Zero emission by 2035 in Canada

[Pigskin]

Can't see it happening.

[theaardvark]

Remember when California enacted their clean air acts, and suddenly car companies had to start upping their game just to sell into Cali?

I can see EV's being the main form of transport in 10 years.  No problem. 

Trains are a little more difficult, battery packs would have to be huge, and electrifying our rail network isn't viable.

I'm still waiting for mini nuke plants to get figured out.  That will be the game changer.

[blue_gold_84]

The EU put forth the same plan last year: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/30/1166921698/eu-zero-emission-cars

11 years is a while away. Think of where EV technology was 11 years ago compared to now.

[theaardvark]

Zero emissions can also work with alternate fuels and combustion engines... I drove a Nat Gas conversion (dual fuel, could switch back and forth with Gasoline) for a number of years, filled it from the shop's gas line with a special compressor.  Burns about as clean as possible.  Alcohol is also an alternative.  So there are emission busters that are not EV

[blue_or_die]

The most difficult part about this is how capable the ZEV supply chain is of scaling. The lead time for EVs - for which the demand is only a small percent today - is impractical because auto manufacturers outside of Tesla haven't figured out to build en masse yet. You have to think that with this fire under their butts, they'd be able to figure it out.

Zero emissions can also work with alternate fuels and combustion engines... I drove a Nat Gas conversion (dual fuel, could switch back and forth with Gasoline) for a number of years, filled it from the shop's gas line with a special compressor.  Burns about as clean as possible.  Alcohol is also an alternative.  So there are emission busters that are not EV

CNG is not renewable, though (unless you have a source of RNG). Ethanol can be carbon-neutral though as long as it's bio- (corn) derived. Is there an all-ethanol engine available, though? One of the problems with using renewable fuels in an ICE is that you're still producing NOx, but I don't think that should be a showstopper just because it's not 'perfect'.

Cummins is working on a hydrogen engine, and can also be used in fuel cells, meaning it can play in both ICE & electric powertrains. Probably the most versatile of the emissions-free options. But that fuel supply and its carbon intensity associated with production are their own separate issue.

I'm on board with the cause, but real action needs to be taken aside from a simple policy announcement to crank up the associated industries. It's too common for politicians to take the credit for saying nice things and having no practical details on execution.

[blue_gold_84]

Toyota has been big on hydrogen engine technology front, too.

[theaardvark]

Hydrogen is great, apart from "Boom".  It can be made with sunlight or wind, and storage is easy.  But "Boom".  Even more the CNG, although it rises, so doesn't make the slow leak CNG explosion issue that keeps those vehicles out of parking garages and tunnels.

Every car manufacture is ramping up EV's.  GM, Volvo, BMW, Ford, Nissan, all ICE companies now have substantial investment in EV's and thier production, and I don't doubt that if demand and resources were to become available, they could switch a huge portion of production to EV's.  The fact Tesle started from an EV only platform did give them a leg up on the production tech, I don't think they have the corner on that production, or mass production for that matter.

The big issue people seem to have with EV's is the charging infrastructure.  Most see our grids as woefully inadequate to handle that much charging.  But most charging takes place at night, when grid use is lowest.  And I can see a day, sooner than later, when our houses have solar and wind generation capacity, and battery storage, that will more than compensate for EV usage, and actually end up putting power back into the grid in a substantial way.  In the meantime, we are economizing on our grid usage, more efficient appliances, LED's and the like have left my home and business electrical bills lower almost every year, even with rising costs and increased use.  And, with charging technology getting faster, I can see more charging superstations opening, powered by their own wind/solar, not drawing from the grid at all.

I am very optimistic about the future, if we can find more resources to make EV's and batteries from (waiting for that asteroid mining breakthrough, I think that's more what Musk is looking for with Starship), and
and developing even better solar/wind generation.  And, there was great news on the Fusion front as well... can you imagine charging stations with their own fusion plants?

[Pigskin]

We have had two EVs for just over a year now. I love my Lighting. On a full charge I can get to Kenora and back no problem. As far as charging goes, we installed a level 2, 48 amp charging station which was about $750.00 with taxes. With the permit and installation we are right around $1200.00. This charger is excellent, however we have a newer home with a 200 amp panel and had room to install this charger. Someone like my daughter who has a older home with a 100 amp panel and doesn't have room, so she will have to install a pony panel $$$ or go with a much slower charger.

Learned very quickly that the truck get about 5-10% less in range then Ford reported. So for my vehicle it's 25-50 kms.

Planning a trip: Took the vehicle to the GC last year. First stop Brandon, vehicle was down about 50%, found a Level 3 charger, went for lunch. The vehicle was fully charged and ready to go in 30 minutes. Off to Weyburn. Weyburn at the time only had only Level 2 charging station. It was behind the hardware store, looked a little shady, ended up plugging it in at the hotel. By morning it was fully charged and ready to go. It was also free so you have to love that. Pretty much the same on the way home, just a little longer lunch in Brandon. I believe we shelled out around $16.00 for charging on the trip.

[blue_or_die]

Hydrogen is great, apart from "Boom".  It can be made with sunlight or wind, and storage is easy.  But "Boom".  Even more the CNG, although it rises, so doesn't make the slow leak CNG explosion issue that keeps those vehicles out of parking garages and tunnels.

I'm still waiting for evidence that compressed hydrogen is significantly dangerous in a mobility application. There are quite a few safety features that make it so that it has to be a perfect storm to make a cylinder explode. The nanosecond there's a leak (say, from a puncture from a collision, that gas is gone. Like you said, it does not accumulate and it's near instantly up in the stratosphere.

Every car manufacture is ramping up EV's.  GM, Volvo, BMW, Ford, Nissan, all ICE companies now have substantial investment in EV's and thier production, and I don't doubt that if demand and resources were to become available, they could switch a huge portion of production to EV's.  The fact Tesle started from an EV only platform did give them a leg up on the production tech, I don't think they have the corner on that production, or mass production for that matter.

What Tesla does have that others don't is vertical integration. They own their own battery supply which is the biggest factor. I agree that the legacy OEMs should be able to figure out mass production relatively easily but the capex and huge divergence of resources necessary is probably quite the annoyance for them.

The big issue people seem to have with EV's is the charging infrastructure.  Most see our grids as woefully inadequate to handle that much charging.  But most charging takes place at night, when grid use is lowest.  And I can see a day, sooner than later, when our houses have solar and wind generation capacity, and battery storage, that will more than compensate for EV usage, and actually end up putting power back into the grid in a substantial way.  In the meantime, we are economizing on our grid usage, more efficient appliances, LED's and the like have left my home and business electrical bills lower almost every year, even with rising costs and increased use.  And, with charging technology getting faster, I can see more charging superstations opening, powered by their own wind/solar, not drawing from the grid at all.

It's human nature to think about the handful of times you take a road trip or even just have a day with a ton of driving and it's easy to think that it's inconvenient to worry about range, worry about where to charge, and how long it will take to charge. Then again, plug-in hybrids basically solve that problem for just about everyone. They can and should do a better job of building those IMO.

[theaardvark]

I'm still waiting for evidence that compressed hydrogen is significantly dangerous in a mobility application. There are quite a few safety features that make it so that it has to be a perfect storm to make a cylinder explode. The nanosecond there's a leak (say, from a puncture from a collision, that gas is gone. Like you said, it does not accumulate and it's near instantly up in the stratosphere.

What Tesla does have that others don't is vertical integration. They own their own battery supply which is the biggest factor. I agree that the legacy OEMs should be able to figure out mass production relatively easily but the capex and huge divergence of resources necessary is probably quite the annoyance for them.

It's human nature to think about the handful of times you take a road trip or even just have a day with a ton of driving and it's easy to think that it's inconvenient to worry about range, worry about where to charge, and how long it will take to charge. Then again, plug-in hybrids basically solve that problem for just about everyone. They can and should do a better job of building those IMO.

I drove a PHEV Outlander for a year, spent $150 in gas.  Plug in Hybrids are amazing in town, but not great if you drive over 50km every day (unless you charge at work).  Problem is, two different propulsion systems, so its actually more to maintain than a ICE engine or an EV by themselves.  If they made them with a bigger range, 100+km before ICE, they'd be a lot better, but still, its a halfway measure.  If  PHEV was NG or Hydrogen powered ICE, that might be perfect. 

There are many critical points in fuelling for Hydrogen or CNG, which is where the concern remains.  Once it is in the tank, its pretty safe (except for plumbing leaks, meaning they need regular inspections, using gas sniffers).  My issue is large scale storage of the product makes for vulnerable targets for vandalism/terrorism, and for mishandling.  Catastrophic release is catastrophic.

[blue_or_die]

There are many critical points in fuelling for Hydrogen or CNG, which is where the concern remains.  Once it is in the tank, its pretty safe (except for plumbing leaks, meaning they need regular inspections, using gas sniffers).  My issue is large scale storage of the product makes for vulnerable targets for vandalism/terrorism, and for mishandling.  Catastrophic release is catastrophic.

There are literally thousands of sites across the province alone with large tanks of compressed methane and propane, not to mention stores for gasoline, diesel, kerosene....if there were problems with people vandalizing these, we would (literally) hear about them.

If you're storing literally tons of hydrogen at a time, it can and should be liquified, which is more complex than other fuels but is very possible and needed in order to help solve the transportation question.

[Pigskin]

Friends of our purchased a Chevy Bolt a month ago. They love this vehicle for the city, but not enough range for long highway trips. 416 km range, but probably closer to 380 km on a full charge. Also, the dealership supplied them with a level 1 changing cord. But, it was far to slow unless you plug the vehicle in every day and night. Level 1 charging rate 4-6 kms per hours. They have now up graded to a Level 2 charging system which is much better with a charging rate of 38-40 kms per hour.

[Blueforlife]

Will be hard to keep to these targets but I sure hope we do, the pace of climate change is excelerating

[Pigskin]

It seems like a lot of areas are lagging behind. A few months ago we purchased a condo in Altona. The wife decided she would semi-retire in the area she grew up in. So, we live three days a week in Altona. The problem with Altona is our condo doesn't have a proper charging system for EVs. Part of that is finding an extra 240V in a 20 year old building and the cost. $800 for a level 2 charging hub, electrician, permits, and materials. I just can't see a lot of people investing in this right now.     

[theaardvark]

It seems like a lot of areas are lagging behind. A few months ago we purchased a condo in Altona. The wife decided she would semi-retire in the area she grew up in. So, we live three days a week in Altona. The problem with Altona is our condo doesn't have a proper charging system for EVs. Part of that is finding an extra 240V in a 20 year old building and the cost. $800 for a level 2 charging hub, electrician, permits, and materials. I just can't see a lot of people investing in this right now.     

Yeah, squeezing amps out of old panels can be tough, although with the energy efficiencies of LEDs now, in my store we were able to add a lot by saving over 100 amps in lighting alone.  Your condo might look at combining some of the outdoor lighting into fewer circuits, thus freeing up some spots in the panel. 

If its coming out of your personal panel which is full, again, lighting circuits were set up based on 6 or 7 light fixtures tops, but with LED lights, they can serve 15 or more on a single 15 amp breaker.  You should be able to gang some of those circuits onto fewer breakers, and free up the 2 spots you need for a 240 level 3 charger.

The cost comes in the cabling, copper is ridiculous. I've seen guys put in a box to convert to aluminum for the run to the charger, costs extra for the box, but saves a ton on the cable if its over a 100' run.

 

[Pigskin]

Yeah, squeezing amps out of old panels can be tough, although with the energy efficiencies of LEDs now, in my store we were able to add a lot by saving over 100 amps in lighting alone.  Your condo might look at combining some of the outdoor lighting into fewer circuits, thus freeing up some spots in the panel. 

If its coming out of your personal panel which is full, again, lighting circuits were set up based on 6 or 7 light fixtures tops, but with LED lights, they can serve 15 or more on a single 15 amp breaker.  You should be able to gang some of those circuits onto fewer breakers, and free up the 2 spots you need for a 240 level 3 charger.

The cost comes in the cabling, copper is ridiculous. I've seen guys put in a box to convert to aluminum for the run to the charger, costs extra for the box, but saves a ton on the cable if its over a 100' run.

 

These are all good ideas and have already been done in this building. The extra power from the interior/exterior lighting upgrade went to the new AC/heating splits. The point was, most people will not be able to afford the upgrades require to install a level 2 charging system at $1500 to $2000. We were lucky we have 2 under ground parking spots each having a dedicated 15 amp break. So, our permit allowed us to upgrade the wiring, and change out the breaker.

[Blueforlife]

Zero emissions is much bigger than just vehicles, will take a considerable effort to get the most poluting industries on board.  I hope we can for the next generations quality of life.  We have killed the earth for too long, change is way overdue but people don't like change.

[markf]

Canada is a laggard in the transition. Too bad, since it is happening rapidly in other parts of the world. Africa may be skipping from not much power generation straight to renewable with Chinese products.

Harper was right.... China is "stealing" our jobs. He just had the wrong jobs.  Our future jobs in renewable.

It's a shame cause we have everything needed to do it here.

Course they're not "stealing" them. They're just smarter than us. We're giving it to them by doing nothing.

BYD cars... they have passed the stringent European safety tests with high marks. They are well made. They are inexpensive. We can not buy them. Yet.

"BYD's new Sealion 05 EV is finally here, and it's even better than expected. The mass-market electric SUV is loaded with BYD's "God's Eye" smart driving tech, has up to 323 miles of driving range, and starts at just around $16,000. It even has a built-in refrigerator."

https://electrek.co/2025/03/25/byds-sealion-05-ev-electric-suv-cheaper-than-it-looks/

Little stuff here and there B.C. ordered some electric ferries. Made in China.

"BC Ferries CEO Nicholas Jimenez says the decision to go overseas was about getting "the best deal for British Columbians and getting the best deal for BC Ferries.""

Harbour air Victoria is switching to electric planes..... American made.

While Alberta makes it more difficult to build renewable.

[blue_or_die]

Yeah, squeezing amps out of old panels can be tough, although with the energy efficiencies of LEDs now, in my store we were able to add a lot by saving over 100 amps in lighting alone.  Your condo might look at combining some of the outdoor lighting into fewer circuits, thus freeing up some spots in the panel. 

If its coming out of your personal panel which is full, again, lighting circuits were set up based on 6 or 7 light fixtures tops, but with LED lights, they can serve 15 or more on a single 15 amp breaker.  You should be able to gang some of those circuits onto fewer breakers, and free up the 2 spots you need for a 240 level 3 charger.

The cost comes in the cabling, copper is ridiculous. I've seen guys put in a box to convert to aluminum for the run to the charger, costs extra for the box, but saves a ton on the cable if its over a 100' run.

 

My coworker has a Model 3 and creatively got around this by running a 240 plug through a hole he drilled and backfilled in a basement window sill to his laundry room conveniently located next to his driveway a wall away. He put in a switcher so the drier and charger won't supply in parallel and trip the breaker.

He has an electrical background and was able to do this safely. Can't speak to that or oversimplify but I thought it was a creative solution.

[J5V]

Regarding EVs, I'll wait for the guinea pigs to see how healthy it is to be sitting on humongous lithium batteries for extended periods of time.

If everyone suddenly had EVs and were charging them overnight the grid would be overwhelmed and would require a massive investment in infrastructure. Who's paying for that? People can't afford to eat and pay rent. Seems bizarre to be even talking about this now.

[blue_or_die]

Regarding EVs, I'll wait for the guinea pigs to see how healthy it is to be sitting on humongous lithium batteries for extended periods of time.

If everyone suddenly had EVs and were charging them overnight the grid would be overwhelmed and would require a massive investment in infrastructure. Who's paying for that? People can't afford to eat and pay rent. Seems bizarre to be even talking about this now.

What do you expect to come from sitting over batteries?

[blue_gold_84]

What do you expect to come from sitting over batteries?

Certainly not the same stuff emitted from ICE vehicles...

[J5V]

What do you expect to come from sitting over batteries?

We're not talking about little batteries here. These things are humongous and the direct effects of magnetic fields/EMF from lithium batteries on the human body are not well-documented, hence my use of the term "guinea pigs". We simply don't know. The WHO is concerned about it though ... Radiation-Electromagnetic-fields The current debate is centred on whether long-term low level exposure can evoke biological responses and influence people's well being.

Certainly not the same stuff emitted from ICE vehicles...

EVs actually have a higher initial carbon footprint than ICEVs due to the energy-intensive battery manufacturing process. Lithium mining is nasty business.

It is a strange thing to drive by and see EVs plugged into a charging station being fed by diesel generators.

[blue_gold_84]

EVs actually have a higher initial carbon footprint than ICEVs due to the energy-intensive battery manufacturing process. Lithium mining is nasty business.

The initial footprint claim, while valid, pretty much goes out the window when data consistently demonstrates that ICE vehicles contribute a comparatively larger footprint over time compared to EVs. More info: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/electric-vehicles-contribute-fewer-emissions-than-gasoline-powered-cars-over-their-lifetimes/



Oil and gas extraction is just as nasty a business, and that's been well documented over several decades now.

[J5V]

The initial footprint claim, while valid, pretty much goes out the window when data consistently demonstrates that ICE vehicles contribute a comparatively larger footprint over time compared to EVs. More info: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/electric-vehicles-contribute-fewer-emissions-than-gasoline-powered-cars-over-their-lifetimes/

Oil and gas extraction is just as nasty a business, and that's been well documented over several decades now.

The initial footprint claim is valid as the graph shows and doesn't go out the window, lol. What the graph doesn't account for, and why I alluded to the diesel charging stations, is where is that electricity coming from to charge these EVs? Are we burning diesel, gas, and/or coal to charge these EVs? If we all started driving EVs solar and/or wind isn't going to meet the demand and I'm not seeing any nuclear plants (that take decades to build) going up.

[J5V]

Oil and gas extraction is just as nasty a business, and that's been well documented over several decades now.

This is absolutely true and I've seen the dead waterfowl floating in the toxic oil sand tailings ponds. For now though, I believe oil still has a role to play in the energy sector.

I have LIFEPO4 batteries and solar panels/chargers in and on my boat. I'm not against alternative energy sources of which my favorite is hydrogen, but we have put the cart ahead of the horse on the EV front. We need massive investment in electrical infrastructure before we can roll out EVs to everyone and it needed to be completed years ago.

[blue_gold_84]

The initial footprint claim is valid as the graph shows and doesn't go out the window, lol. What the graph doesn't account for...

It says right in the graph near the top: Emissions are based on the average electricity mix in the United States.

As for Canada, we're probably in a more enviable position considering almost 60% of our electricity comes from hydroelectricity, and nearly 80% comes from sources other than oil & gas: https://www.iea.org/countries/canada/electricity

[blue_or_die]

We're not talking about little batteries here. These things are humongous and the direct effects of magnetic fields/EMF from lithium batteries on the human body are not well-documented, hence my use of the term "guinea pigs". We simply don't know. The WHO is concerned about it though ... Radiation-Electromagnetic-fields The current debate is centred on whether long-term low level exposure can evoke biological responses and influence people's well being.

Batteries do not emit strong electromagnetic fields, though. Do you have a source that legitimately points out this type of risk with LIBs? I've never heard of anything like this and I work in the field.

The WHO link just says that EM is a risk, which is true, but does not tie in to batteries. Perhaps you posted the wrong url?

[blue_or_die]

It is a strange thing to drive by and see EVs plugged into a charging station being fed by diesel generators.

Where is this the case, though? With the exception of some experimental chargers, every charger I've encountered has been hardwired to mains power.

[markf]

My spidey sense detects an Albertan in the thread.

🙂

Re hydrogen

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Hydroelectric/What-Happened-to-the-Green-Hydrogen-Boom.html


Advances in battery tech are happening rapidly... solid state batteries are coming in a few years.

Mercedes : "The solid-state battery in the EQS-based vehicle allows for up to 25 % more driving range compared to the same battery weight and size of a corresponding standard EQS battery. Further weight and energy efficiency is achieved through passive battery cooling. The development vehicle is expected to have a range of over 1,000 km (620 miles)"


Battery swap. Battery storage. Electrification of trucks, heavy equipment. Planes. Green Steel factories. Green cement. Peaking power plants.

It's all coming. We should get in on it.

[J5V]

Where is this the case, though? With the exception of some experimental chargers, every charger I've encountered has been hardwired to mains power.

They're out there. Like I said, we're way behind in developing and supplying the required grid-fed infrastructure for wide-spread use of EVs.

[blue_or_die]

They're out there. Like I said, we're way behind in developing and supplying the required grid-fed infrastructure for wide-spread use of EVs.

I don't think they're out there, though. EVs are still fledgling and not demanding the massive sums of power yet. As they scale, so will electricity production per the usual supply and demand cycle. If there are diesel powered chargers out there, it's because for whatever reason they weren't connected to the grid, not because we don't have enough power.

[blue_or_die]

Re hydrogen

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Hydroelectric/What-Happened-to-the-Green-Hydrogen-Boom.html


Advances in battery tech are happening rapidly... solid state batteries are coming in a few years.

Mercedes : "The solid-state battery in the EQS-based vehicle allows for up to 25 % more driving range compared to the same battery weight and size of a corresponding standard EQS battery. Further weight and energy efficiency is achieved through passive battery cooling. The development vehicle is expected to have a range of over 1,000 km (620 miles)"


Battery swap. Battery storage. Electrification of trucks, heavy equipment. Planes. Green Steel factories. Green cement. Peaking power plants.

It's all coming. We should get in on it.

I love your enthusiasm, and not to attack you, but I have two problems with your post:

1. Hydrogen will for sure be part of the solution. Batteries make sense for smaller capacity applications like city commuter vehicles but as soon as you need longer distances, faster refueling times, and more power and resiliency overall, you need a true fuel. I know personally the Michael Barnard quoted in your article and he is a complete and absolute hack. The efficiency argument is meaningless if the alternative can't do what you're needing it to do.

2. Solid state batteries have been coming for 10 years and every time one is commercialized, it has only a fraction of the promised benefits. I said about 8 years ago that I'll believe it when I see it and I'm still saying that and still waiting.

There are strengths and physical limitations with all leading technologies and the key will be inserting them where they best work and make the most sense. Just my opinion.

[TBURGESS]

To meet the targets: (https://www.iisd.org/articles/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies-faq)

1. Phase out fossil fuel subsidies. ($4.8 Billion/Year) 10% a year until we hit zero in 10 years. 
2. Phase out public financing subsides ($11 Billion/Year)  10% a year until we hit zero in 10 years. 
3. Remove Tariffs on all EV (100% on Chinese imports) and Solar (154.4%).

Fossil fuel will go up, making gas vehicles more expensive to run. EV's will go down, hopefully to less than their gas counterparts. Solar will go down, so more people will be able to afford it. EV's and Solar will become the best financial choice & the governments will have billions of $ to spend on other emission reducing things.

[markf]

I love your enthusiasm, and not to attack you, but I have two problems with your post:

1. Hydrogen will for sure be part of the solution. Batteries make sense for smaller capacity applications like city commuter vehicles but as soon as you need longer distances, faster refueling times, and more power and resiliency overall, you need a true fuel. I know personally the Michael Barnard quoted in your article and he is a complete and absolute hack. The efficiency argument is meaningless if the alternative can't do what you're needing it to do.

2. Solid state batteries have been coming for 10 years and every time one is commercialized, it has only a fraction of the promised benefits. I said about 8 years ago that I'll believe it when I see it and I'm still saying that and still waiting.

There are strengths and physical limitations with all leading technologies and the key will be inserting them where they best work and make the most sense. Just my opinion.

How will Hydrogen be made that doesnt make emissions? That can compete cost wise with solar, wind.

And where will it be used?

Not arguing, but I am pretty sure it will not be used in passenger cars.


Anyway as an absolute non expert, I don t care what powers things as long as it is not oil, gas, coal.

[markf]

Hydrogen ladder.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hydrogen-ladder-version-50-michael-liebreich/

[blue_or_die]

How will Hydrogen be made that doesnt make emissions? That can compete cost wise with solar, wind.

And where will it be used?

Not arguing, but I am pretty sure it will not be used in passenger cars.


Anyway as an absolute non expert, I don t care what powers things as long as it is not oil, gas, coal.

There are two main ways hydrogen can be produced: electrolysis of water whereby a voltage applied to electrodes splits H2O into its parent oxygen and hydrogen molecules, which can be collected. Water is of course simple and abundant, but it matters where the electricity comes from. Just as the case with battery power, having the original power from renewable sources is just as key.

The other way it can be produced is be reformation of hydrocarbons. This has pros and cons - cons in the sense that you are still utilizing fossil fuel inputs (mostly natural gas today) but, you have the opportunity to capture and sequester the CO2 emissions related to this process, which is cheaper and less energy-intensive. Both these technologies exist and are fully commercialized, but the cleanest production is in need of massive scale-up, just as is the case with renewable power to support electrification.

The end use cases are the same as battery-electric transportation, but it's far better suited to medium and heavy applications like trucking, buses, rail, ships, etc, where you need more onboard energy to support their intense duty cycles, have no tolerance for long recharge times, or can afford to lose payload due to battery size.

I know when people say, "the transportation sector" they think of their personal car, and it's absolutely true that a battery solution will do most people just fine, but as soon as you up that distance, the case for batteries goes away.

IMO the perfect solution for passenger vehicles is a plug-in hybrid whereby there's a battery sized to meet average daily driving needs, and a small hydrogen tank and fuel cell integrated as well. That way you charge at home overnight for most of your driving needs using cheap electricity, and when you go long distances, only when battery power is depleted does the fuel cell kick in. Instead of megawatt chargers installed at gas stations, the hydrogen sector simply stocks existing gas stations with a hydrogen option for a quick 5 min fill before you're off on the road again. Anyway, I'm just rambling at this point.

[markf]

There are two main ways hydrogen can be produced: electrolysis of water whereby a voltage applied to electrodes splits H2O into its parent oxygen and hydrogen molecules, which can be collected. Water is of course simple and abundant, but it matters where the electricity comes from. Just as the case with battery power, having the original power from renewable sources is just as key.

The other way it can be produced is be reformation of hydrocarbons. This has pros and cons - cons in the sense that you are still utilizing fossil fuel inputs (mostly natural gas today) but, you have the opportunity to capture and sequester the CO2 emissions related to this process, which is cheaper and less energy-intensive. Both these technologies exist and are fully commercialized, but the cleanest production is in need of massive scale-up, just as is the case with renewable power to support electrification.

The end use cases are the same as battery-electric transportation, but it's far better suited to medium and heavy applications like trucking, buses, rail, ships, etc, where you need more onboard energy to support their intense duty cycles, have no tolerance for long recharge times, or can afford to lose payload due to battery size.

I know when people say, "the transportation sector" they think of their personal car, and it's absolutely true that a battery solution will do most people just fine, but as soon as you up that distance, the case for batteries goes away.

IMO the perfect solution for passenger vehicles is a plug-in hybrid whereby there's a battery sized to meet average daily driving needs, and a small hydrogen tank and fuel cell integrated as well. That way you charge at home overnight for most of your driving needs using cheap electricity, and when you go long distances, only when battery power is depleted does the fuel cell kick in. Instead of megawatt chargers installed at gas stations, the hydrogen sector simply stocks existing gas stations with a hydrogen option for a quick 5 min fill before you're off on the road again. Anyway, I'm just rambling at this point.

Thanks... did you see the "hydrogen ladder" I posted?  It seems to agree with what you're saying about uses.

Also saw this : a Hydrogen Insights report in September noted that total investments in hydrogen-related projects around the world increased from US$90 billion in 2020 to US$680 billion in 2024.

But in recent weeks, a number of large green and blue hydrogen projects have been shelved, as the anticipated demand for the zero-emission fuel has failed to materialize. Last month, both Shell and Equinor announced they were cancelling blue hydrogen projects planned for Norway, citing a lack of demand. Closer to home, Fortescue Ltd. also recently announced it was cancelling plans for a major green hydrogen proposal in Prince George."

And Ballard scaling back.

Re carbon capture... The efforts that I have read about have failed.... The one in Saskatchewan for instance to capture emissions from burning coal.

I thought carbon capture was a dead end. Maybe you can correct me.

Anyway, I'm learning something, which is always good.

[blue_or_die]

Thanks... did you see the "hydrogen ladder" I posted?  It seems to agree with what you're saying about uses.

Also saw this : a Hydrogen Insights report in September noted that total investments in hydrogen-related projects around the world increased from US$90 billion in 2020 to US$680 billion in 2024.

But in recent weeks, a number of large green and blue hydrogen projects have been shelved, as the anticipated demand for the zero-emission fuel has failed to materialize. Last month, both Shell and Equinor announced they were cancelling blue hydrogen projects planned for Norway, citing a lack of demand. Closer to home, Fortescue Ltd. also recently announced it was cancelling plans for a major green hydrogen proposal in Prince George."

And Ballard scaling back.

Re carbon capture... The efforts that I have read about have failed.... The one in Saskatchewan for instance to capture emissions from burning coal.

I thought carbon capture was a dead end. Maybe you can correct me.

Anyway, I'm learning something, which is always good.

Yeah, there's an ebb and flow to the demand for this stuff and as much as I wish for a natural transition, policy and subsidies are unfortunately needed for a while until this stands on its own 2 feet. For sure right now Trump isn't helping and the tone of the admin is trickling down to the private sector as well which can only accept so much uncertainty with how massive these investments are.

Regarding capture, I too am a major skeptic but there are a few elements here worthy of discussion: 1) conventional tech right now is underwhelming but there are some more encouraging technologies that are on the cusp of being commercialized; 2) Im ok accepting an imperfect solution for the time being to lead the establishment of a base level of supply + supporting infrastructure so that this can then be decarbonized over time (a sort of stepping stone), and 3) most exciting is the scale up of pyrolysis, whereby natural gas is the input but is reformed in the absence of oxygen so the products are H2 and solid carbon, similar to the ash in your fire pit after the fire burns out. This solid carbon can be buried easily or even more enticing, upgraded to construction materials or even high fidelity graphite to use in battery anodes (we've come full circle now lol). Either way, no carbon emitted to atmosphere with this process.

The solution to all this is not straightforward and there is no silver bullet. We need a whole toolbox full of champion technologies and ideas.

[markf]

Yeah, there's an ebb and flow to the demand for this stuff and as much as I wish for a natural transition, policy and subsidies are unfortunately needed for a while until this stands on its own 2 feet. For sure right now Trump isn't helping and the tone of the admin is trickling down to the private sector as well which can only accept so much uncertainty with how massive these investments are.

Regarding capture, I too am a major skeptic but there are a few elements here worthy of discussion: 1) conventional tech right now is underwhelming but there are some more encouraging technologies that are on the cusp of being commercialized; 2) Im ok accepting an imperfect solution for the time being to lead the establishment of a base level of supply + supporting infrastructure so that this can then be decarbonized over time (a sort of stepping stone), and 3) most exciting is the scale up of pyrolysis, whereby natural gas is the input but is reformed in the absence of oxygen so the products are H2 and solid carbon, similar to the ash in your fire pit after the fire burns out. This solid carbon can be buried easily or even more enticing, upgraded to construction materials or even high fidelity graphite to use in battery anodes (we've come full circle now lol). Either way, no carbon emitted to atmosphere with this process.

The solution to all this is not straightforward and there is no silver bullet. We need a whole toolbox full of champion technologies and ideas.

I had no clue that there was such a huge investment in hydrogen. I guess most online material is related to automobiles, which then is battery information.

Certainly Trump is doing a lot of damage. The Ballard article said that company had money coming from Biden investment in hydrogen, which would be for a factory in Texas. Gone now no doubt.

Anyway, I am going to keep learning about hydrogen.

[blue_or_die]

I had no clue that there was such a huge investment in hydrogen. I guess most online material is related to automobiles, which then is battery information.

Certainly Trump is doing a lot of damage. The Ballard article said that company had money coming from Biden investment in hydrogen, which would be for a factory in Texas. Gone now no doubt.

Anyway, I am going to keep learning about hydrogen.

Awesome Mark. DM me whenever you like dude.

[markf]

Awesome Mark. DM me whenever you like dude.

thanks very much.

[theaardvark]

Hydrogen is amazing, but like propane and LNG it is pretty volatile as a vehicle fuel.  Transport and storage worry me.

And I think there is a societal concern since the Hindenberg...

There could be a large electrolysis plant created in the north, using hydro power and the abundant water.  And a pipeline south.  With tidal electric generation and wave power, there's another water adjacent clean energy source to make hydrogen.

Best thing about hydrogen is that it is lighter than air, so any leaks are not an explosion concern, especially in parking garages or tunnels.

[markf]

June 2025 review of a 35000.00 dollar (us) Chinese electric car

https://electrek.co/2025/06/26/xiaomi-yu7-first-drive-electric-ferrari-suv-tech/


"The company is facing criticism for the SU7's resemblance to the Porsche Taycan, and now the YU7's similarity to the Ferrari Purosangue is undeniable. 

Ultimately, every great car design is heavily inspired by other vehicles. Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun has been spotted driving the Purosangue, Ferrari's latest $400,000 performance SUV, and it sounds like he thought: "Wouldn't be nice if this were all-electric, with Xiaomi tech, and more affordable so hundreds of thousands of people could experience it?"

[theaardvark]

Sounds like Canadian automakers are balking at EV mandates pretty hard, while China has embraced it, and countries like Norway have reached almost 100% of new car purchases being EV.

We need the "ring of fire" developed ASAP to give us the resources to be a world leader in rare earth mineral production, and have a secure supply for our own industries and export of manufactured product instead of relying so much on oil.

Carney has pledged to make the big projects happen, I just hope we don't get bogged down too much with multi-level approval involvement. There is plenty of wilderness out there, we can take a little of it for roads, rail and mining to assure the countries long term wealth and health, and so that we will have the resources to continue to pay for any displaced groups needs.

[blue_or_die]

Hydrogen is amazing, but like propane and LNG it is pretty volatile as a vehicle fuel.  Transport and storage worry me.

And I think there is a societal concern since the Hindenberg...

What about storage and transport is concerning? That it's compressed and could explode?

Nothing is perfectly safe of course, but note that there are very well developed standards and technologies for storing and moving hydrogen, largely given the fact that it's existed as an industry for over a century to support ammonia for fertilizer, chemical production, oil upgrading, etc. It's a matter of translating these fundamentals for the transportation industry, where the economics are trickier, especially given zero-emission vehicles (especially fuel cell-propelled) are super fledgling.

I'd be more concerned about thermal runaway in lithium ion batteries.

[markf]

Oh oh.

" The last 30 days marked a particularly rough period for hydrogen advocates, with a striking series of cancellations and project halts around the globe. The cumulative scale of these decisions underscores how challenging and economically vulnerable the hydrogen-for-energy sector has become.

Over the span of approximately four weeks, projects valued at tens of billions in multiple countries have collapsed or been shelved indefinitely, erasing significant planned hydrogen production capacity. These reversals are not merely isolated incidents. They represent a broader recognition by industry leaders and governments that hydrogen, particularly for transportation and energy export, is confronting fundamental economic and technical barriers that optimism alone cannot overcome."

Details here:  https://cleantechnica.com/2025/07/07/hydrogens-brutal-month-billions-lost-as-mega-projects-collapse/

[blue_or_die]

Oh oh.

" The last 30 days marked a particularly rough period for hydrogen advocates, with a striking series of cancellations and project halts around the globe. The cumulative scale of these decisions underscores how challenging and economically vulnerable the hydrogen-for-energy sector has become.

Over the span of approximately four weeks, projects valued at tens of billions in multiple countries have collapsed or been shelved indefinitely, erasing significant planned hydrogen production capacity. These reversals are not merely isolated incidents. They represent a broader recognition by industry leaders and governments that hydrogen, particularly for transportation and energy export, is confronting fundamental economic and technical barriers that optimism alone cannot overcome."

Details here:  https://cleantechnica.com/2025/07/07/hydrogens-brutal-month-billions-lost-as-mega-projects-collapse/

Just as an FYI, cleantechnica is essentially a tabloid written by bloggers with an agenda and nothing else. I used to read it circa 2017-2019 and it's gone to complete crap ever since. I clicked the link and it's yet another whine piece by my good buddy Mike Barnard. It's the National Enquirer of this topic.

[J5V]

Hydrogen is only the most plentiful element in the universe. lol

[markf]

Just as an FYI, cleantechnica is essentially a tabloid written by bloggers with an agenda and nothing else. I used to read it circa 2017-2019 and it's gone to complete crap ever since. I clicked the link and it's yet another whine piece by my good buddy Mike Barnard. It's the National Enquirer of this topic.

You may not think much of him, but

Are any of his facts wrong?

Cause it outlines  a lot of cancellations of investment.

Also..... I just remembered reading "the hype about hydrogen" by Joe Romm. ( quite a while ago, so, I forgot)

He updated it:  " In 2003, energy expert Joesph J. Romm wrote The Hype About Hydrogen to explain why hydrogen wasn't the panacea we were promised—and may never be. In this newly revised and updated edition, Romm builds an even stronger case, explaining the barriers hydrogen faces, from its inefficiency as an energy carrier to the "chicken-and-egg" problem in infrastructure development and the risk of increased global warming from hydrogen leaks and emissions. In a series of significant updates, Romm breaks down the latest methods of production, including "green" hydrogen, hydrogen made with nuclear power, geologic hydrogen, and "blue" hydrogen from natural gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS), laying out the challenges with each. He then explores the limitations of suggested applications of hydrogen, including e-fuels made with direct air capture of CO2, hydrogen cars, and heating in buildings and industry. "

If you try to tell me that Joe Romm is a hack, I'll stop taking you seriously lol.

[blue_or_die]

You may not think much of him, but

Are any of his facts wrong?

Cause it outlines  a lot of cancellations of investment.

Also..... I just remembered reading "the hype about hydrogen" by Joe Romm. ( quite a while ago, so, I forgot)

He updated it:  " In 2003, energy expert Joesph J. Romm wrote The Hype About Hydrogen to explain why hydrogen wasn't the panacea we were promised—and may never be. In this newly revised and updated edition, Romm builds an even stronger case, explaining the barriers hydrogen faces, from its inefficiency as an energy carrier to the "chicken-and-egg" problem in infrastructure development and the risk of increased global warming from hydrogen leaks and emissions. In a series of significant updates, Romm breaks down the latest methods of production, including "green" hydrogen, hydrogen made with nuclear power, geologic hydrogen, and "blue" hydrogen from natural gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS), laying out the challenges with each. He then explores the limitations of suggested applications of hydrogen, including e-fuels made with direct air capture of CO2, hydrogen cars, and heating in buildings and industry. "

If you try to tell me that Joe Romm is a hack, I'll stop taking you seriously lol.

I just mean you have to be careful about your sources and how you deal with the information overload that is the world wide web. This goes for all topics but science more than all due to it being complex and gatekept, requiring "translation" into bite-sized content in layman's terms. There is fair criticism and plenty of verifiable facts out there everywhere including in a cleantechnica blog, but "facts" can be collected in a selective fashion and used in a way to deliver a pre-determined message. That also doesn't make it wrong, but if you (not "you" as a person, but in general) only read content in a specific place and written by specific people and interact with other members of that audience who also do the same thing, this is how an echo chamber happens and you miss the bigger picture. To put it another way, I could scan the web and find equally compelling content to rebuke all this - mostly because there's endless info online.

Someone legitimate like Joe Romm will also be armed with plenty of legitimate facts but like all humans, he has his biases, just like there are plenty of scientists just as decorated on the other side of it belting their story from the rooftop. When you're being objective no one is necessarily 'wrong', but there's a whole other side to it that's just as legit that one would be missing if they stuck to the same source.

This is actually part of larger feelings I have towards the internet and how we get information and the news nowadays.

Anyway, I didn't mean my comments personally against you. I also recognize that it's challenging and frustrating for people with great intentions but not versed in a topic to try and learn about it when you have endless amounts of facts out there that are presented in translation. While this is a topic I'm very close to, I come up against the exact same issues for things I'd like to learn about that are out of my wheelhouse too and it's very frustrating figuring out "what's right"