Thread: Hydrogen electric vehicles doing 2000kms

Originally Posted by blackrangie

So 30% loss of energy making it, ok

CO2 is released making it.
How much compared to ICE engines running petrol or diesel?

He says a better solution is to use natural gas?

Wow.. what a terrible solution.. he obviously hasn't watched the "gasland" doco.

I don't think electric cars or hydrogen cars are the Holy Grail of Zero emissions, however from where I'm sitting they are a much better option than what we have now for the environment.


Question is how much better and is it worth it for the environment.

Cost to the consumer is not the issue, like food,generally rubbish food is made cheaply, good food is the right price.

Hes saying that essentially they are taking methane (and i think other hydrocarbons) and breaking it into hydrogen and CO2, and releasing the CO2 to atmosphere, at an energy loss of 30% compared to the methane by itself (im not sure if that accounts for the energy input into processing the methane or if the end product has 30% less energy than the hydrogen).

Using locally sourced CNG would be a more efficient use of the energy (you dont lose the extra 30%) while shoring up australias fuel security.

I havent watched gasland but it appears to talk mainly about fracking? There are other ways to retrieve natural gas, which is where a lot of usable methane comes from.

As with most "renewable" or "green" vehicle fuels (including electricity), in Australia all they do is move the emissions somewhere else. There is a benefit for city populations as far as air pollution is concerned, but as a whole it is not a green, or renewable solution (at least at the moment)

I cant see the issue, the Sun has more than enough energy to run the entire planet, Its been doing so for millions of years . No brainer.

The Yellow square is all the area of solar panels needed to run the entire USA .

Australia would need less than 13% of that .

How much solar would it take to power the U.S.? - Freeing Energy

On a sunny day.
As long as you put the panels in Nevada or New Mexico. Texas , Louisiana, Florida maybe not as look what happened in the hurricane in Puerto Rico. And of course the doomsdayers say more Hurricanes although there have actually been fewer.

Then you have to build a distribution system to Washington and New York that could take the wattage required.

I am afraid panels don't work in the north of the USA as they are covered in snow for weeks at a time.

Then you have to install about the same area of batteries so that the power can be available at night.

Oh then you have to build an equal wattage of gas turbine power stations for when the sun don't shine.

Regards Philip A

Originally Posted by Disco-tastic

Hes saying that essentially they are taking methane (and i think other hydrocarbons) and breaking it into hydrogen and CO2, and releasing the CO2 to atmosphere, at an energy loss of 30% compared to the methane by itself (im not sure if that accounts for the energy input into processing the methane or if the end product has 30% less energy than the hydrogen).

Using locally sourced CNG would be a more efficient use of the energy (you dont lose the extra 30%) while shoring up australias fuel security.

I havent watched gasland but it appears to talk mainly about fracking? There are other ways to retrieve natural gas, which is where a lot of usable methane comes from.

As with most "renewable" or "green" vehicle fuels (including electricity), in Australia all they do is move the emissions somewhere else. There is a benefit for city populations as far as air pollution is concerned, but as a whole it is not a green, or renewable solution (at least at the moment)

The Environmental and Social Impacts of Natural Gas Fracking

What percentage of gas in Australia comes from this procedure?

After watching Gasland, it will change your view on gas.

If there are other ways of extracting gas that is fine but unless gas companies can guarantee that that is the only way that they extract their gas and supply it to you the problem still exists.

Originally Posted by goingbush

I cant see the issue, the Sun has more than enough energy to run the entire planet, Its been doing so for millions of years . No brainer.

The Yellow square is all the area of solar panels needed to run the entire USA .

Australia would need less than 13% of that .

How much solar would it take to power the U.S.? - Freeing Energy

100% agree the sun is an incredible resource, one that should be utilised to it's full potential, it's free full of energy, never ending and sustainable.

Amazing really, i think suns core runs at 15million degrees.

Originally Posted by PhilipA

On a sunny day.
As long as you put the panels in Nevada or New Mexico. Texas , Louisiana, Florida maybe not as look what happened in the hurricane in Puerto Rico. And of course the doomsdayers say more Hurricanes although there have actually been fewer.

Then you have to build a distribution system to Washington and New York that could take the wattage required.

I am afraid panels don't work in the north of the USA as they are covered in snow for weeks at a time.

Then you have to install about the same area of batteries so that the power can be available at night.

Oh then you have to build an equal wattage of gas turbine power stations for when the sun don't shine.

Regards Philip A

It becomes less of an issue when every person looks after their own power with solar panels on their roof and a storage device in their house.

Every inch of cars should also have solar charging material over them imo + regen etc.

Originally Posted by blackrangie

The Environmental and Social Impacts of Natural Gas Fracking

What percentage of gas in Australia comes from this procedure?

After watching Gasland, it will change your view on gas.

If there are other ways of extracting gas that is fine but unless gas companies can guarantee that that is the only way that they extract their gas and supply it to you the problem still exists.

In johns video he states about 95% of hydrogen gas is obtained from processing hydrocarbons such as methane, because its cheap. Im not sure if thats Australia or world wide.

I believe john cadogen was implying that the methane that is used to make hydrogen gas is obtained from natural gas, and that burning the natural gas in an engine was a more environmentally friendly way of harnessing that energy.

I guess the point i was trying to make was that at present, the infrastructure does not exist to make hydrogen fuelled vehicles a truly green option. Whether they are currently greener than petrol and diesel powered engines appears to be a matter of perspective.

Originally Posted by blackrangie

It becomes less of an issue when every person looks after their own power with solar panels on their roof and a storage device in their house.

Every inch of cars should also have solar charging material over them imo + regen etc.

I saw an article recently where roof panels for buildings will actually be solar panels.

Whether it will ever happens,who knows.