go this path.

 

I agree with your breaking down of each fuel into its characteristics, and I also recommend doing this before making a commitment to a new fuel, however that is stil only a small part of the vehicle package, which has to meet mutiple Applications.

Looking purely at efficiency also can trip you up, because the end product has to be buildable and also has to meet the Application requirements.

 

You might be aware that the one of the Greens policies in the current Federal election is that Australia is one of the worst EV performers in the world and if elected to Government they are going to subsidise EV, apparently to be come a leader.

 

Let's look at the subsidy first because we know the No1 objection to EV is price, and from my Industry experience you can sell benefits only up to about 10% price premium before you start losing market share. If we  take a family car, which means a family budget, affordability is $25,000, nd we could maybe squeeze that up with marketing programmes to $27,500.00 but that's when the tap turns off. You can buy a Chinese equivalent EV for $40,000.00, so the Greens subsidy has to be $12,500 per car to get the sales going.

 

To make a dent towards EV dominance, the Greens need a target market share of around 50%, and that's 500,000 car sales per year for our market; the dream of manufacturing them here is gone because Australia doesn't have the volume for efficiency required.

 

This might come as a surprise, but the Greens plan requires you the taxpayer to pay for this subsidy, and the annual, meaning out of your pocket every year, bill for 50% market share would be $.625 trillion.

 

Faced with that most Australians would prefer to be laggards I'd suggest, and you can't use a smaller amount becaise it would have no more effect that the current sorry efforts by the manufacturers involve, Australia's current BEV market share being 1.95%.

 

So I thought I better bring myself up to date with the basis for the Greens policy; that we were "one of the worst".

 

Well for a start, 58 Countries, some of them big don't figure in any of the published world EV analysis.

 

Of those left 5 so far have disregarded EV and show no sales figures, just a few proptypes for the cameras.

 

That leaves just 47 Countries producing market share figures. for EV.

I mentioned Austria some time back and how they puffed up the numbers by including Hybrids as EV, which of course they are not, and a lot of countries now quote PEV for their market share, which doesn't give us any real idea of genuine EV sales.

So some have started quoting BEV (Battery EV to make it clear what the target is). 

 

Over the last few years I've noticed EV proponents pushing the number of BEV produced by China; well it is a very big consumer and perhaps their reason is to cover up its 2020 EV market share of just 2.6%. And that's 2.6% PEV.

 

The UK, which has a policy to close down its ICE car production soon, and is running out of power, so building power line under the sea to Norway, and will buy power off them, has a current BEV market share of  11.6% (28,865 vehicle on total sales of 103,244. This is probably not a good enough performance to make the shut down date, so changes will have to be made.

 

The USA BEV market share is 2.96%, 443,386 on 15 million vehicles, so not a lot different to ours, and just ahead of China.

 

The rest are a work in progress to try and extract genuine figures, but in the long run will be worth the exercise.

 

Posted (edited)

Until batteries catch up, Hydrogen is desirable (directly burned) but not a panecia.  Like above in the graphs and plots , Hydrogen volumetric storage efficiency is poor, so limited applications on a space constrained device. Like an airplane. and containers for 700 bar hydrogen etc, are not light !

 

And hydrogen burned in an ICE, efficiency is not spectacular either. But the exhaust is water....

 

So, I can see directly burned Hydrogen a good road/rail transport fuel, but NOT a viable air transport fuel, since it takes energy to oppose gravity...

 

Therefore, we have batteries for aircraft as the most viable WHEN they catch up. They'll likely get within about 30 %  of gasoline in the next 10 to 15  years... 

 

In the meantime, I think fuel prices long term will fall substantially  as demand falls off dramatically as transport that CAN use batteries does..... So dont go in trading your gas guzzling  J230 for a J120 just yet. 

 

any LPG fueled aircraft flying ? what's the history in that space ? The containment is heavy. Like liquid hydrogen, that's a problem.

 

 

Edited by RFguy
  • Like 1
Posted
13 hours ago, RFguy said:

here is a good chart

Hydrogen as a direct burnable fuel - 130 MJ/kg . but storing it densly is a bastard

lots of energy to store it at 700 bar .

BTW remember the energy density below assumes 100% reaction yield (only about 33% for petrol ICE) 

that's why petrol below is at 12 kWh/kg but I have 4kWh/kg - efficiency of use) 

 

 

 

Energy densities of various energy storage materials and technologies,... |  Download Scientific Diagram

 

 

Hydrogen Storage | Department of Energy

 

 

Interesting and very much to the point. To achieve equivalent power to petrol in race cars we approximately double the diameter of the main jets.

Posted

If your requirement is that it needs to be carbon neutral then you have some hard decisions. It's a bit like being diagnosed with cancer, you can pretend it's not an issue and the consequences are pretty bad. Treatments are also pretty bad but better than the alternative. Anyone with half a brain goes down the treatment path.

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

You might be aware that the one of the Greens policies in the current Federal election is that Australia is one of the worst EV performers in the world and if elected to Government they are going to subsidise EV, apparently to be come a leader.

The key point that you're missing is that to lower carbon emissions electric cars are amongst the easiest deployable solution. Planes, concrete and steel are not so easy. The policies of all the major Australian parties are pretty dumb and I'm really struggling to identify a party where their policies are based on sound science rather than hand waving. I don't like ideologues which further limits the choice.

Assuming direct carbon capture from the atmosphere you end up with a premium of about $1/L, this doesn't assume storage costs or plant costs. 

If the above premise of zero Carbon emissions is true, at a fundamental level, either electric cars are going to become cheaper, petrol cars will become more expensive. The concept that the status quo can remain is akin to Steve Jobs meditating to cure his pancreatic cancer, he later said that he regretted not adopting conventional treatments earlier.

There is also a lot of infrastructure work such as how the power grid will scale to replacing the oil distribution networks and questions as to where that power will come from. I'm not sure if most people actually grasp the scale of this problem and how ineffectual the proposed solutions which revolve around intermittent power are. Renewable power is cheap up as a top up power source, the costs and risks associated with making it your primary source are very high. Below is a study of German electricity prices and the impact of renewables.

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/effect-intermittent-renewables-electricity-prices-germany

At a fundamental level people need to pay for plant costs, if you build a source of electricity that can supply power when solar and wind aren't running you'll make people pay for a return on your investment. If this is only in the windows when the sun's not shining and the wind doesn't blow times you just make them pay more when they really need it, so you end up paying for both.

Some salient points considering that Europe is further down this path than Australia. We should learn from them.

  • The cost of power in France is about half the cost of power in Germany and their emissions are lower.
  • The largest exporters of power in Europe are France, Sweden and Norway.
  • The greenhouse emissions per capita of European countries https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2019/10/greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-country
  • While Germany is pro renewables no-one wants additional renewables in their back yards and their deployments have stalled due to litigation.

The key question is what do these countries have in common and can their successes be applied elsewhere? For example Australian is flat and dry so hydro isn't an option. Snowy Hydro2 is a bit like loaves and fishes.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

There are a vast number of large open pit mines in Australia that are nearly always half full of water - there's a good quantity of your pumped hydro sources, to start with.

The missing part of the power puzzle is storage, but S.A. has woken up to that early in the piece, and their Tesla batteries are a good start.

Vanadium redox batteries are highly likely to be the simple choice for lower-cost, longer life electricity storage, than lithium.

 

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/05/10/large-scale-vanadium-redox-flow-battery-takes-shape-in-australia/

 

Edited by onetrack
  • Like 1
Posted

Pumped hydro from open pit or underground mines is very challenging. The pump/turbine has to be at the bottom, but above high water level. So the effective head is much less than the depth of the pit. Permanent access in either case can be very expensive. The slopes above pit haulroads are designed to last mine life only, and even then may need regular maintenance. Haulroads themselves often fail after pit closure. Rehabilitation of an underground mine decline might cost $10,000 per linear metre or $90,000 per vertical metre on a one in nine grade. And then there is the need for permanent ventilation, power reticulation, and modularisation of hydro components to fit down a 5x5m tunnel.

  • Informative 1
Posted

The largest majority of open-pit mines in W.A. are extremely hard rock with often only 50M of oxidised ground from the surface. These pits are exceptionally stable and lend themselves to pumped hydro.

Add in the fact that they're usually located in inland regions where solar energy is in abundance, and the water can be pumped using solar-powered pumps during the day, and the water can return to the lower level at night, thus generating power when solar power is non-existent.

I don't understand why turbines need to be fitted into underground mineshafts. It makes sense to me, to simply install large diameter piping and the necessary turbines, above ground, running down the walls of the pits. Easier maintenance, and no major corrosion protection needed, except perhaps for the lower portions of the piping.

  • Like 1
Posted

There are quite a few pumped hydro projects currently in the planning stage. Way back in 2017 some 22,000 potential sites were identified. Most were off river and none were in National Parks or in Urban areas. The potential storage capacity is 67,000 gigawatt hours. https://reneweconomy.com.au/want-energy-storage-22000-sites-pumped-hydro-across-australia-33174/

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

If we look at H2 at 350 bar, which is sort of scuba tank territory,  we get 800W/Litre storage (== 2.9MJ/litre) . not so good, but we do get very good density -  approx 120 MJ/kg , some three times that of gasoline.

 

In gasoline perspective, we roughly know how far say 90 litres of AVGAS goes- 90 litres  == 2948MJ of energy.

 

compare to hydrogen :  H2 at 350 bar  ...2948 / 2.9 = 1016 litres of storage.  Not sure where I put that in my gaz guzzling J230 

....energy volumetric density is just too low unless we build aiplanes in a different shape. 

and the pressure vessel is NOT light !.

 

Anything with an ICE immediately costs you  a HUGE efficiency step. which makes direct burning all those gaseous or gasified options awful .

 

Alright then- what about fuel cell???- direct hydrogen to electricity conversion- avoid that 33% efficiency of an ICE...(putting aside that fuel cells are fickle and expensive and LARGE for the outputs we need- and wouldnt even fit in the aircraft engine bay)

 

Storage now - need 2948 * 0.333= 982 MJ/// actually its not that good- electricity system probably total 85% efficient - now 1155MJ, or 400 litres . (about 7kg)....Still a big tank. 

That is almost reasonable- except the pressure vessell weighs alot. There IS some work being done on fancy carbon fibre/aluminium hybrid storage vessels. 

 

So, you are back at batteries driving electric motors in the mean time.  The 2948MJ of energy we calculated above - that is before ICE efficiency- the useful energy in the 90 litres of AVGAS is 2948 * 0.333 approx  = 981MJ

back to the LiS battery - At 2700Wh/kg (9.72MJ /kg)  (theoretical LiS battery in the future) that's 981 / 9.72 = 101kg of batteries. That's looking pretty good. 101kg batteries = 133 litres of AVGAS.

 

right now, about 7x that or 700kg of batteries = 90 litres of AVGAS.....

 

The best primary battery (non rechargable)  I ever used were one-shot aluminium -potassium hydroxide. The electrodes dissolved as the battery is consumed. Over 1500 Wh/kg !

 

a fair read

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/compressedtank_storage.pdf

 

 

 

 

Posted (edited)

They're talking about carbon fibre high pressure tanks for hydrogen gas storage - and for aircraft, as well as for road vehicles. I'm still extremely doubtful about the system, they will only need one modern Hindenburg hydrogen disaster, and everyone will start avoiding riding in a hydrogen-powered rig.

These people seem to be ignoring the fact that regular fire incidents are a fact of life - and I'd hate to be within a kilometre of a fire with hydrogen tanks in the middle of it.

