This is Gasbag's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Gasbag's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Batteries are a lot more expensive but they also make a lot more financial sense as sort term grid storage. They are financially viable now. In Q1 2017 California alone installed over 200 megawatt hours of battery grid storage. California basically is the US market at this point but that represents a 50 fold increase YOY. GTM projects that this market will grow 10 fold between now and 2022. With battery prices in $/kWh expected to drop in half by 2021 and battery life expected to double in that time (effectively a 4 fold increase in ROI) I would think that 10 X increase would be conservative. The limiting factor is likely to be production capacity rather than demand. I would expect that in the future we will see intelligence added to the grid and what we'll see is discretionary consumption incented to shift to match production. On a larger scale intermittent production is more predictable. While FCs may prove to be financially viable for some electricity production needs I doubt that H2 will be the choice. I would expect that priority would be given to carbon positive processes which use electricity to produce fuel suitable for seasonal storage.
The answer to your question Larz is YES. In fact it should be possible to make an EV that will operate completely submerged where that same ICE doesn't work. It isn't that much more difficult than manufacturing an electric phone that works under water. Conformal coating and Mil Std connectors do wonders. 20 years ago we made solid state drives that worked underwater for the NSA.
The N1 and N2 both are intended to have 320 kWh of batteries which presumably would yield an AER of 250-350 km per charge. These aren't planned o be available until 2021. In order for these to be driven much beyond their electric range the cost of H2 will need to come down considerably. TCO is a big deal in the trucking industry. If it is true that 30% of trucking is less than 200 miles then there will be a bigger market for short range trucks than their production capacity. There will of course be competition. We'll see what info Tesla makes available on Oct. 26 Re: their offering. Nikola has announced plans to build 364 H2 stations but they'll need to raise a lot more capital to finance those ambitions. One thing I see absent from Nikola's press releases and I expect Tesla will leverage is AV technology. I could see Tesla planning on having a lead vehicle followed by a convoy of driverless drone vehicles wirelessly tethered to the lead thereby reducing the cost component of the driver. It could be a significant advantage. The initial cost of these vehicles will be high relative to the incumbent diesels so they will make the most financial sense to those who can maximize their utilization. Multiple shifts of drivers per vehicle would make sense.
Below are the ranges of BEVs projected with a 1X battery; 221 Hyundai Ioniq 220 Telsa M3 213 Renault Zoe 200 Chevy Bolt 190 Nissan Leaf 175 VW Golf It would appear that while you were sleeping the capacity has doubled what you perceive the range to be or about 200 miles / X so in order to meet your stated threshold of 500 miles on a single charge you are actually looking for a 2.5X improvement. With density increasing at 8% per year we would not expect BEVs to meet your expectation/requirement until 2029. If you are correct about 500 miles then I would not expect much growth in the short term or mid-term for BEVs. I doubt that you are correct about 500 miles range requirement though. Fairly recently (2008) the average range of an ICEV was 280 miles and I don't recall advertisements crowing about the range of more efficient vehicles. It just wasn't/isn't a big selling point when refueling times are below 15 minutes.
GM to Xi; What's that sir? A battery in every new vehicle? Not a problem. Right away sir. GM to POTUS: Improve mileage to meet CAFE standards? That would kill jobs. Can't be done. The current regime is doing their best to turn the US into a banana republic.
More subsidies for filthy fossil fuels. When they chanted "Drain the swamp!" the poor dumb bastards envisioned the slime and muck monsters being exterminated. Little did they know the slime and muck monsters were going to be elevated to the POTUS' cabinet. Where is Gorr when he is needed?
Thanks for the link Gryf. That was an interesting read. Although plug-ins have gone mainstream (> 10% of new car sales) in the Bay Area I'm convinced we'll need to see charging rates in the 100-150 kWh range for them to gain wider acceptance. Tesla offers that to their customers today. Perhaps we'll see what Tesla has up their sleeve in October when they reveal the Semi. Hopefully a lot of the VW Dieselgate $$s will go to 150/350 kW infrastructure instead of 50 kW.
