FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Hydrogen fuel cells
Hydrogen fuel cells
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *hirley OP Man
over a year ago
somewhere |
Has anyone looked at the possibility of this concept, do you feel it is a viable option to have alongside battery etc. or the only option? Maybe you feel it's not an option at all? With it's inherent danger |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lynJMan
over a year ago
Morden |
It's the sensible option. It shouldn't be any more dangerous than driving round with a tank full of petrol, or batteries for that matter. You can get a nasty shock from a stack of batteries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't see it as a viable option for passenger vehicles large vehicles possibly
Just like electric IS viable for passenger vehicles where electric and big vehicles is not
The future will be a mix of both we already have an electric car and it's utterly brilliant but it won't work for everyone |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think I'm being dim but where does thd hydrogen come from?"
Hydrogen has to be manufactured from other hydrocarbon sources such as natural gas or coal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ad NannaWoman
over a year ago
East London |
"I think I'm being dim but where does thd hydrogen come from?
Hydrogen has to be manufactured from other hydrocarbon sources such as natural gas or coal"
I thought so. Am I seeing a problem that isn't there? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I think I'm being dim but where does thd hydrogen come from?"
I think plants were mentioned on a radio thing I caught part of this week. I think there's something about landfill gasses too.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The plan in the UK is to produce hydrogen from hydrocarbons as a stop-gap measure on the way to the electrolysis from water route. In the meantime the carbon dioxide produced as a byproduct from the hydrocarbons will be "burried" in subterranean caverns. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ad NannaWoman
over a year ago
East London |
"I think I'm being dim but where does thd hydrogen come from?
Water "
Ah right. And the batteries break the hydrogen away from the oxygen, create electricity and heat, then put the H2 and the O back together? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ad NannaWoman
over a year ago
East London |
"I think I'm being dim but where does thd hydrogen come from?
I think plants were mentioned on a radio thing I caught part of this week. I think there's something about landfill gasses too.
"
There's loads on the planet if they can collect it cleanly.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
The thing I found interesting is using the rest of the used nuclear rods in the future. Apparently we only use a tiny bit and then bury them. But, they could be used again once they come out of the cooling tanks.
I know it's not hydrogen. The thread made me remember seeing something about this. It's Earth Overshoot Day.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I think I'm being dim but where does thd hydrogen come from?
I think plants were mentioned on a radio thing I caught part of this week. I think there's something about landfill gasses too.
There's loads on the planet if they can collect it cleanly.
"
I think that's what Norway is looking at. I may have to listen to the radio programme again.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's the sensible option. It shouldn't be any more dangerous than driving round with a tank full of petrol, or batteries for that matter. You can get a nasty shock from a stack of batteries."
Petrol burns visibly, batteries burn visibly, hydrogen burns invisibly so you’d be on fire before you knew you were having an accident. Hydrogen in a fuel cell car is not gravity fed it is pressurised, when a pressurised liquid hydrogen vessel ruptured it doesn’t burn it detonates! The driver wouldn’t know they had an accident.
The other issue is hydrogen requires colossal amounts of electricity to separate from oxygen in water, given the rise in global energy costs this pushes the price of hydrogen production to ridiculous levels.
Hydrogen was touted as the holy grail of clean motoring but when you weigh up the issues with hydrogen it’s still safer, cheaper and cleaner to run battery vehicles, this is why there are only one or two manufacturers with hydrogen cars out there and even those are not expanding production. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hydrogen on its own is flammable, but hydrogen and oxygen is explosive. Which I can see as the only downside to the cell. I mean petrol and oxygen is also explosive so I’m sure once it’s made measurably safe it would be a great product. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hirley OP Man
over a year ago
somewhere |
"It's the sensible option. It shouldn't be any more dangerous than driving round with a tank full of petrol, or batteries for that matter. You can get a nasty shock from a stack of batteries.
Petrol burns visibly, batteries burn visibly, hydrogen burns invisibly so you’d be on fire before you knew you were having an accident. Hydrogen in a fuel cell car is not gravity fed it is pressurised, when a pressurised liquid hydrogen vessel ruptured it doesn’t burn it detonates! The driver wouldn’t know they had an accident.
The other issue is hydrogen requires colossal amounts of electricity to separate from oxygen in water, given the rise in global energy costs this pushes the price of hydrogen production to ridiculous levels.
Hydrogen was touted as the holy grail of clean motoring but when you weigh up the issues with hydrogen it’s still safer, cheaper and cleaner to run battery vehicles, this is why there are only one or two manufacturers with hydrogen cars out there and even those are not expanding production. "
Safer, cleaner, cheaper to use horse and cart but it's not practical in this world. Just like millions of battery cars aren't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Safer, cleaner, cheaper to use horse and cart but it's not practical in this world. Just like millions of battery cars aren't."
