UK Company Riversimple Plans a Fuel-Sipping Hydrogen Car (techienews.co.uk)

On arrival at the auto show... by Freshly+Exhumed · 2016-02-17 12:02 · Score: 2, Funny

Here it comes, the world's newest hydrogen-powered automobile... there she is... the technicians are attaching the hose... OMG!!! OH, THE HUMANITY!!!

--
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.

Re:On arrival at the auto show... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:47 · Score: 1

An eco-friendly car must look ugly. You have to show that you are suffering for the environment.
Re:On arrival at the auto show... by guises · 2016-02-17 15:08 · Score: 1

I don't know what you're talking about, that thing's freaking awesome. It's a concept car, so if it ever goes to production it's going to be focused grouped down to another boring run-of-the-mill sedan, but the picture in the article looks pretty unique and interesting.
Re:On arrival at the auto show... by ignavus · 2016-02-17 22:09 · Score: 2

Here it comes, the world's newest hydrogen-powered automobile... there she is... the technicians are attaching the hose... OMG!!! OH, THE HUMANITY!!!
No, it's in Wales. They would say: OH, Y DYNOLIAETH!!!

--
I am anarch of all I survey.

that was never difficult by holophrastic · 2016-02-17 12:07 · Score: 2

Umm, getting a machine to run on pure hydrogen fuel was never a challenge. Supplying the hydrogen to the machine, especially via the user, now that's the challenge.

Re:that was never difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:27 · Score: 1, Informative

Having the vehicle not fall to pieces due to hydrogen embrittlement, also an issue.
Re:that was never difficult by dbIII · 2016-02-17 12:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Having the vehicle not fall to pieces due to hydrogen embrittlement, also an issue.
That's a very well known issue solved by material selection.
Messing it up would be equivalent to making an umbrella out of sugar.
Re:that was never difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:49 · Score: 0

steels with chrome-moly-nickel are good for high temp with hydrogen, like for an engine. but heat treatment for hardening is not possible for the best steels of this category. Aluminum block with steel sleeves, head and pistons would be a pretty reasonable compromise.
aluminum is good for low temp, like for the storage tank material.
This is all solvable with current material science, it's just some added constraints on the design. Steel is heavy compared to aluminum, and some steel alloys are expensive. Keeping weight and price down in a hydrogen car is a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.
Re:that was never difficult by Ralph+Wiggam · 2016-02-17 13:12 · Score: 1

That's a very well known issue solved by material selection.
This is true. But the materials you have to select are crazy expensive, and increased demand will only increase those costs.
Re:that was never difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 13:37 · Score: 0

I'll bet the solution to that problem around here is asteroid mining.
Re:that was never difficult by ShanghaiBill · 2016-02-17 14:21 · Score: 2

But the materials you have to select are crazy expensive
Carbon fiber is not susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement, and is not expensive. It has enough desirable properties that you would probably choose it for the H2 container even if embrittlement was not an issue.

increased demand will only increase those costs.
Not true. Demand increases cost only if the supply is fixed. For manufactured materials like carbon fiber, demand lowers the cost because it increases economies of scale.
Re:that was never difficult by youngone · 2016-02-17 14:39 · Score: 1

Why? You got an asteroid you wanna sell?
Re: that was never difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:27 · Score: 0

I'm just inquisitive to know the size and weight of a tank holding 1.5 kg of hydrogen for use in a car.
Re:that was never difficult by CeasedCaring · 2016-02-17 16:17 · Score: 1

Does not apply, this is a fuel-cell powered electric vehicle.
Re:that was never difficult by Antique+Geekmeister · 2016-02-17 17:35 · Score: 1

It also doesn't hold hydrogen well. The microspaces between the fibers usually let hydrogen out quite easily.
Re:that was never difficult by dbIII · 2016-02-17 20:10 · Score: 1

But the materials you have to select are crazy expensive
Anything other than plain carbon steel or low alloy steel is crazy expensive?
Re:that was never difficult by dbIII · 2016-02-17 20:16 · Score: 1

Perhaps the above poster should have written "carbon fibre reinforced plastic" to avoid people making the mistake of thinking that what was suggested was like wrapping the hydrogen up in string.
Besides, it's not gas bottles here but solid state storage where the hydrogen needs a bit of encouragement to leave.
Re: that was never difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 20:43 · Score: 0

That's why carbon fiber is used for rigidity and structural integrity, while epoxy resins and other sealants are used for gas confinement.
Re:that was never difficult by michelcolman · 2016-02-17 21:39 · Score: 1

Yes, the whole mission is ready to go, but we just need someone to unblock the funds, you could help us out by sending a small sum to Nigeria via Western Union and then we'll give you a 50% cut in the proceeds!
Re:that was never difficult by drinkypoo · 2016-02-18 00:04 · Score: 1

This is true. But the materials you have to select are crazy expensive, and increased demand will only increase those costs.
Tee hee, three replies way off in space, here's the real one. Yes, Hydrogen embrittlement is a real problem. However, it's only a problem where metal is hot, so it is a problem only for certain parts, most especially in ICEs. This vehicle uses a fuel cell. Fuel cells are expensive partly because they have to take issues like this into account, but that's already accounted for.
Even in an ICE, not all of the parts need to be made out of fancy alloys, just the area where the gas is fed. That's likely the end of the intake plenum, immediately before the valves, so that only includes intake and exhaust valves, piston, cylinder, etc, plus probably a surface treatment for the inside of the crankcase and the rods. Also, the reality is that both small diesel engines and gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines (especially with turbochargers raising cylinder pressures) are already using "more expensive" alloys than the engines of yesteryear... or even, say, of the 1990s. The expense of these alloys therefore doesn't differentiate a hydrogen-powered vehicle from the competition any longer.
Instead, the drawbacks are related to the fuel itself. It's expensive to get the energy density to acceptable levels.
It's still basically insane to actually burn the hydrogen. If you're actually going to go to all the effort of getting such a lovely clean fuel on the vehicle, then you really owe it to yourself to put it into a fuel cell and use it to drive an electric motor. ICEs are garbage. Luckily, this article is about a fuel cell car.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:that was never difficult by Antique+Geekmeister · 2016-02-18 00:24 · Score: 1

A hydrogen based vehicle economy needs some inexpensive, safe way to ship the fuel in bulk. In most models, this means miles of pipes for getting it to homes or to vehicle fuel centers, and those tend to leak very, very easily. The "carbon fiber" tanks for portable use all seem to have a metal liner, which is how they keep the hydrogen in, because as I mentioned, carbon fiber [composites] tend to leak hydrogen.
The metal liner means the liner is subject to embrittlement. I can certainly believe the carbon fiber composite shell provides vital mechanical reinforcement to the metal liner, multi-layer and multi-material solutions can work well. But the carbon fiber [composite] shell, by itself, would leak like a sieve.
Re:that was never difficult by penguinoid · 2016-02-18 03:34 · Score: 1

Why? You got an asteroid you wanna sell?

Yes, the whole mission is ready to go, but we just need someone to unblock the funds, you could help us out by sending a small sum to Nigeria via Western Union and then we'll give you a 50% cut in the proceeds!
Nigerian Jedi spam?

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Re:that was never difficult by ShanghaiBill · 2016-02-18 07:13 · Score: 1

A hydrogen based vehicle economy needs some inexpensive, safe way to ship the fuel in bulk.
Hydrogen can be generated on-site by either electrolysis of water, or reforming of natural gas. There is no need for H2 pipelines.
Re:that was never difficult by dbIII · 2016-02-18 13:18 · Score: 1

The metal liner means the liner is subject to embrittlement.
Then don't use a steel prone to that or use a different material FFS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
I thought I dumbed it down enough with my sugar umbrella comment. If embrittlement is a problem with the design then the designer did not complete the first year of an engineering degree or the equivalent introductory materials science - or for that matter complete a welding apprenticeship.
Re:that was never difficult by Antique+Geekmeister · 2016-02-18 16:01 · Score: 1

"Electrolysis of water" requires pure water or the system tends to get corroded and plates or degrades the electrodes very quickly with large scale electrolysis. For hydrogen refueling, you still need a stable local reposotory. And local electrolysis is notoriously inefficient, so many of the energy and potential fiscal benefits get wasted. "Reforming of natural gas" is just taking a fairly efficient fuel and wasting energy converting its physical form. Even relatively modest local storage suffers from the leakage and metal storage embrittlement problems.
A combination of efficiently used technologies may reduce the losses to a manageable level, but I'm afraid there is a lot of handwaving in progress for hydrogen fuel-based vehicles and portable energy.
Re:that was never difficult by dbIII · 2016-02-18 18:49 · Score: 1

But the materials you have to select are crazy expensive
Actually no. Check out your local fertilizer works to see the steel tubing they use to carry hydrogen before it is used to make ammonia.
Re:that was never difficult by youngone · 2016-02-19 09:28 · Score: 1

Awesome, money's on it's way. Always a pleasure to deal with Nigerian royalty.
Re:that was never difficult by dbIII · 2016-02-19 14:31 · Score: 1

Even relatively modest local storage suffers from the leakage and metal storage embrittlement problems.
No.
There is a wikipedia article that I linked elsewhere that should help.
If that's not enough consider how much plain carbon steel tubing is used downstream of the hydrogen reformer at a fertilizer works using this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
Hydrogen embrittlement was not an issue for the materials used in such a plant in 1913 or since.

Your other comments about transport, storage, waste etc are valid but embrittlement is not an issue.
Re:that was never difficult by Antique+Geekmeister · 2016-02-20 01:04 · Score: 1

I';m afraid you're leaving out details. The Haber process you linked to was used, _at first_, for hydrogen generation but was switched to methane fairly quickly.The hydrogen is consumed locally quite quickly by the ongoing reaction. The vessels handling the catalytic reactions are exposed to it, but those are active reaction chambers, not storage vessels, and they're at relatively high temperatures and pressures. I would not expect embrittlement at such temperatures and pressures.
Re:that was never difficult by dbIII · 2016-02-20 03:31 · Score: 1

It's still used to make hydrogen for purposes such as making fertilizer, such as at the plant where I did some weld testing in 1999.
If you are going to nitpick on diversions from the topic it's best to get it right!
Re:that was never difficult by Antique+Geekmeister · 2016-02-20 05:16 · Score: 1

The point that hydrogen generated this way is still used elsewise is interesting and wasn't in the Haber process article you point to. Thank your for pointing it out. Is the resulting hydrogen kept in long term storage, or used still hot and mixed with methane from the catalytic chamber? If it's still hot and mixed, then it wasn't kept in pure form for storage.
That's the point I'm trying to get across now: just because it's used safely and effectively in quite temporary conditions that differ profoundly in temperature and chemical conditions, doesn't eliminate the storage and transportation problems. That's quite a different claim than "it's a solved problem because the Haber process produces hydrogen", which is what you seemed to say by bringing up the Haber process.
It also does not mean the problem is a solved one. because of a single new technological innovation or parallel technology. The problem may be tractable, but that requires cooperation from the laws of chemistry and physics: they do not care about Gant charts and quarterly progress planning charts.
Re:that was never difficult by dbIII · 2016-02-21 19:07 · Score: 1

It also does not mean the problem is a solved one
It's a problem that doesn't come up very often, is unlikely to ever come up in a hydrogen car (especially a fuel cell one like in the article due to nothing being very hot) and when it does come up it is easily avoided by proper materials selection. Some of those materials that can be selected are very cheap steels.

That's quite a different claim than "it's a solved problem because the Haber process produces hydrogen"
You are putting words in my mouth. I gave an example of an everyday industrial process that would be difficult and expensive if that problem occurred in that sort of circumstance, but it does not. Hydrogen embrittlement does not impact on that process. I gave it as an example because that's where I encountered hydrogen running through welded plain carbon steel tubes that were already over 40 years old.

Perhaps you should read the wikipedia article since you clearly consider your guess and key word recognition without understanding meaning to be superior information to what I was taught in a university setting and observed in workplaces. It will tell you far more than little anecdotes from me.

It would probably also utterly horrify you that I have used hydrogen under a bit over atmospheric pressure as a furnace atmosphere while sintering metal powder together :)
Re:that was never difficult by dbIII · 2016-02-21 19:23 · Score: 1

but that requires cooperation from the laws of chemistry and physics: they do not care about Gant charts and quarterly progress planning charts
Metallurgy is about the former and that's my background before I moved into cluster computing - still no quarterly progress planning charts for me to do as yet.

The wikipedia page will help you with the chemistry and physics.
Re:that was never difficult by Antique+Geekmeister · 2016-02-22 00:37 · Score: 1

> It's a problem that doesn't come up very often, is unlikely to ever come up in a hydrogen car (especially a fuel cell one like in the article due to nothing being very hot)
And I'm afraid this is part of the point. Hydrogen embrittlement also occurs at low temperatures. It's the high pressure containers that seem to suffer the worst problems, not relatively low pressure systems made out of relatively cheap steel, and not some of the finer steels such as
> It would probably also utterly horrify you that I have used hydrogen under a bit over atmospheric pressure as a furnace
Not a bit. It's the high pressure and various metals, including many steels, used for high pressure that seem to have real problems with hydrogen embrittlement. You can avoid it with some pretty expensive steels, or not using high pressures of hydrogen.
Again, _this does not solve the transport problem_. The car's local tanks can be made expensively. The storage units for a day's or week's hydrogen supply at a refilling station, or the pipes or transport vehicles to move it, are a very different technological problem. One can't take experience from, say, the Haber process and simply it works well for miles of pipe or remote, exposed, long-duration storage tanks.
The idea that "these fuel containers are solid" and have hydrogen embedded in a safer, non-pressurized object is appealing, but does not yet work well. I've seen no evidence that it will _ever_ work well. For viability, hydrogen fuels need _much_ higher unit density and much less mass of transport compared to mass of hydrogen transported to be viable. They need to roughly double the amount of hydrogen/unit mass they can currently hold to be considered viable. I'm looking at the US Department of Energy charts at https://books.google.com/books...
I am sorry to rain on the parade of alternative fuel sources, but one can't simply describe problems as solved when they've not been.
Re:that was never difficult by dbIII · 2016-02-22 01:44 · Score: 1

I am sorry to rain on the parade of alternative fuel sources, but one can't simply describe problems as solved when they've not been.
There are plenty of problems, especially with storage, but this is not one of them.
Seriously - what's with the lecturing on a topic you haven't got a grasp of? Should I cue up a teenager to give you a lecture on databases or whatever you do so you can get how annoying it is? The snark about Gantt charts you sent my way is unfortunately what I have been thinking about your out of depth comments but was too polite to write until you decided to have a go at me.
Please at least read the wikipedia article so that you can spot where you are getting it wrong.

sooooo by Sowelu · 2016-02-17 12:07 · Score: 1

put in like ten of those fuel canisters in there, armor them up nice and heavy so one exploding won't set off the others, double the engine...serious roadtripmobile. Who cares about finding a refueling station in the next state over when you can make a 2000+ mile roundtrip to the station back home?

Re:sooooo by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:37 · Score: 0

Because adding that much weight (fuel cans, armor, bigger engine) wouldn't completely destroy the fuel economy... nope... not at all.
Re:sooooo by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:43 · Score: 0

> put in like ten of those fuel canisters in there
Hydrogen is very light, even when compressed. The current 1.5Kg tank probably fills the complete rear end of this car, you won't get 'ten of those ... in there'.
Re:sooooo by wvmarle · 2016-02-17 13:27 · Score: 1

Specific density of hydrogen is 0.07 kg/l. So 1.5 kg of hydrogen is a 22-liter tank, excluding the very thick padding needed for isolation and to take the pressure.
In comparison, a typical petrol car has a 40-80 liter tank, with negligible padding (usually a rubber bladder inside a sheet metal tank). So that one hydrogen tank is about the size of the normal fuel tank of a compact car. Seeing the size of the vehicle on the images (RTFA if you're curious) there won't be space for a much bigger tank, let alone a second one, without adding a trailer or so to it.
Re:sooooo by roc97007 · 2016-02-17 13:41 · Score: 2

> put in like ten of those fuel canisters in there
Hydrogen is very light, even when compressed. The current 1.5Kg tank probably fills the complete rear end of this car, you won't get 'ten of those ... in there'.
That's a classic problem with hydrogen in cars. Low energy density.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:sooooo by geoskd · 2016-02-17 14:01 · Score: 2

Because adding that much weight (fuel cans, armor, bigger engine) wouldn't completely destroy the fuel economy... nope... not at all.
Its not even that good fuel economy. Hydrogen has an energy density approximately 3 times that of gasoline. So this thing gets the equivalent of 80 mpg. I have a Mitsubishi Miev, and that gets the equivalent of 110 mpg and while it looks retarded, it can seat 4 full sized adults, and still make it up a hill. Or you could go with a Tesla that gets the equivalent of 70 mpg, and can seat 4 full sized adults and still reach mach 1. Riversimple has developed a market failure, nothing more. There is no hydrogen economy. There will be no hydrogen economy. The sooner people stop trying to come up with inferior alternatives to electric cars, and spend their research money improving batteries instead, the sooner we can get on with the future. Electric cars need a small improvement in battery technology, and some economies of scale. Hydrogen cars need a hundred billion dollars in infrastructure. I shouldn't need to point out that it is never gonna happen.

