Thoughts and musings on the new defender

[Anderzander]

I think Lithium and or Cobalt scarcity will play a role in needing more varied options than the current battery powered EV’s. But I think we digress !

[Snagger]

2 hours ago, JeremySteel said:

A UK Gov Parliamentary report late last year actually highlighted that hydrogen was not the panacea. No Sh** Sherlock.
Obvious really, like many things: horses-for-courses. A part to play.

Not sure if HFCEV et similar are a scam. Germany is way ahead of UK in H2 infrastructure and they're not daft.
And, in a magic World, the H2 would be generated by renewable. Expensive? Yes.

Leaks, yes a problem as you describe and for the reasons you describe. But not beyond the wit of man. Embrittlement is another risk.

The smell?  Well, just like your home Natural Gas a smell is added.

Similar to Snagger I can't see FCEV for small cars.
But if it allows me and my  Defender/RR to tow for 250 miles between (10 minute) refills then I'm for it.
I suspect a divergence of power sources, assuming we're not held to a battery/lithium ransom by any countries.

But with recharging it's not just the pain of charging time and frequency, it's the fact that your 10+ metres of rig can't find a space to charge and/or pees off a lot of other people.

Look at the state of the German energy system and their military, and it seems they are entirely daft.  A lot of the energy crisis across Europe is because of German politicians pressing the whole continent into deals with Putin.  Meanwhile, German troops conduct exercises with black painted broom sticks instead of rifles and most of their Typhoons are unable to fly.  Their Tornados never got updated since entering service in the mid 80s!

I think the range of HFC would be OK, and the ideal behind reducing pollution is commendable, at least in the cities, but Germany is having to build new lignite power stations, the most polluting of all, just to deal with existing electrical demand, let alone for green hydrogen.  It just can’t be produced at that sort of scale within the next 20 years, even if all European politicians share an epiphany and push hard in a unified rush for hundreds of nuclear power stations and several hundred gas slower stations (the latter point of the hydrogen production).

[Snagger]

2 hours ago, ThreePointFive said:

JCB think its worth messing with.

 

 

That is not indicative that they think it’s a good solution, just that battery power and HFC are untenable for heavy plant.  They, like everyone else, are being forced into solutions that just won’t work.  This is arguably a good deal better for the application than BEV or HFC, but it will still suffer the acute fuel shortage that all hydrogen fuelled vehicles and systems will.  It’s inescapable - there just isn’t the electrical capacity to generate the needed hydrogen.

His comments at around 11:30 are telling, but “filtered”.  They have to play the PR game and not be targeted by environmentalists.

[Snagger]

2 hours ago, Anderzander said:

I think Lithium and or Cobalt scarcity will play a role in needing more varied options than the current battery powered EV’s. But I think we digress !

Yes.  Most see a competition between batteries and other solutions, including most financiers, industrialists and almost all politicians; and absolutist and binary mentality.  A collection of mutually supportive solutions are what is needed.  There aren’t enough minerals for a BEV solution, and not enough hydrogen for HICE or HFC dominance.  They need to support each other.  But other solutions are also needed as there just isn’t enough electrical power for either of those options, even in partnership.  It’s interesting to see large ship builders looking at nuclear, given the long experience of nuclear powered military ships.

[landroversforever]

4 hours ago, JeremySteel said:

Leaks, yes a problem as you describe and for the reasons you describe. But not beyond the wit of man. Embrittlement is another risk.

To me the biggest issue is the re-fill connection. System integrity isn’t difficult with the right components and same for the hydrogen embrittlement. But having a connection suitable for forecourt use, that both seals regularly and easily without room for operator to cause damage to sealing faces. 

[Bowie69]

Whilst atomically different, LPG has been used by motorists for decades quite safely.

[Escape]

There is a lot of interest in HFC powered trains, instead of battery powered, to replace diesel traction on non-electrified lines. Charging of battery trains seems (at the moment) to be a bigger problem than filling up with hydrogen. Mostly because of the ludicrously high current needed to charge within a somewhat reasonable amount of time.

As said, production of green hydrogen remains a problem, same as green electricity but with considerable added losses.

[deep]

1 minute ago, Escape said:

There is a lot of interest in HFC powered trains, instead of battery powered, to replace diesel traction on non-electrified lines. Charging of battery trains seems (at the moment) to be a bigger problem than filling up with hydrogen. Mostly because of the ludicrously high current needed to charge within a somewhat reasonable amount of time.

As said, production of green hydrogen remains a problem, same as green electricity but with considerable added losses.

At the risk of pushing further off topic - New Zealand electrified it's main trunk railway line some decades ago.  No need for batteries at all in that scenario.

[elbekko]

6 hours ago, landroversforever said:

To me the biggest issue is the re-fill connection. System integrity isn’t difficult with the right components and same for the hydrogen embrittlement. But having a connection suitable for forecourt use, that both seals regularly and easily without room for operator to cause damage to sealing faces. 

Seems like a fairly solvable issue. Let the user screw one thing to the other, and then have something robotised in the nozzle that engages the port in the car in a repeatable and correct manner. Put it all behind shutters that only open when the nozzle is attached.

Generation of hydrogen I still don't see as a big issue. The biggest issue is that we currently get it from fossil sources. But since it's relatively easy to transport, you can just chuck a bunch of solar somewhere on a coastline near the equator, and convert seawater to hydrogen and oxygen. Which is also useful. And meanwhile maybe sift some uranium and other goodies out of the seawater.

I don't see long-haul trucks, boats, trains or planes using anything else any time soon.

[Escape]

2 hours ago, deep said:

At the risk of pushing further off topic - New Zealand electrified it's main trunk railway line some decades ago.  No need for batteries at all in that scenario.

Most European railways are electrified as well, but important missing links remain. Because of the high infrastructure costs, alternatives like batteries and hydrogen are looked at to replace the existing diesel fleet. And then there are ports etc, where it's not practical to use electrified lines because of the need for easy access to the wagons for loading and unloading.

[landroversforever]

Just now, Escape said:

Most European railways are electrified as well, but important missing links remain. Because of the high infrastructure costs, alternatives like batteries and hydrogen are looked at to replace the existing diesel fleet. And then there are ports etc, where it's not practical to use electrified lines because of the need for easy access to the wagons for loading and unloading.

I've always wondered why so many railways are overhead wired and why more don't use the third rail type setups. Seems to me like a whole load less effort and very little 'mechanical' infrastructure as they don't need all the gantries etc they put up across the land.  

[jeremy996]

On 1/22/2023 at 9:35 PM, landroversforever said:

I've always wondered why so many railways are overhead wired and why more don't use the third rail type setups. Seems to me like a whole load less effort and very little 'mechanical' infrastructure as they don't need all the gantries etc they put up across the land.  

Strange as it may seem, overhead wiring is less resource intensive than 3rd rail systems and generally much safer. Electrical transmission losses are also lower with overhead AC installations. What works with Hornby Dublo in the 1930s does not scale up well to 12 inches to the foot.

Edited January 23, 2023 by jeremy996
spelling

[landroversforever]

10 minutes ago, jeremy996 said:

Strange as it may seem, overhead wiring is less resource intensive than 3rd rail systems and generally much safer. Electrical transmission losses are also lower with overhead AC installations. What works with Hormby Dublo in the 1930s does not scale up well to 12 inches to the foot.

Do the voltages differ much then?

[western]

3rd rail in UK is 750 V DC, Overhead is 25,Kv AC, Holland use 1500V DC on notmal routes & 25Kv on their High Speed routes. Think most of the rest of Europe is 25Kv AC. 

Getting back to diesel, DB/EWS are trailing HVO in some of their class 66 heavy freight diesel locomotives. 

