Hydrogen gas cannot be liquefied at normal room temperatures and requires massive strong tanks to be stored as a gas.  Easiest way to store hydrogen is to combine it with a carbon atom and make a hydrocarbon liquid gas or fuel.

  However, when you burn hydrogen only with oxygen you get pure water and heat energy BUT with hydrocarbon fuel you also burn the carbon with oxygen and get carbon dioxide which is no problem in the countryside where it is absorbed by trees and vegetation but is a pollutant in cities. 

So best of both worlds is a hybrid car running on hydrocarbon on motorways but capable of short distance trips in cities using electric batteries.

Requiring 'massive strong tanks' for H2 seems less of an issue as existing H2 transport systems (cars, trains, drones, ferries, buses, vans, trucks, etc) leverage modern materials and construction techniques to implement smaller, strong tanks, making H2 transport evermore viable, cheaper and more numerous. H2 research is developing options to store H2 in various liquid and solid form at normal range temperature and pressures. I believe we need to think differently if we are to transition from 'dirty' fossil fuel burning transport to 'cleaner' non-fossil fuel burning transport, or figure out how to use/burn fossil fuels without the current pollution and GHG side effects. As some attribute to Einstein' “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” Thus, why would any future transport solution (say by 2040) involve 'burning' fossil fuels be a 'clean(er) transport' solution? A hybrid petrol/diesel ICE/EV uses a heavy ICE, that takes and burns heavy fuel from a fuel tank/fuel store, to charge heavy batteries and generate electrons to power the electric drive, and a heavy exhaust and cooling system to remove waste heat and gases when the ICE is being used, and switches to a heavy battery to deliver electrons when the ICE isn't required. So hybrids need to carry and move many 'dead weight' heavy elements of the car (ICE, fuel in a fuel tank, exhaust and cooling systems, and batteries) that consume energy/fuel to move their weight that should be going into vehicle range and performance. Like any technology, H2 transport technology is improving in efficiency, weight, storage, output, cost, etc, all the time. I'm not dismissing H2 in transportation too easily or early, as BEVs, hybrid petrol/diesel ICE/EVs (as an interim 'bridging technology'), FCEVs, H2ICEs, etc, all have a part to play in future transport transition to Low Emission Transport - just as we have petrol, diesel, LPG, EV mix at the moment, low carbon options need to be matched with the transport requirement. Will be interesting to have this conversation in 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040 to see where transport technology has journeyed to.
https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/78130/environmentally-freindly-hydrogen/ , https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/739460/road-to-zero.pdf

Maurice, Thank you for responding and showing your concern with climate change.  However, the hydrogen gas is normally produced by electrolysis which requires electric grid power.  As we do not have enough wind, hydro, tidal and solar energy to even power the present grid then how do we/you produce the hydrogen gas economically?   A better solution is to forget about blaming transportation for acceptable motorway emissions and concentrate on carbon capture at our power plants

Our planet EARTH needs to balance the CO2 emissions so if there are too many people, who eat animals that are breathing out more CO2 than the trees/vegetation can absorb then the planet will naturally increase the temperature of the polar tundras to release fertile land until the balance is restored.  If there is too much vegetation and not enough animals then the planet will naturally freeze the tundra and we will have an ice age.but the balance of CO2 to oxygen must always be naturally maintained.

Hello, 

Some people talk about the negative side of technology and blame it for the destruction of the environment and its pollution. But technology and technology are the fruits of thought and intelligence. Technology is man's unique way of meeting needs and solving problems to improve his life. It is true that sometimes solving one problem gives rise to another, for example: a solution for moving from one place to another - transport vehicles (by air, sea and land) created a new problem - air pollution as a result of fuel combustion. But even to solve the new problem (air pollution), technology can be used, that is, to use the wisdom given to us to create appropriate solutions.

Absolutely, we can't stop the planet balancing itself via, a human-induced acceleration of, its natural process that has been happening for many billions of years with eras of very hot and very cold climate lasting 100,000s and millions of years. This seems to have worked well with just a few 100,000 - 1,000,000 humans on the planet, who had the artisan and survival skills and low numbers to live by migrating to areas to hunt and grow crops sustainably for themselves. Unfortunately, with a human population projected to be around 10 billion by 2050 and possibly 11 billion by 2100, the planet 'releasing land' for extra vegetation and eating meat in certain areas will increase sea levels that flood and reduce land in coastal and low-lying areas, and increase natural disasters (flooding, heat waves, massive forest fires, droughts, etc) that reduce food growth and freshwater in many areas. This will likely lead to rapid population stress, famine, increased viruses, etc, to significantly reduce the world's population - perhaps this is part of the natural planet balancing process we cannot stop but wish to conveniently ignore and not plan for? In effect, the planet will implement the ultimate 'factory reset' during which the allegedly most intelligent species on this planet (humans), have generated the condition requiring the 'factory reset' and will be shown to be one of the most vulnerable, least resilient and fragile species on the planet. If we learn how vulnerable western communities have been during 'regional natural disasters' in the last decades and extrapolate to a global scale, one scenario could be that billions of humans, many in our 'advanced industrial countries', will no longer have the survival and adaptation skills to survive to enjoy any future benefits of our fossil-fuel burning society.


Are we now needing to heed the 'Law of the jungle' to learn and adapt, or die?


Or do we adopt the military OODA loop - Observe, Orientate, Decide, Act to recognise and overcome our self-induced and increasing planet problem?

Rather than a small engine for 200 miles then ten miles on battery power, how about a modest sized (Astra/Focus/Golf) electric car with good (by conventional car standards) performance and a range of say 100 miles - combined with a petrol engine purely for charging the battery on longer trips and sized to be just sufficient for steady state use at motorway speeds on any reasonable incline.

Any bursts of acceleration could be handled by the battery and the engine could be small. For many people such a setup would be able to run on electricity for all their day to day commuting and local trips with petrol use confined to occasional longer journeys.

Hello, 

there's nothing like Toyota.  An excellent hybrid vehicle.

Toyota Prius is excellent but extremely expensive to buy, maintain and fuel if you charge up the flat batteries during the day without using the engine. If we removed all but 10% of the batteries then it would be much lighter and cheaper to purchase but still be able to do 10 miles inside the city boundaries.


Should the IET be pushing the government to designate inner cities as electric vehicles only areas??

NOTE   The local city councils will have to permit vehicles to use their engines when climbing up steep designated hills.