Care to elaborate? Millions of battery cars are being sold and it is proving more practical than originally predicted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hirley OP Man
over a year ago
somewhere |
"Safer, cleaner, cheaper to use horse and cart but it's not practical in this world. Just like millions of battery cars aren't.
Care to elaborate? Millions of battery cars are being sold and it is proving more practical than originally predicted. "
I'm not saying they're bad, I'm not even saying they don't work but they're not a straight replacement for combustion engines. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Has anyone looked at the possibility of this concept, do you feel it is a viable option to have alongside battery etc. or the only option? Maybe you feel it's not an option at all? With it's inherent danger "
Most hydrogen isn't at all clean energy, it mainly comes from natural gas and results in more carbon emissions than just burning the gas.
Hydrolysis requires more electricity than the extracted hydrogen can produce. Obviously if you use solar or wind to provide the energy for Hydrolysis that would be better... but is that efficient use of that power.
There are loads of research into clean hydrogen though, so hopefully Hydrogen is the answer for the future.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Safer, cleaner, cheaper to use horse and cart but it's not practical in this world. Just like millions of battery cars aren't.
Care to elaborate? Millions of battery cars are being sold and it is proving more practical than originally predicted.
I'm not saying they're bad, I'm not even saying they don't work but they're not a straight replacement for combustion engines."
For the majority of use cases they are a direct replacement there are some edge cases that need ironing out but no new technology is going to suit every need at the start. As with any new technology it starts off expensive and as the early adopters pay the premium this funds development for the mass production. The technology is rapidly improving and range is improving. Battery technology has jumped significantly in the last 3 years alone. Amazon are already converting their delivery fleets to pure electric as are many other distributors. There is a lot of misinformation out there about electric cars leaving people fearing the switch, we have had ours nearly 2 years now and regularly visit family in Scotland with it, the top up charges to achieve that trip take as long as we spend on a bathroom and coffee break. Every day new chargers are appearing for public use, take a look at Zap-Map and you’ll see they are everywhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *y gameMan
over a year ago
open wide |
All boilers made now have to be capable of running on hydrogen, the government had this great plan that wind power would be used to make hydrogen. Then someone who knew what they were talking about, pointed out the only place windy enough to complete the job would be north England and Scotland
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Synthetic fuel is the future ... no infrastructure change required, no job cuts, no car mods required.
They just need to find a cheaper way to make it.
Failing that, batteries made from Graphene |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I love threads like these. They're invariably full of opinions with very little actual knowledge beyond what has been read or watched on a few internet sites (and yes, this includes me).
There is a huge amount of money to be made developing a clean, green method of powering vehicles. Where there is money there is effort. The best brains, the best engineers, the best chemists, the best materials scientists are already working on every possible way to tap into that massively lucrative market. If hydrogen fuel cells looked like being the answer then far more people would be working on them. The fact they aren't but at the same time the tech hasn't gone away suggests the general consensus among people who really know what they're taking about is that they probably aren't the answer but are an idea worth investigating. In the meantime, battery tech appears to be the winning solution.
Mr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"It's the sensible option. It shouldn't be any more dangerous than driving round with a tank full of petrol, or batteries for that matter. You can get a nasty shock from a stack of batteries.
Petrol burns visibly, batteries burn visibly, hydrogen burns invisibly so you’d be on fire before you knew you were having an accident. Hydrogen in a fuel cell car is not gravity fed it is pressurised, when a pressurised liquid hydrogen vessel ruptured it doesn’t burn it detonates! The driver wouldn’t know they had an accident.
The other issue is hydrogen requires colossal amounts of electricity to separate from oxygen in water, given the rise in global energy costs this pushes the price of hydrogen production to ridiculous levels.
Hydrogen was touted as the holy grail of clean motoring but when you weigh up the issues with hydrogen it’s still safer, cheaper and cleaner to run battery vehicles, this is why there are only one or two manufacturers with hydrogen cars out there and even those are not expanding production. "
There's hundreds of companies in the fuel cell space. The only thing missing is infrastructure. The US has more filling stations than the UK and EU though more are coming online.
