Interesting article in NYT.......

"For Many, Hydrogen Is the Fuel of the Future. New Research Raises Doubts.
Industry has been promoting hydrogen as a reliable, next-generation fuel to power cars, heat homes and generate electricity. It may, in fact, be worse for the climate than previously thought.

Fueling a Toyota hydrogen vehicle in Fountain Valley, California.Credit...Philip Cheung for The New York Times
It is seen by many as the clean energy of the future. Billions of dollars from the bipartisan infrastructure bill have been teed up to fund it.

But a new peer-reviewed study on the climate effects of hydrogen, the most abundant substance in the universe, casts doubt on its role in tackling the greenhouse gas emissions that are the driver of catastrophic global warming.

The main stumbling block: Most hydrogen used today is extracted from natural gas in a process that requires a lot of energy and emits vast amounts of carbon dioxide. Producing natural gas also releases methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas.

And while the natural gas industry has proposed capturing that carbon dioxide — creating what it promotes as emissions-free, “blue” hydrogen — even that fuel still emits more across its entire supply chain than simply burning natural gas, according to the paper, published Thursday in the Energy Science & Engineering journal by researchers from Cornell and Stanford Universities.

“To call it a zero-emissions fuel is totally wrong,” said Robert W. Howarth, a biogeochemist and ecosystem scientist at Cornell and the study’s lead author. “What we found is that it’s not even a low-emissions fuel, either.”

To arrive at their conclusion, Dr. Howarth and Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and director of its Atmosphere/Energy program, examined the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of blue hydrogen. They accounted for both carbon dioxide emissions and the methane that leaks from wells and other equipment during natural gas production.

The researchers assumed that 3.5 percent of the gas drilled from the ground leaks into the atmosphere, an assumption that draws on mounting research that has found that drilling for natural gas emits far more methane than previously known.

They also took into account the natural gas required to power the carbon capture technology. In all, they found that the greenhouse gas footprint of blue hydrogen was more than 20 percent greater than burning natural gas or coal for heat. (Running the analysis at a far lower gas leak rate of 1.54 percent only reduced emissions slightly, and emissions from blue hydrogen still remained higher than from simply burning natural gas.)

Such findings could alter the calculus for hydrogen. Over the past few years, the natural gas industry has begun heavily promoting hydrogen as a reliable, next-generation fuel to be used to power cars, heat homes and burn in power plants.

In the United States, Europe and elsewhere, the industry has also pointed to hydrogen as justification for continuing to build gas infrastructure like pipelines, saying that pipes that carry natural gas could in the future carry a cleaner blend of natural gas and hydrogen.

While many experts agree that hydrogen could eventually play a role in energy storage or powering certain types of transportation — such as aircraft or long-haul trucks, where switching to battery-electric power may be challenging — there is an emerging consensus that a wider hydrogen economy that relies on natural gas could be damaging to the climate. (At current costs, it would also be very expensive.)

The latest study added to the evidence, said Drew Shindell, a professor of earth science at Duke University. Dr. Shindell was the lead author of a United Nations report published this year that found that slashing emissions of methane, the main component of natural gas, is far more vital in tackling global warming than previously thought. In a new report published this week, the U.N. warned that essentially all of the rise in global average temperatures since the 19th century has been driven by the burning of fossil fuels.

The hydrogen study showed that “the potential to keep using fossil fuels with something extra added on as a potential climate solution is neither fully accounting for emissions, nor making realistic assumptions” about future costs, he said in an email.

The Hydrogen Council, an industry group founded in 2017 that includes BP, Shell, and other big oil and gas companies, did not provide immediate comment. A McKinsey & Company report co-authored with industry estimated that the hydrogen economy could generate $140 billion in annual revenue by 2030 and support 700,000 jobs. The study also projected that hydrogen could meet 14 percent of total American energy demand by 2050. BP declined to comment.

In Washington, the latest bipartisan infrastructure package devotes $8 billion to creating regional hydrogen hubs, a provision originally introduced as part of a separate bill by Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, a major natural gas producing region. Among companies that lobbied for investment in hydrogen were NextEra Energy, which has proposed a solar-powered hydrogen pilot plant in Florida.

Some other Democrats, like Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, have pushed back against the idea, calling it an “empty promise.” Environmental groups have also criticized the spending. “It’s not a climate action,” said Jim Walsh, a senior energy policy analyst at Food & Water Watch, a Washington-based nonprofit group. “It’s this is a fossil fuel subsidy with Congress acting like they’re doing something on climate, while propping up the next chapter of the fossil fuel industry.”

