Company Fleet - going electric

Dr Who said:
Because hydrogen cars are in-efficient and produce more co2 (thru hydrogen extraction and movement) than a good diesel.
Click to expand...

Thats only because the refinement process, at the moment, is rubbish. As soon as the extraction process gets better then the emissions will go. Surely elecricity, as a medium, is worse as you have batteries that will need replacing and disposing off, means of getting electricity to them (so a power station) and the time to recharge (several hours) just makes it pointless.



M.
 
m4cc45 said:
Thats only because the refinement process, at the moment, is rubbish. As soon as the extraction process gets better then the emissions will go. Surely elecricity, as a medium, is worse as you have batteries that will need replacing and disposing off, means of getting electricity to them (so a power station) and the time to recharge (several hours) just makes it pointless.
Click to expand...

One way of extracting hydrogen from water: using electricity. Lots of ways of getting electricity - coal and other hydrocarbons, nuclear, wind and other renewables, etc. Currently coal (and other hydrocarbons) are by far the greatest provider. So you're burning coal to produce hydrogen - the hydrogen is just another form of energy storage - so yes it can be compared to batteries. However, the only time emissions from the extraction process will go is when we no longer burn hydrocarbons for energy.
Incidentally, advances in battery technology are being made - for example, I remember an article months/year or two ago involving charge and discharge ability of lithium-ion batteries. Essentially they'd found a way to be able to both discharge and charge batteries much more rapidly than is currently possible - which would give battery-powered cars both more power when needed, and rapid charge times. Unfortunately haven't heard about it since, but I imagine it's in the pipeline.
 
Muffin` said:
What about the air pollution in the form of water vapour? Is it not consider more environmentally damaging?
Click to expand...

I assumed the water cycle took care of added water vapour, being on a much larger scale than the carbon cycle, but could be wrong.
 
time to recharge (several hours) just makes it pointless.
Click to expand...
one major manufacturer has quick chargers that can charge a battery to 80% in 30mins but i guess if electric cars ever took of there wouldnt be room for enough of them because they are petrol pump size.

i guess if it were possible to simply swap a used battery for a full one in a petrol station where it gets stuck charging for someone else it could be almost viable but the battery packs they use are mammoth
 
miniyazz said:
I assumed the water cycle took care of added water vapour, being on a much larger scale than the carbon cycle, but could be wrong.
Click to expand...
I wonder if in some decades time there will be eco hippies crying about all the water we're producing. Sea levels will rise killing millions. There's just no getting away from it is there!
 
Dr Who said:
Because hydrogen cars are in-efficient and produce more co2 (thru hydrogen extraction and movement) than a good diesel.
Click to expand...

Not if we built 4th generation nuclear power, hydrogen can then be produced cheaply at the same time as producing electricity.

As for electric cars, depends what you do. I would expect you would have to import from America if you want any choice at all.

And you have to recharge at home which takes all night basically. No charge points or swap points yet and wont be for a long time. Until government decides what fuel to switch to.
 
Last edited:
miniyazz said:
I assumed the water cycle took care of added water vapour, being on a much larger scale than the carbon cycle, but could be wrong.
Click to expand...

that's what some people say, but I have not seen any studies. Just because the water falls back to earth after a few days does not mean average humidity does not rise. At 100x better greenhouse gas than co2, it is something that hippies need to think about.
 
or 240v system isn't really suited to charging big batteries in sensible amounts of time... 230v x 13A = 3kw which isn't really very good.

I suggest you rent/buy a 100Kw generator to recharge your batteries! ;)
 
Would a car with a range extender count as full electric? In effect the engine doesn't actually drive the car at any point.

I'm with Jay Leno's mindset. Bring on the electric car for 12k miles of traffic and commute per year if it means I can enjoy a nice petrol powered car for a few k of fun.

I believe the major players (Nissan has been mentioned as one of the first) are going to start releasing mainstream full electric as soon as next year.
 
AcidHell2 said:
that's what some people say, but I have not seen any studies. Just because the water falls back to earth after a few days does not mean average humidity does not rise. At 100x better greenhouse gas than co2, it is something that hippies need to think about.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it's present in much greater amounts than CO2 so you'd have to produce far, far more of it to have the same proportionate increase.
 
Dr Who said:
Because hydrogen cars are in-efficient and produce more co2 (thru hydrogen extraction and movement) than a good diesel.
Click to expand...

They don't if you include the movement and production of diesel in the amount released by a diesel engine. Of much greater benefit is the reduction of particulate waste and other nasties that diesels chuck out.
 
miniyazz said:
Perhaps, but it's present in much greater amounts than CO2 so you'd have to produce far, far more of it to have the same proportionate increase.
Click to expand...

you do not know that you are guessing, it is 100x more effective than co2 it also produces clouds which depending which scientist you talk to either acts as a net blanket or acts as a net reflector. Also we only produce about 4% co2 the rest is natural.
 
I am just registering a patent for electric vehicle charging. If registered and taken up, I will be rich beyond belief...

;)
 
AcidHell2 said:
you do not know that you are guessing, it is 100x more effective than co2 it also produces clouds which depending which scientist you talk to either acts as a net blanket or acts as a net reflector. Also we only produce about 4% co2 the rest is natural.
Click to expand...

Mean concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere up to 25km is between 0-4%; concentration of CO2 is just under 0.04% (source), I think that counts as much greater amounts of water vapour than CO2 :p
I would dispute that it is 100x more effective than CO2 as well. According to here,
The radiative forcing for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2
Click to expand...
- implying that quantity-for-quantity, water vapour is ~2.3x as potent as a global warmer. That can be increased somewhat if you take into account an increase in humidity following an increased temperature, but at that point you're no longer comparing like for like.

As for us only producing 4% of all the CO2 - well the main difference between CO2 and water is that with increased CO2 production, the mechanisms are not in place for removing 'excess' CO2 from the atmosphere, so the concentration will keep increasing as long as there is an imbalance. With increased water production, the concentration overall may increase slightly - but only very slightly; it can and will compensate, unlike CO2. Increased humidity means decreased evaporation and more rain, so if we increase water vapour output, the sea will decrease water vapour output. It would only become a problem if we were outputting vast quantities of the stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom