rangerovers.pub
The only place for a coil spring is up Zebedee's arse
Member
Joined:
Posts: 2426

This is a bit wordy but interesting (to me at least!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTawvzH0MQ4

TLDR; Toyota have an H2 powered IC engine which they're looking to release in Japan. End of EVs? That'd be nice.

I wish F1 would change to H2 power.

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 7927

My other half works for Cummins, who supply diesel engines to numerous truck manufacturers, and they have produced and are testing an H2 fuelled IC engine for trucks. Spotted quite a few H2 filling stations in Germany earlier in the year, nearly every station on the Autobahns had LPG and CNG as well as the liquid stuff too.

As I see it the problem is that technology moves faster than Governments. They make an announcement that we should all go zero carbon at a time when EV was the only option. Now we have H2 fuel cells instead of batteries, H2 ICEs that work, synthetic fuels and there's no doubt other options coming along. At least the Germans have realised and won't be phasing out ICE powered vehicles from 2035.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 2426

I'm glad someone still has LPG - it's an instant win for CO2 and emissions reduction. STUPID Government :(

Member
Joined:
Posts: 720

Only encountered one Hydrogen car in the UK (so far) and that was a Toyota .. in a showroom... and they would not let me start it up as it was indoors !! (Yes, I know,,,, I said 'but only water comes our the back; so what's the problem' ??).

Big in (paradoxically) ICEland but they have steam coming straight out the ground to drive their turbines/generators...
I saw the system being refuelled on one of their buses: Chap with gloves and (almost) a hazmat suit... " A Prototype" !!

More of concern are some I have encountered who are convinced the future of 'Gas to The Home' is Hydrogen.....
or Hydrogen/Natural Gas mixtures. Seriously.... Google 'Blue Hydrogen' for more details...

( Perhaps they have to dye it blue so I can't be sold on 'other markets' - like Red Diesel... ? ...)
Seriously... again... it is made using methane: Might buy some cows and give it a try then... !

EDIT: Meant to post this up too, from 2012:
https://www.wardsauto.com/technology/northern-europe-gears-hydrogen-fuel-cell-evs

-Not sure if this still did not happen due to disagreements about the colour of Hydrogen they would actually use ?.....

Member
Joined:
Posts: 1345

Not wishing to steer the thread off topic but LPG has been mentioned and on that subject - It's not difficult to get set up with the ability to refuel at home, without needing to have a bulk storage tank and at a similar cost per litre as refuelling at Morrisons...

I recently contacted a local bottled gas supplier (in Doncaster 10 miles from me), they'd be happy to exchange bottled gas at my door. I'd go with 47kg bottles (biggest bottle best value), no minimum order (they'd deliver 1 bottle or any number of bottles at a time), free delivery, usually next day delivery. They're not bothered what use I have for the gas.. When I first spoke to them I mentioned using it for heating the garage but when it became clear they didn't seem concerned what I used it for I told them I convert vehicles to LPG for a living and 'might' pump some into my car. In fact it seems vehicle use may help negotiate a lower price per refill because if you're using it in your car you're likely to be using more gas than someone who just uses it for heating (especially in summer) and there are discounts for heavier users (and if you're using a bottle per week you'll be a relatively heavy user). They were talking £90 per 47kg bottle exchange until I said I know of others paying £75 for one 47kg bottle per week refill per week and that I'd expect to use a 47kg bottle per week even during summer, then they immediately agreed to £75 (maybe I should have tried £65!).

£75 including VAT for 47kg of gas, free delivery, works out at 81.5p per litre which is 1.8p per litre more than Morrisons but refuelling at home means no need to make any detours to refuel.

They'll only refill/exchange their own 'brand' tank (same design 47kg bottles as Calor, Flogas, etc, just with their logo written on the side instead of the more common Calor/Flogas logo). £65 surcharge per bottle I want to keep here, keep their bottle for as long as I want, surcharge is refundable if I let them take their bottle back. I'd probably go with 2 x 47kg bottles and order a next day exchange as soon as 1 bottle was empty to keep at least 1 partially full tank here at times.. See how it goes with 2 bottles, maybe end up having 3 bottles.

Need a pump.. LPGAutosupplies sells a pump for £600+Vat, a bit expensive so I'll be looking into other pumps (hence why I've not done it already). No rush for me because I am well served by local LPG forecourts but I'd like to get set up with this as an example to others (not on this forum but on other forums).

I could have home refuelling set up and running 2 working days after contacting the gas supplier for the gas and LPGAutosupplies for the pump.

All considered with the cost per litre being very similar to Morrisons and the surcharge on the bottles being refundable, even if I had a Morrisons next door the only real setup cost would be the cost of the pump.

Ideally would want to set up some sort of stand to make it easy to invert the bottle in use (bottle must be inverted to pump the liquid gas out of it), they're heavy with an empty weight of around 34kg, plus 47kg of gas when full makes full weight 101kg. But I'd start by just laying the bottle on it's side and pumping gas out until it was half empty, maybe put a couple of bricks under the bottom end to pump it down to a total weight of say 45kg then manually invert it to pump the last 11kg out of it.

Slightly off subject again - It's usually easy to add an extra LPG tank to a vehicle (though it will usually take up luggage space). Last year I added a 2nd tank to my own car (not a Rangerover) giving total range on LPG (driving economically) of around 700miles. The 2nd tank is quick fit / quick removal, connected to the car's original LPG setup using quick connect/disconnect hanson fittings (like airline fittings). When not fitted there's no sign of any tank fittings in the luggage area, the hanson fittings it connects to hide away behind the access panel to offside rear light bulbs. I don't usually have the 2nd tank fitted because I don't usually need so much range on LPG, I can leave it in the yard full of gas until I want the extra range (like when I tow my caravan to Cornwall). Again not difficult to set up, any tank (that will fit in the luggage area) can be used, could use a second hand tank. Of course once the car is setup with the quick fit tank modification it's no more difficult to carry 2, 3, 4 extra tanks than it is to carry 1 extra tank, the only restrictions are space and weight (but 100 litres of LPG including it's tank will only weigh around 100kg), when the connected tank is empty just connect the quick fit fittings to a full tank. My vehicle is an 8 seater people carrier but the rear seats can be folded up to make it a 5 seater with a massive luggage area, it would be completely unnecessary, excessive and maybe a bit ridiculous but there is nothing stopping me from carrying (say) 3 x 100 litre tanks in the luggage area and having 1400 miles range on LPG (plus 350 miles range on the full tank of petrol). Each additional tank would only need to have a length of pipe fitted to it's fill port, output port and a hanson fitting at the end of each piece of pipe to make it useable as a quick fit tank in my car. I could fill up at home from red bottles at same cost of filling Morrisons, fill with 360 litres of LPG, drive for 1400 miles without refuelling and/or refuel at any forecourt that sells LPG for 1400 miles range in around half an hour on the forecourt. Even if I ran out of LPG I'd still have a full tank of petrol. Unless I removed the petrol tank to fit an extra LPG tank in it's place and make my car LPG only.

For alternative fuels (every fuel that isn't petrol or diesel) the important factors are cost of the vehicle, cost per mile, ability to refuel when necessary (enough 'forecourts' or places to refuel), speed of filling up (nobody really wants to spend an age sat on a forecourt). One aspect can offset another, e.g's. you don't need as much range if there are places to fill up everywhere and speed of filling is very quick as with petrol / diesel. Or on the flip side if you'd got great range you're less likely to have range anxiety even if there are relatively few places to refuel... especially if you can refuel at home. EV owners who always recharge at home at cheap prices will be smiling but not smiling so much if they need to do a long journey and recharge away from home at similar cost per mile to someone refuelling an ICE car who can refuel in a fraction of the time for much better range. I'm biased anyway because I convert vehicles to LPG but even if I wasn't still involved converting vehicles to LPG I'd still see it as having the best set of compromises because almost any petrol vehicle can be made to run on it, it's a fraction of the price of petrol, places to refuel aren't as numerous as they once were but I can refuel at home for same cost as refuelling at a cheap forecourt if I wish, it is easy to add extra range (and with extra range I don't need to worry about refuelling), refuelling isn't much slower than refuelling with petrol or diesel. Cost per mile running on LPG can even be cheaper than running a like-sized EV if charging the EV away from home and if doing anything like the kind of mileage that would cause range anxiety for an LPG user (even with just one tank fitted) in an EV the EV will probably need to be charging away from home. Hydrogen might be a great idea but it might take legislation forcing forecourts to sell it before it could take off, might expect early hydrogen powered cars to have similar or less range than an EV but with no ability to refuel at home. If we were all given a free hydrogen car tomorrow we wouldn't be able to use them.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 808

Hydrogen for passenger cars is a white elephant.

The only reason its being pushed is the fossil fuel lobby wanting to keep their monopoly on transport. The vast majority of Hydrogen comes from steam-reforming natural gas.

Burning hydrogen is even more nuts than using it in a fuel cell. You put a tonne of energy into splitting the gas into hydrogen in the first place, then just burn it? You'd be far better off just burning the natural gas you started with, and its easier to move around and store.

The only place i see it being actually feasible is in things like marine or aircraft. Maybe some heavy vehicles in certain locations.

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 7927

From what I've seen the idea behind it being a renewable energy source is that by producing it by hydrolysing water using electricity from renewable sources, you've got a zero carbon fuel.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 1345

Gilbertd wrote:

From what I've seen the idea behind it being a renewable energy source is that by producing it by hydrolysing water using electricity from renewable sources, you've got a zero carbon fuel.

Yes, so if we ever have abundant clean electricity we can also have abundant clean burning hydrogen. Then maybe we could all go back to ICE cars and run them on hydrogen hehe.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 720

Ah yes Richard, 'cheap renewable sources', so that would be Tokamak Fusion Reactors then ? Give it 20+ years... maybe.
Sadly even then it probably won't be cheaper electricity of course, as folks have profits/shareholders/etc to consider...

Aragorn: then maybe we can use the Hydrogen in Airships instead, and paint them all white and add trunks ?!

Member
Joined:
Posts: 808

The more you look into it, the less it makes sense.

For some rough figures, charging a battery and driving and electric motor from your electricity is around 90% efficient.

Using that electricity to create hydrogen, compressing it, shipping it to somewhere near your house and then transferring to your car, and running it thru fuel cell to power an electric motor is about 30% efficient.

So even if all those intervening steps cost nothing, it's 3 times the energy (which in the real world means cost).

Burning the hydrogen is even worse as instead of the fuel cell your using a combustion process which wastes 60-70% of the energy. So your down to what, 10% total efficiency compared to the simple battery EV.

Additionally, storing it onboard the car isn't easy, it requires special pressure vessels and the result is poor capacity to volume. A fuel tank can be moulded to fit under the seat etc, can't do that with a hydrogen tank. So even if you magically made loads of the stuff for nothing, fitting it all in a car to give even a couple hundred miles of range isn't possible, especially if your burning it rather than using a fuel cell.

The main use I can see is doing something with actually free energy. For example wind turbines and solar farms offen get pushed into "curtailment" which is essentially a mechanism to balance the grid by turning off generators. If you could instead divert that energy into a hydrogen electrolyser and store it up, it's literally free hydrogen. Nowhere near enough for the countries transport needs but still potentially a useful storage method for medium term energy storage.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 720

Aragorn: I agree, and I am not sure it is really meant to make sense; The development mentioned by Morat of course is just Toyota/Yamaha's attempt to to 'keep Internal Combustion alive' by burning Hydrogen within. Here is a link (without cookies): https://www.drive.com.au/news/hydrogen-powered-v8-engine-here-to-keep-internal-combustion-alive/ Essentially just a niche-market novelty at best, not really a 'practical' suggestion at all....

The primary (and ostensibly) 'mass-market' hydrogen fuel-cell 'rationale' is based on the idea that Hydrogen can/could be 'cheap' to make and store/distribute - and there is the problem - storage. On cars the preferred method for this is a couple of pressure vessels mounted on the floor pan in a T-configuration..... for safety/collision purposes of course.

As I mentioned above in Iceland their Hydrogen refuelling stations have the capability of producing 'in situ', by injecting water deep into the ground and using the steam produced to drive turbines/generators. (The plant I saw doing this was quite large though.... and out-of-town too) . Most other countries don't have such natural geo-thermal options though of course so that their seemingly-viable model is not easy to replicate elsewhere..... !?
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/hydrogen-revolution-powers-its-way-to-iceland/

As you may be aware in the UK we are considering 'SMRs' - Small Modular Reactors - 'small' being about the size of Wembley Stadium ......
Too bad the cost of the Electricity from these will be more than 'at present'... and/or Hinkley C is years away.

Yes, we could of course cover vast areas with PVCs etc of course, and then distribute from such installations... ie. the Electricity itself may eventually be (relatively) 'cheap' - but the distribution is expensive... Or it could be converted (in situ) to Hydrogen and stored like that - albeit in what is overall a rather inefficient process, and then the real costs are simply in all those particular (and multiple) thermodynamic losses involved with that too !?

