|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 27, 2021 21:28:43 GMT
Once again does go back to the issue of three times as much electricity going into harvesting Hydrogen than its yield. Not particularly good for the environment if you're generating electricity in a coal plant, then generating three buses worth of electricity only for it to be converted into one bus worth full of Hydrogen. If the electricity is totally renewable you have the economic factor too where it's just cheaper and more beneficial to run three electric buses than one Hydrogen one. I think Hydrogen if it never equates an electric bus will always be kept as the last resort for routes which require the high range. The article shows electric dominating 75% of the zero emission market by 2035 so it's quite clear which one seems to be the choice. A lot could change however.
|
|
|
Post by Lewis J.N. on Jan 27, 2021 23:26:24 GMT
Once again does go back to the issue of three times as much electricity going into harvesting Hydrogen than its yield. Not particularly good for the environment if you're generating electricity in a coal plant, then generating three buses worth of electricity only for it to be converted into one bus worth full of Hydrogen. If the electricity is totally renewable you have the economic factor too where it's just cheaper and more beneficial to run three electric buses than one Hydrogen one. I think Hydrogen if it never equates an electric bus will always be kept as the last resort for routes which require the high range. The article shows electric dominating 75% of the zero emission market by 2035 so it's quite clear which one seems to be the choice. A lot could change however. Indeed, this is the sticking point for me too. You simply can't claim something as 'zero emission' if the emissions are produced earlier on in the chain. Battery electrics are the same, which have had to have lithium ore mined and shipped, and of course the electricity produced. If we are to take up these to power our vehicles, the development of battery longevity and hydrogen production are going to have to be under constant scrutiny - and both depend on use of renewable energy so investment in this is absolutely key.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2021 23:38:22 GMT
Once again does go back to the issue of three times as much electricity going into harvesting Hydrogen than its yield. Not particularly good for the environment if you're generating electricity in a coal plant, then generating three buses worth of electricity only for it to be converted into one bus worth full of Hydrogen. If the electricity is totally renewable you have the economic factor too where it's just cheaper and more beneficial to run three electric buses than one Hydrogen one. I think Hydrogen if it never equates an electric bus will always be kept as the last resort for routes which require the high range. The article shows electric dominating 75% of the zero emission market by 2035 so it's quite clear which one seems to be the choice. A lot could change however. Indeed, this is the sticking point for me too. You simply can't claim something as 'zero emission' if the emissions are produced earlier on in the chain. Battery electrics are the same, which have had to have lithium ore mined and shipped, and of course the electricity produced. If we are to take up these to power our vehicles, the development of battery longevity and hydrogen production are going to have to be under constant scrutiny - and both depend on use of renewable energy so investment in this is absolutely key. In the shipping industry there is a drive towards LNG powered cargo ships which will drastically reduce the amount of carbon emissions produced by the industry annually. Now there will still be some emissions produced as with anything but the drive towards it is driven by the need to save money and reduce carbon emissions to an absolute minimum. The reality is no country can fulfil its entire energy needs through renewable sources but there is a future in LNG particularly if the shipping industry can aid in reducing the cost of production, cost of transportation and most importantly cost of storage.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jan 28, 2021 7:33:37 GMT
Once again does go back to the issue of three times as much electricity going into harvesting Hydrogen than its yield. Not particularly good for the environment if you're generating electricity in a coal plant, then generating three buses worth of electricity only for it to be converted into one bus worth full of Hydrogen. If the electricity is totally renewable you have the economic factor too where it's just cheaper and more beneficial to run three electric buses than one Hydrogen one. I think Hydrogen if it never equates an electric bus will always be kept as the last resort for routes which require the high range. The article shows electric dominating 75% of the zero emission market by 2035 so it's quite clear which one seems to be the choice. A lot could change however. As clearly stated in the article the electricity for the hydrogen in the London buses is being generated by wind power.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 28, 2021 10:03:52 GMT
Once again does go back to the issue of three times as much electricity going into harvesting Hydrogen than its yield. Not particularly good for the environment if you're generating electricity in a coal plant, then generating three buses worth of electricity only for it to be converted into one bus worth full of Hydrogen. If the electricity is totally renewable you have the economic factor too where it's just cheaper and more beneficial to run three electric buses than one Hydrogen one. I think Hydrogen if it never equates an electric bus will always be kept as the last resort for routes which require the high range. The article shows electric dominating 75% of the zero emission market by 2035 so it's quite clear which one seems to be the choice. A lot could change however. As clearly stated in the article the electricity for the hydrogen in the London buses is being generated by wind power. Which doesn't make any difference to overall economy, that exact same electricity will be able to power three electric buses or just one Hydrogen bus. Which one is going to be more economical? Certainly is clear the electric will be winning there. Regardless of whether a car uses BioDiesel or normal diesel, you'll still buy the car with the highest miles/gallon won't you?
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jan 28, 2021 10:39:42 GMT
As clearly stated in the article the electricity for the hydrogen in the London buses is being generated by wind power. Which doesn't make any difference to overall economy, that exact same electricity will be able to power three electric buses or just one Hydrogen bus. Which one is going to be more economical? Certainly is clear the electric will be winning there. Regardless of whether a car uses BioDiesel or normal diesel, you'll still buy the car with the highest miles/gallon won't you? You were trying to play the coal power station card. Most of the UK power supply no longer comes from coal. I wouldn't be buying a diesel car. Horses for courses. Hydrogen buses are known to have a better range. That is an advantage with less time being re-filled. 150 are coming to London so time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 28, 2021 10:49:47 GMT
Which doesn't make any difference to overall economy, that exact same electricity will be able to power three electric buses or just one Hydrogen bus. Which one is going to be more economical? Certainly is clear the electric will be winning there. Regardless of whether a car uses BioDiesel or normal diesel, you'll still buy the car with the highest miles/gallon won't you? You were trying to play the coal power station card. Most of the UK power supply no longer comes from coal. I wouldn't be buying a diesel car. Horses for courses. Hydrogen buses are known to have a better range. That is an advantage with less time being re-filled. 150 are coming to London so time will tell. The coal power station card was just an example and you not buying a diesel car doesn't have anything to do with it, it's just a what if situation. Once again, the better range only comes down to better storage, the cost put in is still going to be three times as much as a standard electric which is what you don't seem to be understanding. Why on earth would someone pay three times as much when they have the option to pay three times as less? The only way at all I see Hydrogens being picked is if they have a specific inability to take electric buses. The time being re-filled isn't a huge issue as it's made out, buses spend most of the night sat around doing nothing anyway so they might as well be charged. For example £10 could buy you 60 miles of range on a single Hydrogen bus, but £10 could buy you 60 miles of range for three electric buses. It's clear which one is going to be more economical. We still haven't had the promised Hydrogen buses on the 7 enter service when we are probably going to be very close to the 400 mark with electric buses soon if we aren't already there with the current orders.
|
|
|
Post by Gellico on Jan 29, 2021 0:46:39 GMT
One of the current issues of Fuel Cells is the anode catalyst - the very best material for this is Platinum which as everyone is aware, not the cheapest material. The cathode is normally made of Nickel or something so nothing to worry about in that regard. Also find me a single account of where a hydrogen powered vehicle has gone bang, it doesn't happen. A parallel to draw is flying - which due to the obvious dangers presented is one of the safest modes of transport. If something has an inherent danger we make it safer. As for hydrogen production - boy oh boy that is a tasty sector to get involved in, literally anyone can do it. All you need is a solar panel, water, 2 graphite electrodes and a compressor. Hydrogen production will be the ultimate disruptive technology. Note not any old urk can just go drill a hole, see if there is oil, drill another etc, then ship the stuff, then refine it, then ship it halfway across the globe. The same applies for Lithium refining (also side note for Li-ion batteries, expose them to air and see how safe they are). Give it a decade before Hydrogen is the dominant power storage method here, unless someone successfully develops a method for graphene synthesis. Regardless alkali batteries are not the future.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 29, 2021 1:01:04 GMT
One of the current issues of Fuel Cells is the anode catalyst - the very best material for this is Platinum which as everyone is aware, not the cheapest material. The cathode is normally made of Nickel or something so nothing to worry about in that regard. Also find me a single account of where a hydrogen powered vehicle has gone bang, it doesn't happen. A parallel to draw is flying - which due to the obvious dangers presented is one of the safest modes of transport. If something has an inherent danger we make it safer. As for hydrogen production - boy oh boy that is a tasty sector to get involved in, literally anyone can do it. All you need is a solar panel, water, 2 graphite electrodes and a compressor. Hydrogen production will be the ultimate disruptive technology. Note not any old urk can just go drill a hole, see if there is oil, drill another etc, then ship the stuff, then refine it, then ship it halfway across the globe. The same applies for Lithium refining (also side note for Li-ion batteries, expose them to air and see how safe they are). Give it a decade before Hydrogen is the dominant power storage method here, unless someone successfully develops a method for graphene synthesis. Regardless alkali batteries are not the future. However the thing is it will always be more economical to just use that solar panel to juice up a bus instead rather than adding in an additional process that results in an overall loss of energy. Not a single energy transfer process in the world is 100% efficient when energy transfer is involved which tends to by why the energy tends to be harvested for its intended reason at the earliest possible opportunity. I think overall Hydrogen will play a part, impossible for it not to with long routes. Really don't see routes such as the 358 managing with electric buses. But I feel the choice will end up being electric first and then Hydrogen second. TfL's aim to electrify every single garage at no direct costs to operators will probably end up making electrics the far more attractive option for operators should they be able to have a choice, but range will always hamper them due to battery degradation which like the energy efficiency loss of the electric to Hydrogen conversion is something that will never be worked around.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 29, 2021 1:07:07 GMT
One of the current issues of Fuel Cells is the anode catalyst - the very best material for this is Platinum which as everyone is aware, not the cheapest material. The cathode is normally made of Nickel or something so nothing to worry about in that regard. Also find me a single account of where a hydrogen powered vehicle has gone bang, it doesn't happen. A parallel to draw is flying - which due to the obvious dangers presented is one of the safest modes of transport. If something has an inherent danger we make it safer. As for hydrogen production - boy oh boy that is a tasty sector to get involved in, literally anyone can do it. All you need is a solar panel, water, 2 graphite electrodes and a compressor. Hydrogen production will be the ultimate disruptive technology. Note not any old urk can just go drill a hole, see if there is oil, drill another etc, then ship the stuff, then refine it, then ship it halfway across the globe. The same applies for Lithium refining (also side note for Li-ion batteries, expose them to air and see how safe they are). Give it a decade before Hydrogen is the dominant power storage method here, unless someone successfully develops a method for graphene synthesis. Regardless alkali batteries are not the future. However the thing is it will always be more economical to just use that solar panel to juice up a bus instead rather than adding in an additional process that results in an overall loss of energy. Not a single energy transfer process in the world is 100% efficient when energy transfer is involved which tends to by why the energy tends to be harvested for its intended reason at the earliest possible opportunity. I think overall Hydrogen will play a part, impossible for it not to with long routes. Really don't see routes such as the 358 managing with electric buses. But I feel the choice will end up being electric first and then Hydrogen second. TfL's aim to electrify every single garage at no direct costs to operators will probably end up making electrics the far more attractive option for operators should they be able to have a choice, but range will always hamper them due to battery degradation which like the energy efficiency loss of the electric to Hydrogen conversion is something that will never be worked around. What until one of those batteries goes bang! They have been known to burn for 2-3 days given off poisonous fumes, and you can't put them out. They burn at 2000⁰C. A bus is made of steel that melts around 1500⁰C, depending which type used. Imagine the disruption when that happens. Then tell me they are environmentally friendly! Found this advice entitled "Minimize the Risk of Lithium Battery Fire" Avoid storing at high temperatures. Don't keep batteries in hot vehicles. ... Avoid keeping all your items containing lithium-ion batteries together. When you travel, especially on a plane, you'll have all your electronic items in one bag. ...Avoid overcharging your batteries.
And this is just for little batteries powering personal electronics.
|
|
|
Post by Gellico on Jan 29, 2021 11:32:48 GMT
One of the current issues of Fuel Cells is the anode catalyst - the very best material for this is Platinum which as everyone is aware, not the cheapest material. The cathode is normally made of Nickel or something so nothing to worry about in that regard. Also find me a single account of where a hydrogen powered vehicle has gone bang, it doesn't happen. A parallel to draw is flying - which due to the obvious dangers presented is one of the safest modes of transport. If something has an inherent danger we make it safer. As for hydrogen production - boy oh boy that is a tasty sector to get involved in, literally anyone can do it. All you need is a solar panel, water, 2 graphite electrodes and a compressor. Hydrogen production will be the ultimate disruptive technology. Note not any old urk can just go drill a hole, see if there is oil, drill another etc, then ship the stuff, then refine it, then ship it halfway across the globe. The same applies for Lithium refining (also side note for Li-ion batteries, expose them to air and see how safe they are). Give it a decade before Hydrogen is the dominant power storage method here, unless someone successfully develops a method for graphene synthesis. Regardless alkali batteries are not the future. However the thing is it will always be more economical to just use that solar panel to juice up a bus instead rather than adding in an additional process that results in an overall loss of energy. Not a single energy transfer process in the world is 100% efficient when energy transfer is involved which tends to by why the energy tends to be harvested for its intended reason at the earliest possible opportunity. I think overall Hydrogen will play a part, impossible for it not to with long routes. Really don't see routes such as the 358 managing with electric buses. But I feel the choice will end up being electric first and then Hydrogen second. TfL's aim to electrify every single garage at no direct costs to operators will probably end up making electrics the far more attractive option for operators should they be able to have a choice, but range will always hamper them due to battery degradation which like the energy efficiency loss of the electric to Hydrogen conversion is something that will never be worked around. The economics of batteries will soon some to fray; primarily replacement costs and sourcing of materials. Batteries may be cheap at the moment but price will only increase. This is the exact opposite of what will happen with hydrogen.
|
|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Feb 10, 2021 21:40:38 GMT
I was just leisurely scrolling through various pages earlier today when I discovered the Wrightbus page has been totally revamped to only promote their hydrogen double decker and nothing else. Prior to this, it promoted their old products, like the (diesel) Streetdeck, the Streetlite, Gemini 3 and Streetcar (not sure why they had the Streetcar on the page for so long, it hadn't been in production since 2009). One of their emails also has changed to include the word 'hydrogen' in it, possibly suggesting a jump to hydrogen, whilst skipping out electric buses entirely (although, it has been mentioned that a non-London operator has ordered 80 electric DD's from them, not sure if that has any correlation with this though, or they are just promoting it less).
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 11, 2021 13:40:17 GMT
I was just leisurely scrolling through various pages earlier today when I discovered the Wrightbus page has been totally revamped to only promote their hydrogen double decker and nothing else. Prior to this, it promoted their old products, like the (diesel) Streetdeck, the Streetlite, Gemini 3 and Streetcar (not sure why they had the Streetcar on the page for so long, it hadn't been in production since 2009). One of their emails also has changed to include the word 'hydrogen' in it, possibly suggesting a jump to hydrogen, whilst skipping out electric buses entirely (although, it has been mentioned that a non-London operator has ordered 80 electric DD's from them, not sure if that has any correlation with this though, or they are just promoting it less). I imagine the excessive push to Hydrogen from them is coming simply because Bamford also owns the wind farms that make the fuel so he has a clear vested interest in Hydrogen taking off when it might not always be the best option. Alexander Dennis and Caetano offer both electric and hydrogen vehicles and both seem to be pushing far more towards the electric side despite also having the offering of Hydrogen and potentially not having much to lose out on one compared to the other. I do wish Wright every success in this but they seem to be tooting Hydrogen more so for the success of Jo Bamford's greater business rather than actually what the market is demanding now. I think I would much rather trust Alexander Dennis and Caetano who both seem to be moving far closer to the electric side and have swamped up orders almost everywhere you can think, ADL in the UK and Caetano on the continent, not to mention BYD in China when they say that electric is what's taking off instead of believing Wright where Bamford only took over recently, owns the fuel supply generators and can profit hugely from selling Hydrogens over electrics, and then not to mention actually having a huge electric order but not even mentioning it after just totally slating it on their website. A lot of Wright seem to be mentioning relies on the future technology potentially becoming available, of which its not even a certainty if people don't order it while slating batteries based on their current technology. I already mentioned yesterday that stats are pointing towards range being a very minimal issue in the future and cost being even less so of an issue which s what Bamford seem to be getting at. I'm not saying Hydrogen has no future, it most certainly does. However Wright are in for a huge surprise if they think that every Hydrogen order is just going to de facto to them when ADL and Caetano already have offerings on the table. I really don't see Abellio, Go Ahead, RATP and Stagecoach flying to Wright for Hydrogen orders after just ordering all their electrics from ADL, and I think ADL will also do anything to keep them.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Feb 11, 2021 20:00:42 GMT
The Wrights buses use tried and tested fuel cells. They also built a prototype and converted another before administration. Wrights have delivered four buses to London according to LOTS.
Judging by their website, ADL seem to have built one prototype.
Caetano have done well with vehicles for Abellio.
Competition is important and fuelling a bus in 10 minutes compared to 4/5 hours to charge an electric vehicle is a good starting point.
There will continue to be a mix of buses in London.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 11, 2021 20:30:23 GMT
The Wrights buses use tried and tested fuel cells. They also built a prototype and converted another before administration. Wrights have delivered four buses to London according to LOTS. Judging by their website, ADL seem to have built one prototype. Caetano have done well with vehicles for Abellio. Competition is important and fuelling a bus in 10 minutes compared to 4/5 to charge an electric vehicle is a good starting point. There will continue to be a mix of buses in London. ADL have a whole batch on order for Liverpool, so whether they've only built one or not they'll soon have a fleet to back them up.
|
|