So, this Nikola truck company

Anyone know what sort of hydrogen fuel cell they’re using? Wiki, and their website, don;t seem to go into that level of detail.

PEM? Solid Oxide? Anyone know?

18 thoughts on “So, this Nikola truck company”

  1. slightly OT, but what are the benefits of a hydrogen vehicle? And not hippy shit but actual capitalist benefits to people delivering stuff?

  2. “You didn’t call it the Hindenburg Truck Company, then?”

    “The purpose of our vehicle is not flight” said Hiram Q Pipesucker Jr, spokesperson for the firm.

    Just you wait, matey.

  3. This was a year ago. How has it panned out? Has the planet been saved yet by the genius of Per Wassen and his “emission free” fuel cell?

  4. That’s the same as a diesel truck, isn’t it?

    Well, yes. I was rather assuming that the choice is going to be hydrogen or battery.

  5. The German govt has announced a new policy to make the country the leading hydrogen producer, using all that lovely excess electricity their windfarms are uselessly producing. Also solar plants in Morocco will do the heavy lifting and electrolysis on water and then ship it to Bremen in tankers.

  6. what are the benefits of a hydrogen vehicle?

    Precious few. Hydrogen isn’t a source of power, it’s a storage medium – having to be manufactured by energy intensive processes such as electrolysis of water or extraction from natural gas. Its energy density is low and it’s a pig to store – either as a liquid (requiring continual refrigeration to within a few degrees K) or in a massive (heavy) container at very high pressure, with walls thick enough to reduce the tendency of its tiny molecules to permeate even through solid metal.

  7. About the only benefit is no pollution at the point of use – the same as a purely battery vehicle. But they are NOT “Zero Emission” in any shape or form…

  8. greencarcongress.com/2019/04/20190430-bosch.html. It appears to be PEM.

    Of course, I feel that, if you have plenty of surplus hydrogen, the best thing to do is to combine it with all that CO2 everyone is always fussing about and turn it into petrol.

  9. Since for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere there can only be a temperature increases of about 1C, there is some other factor required to give us the planet-melting high temperature St Greta warns about.

    And that is water vapour, which in fact has the greatest GHG effect which is why Earth with 0,03% CO2 and around 2% to 3% water vapour is nice and cosy, whereas Mars with 93% C02 and no water vapour is very, very, very cold.

    The AGW claim is the slight uplift in temp caused by C02 increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which causes more warming, more water vapour, more warming and so on towards Armageddon. The exact sensitivity (radiative forcing) is unknown but computer models are sure it is between 3 and 6, or maybe only 2 and 4, or more lately at least 1,5 or ‘very likely’ 2 or 3… honest guv.

    Point is, burning hydrogen produces water vapour and thus will increase atmospheric water vapour which is the planet heater. So what advantage is it over CO2?

    The Climate Blob never mention water vapour as being the bad guy. But then zero water economy is unlikely to play well.

  10. And that is water vapour, which in fact has the greatest GHG effect which is why Earth with 0,03% CO2 and around 2% to 3% water vapour is nice and cosy, whereas Mars with 93% C02 and no water vapour is very, very, very cold.

    It’s not that cold. As well as less “greenhouse” heating, it’s also further from the Sun and its very thin atmosphere (less than 1% of ours) has little thermal inertia. Yet it can still manage a 20C daytime summer surface temp at the equator.

    The climate blob’s positive feedback notion for water vapour greenhouse sensitivity is obviously complete bollocks, as any temp increase would set it off and we’d have roasted eons ago. The Earth’s climate is clearly a negative feedback system, appearing to have not exceeded ± 12C in the entire time since Earth cooled from a molten orb.

  11. The Earth’s climate is clearly a negative feedback system, appearing to have not exceeded ± 12C in the entire time since Earth cooled from a molten orb.

    Indeed. Although I would add that it appears the only excursions from the norm are in the downward direction, when extensive glaciation raises the albedo: when it gets cold, it can stay cold for a long, long time. There are clearly negative feedbacks that act to limit increases in temperature.

  12. @BoM4
    Benfits? Virtue signalling

    Petro/Diesel is still far and away most energy dense and sensible fuel. Only detraction is economically damaging Gov’t punishment by tax and subsidies to EV & HV

    However, as we’ve seen, Bottler Boris likes shooting foot: XR, C-19, BLM…

    @Nautical Nick
    Germans & Heavy – Heavy Water

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *