Israel-Hamas Conflict: Updates & Discussions

How does this change the facts in the link I gave you? Hydrogen is half the BTU/gal, ~60,000 vs ~120,000.



Diesel is 140,000BTU/gal.

My link talks only of BTU/gal for compressed H2 vs petrol. That's before you even consider volumes. I can get >1,200km on a single tank of diesel. Gasoline is 0.77kg/L, so ~4.4kg/gal. Compressed hydrogen is 0.27kg/gal = storage/transport problems. If 1kg H2 = 1 gal petrol, that's 4 galllons for 1 gallon equivalent.

That figure for H2 is for /lb, not /kg.

/kg = /gal.

So 120k for petrol, 140k for diesel and 134k for H2.

Now consider costs, gal vs kg.

So this Mirai had a 21 gallon tank for 5.6kg, way bigger than average. My car makes 20+% km more with 2/3rds of the fuel.

That's not what it says. And what magical car do you have?
 

Nothing for India to do. 210 mi is not in our territorial waters, and the ship attacked was not Indian. The consignment headed to India is only paid for after it unloads, so there is no loss to India. Iran is playing it smart. They are mainly attacking West-owned ships.

I think the tittle of this thread should be changed to Middle East War because sht is about to go off as Israel is moving to its next phase of the war

Already begun.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/Older...zbollah-as-rockets-from-lebanon-strike-north/

and US tries to sucker Euro navies into a coalition under US control so that when US launched strikes at Houthis Euros will be considered participants whether they like it or not. Muahahahahahaha!!! 😈

I'd like to see NATO boots on the ground dealing with the situation in fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetray
That figure for H2 is for /lb, not /kg.

/kg = /gal.

So 120k for petrol, 140k for diesel and 134k for H2.

Now consider costs, gal vs kg.
Consider volume. Larger volume means larger tank, means bigger car, means more weight regardless of weight of fuel itself. Then you have the prospect of tanking all that crap around. Energy per kg is irrelevant. Liquid H2 is 0.07kg/L, gasoline is 0.77kg/L. So while 1kg liquid H2 = 1 gallon gasoline equivalent, 1 gal gasoline is 2.72kg and 1kg of H2 is 14L or 3.5US gal. So you need a tank 3.5x the size, same deal with transportion.... and you have to compress the damn stuff into a liquid in the first place even to get to that pathetic density. And then you have the volatility.
That's not what it says. And what magical car do you have?
That's what it works out to. A gallon of compressed H2 liquid is 0.27kg, so 5.6kg is 21gal.

Nothing magical about it, it's an average Vauxhall Insignia CDTi 170 with a 70l (~15imp gal) tank. And that's with some fuel spare at the end with real world driving and some 'spirited' driving, not some BS hacked rolling road test.
 
Consider volume. Larger volume means larger tank, means bigger car, means more weight regardless of weight of fuel itself. Then you have the prospect of tanking all that crap around. Energy per kg is irrelevant. Liquid H2 is 0.07kg/L, gasoline is 0.77kg/L. So while 1kg liquid H2 = 1 gallon gasoline equivalent, 1 gal gasoline is 2.72kg and 1kg of H2 is 14L or 3.5US gal. So you need a tank 3.5x the size, same deal with transportion.... and you have to compress the damn stuff into a liquid in the first place even to get to that pathetic density. And then you have the volatility.

That's fine. Compressed gas is sufficient.

That's what it works out to. A gallon of compressed H2 liquid is 0.27kg, so 5.6kg is 21gal.

It's 21-gal equivalent.

Nothing magical about it, it's an average Vauxhall Insignia CDTi 170 with a 70l (~15imp gal) tank. And that's with some fuel spare at the end with real world driving and some 'spirited' driving, not some BS hacked rolling road test.

Vauxhall Insignia CDTi gives 44 mi/gal = 11.6 mi/l = 18.56 km/l. Mirai gives 47.33 km/l, ie 2.55 times the distance traveled. So, no, your Vauxhall is trash compared to the Mirai when it comes to mileage.

For a distance of 1000 km, the Insignia needs 53.8 l of petrol that costs £77.47. And for the same distance, H2 will eventually cost maybe £10 for 5.6 kg, or less. Even at £3 per kg, it's still significantly cheaper.

So it's already very efficient when it comes to pricing based on mileage. Then you can bring in all the other advantages, like safety, fast refuel, end-of-life battery, easier maintenance, higher carbon credits etc. Fossil fuel does not have any advantage here.
 
Rumor has it that Israel has just been hit by a cyber attack on its grid.


how true? unknown
 
That's fine. Compressed gas is sufficient.
Compressed gas is even less dense.
It's 21-gal equivalent.
How is it 21gal equivalent if I get 20% more miles in real world driving with 2/3rds the volume of diesel.
Vauxhall Insignia CDTi gives 44 mi/gal = 11.6 mi/l = 18.56 km/l. Mirai gives 47.33 km/l, ie 2.55 times the distance traveled. So, no, your Vauxhall is trash compared to the Mirai when it comes to mileage.
Your maths is f'cked. Compressed H2 is 0.27kg/gal (4l per US gal). It got 1000km with 5.6kg, that's 21gal (84l), i.e. <12km/l).


0.55 kg/100km, with Mirai being able to store 5.6 kg of hydrogen.
That's 2.04gal per 100km or 8.16l, which is 12km/l.
For a distance of 1000 km, the Insignia needs 53.8 l of petrol that costs £77.47. And for the same distance, H2 will eventually cost maybe £10 for 5.6 kg, or less. Even at £3 per kg, it's still significantly cheaper.
LOL, It cost almost that just to compress it.


Working out relative running costs depends on what you’re paying for fuel. In the UK, hydrogen costs about £12 per kg, which means a 62-mile (100km) journey in the Hyundai NEXO, for example (which does 0.95kg/100km), will cost around £11.40.

An equivalent diesel car (doing 4.4-litres/100km) would cost around £5.81 for a 100km journey (diesel at £1.32 a litre), with a petrol-powered car (5.6-litres/100km) costing around £7.11 for that 100km (petrol at £1.27 a litre).

So it's already very efficient when it comes to pricing based on mileage. Then you can bring in all the other advantages, like safety, fast refuel, end-of-life battery, easier maintenance, higher carbon credits etc. Fossil fuel does not have any advantage here.
Only if you pull BS figures from your *censored*.
That's fine. Compressed gas is sufficient.
Compressed gas is even less dense.
It's 21-gal equivalent.
How is it 21gal equivalent if I get 20% more miles in real world driving with 2/3rds the volume of diesel.
Vauxhall Insignia CDTi gives 44 mi/gal = 11.6 mi/l = 18.56 km/l. Mirai gives 47.33 km/l, ie 2.55 times the distance traveled. So, no, your Vauxhall is trash compared to the Mirai when it comes to mileage.
Your maths is f'cked. Compressed H2 is 0.27kg/gal (4l per US gal). It got 1000km with 5.6kg, that's 21gal (84l), i.e. <12km/l).
For a distance of 1000 km, the Insignia needs 53.8 l of petrol that costs £77.47. And for the same distance, H2 will eventually cost maybe £10 for 5.6 kg, or less. Even at £3 per kg, it's still significantly cheaper.

So it's already very efficient when it comes to pricing based on mileage. Then you can bring in all the other advantages, like safety, fast refuel, end-of-life battery, easier maintenance, higher carbon credits etc. Fossil fuel does not have any advantage here.

Er...

The journey started on Wednesday 26th of May at 5:43 am from the HYSETCO hydrogen station in Orly and finished after driving 1003 km on one single fill.

Green hydrogen was used during the record attempt and the average fuel consumption was 0.55 kg/100km, with Mirai being able to store 5.6 kg of hydrogen.

1003 km on 5.6 kg. Your link says 1 kg of H2 = 1 gal of petrol. So with 5.6 gal of petrol or 21.19 l equivalent, it traveled 1003 km, mileage = 47.33 km/l. Who the heck are you kidding?

Petrol cost in London is 1.42/l. A gal would cost £5.37, whereas H2 is expected to come down to as low as £1/kg in India.

So £1 vs £5.37 even at the same efficiency. Or a more realistic 2x price difference, ie £10.7.
See above. 0.55kg of H2 is >2 US gal (8l). 5.6kg is 21 gal, this means a bigger tank and a bigger car for less mileage, even under test conditions vs real driving.
 
Compressed gas is even less dense.

How is it 21gal equivalent if I get 20% more miles in real world driving with 2/3rds the volume of diesel.

Your maths is f'cked. Compressed H2 is 0.27kg/gal (4l per US gal). It got 1000km with 5.6kg, that's 21gal (84l), i.e. <12km/l).



That's 2.04gal per 100km or 8.16l, which is 12km/l.

LOL, It cost almost that just to compress it.





Only if you pull BS figures from your *censored*.

Compressed gas is even less dense.

How is it 21gal equivalent if I get 20% more miles in real world driving with 2/3rds the volume of diesel.

Your maths is f'cked. Compressed H2 is 0.27kg/gal (4l per US gal). It got 1000km with 5.6kg, that's 21gal (84l), i.e. <12km/l).



See above. 0.55kg of H2 is >2 US gal (8l). 5.6kg is 21 gal, this means a bigger tank and a bigger car for less mileage, even under test conditions vs real driving.

Okay, I stand corrected on mileage, should have squared. Which means there's even more room for improvement from 12 kmpl.

But the price is still cheaper. 5.6kg of H2 will still cost 5.6x£3 = £17 versus petrol's £77. I had included current compression costs into it.

It gets even cheaper for India, even if we double the price for compression, ie, 2x cost. That's a little over $2 per kg, $11. Or let's say $2.5, that's $14.

Where do you get 1000 km for £17 or $14? And with room for improvement. And the cost of compression will reduce when H2 begins production at industrial scale.

And then, a fuel cell is cheaper, easily manufactured, 100% recyclable, full lifecycle of a car and there's no need to torture third world miners for rare earths used in BEVs, no range anxiety, no maintenance hurdles from the user's end, affordable recurring costs etc. And H2 uses almost the same infrastructure as fossil fuels, the entire production cycle from zero to exhaust is localized, is safer to use, practically inexhaustible raw materials, easily transportable across vast distances very quickly through pipelines, infrastructure needs are far lower, no more external policy or supply pressures, an attack on electricity infrastructure doesn't cripple transport sector etc. All of these are disadvantages for BEVs.

And then the biggest advantage. The cost of electricity is subject to inflation, while the cost of H2 will depend on market rates, like oil. So any appreciation in prices is easily controlled by a supply gut or cut when you control the entire production process. So the inflationary pressure that comes from the transportation sector is practically nil.
 
(reuters, dec.26)

Indian navy to deploy guided missile destroyer ships after strike off its coast


The Indian navy will deploy guided missile destroyer ships in the Arabian Sea as a deterrent after an Israel-affiliated merchant vessel was struck off the Indian coast over the weekend.

The navy was investigating the nature of the attack on the vessel, MV Chem Pluto, which docked in Mumbai on Monday, and initial reports pointed to a drone attack, a navy statement said.

"Further forensic and technical analysis will be required to establish the vector of attack, including type and amount of explosive used," the statement added.

India was committed to keeping sea lanes in the Indian ocean region safe and secure for maritime trade, the defence minister said on Tuesday.

"India plays the role of a net security provider in the entire Indian Ocean region. We will ensure that maritime trade in this region rises from the sea to the heights of the sky," Rajnath Singh said at the commissioning ceremony of another guided missile destroyer ship in Mumbai.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government had taken the drone attack on MV Chem Pluto and an earlier attack on commercial crude oil vessel MV Sai Baba, in the Red Sea, very seriously, Singh said.

"The Indian Navy has increased its surveillance of the seas. We shall find whoever is responsbible for this attack and strict action will be taken against them," he said.

Iran's foreign ministry on Monday called a U.S. claim that Iran had attacked the ship near India "baseless".

The Pentagon said on Saturday that a drone launched from Iran struck the MV Chem Pluto in the Indian Ocean. The strike came as a U.S.-led task force is trying to counter similar challenges in the Red Sea.

"Considering the recent spate of attacks in the Arabian Sea, Indian Navy has deployed Guided Missile Destroyers, INS Mormugao, INS Kochi and INS Kolkata ...in various areas to maintain a deterrent presence," the navy statement said.
The vessel's crew included 21 Indians and one Vietnamese citizen.
 
Okay, I stand corrected on mileage, should have squared. Which means there's even more room for improvement from 12 kmpl.
No, it just means that's what they get.
But the price is still cheaper. 5.6kg of H2 will still cost 5.6x£3 = £17 versus petrol's £77. I had included current compression costs into it.
It's £12/kg. not £3.


It costs nearly £2/kg just to compress it, so your figure of £3 total is utter bollox.
It gets even cheaper for India, even if we double the price for compression, ie, 2x cost. That's a little over $2 per kg, $11. Or let's say $2.5, that's $14.
$2 is a lot of money in India. Wait until you've got even half the country connected to electricity networks and then see how much the electricity will cost.
Where do you get 1000 km for £17 or $14? And with room for improvement. And the cost of compression will reduce when H2 begins production at industrial scale.
Cost of compression I quoted is for the electricity only, that will only increase if demand grows with industrialisation.
And then, a fuel cell is cheaper, easily manufactured, 100% recyclable, full lifecycle of a car and there's no need to torture third world miners for rare earths used in BEVs, no range anxiety, no maintenance hurdles from the user's end, affordable recurring costs etc. And H2 uses almost the same infrastructure as fossil fuels, the entire production cycle from zero to exhaust is localized, is safer to use, practically inexhaustible raw materials, easily transportable across vast distances very quickly through pipelines, infrastructure needs are far lower, no more external policy or supply pressures, an attack on electricity infrastructure doesn't cripple transport sector etc. All of these are disadvantages for BEVs.
Yes it does because you can't compress your H2 anymore. There's no need to torture 3rd world miners either way. You can't use existing infrastructure because H2 takes up 3.7 gallons of space per kg and the type of storage is very different (ATEX rules etc.).
And then the biggest advantage. The cost of electricity is subject to inflation, while the cost of H2 will depend on market rates, like oil. So any appreciation in prices is easily controlled by a supply gut or cut when you control the entire production process. So the inflationary pressure that comes from the transportation sector is practically nil.
The cost per mile for EVs is as little as 10p (that's full running costs not just energy), meaning that you can do 20 miles just for the amount of electricity it costs to compress 1kg of H2 and 120 miles for the full cost.

 
Last edited:
No, it just means that's what they get.

It's £12/kg. not £3.


It costs nearly £2/kg just to compress it, so your figure of £3 total is utter bollox.

$2 is a lot of money in India. Wait until you've got even half the country connected to electricity networks and then see how much the electricity will cost.

Cost of compression I quoted is for the electricity only, that will only increase if demand grows with industrialisation.

Now, your maths sucks.


Even the US is aiming for $1/kg. So it could be even lower in India.

You are just using today's compression costs, not what can actually be achieved. Currently it costs $1-2 per kg. Transportation costs via trucks will boost costs by another buck, but that's where the gas pipeline infra comes in. So considering all this, £3/kg is quite reasonable, 'cause it will be cheaper elsewhere.

Yes it does because you can't compress your H2 anymore. There's no need to torture 3rd world miners either way. You can't use existing infrastructure because H2 takes up 3.7 gallons of space per kg and the type of storage is very different (ATEX rules etc.).

We are getting new infrastructure, at least in India. So storage, transportation and other infrastructure is more questionable in more developed countries where current infra needs replacement versus India where it doesn't exist.

The cost per mile for EVs is as little as 10p (that's full running costs not just energy), meaning that you can do 20 miles just for the amount of electricity it costs to compress 1kg of H2 and 120 miles for the full cost.


BEV cost from zero to scarpyard is extremely expensive, especially from the consumer side of things. Like a Tesla battery has a warranty of only 8 years and doesn't give you 1000 km on a single charge. Recyclability is still questionable. And the entire ecosystem is subject to inflation and supply disruption.

So the majority of vehicles in a country like India consume diesel for logistics and passenger services. This is what H2 will replace; farmer's trucks, delivery trucks, cargo trucks, Uber drivers, buses etc. 'Cause these vehicles are constantly on the road, have a lot of time constraints, and can carry big enough tanks for range. Even SUVs and MUVs can go H2. What's left are the petrol vehicles, mainly mom and pop cars, that can switch over to BEVs. They are not constantly on the road and can take their time to charge up.

Btw, all of India's connected by an electricity grid. We achieved 100% electrification only a few years ago.
 
Now, your maths sucks.


Even the US is aiming for $1/kg. So it could be even lower in India.

You are just using today's compression costs, not what can actually be achieved. Currently it costs $1-2 per kg. Transportation costs via trucks will boost costs by another buck, but that's where the gas pipeline infra comes in. So considering all this, £3/kg is quite reasonable, 'cause it will be cheaper elsewhere.
Not achievable. Energy costs are going up not down and the energy required to compress H2 remains the same and you still have the problem that 1kg of compressed H2 is almost 4 gallons in volume.
We are getting new infrastructure, at least in India. So storage, transportation and other infrastructure is more questionable in more developed countries where current infra needs replacement versus India where it doesn't exist.
How's it going to work when 1 billion people start driving and it takes up 4 x the volume of gasoline? Factor in Indian safety records + hydrogen and that will be interesting too.
BEV cost from zero to scarpyard is extremely expensive, especially from the consumer side of things. Like a Tesla battery has a warranty of only 8 years and doesn't give you 1000 km on a single charge. Recyclability is still questionable. And the entire ecosystem is subject to inflation and supply disruption.
Tesla batteries have a warranty of 15 years, I have one in my garage. People rarely own a car for that long. On recyclability.


You also have issues with H2 escaping during production, and the long term affects of pumping out massive amounts of H2O plus some unburnt H2 (likely) is still to be fully known.
So the majority of vehicles in a country like India consume diesel for logistics and passenger services. This is what H2 will replace; farmer's trucks, delivery trucks, cargo trucks, Uber drivers, buses etc. 'Cause these vehicles are constantly on the road, have a lot of time constraints, and can carry big enough tanks for range. Even SUVs and MUVs can go H2. What's left are the petrol vehicles, mainly mom and pop cars, that can switch over to BEVs. They are not constantly on the road and can take their time to charge up.

Btw, all of India's connected by an electricity grid. We achieved 100% electrification only a few years ago.
They're not constantly on the road and wireless charging will soon be part of road infrastructure.


1703762322456.png
 
Not achievable. Energy costs are going up not down and the energy required to compress H2 remains the same and you still have the problem that 1kg of compressed H2 is almost 4 gallons in volume.

H2 producers will produce their own energy via solar power. So it's a one-time investment for at least 25-30 years of uninterrupted electricity generation. Storage is a non-issue, only a few months' reserve is required, with the rest consumed. It's a problem only for transportation, not for static storage. And even that's dealt with using a massive pipeline infrastructure.

How's it going to work when 1 billion people start driving and it takes up 4 x the volume of gasoline? Factor in Indian safety records + hydrogen and that will be interesting too.

Volume is not gonna matter, it's a consumable. Hydrogen is pretty safe.

Tesla batteries have a warranty of 15 years, I have one in my garage. People rarely own a car for that long. On recyclability.

The warranty is 8 years. Expected life is 15 years.

The average life of a car in the US is 12 years.

And it's for limited distances, less than 200k km. Something suitable for a mom and pop car, not a goods or service vehicle that's constantly on the road. For example, those large trucks you see in the US do well over 100k miles a year.

The Nikola fuel cell is anticipated to output more than 300kW continuously. It has been designed to handle the entire lease period of one million miles per truck.

If you're gonna need a power source that's gonna last a million to 2 million miles, it's not gonna come from Li-ion batteries.

You also have issues with H2 escaping during production, and the long term affects of pumping out massive amounts of H2O plus some unburnt H2 (likely) is still to be fully known.

Compared to what, mining?

They're not constantly on the road and wireless charging will soon be part of road infrastructure.

That's not gonna come cheap.


View attachment 31473

The cost advantage and efficiency moves towards H2 if you consider from zero to well to tank to wheel to well. 'Cause H2 infra is only built once and then recycled. But batteries have to constantly be mined and rebuilt.