Electric or hydrogen cars?

[Bill Phil]

I still think biofuels will be the real answer, but out of these two it's electric by a long way. Whilst batteries will keep getting better & better, hydrogen's problems are simply insurmountable. It takes a lot of energy to compress, which just reduces efficiency. It also requires very heavy-duty tanks to store it safely, meaning it's absolutely hopeless as a transport fuel as 90% of the mass is storage tank and only 10% is fuel. So if you want to transport hydrogen over any great distance, you're lugging around a lot of dead weight. It's also extremely difficult to pipe anywhere, so that's out of the question.

These are problems created by the physical properties of hydrogen and cannot be changed.

They *could* be worked around... Maybe if there was a catalyst that released hydrogen from oxygen in water molecules (there might be one, I have no idea), we could store the hydrogen in water form, run it over the catalyst and then burn it with oxygen from the atmosphere. Maybe the exhaust would be almost completely steam... Or recycled. I don't know.

If only we could lower the activation energy of splitting water...

[PakledHostage]

So I should spend 4 days of a 5 day trip driving instead of 2?

So presumably you and/or your dad use your cars for more than just road trips? You could have a little electric car for your daily running around and commuting, then rent a car for road trips. I don't have an electric car, but I still often rent a car if I have to do a longer drive. Wear and tear on a car is expensive in terms of maintenance and depreciation. Especially in winter when there's salt and rock chips from road grime.

[vger]

If only we could lower the activation energy of splitting water...

We're already going to be facing a serious water shortage within a decade or two.

[Bill Phil]

We're already going to be facing a serious water shortage within a decade or two.

We are, I know. But there are comets out there... With loads of water. Of course, it's much more complicated then that...

[SeaDog]

People will not accept bikes. Main reason: wheather. You need to be able to commute even while it's pouring buckets or while it's -20°C on a crisp winter morning.

Now, cabin scooters or microcars, that I can see... Something like this. Though it's sales statistic says a lot about how ready mankind is for that sort of thing.

And, as someone who's commuted by public transport for over a year straight at one point... until that becomes a superior option to cars, public transport must improve. A lot. Like, orders of magnitude. We have fantastic public transport where I live, by international standards. And yet, going the same distance by car takes me one third of the time, never runs late on me, is quieter, smells nicer, always has a free seat, isn't filled with drunk people trying to tell me their life story and swag kids playing hiphop on cellphone loudspeakers, doesn't require me to sprint through the rain to change buses or trains multiple times per trip, doesn't get wrecked with grafitty and chewing gums and burnmarks in a matter of days, has proper proper climate control and, get this - costs me half as much on a daily basis.

Public transport has an even longer way to come towards the cities of the future than we as people have.

I live in a city where people commute by bike daily. This winter it never got to -20 C, but that's a rare occurance. In Sweden we have this saying: There's no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing. It's so true in this case. Once people get used to it, dressing for -20 degrees C biking is really no big deal. You need insulating pants, a jacket, gloves, and a good cap. Thats it, ready to go.

As for public transport that's faster than cars: That's really very easy to make IF you design cities around public transport instead of cars! But since that rarely happens, we get attitudes that make it seem like it's impossible.

Really bikes? That reminds me of this Back to the Future scene:

So what you are saying is we are going to stick to our own small patch of land and not go anywhere.

That's so backwards from what we've been doing since forever.

In america, I'm sure it is. But the fact is, if you make ciites dense enough, there's very little reason for people to ever go more than a few kilometers. As I've said several times now, cities are designed around cars, and sadly, that design itself is what increases demand for car usage. Doing something different from what you've been doing forever is not inherently a bad thing.

[PakledHostage]

As for public transport that's faster than cars: That's really very easy to make IF you design cities around public transport instead of cars! But since that rarely happens, we get attitudes that make it seem like it's impossible.