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Re:sooooo by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:51 · Score: 0

> 70 mpg, and can seat 4 full sized adults and still reach mach 1.
Sorry, but that is: 70 mpg, OR can seat 4 full sized adults OR can reach mach 1.
Weight and speed are the enemies of fuel efficiency and range.
Re:sooooo by Jeremi · 2016-02-17 15:34 · Score: 1

If all else fails, they can always replace the fuel cell and hydrogen tank with some batteries and sell it as a pure electric... at least they'll have an eye-catching electric car, maybe to compete with the Tesla Roaster.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:sooooo by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 19:11 · Score: 0

Because adding that much weight (fuel cans, armor, bigger engine) wouldn't completely destroy the fuel economy... nope... not at all.
Its not even that good fuel economy. Hydrogen has an energy density approximately 3 times that of gasoline. So this thing gets the equivalent of 80 mpg. I have a Mitsubishi Miev, and that gets the equivalent of 110 mpg and while it looks retarded, it can seat 4 full sized adults, and still make it up a hill.

Where do you get the 80mpg from? The article and the summary both state that it gets 250mpg / 0.9l/100km. Hydrogen may have a much higher energy density by mass but it needs a fairly high pressure system to achieve the same energy density by volume as gasoline. A gallon of gasoline weights 3.03kg at STP so we would need roughly 1kg of hydrogen for an equivalent energy density which would require an extreme amount of pressure - the chart that I found on Wikipedia tops out at 50g/L requiring 1000bars of pressure at 23C (1kg/gallon would require roughly 264g/L).
Hopefully this makes any sort of sense lol but for those who don't want to read:
TL;DR;
The car has a supposed mileage of 250mpg (0.9l/100km for those in the real world).
Hydrogen has a higher (~3x) energy density by mass then gasoline but by volume it is a lot lower.
1kg of hydrogen takes up a lot more volume then 1kg of gasoline (25 litres at 700bar compared to 1.something litres for gasoline at STP or for those metrically challenged, 6.6gallons for 1kg of hydrogen vs 1/3 gallon for 1kg of gasoline).
This means that this vehicle gets an awesome amount of mileage out of a very low weight of fuel (unlike what geoskd is trying to say)...
Re:sooooo by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 06:09 · Score: 0

I believe that we will see a hydrogen economy in our lifetimes. It just won't look like the Riversimple Rasa, more like a Ford F-150.
Fossil fuels are getting more expensive. They aren't getting rare, there is still plenty of it out there, but it's getting harder to extract. At some point we are going to have some sane laws on nuclear power and we'll see hydrogen production facilities pop up like daisies. The problem is, how do we store this hydrogen energy? Easy, bond it to a carbon and dump in into a tank or pump down a pipe. I believe the coming hydrogen economy will look a lot like our current fossil fuel economy only that the hydrogen and carbon comes from seawater instead of a well dug deep in the ground.
This new hydrogen economy would do away with all the problems of electric cars, close the loop on carbon in the air, and impose minimal changes to our infrastructure and lifestyle.
Inevitably someone will claim that nuclear waste will kill us all if we use nuclear power as I propose. I say look at waste annihilating molten salt reactors. Not only do modern reactors produce very little waste, if they produce any at all, they will consume the waste we've been producing for the past 60 years. There are two ways to dispose of nuclear waste, drop it in a deep hole and wait for it to decay, or hit it with neutrons. We should be hitting them with neutrons and make use of the energy it produces.
Re:sooooo by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-18 06:25 · Score: 1

Looking at the photo, maybe it will compete with the Barbie Dream Car. The target market is contortionists and 6-year-olds.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:sooooo by geoskd · 2016-02-18 11:12 · Score: 1

Sorry, but that is: 70 mpg, OR can seat 4 full sized adults OR can reach mach 1.
Not really no. Weight has very little effect on fuel efficiency in a vehicle that has regenerative braking. The biggest factors affecting fuel economoy in those vehicles is either aerodynamics, or power train efficiency (depending on speed). At low speeds, the model S can achieve 89 mpg (its EPA rated efficiency). Under normal use, that number is closer to 70, which is the figure I used.

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Re:sooooo by geoskd · 2016-02-18 11:15 · Score: 1

I believe that we will see a hydrogen economy in our lifetimes.
Make a note to yourself, so that on your deathbed you can look back and reflect on what a stupid and unqualified belief that was.

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted

Kind of crippled there... by Guspaz · 2016-02-17 12:16 · Score: 2

A car with the range for highway driving, which is incapable of traveling at highway speeds...

It's got a top speed of 96 km/h, while typically highway speeds here are around 120 km/h with a speed limit of 100... Do you really need a car with almost 500km of range if the anemic top speed effectively limits it to surface streets?

Re:Kind of crippled there... by twotacocombo · 2016-02-17 12:20 · Score: 1, Funny

A car with the range for highway driving, which is incapable of traveling at highway speeds...
Hasn't kept the Prius drivers off the freeways, and I could swear I read somewhere that those things will do at least 65...
Re:Kind of crippled there... by AaronW · 2016-02-17 12:29 · Score: 1

The top speed of a Prius is over 100, though it will take a while to get there. I know my '06 topped out at 109MPh.

--
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Re:Kind of crippled there... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:30 · Score: 0

The prototype they used to gain grant money from the EU is ridiculously efficient but not very powerful. I'm going to just imagine that the product they end up selling will trade some of that efficiency away.
Re:Kind of crippled there... by dbIII · 2016-02-17 12:52 · Score: 1

Fairly close to highway speed so not bad for a first model. Also remember that the entire point of these things (despite others attempting to bring in their cause) is to reduce pollution at the point where the vehicle is. It's a car for city driving. The pollution is mostly shifted to heavy industrial areas instead of where a lot of people are trying to breath. There is also a bit of a fuel security aspect where the hydrogen can come from whatever source you have around. The Chinese market could really go for something like this due to high levels of pollution from vehicles in their cities. Los Angeles not so much until the things can cruise at 100km/h (60mph).
Re: Kind of crippled there... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:23 · Score: 0

Los Angeles not so much until the things can cruise at 100km/h (60mph).
How fast are they in a traffic jam?
Re:Kind of crippled there... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 17:38 · Score: 0

Mind you, it was freight on a cargo train when it reached that speed.
Re:Kind of crippled there... by radja · 2016-02-17 19:19 · Score: 1

96 km/h is fast enough for the highway. Here in the Netherlands the vehicle must be capable of 60 km/h to be allowed on the highway. Typical highway speed (maximum speed) for trucks is 80 km/h, so any vehicle that can go faster than that is not a problem.

--

No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Re:Kind of crippled there... by EdgePenguin · 2016-02-17 21:19 · Score: 1

It may not accelerate fast enough for your liking (unless its been driven by a moron who missed the point) but a Prius will happily do 90mph+
Re:Kind of crippled there... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 21:24 · Score: 0

It's a prototype, you know. It's road-legal, goes up to 60mpg and has a good range.
If they can make it cheap enough, then it would sell even as is. But I am sure that they are hoping to improve some of these performance statistics before market.
Re:Kind of crippled there... by michelcolman · 2016-02-17 21:53 · Score: 1

It didn't sound very "happy" when I tried that, but it does indeed comply. Around 140 km/h was the point where even the tiniest bit of acceleration provoked lots of noise with very high rpms. Fuel consumption higher than my old Mercedes, too. If you like to drive fast, don't buy a Prius for the environment's sake. If you do a lot of city driving, though, they are pretty good.
Re:Kind of crippled there... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 00:49 · Score: 0

In Europe, there are "smartcars" which are small cars that go at limited speed and range, but it's enough to allow people to drive to the supermarket, post office and back again.
http://www.etyres.co.uk/car-tyres/smart-tyres/
Re:Kind of crippled there... by Guspaz · 2016-02-18 01:36 · Score: 1

We have smart cars here too, and they have a top speed of 125-130 km/h.
Re:Kind of crippled there... by laie_techie · 2016-02-18 04:30 · Score: 1

96 km/h is fast enough for the highway. Here in the Netherlands the vehicle must be capable of 60 km/h to be allowed on the highway. Typical highway speed (maximum speed) for trucks is 80 km/h, so any vehicle that can go faster than that is not a problem.
Here in Utah, the minimum speed on our highways is 45 mph (72km/h), with the posted speed limit on most at 70 mph (112 km/h). Typical speed outside rush hour is 80 mph (128 km/h). This prototype would be an annoyance to other motorists, but wouldn't break any traffic laws due to speed.
Re:Kind of crippled there... by gfxguy · 2016-02-18 04:46 · Score: 1

Yes. Even if I only did city driving, the longer I could go between fill ups - especially since there isn't a hydrogen station on every corner and I might have to drive to get there, the better. But this car is not for me - I commute on highways where the speed limit is 70. I imagine that having a "top speed" of 60mph means that actually going that speed is really going to be pushing the car to it's limit, whereas a "normal" car should comfortably go that speed. I want a car with a top speed of 120mph because I want to comfortably cruise at 70.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:Kind of crippled there... by gfxguy · 2016-02-18 04:50 · Score: 1

I have to disagree - you don't want to cruise in a vehicle at it's maximum limit. Your foot would be pressed to the floor, exacting every bit of power you could possibly get from this vehicle, just to keep up (and fail, in most cases) with other traffic. I want a car that can do 120MPH exactly because I want to cruise at 70. This car might be fine in the city, but no one in suburbia or rural areas should even think about it.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.

60 MPH? by Zobeid · 2016-02-17 12:23 · Score: 1

Tiny two-seater with a top speed of 60 MPH? Here in Texas that wouldn't even be considered highway-capable. The speed limit on many of our highways is 75 MPH, and I'm not even sure the majority of drivers stay within that. (I try to, usually, but passing with the Tesla Roadster is quite easy. And fun.)

Re:60 MPH? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:52 · Score: 1, Funny

Seems reasonable in most cities in the US that have a large central urban area. You could probably do fine as a city car in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, NYC. But such a car might be less practical in LA or Dallas. (not practical in Detroit because it lacks machine gun mounts or pepperspray aerosol delivery)
Re:60 MPH? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 23:22 · Score: 0

Limit in the UK is 70 mph (officially at least) however all HGVs are limited to 55, and plenty of commercial vehicles are limited to anything between 55 and 70 for various reasons. So sitting in the slow lane doing 55 isn't going to cause any more of an inconvenience than the existing road freight, however what will probably happen is the drivers will insist on doing their full 60mph, in the middle lane, for the entirety of their journey.
Re:60 MPH? by KGIII · 2016-02-18 00:31 · Score: 1

If you look at the picture in the article (it's automobile-related, so I looked) and think that it would survive in Boston traffic, you've never driven in Boston. A "bumper tap" in Boston is a friendly warning - maybe even a greeting. In Boston, with Massachusetts laws as they are, anything from behind the B-pillar (driver's side door) is not your fault - so that's just ignored. In Boston, if someone hits your car and you give them the finger - they will hit you again.
The roads were (really - not kidding) cow paths. Cars are battering rams. They're not actually angry, it's just how they are. They're not so much in a rush - they just want to be faster then *you.* If they are not faster than you, they might hit you to slow you down, that way they can pass - and give you the finger. I've never been to church in Boston but I suspect that mass starts with, "Fuck you and ya fuckin' mothah, you fuckin' cock suckin' fahgot!"
Why? I have no idea but I have, in fact, spent a lot of time driving in Boston. It is the only place where I have been walking back to my car and seen someone swerve to hit it. If you see a car with no dents in Boston, it's new. Probably, it is less than a week old.
You know how the movies will have the cops needlessly follow the getaway car onto the curb? Yeah, that happens in Boston - and it doesn't even make the nightly news. No, that's not a joke. Why? Because, fuck you, that's why. No, I don't get it either but welcome to Boston, ya fuckin' shit stain. (No offense, in fact - that's a friendly greeting in Boston.)
That car's gonna last like two minutes on Mass Ave. You take that over near Highland Ave, Fort Ave, Beech Glen St? I give it a week.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:60 MPH? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 07:45 · Score: 0

In Detroit we drag them out of their car and beat them for pretty much any of that. Have a nice day!
Re:60 MPH? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 10:15 · Score: 0

Gotta post as AC - low on post count. I'm pretty sure that Detroit might actually also result in 'em shooting you too, after they pull you out and beat you. The difference would be the language and the streets aren't cow-paths. Though, I've not driven in Detroit in years - I bought some property back there in 2009. I've not been back since.

uha by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:28 · Score: 0

So we have a small low power battery electric hybrid that goes 300 miles. Nice. But instead of using fossil fuel it uses hydrogen to charge/power. Hydrogen differs greatly from fossil fuels in that is is quite clean. But you still need energy to create it, compress it ship it, store it, pump it and then use it in a fuel cell that is around 60% efficient. And then hope you don't have an accident with it anywhere along that chain.

Or, how about this? Pure electric cars using safe batteries with loads more power that can go 300 miles that don't need to carry fuel cell packs and are much less complex and don't require a fuel distribution infrastructure from last century.

Re:uha by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:39 · Score: 0

Or, how about this? Pure electric cars using safe batteries with loads more power that can go 300 miles that don't need to carry fuel cell packs and are much less complex and don't require a fuel distribution infrastructure from last century.
..that get charged from the electric grid, which is supplied mainly by coal-fired power plants, because treehugger NIMBYs won't let us have nice, clean, nuclear power anymore, not even LIFTR reactors. Face it, the Human Race isn't sustainable.
Re:uha by GrahamCox · 2016-02-17 18:31 · Score: 1

hope you don't have an accident with it anywhere along that chain

Almost the same chain that ordinary gasoline/petrol has at the moment. So it's no less safe, and that well-established infrastructure can cope with the demand and recharge times that meet users current expectations.

fuel cell that is around 60% efficient

That's about 2-3 times as efficient as just burning the fuel to create motive power. The electric motors are likely to be ~95% efficient. That's a huge improvement right there.

Pure electric cars using safe batteries with loads more power that can go 300 miles

The energy density of these 'safe' batteries is way poorer than liquid hydrogen both by volume and weight. It's crazy that half the weight of a 2-ton pure EV is its batteries (with current technology) just to give it a barely acceptable range (followed by several hours to recharge). Obviously research should get that better over time, but it's a got a long way to go to beat hydrogen. A fuel-cell car makes a lot of sense during this transitional period between the dinosaurs and the pure EV of the future - it's a huge improvement in efficiency and pollution but can leverage existing infrastructure.

Your argument seems to be we should ignore this because it's not as good as some imaginary car of the future, rather than we should be interested in this because it's better than the frankly terrible non-imaginary car of the past.
Re: uha by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 20:37 · Score: 0

Safe batteries? I guess ignorance is bliss. Hope you don't die from being so dumb though.
Re:uha by michelcolman · 2016-02-17 22:09 · Score: 1

We have plenty of renewable sources for electricity in Europe, and getting more each day. Sure, the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine and the water doesn't always flow, but it sure does reduce the amount of coal and natural gas required. And fortunately a few countries still have enough intelligence to invest in nuclear power (rather than keeping aging nuclear plants running way past their projected life time, hoping they don't blow up some day).
Anyway, the amount of energy required to simply produce the fuel for a regular ICE car (before burning the fuel!) is about the same as that required to recharge an electric vehicle to drive the same distance. So when you've filled up your gas car, you've already lost the comparison and you haven't even burnt the stuff yet.
I don't have the numbers for hydrogen cars, but I hear most hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels since hydrolysis is way too inefficient to be cost-effective, so it will probably be in the same ball park if not worse. OK, at least it doesn't cause local pollution anymore, but as far as our reliance on fossil fuels is concerned, it's hardly an improvement.
Re:uha by michelcolman · 2016-02-17 22:17 · Score: 1

It's crazy that half the weight of a 2-ton pure EV is its batteries (with current technology) just to give it a barely acceptable range (followed by several hours to recharge).
Most owners of electric cars let it charge at home overnight, or at work, and they usually only use a fraction of the available battery capacity. The only time charging time is an issue is when you're making a long trip, and then a Tesla supercharger will fill you up from empty in about an hour. Not several hours.
Some of the smaller, cheaper electric cars do have anemic range (and long charging times), but they are hardly the state of the art. And even they do just fine for many city dwellers who don't need more than that.
Re:uha by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 05:13 · Score: 0

"Sure, the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine and the water doesn't always flow, but it sure does reduce the amount of coal and natural gas required."
No, it doesn't. When the wind blows, the sun shines, and the water flows the coal plants are still burning coal. A coal fired plant cannot simply be turned on and off like a light bulb, it has to stay hot or the lights go out when the wind doesn't blow, the sun sets, and the water stops flowing. It can take hours to days to get a coal plant from idle to producing power so unless there is a scheduled shutdown, or a freaking huge industrial accident on site, that plant is burning coal.
Certainly for extended periods of good weather, with plenty of calm winds and sunshine, the amount of coal burned is reduced but it's not enough to make up for energy generated. The British and Dutch figured this out, they saw no reduction in coal consumption in spite of massive investments in wind power. (Their investment in sun and hydro are minimal due to the geography not conducive to those.)
If people want to see carbon output reduced then we need to use nuclear power, nothing else compares. If you want hydrogen for fueling your fancy fuel cell car then molten salt reactors can turn water into hydrogen at a price that might actually make this feasible.
To those that want to claim nuclear power will make piles of radioactive waste I say you need to look at waste annihilating molten salt reactors. There are two ways to destroy nuclear material, wait it out and neutron bombardment. Neutron bombardment happens in nuclear reactors and stars, so put the stuff in a reactor or launch it into the sun.

It's the science folks! The science! by wjcofkc · 2016-02-17 12:29 · Score: 1

I see a lot of detractors chiming in on this company and their claims. To an extent that includes myself. Please keep in mind that whatever reality this does or does not work out to be, it is the science being conducted by this company that matters the most and will bleed into the the future as it is fairly obvious this technology has the potential to eventually be viable.

Wait.... Fuck a duck. All this science is probably covered ten miles deep in patents and "intellectual property". Never mind. Can anyone elaborate on how the Welsh government treats such things?

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.

Re:It's the science folks! The science! by geoskd · 2016-02-17 14:18 · Score: 1

as it is fairly obvious this technology has the potential to eventually be viable.

HAHAHA.
No, No it has virtually no potential.
According to the wikipedia page, the hydrogen vehicles are at a terrible disadvantage to electric cars because hydrogen generating systems are horribly inefficient, and there is no real infrastructure to support hydrogen vehicles. Building a hydrogen refueling station will cost upwards of a million dollars for the equivalent of a gas station. Compare this with a cost of $1000 to get a level 2 charging station ($10,000 after install costs), $50,000 for a level 3 charging station (including installation costs). Improvements in battery technology will bring us to level 4 charging stations which will allow a 5 minute 80% charge, good enough to directly compete with gasoline. Even the level 3 chargers will get you 80% in half an hour. For a Tesla, thats a half hour for every 4 hours of driving. Hell, after 4 hours, I *need* a half hour break just to keep from going batty. All of that technology can be installed virtually anywhere, because the electric grid is virtually everywhere.
Quite some time ago, smart people looked at what the fuel source of the future would be, and they concluded that: if only batteries were better, electric cars would be the way to go hands down. Here we are 30 years later, and batteries are getting pretty decent. At the rate of recent improvement, they will surpass gasoline as the best option in a whole host of categories within another 5 years. Electric cars are already better than gasoline in several key metrics, and are better than LNG and Hydrogen in almost every way.

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Re:It's the science folks! The science! by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-17 19:19 · Score: 1

as it is fairly obvious this technology has the potential to eventually be viable.
HAHAHA.
No, No it has virtually no potential.
According to the wikipedia page, the hydrogen vehicles are at a terrible disadvantage to electric cars because hydrogen generating systems are horribly inefficient, and there is no real infrastructure to support hydrogen.
Is it not amazing? I suspect the same Slashdotters that spew hate and venom when Tesla is mentioned, get all moon eyed when talking about things like hydrogen. I can look outside and see electric vehicle infrastructure all over the place. Deliverable any place there are power lines.
And this hydrogen delivery system?

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:It's the science folks! The science! by inasity_rules · 2016-02-17 19:32 · Score: 1

You have taps in your house right?
(It's a joke, don't kill me)

--
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Re:It's the science folks! The science! by wjcofkc · 2016-02-17 22:50 · Score: 1

Okay, let's break down my post and your reply.

it is the science being conducted by this company that matters
So here I am not even talking directly about hydrogen powered cars, but the R&D that comes from the research. Further I even state beforehand that this may not work out from an automotive standpoint, merely referring to the science that comes from trying. I even call myself a detractor of what the company is trying to achieve.

No, No it has virtually no potential.
Here you are speaking directly of cars. At this point I am not. With the automotive infrastructure issue noted, hydrogen power has many other potential and practical applications that I am not going to explain here at length. Google is your friend on that one.

Okay, enough blockquotes. You mention the issue where batteries have previously never been good enough to make an electric car practical but that over time they are finally reaching a point where battery powered cars make sense. If this was 25 years ago, you would have been just as cynical over batteries as you are now hydrogen. The ability to mass produce hydrogen so many potential applications I don't even know where to start. The only source material worth trying to extract it from is water, which is currently massively inefficient. It was not long ago that batteries were just the same. So the R&D behind hydrogen powered cars necessitates R&D into producing hydrogen in an efficient way. It's worth trying to get there just as it turned out to be worth pursuing battery technologies that at one point seemed entirely unlikely to pan out. Do you see where this is going? Oh, and if you re-read my last sentence it should be fairly obvious that I was not merely being mockingly cynical, but was no less pointing to an entirely different matter altogether.

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Re:It's the science folks! The science! by KGIII · 2016-02-18 00:39 · Score: 1

No, he's just seeking affirmation of his choice to purchase an EV while ignoring that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are actually in use today. He was blithering about it above and spouting nonsense there too. They're the kind of people who will absolutely refuse to acknowledge facts. It's not really their fault. It's brain damage from having a poor self-image. They're mentally ill and need affirmation from others to make themselves feel better. You see it when people will insist they use the one and only true OS, the best browser, the only IDE worth having, the best phone, etc. It's not even remotely uncommon but it's certainly a mental illness.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:It's the science folks! The science! by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-18 09:25 · Score: 1

You have taps in your house right?
(It's a joke, don't kill me)
Absolutely!
And if I ever hear of an EV Jeep, I'm going to get one, and since I love to tinker, plan on charging it solar only when at home.
Ohhh, two mortal sins in slashdot-land! An EV, and solar.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:It's the science folks! The science! by geoskd · 2016-02-18 11:18 · Score: 1

No, he's just seeking affirmation of his choice to purchase an EV while ignoring that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are actually in use today. He was blithering about it above and spouting nonsense there too. They're the kind of people who will absolutely refuse to acknowledge facts. It's not really their fault. It's brain damage from having a poor self-image. They're mentally ill and need affirmation from others to make themselves feel better. You see it when people will insist they use the one and only true OS, the best browser, the only IDE worth having, the best phone, etc. It's not even remotely uncommon but it's certainly a mental illness.
The shame is that in 60 years, when history has proven me right, you will have completely forgotten your ill conceived and ignorant position on this. You might even convince yourself that you were right all along about "alternative fuels".

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Re:It's the science folks! The science! by KGIII · 2016-02-18 12:49 · Score: 1

It'll be 60 years from now and I'll be on the list to buy a Tesla come June. What I don't need, is affirmation. What I don't need is conjecture. What I don't need, is to try to make my choice seem like it's the right one because I'm uncertain. If you feel you're a leader for picking an EV now, you're over 100 years too late. No, really, you're over 100 years too late.
I should probably tell you that I'm quite an automotive enthusiast and actually own enough cars to call it a "stable." In fact, I've shared pics here before. I literally own a whole collection of automobiles and some of them are worth not a whole hell of a lot, comparatively, to anyone but me. There's nothing wrong with buying an EV or a hybrid. Not at all. If you need affirmation for that then, well, you're really not a trend setter and should probably have just bought what made you happy instead of trying to win something with your ownership. Remember, you're unique, just like everybody else.
But hey, it's your story, you can tell it any way you want to. ;-)

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."

Saab by Caesar+Tjalbo · 2016-02-17 12:32 · Score: 1

The looks remind me of old Saabs

--
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."

Re:Saab by Harold+Halloway · 2016-02-17 20:45 · Score: 1

Yes, I see where you are coming from - it has hints of the old 96 V4, with a little Sonett thrown in for good measure.

650€ / month - all in by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:32 · Score: 1

that is pretty steep.
in 5 years you pay the price of a brand new bmw 5 series and you own shit.

7000€ to own it and 5€ per 1,5 kilos of hydrogen, that what i would call interesting.

Numbers zero sense make by jeffb+(2.718) · 2016-02-17 12:35 · Score: 1

0.9L per 100km

483 km range

1.5kg tank

483km/100km * 0.9L = 4.347L

1.5kg/4.347L = 0.345kg/l

Density of liquid hydrogen = 70.8kg/m^3 = 0.0708kg/l

Density of gaseous hydrogen = a whole lot less than liquid hydrogen at any achievable pressure. I think getting to 0.35kg/l would require something like 7000 atmospheres.