 

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/cfrp-pressure-vessels-for-hydrogen

 

Edited by onetrack
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted

In pumped hydro turbines are also pumps. No pump can draw more than about 6 metres which is an atmospheric head of water after losses. So all the gear has to be at the bottom of the shaft or pit, not at the top.

  • Agree 1
Posted

You can push water up as far as you like with the appropriate amount of power but you can't suck it up more than 1 atmosphere which is  approximately 33.8 feet or 10.3 metres.

  • Agree 1
Posted

Generally you want to generate power near where you consume the power.

If you're storing the power you want it near where you consume it, because if you have 30% transmission losses your battery or generators need to be 30% larger if they're remote.

The costs associated with these project is mind boggling, the solar project to supply Singapore with 20% of it's power is 30Billion, Singapore has about 5.6 million people and no heavy industry. The project consist of solar panels, some battery storage and a High Voltage DC link. That's up there with NBN's cost across Australia. It's effectively 1.2 million people for 30B.

 

Australia used at least  265,232 gigawatt hours (GWh) in calendar year 2020, and people generally want more power. If we add vehicular transport to this you can assume that we'll need another 50% additional

9 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Has anyone actually looked at the identified sites in this study? Below are proposed storage areas in the Araluen Valley near Canberra. Given the environmental/ownership and community issues associated with development on this scale does anyone actually think that this is feasible? People complain when a plane or drone flies overhead, let alone a gigalitre of water perched above their properties.

Araluen Valley near Canberra. At most, one of the sites shown would be developed

  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

In pumped hydro turbines are also pumps. No pump can draw more than about 6 metres which is an atmospheric head of water after losses. So all the gear has to be at the bottom of the shaft or pit, not at the top.

Downhole irrigation pumps can be bought off the shelf and the smallest sit in a 300 mm dia. pipe which can be suspended from the top of the pit.

 

Posted
6 hours ago, Ian said:

Generally you want to generate power near where you consume the power.

If you're storing the power you want it near where you consume it, because if you have 30% transmission losses your battery or generators need to be 30% larger if they're remote.

The costs associated with these project is mind boggling, the solar project to supply Singapore with 20% of it's power is 30Billion, Singapore has about 5.6 million people and no heavy industry. The project consist of solar panels, some battery storage and a High Voltage DC link. That's up there with NBN's cost across Australia. It's effectively 1.2 million people for 30B.

 

Australia used at least  265,232 gigawatt hours (GWh) in calendar year 2020, and people generally want more power. If we add vehicular transport to this you can assume that we'll need another 50% additional

Has anyone actually looked at the identified sites in this study? Below are proposed storage areas in the Araluen Valley near Canberra. Given the environmental/ownership and community issues associated with development on this scale does anyone actually think that this is feasible? People complain when a plane or drone flies overhead, let alone a gigalitre of water perched above their properties.

Araluen Valley near Canberra. At most, one of the sites shown would be developed

It is academically true that there is a power loss if you generate in one location and supply to another, but the task is to get the job done, and it's a fact that on a stinking hot day in a couple of states when South Australia has used up its 50 minutes of Big Battery, and when 40 years of "renewables" power paid for by us taxpayers is producing only 1% of Peak Power required up the east coast, it's quite possible that the people of Adelaide are being powered by several Sugar Cane Mills around Cairns. They don't send the power to Adelaide, they send it into Carins which sends its power down the grid and so on until there's enough surplus power in Victoria to supply Adelaide, so while the theory is correct and the ideal is to generate power where it's used, in real life someone will come up with work arounds to get the job done.

Posted

Haven't you just repeated what was stated on the first line. I think that we're saying the same thing.

Also, from a mathematical perspective, in terms of losses isn't the cascading loss pretty much the same as the loss when sending the power direct as AC power loss is pretty much linear with HVAC? See graph below.

Basically it's far more efficient, and generally cost effective to spool up local power.  The national grid provides stability in a crunch however it does it inefficiently giving you time to spool local power. Otherwise you have a Texas style event which is far more expensive.

