Certainly seems to be.
So will the ICE be banned or not?
- Thread starter Sharpend
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
Just watching a documentary called Black Gold, about Exxon and how they covered up their own research into climate change, 50 years ago. I found it on Sky, series section. Really interesting stuff.
PaulieN
Well-known member
Oddly, as a Tesla Model S owner, I find I actually agree with you to a point.
Since the Model 3 became available a very large number of mid ranking BMW car drivers have moved over to the brand and some have brought their obnoxious driving habits with them!
King Arthur
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2019
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 27
Well I'm thinking about trading in my E-class Merc estate for a model 3 Tesla so does that make me a **** or do I get some respite for also having a 15 year old Defender as a back up?Oddly, as a Tesla Model S owner, I find I actually agree with you to a point.
Since the Model 3 became available a very large number of mid ranking BMW car drivers have moved over to the brand and some have brought their obnoxious driving habits with them!
PaulieN
Well-known member
Only if you actually drive like oneWell I'm thinking about trading in my E-class Merc estate for a model 3 Tesla so does that make me a **** or do I get some respite for also having a 15 year old Defender as a back up?
just been watching Top Gear, had a little section on EVs, hydrogen, and synthetic fuels which can be used in conventional engines
Sharpend
"It Just Is"
So the ICE will stay!! So will that make the ICE driven vehicle far more environmentally friendly than the EV?
PaulieN
Well-known member
Unlikely, if you're burning anything in an engine, you're always going to create local pollution, CO2 neutral or not. Also, cost wise, it won't be able to compete with EV either, at least not for cars and light goods. The efficiency of an ICE is an order of magnitude less than EV, you just can't alter this fact, whatever fuel you're burning.
EV vs Combustion engine efficiency:
https://energi.media/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Battery-EVs-1.png
https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/O...d-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13.webp
Last edited:
Not sure, the synthetic fuel still emits nitrous oxides, which are bad for air quality, and then there's the energy used to make the stuff in the first place, which as it involves extracting CO2 from atmosphere, plus splitting Hydrogen from water, is probably going to use a lot of leccy. I had a quick look around t'internet last night and havn't found any real comparison figures so far. But, if you get the leccy from wind turbines or solar, then maybe it is????
splitting water does use lots of leccy, but then so does charging an EV. in reality, if as much had been spent on hydrogen as EV's, we would probably have viable hydrogen engines by now which would probably be a lot more useful than EV's, especially for larger vehicles
both EV & hydrogen have the same common problem though, electric to make everything run
I’m pretty sure that I’ve read somewhere that the amount of electric used to split water to make hydrogen is something like 7 times more than an EV would use to travel the same distance (if that makes sense)….. so Hydrogen, however it’s made, is a long way off being efficient enough
Sharpend
"It Just Is"
So we use 100% renewable energy to produce something that is using the air borne CO2 and emits carbon neutrality surely a win win?
that's the figures I've seen, but you have to ask (and I don't know the answer) 'is producing hydrogen better than trying to store leccy in battery systems?'
splitting water uses the same amount of power (plus losses) as you get burning it, however just like an ICE, the overall efficieny is lower than an EV using a motor. not sure what. hydrogen fuel cells are different though, and can be used to power a motor
I just wish the government would bung some money at pure research, then we might get a proper answer and improved efficiencies, and who knows, we might create a world beating industry and earn some money for the UK.
As far as I'm concerned, from what I have read about Hydrogen / EVs etc etc, we will need hydrogen for heavy vehicles, lorries, aeroplanes etc etc. EV cars seems a daft route for me, they are best for short journeys / commuting, but then electric bicycles and scooters are also good for that, so encourage far more of those and less electric cars. You can probably make 50/ 100 bicycles with the materials for one car.
King Arthur
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2019
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 27
Hydrogen is not without other problems than just its generation. H2 is very light and has a relatively low energy-density so it needs to be highly compressed, possible of course but it requires more energy and very strong (which typically means heavy) storage cylinders/systems. Hydrogen is also a very small atom, which means it can seep into other elements (ie metals), especially when under very high pressure, and this can cause unwelcome effects such as 'hydrogen embrittlement' of steel cylinders and pipework.
No doubt these, and other, problems could be overcome but they are examples of how 'simple' solutions are rarely simple in practice. As someone once said (of the 'Middle East problem' I believe) - if you think you know the answer then you probably don't fully understand the question.
No doubt these, and other, problems could be overcome but they are examples of how 'simple' solutions are rarely simple in practice. As someone once said (of the 'Middle East problem' I believe) - if you think you know the answer then you probably don't fully understand the question.
every possible solution will have its own problems that also need solved
There is no single silver bullet solution for energy savings or replacing energy sources
Reducing consumption has to be top of the agenda
Be thankful we’re not in Sri Lanka
Reducing consumption has to be top of the agenda
Be thankful we’re not in Sri Lanka
King Arthur
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2019
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 27
. . . And that means reducing our global population. THAT is the real challenge. Every other problem we have will be reduced and be easier to solve with a lower population. Indeed, many of our problems would simply disappear without any need to 'solve' them.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no acceptable way to reduce our population or our (understandable) desire for an ever-increasing standard of living, and therefore consumption. But if we don't do it voluntarily then events will force something to give and it won't be pretty.
Yes 100% agree about population control
It’s a bit like assisted dying - nobody wants to talk about it so we export that to Switzerland
Similar threads
