Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59107805

Good to see some alternative (to batteries) technologies being invested in.  Eggs, baskets. etc.  A UK company too.

Yeah, JCB seem to be focusing on hydrogen fuelled combustion engines as a possible solution for heavy plant. I'm not so sure myself, as BEV based heavy plant is already starting to roll out (JCB also have some of this, and even 'portable' battery packs for recharging, about 30kWh I think) but we'll see. It does look like HFCV's (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) for road use are now losing support, given the 3-4x more leccy needed, but they aren't completely dead yet, for HGV's and heavy plant.

Seems almost a waste to try to transport H2 around, or create a fuelling infrastructure, when it could work so well as a stationary storage means to support RE and leccy.

Verdigris

There'll be hydrogen infrastructure, at whatever cost, because Bamfords are big Tory donors. Remember they also own Wrightbus which made the Johnson buses.

shinytop

Martyn1981 said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59107805

Good to see some alternative (to batteries) technologies being invested in.  Eggs, baskets. etc.  A UK company too.

Yeah, JCB seem to be focusing on hydrogen fuelled combustion engines as a possible solution for heavy plant. I'm not so sure myself, as BEV based heavy plant is already starting to roll out (JCB also have some of this, and even 'portable' battery packs for recharging, about 30kWh I think) but we'll see. It does look like HFCV's (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) for road use are now losing support, given the 3-4x more leccy needed, but they aren't completely dead yet, for HGV's and heavy plant.

Seems almost a waste to try to transport H2 around, or create a fuelling infrastructure, when it could work so well as a stationary storage means to support RE and leccy.

I suppose the counter argument is that it's a waste to transport several hundred kilos of battery around in BEVs.  Anyway, if H2 engines work, it will put pressure on batteries to become smaller, lighter, more efficient, etc.      

QrizB

shinytop said:

Martyn1981 said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59107805

Good to see some alternative (to batteries) technologies being invested in.  Eggs, baskets. etc.  A UK company too.

Seems almost a waste to try to transport H2 around, or create a fuelling infrastructure, when it could work so well as a stationary storage means to support RE and leccy.

I suppose the counter argument is that it's a waste to transport several hundred kilos of battery around in BEVs.  Anyway, if H2 engines work, it will put pressure on batteries to become smaller, lighter, more efficient, etc.      

I have no problem with venture capitalists stumping up cash to support alternative energy start-ups. Some will succeed, others will fail.
I have a few more reservations about billionaire industrialists "calling upon" the taxpayer to invest in these products without appropriate cost-benefit analysis or competitive tender.

2nd_time_buyer

It seems like excavators etc. are borderline for hydrogen/batteries.

I read somewhere that hydrogen is three times the energy density of airline fuel. I am pretty sure that batteries will never be suitable for anything but very short haul flights. However, hydrogen has a lot more potential.

The biggest obstacle seems to be safety. Not that hydrogen is inherently less safe then current fuels. But that airline safety has evolved with the technology over decades and it would be unacceptable to have anything less safe than the status quo...

...but air accident rates are so low, that it takes a lot of air miles to demonstrate safety. And if there is an accident even if it is a statistically insignificant, the political attention it would get would put back development by years. So it is a chicken and egg type of thing. Where perhaps it should be more of a ... you can't make an omlette without... type of thing.

EricMears

shinytop said:

I suppose the counter argument is that it's a waste to transport several hundred kilos of battery around in BEVs.      

Hard to believe !   A typical JCB roadgoing excavator usually carries around a couple of spare buckets and a few gallons of fuel without any great effort.  Quarry plant machines are usually able to shift tens of tonnes of stone as part of their normal function;  I can't see how an 'extra' half-tonne or so is going to have any great effect on their performance.  And in any case,  the batteries should be able to have the machines powered by a lightweight electric motor rather than a very heavy ICE and a fuel tank so the weight of batteries isn't all 'extra'

QrizB

2nd_time_buyer said:

I read somewhere that hydrogen is three times the energy density of airline fuel. I am pretty sure that batteries will never be suitable for anything but very short haul flights. However, hydrogen has a lot more potential.

You need to be careful with comparisons. Yes, a tonne of hydrogen does contain 3x the energy of a tonne of aviation fuel. However a tonne of liquid hydrogen will occupy 13.5 cubic metres while a tonne of aviation fuel will only take up 1.3 cubic metres.

Put another way, a litre or gallon of liquid hydrogen will contain roughly one-quarter the energy of a gallon of aviation fuel, diesel or petrol.

(Per this Wikipedia page, liquid hydrogen in 10MJ/litre, diesel is 38, jet fuel 35 and petrol 34. )

Martyn1981

shinytop said:

Martyn1981 said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59107805

Good to see some alternative (to batteries) technologies being invested in.  Eggs, baskets. etc.  A UK company too.

Yeah, JCB seem to be focusing on hydrogen fuelled combustion engines as a possible solution for heavy plant. I'm not so sure myself, as BEV based heavy plant is already starting to roll out (JCB also have some of this, and even 'portable' battery packs for recharging, about 30kWh I think) but we'll see. It does look like HFCV's (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) for road use are now losing support, given the 3-4x more leccy needed, but they aren't completely dead yet, for HGV's and heavy plant.

Seems almost a waste to try to transport H2 around, or create a fuelling infrastructure, when it could work so well as a stationary storage means to support RE and leccy.

I suppose the counter argument is that it's a waste to transport several hundred kilos of battery around in BEVs.  Anyway, if H2 engines work, it will put pressure on batteries to become smaller, lighter, more efficient, etc.      

H2 engines do work, certainly as far as I'm aware. They, like HFCV's, already exist. The question then seems to come down to economics.

Given that approx 75% of the energy from the leccy generation reaches the road via a BEV, but only ~25% for a HFCV, then we need to consider the higher fuel costs, and the impact on FF generation reduction if RE generation is not utilised to its best.

I believe that a H2 ICE is upto 50% efficient, so similar to a HFC, so presumably the economics are the same.

Now, this doesn't mean that H2ICEV's and HFCV's won't work, or can't be economical, it's just that they have been trialling for decades now, and most companies have withdrawn or reduced their funding (I think Hyundai and Toyota are still hopeful). And it may well be that heavy plant, particularly really heavy plant is 'also' suitable for H2. I say also, since it's already moving towards BEV's.

So where might it work - well if there's a suitable leccy source on site, or adjacent to the site, then perhaps a BEV is better. Also if you need to comply with noise regulations, then a BEV beats a H2ICE (though a HFCV may be ok). If working in an enclosed environment, then a BEV is fine, but I'm not 100% sure about a H2ICE, I can't quite remember, but I think there are some emissions, perhaps Nox, but I may be wrong (again HFCV would be OK).

Then we need to consider fuelling. H2 will be faster, but you'll need the kit on site and to transport in the H2. Hopefully leccy will be available, but even the most remote site is going to be closer to a supply of leccy, than a H2 supply, so a counter solution would be to truck in batts to top up the heavy plant, or even swappable batts [recent article on a BEV tractor offered swappable 60kWh batt packs for $18k] since you'd have heavy plant and experienced operators on site .... perhaps?

So I'm not yet convinced that H2ICE and HFCV's aren't viable for some edge case uses in the heavy plant operating theatre, but I do think the weight of evidence, and direction of industry travel is now against them. But best of luck, so long as there aren't negative repercussions through their need for H2, which could support demand for non-green H2. At least JCB is covering the green side.


Just a thought, but Eric got me thinking, and the biggest of the biggest plant is probably the ginormous 'dump trucks' these can weigh north of 200tonnes empty and carry loads of 300tonnes+. They are already diesel electric (like most trains), so the wheels are driven by electric motors capable of delivering simply vast amounts of torque. The diesel engines are simply generators, they don't power the wheels directly. So the technology has long been proven, we just need to remove all of the ICE components, and replace them with batts.

There are some large BEV dump trucks that operate in a quarry, where the ore travels downhill, and these trucks need to discharge to the grid every so often, as they generate more leccy coming down hill, underload, than they consume going up empty.


Edit - If anyone's interested, here's a vid about JCB and their H2ICE plans I watched a few months ago:

Why JCB thinks hydrogen is the best alternative to diesel for heavy machinery, farming and HGV fleet

Edit2 - An article I posted recently on the BEV thread about Volvo's successful testing:

Electric Construction Equipment From Volvo CE Passes One Year Test With Flying Colors

2nd_time_buyer

QrizB said:

2nd_time_buyer said:

I read somewhere that hydrogen is three times the energy density of airline fuel. I am pretty sure that batteries will never be suitable for anything but very short haul flights. However, hydrogen has a lot more potential.

You need to be careful with comparisons. Yes, a tonne of hydrogen does contain 3x the energy of a tonne of aviation fuel. However a tonne of liquid hydrogen will occupy 13.5 cubic metres while a tonne of aviation fuel will only take up 1.3 cubic metres.

Oh. I hadn't realized that. That's a bit of a showstopper for most aviation then - which seems both weight and volume critical. So I guess there is no obvious carbon-free alternative for air transport them?

EricMears

QrizB said:

2nd_time_buyer said:

I read somewhere that hydrogen is three times the energy density of airline fuel. I am pretty sure that batteries will never be suitable for anything but very short haul flights. However, hydrogen has a lot more potential.

You need to be careful with comparisons. Yes, a tonne of hydrogen does contain 3x the energy of a tonne of aviation fuel. However a tonne of liquid hydrogen will occupy 13.5 cubic metres while a tonne of aviation fuel will only take up 1.3 cubic metres.

Put another way, a litre or gallon of liquid hydrogen will contain roughly one-quarter the energy of a gallon of aviation fuel, diesel or petrol.

(Per this Wikipedia page, liquid hydrogen in 10MJ/litre, diesel is 38, jet fuel 35 and petrol 34. )

Remember also that hydrogen would need a very strong (hence heavy) tank to hold it under pressure whereas conventional jet fuel only needs a lightweight tank.