I agree, and it is already possible in some North American cities. Through a combination of light rail trains and dedicated bus lanes, commuting to work on public transit is as fast for me as driving. And like most of my fellow passengers, I get to read the internet rather than worry that that SOB in the SUV is going to run into me. Then when the weather is nice, I ride my bicycle along dedicated bikeways. I'm about 20% slower on my bicycle than transit or the car, but I've ordered myself a smart wheel to help flatten the hills a bit. I should be able to equal the bus/car commute time once I get it installed.

[vger]

The trouble with rail systems is they're so ridiculously easy to muck up. If the world had less sickos, it might be viable, but this is definitely not that world. Pretty sure over-dependency on rail systems even had a lot to do with the outcome of WWII. Supply lines were a lot easier to sabotage when everything was done by rail.

That's the sad thing about trains. Personally, I love them, and I wish we could make optimal use of them.

[magnemoe]

So presumably you and/or your dad use your cars for more than just road trips? You could have a little electric car for your daily running around and commuting, then rent a car for road trips. I don't have an electric car, but I still often rent a car if I have to do a longer drive. Wear and tear on a car is expensive in terms of maintenance and depreciation. Especially in winter when there's salt and rock chips from road grime.

Yes, this is has become pretty common in Norway for two car households, secondary car is electric, its cheaper to use and can use the buss lanes, the other car is an station wagon or large suv, the one driving into the city use the electrical.

Downside is no old shabby car for him to borrow

- - - Updated - - -

We're already going to be facing a serious water shortage within a decade or two.

No serious lack of sea water Nor is it water shortage where I live, its raining again.

- - - Updated - - -

I live in a city where people commute by bike daily. This winter it never got to -20 C, but that's a rare occurance. In Sweden we have this saying: There's no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing. It's so true in this case. Once people get used to it, dressing for -20 degrees C biking is really no big deal. You need insulating pants, a jacket, gloves, and a good cap. Thats it, ready to go.

As for public transport that's faster than cars: That's really very easy to make IF you design cities around public transport instead of cars! But since that rarely happens, we get attitudes that make it seem like it's impossible.

Bicycles or scooters in subzero temperature is not pleasant and not something the majority will do, also on icy roads its kerbal rover level unsafe. In warmer climates it works well and has the usual benefit of easy parking and cheap upkeep.

Public transport/ cars depend on location, for me where I live and work now ifs faster as I live close to an railway station and have to cross downtown to get to work who is also close to an railway station. For lots of others its not as easy, yes the car to hub and then public works well for more.

However its depend a lot on where you live and where your workplace is, public transport is primarily designed to take people downtown, if you have to change transport the edge goes away fast.

Fun note people will accept some level of travel time, increasing transportation infrastructures with highways and express trains enables people to take work farther from home. After some years the new expansion benefit is used up.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, and it is already possible in some North American cities. Through a combination of light rail trains and dedicated bus lanes, commuting to work on public transit is as fast for me as driving. And like most of my fellow passengers, I get to read the internet rather than worry that that SOB in the SUV is going to run into me. Then when the weather is nice, I ride my bicycle along dedicated bikeways. I'm about 20% slower on my bicycle than transit or the car, but I've ordered myself a smart wheel to help flatten the hills a bit. I should be able to equal the bus/car commute time once I get it installed.

My commuter time is 34 minutes, its a bit short for an typical series Modern smart phones are an nice invention.

- - - Updated - - -

The trouble with rail systems is they're so ridiculously easy to muck up. If the world had less sickos, it might be viable, but this is definitely not that world. Pretty sure over-dependency on rail systems even had a lot to do with the outcome of WWII. Supply lines were a lot easier to sabotage when everything was done by rail.

That's the sad thing about trains. Personally, I love them, and I wish we could make optimal use of them.

People messing with the rail system is rare, that is outside teens trowing shopping carts on the track, its a problem some use them for transport its an major mall next to my train station.

Real sabotage is no issue, think it was an guy in Germany 20 years ago who did it.

As for war its not that easy to mess up big style, yes they did it in France during the D-day period, however it was an one time operation where you needed to slow the enemy down for a week while establishing an breach and was willing to take huge losses doing so as it was short time and critical.

An more modern example shows the opposite, the US restored the rail system in Iraq, this was not only done for the Iraqi, they wanted it to transport heavy equipment like tanks and containers, it worked out well.

[EzinX]

Basically no one here wants to mention the obvious. Production of compressed hydrogen gas is not even 50% efficient, starting with electricity. And then the fuel cells that burn it are only about 50% efficient as well. So no more than a quarter of the energy becomes electricity that can be used to drive the car.

With batteries, the electric grid itself is about 90% efficient, and so are batteries. About 80% of the electricity is available to drive the car. (the rest of the drivetrain should be about the same efficiency whether the car is battery or fuel cell)

Fuel cell is just an expensive version of a fuel driven generator.

Well, you can get hydrogen from hydrocarbons. Once it's gas or liquid hydrogen, it takes an insane amount of volume in the tanks, and it is extremely leak-prone.

Or, you can convert longer chained hydrocarbons to methane. CH4 burns in fuel cells, regular engines, diesel engines, turbines...everything. Liquid methane has good volumetric density and better energy per kilogram than gasoline and diesel. We could switch airliners to using liquid methane, as well as trains, trucks, etc.

[PakledHostage]

Basically no one here wants to mention the obvious.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "the obvious"? If you mean that electricity and hydrogen aren't clean energy sources unless their production is clean, then that was mentioned early on in this tread by lajoswinkler. If you mean that we should burn methane as an alternative to electricity, hydrogen, kerosene, gasoline, etc. then I fail to understand how that solves to problem of greenhouse gas emissions?

[Frozen_Heart]

Overall I think hydrogen. However the tech isn't there yet to make it feasible. So if we are talking about right now then electric wins out easily.

[PB666]

Bicycles or scooters in subzero temperature is not pleasant and not something the majority will do, also on icy roads its kerbal rover level unsafe. In warmer climates it works well and has the usual benefit of easy parking and cheap upkeep.

From someone who used to commute to work on a bicycle, the biggest problem with bicycles is not weather, that something most cyclist can work around, the biggest problem is lousy motorist.

To the original post.

Hydrogen should be used, and would be used. Consider why

1. No greenhouse emmission or any emmisions in urban environment (Name one Chinese city that would not benefit from this)

2. Portable, storable at higher densities than electricity.

3. Once converted can be transported anywhere by standard pipelines already in place, cheaply.

4. Can be used to convert fuels like coal and tar sands into highly prized liquids including types in gasoline

Hydrogen should not be used extensively until electrogeneration is improved by several fold.

[AngelLestat]

You wanna keep this discussing ignoring the facts?

Technical Ben, EzinX, PakledHostage, Frozen_Heart:

In case you skip it:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113563-Electric-or-hydrogen-cars?p=1796829&viewfull=1#post1796829

Bill Phil: (electric cars and hydrogen cars are all electrics, the only difference is how they storage the energy, one is using batteries, the other use hydrogen convert it with fuel cells.)

Drunken Hobo: biofuels are far to be a solution. You keep sending co2 to the atmosphere, they burn forest or remplace food fields to sell biofuels. Even if you use the waste products of other crops, that is energy you are stealing from the soil that works to improve the next crops. So you need to use fertilizers, which are all made of "guess what" fossil fuels.

vger: We're already going to be facing a serious water shortage within a decade or two.

last time that I check there is still big oceans full of it. Salt water is better for electrolysis.

[tater]

Few light rail systems in the US are anywhere near cost effective. The only commuter rail system in the country I know about that makes economic sense is NYC (subway, and Metro North). The rest would likely all fail without massive subsidy.

Passenger rail is subsidized most places as I understand it. I recall reading that passenger rail in Europe is subsidized by the actually cost effective cargo rail system (rail for cargo is great in the US as well).

Electric cars will certainly become a large share of vehicles at some point, IMO the issue is making good nuclear power plants (pebble bed reactors, probably) to support increased demand for power. Sadly, the world is heading the wrong direction in terms of nukes out of irrational fear. Instead loons push for things like wind. Wind, lol, which makes under 2.1 watts per m^2 or ground used.

[AngelLestat]

tater: this is not the place.. but you should check previus discussion on wind vs nuclear.

[PakledHostage]

Technical Ben' date=' EzinX, PakledHostage, Frozen_Heart:[/b']

In case you skip it:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113563-Electric-or-hydrogen-cars?p=1796829&viewfull=1#post1796829

I admit that I am a bit sleep deprived and I am not that with it today, but can you help me understand why you've lumped us all together? Is this like one of those Sesame Street "one of these kids is not like the other" games?

I never argued in favor of either hydrogen or electricity over the other. I have merely tried to point out that electric vehicles, whether they be private vehicles, electric bikes, public busses or commuter trains are practical alternatives to fossil fuel powered vehicles. Hydrogen fueled vehicles may be as well but I don't know enough about the problems/process of producing and storeing it to form a meaningful opinion.

And even though I agree with Lajoswinkler that you have to be careful about calling electric power "clean energy" because some of it is produced in "dirty" ways, that doesn't mean I want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Fusion power may be the holy grail but it isn't going to happen any time soon. Fission may be a suitable alternative in some places but it has its own problems too. And while it is true that coal fired generating plants produce plenty of CO2, there are experiments in carbon capture technologies going on at large plants that aren't possible on motor vehicle exhaust systems. If successful, these could help mitigate the CO2 emissions of these types of generating stations while we work to replace them.

Edited March 21, 2015 by PakledHostage
fixed link

[Bill Phil]

Bill Phil: (electric cars and hydrogen cars are all electrics, the only difference is how they storage the energy, one is using batteries, the other use hydrogen convert it with fuel cells.)

You do know that Hydrogen is expensive, right?

Electric wins by cost alone. Sure, Teslas are hundreds of thousands of dollars now, but cheapening them is easier then one would think...

And then there are hydrogen cars that burn hydrogen like in our current petrol-based engines.

[EzinX]

For those who didn't learn chemistry in school : methane is not really any more polluting than using hydrogen. You can produce methane purely synthetically - you electrolyze water to get hydrogen, but you don't try to actually distribute the hydrogen. It takes up way too much volume in a tank, and it leaks through virtually any seal. You follow up electrolysis with the Sabatier reaction to get methane. The CO2 could have come from the atmosphere, giving you zero net CO2 emission. Or, the CO2 could have been captured from the smokestack of a coal power plant.

Using raw hydrogen has never, ever been a good idea. I guess the people pushing it do it because the general public doesn't realize this?

Given that this method is much less energy efficient than batteries, it would only be appropriate for vehicles that cannot run on batteries - such as airplanes and possibly long haul trucks.

The other half of the solution is better batteries. Lithium-iron chemistry batteries use raw materials that are far cheaper than the assembled batteries cost, so their prices could be brought down by a factor of 5-10, probably. (the lithium-cobalt batteries we use in laptops, etc today are only a few pennies more than the cost of the cobalt, so they won't get any cheaper). Right now, it's about $30,000 for the lithium iron batteries equivalent to what's in a Tesla, bought as an individual. A 5 fold cost reduction would make electric cars affordable for everyone.

[AngelLestat]

I admit that I am a bit sleep deprived and I am not that with it today, but can you help me understand why you've lumped us all together? Is this like one of those Sesame Street "one of these kids is not like the other" games?

I never argued in favor of either hydrogen or electricity over the other. I have merely tried to point out that electric vehicles, whether they be private vehicles, electric bikes, public busses or commuter trains are practical alternatives to fossil fuel powered vehicles. Hydrogen fueled vehicles may be as well but I don't know enough about the problems/process of producing and storeing it to form a meaningful opinion.

And even though I agree with Lajoswinkler that you have to be careful about calling electric power "clean energy" because some of it is produced in "dirty" ways, that doesn't mean I want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Fusion power may be the holy grail but it isn't going to happen any time soon. Fission may be a suitable alternative in some places but it has its own problems too. And while it is true that coal fired generating plants produce plenty of CO2, there are experiments in carbon capture technologies going on at large plants that aren't possible on motor vehicle exhaust systems. If successful, these could help mitigate the CO2 emissions of these types of generating stations while we work to replace them.

Ok, now I read again your post:

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "the obvious"? If you mean that electricity and hydrogen aren't clean energy sources unless their production is clean, then that was mentioned early on in this tread by lajoswinkler. If you mean that we should burn methane as an alternative to electricity, hydrogen, kerosene, gasoline, etc. then I fail to understand how that solves to problem of greenhouse gas emissions?

I notice that I misunderstand your posture. Sorry PakeldHostage.

But as I explain in my previous post, even with the same energy sources that we have today, electric cars are 30% more efficient than the best fuel cars plus the co2 emmited by that energy production is almost 70% lower than the cars does.

Clean energy sources as wind and solar are dropping prices at a huge speed, they are already in average at the same cost than nuclear even if you include storage.

But there is where is linked to this discussion, if you have a kitegen generator,

instead storage and then transmit the power, why not use the same seawater + electrolisys 95% efficiency to produce hydrogen which is transported by a boat and goes directly to the cars. Then cars use it with a 50% or 60% of efficiency fuel cells, that is a similar conversion that if you produce electricity and storage electricity in other ways. But it solve the autonomy issue, of course it has more sense for bus, airplanes, trucks and any kind of big vehicle.

You do know that Hydrogen is expensive, right?

Electric wins by cost alone. Sure, Teslas are hundreds of thousands of dollars now, but cheapening them is easier then one would think...

And then there are hydrogen cars that burn hydrogen like in our current petrol-based engines.

If you stop using fossil fuels and instead you convert them in hydrogen, then is not so expensive.

Even with electrolisys you get a 95% of efficiency, so you are losing whatt? 5%?? plus 5% to compress it..

Is not expensive.. is cheap.

Today electric cars are expensive because batteries and mostly commercial stupidity.

Why people need a luxury electric car if the thing they most want is to not waste so much money in fuel. Why all electric cars needs to be extra luxuries than any other normal car?

In fact, all the car industry is very wrong with city cars, cars that does not need go beyond 90km/h, cars that brake all the time (losing big part of the energy of acceleration). Why you need 1500kg car to move 100kg (payload average)?

It does not have any sense from the energy point, if you focus in move those 100 kg instead 1500 you are wasting 10 times less energy. And I am not talk about bikes, you can make very safety electric car for 2 people with only 200 or 300 kg.

For those who didn't learn chemistry in school : methane is not really any more polluting than using hydrogen. You can produce methane purely synthetically - you electrolyze water to get hydrogen, but you don't try to actually distribute the hydrogen. It takes up way too much volume in a tank, and it leaks through virtually any seal. You follow up electrolysis with the Sabatier reaction to get methane. The CO2 could have come from the atmosphere, giving you zero net CO2 emission. Or, the CO2 could have been captured from the smokestack of a coal power plant.

We need to reduce the emmisions, zero net co2 does not help now, we need negative values if we want to dodge the worst consequences of the next 50 years.

Also methane fuel cells had much lower efficiencies than hydrogen fuel cell. And if you use simple combustion you end with 25% efficiency.

Also graphene oxyde is the answer to any leak on hydrogen, that technology will kick in just 5 years due how easy is to make graphene oxyde.