The graphs below compare AC and DC

 

image.thumb.png.9651fd4feb9bc172e76a7872040b6323.png

However if power is very cheap (think Solar) you don't care as much about losses it becomes more reasonable, however the capacity of the links themselves are costly, about 1 Billion for the HVDC link between France and the UK. So basically even with very cheap power a long way away you still have an issue.

 

 

Anyways this is a way away from airplane fuels and whether Hydrogen is a good or bad fuel. Personally I think that Hydrogen is a pretty silly fuel for plane for the following reasons.

  1. It is expensive.
  2. It is volumous, the only possibility is cryogenic storage. Energy density/Volume is low.
  3. It burns in very low concentrations, great inside an engine but a bit of a bummer with leaks and sparks. Modern turbines burning kero type fuels was seen as a huge advantage.
  4. It is difficult to contain, it permeates a number of metals causing issues and it is very difficult to stop leaks.

However I may be wrong.

Posted (edited)

None of the stories below, about H2 explosions are very comforting - and only one involves a H2 fuelling station. All the other explosions were where H2 is already being used in industrial processes, and in power station cooling situations. There were two massive H2 blasts at Fukushima Nuclear power station, after the earthquake, which only compounded the earthquake damage.

 

All of this is before H2 starts to appear on a widespread basis for fuelling industry and transport. It's interesting that a lot of the H2 explosions were caused by faulty safety valves or couplings.

 

https://insideevs.com/news/354223/hydrogen-fueling-station-explodes/

 

https://hydrogen-central.com/explosion-eskom-medupi-power-plant-newest-expensive-coal-plant-hydrogen-leak-photos/

 

https://abc7news.com/santa-clara-explosion-in-chemical-fire/5326601/

 

https://www.theweek.co.uk/asia-pacific/56774/five-dead-after-hydrogen-blast-rocks-chemical-plant-japan

 

https://www.powermag.com/lessons-learned-from-a-hydrogen-explosion/

 

https://cen.acs.org/safety/industrial-safety/Hydrogen-blast-led-deaths-US/97/web/2019/12

 

https://www.nist.gov/el/fire-research-division-73300/dispersion-and-burning-behavior-hydrogen-released-full-scale

 

Edited by onetrack
Posted
6 hours ago, Ian said:

Haven't you just repeated what was stated on the first line. I think that we're saying the same thing.

Also, from a mathematical perspective, in terms of losses isn't the cascading loss pretty much the same as the loss when sending the power direct as AC power loss is pretty much linear with HVAC?

In theory, yes, but practically, no. Without the Queensland Sugar Mill power, on a very hot night up the east coast, Adelaide would be blacked out, even though is has a Big Battery/Wind Farm at Hornsdale, just 239 km away.

 

On that theory, every town and city should have its own power station to minimise transmission losses, and that used to happen up into the 1950s, but the cost of power to the cosumer was far cheaper using a grid with losses.

 

6 hours ago, Ian said:

However if power is very cheap (think Solar) you don't care as much about losses it becomes more reasonable.

Solar has been sold on the basis of free energy which it is, but it's not cheap. It's a good example of where theory is quite different to practice. The best example of Solar to date has been rooftop installations, which certainly work, but the Total Cost of Life, primarily due to the complexity of the system (and I mean the real cost of life without RoI etc being left out) is not competitive with mains power, so the Eastern States Grid wins again.

6 hours ago, Ian said:

Anyways this is a way away from airplane fuels and whether Hydrogen is a good or bad fuel. Personally I think that Hydrogen is a pretty silly fuel for plane for the following reasons.

  1. It is expensive.
  2. It is volumous, the only possibility is cryogenic storage. Energy density/Volume is low.
  3. It burns in very low concentrations, great inside an engine but a bit of a bummer with leaks and sparks. Modern turbines burning kero type fuels was seen as a huge advantage.
  4. It is difficult to contain, it permeates a number of metals causing issues and it is very difficult to stop leaks.

