From the patent:
This comment from the YouTube video raises some of the points that occur to me:
So they’re going to leave a lot of stuff in the ground, converted to forms that will probably be less stable and more mobile than the original materials. In the absence of more information, it looks to me like an ecological disaster in the making. Probably profitable though, if they can get some politicians onside.
Porche Taycan EV travels 3,425km in a day at up to 215km/hr.
And no dodgy VW group emissions.
And this is a great idea because … ? 
Hmmm …
An article claiming that electric vehicles will be price competitive with petrol vehicles by 2030.
An article regarding progress with hydrogen powered vehicles.
Wow. With electric vehicles predicted to be price competitive with petrol vehicles by 2023 and hydrogen vehicles expected to be available by 2025, perhaps I should put that new V12 Maserati on hold for now.
No progress?
Just hype and a teenage boyhood dream of keeping servo’s and the related industry alive into the future.
“The advantage of hydrogen cars is that it takes the same time to charge them as it takes to fill your car with fossil fuels — no more than about three minutes,” Motor Trades Association of Queensland’s chief executive Brett Dale said.
The cost and relative efficiency of producing green hydrogen as an energy source remains prohibitive. Prospective owners trade the current expensive battery technology of a BEV for nearly as expensive fuel cells, with scarce metals and still needing peak power storage battery/capacitors. Crash proof hydrogen bottles are not that cheap either.
More likely you may also defer that midlife crisis Harley, or get in quick before the days of exhaust loud motor cycles are replaced by pure silence at the lights. Get in quick before the window of opportunity closes. Assume the Maserati might also roar on command?
The only significant relatable real world use of hydrogen as a passenger vehicle fuel is the USA. California to be precise.
An interesting comparison of the current state of play. One view point related to the USA norms.
Hydrogen is a more expensive fuel option. Current production also comes with a fuel carbon footprint that is significant.
From
Not just California. Hawaii has been using hydrogen buses for more than 15 years …from my recollection using solar to break water.
If one beleives WIKI, there is even broader use of hydrogen…
There have also been ongoing advancements in hydrogen fuel generation, transport, storage and cell technologies/efficiencies which will continue to mature as time goes on. Many of the large car manufacturer’s (and Japanese) are investing in hydrogen research and development, and the monies spent will advance the technology further.
There is also some interesting work being done by the Japaneses in relation to robust onboard hydrogen storage cylinders. There are reports that they are being designed to withstand enormous forces (such as a fire bullet) to ensure safety of hydrogen vehicle occupants in the case of a accident.
Any technology has risks (such as penetration or significant damage of li-ion batteries resulting in rapid and intense fires). These risks can be overcome with cost (either financial or loss in efficiency through increased weight from protection devices).
The balance in cost for any technology will likely be a happy medium between the financial cost and what risks are acceptable to the consumer and legislators.
There are also many that see a hydrogen as part of the energy mix in the future…and are actively working towards this future.
No reason not to. There is plenty of commentary that suggests hydrogen as fuel for larger vehicles has better economics than for passenger vehicles.
The race of battery vs hydrogen may be viewed more directly when Bloomberg’s observations on electric buses are noted.
425,000 e-buses globally, although 421,000 are in China.
Bloomberg’s forecasts for hydrogen fuel uptake in the commercial sector are not that optimistic?
P.S.
Possibly only very recently for the Toyota Mira trial filling station.
Hawai’i produces large quantities of syngas from imported naphtha (hydrocarbon), to mix with imported LNG. The syngas is typically 10% hydrogen which is readily available for use for electric buses. Some general marketing labels naphtha a waste product of the petrochemical refining process. That’s misleading aside from the fact naphtha is not petrol or diesel. It has many uses.
Including napalm…
I assume this is a question. While off topic and to save further confusion.
The simple answer is NO!
The petrochemical naphtha as we know it has nothing to do with the chemical compound napalm which is an aluminium salt/soap used as a thickening agent.
Napalm | Incendiary Weapon, Vietnam War, Firebombing | Britannica?
(Graphic intentionally suppressed.)
In typical lazy language the incendiary that uses napalm is also known by the same name although it is typically mostly petrol (gasoline) or perhaps diesel.
An article regarding proposals to legislate low speed sound generation in electric vehicles to warn hearing impaired and distracted pedestrians or the vehicles approaching them.
In the case of idiots who persist in looking at their mobile phones on pedestrian crossings, I would prefer the reintroduction of the Fiamm airhorns we had in the 1870’s.
Being situationally aware must be of concern to us all whether pedestrian, homebody, at a workplace or school, or on or near a road. With a head down looking at a screen or being distracted from the task at hand by anything else we are doing is dangerous for all of us. A slip, a fall, being hit by a car (and what was the driver doing as well) are among many things that can have very bad outcomes for the person/people both involved in the incident and all those the incident more broadly affects eg Emergency Service personnel. We all need to take greater care and responsibility for our actions and use devices such as our connected ones appropriately and safely in regards our locations and tasks. I don’t know that I would call them idiots but rather they are very poorly educated about the risks they entertain & the responsibility they should have.
Is the proposed response to the silence of vehicles powered by new technology really about change management?
And similar to the 19th century man walking in front of the locomotive or car waving a red flag. Necessary perhaps for a short period, and soon gone?
If we were all born and grew up in a world of silent transport, would our community perceive a similar need to announce traffic?
For those who espouse the benefits of the paleo world, did lions ever roar before running down their prey, or did giant pythons carry blue flashing lights and sound sirens as they moved about.
At which point do we abandon self reliance and attempt to save humanity from itself by making everything idiot and fool proof?
The current proposals have a community benefit, however the proposed devices go silent at speeds above 20kph.
It appears counter intuitive!
As an alternative why not require all silent vehicles to use a short range non audible transmission?Something that an electronic aid that can be worn by just not the vision impaired, but also those with hearing or other limitations, even children. An aid that announces the nearby presence of a vehicle.
We are fast approaching a future of even more wearable and connected technology. Tech will assist and improve the mobility of those who experience the world differently, as well any of us who chose HUD wearables.
The current option seems a short term fix. Perhaps as for the early railways, which slew more pedestrians than any other cause in 19th century Britain, the future will fence in all roads, just as railways today are fenced from public access. Total safety for all?
It could be because for a vehicle, tyre/rolling noise dominates vehicle emissions around 30km/h.
Having a synthetic engine noise above this speed will have limited effect.
If one has been in a low background noise environment (such as a rural area) near a road, one will hear tyre/rolling noise and only hear the engine noise if the vehicle’s exhaust has been modified (to make it considerably louder), the vehicle is being driven at very high engine revs (engine screaming), there is something mechanically wrong with the vehicle or the vehicle is a heavy vehicle under load.
Every vehicle, tyre profile, road surface and background noise environment is different. Is it as simple as a graph? Incidentally the graph crossing point is 30kph, vs the proposed 20kph. Background noise is also a consideration.
Rather than trying to guess the science or political reasoning.
As a starting point exactly what are the concise technical points and data that have been tabled for the Australian discussion.
How considered is the science put to government and their departments?
What were the factors that were considered critical to the recommendation/decision?
One take on how this is being interpreted by the car manufacturers.
The minimum noise level apparently equates to an electric toothbrush. 
Of note the European decision also mandates a reduction in the street legal sound levels of 25%, (4db) of conventional/regular motor vehicles as necessary to reduce overall the general background traffic noise levels.
Although in practice, as for current vehicles, engine and exhaust noise levels are not too rigorously enforced in Australia?
In the European legislation vehicles with less than 4 wheels are exempt. Good news for those who aspire to an all green, battery or hydrogen powered electric Harley. It won’t need to sound like an electric toothbrush on steroids! 
Very considered and based on science.
If one looks at the following graph…
(Source: Dijkink and Keulen 2004)
at around 30km/hr the rolling and engine noise is around 57 dB. The 56 dB nominated by the EU and likely to also be adopted internationally is based on science. It is possible that the source they are using nominated 56 dB.
I also recall from my uni days that 55-56 dB is also the noise level quoted and used to define noise induced sleep disturbance. The WHO indicates that ‘long-term average exposure to levels above 55 dB, similar to the noise from a busy street, can trigger elevated blood pressure and heart attacks.’ It is worth noting that a busy road less than 30km/h where vehicles produce 56dB each will have a noise level of around 61dB at the road. Assuming a bedroom is located away from the road, the noise will be attenuated by distance and barriers (walls, windows etc) and would likely be less than that often nominated for sleep disturbance.
It is also around the noise level expereinced indoors in most urban situated houses when occupied.
Yes they are and one must also remember that a 3dB increase in sound level is a doubling of the sound energy. It is unlikely that changes in tyres, road surface etc would result in a significant change in sound levels…maybe 3dB but not say 10dB.
Background noise does impact on what sounds can be heard. High background noise levels will mask noises which are 3dB or less than the background noise. This applies to existing vehicles.
I suspect that the <30km/hr synthetic noise will be required as this is when the moving vehicle is at its quietest (this is not rocket science) and the impact by background noise on the vehicle noise would be the greatest (vehicle noise could be equal to or less than background noise). A synthetic noise would elevate the vehicle making it more noticable.
It is also worth noting that the EU has a target night noise level of 45 to minimise sleep dusturbance. The EU also recognises that road noise (engine and tyre) contribute greatly to the residentual acoustic environment in the EU during the night.
How is that considered if the information, which is all very interesting is not the source information put before the EU or in our instance the State and Federal Transport Ministers and their departments?
What alternatives, if any did they consider? Five years to implement is a long time in respect of changes in technology.
Note:
As a very general observation, it is wonderful that actions are being considered.
As a concise point, is there every reason the various documents and deliberations behind the recommendation should be publicly accessible?
The same can be said about the various government media releases relating to new vehicle technology. The substance behind each release, assuming it exists, should be in the full public view. The alternative is the releases are simply spin, or the product of lobbying that is not transparent. The risk is consumers are mislead and over time become disinterested. The cost is a loss of consumer interest in productive change, or worse, attraction to impossible dreams.
Interesting pitfalls:
