|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 27, 2022 9:55:32 GMT
There will still be combustion engines for many years.
The ban is on new cars.
I just exchanged my 22 year old Nissan.
Electricity will come from where it comes from now and the demand will grow slowly, hopefully matched by growth is supply as and when.
Of course cost of energy will never go back to what it was. It never does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 27, 2022 13:39:48 GMT
1) Large scale electricity infrastructure needed building 20 years ago, never mind at some vague point in the future.
2) "Hopefully" doesn't cut it. There isn't the capacity for lots of electric cars to be powered, and they're facing a prospect of millions of electric cars on the road. Are they mad ?
3) If someone was drinking a bottle of vodka a day, would "hopefully" avoid cirrhosis ?
Profound and immediate change is needed if they want to achieve their vision.
They are not doing so.
Their policy will just make 2nd hand cars more valuable and things will carry on as normal without the change they seek.
Manufacturers will ultimately start going under as sales of electric cars fall and then after all the chaos they've caused, they will have a rethink.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Dec 27, 2022 17:01:52 GMT
I think Hydrogen will be part of this already testing Hydrogen in some towns up North with switching from gas. The good thing is if it can work no more oil crisis's or at least much less painful. But as Steppenwolf pointed out in the net Zero thread burning Hydrogen in Internal Combustion engines has huge problems You can burn it inefficiently or you can create lots of toxic NOx My understanding is the NOX comes from using hydrogen mixed with other fuels not hydrogen alone. |
|
roots
Full Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by roots on Dec 27, 2022 17:20:21 GMT
The aim of this 2035 nonsense isn't to get everyone converting to BEVs, the aim is to get those who can't afford them off the roads and onto the bus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 27, 2022 19:35:28 GMT
I think Hydrogen will be part of this already testing Hydrogen in some towns up North with switching from gas. The good thing is if it can work no more oil crisis's or at least much less painful. Hydrogen is currently produced from methane. CH4 |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 27, 2022 21:01:46 GMT
My understanding is the NOX comes from using hydrogen mixed with other fuels not hydrogen alone. As I've read it it comes from burning hydrogen in air and gets worse if you burn pure hydrogen instead of a mix with fuel. Using lean (air rich) mixes lowers the temperatures and NOx production but is less efficient esp in HP per litre terms Hopefully Steppenwolf who first put me onto this can provide more info |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 28, 2022 7:08:44 GMT
Since when were internal combustion engines that efficient anyway? Most of the energy in combustion is turned to heat rather than motion even in the most economical petrol engines.
It doesn't need to be a highly efficient burn, just a clean burn.
If the driver can get 600+ miles out of a tank, great.
It's a tech that doesn't produce battery waste.
And in all forms, we produce too much battery waste.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 28, 2022 7:48:57 GMT
The environmental and human cost of producing all these batteries is going to become a bigger issue over the next few years - all to often we get people virtue signalling about their new electric car whilst ignoring the dirty reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 28, 2022 8:02:44 GMT
My understanding is the NOX comes from using hydrogen mixed with other fuels not hydrogen alone. No. The NOx comes from the fact that hydrogen burns at a high temperature in air and air is mainly nitrogen. When the temperature gets high enough to oxidise nitrogen you get N2O, NO and NO2 - all of which are dangerous. It's no different in principle to what the politicians did when they encouraged everyone to buy diesels. Diesels are more efficient because they operate at much higher compression ratios, but the higher compression ratios lead to higher temperatures which cause oxidation of nitrogen. So the higher efficiency cause lower CO2 emissions but the higher temperatures caused more NOx. You can minimise the amount of NOx produced by combusting hydrogen but not eliminate it - and it lowers efficiency. Hydrogen
What gets me is that the solution to all the problems with battery powered electric vehicles (BEV) is to use a fuel cell instead. Indeed the main problem with the BEV is that they do NOT lower carbon emissions - which is their primary raison d'etre - because of all the CO2 emitted during the production of the batteries (and the recycling). It's a joke. Toyota have been making hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for years and have marketed a model which does 400 miles on a tank of hydrogen and costs about £50k - less than an equivalent BEV. And HFCs gets round all the problems of BEVs in that they can be filled quickly and don't require vast investment in the National Grid and charging infrastructure - which will NEVER happen. The way that the government (and governments around the world) have handled this is a comedy of errors. They're clueless. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Dec 28, 2022 13:35:49 GMT
steppenwolfFrom your hydrogen link. My reading of that is hydrogen fuel cells are seen as better. Burning hydrogen in a home heating appliance like a boiler will generate NO yet not more than natural gas. The only doubt is on the combustion engine model which they think is polluting on the small number of test data.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 28, 2022 15:18:34 GMT
steppenwolf From your hydrogen link. My reading of that is hydrogen fuel cells are seen as better. Burning hydrogen in a home heating appliance like a boiler will generate NO yet not more than natural gas.The only doubt is on the combustion engine model which they think is polluting on the small number of test data. It's just basic chemistry. Hydrogen burns at a higher temperature so it will create more nitrogen oxides. That's what killed the diesel. HFCs are entirely different technology and generate only one emission - water. What's more they emit cleaner air than they draw in. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 28, 2022 17:55:01 GMT
My understanding is the NOX comes from using hydrogen mixed with other fuels not hydrogen alone. No. The NOx comes from the fact that hydrogen burns at a high temperature in air and air is mainly nitrogen. When the temperature gets high enough to oxidise nitrogen you get N2O, NO and NO2 - all of which are dangerous. It's no different in principle to what the politicians did when they encouraged everyone to buy diesels. Diesels are more efficient because they operate at much higher compression ratios, but the higher compression ratios lead to higher temperatures which cause oxidation of nitrogen. So the higher efficiency cause lower CO2 emissions but the higher temperatures caused more NOx. You can minimise the amount of NOx produced by combusting hydrogen but not eliminate it - and it lowers efficiency. Hydrogen
What gets me is that the solution to all the problems with battery powered electric vehicles (BEV) is to use a fuel cell instead. Indeed the main problem with the BEV is that they do NOT lower carbon emissions - which is their primary raison d'etre - because of all the CO2 emitted during the production of the batteries (and the recycling). It's a joke. Toyota have been making hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for years and have marketed a model which does 400 miles on a tank of hydrogen and costs about £50k - less than an equivalent BEV. And HFCs gets round all the problems of BEVs in that they can be filled quickly and don't require vast investment in the National Grid and charging infrastructure - which will NEVER happen. The way that the government (and governments around the world) have handled this is a comedy of errors. They're clueless. Methanol is another option for the internal combustion engine. It can be produced by renewable means. CO2 for it can be carbon captured. But again, it requires lots and lots of power stations that politicians will not factor into the equation and grant planning permission for. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 29, 2022 8:11:14 GMT
Carbon capture is very difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 29, 2022 9:32:03 GMT
Nevertheless its possible, I've seen working carbon capture tech demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 7, 2023 17:42:37 GMT
EV's facing a few problems due to the cold... It's not just Tesla's Anyone who pokes about on ArseBook canot fail to have seen the advertising push MG are making for the lomg range Estate version of the car, yours for a king's ransom and abe to do about 300 miles according to the WLTP figures which are made up almost as badly as Volkswagen Diesel Emissions figures But regardless of what the makers or the jokers releasing these WLTP figures say, the buyers found a bit of a problem Shortly agfter these cars hit the shwrooms and then the roads there was a cold snap. As a result the max range shrank to about 100 miles AND STAYED THERE As in, when it warmed up you couldnlt get any more than that 100 miles MG were forced to put out a rather embarrassing admission that the only way to fix this was to let the car get to zero miles or as good as and ten charge it up NOT on the high speed charge but on the 3 pin plug 13A charger supplied as te charger of last resort. Which would take most of the weekend. The EV fundys get really pissed off if you mention this though |
|