However I may be wrong.

Direct hydrogen burn cars, which are the current novelty in some parts of the world require bigger tanks than LNG, and LNG tank size was one of its downfalls, and because of its extreme handling safety requirements, the chances of allowing members of the public to stop at a Roadhouse and dangle a hydrogen hose are remote, so infrastructure becomes and issue. An aircraft does have spare space in the fuselage, but even with woven fibreglass rovings the weight of a safe container would probably push it outside the envelope, and a refuelling network is problematic, probably not able to make enough money to exist.

 

Fuel Cell vehicles, known in some countries already as FCEV in an effort to boost flagging EV market share, are able to operate with a hydrogen tank about the same size as a petrol tank, but have a lot of equipment, and cost in 2005 was three times that of a diesel powered vehicle, so a long way to go to economic success, and faced with the same infrastructure issue as straight hydrogen power. Hyrogen as well, is an asphyxiant, so any leak is deadly.

  • Informative 1
Posted

agreed turbs, Hydrogen options  have been passed by batteries, and shortly, fusion. 

There's no real need to move away from burning gasoline right now for aircraft, as demand will fall for land transport using gasoline, and prices will ultimately fall.

eventually batteries will catch up and then the oil based economies will all fail. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Solar has been sold on the basis of free energy which it is, but it's not cheap.

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/effect-intermittent-renewables-electricity-prices-germany

 

Solar is actually very cheap and profitable up to a point of about 15% penetration. This is the argument presented in the above link which has a significant degree of rigour in its study of the German market.

Quote

In conclusion, it can be estimated that solar and wind operators will receive a premium of 10% at ~0% penetration, but will have to give a discount of 13% at 20% penetration. It is assumed that this premium/discount varies linearly between these two datapoints.

As the cost of solar and other renewable sources drops this figure will be profitable at slightly higher percentages however past that point of penetration you require increasing subsidies.

 

The costs and efficiencies associated with large power stations and transmission has changed over time and is changing again as different costs come into the system. Some existing power stations aren't particular good at load following. As soon as there's a price on carbon emissions those transmission losses become even more expensive and a distributed architecture might make more sense.

 

I don't think that  the term flagging growth in electric vehicles is the right term worldwide. Possibly Australia's 1% showing, it could be the tax system which sees a tax of 33%  on a Tesla compared to 5% on a 4WD might have something to do with it.

 

FT_21.05.21_ElectricVehicles_3.png?w=433

 

Unless something changes dramatically FCEVs have lost the market. It appears that battery vehicles have won and the people pushing the alternate technologies have lost.

 

On another note Hydrogen can be used as a diving gas although it has a signficant risk profile.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

The best example of Solar to date has been rooftop installations, which certainly work, but the Total Cost of Life, primarily due to the complexity of the system (and I mean the real cost of life without RoI etc being left out) is not competitive with mains power, so the Eastern States Grid wins again.

Can you put some figures on this?   Happy to supply my figures (without any subsidies or SECs)

 

 

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Direct hydrogen burn cars, which are the current novelty in some parts of the world require bigger tanks than LNG, and LNG tank size was one of its downfalls, and because of its extreme handling safety requirements, the chances of allowing members of the public to stop at a Roadhouse and dangle a hydrogen hose are remote, so infrastructure becomes and issue.

There are already hydrogen refilling stations now, granted not many however motorists ARE filling Toyota Mirais now, again not a large number though. In 2021 there were just 38 registrations of Hydrogen cars (Hyumda Nexo and Toyoya Mirai) Personally I don't see a huge amount sense in smaller hydrogen passenger vehicles however it probably makes sense for larger vehicles.  Overseas there are hydrogen buses in regular use.  

 

Refueling seems to be much like filling a LP gas car. How do you fill up a hydrogen car? - DrivingElectric

 

JCB has working hydrogen powered excavation equipment both fuel cell and hydrogen combustion powered.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRXT3832YBI

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...