Jack Brouwer, director of the National Fuel Cell Research Center at the University of California, Irvine, said that hydrogen would ultimately need to be made using renewable energy to produce what the industry calls green hydrogen, which uses renewable energy to split water into its constituent parts, hydrogen and oxygen. That, he said, would eliminate the fossil and the methane leaks.

Hydrogen made from fossil fuels could still act as a transition fuel but would ultimately be “a small contributor to the overall sustainable hydrogen economy,” he said. “First we use blue, then we make it all green,” he said.

Today, very little hydrogen is green, because the process involved — electrolyzing water to separate hydrogen atoms from oxygen — is hugely energy intensive. In most places, there simply isn’t enough renewable energy to produce vast amounts of green hydrogen. (Although if the world does start to produce excess renewable energy, converting it to hydrogen would be one way to store it.)

For the foreseeable future, most hydrogen fuel will very likely be made from natural gas through an energy-intensive and polluting method called the steam reforming process, which uses steam, high heat and pressure to break down the methane into hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Blue hydrogen uses the same process but applies carbon capture and storage technology, which involves capturing carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere and then pumping it underground in an effort to lock it away. But that still doesn’t account for the natural gas that generates the hydrogen, powers the steam reforming process and runs the CO2 capture. “Those are substantial,” Dr. Howarth of Cornell said.

Amy Townsend-Small, an associate professor in environmental science at the University of Cincinnati and an expert on methane emissions, said more scientists were starting to examine some of the industry claims around hydrogen, in the same way they had scrutinized the climate effects of natural gas production. “I think this research is going drive the conversation forward,” she said.
Plans to produce and use hydrogen are moving ahead. National Grid, together with Stony Brook University and New York State, is studying integrating hydrogen into its existing gas infrastructure, though the project seeks to produce hydrogen using renewable energy.

Entergy believed hydrogen was “part of creating a long-term carbon-free future,” complementing renewables like wind or solar, which generate power only intermittently, said Jerry Nappi, a spokesman for the utility. “Hydrogen is an important technology that will allow utilities to adopt much greater levels of renewables,” he said.

National Grid referred to its net zero plan, which says hydrogen will play a major role in the next few decades and that producing hydrogen from renewable energy was the linchpin.
New York State was “exploring all technologies” including hydrogen in support of its climate goals, said Kate T. Muller, a spokeswoman for the state’s Energy Research and Development Authority. Still, its researchers would “review and consider the blue hydrogen paper,” she said."

Maybe it's not the save the planet fuel some of you believed. BMW i3 Electric Car
2012 Full Fat RR 4.4 TDV8 (now gone)
2006 VW Touareg 3.0 TDi V6

This is a good counterpoint.


For me production has to be by electrolysis and goes hand in hand with modular nuclear power plants. letters not necessarily in the right order

It still has the issue of logistics, extremely high pressure to store it, huge wall thickness needed on tanks and they had an error in the video, diesel and petrol have 3 x the energy of hydrogen by volume so tank capacity needs increase by a factor of 3 to have the same operating conditions, along with a 2" wall thickness or more.
Hydrogen may well be the answer for machines like this and HGV's etc but not for cars. BMW i3 Electric Car
2012 Full Fat RR 4.4 TDV8 (now gone)
2006 VW Touareg 3.0 TDi V6

I thought they said Hydrogen had 3 time the energy of petrol per litre. letters not necessarily in the right order

I'm sure Ive read that its the other way round

I found it, heres the explanation:-

Hydrogen compressed to 800 atmospheres (also called bars) occupies 3 times more volume than gasoline for the same energy. It is necessary to reach this density if a vehicle is to carry enough hydrogen to be practical. A pressure of 800 bars works out to 6 tons, or 12,000 lbs, per square inch. It is very difficult to contain such pressures safely in a lightweight tank. Catastrophic tank failure releases as much energy as an equal weight of dynamite. A tank made of high strength steel weighs 100 times more than the hydrogen it contains. A truck or an automobile using a steel tank would be impractical as the tank would weigh nearly as much as the vehicle. BMW i3 Electric Car
2012 Full Fat RR 4.4 TDV8 (now gone)
2006 VW Touareg 3.0 TDi V6

Hydrogen cars are already here, Honda Clarity, Hyundai ix36 and the Toyota Mirai so it looks like the problems are being overcome.
The Honda is currently on test in the UK but the other two are available.

The biggest issue is refuelling locations Range Rover 4.2 Supercharged 2006
Ford Focus EcoBoost 1.5 2017
MG TF 2003

Previous Cars of note
Land Rover Discovery 2
Jaguar Mk2 3.8 - Company car
MG Midget 1974 - Concours

I can see that working, I'd need 600 mile range just to fill up.......

Click image to enlarge

After watching the guy Martin program last week he pretty much summed up what I was already thinking-If you only do short (sub 50-60mile)runs then an electric car would be ideal, but if you regularly do longer runs then the infrastructure just isn't good enough at the moment to swap from ic

He also found that the trip he did from Lincolnshire to John O'Groats in a Hyundai electric car cost £60 more in electric than it would in the equivalent diesel car and half the chargers he used along the way weren't working correctly Paul

2014 Range Rover vogue se 4.4sdv8 Loire Blue
1992 Range Rover Vogue LSE 4.2 Ardennes green

Guy Martin set out to discredit EV from the start. Yes, if you pick the most rapid chargers it will be expensive, yes several were not working BUT they were the highest powered rapid chargers that he was seeking out.

I use my EV regularly for journeys 200+ miles each way and I only have a range of around 130, I have absolutely no issues and with the cost of electricity I pay around 1p per mile for fuel. So my 450 mile round trip is £4.50 or £87.50 LESS than using diesel. Guy Martins trip was a one off, I do my trip 2 to 3 times per month. BMW i3 Electric Car
2012 Full Fat RR 4.4 TDV8 (now gone)
2006 VW Touareg 3.0 TDi V6

More info on Hydrogen, it truly is a great fuel other than extracting it, here its claimed it can be worse than coal in terms of pollution.

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/blu...KLktskyA1U BMW i3 Electric Car
2012 Full Fat RR 4.4 TDV8 (now gone)
2006 VW Touareg 3.0 TDi V6

There will be vehicles using (hopefully) green hydrogen - aircraft, ships, some heavy trucks/plant, but while it's a great fuel it won't be able to compete with batteries for cars. You either have to pressurise it to some huge pressure or liquefy it to some absurdly low temperature, and then burn it before it boils. On ships they have the space to store it and get some energy back by boil off like a steam engine. For aircraft it's really the only totally non carbon fuel they can use.

That video of Harry interviewing Lord Bamford I found a bit odd. It just sounded like he'd invested in a diesel engine, found out it could run on hydrogen and didn't want to invest any further. Burning hydrogen in a diesel engine is hugely inefficient compared to a fuel cell.

Stick 2 electrodes in water, take hydrogen off one side and oxygen off the other. Less efficient than charging batteries but batteries have lots of whole life efficiencies to add back in.
Storage is still tricky but batteries are not exactly light.
The point about using combustion engines is the technology and infrastructure already exists and works well. Why reinvent the wheel. letters not necessarily in the right order

Why use not use electricity directly instead of a very inefficient process wasting energy to get hydrogen which we then burn with 30 - 40% efficiency to create rotary motion. Much better to charge a battery and drive with a very efficient motor system. Mega complications transporting and storing Hydrogen and many say the electric charging infrastructure is bad, take a look at Hydrogen.

Click image to enlarge

The article should say : For Many, Hydrogen Is the Fuel of the Future. New Research Raises Doubts.
The fossil fuel industry has been promoting hydrogen as a reliable, next-generation fuel to power cars, heat homes and generate electricity. It may, in fact, be worse for the climate than previously thought.


once you've understood that only the fossil fuel industry promotes Hydrogen, you understand why it is pushed so much. It is not relevant for individual mobility and is really counterproductive and wasteful (you produce hydrogen at a great energy cost to then produce electricity for an hydrogen car (that uses an electric motor and a battery) : just use electricity widely available throughout the country/the world (your house plug/charges, chargers around the country...) and ideally use solar panels to recharge your electric car. that's the smart solution. l=Oo\________/oO=l l:OolΞΞΞΞΞΞΞloO:l

Current
RANGE ROVER Vogue 4.4L SDV8 - 2013 - Indus Silver, on Almond.
RANGE ROVER Vogue 4.4L V8 - 2002 - ex-2003 G4 Challenge Event Vehicle, Stage 3: Australia
RANGE ROVER HSE 4.4L V8 - 2004 - one-of-one Overfinch
RANGE ROVER P38a 4.0L V8 - 1999 - ex-2000 TReK Event Vehicle: South Africa

Previous:
RANGE ROVER Vogue 4.4L TDV8 - 2012 - RANGE ROVER 3.6L TDV8 x3 - RANGE ROVER Td6 x1 - RANGE ROVER Classic 3.5L V8 x1

The “smart” solution should include investment in developing more efficient solar panels and fitting them instead of sunroofs on all hybrid/ electric cars to help trickle charge the batteries.
Mike. G reg 2.5VM Vogue Portofino red 1991- 1999
V reg 2.5td P38 Rioja red 1999- 2006
53 reg td6 Vogue Oslo blue 2006- 2015
11 reg 4.4 TdV8 Vogue SE. Baltic blue 2015- date.
https://www.fullfatrr.com/forum/topic56162...tty+affair