Ireland to go down the Electric car route?

Realistically in the country if it can do 400 miles on a full charge, then it's easily competing with petrol and diesel. Consumer electronics are really what are driving battery improvements with flash-charge (literally charging in a matter of seconds/minutes) and longer battery life being the big things in R & D.

This kind of stuff isn't 20 years away, the technology is improving rapidly. I do suspect though that there'll be a longer-than-it-needs-to-be transitionary period where people move to hybrids, then electric cars with petrol/diesel backup generators, then pure electric.

Poor aul electric might lose out again though if hydrogen does well. Electric cars outsold everything else in the early 1900s and then petrol took over because it was easier to improve the technology and get more oomph. If someone produces a hydrogen engine which can carry 2000kms worth of hydrogen in a tank half the size, electric will probably lose out again. Hydrogen's not safe to carry though, which is its big hurdle.

sparklepants wrote: »

A global leader in six months eh? Wow, this green economy thing is the panacea for all our ills!

So a government committee wants to set up a government taskforce. Sounds like the way to go alright.

Lol so from No car industry what so ever to world number 1,

Why didnt they think about that a year ago. Then we wouldnt have a resesssion lol

Hydrogen is not easily produced YET.

This is not true, the process is called Electrolysis and has been around for over 60 years and is pretty straight forward.

Its expensive to do it and uses a lot of electricity to produce a big amount of it.

It is only as expensive as the Electrolysis device, and yes more Electricity is required to generate the Hydrogen as you would get if you used that Hydrogen to run a generator to make Electricity, that is why I believe if Renewables were use to power the Electrolysis devices then the hydrogen could be stored and the problem of inconsistent supply by renewables would not be a issue.

To run the electricity through the water you need an acid in the water to help the current flow. Its not that the water left over is radioactive but the waste water left over has acid in it, which doesn't go down well with fish/environmentalists etc and frankly, I wouldn't like to be drinking it.

The water has to be de-ionized water (the same as is used in a lead acid battery) with an electrolyte in it (e.g Sodium Hydroxide) and when it is electrolyzed the water is turned into Hydrogen and Oxygen and then once it is used in a fuel cell it is mixed back with oxygen to produce Electricity and water. So there are no harm full byproducts of Electrolysis, you just need to replenish the water regularly as it is used up.

The cars are really dangerous as well because hydrogen is seriously combustible, worse than petrol. Any crash or leak in the fuel tank could be disastrous and a safe way of storing hydrogen is yet to be found.

Hydrogen is no more dangerous than petrol, it is just that it is in a gaseous state and the storage technology has come on a lot in recent years to the extent that composite containers that are crash and bomb proof are being produced currently.

In my opinion running Electric cars using hydrogen fuel cells is the way forward, with the hydrogen being produced by a renewable source, this would increase the range considerably if Hydrogen refueling stations were available. The big problem is the cost of implementing the Hydrogen infrastructure, but with Oil predicted to run out in 30 - 40 years and Gas in 60 - 70 years then we should be doing something now to counteract this, and Electric cars are a start.

There is still a very long way to go but sitting around talking about it will not get it resolved we need to act, and the government initiative is as good a place as any to start.

alias no.9 wrote: »

This could go one of two ways...

1. An unmittigated disaster, loads on government money pumped into a bigh white elephant (or should that be green) at the behest of the ministry for potatoes.

Absolutely, more PR bullsh!t to direct attention from the glaring inadequacies in the Government.

All cars electric by 2020, what an absolute joke. So they seriously think that with current model lifecycles, any large manufacturer remaining in the next few years is going to pump all their shaky resources into electric technology so that Ireland can achieve this mickey-mouse target, did they even look at the currently available/affordable/practical range?

Will Tesla-esque technology improve and drop in price sufficiently in the next few years to make this viable? It would be great if it does but I'd much prefer it if Hydrogen became the next fuel.

Even Ferrari are embracing green energy.