Member
Joined:
Posts: 367

"For some rough figures, charging a battery and driving and electric motor from your electricity is around 90% efficient."

That would be a ~very~ rough figure. Let's look at the "Rest of the story"......
What I have yet to see is a good analysis of the calculable, known losses in power generation and distribution.
Here is a quick and dirty one of my own:
If we start with a natural gas fired power plant, and 100 cu litres of CNG.
Burn that in a furnace to boil water in a heat exchanger, make steam, turn the turbine to generate electricity.
Best case is 60% efficiency and only if you can use the waste heat to do something. (as low as 33%)
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Natural_gas_power_plant
So, 40 of our Cu litres gone to heat at the plant.
Now we have electricity at about 500kv which has been stepped up there using transformers.
These are pretty good, however we go through no fewer than 4 to go from the plant to the rural grid, to the local grid and to your house. we will through in transmission losses here as well so lets call that 10%, but it can be much higher.......So, kiss off some more CNG..
https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/
Now, we have a battery charger coming in at about 80% on average, so more heat and more wasted energy.

Batteries themselves are not 100% efficient and degrade as they are cycled, so average over a 6 year life cycle? call it 80% with 20 % being turned to heat in the battery.
Electric motor and controller? 90% is generous, so another 10% loss to heat.
I have used the average losses here and leaned toward very conservative numbers.
Even so, you are kissing off more than 50% of the electrical energy produced at the plant before
it even sees the EV. other types of plant, like coal are far less efficient.
Not my idea of an environmentally friendly solution.
Question for LPGC: How much better would it be to just burn the CNG in a converted vehicle?
The other issue for EV's quick adoption is, of course, the grid itself. On my Easter trip down to So Cal this year, I was chatting with an old friend who lives in a relatively new (late 90's) high end sub division in Irvine, California.
Many of his neighbors went out and bought Teslas early on as they are a status symbol in So Cal.....
Think Chelsea Tractor!
Well, the main power transformer feeding this subdivision has caught fire and been destroyed Twice in the last year!
Cannot handle the battery charger load. Not just the additional power being drawn, but the power factor issues.(Grids hate reactive loads like chargers, they love resistor type loads like bar heaters)
Feel free to tromp on my numbers, as I said, this is rough.......PETROL RULES!!!!

Member
Joined:
Posts: 720

Bolt: 'Quick and dirty'... are we talking polluting US V8 'muscle cars' now ?!

Seriously your calculation depends on the specific type of battery involved of course, and they are getting better all the time.. However for a straight GASoline and Hydrogen GAS comparison - it is still basically all down to relative Energy Density of course (and/or whereby storage/transportation are the major differentiating factors), and there are definitely always losses each time we deploy 'a state of matter transition' for both and for sure... but yes, on that basis, for cars liquid->gas is still thus currently 'best' !

However for some of the other _non-vehicle _applications - for instance in this example: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/4833/production/_112338481_hydrogengraphic.jpg - it would seem obvious that the Wind Turbine could simply just heat the housing directly but weather issues etc play a big part in that (and similarly with PVCs). Storing the 'power' (for when it is actually needed) becomes the issue (again), but motion -> electricity -> gas -> heat transitions are all essentially 'lossy' of course.... Accordingly their 'plan' seems to be to also use some of that stored H2 for vehicles, but we are back to transporting it then.... unless we are in Iceland.. ?

All that said ... will folks there still say 'I need some GAS for my car' if/when H2 is widely available there, or will you all really say PETROL instead ??

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 7927

I'm not going to try and get into the efficiencies just make a couple of points. There's already trucks running on CNG and LNG (with a few on LPG too) but only a few prototypes running on batteries. Both these fuels need holes in the ground to extract the methane (unless you happen to have a herd of cows) so are still fossil fuels so, while better than diesel (anything is better than diesel in my opinion) still not ideal. The cost, both in money and pollution caused, makes Lithium batteries far from zero emission, it just doesn't come out of the tailpipe. While the arguments against Hydrogen are, presumably, valid, if Cummins the company that makes and supplies engines to the likes of MAN, Volvo Trucks, Renault trucks, Iveco trucks and probably a few more I've missed, not to mention engines for ships, have gone down the ICE running on Hydrogen route, there must be a future in it. The engines are basically diesel engine converted into very high compression ratio petrol engines and use Hydrogen stored in Carbon Fibre tanks as their fuel.

Personally, I said about 5 years ago that I would give battery electric vehicles as they were then no more than 10 years unless range increased dramatically and charge times fell. That doesn't seem to have happened with 300 miles on a full charge being regarded as the most manufacturers are going for. Driving back from the south of France a couple of weeks ago, the Autoroute matrix signs were warning of out of order charging facilities at two consecutive service areas. I stopped for LPG at the next one to see a queue of Teslas (mostly UK registered too) at the charging stations. I was able to fill my tank, have my lunch and set off again while some were still waiting to plug in. As a commuter vehicle there is a place for them but as a viable means of all round transport I don't think they have a future.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 2426

300 miles from a Tesla 3 is ambitious. You'd need a full battery. IIRC even the long range version tops out at 350 miles (in ideal conditions of course). Tesla recommend that you keep the battery between 20 and 80% whenever possible to increase the battery life, so most of the time the range is much less. Of course, most of the time you don't need 300 miles but it can't be a nice feeling to imagine you're pushing such an expensive component when you do.

I personally would like to check out a Tesla, but I now WFH so the only time I need to drive is usually a dash into York or a road trip 3 or 5 up for a long way. So, I think the Simon's home LPG pump is FAR more interesting!

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 7927

Morat wrote:

So, I think the Simon's home LPG pump is FAR more interesting!

Same here. Should it reach the stage, as it has in some areas of the country, where I can't fill up with LPG locally, a full tank is enough to get me to Harwich or Dover after which I'm in clearer thinking countries where I can fill up just about everywhere.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 720

Yes, 'dual fuel' (diesel/lH2) marine applications are increasingly common, and are much more sensible/viable (as they can use one fuel at Sea and another in Port of course) but 'Net Zero 2050' is actually a 'Pipe Dream'..... as for 'Jet Zero'.... hydrogen, electric and bio-fuelled commercial aircraft surely that's just 'Pie In The Sky' ... https://theconversation.com/what-commercial-aircraft-will-look-like-in-2050-33850

For LPG I really began to wonder about its fate in London a couple of years ago when they (TfL) 'did not recognise LPG as an alternative fuel' because 'they would not know which one was being used, ie. in a ULEZ'.... but indeed I frequently wonder about TfL in general and their Chairman (Khan) too...

The next 'gem' in London will be the problem that EVs are also producing particulates too: brake/tyre/road dust and so will also be taxed/charged (!) on that basis and then via Pay-Per-mile-Schemes (via ANPR monitoring), - which will happen for ALL vehicles as/when their ULEZ revenue starts to dry up (again)..

Member
Joined:
Posts: 2426

Just for giggles....
London is already considering banning diesel engine on boats, which is a concern to the narrowboaters who like chugging through. Seeing as a narrowboat at full throttle is barely going to use 1l / hour and London is not a place where you can consider going at full speed - it seems a bit petty to me.

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 7927

Ahh yes, but they can charge them instead and add to the revenue they are losing because they aren't driving a car.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 1345

Bolt wrote:

If we start with a natural gas fired power plant, and 100 cu litres of CNG.
Burn that in a furnace to boil water in a heat exchanger, make steam, turn the turbine to generate electricity.
Best case is 60% efficiency and only if you can use the waste heat to do something. (as low as 33%)
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Natural_gas_power_plant
So, 40 of our Cu litres gone to heat at the plant.
Now we have electricity at about 500kv which has been stepped up there using transformers.
These are pretty good, however we go through no fewer than 4 to go from the plant to the rural grid, to the local grid and to your house. we will through in transmission losses here as well so lets call that 10%, but it can be much higher.......So, kiss off some more CNG..
https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/
Now, we have a battery charger coming in at about 80% on average, so more heat and more wasted energy.

Batteries themselves are not 100% efficient and degrade as they are cycled, so average over a 6 year life cycle? call it 80% with 20 % being turned to heat in the battery.
Electric motor and controller? 90% is generous, so another 10% loss to heat.
I have used the average losses here and leaned toward very conservative numbers.
Even so, you are kissing off more than 50% of the electrical energy produced at the plant before
it even sees the EV. other types of plant, like coal are far less efficient.
Not my idea of an environmentally friendly solution.
Question for LPGC: How much better would it be to just burn the CNG in a converted vehicle?

As much as I love engines they're only around 30% efficient and the fuel has to be refined and transported to forecourts. But the infrastructure is already there, no need to build more power stations, upgrade the electrical grid or source lithium.