EV alternative for light/medium duty trucks

[thomas201]

So much wheel spinning on EVs, what if they are not the right path forward? The biggest problem with renewable power and EVs is storage, the second is storage, and the third is storage. Another path is carbon capture from the atmosphere (using amine scrubbing like nuclear subs and carbon dioxide from natural gas) then splitting hydrogen from water, followed by building whatever hydrocarbon you need.

The US Navy is hard at work on this project, since it avoids storage of large amounts of jet fuel, and the difficult job of resupply of jet fuel at sea to the carriers. After all fire kills ships. The Fords were built with a very large excess electric generation capacity for this reason and many others.

Porsche now has a pilot project running in South America, Porsche syn fuel

This will work wherever you have cheap electricity and water. The products are put right into refinery feeds. No need to rebuild the approximately 1.5 Billion cars in the world. Solves storage, no worry about hydrogen embrittlement, recycles carbon dioxide, we use the existing liquid fuel distribution system. Transparent to the car/truck owner.

[shelbyfv]

Grit dog wrote:

shelbyfv wrote:

nickthehunter wrote:

shelbyfv wrote:
Nope, you won't find even one legitimate source that disagrees with what the EPA has published in that link. You can't believe in facts and science and deny climate change (or the net benefits of EVs) when virtually all scientists acknowledge it. As for kool aid, it seems to me that climate change deniers often embrace a plethora of other conspiracy theories.

Are you talking about conspiracy theories like J6?

LOL thank you for reinforcing my point!;)

You should move to some nice liberal sanctuary city like Seattle or Philly or at least have to deal with the c rap of living in a blue state if you’re going to continually bash conservatives.
It’s super hypocritical to be able to reap the benefits of living in a nice conservative state/environment and yet bash everything that it stands for.
Put your money where your mouth is and come enjoy all the things you “love” on the far left coast….
Might change your mind if you had to live it…
Lol

LOL,thanks but I can't afford to live in the PNW! Interesting and sad that you think you are able guess my politics by my posts about climate change. Maybe ask yourself why one of our political parties became anti-science.:h

[Grit_dog]

shelbyfv wrote:

nickthehunter wrote:

shelbyfv wrote:
Nope, you won't find even one legitimate source that disagrees with what the EPA has published in that link. You can't believe in facts and science and deny climate change (or the net benefits of EVs) when virtually all scientists acknowledge it. As for kool aid, it seems to me that climate change deniers often embrace a plethora of other conspiracy theories.

Are you talking about conspiracy theories like J6?

LOL thank you for reinforcing my point!;)

You should move to some nice liberal sanctuary city like Seattle or Philly or at least have to deal with the c rap of living in a blue state if you’re going to continually bash conservatives.
It’s super hypocritical to be able to reap the benefits of living in a nice conservative state/environment and yet bash everything that it stands for.
Put your money where your mouth is and come enjoy all the things you “love” on the far left coast….
Might change your mind if you had to live it…
Lol

[shelbyfv]

nickthehunter wrote:

shelbyfv wrote:
Nope, you won't find even one legitimate source that disagrees with what the EPA has published in that link. You can't believe in facts and science and deny climate change (or the net benefits of EVs) when virtually all scientists acknowledge it. As for kool aid, it seems to me that climate change deniers often embrace a plethora of other conspiracy theories.

Are you talking about conspiracy theories like J6?

LOL thank you for reinforcing my point!;)

[nickthehunter]

shelbyfv wrote:
Nope, you won't find even one legitimate source that disagrees with what the EPA has published in that link. You can't believe in facts and science and deny climate change (or the net benefits of EVs) when virtually all scientists acknowledge it. As for kool aid, it seems to me that climate change deniers often embrace a plethora of other conspiracy theories.

Are you talking about conspiracy theories like J6?

[map40]

RambleOnNW wrote:

map40 wrote:
D

Pardon, I read your omission of hydro as serious. Norway and Sweden have ample hydro resources and Norway will be building a 100% green hydrogen pipeline to Germany. Sweden is already producing 100% green hydrogen steel at their Hybrit plant and shipping to Volvo.

Got it. No, I simply was trying to simplify the explanation, but you are right they are included.
Again, don't get me wrong, I believe hydrogen is the most promising technology to really replace fosil fuel, but I believe that we are still a few decades away. In the meantime EVs (in all their forms) will increase (where it makes sense).

[RambleOnNW]

map40 wrote:
D

Pardon, I read your omission of hydro as serious. Norway and Sweden have ample hydro resources and Norway will be building a 100% green hydrogen pipeline to Germany. Sweden is already producing 100% green hydrogen steel at their Hybrit plant and shipping to Volvo.

[map40]

D

[map40]

RambleOnNW wrote:

map40 wrote:


Green: produced with renewable energy. The most expensive production method and the most inconsistent as wind and solar are not constant. For this reason Green hydrogen production normally uses also fosil fuel when renewable energy is not available to keep the production equipment running otherwise the investment never pays off. This forces Green hydrogen to produce between 25 to 50% of Carbon emmisions than Fosil Fuel production because they run 25 to 50% of the time on fosil fuel.

Not sure where you got this definition but it is false. Green hydrogen is only green if it is made with renewable energy. If there is some fossil fuel involved then it is termed ‘low carbon’. And you forgot the renewables hydro and geothermal power, which of course have 100% availability. And hydro is inexpensive power.

There are multiple types of electrolyzers, PEM, alkaline, and solid oxide. Of the 3 only PEM can ramp its power input rapidly up and down to follow fluctuations in renewable power input.

There is also ‘pink’ hydrogen which is that produced using nuclear power.

The definition comes from the European Commision of energy. The US secretary of energy has a less detail definition, stating that is has to be green, but no further details. Reality is that once you connect to the grid (instead of your own power) you don't know what you are using. As far as hydro and thermal energy, they are normally used at 100%, so any variance energy consumption is produced by Fosil.
As far as the electrolizers, if you are using electrolizers means that you are controling the reaction and you are not doing direct extraction, which means that production of hydrogen is more expensive that gasoline. That is why I made the comment that the best aternative is direct extraction. You control the production by controling the energy and the energy is constant being produced at the extraction point from the ocean floor. That is what makes it economically viable.

[RambleOnNW]

free radical wrote:
Heres one for hydrogen fans
For some reason it never made onto any tv news

https://youtu.be/LH8GYsVl81Y

For the BEV fans:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XWq-Mq1Uqpw&feature=share

Hydrogen vs gas leak and ignition test. Note hydrogen moves rapidly upward at 20 mph when released and is non-toxic unlike gasoline.

https://youtu.be/OA8dNFiVaF0

[RambleOnNW]

map40 wrote:


Green: produced with renewable energy. The most expensive production method and the most inconsistent as wind and solar are not constant. For this reason Green hydrogen production normally uses also fosil fuel when renewable energy is not available to keep the production equipment running otherwise the investment never pays off. This forces Green hydrogen to produce between 25 to 50% of Carbon emmisions than Fosil Fuel production because they run 25 to 50% of the time on fosil fuel.

Not sure where you got this definition but it is false. Green hydrogen is only green if it is made with renewable energy. If there is some fossil fuel involved then it is termed ‘low carbon’. And you forgot the renewables hydro and geothermal power, which of course have 100% availability. And hydro is inexpensive power.

There are multiple types of electrolyzers, PEM, alkaline, and solid oxide. Of the 3 only PEM can ramp its power input rapidly up and down to follow fluctuations in renewable power input.

There is also ‘pink’ hydrogen which is that produced using nuclear power.

[propchef]

free radical wrote:
Heres one for hydrogen fans
For some reason it never made onto any tv news

https://youtu.be/LH8GYsVl81Y

Here's one in the US that made the news.

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/04/07/homes-damaged-explosion-fuel-facility-catawba-county/

And here's a NG explosion near me. You may have heard about this one.

https://abc7news.com/san-bruno-fire-state-senate-explosion-pge/6994040/


Meanwhile, how many well or refinery accidents have there been that have killed people?

[map40]

JRscooby wrote:

And we keep hearing "green hydrogen". Are you talking about methods of production, or the color? Does it store different than blue? Or Red?

Green hydrogen is defined by the type of energy used for it's production. Hydrogen casn be:
White: Naturally occuring (Not easy to find or use)
Black: Produce by Coal
Grey: Produced from Methane
Brown: Lignite
All of these are using FOSIL FUEL (and almost 95% of current hydrogen production)
Blue: Methane (Fosil Fuel) but the Carbon Monoxide is not released in the atmosphere (less than 1% of current use)
Green: produced with renewable energy. The most expensive production method and the most inconsistent as wind and solar are not constant. For this reason Green hydrogen production normally uses also fosil fuel when renewable energy is not available to keep the production equipment running otherwise the investment never pays off. This forces Green hydrogen to produce between 25 to 50% of Carbon emmisions than Fosil Fuel production because they run 25 to 50% of the time on fosil fuel.

So what is the solution? Direct sea water extraction with sea current power generation. Underwater power generation using sea water current never stops and it is quite reliable. The latest technology development allows for Hydrogen production directly from sea water without processing it. This will make the best source of hydrogen because it won't be Fosil Fuel dependant and it does not need water conditioning.
This is also the only possible way currently to produce hydrogen at pricess competitivelly to gasoline pricess. All other production methods produce hydrogen at a net cost higher than gasoline.

[map40]

free radical wrote:
Heres one for hydrogen fans
For some reason it never made onto any tv news

https://youtu.be/LH8GYsVl81Y

Yeap, that is the biggest negative point Hydrogen has. There are several cases, you just need to Google hydrogen explosions...
That is also the number one problem for the NHTSA. How much hydrogen can the allow in a vehicle, how deep inside the body, what type of cage, all that good stuff they have to do to move a car from experimental to mass production

[Benny37]

Wowser LOL.

[free_radical]

Heres one for hydrogen fans
For some reason it never made onto any tv news

https://youtu.be/LH8GYsVl81Y