European Union bans sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2035

[Tommy Cookers]

It's a great example of using directed taxation to change population habits .....

it's a great example of what can be done if your country is made of mountains and rain and fossil fuel that you export

now (it seems) the UK ban doesn't ban hybrids but the EU ban does
the same EU that 'changed population habits' towards dieseling

[MadMax]

It's a great example of using directed taxation to change population habits .....

it's a great example of what can be done if your country is made of mountains and rain and fossil fuel that you export

I guess that the EU ban (like the UK ban) doesn't ban hybrids

Oh, they have some advantages that help their cause, of course. That they also decided to bank oil/gas revenue rather than use it to prop up meaningless tax cuts means they have money available to implement projects that help.

[Pat Pending]

It's a great example of using directed taxation to change population habits .....

it's a great example of what can be done if your country is made of mountains and rain and fossil fuel that you export

now (it seems) the UK ban doesn't ban hybrids but the EU ban does
...

It's my understanding that in the UK petrol & diesel sales will stop in 2030, but hybrids are allowed until 2035.
Not sure if the EU are just going for the 2035 date for both.
It's also possibly worth noting that the EU ban is actually phrased as 'all new vehicles must have zero tailpipe emmissions', rather than specifically banning ICE (although whether that allows any wriggle room at all I can't currently envisage).

[MadMax]

It's also possibly worth noting that the EU ban is actually phrased as 'all new vehicles must have zero tailpipe emmissions', rather than specifically banning ICE (although whether that allows any wriggle room at all I can't currently envisage).

Zero tailpipe emissions rules out hydrogen in anything other than a fuel cell, doesn't it? Burning hydrogen in an ICE still generates emissions, not just water.

[Tommy Cookers]

... Burning hydrogen in an ICE still generates emissions, not just water.

what emissions ?
(I speak as one who's reported that burning hydrogen produces oxides of hydrogen other than the innocuous Mr Water)

have we been told lies ?
how can we tell who's lying and who's truthing ?

[MadMax]

... Burning hydrogen in an ICE still generates emissions, not just water.

what emissions ?
(I speak as one who's reported that burning hydrogen produces oxides of hydrogen other than the innocuous Mr Water)

have we been told lies ?
how can we tell who's lying and who's truthing ?

If you burn hydrogen in oxygen, you get dihydrogen oxide.

If you burn hydrogen in an internal combustion engine you will create NOx because air contains nitrogen and in the heat of combustion, some of that nitrogen will react with the oxygen in the air.

This NOx needs to be dealt with in the same way that it is dealt with when using oil-derived fuels. Exhaust gas recirculation works, as do post-combustion additives such as urea.

[Tommy Cookers]

... Burning hydrogen in an ICE still generates emissions, not just water.

(I speak as one who's reported that burning hydrogen produces oxides of hydrogen other than the innocuous Mr Water)

If you burn hydrogen in oxygen, you get dihydrogen oxide.

If you burn hydrogen in an internal combustion engine you will create NOx because air contains nitrogen and in the heat of combustion, some of that nitrogen will react with the oxygen in the air.

an unsteady-state IC engine ie 'piston engine' will produce some hydrogen oxide that's not dihydrogen oxide
ok this might not live long enough to be emitted from the tailpipe

'heat of combustion' ie peak cycle temperature drives NOx (and any non-water hydrogen oxide ?) formation ....
but this temperature is dependent on the chosen lambda ...

freakishly high lambda is a key point of hydrogen ....
ie great heat dilution (for efficiency) - as F1 but much more so eg 55-60% BTE ?
8 bar 'boost' via 2 stage compressor and 2 stage turbine - and less exhaust recovery as compressor work is so high
ok sized for road cars the compressor and turbine would be too small for good efficiency

great heat dilution ie combustion so brief & so low a temperature it wouldn't even need a catalyst (in a sane world)

[MadMax]

A fuel cell makes more sense than direct burning from a hydrogen perspective. Entirely clean, it's an electrical drive system so regen braking etc., is all dead easy to implement without adding additional hardware. Fuel cell use is also much more efficient than ICE use, so you're getting more miles for your precious hydrogen which means smaller tanks, means easier to implement in small cars (typical city cars, for example).

The big problem with hydrogen is sourcing it and then storing it. Most hydrogen is currently sourced in a less than clean/efficient manner by steam reforming of methane, which also produces CO2, ironically.

Electrolysis has the potential to produce "clean" hydrogen, but of course requires electricity. And much of that electricity is generated from fossil fuels. Could be done with renewables, of course, but requires additional investment to add that capacity to the system.

Storing of hydrogen requires effort - you either need high pressure containers or cryogenic containers. Work is ongoing for other systems - storing hydrogen "in" other chemicals such as boron nitride, for example.

And then there's distribution. The UK, for example, has something like 6 hydrogen filling stations currently. 3 in/around London, 1 in northern England, 2 in Aberdeen. Shell recently closed its 3 hydrogen stations.

All of that adds up to EVs being the "better" "green" option for consumers at the moment (even though they also have issues of their own).

[Edax]

A fuel cell makes more sense than direct burning from a hydrogen perspective. Entirely clean, it's an electrical drive system so regen braking etc., is all dead easy to implement without adding additional hardware. Fuel cell use is also much more efficient than ICE use, so you're getting more miles for your precious hydrogen which means smaller tanks, means easier to implement in small cars (typical city cars, for example).

The big problem with hydrogen is sourcing it and then storing it. Most hydrogen is currently sourced in a less than clean/efficient manner by steam reforming of methane, which also produces CO2, ironically.

Electrolysis has the potential to produce "clean" hydrogen, but of course requires electricity. And much of that electricity is generated from fossil fuels. Could be done with renewables, of course, but requires additional investment to add that capacity to the system.

Storing of hydrogen requires effort - you either need high pressure containers or cryogenic containers. Work is ongoing for other systems - storing hydrogen "in" other chemicals such as boron nitride, for example.

And then there's distribution. The UK, for example, has something like 6 hydrogen filling stations currently. 3 in/around London, 1 in northern England, 2 in Aberdeen. Shell recently closed its 3 hydrogen stations.

All of that adds up to EVs being the "better" "green" option for consumers at the moment (even though they also have issues of their own).

Agree burning hydrogen in an ICE, seems like an awful idea. The problem with an ICE is that it is very inefficient. If you take the average EV it runs at 14-17 kW per 100 km. A household generator can do 8 kW per liter. So if you would charge your EV with a generator you would get a very real 50km/l, which I have not seen a car do.

I guess the main issue is that an ICE always runs at suboptimal conditions (RPMs, load) whereas a generator doesn’t and an electric motor does not care. Running an ICE on hydrogen does not solve that. A fuel cell does.

But other than that I see a lot of negatives compared to EV’s. Not in the least the infrastructure that is needed just to get some degree of adoption.

[MadMax]

A fuel cell makes more sense than direct burning from a hydrogen perspective. Entirely clean, it's an electrical drive system so regen braking etc., is all dead easy to implement without adding additional hardware. Fuel cell use is also much more efficient than ICE use, so you're getting more miles for your precious hydrogen which means smaller tanks, means easier to implement in small cars (typical city cars, for example).

The big problem with hydrogen is sourcing it and then storing it. Most hydrogen is currently sourced in a less than clean/efficient manner by steam reforming of methane, which also produces CO2, ironically.

Electrolysis has the potential to produce "clean" hydrogen, but of course requires electricity. And much of that electricity is generated from fossil fuels. Could be done with renewables, of course, but requires additional investment to add that capacity to the system.

Storing of hydrogen requires effort - you either need high pressure containers or cryogenic containers. Work is ongoing for other systems - storing hydrogen "in" other chemicals such as boron nitride, for example.

And then there's distribution. The UK, for example, has something like 6 hydrogen filling stations currently. 3 in/around London, 1 in northern England, 2 in Aberdeen. Shell recently closed its 3 hydrogen stations.

All of that adds up to EVs being the "better" "green" option for consumers at the moment (even though they also have issues of their own).

Agree burning hydrogen in an ICE, seems like an awful idea. The problem with an ICE is that it is very inefficient. If you take the average EV it runs at 14-17 kW per 100 km. A household generator can do 8 kW per liter. So if you would charge your EV with a generator you would get a very real 50km/l, which I have not seen a car do.

I guess the main issue is that an ICE always runs at suboptimal conditions (RPMs, load) whereas a generator doesn’t and an electric motor does not care. Running an ICE on hydrogen does not solve that. A fuel cell does.

But other than that I see a lot of negatives compared to EV’s. Not in the least the infrastructure that is needed just to get some degree of adoption.

The simple issue with burning hydrogen in an ICE is that it wastes so much energy in the form of heat, just as oil-derived fuels, and others, do.

[johnny comelately]

Australian news from the general media
"Volvo won't sell petrol cars here by 2026. Will the likes of Toyota and Ford follow their lead?"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-08/ ... /101626808

[Big Tea]

The other thing is, none of these governments expect to be in office when the time arrives.
They may expect the same party, but they will all have moved on by then and it will be someone else that has to sort it out or front up and say' Erm, we can not do it'

It was done for votes today, long term is the next election.

[Tommy Cookers]

the EU expects to have decarbonised (renewabled) by 2030 38-40% of its electrical energy

so the EV will then still be at least 60% fossil-fueled

and of course people going EV will still buy five or ten times the power that they need

[MadMax]

the EU expects to have decarbonised (renewabled) by 2030 38-40% of its electrical energy

so the EV will then still be at least 60% fossil-fueled

and of course people going EV will still buy five or ten times the power that they need

Yes, EVs will be using some fossil electricity, but then every ICE car will be using 100% fossil fuel.

How can an EV user buy more power than they need? You charge the battery and then recharge what you have used. You buy what you need.

[Ferry]

How can an EV user buy more power than they need?

Power as in kW? Or BHP. BEVs got high power and acceleration. Instant torque makes it feel even more powerful. To get long range you need a big battery. And a big motor to get high efficiency. And large power electronics to get high efficiency. High power comes "free of charge". You can't have long range and high efficiency without high power available. It can of course be be limited in software, but who wants that?