Or in the near future will the mobility aids we can provide to those with hearing or vision or other needs, eliminate the need because everything communicates with everything else?
On the current trend though!
I do wonder which melody or squark like a rampant reversing alarm Standards Australia and the ADRs might settle on. Musk might be inspired in offering different sounds. It’s naive though to think there will be a free for all.
My vote if it comes to personalisation, is for a Detroit 6-71 two stroke diesel, in stereo, aka 6046 series. If it sounds a bit like an approaching M4A2 Sherman tank, perhaps right of way will be assured?
Perhaps also the approaching vehicle could induce a low frequency vibration through the ground, increasing in intensity to alert everyone, irrespective of state of alertness or differing capabilities to sense the impending danger?
The Australian Government, with cooperation of COAG, is preparing an Australian Hydrogen Strategy. Both the Commonwealth and State governments have identified the opportunity Australia has in a hydrogen energy future and that converting water into hydrogen through electrolysis using excess renewable energy. Hydrogen has been identified by many countries as having the greatest potential to allow the international transport of renewable energy. Many countries are investing in hydrogen and fuel cell technologies to power future transport system, particular those which rely on greater distances or high vehicle mileages.
The Australian government as a website dedicated to Australian Hydrogen Strategy Updates…which is worth watching as it is likely that this strategy will impact on all our lives in the future:
One can also register for email updates using this website as well.
Alan Finkel, Australia’s chief scientist recently spoke to the ABC about Australia’s hydrogen energy future. A copy of the audio of this discussion can be downloaded here:
Except for pure methane, and it’s near gases, all everyday liquid hydrocarbon fuels are carbon rich.
Perhaps the 80% is misquoted and represents something different. Perhaps it is 80% of the CO2 of everyday petroleum diesel, or a guess at the carbon footprint of the fuel cycle?
P.S.
A ‘green banana’ award for the ABC journo, for a story line that is not yet quite ready due to incomplete proof reading and checking?
Perhaps, also into the future a ‘black banana’ can be awarded to those over ripe stories other services recycle months or years after they were first published?
I do wonder how much deep fried goodness we might all need to consume to run the Brisbane City 8,000 buses on biodiesel?
Ahhh you mean like a huge tank tread rumbling down the street
I really don’t know that we as people will be able to adjust fully to a more “silent” (sound and vibration) transport system. I think the research that they are making into making the vehicles we will use into the future more responsive to issues is probably the best way forward eg forward collision avoidance systems that are appearing in cars now by employing sensors that detect objects in too close proximity and apply braking to avoid collision. We as humans many times do not adequately self assess our abilities to handle events that happen. Dispassionate machines are perhaps the real answer for that human issue.
When any of us look for examples of this today, perhaps we need to look to automated production lines and mining processes. In these environments, the employees are trained, have a high level of understanding, awareness, and hopefully alert to the hazards around them. These hazards are typically very confined in their operation.
Despite this the almost universal safety truth is that unless there is separation by hard barriers, people come of second best every time. Something to do with ‘Zero Harm” or similar corporate mandated outcomes.
In the more mundane urban environment, where there may be lesser standard expected of pedestrians, when a machine fails;
Will we be as dispassionate and accepting of yet another road fatality, as we are today?
Or
Will we demand absolute perfection from AI, the vehicles, and insist on retribution from the defenceless automaton?
It would seem in the consumer world we are far less accepting of inanimate powered consumer goods that cause harm, than we are of motor vehicles guided by human hand.
This is a likely consequence of electric propulsion, which might belong in a different discussion, to the current topic.
That is not the only dodgy chemistry reported without comment. We also have:
After the oil is the collected and filtered, the chemical compound lye is added, which separates the cooking by product into glycerine and usable fuel.
The glycerine is then made into a liquid and bar soap, which is exchanged for used cooking oil from restaurants.
This makes no sense at all. The usable filtered oil is the fuel. And you cannot use the same oil to make soap and as a fuel. Let me explain.
Vegetable and animal fats and oils are chemically esters, that is a molecule formed by bonding an acid and an alcohol. The only difference between a fat and an oil is melting point. Simplified such oils are a combination of several long chain fatty acids (say 4-6 kinds) each kind bonded to glycerol. These are key metabolic components and sources of energy of living things. Note that these are quite different to mineral oils in their origin and chemistry but they share the property that they can be burnt in a suitable ICE. Animal oils are essentially the same structure but use a different set of fatty acids.
You can break these oils into their component fatty acids and glycerol by cooking with strong alkali and water, this is saponification, ie soap-making. Neither of the components are a useful fuel. So once you treat the oil with lye you get soap and glycerol and you no longer have diesel fuel. Glycerine is not soap, it is a byproduct of soap making. The fatty acid salt (ie soap) is not a fuel and if introduced into an engine somehow would quickly bring its doom.
So the reporter has totally mangled this report and made it quite meaningless. Not to mention making tons of carbon disappear.
But with that low slung body the dog may find it a challenge staying on the back tray cover, and the local outback Qld towie will be kept busy?
Like all concepts, the follow up real world vehicles are usually more practical, and the styling never quite so keen. A big positive that the market is being explored so confidently.
Isn’t the point of a ute… to be able to put things in the tray? Filling up the tray with batteries makes it an expensive ‘fashion’ piece’ if the ute goes into production and made as indicated by the photos:
On the plus side, one would load up the ute with batteries to try and improve the range…at the expense of handling (high centre of gravity and additional weight)
Only if you intend to use it as a Ute for something useful like a tradie or farmer would. Although if today’s EV prices are a guide it would seem an unlikely use for a $100k guesstimate cost of vehicle.
More practically it does solve the perennial weight distribution problem of needing some spare bags of cement in the tray. And in reality most utes and tray backs have more than adequate room in the rear chassis under the tray for any amount of batteries. Mine has sufficient for a 200l long range fuel tank between the rails.
P.S.
It’s an easy EV conversion if I chose, but no change put of $40k with a smaller battery pack option. And not so great for towing at 110kph.
Dr Alan Finkel has indicated that the Australian Hydrogen Strategy will only look at the opportunities in relation to the establish a hydrogen industry based on renewable energy, but the infrastructure needed to support the industry. I expect that the infrastructure will also include the storage and distribution of hydrogen to users such as vehicles and industry. It will be interesting to see what is in the strategy on its planned release later in the year.
There are been reports that the recommended retail price for Australia is $59,345 for the base 2019 Hyundai Nexo Blue and $62,845 for the Nexo Limited, which is significant greater than an ICE vehicle and similar to equivalent Li-ion battery EVs.
The main advantages over batter EVs will be range (the Nexo has a reported range of 800km) and refilling times (5 minutes for the Nexo compared to considerably longer times for batteries). I also expect that the weight of a Nexo will also be less than that of a battery car which may make handling potentially better.
I also expect that government would support hydrogen over batteries as the existing fuel tax model better transfers to this technology (batteries has been challenging for government to implement a user pay model type tax system)…
It will be interesting to see feedback from the Nexos government trial as this will establish its potential as a future transport fuel option the the every day consumer.
That sounds too good?
Does that confirm the COAG Ministers have also agreed to exclude “clean hydrogen” from coal and natural gas from the strategy, and future planning?
An alternative view point is that Government has already decided the opportunities for hydrogen production from hydrocarbon sources does not need a strategy, and it is free to develop in an open market. IE There will be a free market space for it to compete with renewable energy sourced hydrogen.
I’ll simply note that Australia has established a number of plants that produce industrial grade hydrogen from hydrocarbon sources. Australia also has established numerous large scale production sites of ammonia from hydrocarbon feedstock. The products are used in both agriculture and mining. The use of ammonia as a safe means of transporting and storing hydrogen has been aided by Australian research to enable the hydrogen to be recovered readily from the ammonia at service station scale sites. These sites may benefit from solar PV to power the process and compress the hydrogen for supply to the on site hydrogen filling stations.
P.S.
Perhaps someone also needs to commit to a moratorium on Carbon dioxide sequestration and open loop CO2 recycling until they too are fully assessed. Or am I over thinking where we might be headed.
The COAG Energy Council Hydrogen Working Group web site links directly to the CSIRO National Hydrogen Roadmap. This document leads off with hydrogen produced from coal and natural gas, including brown coal from Victoria in particular, as opportune.