[Snagger]

15 hours ago, Bowie69 said:

Whilst atomically different, LPG has been used by motorists for decades quite safely.

The propensity for hydrogen leaks is magnitudes higher than LPG leaks.  And, repeating myself, the dangers are magnitudes higher too because of the difficulty in detecting leaks and the invisibility of hydrogen flame.

[Snagger]

9 hours ago, elbekko said:

Seems like a fairly solvable issue. Let the user screw one thing to the other, and then have something robotised in the nozzle that engages the port in the car in a repeatable and correct manner. Put it all behind shutters that only open when the nozzle is attached.

Generation of hydrogen I still don't see as a big issue. The biggest issue is that we currently get it from fossil sources. But since it's relatively easy to transport, you can just chuck a bunch of solar somewhere on a coastline near the equator, and convert seawater to hydrogen and oxygen. Which is also useful. And meanwhile maybe sift some uranium and other goodies out of the seawater.

I don't see long-haul trucks, boats, trains or planes using anything else any time soon.

The mating surfaces have to be perfect to seal, with perfect alignment and pressure.  Maintenance will be a nightmare.  Just look at all the trouble NASA have had refuelling SLS and how the Artemis launch was delayed time and time again because of refuelling leaks - if they can’t get a single installation that cost billions of dollars to work without spewing hydrogen, then what chance for a garage forecourt with poorly maintained private vehicles?  For what it’s worth, that SLS gantry fuel system still leaks a lot, only just within (revised) safety limits at launch.  So don’t hold your breath over forecourt hydrogen (or maybe do hold your breath 😉).

As for a solar installations to run electrolysis plants, I think you underestimate severely the amount of power needed, even if these are all sited at reliably sunny locations.  It also then compounds the energy security problems we currently face, with critical resources being produced in other parts of the world that could cease exports on a whim or extort customer nations on price.  Think OPEC on steroids, or Putin with less competition.  The only plausible solution is what Ratcliffe proposed; lots of SMRs at chemical plants.  The cost will be enormous, though.

[Bowie69]

Why aren't leaks detectable? 

[elbekko]

1 hour ago, Snagger said:

The mating surfaces have to be perfect to seal, with perfect alignment and pressure.  Maintenance will be a nightmare.  Just look at all the trouble NASA have had refuelling SLS and how the Artemis launch was delayed time and time again because of refuelling leaks - if they can’t get a single installation that cost billions of dollars to work without spewing hydrogen, then what chance for a garage forecourt with poorly maintained private vehicles?  For what it’s worth, that SLS gantry fuel system still leaks a lot, only just within (revised) safety limits at launch.  So don’t hold your breath over forecourt hydrogen (or maybe do hold your breath 😉).

Very, very different volumes to SLS though (537000 US gallons for SLS, 5kg for a Mirai). So put a vacuum on the nozzle and vent it somewhere safe/controlled, and even 1% leakage is no problem.

1 hour ago, Snagger said:

As for a solar installations to run electrolysis plants, I think you underestimate severely the amount of power needed, even if these are all sited at reliably sunny locations.  It also then compounds the energy security problems we currently face, with critical resources being produced in other parts of the world that could cease exports on a whim or extort customer nations on price.  Think OPEC on steroids, or Putin with less competition.  The only plausible solution is what Ratcliffe proposed; lots of SMRs at chemical plants.  The cost will be enormous, though.

Nuclear is always the answer, and I'm all for it, but good luck getting that built here, sadly. Yes, energy reliance isn't great, but resource reliance (lithium and such) isn't either. At least hydrogen you can produce anywhere, not so much with oil and natural gas.

[landroversforever]

2 hours ago, Snagger said:

The propensity for hydrogen leaks is magnitudes higher than LPG leaks.  And, repeating myself, the dangers are magnitudes higher too because of the difficulty in detecting leaks and the invisibility of hydrogen flame.

 

1 hour ago, Bowie69 said:

Why aren't leaks detectable? 

Think of it as like trying to keep a bundle of bricks (LPG) in a net bag vs the same bag full of sand (H2). They're so small you're looking for a such a tiny, tiny, tiny leak path. You're into the realms of needing to get a seal good enough for high-vacuum where the slightest scratch or defect in a face can be the difference between. So making the system leak tight to start with is much more difficult. Leaks are detectable afterwards.... but if you've got a leak its already dangerous. All of my gas systems that contain H2 or D2 have permanent gas monitoring, but the way hydrogen isotopes move about so easily, they just go up so leaks have to be detected from above with static kit, or using one of pumped, hand-held, detectors. Our work stuff is tightly controlled for those reasons and why we have a 5 year inspection of the system and its operation for DSEAR (Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 - https://www.hse.gov.uk/fireandexplosion/dsear.htm). On top of that, it's weekly walkdowns of the systems from end to end (200+m of tube) - and that's in a fixed installation.

[landroversforever]

40 minutes ago, elbekko said:

Very, very different volumes to SLS though (537000 US gallons for SLS, 5kg for a Mirai). So put a vacuum on the nozzle and vent it somewhere safe/controlled, and even 1% leakage is no problem.

Nuclear is always the answer, and I'm all for it, but good luck getting that built here, sadly. Yes, energy reliance isn't great, but resource reliance (lithium and such) isn't either. At least hydrogen you can produce anywhere, not so much with oil and natural gas.

But you've also then got to have that vacuum/fan as an ATEX unit (rated to work in a potentially explosive atmosphere).

[Bowie69]

Appreciate all that Ross, fully aware of the difficulties in containing H2, but is it really beyond the wit of man? 

 

 

 

[Ed Poore]

10 hours ago, landroversforever said:

I've always wondered why so many railways are overhead wired and why more don't use the third rail type setups. Seems to me like a whole load less effort and very little 'mechanical' infrastructure as they don't need all the gantries etc they put up across the land.  

 

8 hours ago, western said:

3rd rail in UK is 750 V DC, Overhead is 25,Kv AC, Holland use 1500V DC on notmal routes & 25Kv on their High Speed routes. Think most of the rest of Europe is 25Kv AC. 

Getting back to diesel, DB/EWS are trailing HVO in some of their class 66 heavy freight diesel locomotives. 

Adding to Ralph's reply electricity jumps roughly 1mm per 1kV in dry air. However add a little bit of humidity into the mix and that distance drops dramatically. I can't remember where I've learnt it but the general rule of thumb was to provide the bare minimum of safe isolation it was 1cm per kV. With a track spacing of circa 1.5m your third rail will be at 75cm separation. Now imagine someone stepping in between with a steel toe capped boot or the like and suddenly you're within possible arcing range. Once you've ionised the air once things become easier again.

Ironically imagine the situation with wet leaves in Britain... We have enough trouble with tracks bending in the heat let alone trying to maintain an electrical conductor at the same time... 

[Bowie69]

Not being able to raise the voltage is a huge issue, as the transmission losses over the sorts of distances mainline trains are over then start to become a real problem.

[elbekko]

40 minutes ago, landroversforever said:

But you've also then got to have that vacuum/fan as an ATEX unit (rated to work in a potentially explosive atmosphere).

True, and that raises the cost of the infrastructure a bit, but doesn't seem like something we're unable to overcome.

On the whole, I'd daresay the average rust electrolysis setup on here probably "leaks" more hydrogen than a fuelling station would.

Looks like currently it's pretty similar to an LPG nozzle:

[western]

33 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:

Not being able to raise the voltage is a huge issue, as the transmission losses over the sorts of distances mainline trains are over then start to become a real problem.

There are Neutral sections within the overhead system to, so the OHLE is not powered from let's say Kings Cross London to Edinburgh by one supply station, its broken into sections each with a sub station supplying each live section, that's how they deal with losses over long distances.