Using raw hydrogen has never, ever been a good idea. I guess the people pushing it do it because the general public doesn't realize this?

I read all the time enviroment science, that is kinda my thing, hydrogen has a real value. But I am agree that for small cars or city cars, battery cars are better than fuel cell.

Given that this method is much less energy efficient than batteries, it would only be appropriate for vehicles that cannot run on batteries - such as airplanes and possibly long haul trucks.

is not less energy efficient, I already explain this in the link that I show you.

The other half of the solution is better batteries. Lithium-iron chemistry batteries use raw materials that are far cheaper than the assembled batteries cost, so their prices could be brought down by a factor of 5-10, probably. (the lithium-cobalt batteries we use in laptops, etc today are only a few pennies more than the cost of the cobalt, so they won't get any cheaper). Right now, it's about $30,000 for the lithium iron batteries equivalent to what's in a Tesla, bought as an individual. A 5 fold cost reduction would make electric cars affordable for everyone.

energy storage (any kind) is one of the technologies branch with higher growth on the moment.

[Camacha]

Until electric becomes at least roughly as easy and quick to use as fossil fuels, it is not going to happen. People that are used to a certain degree of ease will not give that up. Waiting hours for a car to charge is just not viable. If they fix that, sure. Those few people interested in environment and experimental technology are already in, but the general public will not be that forgiving. Or there has to be a huge, and I mean huge, disparity between the economics of both. That is the only reason I could see premature acceptance happening.

[Bill Phil]

Until electric becomes at least roughly as easy and quick to use as fossil fuels, it is not going to happen. People that are used to a certain degree of ease will not give that up. Waiting hours for a car to charge is just not viable. If they fix that, sure. Those few people interested in environment and experimental technology are already in, but the general public will not be that forgiving. Or there has to be a huge, and I mean huge, disparity between the economics of both. That is the only reason I could see premature acceptance happening.

Most humans spend very little time in cars. For example, sleep. Charge it while you're asleep. Or while you're not driving.

[Camacha]

Most humans spend very little time in cars. For example, sleep. Charge it while you're asleep. Or while you're not driving.

There are all sorts of ways around it, but that changes nothing. People will not give up comforts they know and have. It is basic human nature. Only when you either make the economical disparity massive, or use force, you might end up with a different result, though no guarantees.

Electric cars (or better yet, their batteries) will have to become better, much better, to be a truly viable technology. Cheaper, a longer lifespan and faster to charge.

[Bill Phil]

There are all sorts of ways around it, but that changes nothing. People will not give up comforts they know and have. It is basic human nature. Only when you either make the economical disparity massive, or use force, you might end up with a different result, though no guarantees.

Electric cars (or better yet, their batteries) will have to become better, much better, to be a truly viable technology. Cheaper, a longer lifespan and faster to charge.

It's not a comfort to have to constantly drive to the gas station...

Oil companies would hate it, and they have lobbyists, lots of them. That's another brick wall for electric and other non-combustion cars.

[Technical Ben]

Electric per mile is vastly cheaper (AFAIK), even when adding taxes that fuel also has. So it can become viable when the hardware with it goes down in price and/or range increases.

[Camacha]

It's not a comfort to have to constantly drive to the gas station...

It's more comfortable to drive to a gas station than to sit for a working day next to your vehicle.

Electric per mile is vastly cheaper (AFAIK), even when adding taxes that fuel also has. So it can become viable when the hardware with it goes down in price and/or range increases.

The problem with that is that most of the cost of fuel comes from taxes, though how much depends on the country. In some it is as much as 85-90%. As soon as electric driving takes off, the cost to the respective governments will become too big, and electric driving will be taxed one way or another.

Right now, the cost difference is hardly relevant, due to the earlier mentioned charging problems. If you drive a lot, charging is not viable, so it is hard to recoup your investment. We come to the same conclusion again, being that electric cars need to become better. When price goes down and range goes up, yes, it will be interesting