Toyota have had the Mirai for a couple of years, from memory it's set a record of over 600 miles
Peugot are testing hydrogen courier type van, BMW are testing an X5 shown in link below that explains what they are fairly well. For the most, their use is said to be more applicable to shipping and heavy industry as they allow storage over longer periods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TsPzYaQP-8
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hirley OP Man
over a year ago
somewhere |
"I love threads like these. They're invariably full of opinions with very little actual knowledge beyond what has been read or watched on a few internet sites (and yes, this includes me).
There is a huge amount of money to be made developing a clean, green method of powering vehicles. Where there is money there is effort. The best brains, the best engineers, the best chemists, the best materials scientists are already working on every possible way to tap into that massively lucrative market. If hydrogen fuel cells looked like being the answer then far more people would be working on them. The fact they aren't but at the same time the tech hasn't gone away suggests the general consensus among people who really know what they're taking about is that they probably aren't the answer but are an idea worth investigating. In the meantime, battery tech appears to be the winning solution.
Mr"
Aren't all threads the same? your personal preference and opinions on things are subjective to your own knowledge and experience. No you can't downplay the importance of real academic qualifications and in field expertise, but this is just a forum, I'm asking what people maybe have in their thoughts, none of these threads should be taken that seriously (I know they are), it's fairly just light hearted chat no?
But as for your opinion on the matter, I think you will find there's billions being invested in hydrogen fuel technology by companies, I know shell definitely are amongst probably all of the oil giants. Hydrogen as a fuel which has been available for many years, the issue is kind of what you say, unlocking the monetary potential that the big oil have been handed the licence to print money for years. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe along with helium so its not in short supply but not as cheap as just pumping it out the ground as has been the case, more work is needed to make it cheap and cost effective. Oil companies are very bullish with these things because if they don't have control of the fuel supply then they lose their power, that has undoubtedly hindered development. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hirley OP Man
over a year ago
somewhere |
"Safer, cleaner, cheaper to use horse and cart but it's not practical in this world. Just like millions of battery cars aren't.
Care to elaborate? Millions of battery cars are being sold and it is proving more practical than originally predicted.
I'm not saying they're bad, I'm not even saying they don't work but they're not a straight replacement for combustion engines.
For the majority of use cases they are a direct replacement there are some edge cases that need ironing out but no new technology is going to suit every need at the start. As with any new technology it starts off expensive and as the early adopters pay the premium this funds development for the mass production. The technology is rapidly improving and range is improving. Battery technology has jumped significantly in the last 3 years alone. Amazon are already converting their delivery fleets to pure electric as are many other distributors. There is a lot of misinformation out there about electric cars leaving people fearing the switch, we have had ours nearly 2 years now and regularly visit family in Scotland with it, the top up charges to achieve that trip take as long as we spend on a bathroom and coffee break. Every day new chargers are appearing for public use, take a look at Zap-Map and you’ll see they are everywhere. "
I don't think you're wrong, I value your opinion from first hand experience and have heard similar from others, all I said was basically that for all they are very good I just don't see how batteries are a blanket solution and am certain they won't be the only option. Yes they charge quick but not as quick as combustion. I think the main issue with electric isn't misinformation but more price point, that is unlikely to change in the next 5 years enough for people to ditch their sub 5 grand vehicles they can run into the ground to buy an electric. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think hydrogen will be the future.
Batteries are heavy, expensive, difficult to recycle, require replacement and the metals required in current battery technology are relatively scarce.
The production of hydrogen from water requires significant energy and I imagine this will involve modern nuclear power stations being built. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Aren't all threads the same? your personal preference and opinions on things are subjective to your own knowledge and experience. No you can't downplay the importance of real academic qualifications and in field expertise, but this is just a forum, I'm asking what people maybe have in their thoughts, none of these threads should be taken that seriously (I know they are), it's fairly just light hearted chat no?
But as for your opinion on the matter, I think you will find there's billions being invested in hydrogen fuel technology by companies, I know shell definitely are amongst probably all of the oil giants. Hydrogen as a fuel which has been available for many years, the issue is kind of what you say, unlocking the monetary potential that the big oil have been handed the licence to print money for years. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe along with helium so its not in short supply but not as cheap as just pumping it out the ground as has been the case, more work is needed to make it cheap and cost effective. Oil companies are very bullish with these things because if they don't have control of the fuel supply then they lose their power, that has undoubtedly hindered development. "
That is why I said it remains a possibility but at the moment it isn't leading the way. As you say, it is abundant but there are major hurdles to overcome in getting it. It may well be the most abundant element in the universe but it is nowhere near that on earth and is almost always found attached to something else. The reason it makes such a good fuel is the same reason it's hard to get, when it combines chemically with other elements like oxygen it releases large amounts of energy meaning it requires equally large amounts of energy to reverse to process. As such, unlike fossil fuels it isn't directly a fuel as found, it is an energy store, you put energy into it in some processing plant then get it back in your car/truck. So, just like a battery, every bit of energy you get from it has to be put into it first. This is the major step that people fail to grasp with hydrogen. They think of it as an alternative to fossil fuels when in reality it is far closer to being an alternative to batteries. It has two significant advantages over batteries, it is possible to transport it without a massive electricity grid and it is possible to "recharge" relatively quickly. On the downside, it's dangerous, it a very difficult element to contain and is significantly less efficient as a means of converting power (say from wind energy into moving your car) than just using electricity stored in a battery.
Some of its draw backs are technological - how to store and and transport it and use it easily and safely. Research in these areas will almost certainly yield results. Some of its other draw backs are inherent in the laws of physics and can never be overcome. It can never ever be more efficient than batteries for example. Batteries on the other hand only have technological barriers - mostly how much charge they can hold and how fast it can be replaced. Like hydrogen, research in these areas will almost certainly see them improve. Apart from a few applications where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, research into battery tech will almost certainly give better results.
The areas hydrogen will be best for are shipping and possibly heavy plant/haulage. In the latter instance it is possible that battery tech will evolve to the point it overcomes the few areas that hydrogen is better. In the former this will probably never happen.
Mr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We will be using chp units for domestic use, converting natural gas into hydrogen for electricity and then capturing and using the waste heat from that conversion. "
Waste heat? What waste heat, to get hydrogen out of hydrocarbons you need to put heat in.
Mr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We will be using chp units for domestic use, converting natural gas into hydrogen for electricity and then capturing and using the waste heat from that conversion.
Waste heat? What waste heat, to get hydrogen out of hydrocarbons you need to put heat in.
Mr"
Rather than heating up water for heat you convert gas to hydrogen to use in fuel cells and still get hot water from the conversion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We will be using chp units for domestic use, converting natural gas into hydrogen for electricity and then capturing and using the waste heat from that conversion.
Waste heat? What waste heat, to get hydrogen out of hydrocarbons you need to put heat in.
Mr
Rather than heating up water for heat you convert gas to hydrogen to use in fuel cells and still get hot water from the conversion."
How? You are proposing breaking the chemical bonds between the hydrogen and carbon atoms in the gas and this requires energy.
What you are describing breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
Mr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ENGUYMan
over a year ago
Hull |
There are already some Bus Operators across the UK using hydrogen. These aren't as trial vehicles, but as "in use" for everyday operations.
The biggest potential problem with long-distance vehicles such as HGV's and Coaches moving away from diesel, is having lengthy mileage capabilities. Truck builders such as Scania and Mercedes are developing power packs but so far with only 150 miles range but the technology is evolving all the time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We will be using chp units for domestic use, converting natural gas into hydrogen for electricity and then capturing and using the waste heat from that conversion.
Waste heat? What waste heat, to get hydrogen out of hydrocarbons you need to put heat in.
Mr
Rather than heating up water for heat you convert gas to hydrogen to use in fuel cells and still get hot water from the conversion.
How? You are proposing breaking the chemical bonds between the hydrogen and carbon atoms in the gas and this requires energy.
What you are describing breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
Mr"
You use energy/ gas to heat up your water and only water
But their are chp units that use energy gas.
yes you still use energy you dont get something for nothing but you use that energy to convert gas to hydrogen for electricity and still get hot water for heating and bathing.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We will be using chp units for domestic use, converting natural gas into hydrogen for electricity and then capturing and using the waste heat from that conversion.
Waste heat? What waste heat, to get hydrogen out of hydrocarbons you need to put heat in.
Mr
Rather than heating up water for heat you convert gas to hydrogen to use in fuel cells and still get hot water from the conversion.
How? You are proposing breaking the chemical bonds between the hydrogen and carbon atoms in the gas and this requires energy.
What you are describing breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
Mr
You use energy/ gas to heat up your water and only water
But their are chp units that use energy gas.
yes you still use energy you dont get something for nothing but you use that energy to convert gas to hydrogen for electricity and still get hot water for heating and bathing. "
You still haven't explained how you get a net gain of energy to use, having somehow managed to break the C-H bonds, which are covalent bonds. I think there's a reason it's not taught in physics lessons... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *JB1954Man
over a year ago
Reading |
My main thought with this. There are fuels now that can be used on petrol , diesel engines. Not petrol or diesel fuel. Cars and lorries have run for a long time on waste cooking oil. I worked in the car industry for about twenty years installing , commissioning automation . Saw a plastic engine . That I was informed would never go into production. Due to no wear. Hydrogen needs to be developed . But would be easier to go to synthetic fuels ? No change to engines. No electric charging points or batteries to manufacture or dispose of. Plus I do admit petrol stations their tanks cleaned out , pumps changed and recalibrated. I may be simplistic to keep diesel , petrol engines.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We will be using chp units for domestic use, converting natural gas into hydrogen for electricity and then capturing and using the waste heat from that conversion.
Waste heat? What waste heat, to get hydrogen out of hydrocarbons you need to put heat in.
Mr
Rather than heating up water for heat you convert gas to hydrogen to use in fuel cells and still get hot water from the conversion.
How? You are proposing breaking the chemical bonds between the hydrogen and carbon atoms in the gas and this requires energy.
What you are describing breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
Mr
You use energy/ gas to heat up your water and only water
But their are chp units that use energy gas.
yes you still use energy you dont get something for nothing but you use that energy to convert gas to hydrogen for electricity and still get hot water for heating and bathing.
You still haven't explained how you get a net gain of energy to use, having somehow managed to break the C-H bonds, which are covalent bonds. I think there's a reason it's not taught in physics lessons..."
The manufacturers of these chp units would be better to explain. But what I can gather they burn gas to create heat to convert some gas into hydrogen for electricity and then capture the heat created to heat water. Burn gas to heat water or burn gas to get electricity and hot water.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lynJMan
over a year ago
Morden |
"It's the sensible option. It shouldn't be any more dangerous than driving round with a tank full of petrol.
Try telling that to the passengers on the Hindenburg "
That was using hydrogen to provide lift not for propulsion. They should have used helium, as they do now.
The hydrogen was basically in a big balloon. You wouldn't carry petrol around in a balloon for obvious reasons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hirley OP Man
over a year ago
somewhere |
I read an article today about solar driven cars, I'm actually thinking this is much more the future of propulsion than most things, yes que the people saying "what if the sun don't shine" but there's more than enough light even on cloudy days to power solar collectors. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"I read an article today about solar driven cars, I'm actually thinking this is much more the future of propulsion than most things, yes que the people saying "what if the sun don't shine" but there's more than enough light even on cloudy days to power solar collectors."
There was a report in the guardian yesterday about SSE building a hydrogen plant the size of a football pitch. From memory.. it will produce enough hydrogen to power 1500 trucks from London to Glasgow.
The number of photovoltaic panels needed to power that many trucks would be a fair size larger than a football pitch I'd say, though hydrogen is supposed to be the key to energy intensive industries not transport. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hirley OP Man
over a year ago
somewhere |
"I read an article today about solar driven cars, I'm actually thinking this is much more the future of propulsion than most things, yes que the people saying "what if the sun don't shine" but there's more than enough light even on cloudy days to power solar collectors.
There was a report in the guardian yesterday about SSE building a hydrogen plant the size of a football pitch. From memory.. it will produce enough hydrogen to power 1500 trucks from London to Glasgow.
The number of photovoltaic panels needed to power that many trucks would be a fair size larger than a football pitch I'd say, though hydrogen is supposed to be the key to energy intensive industries not transport."
I made earlier points that hydrogen is one solution to being carbon zero. So many seem absolutely invested into batteries like they're going to solve every issue.
There's a difference between carbon neutral and net zero, that's what most don't grasp because it's not explained very well in wider media unfortunately |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hirley OP Man
over a year ago
somewhere |
"I read an article today about solar driven cars, I'm actually thinking this is much more the future of propulsion than most things, yes que the people saying "what if the sun don't shine" but there's more than enough light even on cloudy days to power solar collectors.
There was a report in the guardian yesterday about SSE building a hydrogen plant the size of a football pitch. From memory.. it will produce enough hydrogen to power 1500 trucks from London to Glasgow.
The number of photovoltaic panels needed to power that many trucks would be a fair size larger than a football pitch I'd say, though hydrogen is supposed to be the key to energy intensive industries not transport.
I made earlier points that hydrogen is one solution to being carbon zero. So many seem absolutely invested into batteries like they're going to solve every issue.
There's a difference between carbon neutral and net zero, that's what most don't grasp because it's not explained very well in wider media unfortunately "
I'm no champion of hydrogen over batteries I must add. I think BOTH have a part to play but neither are the solution because there's no one size fits all way |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"Can I just say that I am living proof that one size does NOT fit all *tries to extricate self from dress*  "
Errrrm I'll have you know my size is just fine and reports are they do fit all brilliantly, though dresses do get in the way a bit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