Electric-powered Enzo........ zero emissions

seamus wrote: »

Hydrogen's not safe to carry though, which is its big hurdle.

http://www.ecosilly.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/88e6d_pierce-brosnan-bmw-h7-81958452.jpg

Pierce Brosnan has a hydrogen powered 7 series.
BMW must have overcome said hurdle.

seamus wrote: »

It *can* be carried. That's not in dispute. Any details on who was driving or what kind of licences are required to drive said vehicle? In Ireland (afaik), the driver would need to be licenced to carry hazardous/explosive chemicals, the container would need to be certified and the vehicle would need to be marked.

However, you could wrap a BMW around it, stick a celebrity in the back and call it a "car".

My point being that hydrogen is combustible. Ridiculously so, and far more so than petrol. A cracked or split tank in a collision could make that collision a hundred times worse. One car being in existence doesn't mean that it's suddenly possible to supply the world with these cars.

Apologies for a lack of source, but I can't find a pic anywhere. I did see this in the paper a good while ago, and it was Pierce Brosnan driving it.

Also, see
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/


And the wikipedia file for BMW Hydrogen 7 (although not an entirely accurate source) says

BMW claims the Hydrogen 7 is the “world’s first production-ready hydrogen vehicle”; thus far, the Hydrogen 7 has only been released to select high-profile leasees. Only 100 total vehicles have been produced to put their technology to the test, and no more are planned to be produced.[1] BMW says it chose public figures such as politicians, media figures, businessmen and big names in the entertainment industry such as 2007 Academy Award-winning director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck and the chairman of Sixt AG, Erich Sixt, because “they would be ideal ambassadors” for hydrogen fuel and can help spread awareness of the need for such technologies.[2]
There is doubt, however, over whether or not this automobile will ever be put into larger production, even if hydrogen fuel technology reaches the point of economical and “green” feasibility, as well as to have the infrastructure required to put hydrogen vehicles in demand. The Hydrogen 7 uses more fuel than many trucks, consuming 13.9 L/100 km for gasoline (petrol) and 50 L/100 km for hydrogen. The following table shows the consumption (L/100 km) and fuel economy (mpg) for both Imperial and US gallons.

Also, would hydrogen not need a source of ignition in order to combust?
I'm not denying the fact that hydrogen is extremely flammable. But if BMW can roll out 100 of these cars and put big names in them, then they must be confident that the containment system for the hydrogen is safe...

The future of the car will be a hydrogen-powered fuel cell. It's already in use in California. Top Gear covered this car a year or two ago. Also, as Jay Leno says, there will still be a very small number of exclusive petrol cars (Ferrari, Porsche, etc) still made in the future. However, the vast majority of ordinary cars on our roads will be hydrogen-powered.

Oh! James May said so?! Then it MUST be true.

peasant wrote: »

One might want to take note of the company logo on the hydrogen pump and then one might want to draw one's own conclusions as to how much money is to be made in hydrogen making and distribution (as opposed to plugging in a vehicle at home for the night) and then one might wonder how much of the statement that hydrogen is the fuel of the future is truth and how much of it is profit orientated wishful thinking. That thought process might be further helped by remembering which powerful companies will end up without revenue once fossil fuels come to an end.

Or one could just go ahead and swallow it undigested

From any company's point of view, it makes sense to push ahead with another liquid fuel source as it requires very little effort (comparably) to adapt to it. That is, consumers are already familiar with the delivery method, and all it requires is a new tank and a new pump in each petrol station.

Switching to a recharge-style pump or battery exchange would require drastic inventiveness on the part of fuel manufacturers to find new ways of screwing us over.

What might be interesting is that although the energy is produced by a "fuel", hydrogen vehicles are still essentially electric ones and not internal combustion. Which means that it should (theoretically) be possible to produce battery and hydrogen versions of the same vehicle with little cost overhead, or to even have the hydrogen "module" of the vehicle swapped out for a battery one.