If you are making synthetic fuel (a inefficient process, but that is electrolysis to make hydrogen too) the CO2 in the air you have a very clean hydrocarbon fuel.The combustion of this is also mainly water vapour free and CO2, but it had already taken you out of the air to make this fuel so is net zero.
Only we need another source of energy to make this possible (economically and practically).Nuclear fusion would be the most beautiful, but what is within reach is nuclear energy (new techniques). With the newer reactors this can be even safer than before, with 1/100 of the waste to be stored 300 years instead of 10,000 + years. And it can generate this energy by using the nuclear waste we already have as a fuel. We immediately have a solution to the nuclear waste problem.
Look for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.It is an MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) and can also run on Uranium and/or Plutonium (Uranium that cannot be used as fuel now can be changed to fuel).
Why would we still be struggling with hydrogen?The techniques we already know, the infrastructure is already there, the engines can just burn this without adjustment (synthetic gasoline, diesel, jet-fuel). Just keep the world flying around with a ‘ clean ‘ conscience or continue to ride in your gas-guzzler if you would like.
It is not yet to say whether it 芒 鈧?艙never what is begotten 芒 鈧?with the hydrogen car; We are not ready for it.
That said: There is an important open question.The production of hydrogen is an energy-consuming process. Where do we get that energy from?
In ordinary People’s language:
Ordinary fuel cars are very cheap and suitable fuel can be found all over the world, as a breach of a new technology is not easy.
Hydrogen cars have (nowadays) no combustion engine, but a fuel cell that converts the hydrogen into electricity; So you drive around like a Tesla.Getting a fuel cell and producing mass is not a sinecure, only recently a number of manufacturers have managed to make small series. With many Subsisdie those are now brought to the man. So this is relatively young technology that has years of improvements ahead to get cheaper and better.
But it is not a matter of hydrogen, so you can not drive, and there is no water tank stations.These gas stations are not simple (and therefore expensive). Hydrogen gas has to be massively compressed in order to be able to supply a useful quantity 芒 鈧?艙tanken芒 鈧? the current autos can refute so鈩?N 5 kilos of hydrogen gas (~ 450km) at a pressure of 350bar (a car tire is 2 bar). At a higher pressure of 700 bar there can be clearly more hydrogen with it. This compression also costs quite a bit of energy that cannot be converted into kilometers of driving pleasure. Fast refuelling is good as long as there are still few cars available, compressing to the desired pressure also takes time.
As other posters also indicate, the hydrogen will remain very 芒 鈧?艙vies芒 鈧?by the existing mass production from oil and gas.Clean hydrogen is not yet a reality. Turning wind energy into hydrogen is very inefficient and therefore expensive, after all you lose energy when making hydrogen by splitting water. Furthermore, you also lose energy when converting hydrogen into electricity in the fuel cell (in addition to losses in storage and compression). Batteries do not have this disadvantage and are therefore actually more suitable for storing efficient electric wind/solar energy.
The lobby for hydrogen autos from, for example, the Shell and car industry is a bit better to understand.Unlike at home recharge your Tesla battery you just need to go to the gas station to fuel up hydrogen. So you just remain a good paying customer of the Shell instead of Eneco. The oil companies already have factories that make hydrogen from oil so you can use them better, they also have existing logistic chains with which fuel-on time-can be brought to the pump. Also, car manufacturers prefer to keep their business by selling a complicated (ER) product to the customer with hydrogen technology, where there are their own patents. In this way they hope to have a competitive advantage with these patents and extra turnover on maintenance, because these cells do not have eternal life.
The clue is that due to the complexity and inefficiency of the energy chain the hydrogen car will always cost more in purchase and then use a similar electric battery car; Besides the fact that the hydrogen car is more difficult to make climate-friendly.
Special applications (for example long-range trucks or quite possibly for boats/airplanes) I believe it is too late for the hydrogen car and that this technology will not catch up with the battery.Batteries have become so much better in recent years that many objections like snow have disappeared for the sun. In view of the current investments in battery technology, the end of this is not yet in sight and we can expect in the foreseeable future that they will become cheaper than even the fossil fuel engine in purchase and certainly in use.
P. s how it is safety will show the practice, hydrogen is a highly flammable and explosive commodity, so you as a manufacturer can not afford any design and manufacture zeperds.
芒 鈧?艗a [mathH_2 [/math auto repels only water vapor and heat out 芒 鈧?/p>
That’s right, but to get that [mathH_2 [/mathin your car, it has to be used an energy-consuming process.A hydrogen car itself does not pollute, but the production of the hydrogen is indeed energy-consuming (and therefore polluting if that energy is not generated 芒 鈧?虄schoon芒 鈧劉).
Hydrogen Auto芒 鈧劉 s have a number of advantages, including the very fast filling of the tank and the high energy density.However, in most cases the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages, which means that electric vehicles with battery seem to take the lead.
Hydrogen has a number of disadvantages such as:
- Hydrogen is explosive
- Hydrogen is relatively expensive
- When hydrogen is incinerating, the heating of the exhaust nitrogen is free.
I don’t know how much the energy density of hydrogen is compared to gasoline, but according to me that is much smaller than that of gasoline.This probably makes you need to refueling much more often or take a lot more hydrogen (here I have no sources for it).
Electric driving is not a good alternative, there are not enough raw materials to allow everyone to drive electrically.
It is only the question of which means of transport we are going to drive later, because fossil fuels run out.It would be possible to get oil later using the Fischer-Tropsch process or that we find a way to store electricity with a way that costs raw materials.
Compared to electric driving, hydrogen is simply too complicated.
Initially one wanted to use it instead of gasoline.BMW has gone on with the development. There is little or no money to be earned on an electric motor, neither in terms of construction nor maintenance. In addition, you had to develop stronger batteries and batteries, like nature, have the lowest status. So there was no interest in the Netherlands.
If they were to develop the fuel cell technology in the Netherlands now, hydrogen had a chance because then you could use it in electric cars and on ships.But that doesn’t happen. We prefer to Verbandt wood with large SDE subsidies. In NL, we are largely mentally disturbed in the area of clean energy so that we have dropped to the 27th place of the 28 in the rankings. Only in Malta is there even less interest in the future.
I don’t know much about car engines but I doubt that only water vapor is emitted.If combustion is used with air, nitrogen oxides will also be produced and emitted.