Toyota trialling hydrogen combustion engine

[Suff]

EVs, not much good if you live in the Andes or sub-Saharan Africa or the Russian Steppes but, apparently, great in (some small parts of) LA or Paris or London.

Not sure how you work that out? There are a growing body of video's showing EV's doing Edinburgh London, Edinburgh South coast. All with 1 or, at worst, 2 recharges and only 1hr 15 at the longest.

By far the vast majority of vehicle users will charge their vehicle once every 10 days at most or a 15 minute sip every day or two just to keep it topped off.

As for Lithium? The latest moves are Lithium clay in Nevada. They are determined to sort out an acid free process for separating the Lithium. When, not if, that works, Nevada has enough resources to support the entire EV needs for the next 2 decades.

[Workingman]

Poor Nevadans. A few decades of profit for the few (money, money, money) and a trashed environment forever for everyone else. Well done you battery boys and girls.

Warning: incoming deflexion!

[Suff]

Hardly, due to the mercury extraction of the 1920's Nevadan environmental legislation is strong.

Nevadan prefer the Lithium is extracted in the US under strong environmental controls whilst bringing economic growth to rural backwaters.

But why would we want to do that when we can destroy the entire liveable climate of the planet and take 90% of the species on the planet with us?

The hydrogen economy is strongly supported by the fossil fuel energy companies. Why? Because they are trying to push "blue hydrogen". Heard of it? Look it up.

I think it is safe to say that the FF companies don't give a crap about your welfare or anyone else's welfare.

If you also want to waste your life, I think you will find all this "helpful" information about the Lithium extraction business is also funded by big energy.

Also good to remember. Lithium is extract, use recycle. Oi and gas are extract, burn, extract, burn. It is a finite resource which has uses far, far beyond burning for fuel.

But, of course, we should not mine the lithium, no, that is sustainable. We should burn blue hydrogen, which most certainly is not.

[Workingman]

Well deflected, as predicted.

Natural gas (methane) was never mentioned nor were the colours of hydrogen (blue, green, pink or yellow) the last three of which do not use Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) or Auto Thermal Reforming (ATR) to capture and store the CO2 - they are clean. And the free and green electricity used to separate hydrogen by electrolysis you claim is wasted (H cannot be made or produced as it is an element) is the same as is used to charge your car batteries. A green alternative use?

Lithium extraction, a finite resource, by whatever means, damages the environment, but let's wash over that. It's inconsequential to those of us in Leeds, Toulouse, Bologna, Muscat, Windhoek, Christchurch and thousands of other places as we do not live on top of it. But for those who do....! And the last time I looked we were not in the 1920s mining cinnabar (quicksilver) in one place, alongside gold, for use in many industries, strong legislation or not. That was then, this is now and we appear to have learned little in the time between.

EVs are not planet savers, environmentally friendly, nor CO2 free, despite all the hype. And they are certainly not as universally useful as ICE vehicles and other machinery are. However, we are going down that road because politicians, and us mugs, have been sold the deal. I look forward to the day when G7 leaders and us holidaymakers fly in on electric "jets" in order to enjoy ourselves and at the same time save ourselves and the planet.

We are living in the comic book worlds of the Terminator, Elysium and Blade Runner; maybe they can save us and be the future - or not!

[Suff]

Well deflected, as predicted.

Natural gas (methane) was never mentioned nor were the colours of hydrogen (blue, green, pink or yellow) the last three of which do not use Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) or Auto Thermal Reforming (ATR) to capture and store the CO2 - they are clean. And the free and green electricity used to separate hydrogen by electrolysis you claim is wasted (H cannot be made or produced as it is an element) is the same as is used to charge your car batteries. A green alternative use?

Lithium extraction, a finite resource, by whatever means, damages the environment, but let's wash over that. It's inconsequential to those of us in Leeds, Toulouse, Bologna, Muscat, Windhoek, Christchurch and thousands of other places as we do not live on top of it. But for those who do....! And the last time I looked we were not in the 1920s mining cinnabar (quicksilver) in one place, alongside gold, for use in many industries, strong legislation or not. That was then, this is now and we appear to have learned little in the time between.

EVs are not planet savers, environmentally friendly, nor CO2 free, despite all the hype. And they are certainly not as universally useful as ICE vehicles and other machinery are. However, we are going down that road because politicians, and us mugs, have been sold the deal. I look forward to the day when G7 leaders and us holidaymakers fly in on electric "jets" in order to enjoy ourselves and at the same time save ourselves and the planet.

We are living in the comic book worlds of the Terminator, Elysium and Blade Runner; maybe they can save us and be the future - or not!

Blue hydrogen is the proposed source for the hydrogen vehicles. It uses less energy to produce but creates a CO2 nightmare. It also continues to remove the precious resource of oil and gas that is a once in several hundred million year resource and cannot be recycled.

I did not deflect. I explained.

You are having a go at mining Lithium which is close to 100% recyclable once mined, with production of Hydrogen which, as proposed, is not.

There are more colours of Hydrogen. Most of them are not "green".

Let me repeat. Hydrogen is DOA for cars. Those who keep flogging this dead horse will go the way of the horse.

I'm not sure how obvious this is but the Tesla goal is to produce 20% of all vehicles in the world by 2030. Today that is 17.6m vehicles. It is expected to be 20m vehicles in 2030. That would make Tesla the largest vehicle manufacturer in the world, bar none, by nearly 100%.

In the attempt to head off Tesla, every other manufacturer has to produce a compelling and convincing vehicle line to compete. That competition will be Electric and will drive close to 50% of the market to electric. Once there it is all over, EV is the way we are going and that's the end of it. No Hydrogen or other technology will get a look in unless it is 100% clean at point of use and also produces less CO2 than the electric grid.

Whilst I'm on the subject, Telsa now sells more cars than JLR per year. By 2025 Tesla will sell more cars per quarter than JLR sells in a year. By 2024 Tesla will sell more cars than Mercedes. By 2027 they will be hoovering up Ford and GM. The only major fly in the ointment, right now, is the German mania for NIMBY and their construction laws. It is looking like their Texas factory will be fully functioning before the German one starts on main production.

[cromwell]

Time will tell. I'm not against ev's per se. If they work as well as ICE cars and are as convenient then I'm ok.
I do however harbour great reservations about any British government's ability to organise such a big change.

[Suff]

If they work as well as ICE cars and are as convenient then I'm ok.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/8/22568 ... tis-ev-day

Dodge will make an electric muscle car in 2024

But here is the real kicker.

Despite that declaration, Kuniskis said he recognized that there is a “limit” to what gas-powered vehicles can deliver.

“Our engineers are reaching a practical limit of what we can squeeze from internal combustion innovation,” he said. “They know we know that electric motors can give us more. And if we know of a technology that can give our customers an advantage.”

Hell of an admission isn't it!

[Suff]

FYI,

The grid has made a future estimate for energy production and transition for net zero 2050 with multiple scenario's.

Very interesting reading.

The biggest change I see is that the gird expects to be a net energy exporter by 2050 with over 100TW/h of electricity exported every year. This is significant as the UK generated 312.8TW/h in 2020 by all generation sources.

The highest scenario in electricity generation by 2050 is 883TW/h with a total generating capacity of 290GW. Nearly 3 times today in power generated, but 6 times current generating capacity. Such is the on off nature of renewables.

Other interesting points you don't see in one place often.

Home demand for energy (gas/oil/electricity), 480TW.h
Road transport, over 400TW/h
Industrial and commercial 500TW/h (gas/oil/electricity)

Natural gas supply is ~ 907TW/h

Statement: "Hydrogen generation is needed in all of our net zero scenarios to provide electricity security of supply"

As you can see, if they are only producing 883TW/h but are replacing 1,380TW/h of energy in use today, they are expecting significant efficiencies going forward. They will gain somewhere around 200TW/h just from a full transition of vehicles to EV. Not so much for Hydrogen. Heat pumps are expected to reduce energy consumption from the grid as opposed to gas and blue hydrogen with CCS (carbon capture and storage), is expected to do the rest.

How they think they will keep hydrogen in gas lines and boilers to homes is a mystery to me. They can't even keep gas in and that is 100 times easier than hydrogen.

However, this is their thinking and where they are aiming. At least their thinking has changed to the tune that we need to be more than 100% energy self sufficient and sell the excess across the water. A big change from a decade ago where the idea was to create interconnects and buy net zero energy from the EU energy market.