Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Diesel is not dead - NOₓ problems solved?!

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Y2K86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭Y2K86


    colm_mcm wrote: »
    Problem is where all the raw materials to make the batteries is gonna come from and what happens to those countries (example, democratic republ8c of Congo) when cobalt becomes the new crude oil.

    Electric is the future, batteries maybe not, you could be right

    Alot of really smart people reckon capacitors will replace batteries long term, but that could be decades away

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/supercapacitors-game-changing-improvement-on-energy-density-compared-to-batteries.html/amp


  • #33
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    grogi wrote: »
    Nitroglycerine was exactly like that - difficult to transport and incredibly explosive. Until Alfred Nobel invented dynamite.nWe just need another invention that figures out how to store hydrogen...
    Yeah but you're waiting on a whole new technology to develop. You'll still need some form of pressure vessel to hold a worthwhile amount of it, which is expensive, explosive and never going to be as useful as a jerry can. Maybe us in the western world might get it, but South America, Asia and Africa are going to be decades behind.
    Dynamite was still VERY explosive, so I don't think your analogy is correct.
    grogi wrote: »
    And overhauling electricity grid to handle the demand is not going to be difficult?
    What overhaul. Every country in the world has a capable electricity system. It's cheap, it's understood and many studies have shown that the US, Ireladn and UK at least are very capable of taking a huge number of EV's without any changes(I haven't bothered to look beyond these, but I'm sure similar studies exist). Remember that EV's charge at night when usage is typically minimal.

    There is near zero infrastructure for hydrogen. None of the existing oil infrastructure is anyway capable of hydrogen transport, so you're starting from scratch.
    grogi wrote: »
    You can use the electricity from those renewable sources to generate hydrogen...
    Sure, but why would you bother with a middleman when the electricity can just go straight into the car.
    grogi wrote: »
    Electricity is excellent - but storing it is not. The biggest hurdle in BEV adoption are batteries - expensive (much cheaper than years ago, but still), heavy, flammable and take years to refill.

    Battery prices have dropped like a stone and show no signs of stopping.
    Weight isn't a problem, seeing as the fastest accelerating cars are all EV.
    Many of the range anxiety issues have been solves and will appear on new cars in the next few years.
    Far less flammable and safer than hydrogen.
    grogi wrote: »
    Years to refill
    Ah come off it. If you regularly charge at home you actually save time not going to a petrol station. A fast charge takes 30 mins to 80% capacity.

    Hydrogen is the minidisk of energy sources. Big hype, but immediately superseded by a cheaper, more reliable, better technology.


  • #34
    Sam Quentin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,237 ✭✭✭Sam Quentin


    You do know::-- that the new generation of 'electric' cars will be charging themselves as in the dated alternator 'science' of charging your car battery.....
    So all this talk about searching for charge pumps/kiosks and wasting time etc etc.
    Well it really has no bearing on the op.
    NOW in saying that.. This new technology in the diesel sector will have to be looked at!? And in my mind gives greater reasoning why the argument to scrap diesel needs to be seriously looked at and scrutinised and if needs to be then should be debated once again.
    And if that happens!? Then I can see diesel cars being a part of the family for many MANY years to come.


  • #35
    Cordell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,580 ✭✭✭Cordell


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    Great if true. Why not refine the fuel too, something that I don't get. They keep trying to come up with ways of burning the muck cleaner, why not clean the muck it runs on first.
    New diesel fuels like HVO should be on market, and ban the 1910's diesel fuel.

    NOx doesn't come from the fuel, is a byproduct of lean burning specific to Diesel engines, no matter what they burn. The N and O that forms them are actually in the air.


  • #36
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,018 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    James Bond Junior wrote: »
    If they may make hydrogen a viable option then all will be good in the world again.
    Hydrogen is clean burning indeed.

    But it takes a lot of energy to make it, and to compress it. So overall efficiency falls. And it's not easy to store or transport. It's very leaky and hydrogen embrittlement is a thing too. It's light so needs large high pressure tanks.

    TBH if you had unlimited hydrogen the easiest way to use and store it would be as hydrocarbons - synthetic fuel.

    Fuel cells are a far more efficient way to use hydrogen than an internal combustion engine. But since they are batteries you could just use batteries.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement