Why The Obsession With Electric cars?

[Dent]

Begin's with H, is grayling's new toy.

I assume you are referring to hydrogen (if not then what exactly are you on about?)

How do you propose to produce hydrogen, and in what way would that be "cleaner" than charging batteries?

 

[EM2]

The principle of Lithium Ion batteries.

Prius batteries are nickel metal hydride.

 

[Howardh]

The trouble is collecting those emissions. The arrival of motor cars in the early 20th century was welcomed because city streets were so much cleaner without horses leaving their makr everywhere.

Ah, someone's finally spotted the irony!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I assume you are referring to hydrogen (if not then what exactly are you on about?)

How do you propose to produce hydrogen, and in what way would that be "cleaner" than charging batteries?

2 problems I see with hydrogen:

1. who would want to drive round with effectively a bomb in the boot {Hindenberg anyone?}

2. from what I remember hydrogen is sourced from sea water and uses huge amounts of electricity in the process of separating out the hydrogen... and if fossil fuels are used to produce the electricity emissions/ mile are much higher than burning petrol/ diesel at point of use

 

[birchesgreen]

The technology is improving all the time, in just the last 5 years there have been great leaps in battery tech, electric cars once the stuff of sci-fi are now pretty common (i usually see at least 1 or 2 every day).

Yes electricity can produce emissions too but those are often well away from major conurbations, are easier to reduce/clean and electricity can also be produced from renewables. Plus oil will "run out" sooner or later anyway...

 

[LOL The Irony]

Hindenberg anyone?

Basic high school science anyone? The Hindenberg wasn't a hydrogen fire.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Plus oil will "run out" sooner or later anyway...

Audi (yes the diesel cheats) and Mazda are developing synthetic fuels.

 

[birchesgreen]

2 problems I see with hydrogen:

1. who would want to drive round with effectively a bomb in the boot {Hindenberg anyone?}

2. from what I remember hydrogen is sourced from sea water and uses huge amounts of electricity in the process of separating out the hydrogen... and if fossil fuels are used to produce the electricity emissions/ mile are much higher than burning petrol/ diesel at point of use

Fuel cells arn't the same as huge bags of gas. A tank full of gasoline is potentially lethal too but millions take that risk happily every day.

A lot of existing hydrogen production is as a byproduct from other chemical manufacture. Increased demand will spark technological improvements and efficiencies.

 

[birchesgreen]

Audi (yes the diesel cheats) and Mazda are developing synthetic fuels.

Synthetic fuels arn't new, the Nazis did it in WW2. Anyway if you are going to the expense of producing synthetic oil maybe you might as well just produce electricity (or hydrogen) instead.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Synthetic fuels arn't new, the Nazis did it in WW2. Anyway if you are going to the expense of producing synthetic oil maybe you might as well just produce electricity (or hydrogen) instead.

I see it more to be used on modern cars so they can still be used in 50 years.

 

[birchesgreen]

But they will still produce harmful emissions right where people live. Plus those cars will largely be scrapped by then. It would be a niche market for heritage vehicles.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Basic high school science anyone? The Hindenberg wasn't a hydrogen fire.

oh? really? the Hindenburg was an airship that used hydrogen to stay airborne and it was in those "tanks" where the fire took hold... so if it wasn't a hydrogen fire what was it? a scotch mist fire perchance?

 

[LOL The Irony]

oh? really? the Hindenburg was an airship that used hydrogen to stay airborne and it was in those "tanks" where the fire took hold... so if it wasn't a hydrogen fire what was it? a scotch mist fire perchance?

The skin burnt and the hydrogen escaped.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The basic version of the Hyundai Kona EV has a range of 200 miles (321km). Let's say 250km before range anxiety sets in. A 20-minute fast charge would mean six charges, or two hours in stops.

Or a stop overnight. I don't personally think anyone should be driving 1500km in one go without an overnight break. Nobody is physically capable of not being too tired for that. Even if they think they will be OK, they almost certainly in fact are not.

Perhaps with road pricing tachograph-style limits could be enforced to prevent people engaging in such dangerous practice. Though insurance companies could also control this if they made telematics mandatory, which I would expect to happen over time, by making the insurance cost increase exponentially when people engage in such dangerous practice.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Fuel cells arn't the same as huge bags of gas. A tank full of gasoline is potentially lethal too but millions take that risk happily every day.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, however my point still stands as hydrogen is a much more volatile and explosive fuel than petrol/ diesel

A lot of existing hydrogen production is as a byproduct from other chemical manufacture. Increased demand will spark technological improvements and efficiencies.

That may be so but imagine how much hydrogen production would have to increase to meet the increased demand... and that would have to be met by hydrogen being produced as a primary product and, as I said, that process produces far more carbon/ mile than fossil fuels burned at point of use

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The skin burnt and the hydrogen escaped.

without catching fire or exploding? I think you need to look at a few pictures of the disaster.. then you will see that the hydrogen didn't just "escape"

 

[Darandio]

The skin burnt and the hydrogen escaped.

Yes, escaped and generated an enormous rapidly burning fireball. I'm not entirely sure what you are suggesting.

 

[LOL The Irony]

without catching fire or exploding? I think you need to look at a few pictures of the disaster.. then you will see that the hydrogen didn't just "escape"

I'm guessing you're right and all the eyewitnesses are wrong. Hydrogen burns with a blue flame and all the eyewitnesses reported normal flames.

 

[krus_aragon]

Basic high school science anyone? The Hindenberg wasn't a hydrogen fire.

Oh? That'd be awkward, because the last time I discussed the Hindenburg it was in a high school classroom, as part of a unit on combustion and chemical reactions, where we definitely treated it as an example of hydrogen combusting.

I admit I was a physics specialist taking a chemisty class, but I'm fairly confident the chemistry teachers knew what they were doing when they designed the scheme of work.

 

[Darandio]

I'm guessing you're right and all the eyewitnesses are wrong. Hydrogen burns with a blue flame and all the eyewitnesses reported normal flames.

So the official crash investigation that most likely determined that hydrogen was ignited by a static spark is wrong?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm guessing you're right and all the eyewitnesses are wrong. Hydrogen burns with a blue flame and all the eyewitnesses reported normal flames.

Hydrogen on that scale would probably have a near-clear flame, so the flames they were seeing would be the skin, but that doesn't mean the hydrogen was not burning.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

here's a pic from wikipedia of the disaster.. it definitely shows a gas explosion taking place rather than the "burning of the skin"... now what was that gas in the hindenburg?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Hydrogen on that scale would probably have a near-clear flame, so the flames they were seeing would be the skin, but that doesn't mean the hydrogen was not burning.

Either way, it wasn't the hydrogen that caused the fire. Also we've turned this into a Hindenberg thread

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Either way, it wasn't the hydrogen that caused the fire. Also we've turned this into a Hindenberg thread

no-one said that the hydrogen caused the fire only that it fuelled the rire... as I said in a previous post hydrogen is a much more volatile fuel than petrol/ diesel and therefore is a reason why hydrogen hasn't taken off...

 

[LOL The Irony]

no-one said that the hydrogen caused the fire only that it fuelled the rire... as I said in a previous post hydrogen is a much more volatile fuel than petrol/ diesel and therefore is a reason why hydrogen hasn't taken off...

Petrol vapours and hydrogen are both as volatile as each other. Diesel on the other hand needs to be a vapor to burn.

 

[krus_aragon]

I'm guessing you're right and all the eyewitnesses are wrong. Hydrogen burns with a blue flame and all the eyewitnesses reported normal flames.

Pure hydrogen burns blue in oxygen, yes, and one or two eyewitnesses claimed to have seen blue flames at first. But the big fireball included the hydrogen and airship skin burning together (with carbon, iron oxide, and other compounds) which can explain the additional colours.

 

[Dent]

A lot of existing hydrogen production is as a byproduct from other chemical manufacture. Increased demand will spark technological improvements and efficiencies.

Is enough hydrogen being produced as a byproduct, and not already being used for anything, to justify investing in developing cars to use it?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Petrol vapours and hydrogen are both as volatile as each other. Diesel on the other hand needs to be a vapor to burn.

yes all 3 can burn as a vapour... and may be just as volatile as vapours... however diesel is inert as a liquid, petrol is fairly hard to ignite as a liquid... hydrogen on the other hand.....

 

[AndrewE]

For a huge amount of people, public transport is simply not a viable option. It's fine for people in big cities where millions have been spent on modern public transport infrastructure, but for lots of people, not just on remote hill tops, but in smaller cities, towns, villages, etc., it's a completely different scenario. As it is for people who need to transport stuff around with them for their job. Provide a "fit for purpose" public transport system and far more people would use it.

But for "a huge amount of people" it could well be. We (I) are not saying that the UK's current rubbish run-down offering could replace lots of car journeys, but that given a better network (and a bit of personal effort) the UK's total of car-miles could be drastically reduced.
In Holland/the Netherlands you see bike racks at bus stops on inter-urban routes. In contrast, here cyclists are treated (by some) as pests who impede the traffic flow.
I'm certain I have seen old pictures of tradesmen taking their tool bags on public transport, but there are limits:
I remember a railway guard was forbidden to get on a bus en route to his booked job (maybe in the Wolverhampton area) because the conductor pointed out that he had detonators in his satchel... It couldn't be argued with, it is forbidden to take explosives on public transport!

 

[AndrewE]

Petrol vapours and hydrogen are both as volatile as each other. Diesel on the other hand needs to be a vapor to burn.

yes all 3 can burn as a vapour... and may be just as volatile as vapours... however diesel is inert as a liquid, petrol is fairly hard to ignite as a liquid... hydrogen on the other hand.....

Agreed, almost everything has to be a gas or a vapour to burn. Diesel and hydraulic fluid have to be sprayed as a fine mist into or onto an ignition source to burn, on the other hand petrol and other volatile hydrocarbons release enough vapour to burn (and detonate if mixed with the right amount of air) without any other energy inputs.
Coal only "burns" when you have heated it enough to drive off flammable volatile gases.