Supplement to the article above:
I agree that there's no such thing as a free lunch, but some of the other assertions are not quite accurate. First, H2 combustion produces more NOx than methane combustion. However, fuel cells do not use combustion, so NOx is essentially eliminated and they can be more thermodynamically efficient: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/923761Hydrogen is a pipe dream.
- Despite the claims, real-world FCEVs are significant emitters of oxides of nitrogen because atmospheric air, which is what the FCEV takes in to react with the pure hydrogen, is mostly nitrogen. Oxygen likes Hydrogen better, but unless there's a significant excess of hydrogen available (i.e., running "rich" in the FCEV, reducing efficiency), the excess oxygen will also combine with nitrogen inside the fuel cell.
- over 90% of industrial hydrogen comes from fossil fuel sources (coal gasification, steam reforming of natural gas, or partial oxidation of methane), and releases massive amounts of carbon, benzine, and other toxic compounds as a byproduct; those products must be captured and sequestered or otherwise used/converted to other industrial products which massively impacts cost and efficiency.
- Electrolysis like you did in your high school chemistry class is great....for high school chemistry class. It takes massive amounts of electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, at the immediate cost of precious water which landlocked states have very little of. So you have to generate that electricity first, then transmit it through wires to an electrolysis plant on the coastline, where you can run electricity through giant tanks of sea water to produce hydrogen, then you have to either transport that gaseous hydrogen through pipelines or compress it to something like 70,000 psi until it liquefies, and then drive it on a truck or move it on a train to the point of consumption. You also have to do something with the other things in seawater - tritium, deuterium, salts, and other minerals. Today, the "other minerals" are dumped back into the ocean, increasing salinity in coastal waters.
There's no free lunch.
Long way from hydrogen as a viable fuel source. True regarding combustion, good catch. There are some who believe hydrogen combustion engines are simply a tank and line swap away from green energy, and would be a bridge to HFCEVs, and that's just not the case, but shouldn't conflate HFCEV with Hydrogen ICE.I agree that there's no such thing as a free lunch, but some of the other assertions are not quite accurate. First, H2 combustion produces more NOx than methane combustion. However, fuel cells do not use combustion, so NOx is essentially eliminated and they can be more thermodynamically efficient: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/923761
That said, manufacturing H2 is typically done in the petrochemical industry with steam methane reformation. Air Products has successfully capture the CO2 from their La Porte facility for years, so H2 can be produced with low carbon intensity and abatement of emissions. That has also been proven as well.
You're absolutely right about electrolyzers though. They are massive energy hogs and at best 75% efficient and only available at relatively small scale. Due to mentioned issues with storage and transportation of the most leak prone gas in the universe, the costs of distribution and production of H2 will be high.
Will this tradeoff be worth the ability to refuel a vehicle in a similar timeframe as a gasoline or diesel powered vehicle vs. the charging time required for an electric vehicle? I'm not sure, but, I sure would like to at least have the option to choose between H2 and electric depending on which one looks to be the best fit for my needs.
Yeah, as expected the 130 is all rear overhang. Should be a good overland rig, if they would bring the D300 to the States, which they won't. And the V8 in this config will push this to well over $100K off the lot. But...if this is the platform they bring the shortbed pickup on, that would be cool.The real Defender 130 Breaks Cover:
It would have been funny if they added the roof and bonnet covers they had on the original Defender mules. I was not sure they would keep the tire on the rear gate as the original concept drawings had the 130 without it, but there it is.
Funny how 12-13 inches can make something look so much larger.
The Mirai is a compliance car that is useless for anything other than fleet vehicles with dedicated filling stations - early adopters are dumping them. Long way to go on EV charging infrastructure also, as most high density housing and workplaces don't yet offer them, but for homeowners, a home Level 2 charger is a couple hundred bucks.
If you've been in and driven both, there's a lot more than that. The D5 has an actual, usable third row if you want it, and its offroad geometry is different, particularly in approach and departure, and the Defender has a more capable air suspension system, among other things.Now it's, "do you want a rear lift gate or side opening 5th door?"
Next time you have his ear, add turning circle to the list. My LR4's turning circle is 37.5'. The new Defender 110 is slightly over 42'. Not interested in turning that wide in my vehicle uses. I sold the pickup I used to own for that very reason. I got tired of multipoint turns to get around mountain and canyon shelf road switch backs, and I'm not going back...For what it's worth, I told him that's all great, but focus above all on quality in engineering and assembly, and the dealer service experience, because that's all anybody ever talks about or remembers - it's the original sin of Land Rover and British motoring in general.
Yeah, advertising and market positioning and all that only works when the audience doesn't know it's happening to them, or when the audience already wants what you're selling and is just looking for justification for their own desires. Jerry Seinfeld put it best. But bottom line you're going to buy what you want to buy and if it's not a Land Rover that's OK.Next time you have his ear, add turning circle to the list. My LR4's turning circle is 37.5'. The new Defender 110 is slightly over 42'. Not interested in turning that wide in my vehicle uses. I sold the pickup I used to own for that very reason. I got tired of multipoint turns to get around mountain and canyon shelf road switch backs, and I'm not going back...
Also, we were talking about Defender 130 cannabalizing D5 sales, which is a legitimate concern since it will have a useable 3rd row seat, more storage, worse departure angle than the 110, etc. just like you said differentiates the Defender from D5, which makes them....different? I also couldn't care less about how JLR talks about their cars. They should spend more time listening to customers and how they perceive their cars, which is not a strength as you pointed out.