So, what do they plan on putting in that 4.347-liter tank that holds 1.5kg of hydrogen? Room-temperature superconducting liquid hydrogen metal? If so, I hope they publish some papers on how they stabilize it. Or maybe they've found a way to make a cubic meter of diamond with a 5-liter void in the middle...

Re:Numbers zero sense make by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:57 · Score: 0

The litres per hundred kilometers isn't the hydrogen, it a government mandated measure that is used to help consumers compare vehicle efficiency. They are saying it is same efficiency as a fuel car that burns 0.9L of traditional fuel per 100km.
The government probably sets a certain value for them to use based on how the hydrogen is manufactured.
Re:Numbers zero sense make by stoborrobots · 2016-02-17 13:04 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm missing something, but they say 1.5kg tank, not 1.5kg of fuel.
4.347L * 0.0708kg/l = 0.308kg
Which leaves approximately 1.2kg for the metal to enclose the tank...

--
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
Re:Numbers zero sense make by wvmarle · 2016-02-17 13:32 · Score: 1

I think that 0.9 liter is the petrol equivalent of the hydrogen, as normally those fuel efficiencies are given based on hydrocarbon fuels.
Part of the problem is that 0.9 liters of hydrogen at atmospheric pressure and room temperature has far, far less energy density than 0.9 liters of liquid (and cold) hydrogen, which still has far, far less energy density than conventional petrol or diesel fuels.
Re: Numbers zero sense make by omnichad · 2016-02-17 13:41 · Score: 1

This. And it's still completely useless.
Re:Numbers zero sense make by michelcolman · 2016-02-17 22:31 · Score: 1

Do they also take into account the energy required to produce fossil fuel? It's not like gasoline comes out of the ground ready to pour into a car.
The calculation they are probably doing is:
(energy to produce hydrogen or electricity for 100 km) / (energy in a liter of gasoline)
What they should do is take that figure and then divide it by
(energy to produce one liter of gasoline + energy in a liter of gasoline) / (energy in a liter of gasoline).
I bet you'll get a much lower figure then (for both hydrogen and electric cars).
Re:Numbers zero sense make by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 06:16 · Score: 0

My SUV has a 72 L tank, finding a place for a 5 L tank doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Would you pay $8,575.80 per year for this? by kheldan · 2016-02-17 12:35 · Score: 1

Serious question.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:Would you pay $8,575.80 per year for this? by future+assassin · 2016-02-17 13:01 · Score: 1

If I could carry same cargo as my Yaris I would and pay $16K (CDN)

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Re:Would you pay $8,575.80 per year for this? by wvmarle · 2016-02-17 13:37 · Score: 2

As it's including all repairs and fuel, it's pretty competitive to petrol based cars.
That's even before going into all the additional benefits like the rather cool and off-beat looks making it a talking piece, the zero-emission part (besides being an obvious environmental benefit it's an issue in certain cities that have pollution taxes or severe restrictions on emissions), and the fact that you can brag about having something very special that no-one else has.
Re:Would you pay $8,575.80 per year for this? by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-17 19:26 · Score: 1

As it's including all repairs and fuel, it's pretty competitive to petrol based cars.
Made up numbers.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

c'mon, man by turkeydance · 2016-02-17 12:37 · Score: 1

they got a grant. good for them

How is this news? by ukoda · 2016-02-17 12:37 · Score: 0

Hydrogen cars are joke. Anyone around long enough will remember how stupid the CNG trend was. Putting on my tin foil hat it always seemed to me that hydrogen powered car were quietly promoted by big oil as they knew they would never be adopted but did help shift the focus and money away from EVs.

Jump forward to today and we have practical EVs that make that hydrogen car look like a poor joke. Really the only issue now with EVs is the cost/performance ratio and as that continues to improve so will the uptake. You only need to see the dive that big oil is taking in share value to see the trend already unrolling. So why are wasting time on reporting on hydrogen cars? They are DOA.

Re:How is this news? by 0100010001010011 · 2016-02-17 12:52 · Score: 1

Anyone around long enough will remember how stupid the CNG trend was
Umm. LNG is taking off in a big way. Cummins, Caterpillar and all the other diesel manufacturers are pushing dual fuel engines. New emissions regulations are moving marine engines to running LNG in port:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://hhpinsight.com/marine/2...
Re:How is this news? by dbIII · 2016-02-17 13:17 · Score: 1

Anyone around long enough will remember how stupid the CNG trend was
All the busses and most of the taxis run off it where I live. The taxis that do not are hybrid electric cars however.

Hydrogen does directly compete with electric cars and is not competing very well but it is still too early to dismiss it out of hand. Batteries suck a vast amount less than they used to but they are still disappointing.

it always seemed to me that hydrogen powered car were quietly promoted by big oil as they knew they would never be adopted but did help shift the focus and money away from EVs.
While very likely that's only a segment of the hydrogen vehicle work. Also don't dismiss it out of hand just because of the sponsor - the first working hybrid car I saw was built for a mining company in 1986. They wanted a crew transport vehicle to operate underground without emissions and also drive above ground where emissions did not matter as much. Full electric wasn't an attractive option because batteries really sucked an incredible amount in 1986.
Re:How is this news? by ukoda · 2016-02-17 13:46 · Score: 1

For buses where all the operational parameters are known I can see CNG working. Here in New Zealand in the 1980s there was a huge push for CNG with government support and subsidies. The average New Zealand car was, and still is, around 1600 to 2000cc. Not much power and CNG made that worse. I used a company L300 van running CNG. It took longer to fuel, ran a shorter distance on a tank, handled worst due to the extra tank. The L300 was not powerful to start with and there is a lot of hills in Wellington, so you often had to switch to petrol at bottom of a hill or risk stopping halfway up. About 20% of gas stations sold CNG which sounds like a lot until that limited range kicked in and you couldn't find one near by. This was the 80's, no 'app for that'.

Not surprisingly after about 5 years the public had had enough of all the hassles and limitations and stopped installing CNG in vehicles and the 20% of stations selling it rapidly fell to zero again.

Back to hydrogen. Look at the performance and cost curves of batteries, extrapolate over the next 10 year and it is clear EV will out perform IC vehicles in more and more cases. I have used an EV when I was living in China, I loved plugging in at work and never having to visit a gas station. I have electricity at home so I am EV ready, when I can afford one. Where is that hydrogen I would need going to come from if I went down that path? EVs are so simple, is a hydrogen solution going to be able to match that over the long term?
Re:How is this news? by geoskd · 2016-02-17 14:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Caterpillar and all the other diesel manufacturers are pushing dual fuel engines.
Of course they are. It is a fairly trivial change to go from gasoline to LNG or even hydrogen. They can adapt the existing designs.
Going form gasoline to electric motors is a whole different game altogether. Instead of a host of mechanical engineers (and almost all engineers in the transportation industry are mechanical engineers), you need a cadre of electrical engineers. This basically means laying off a large percentage of your engineering workforce, many of whom are barely more than glorified autocad draftsmen, and replacing them with electrical engineers. Because this would be a whole new discipline for the manufacturers, they would have all kinds of hell trying to get product to the market, and would have to hire top electrical engineers or risk having the project fail. It would quickly mean higher costs and lower margins for the manufacturers. Why on earth would they sign up for that if they didn't have to. Electric vehicles are great for consumers (although the technology is not quite there yet), and great for electrical engineers (especially power systems engineers), but bad for established companies, and especially bad for mechanical engineers (A typical IC engine vehicle has 10,000 moving parts, of which 98.5% are in the engine, or are related to the IC engine).
People talk about an oil industry conspiracy to kill off electric vehicles, but the reality needs no such complex explanation. The simple truth is that the existing companies are not capable of building cost effective electric equipment, so they don't. It takes an upstart in the industry, like Tesla motors, to come along and force the industry to keep up or die. My prediction is that the electric revolution will kill upwards of 50% of the established auto manufacturers, and a similar effect will be seen in industrial and construction equipment soon thereafter.

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:44 · Score: 0

I've been driving exclusively LPG for the last 20 years, saved a bucket load of cash.
Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 17:14 · Score: 0

CNG makes sense for fleets. You see a lot of CNG buses around. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a diesel bus and that's a blessing. They were awful to get stuck behind.
However, the fact that CNG never really broke out to consumers in a big way should be a tip to the H2 advocates. Not even fleet operators are really that interested in it.
Re:How is this news? by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-17 19:49 · Score: 1

Not surprisingly after about 5 years the public had had enough of all the hassles and limitations and stopped installing CNG in vehicles and the 20% of stations selling it rapidly fell to zero again.
Aside from the buses, My little city has one CNG dispensing station. It already has many more EV charging stations. I've never seen the CNG station in use.

Back to hydrogen. Look at the performance and cost curves of batteries, extrapolate over the next 10 year and it is clear EV will out perform IC vehicles in more and more cases. I have used an EV when I was living in China, I loved plugging in at work and never having to visit a gas station. I have electricity at home so I am EV ready, when I can afford one. Where is that hydrogen I would need going to come from if I went down that path? EVs are so simple, is a hydrogen solution going to be able to match that over the long term?
I don't think it's logic or anything like it. It's something visceral. Something that makes reviewers fake problems, and people standing up for their fraud. It's people claiming no infrastructure when its obviously there. Its declaring EVs as fatally flawed when one catches fire, and ignoring that petrol fueled ones do. They hate em.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:How is this news? by dbIII · 2016-02-17 20:02 · Score: 1

extrapolate over the next 10 year
Other wild guesses are just as good as that very wild one. Both options have some promise and some viability - anything more than that is currently fortune telling.
The most likely situation is a mix of technologies.
Re:How is this news? by dbIII · 2016-02-17 20:08 · Score: 1

My little city has one CNG dispensing station
And in mine it's at every place where fuel is sold due to it being in use for years as the fuel of choice for taxis. Anecdotes are no substitute for a general case. The refineries here have been selling it for decades while the ones in other places have even just been setting fire to it as a waste product.
It's a chicken/egg situation where once there is a market it is commonplace and if there is not it is rare, such as in your city.
Re:How is this news? by amorsen · 2016-02-17 20:39 · Score: 1

LNG isn't CNG isn't LPG.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:How is this news? by ukoda · 2016-02-17 22:01 · Score: 1

What wild guesses? I have watched EVs for about 40 years now. My father ran a fork truck manufacturing company so I was driving EVs before ICs. I have watched them slowly improve to the point they now compete directly with ICs and I have watched the range double every decade. With the intense focus on EVs I think it safe to extrapolate that the battery capacity will continue to improve and cost will continue to come down and at some point in the next decade EVs will exceed ICs in performance.

Hydrogen cars? Never seen one in real life that was moving.
Re:How is this news? by 0100010001010011 · 2016-02-18 00:05 · Score: 1

One is liquefied, one is compressed.
Re:How is this news? by amorsen · 2016-02-18 04:13 · Score: 1

So? You cannot really use infrastructure that produces or consumes one to handle the other, even if both types are mostly methane.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 05:45 · Score: 0

"Look at the performance and cost curves of batteries, extrapolate over the next 10 year and it is clear EV will out perform IC vehicles in more and more cases."
I don't believe that extrapolating past gains into future developments is valid. We've gone a long way for sure but it seems we are hitting a point of diminishing returns. You can only double your efficiency and energy capacity for so long until you hit some very real physical limits. One physical limit is energy density. A gasoline tank is nearly 100% chemical energy by mass. What is the chemical energy in a battery to it's mass? 10%? I don't know but I'm quite certain it cannot compare. Also, compute how much energy is transferred in the 5 minutes it takes to fill a common automobile fuel tank. Then compute how big of an electrical conductor it would take to transfer that same amount of energy at a voltage anywhere close to a sane value. Feel free to compensate for the 90% efficiency of an electric vehicle to the 30% efficiency of an ICE and give the EV a 3-to-1 advantage.
Some leap in technology might prove me wrong but then you aren't talking about a leap in technology, you claim that a continued evolution will make ICEs obsolete. I simply disagree.
Re:How is this news? by dbIII · 2016-02-18 13:21 · Score: 1

What wild guesses?
Extrapolating over ten years. Generally a very bad move in a changing situation and just asking for ridicule in ten years time.
Re:How is this news? by jackd · 2016-02-18 21:02 · Score: 1

Wish I had mod points today, parent is a highly insightful post summarizing the situation and outlook perfectly.

Think of the enormous service industry as well, there are millions of people employed in the industry of servicing gasoline cars and trucks, but many of those people will be out of a job with the shift to electric vehicles, as they simply do not require the same high level of maintenance (check out the Tesla 5 year service checklist, it's ridiculous how little maintenance these cars require), and many will face challenges adapting to the new required skill set. Very little motivation from the established industry to change to something so unknown and unpredictable.

Hydrogen economy is more than cars by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:39 · Score: 0

The hydrogen economy is also about heating your home in the winter, powering your house in the night off grid. Sure, near free fuel is nice for cars down the road, but there's so much more nice with hydrogen, including not being cancerous emissions.

Join us at www.reddit.com/r/htwo

uk car company by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 12:42 · Score: 0

If I know my British cars, it will be hand carved from a solid block of steel, the interior will be of ebony and titanium, with the entire dash gleefully bristling with knurled knobs, switches, and levers of every description, which must be variously pulled on, pushed, twisted and set in an entirely undocumented configuration before the engine will engage. And ah yes the engine. You will work on this car for 3 days running, then on Saturday morning you start it up for your road trip, it runs at absolute top speed for 13 seconds before sputtering out and refusing to start again until figure out that you need to put another jigger of gin in the glove box.

Re:uk car company by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 22:02 · Score: 0

That's not a UK thing, that's a "built by communists at British Layland" thing.
Fortunately BL is gone. My 4.0l Jag doesn't have those any of problems ( although it does have a wooden dashboard ).

The Hydrogen Hoax by Citizen+of+Earth · 2016-02-17 12:46 · Score: 0

It's really too bad that hyrdogen is such a ludicrously impractical fuel.

Re:The Hydrogen Hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 13:25 · Score: 0

Did you actually read that article? Seriously, it's nothing but FUD. Lots of claims that are either based on poor assumptions or just not supported at all. Seriously, an article that long which literally doesn't cite a single source. Toss in that it's nearly 10 years old and we know that technology never moves forward over the course of a decade.
Re:The Hydrogen Hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 13:41 · Score: 0

Here's a cite for you: "Robert Zubrin, an aerospace engineer, is president of Pioneer Astronautics, a research and development firm."
Technology doesn't change fundamentals. You can still use Newton's laws as is from 200 years ago. There are no new elements in the periodic table. You can tell us how much better computers are than ten years ago, but that doesn't change a damn thing to physical, practical reality.
In ten years, or a hundred, hydrogen will still just be a curiosity, a zombie technology that refuses to die...
Re:The Hydrogen Hoax by Citizen+of+Earth · 2016-02-17 14:02 · Score: 1

Did you read it? It's nothing but chemistry and physics. Did they invent a new kind of hydrogen in the meantime?
Re:The Hydrogen Hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:18 · Score: 0

Yes, 3D printed hydrogen from the private space mines! You Luddite!
Re:The Hydrogen Hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:36 · Score: 0

Yes, I did read it. The three lines of chemistry, is that what you were referring to as an article of nothing but chemistry and physics? Or is there a new form of chemistry and physics which isn't math based? Or the part about talking of the need for 650 liter tanks? When that's based around burning hydrogen and nobody is talking about burning it but using it as a fuel cell. But wait, surely you will say he talked about fuel cells. The well cited
"Yet despite their successful use for four decades in the space program, and many billions of dollars of research and development funds expended over the years for their improvement and refinement"
Now, I'm aware billions have been spent on space exploration, but the fact that all that money was spent solely on fuel cell research is news to me. How about a cite as to exactly where the billions spent came from? He claims that for space the systems must last months, but commercial systems must last years with literally never speaking of how long current fuel cells last. He claims Nitrogen (a quite inert gas) will decrease fuel cell efficiency. Source? He's an aerospace engineer, not a chemist, not a physicist, an aerospace engineer. By his own title, he's not an expert in this area, so for effs sake, cite the source of your claim.
He claims "the implementation of an economically viable method of retail hydrogen distribution from large-scale central production factories is essentially impossible. Because of this, an alternative concept...", okay, you've made a claim that it's essentially impossible, why is it essentially impossible? Again, a citation please.
This is literally less than 5 minutes of finding uncited claims where he as an aerospace engineer doesn't have the authority to claim expertise. I'm an electrical engineer, if I start saying a building design is infeasible, does my opinion carry any weight? It shouldn't because I don't know shit about it. He's an aerospace engineer, he's talking "chemistry and physics" without using the basic language of chemistry and physics (read math), he provides no citations and I'm supposed to believe him why?
Re: The Hydrogen Hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 18:01 · Score: 0

Just last month the 7th row of the periodic table has been completed with the discovery of new elements.

Ugly by labnet · 2016-02-17 12:48 · Score: 1

Ahhh my eyes, why do they hurt so much...

--
46137

Re:Ugly by bugs2squash · 2016-02-17 15:57 · Score: 1

I agree, it's only a car in the barest possible sense. I should imagine that it can reach 250mpg with a 2-stroke gas engine or even more with a cyclist powering it. I don't see where the innovation is, other than in creatively finding a way to bilk the people of Wales (I guess that means the people of England if it involves payment for anything) out of $2MM.

--
Nullius in verba

It's not just a gas bottle by dbIII · 2016-02-17 12:59 · Score: 1

There's been a lot of work on storing and retrieving hydrogen from solid storage over the last couple of decades - so if you don't think of it that way and instead think of it as just a gas bottle the numbers would indeed make zero sense. I think "New Scientist" had had a few good articles on it over the years.

Robin Reliant by Roger+W+Moore · 2016-02-17 13:42 · Score: 1

If only it looked something like the Hindenburg instead of a 21st century Robin Reliant.

2 million? by cnaumann · 2016-02-17 16:30 · Score: 1

GM's last transmission was a $1.3 BILLION development.

Re:2 million? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 18:21 · Score: 0

Which this company can probably license for a reasonable price.
Re:2 million? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 22:22 · Score: 1

Maybe that's why GM went into bankruptcy. I hear it costs them $50million just to make a cup of coffee.

Forget that vaporware by ukoda · 2016-02-17 17:25 · Score: 2

In the past I have used the Chinese e-Scooters and found them great fun, and at about USD $400 very practical in China. Unfortunately the performance and quality wouldn't cut it in most first world cities.

A few minutes ago the guys from Gogoro turned up here (a major Tawian factory) showing off their SmartScooter. The guy's English wasn't great but I gather it is about a 6KW motor with a top speed of 95kph. I rode up the street, the performance feels like somewhere between a 125 and 250cc motorcycle. At about USD $3K it looks like a very practical and affordable city vehicle. At that price I think I would buy one tomorrow for my city commute if they sold them back home.

Looking at the shape of that hydrogen car I suspect the SmartScooter has more carrying capacity too. Sorry hydrogen, you are too late to the party, your not fooling anyone around here with your vaporware.

problem: only for left-side of road by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 18:50 · Score: 0

....

60mph!? by EdgePenguin · 2016-02-17 21:17 · Score: 2

Whoever wrote this is (willfully or otherwise) ignorant of the driving conditions on UK motorways. Driving at 60mph is basically impossible - you either have to get in the slow line behind the lorries and go slower, or get in the middle or fast lane and drive ~80mph. Yes, the speed limit is technically 70mph. In most part of the country, nobody gives a crap.

So the range is nearly irrelevant; the car is unsuitable for motorway driving so you won't be taking it any distance at all.

Re:60mph!? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 23:01 · Score: 0

Which motorway are you travelling on? During the day around here in Manchester/Leeds area you'd generally find it difficult to get above 60 because of the traffic density. Perhaps you just travel late at night.
Re:60mph!? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 00:16 · Score: 0

I don't see the problem. The lorries travel at about 60mph so you could just stay in the left lane with them. I actually know somebody who does that in a regular car and doesn't have any problems.
Re:60mph!? by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-18 01:13 · Score: 1

UK driver here. Most of the time I do 70, changing lanes to keep as far left as possible. Never touch 80 unless it's an emergency to avoid an accident, and that's what most other drivers do too. There are asshats who want to do a constant 90+, but they stick to the right hand lane.
Sometimes I do 65 or even 60. I have an EV, and occasionally need to stretch the range. Doing 65 is no problem at all, in fact it's easier to do about 62 (100kph) which is the speed many trucks seem to stick to. 65 means I have to overtake from time to time.
I would never buy a car that can't exceed 60, but lots of people regularly drive at that speed on motorways without any issue. I had similar thoughts to you when I had a petrol car, but occasionally doing ~65 in my Leaf has opened my eyes.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:60mph!? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 04:10 · Score: 0

Wow, driving on the highway (motorway, whatever) sounds exactly the same in the UK as it is here in the US (swapping the left and right of course).
I guess my initial assumption that this vehicle would only work there was incorrect. It must not work anywhere. Maybe sitting at red lights on the city streets.
Re:60mph!? by skaralic · 2016-02-18 06:48 · Score: 1

Whoever wrote this is (willfully or otherwise) ignorant of the driving conditions on UK motorways. Driving at 60mph is basically impossible - you either have to get in the slow line behind the lorries and go slower, or get in the middle or fast lane and drive ~80mph. Yes, the speed limit is technically 70mph. In most part of the country, nobody gives a crap.
So the range is nearly irrelevant; the car is unsuitable for motorway driving so you won't be taking it any distance at all.
That's not true... I watch Top Gear and everyone in the UK drives a supercar (sideways) on empty roads in the Lake District. To be fair you have to watch out for constantly crashing caravans though.

Re:I thank you for yo0r timde by mrvan · 2016-02-17 21:51 · Score: 1

I realize they are trying to bring slashdot back to its former glory, but I'm not sure that this is what they had in mind :)

"2 million" what? People? Lettuces? Cats? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 22:09 · Score: 0

Presumably they mean "£2 million", but couldn't be bothered to specify the currency. Or even that they meant currency.

Great Video by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 23:14 · Score: 0

It demonstrates everything I needed to know, namely:

The car can be driven reasonably slowly on straight roads
Is capable of turning to a limited extent
Is compatible with existing UK parking spaces
Can be operated by a human women (thus one can reasonably assume it can also be operated by a man)

I'm fucking pumped, where do I sign up?

Elon Musk on Hydrogen: It's stupid. by DirkDaring · 2016-02-18 00:46 · Score: 3, Informative

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/12/3621136/tesla-elon-musk-hydrogen-dumb/

As Musk explains:

“Hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism. It is not a source of energy. So you have to get that hydrogen from somewhere. if you get that hydrogen from water, so you’re splitting H20, electrolysis is extremely inefficient as an energy process. if you say took a solar panel and use the energy from that to just charge a battery pack directly, compared to try to split water, take the hydrogen, dump the oxygen, compress the hydrogen to an extremely high pressure (or liquefy it) and then put it in a car and run a fuel-cell, it is about half the efficiency, it’s terrible. Why would you do that? It makes no sense.”

Re:Elon Musk on Hydrogen: It's stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 07:52 · Score: 0

He's wrong, hydrogen is a great fuel source, you just need to get the fusion started.
Oh, as a chemical power source? Yeah, he's right.
Re:Elon Musk on Hydrogen: It's stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 09:12 · Score: 0

Energy density is what matters with moving vehicles. Instead of electric or hydrogen we should work on taking atmospheric carbon and converting it back into liquid hydrocarbons for our already existing cars and fuel distribution networks.

Names matter by ThatsNotPudding · 2016-02-18 00:51 · Score: 1

Riversimple Rasa? Seriously? Why not be honest and go with Limpwrist Milquetoast?

Nut up, and buy the old Marauder name off of Ford.

The usual stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 02:45 · Score: 0

A tiny car, bordering on useless (not good for transporting anything much, or for fun driving) and with a body that screams "LOOK! DORK INSIDE!!". Yep, a predictable runaway success.

Re:The usual stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 06:26 · Score: 0

While many may laugh at your comment I am quite certain that how the car looks will have a large impact on its success. I imagine that the STEM types of people that gather here might not care too much about how a car looks so long at the technology is top notch but their spouses might have something to say about that. Those without a life partner will have to learn that driving a dorky car might have something to do with their loneliness. Many here might look with disdain on the marketing and fashion types in their workplace but they make the technology sell.
If these people want to sell a car that has all kinds of neat tech inside then they need to make it look "plain", as in much like any other car. Alternatively it needs to look "cool" like a high end car with plenty of chrome. If it looks like it belongs in a science fair, or a movie based on a comic book, then it's not likely to sell.

https://www.teslamotors.com/ by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 03:45 · Score: 0

A little late to the party, methinks.

I can't make hydrogen by GreatDrok · 2016-02-18 07:49 · Score: 1

I've got an EV, and roof mounted solar. For the amount of driving I do (about 200Km a week) an EV is perfect and I make the fuel. There's no transporting, storage or anything. I make the fuel and it goes into the car's battery ready with a full charge any time I need it. Hydrogen is just another way to keep us paying for fuel. If I need to go further than 150Km and there aren't fast charge stations at the destination or along the way, I'll rent a petrol car. Hydrogen is not the future.

--
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"

Slashdot Mirror

UK Company Riversimple Plans a Fuel-Sipping Hydrogen Car (techienews.co.uk)

155 comments