You're right it is dependent on the efficiency of the vehicle and the 1,200 kW would be reasonable if by "average car" they were referring to a Tesla S. Their animation looked to me like a mid-size to compact sedan so I inferred a TM3 or Hyundai Ioniq would be apropos. A TM3 can do 300 EPA miles on about 73 kWh, a Hyundai Ioniq ~68 kWh, a Chevy Bolt ~77 kWh, and a Leaf on ~80 kWh. In each of those I've rounded up to account for a small addition in weight.
2025-2030 seems like a reasonable time frame given the current state of things. 2025 should be about the time that plugins will be moving the goal posts.
300 miles for an "average car" implies about 75kWh. 75 kWh in 5 minutes would need 900kW charging. 900 kW charging would be a challenge for much of the grid and isn't expected to be widely available anytime soon ....but 150 kW charging infrastructure is expected to roll out over the next couple years in California (StoreDot is planning on production in 2020.) @150 kW charge rate we could add 2 hours of drive time with a 15 minute charge. In surveys a supermajority of respondents indicated they were willing to wait 20 minutes to charge. A super majority of respondents also indicated that on long trips they drove between 90-120 minutes before taking a break. EVs need to charge at a rate of about 320 mph in order to meet the minimum expectations for charge rate. @150 kw this battery could charge at 600 mph. As Jeff pointed out they are short on info. There is no indication of how the cost of this might compare. Nor do they mention what the cycle life is or give much indication of the volumetric or gravimetric density. The cost would be important for all potential customers. Improved V and G density would be key for ICEV retrofits and PHEVs. For BEV platforms it would be less significant.
@HarveyD We currently have BEVs that will do 300+ miles. Asking for a 5X improvement would imply you believe that 1,500 + miles on a single charge is a requirement. Can you explain why you think this is needed by the buying public? From an engineering perspective it would be fairly trivial to design/build ICEVs that can do 1,500+ miles ...and yet most of the ~300 models of ICEVs sold in the US do not have a range of 1,500, 1,000, or even 500 miles.
Audi es parte del Grupo VW. En 2015 VW adquirió una compañía de estado sólido llamada Quantumscape. En el momento de Quantumscape se dice que unos años hasta la producción. Lo más probable es que se refieran al fruto de su adquisición.udi es parte del Grupo VW. En 2015 VW adquirió una compañía de estado sólido llamada Quantumscape. En el momento de Quantumscape se dice que unos años hasta la producción. Lo más probable es que se refieran al fruto de su adquisición.
Well that is extremely disappointing. At least they figured out that a battery could be used as a load leveler. So we have the FC version of a gen 1 Volt with half the electric range. I doubt this team survives long enough to give us the gen 2 Volt version. The 271 miles NEDC means it gets less than 200 miles in the real world. In the US where a 300 mile week is average you'll need to plug it in every day and still visit the gas station once a week. ...and what is up with their battery choice? Why do they need to hold 30+% in reserve? Their schedule is to make it available in a low volume in "late 2019." That probably means a few dozen will be available in Japan for photo ops and press releases for the 2020 Olympics and a few dozen to California. After the Olympics Japan may re-evaluate their commitment to Hydrogen. In California in 2021 we will have fulfilled our commitment with the build out of 100 H2 stations. Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda each has enough time to come out with one more update before judgment day.
Spot on. The larger laggards may be able to survive but the smaller ones are likely to be replaced by newcomers.
700 and 800 Km range BEVs are available today!! Go to Europe where they measure using NEDC or Japan where they use JC-08. No increase in density required. In the US moderate climates don't really need 700 km or even 400 km. 250-350 km would be fine if the vehicle can charge at a rate of 600 kmph or better. The Chevy Bolt and 2018 Nissan Leaf advertise that they charge at rates less than 300 kmph. If the Hyundai Ioniq increased their battery size by 50% they would provide 300 km of range and a charge rate in excess of 600 kmph. The technology is available today and in production. They just need to to a better job of integration. 150 units of energy in and 30 out? It makes sense as long as the energy input is free and reliable. I originally read "40 Nm3" as 40 cubic nanometers and was thinking what's the point? Nm3 is a common unit used in industry to refer to gas emissions or exchange. It stands for Normal cubic meter. Normal, in this case, refers to the gas at 0 degrees Celsius. To convert Nm3 to a cubic foot of gas (under standard conditions), multiply by 38.04. If Germany does get to 400 stations in 2023 that would represent about a 12 fold increase. If the world installed base of FCEVs also increased 12x then that would bring it to something under 45K vehicles by 2023. What makes more sense would be to increase the battery size to give the vehicle a 30-50 mile range and add a plug. By doing so the FC becomes a range extender and the output can be dropped in half which I would presume would significantly reduce the cost and size of the FC and probably actually lower the cost of the vehicle at the same time as increasing their production capacity. An additional benefit would be that your H2 network could then service a fleet of vehicles that is 10 times as large. Users would also have the benefit of a drastically reduced fuel bill as well as only having to refuel every 2-3 months.
Reputedly they are using LG Chem's cells. They did not confirm this or give any details on the thermal management of the pack. LG Chem has a good history of durability. They also did not provide any details on what the maximum charge rates might be. This is a nice update which very well may double or triple their sales volume but I'd still classify this as a proto-BEV due to the woefully inadequate charge rate that they cited; 176 MPH.
It might be of value for sports cars and trucks. If they start designing now they might have something in five years when EVs are ready to take over those market segments.
9 kWh LiB implies this may be a plug-in which would make a LOT of sense. They didn't mention the output of the stack which might give it away if it is a plug-in . The range seems low though. 300 miles NEDC is likely not much more than 200 EPA ...particularly f you're starting off with 20-30 miles of battery.
> 1) lighter more performance (from 200 Wh/Kg to 600+ Wh/Kg), I believe this is a false requirement believed by those who think that BEVs need to be able to have 500 mile per charge ranges in order to compete. Based on consumer surveys I believe that mid-range BEVs (140-190 mile range) can satisfy most consumers who have the good fortune to live in moderate climates. Like you most BEV enthusiasts disagree with me. If they 2018 Leaf supports an adequate charge rate we should have our answer next year. 2) price has to drop from $150+/kWh to less than $75/kWh, Essentially you're saying that battery prices need to drop in half in order for BEVs to be competitive. I agree with that. battery prices dropped by an average of 14% per year from 2010 thru 2014. From 2015-2016 the pace of price decline increased to 16% per year. At that rate it takes four years for prices to drop in half. In 2016 a Nissan director stated that it was cheaper to build short range BEVs than it was to build [parallel] hybrids. Put those two tidbits of info together and by 2020 we can expect midrange BEVs to be cheaper than parallel hybrids. Add to that the knowledge that consumers have a strong preference for electric drive vehicles. How strong? Consumer surveys show they are wiling to pay up to $5,000 more for a BEV. 3) recharge time reduced from 60 minutes to 10 minutes, More accurately the 40-50 minutes needs to be reduced but how low? Consumer surveys show that in the US that needs to be reduced to 20 minutes. In Europe they require a reduction to 30 minutes. Not only do batteries have to improve but the charging infrastructure also has to improve. The ability to satisfy consumers expectations is possible with existing battery technologies but this involves a bit too much explanation for me to put here. I'll explain this and consumer range requirements n separate post. > 4) duration from 6-8 years to 12-16 years. 6 years? Most EVs sold n the US in 2017 were sold in California. The batteries on EVs sold in CA are required to have a minimum of an 8 year warranty. It would be as silly to expect a battery to fail at 8 years as it would to expect an ICEV drive train to fail after 5 years just because that is the length of the warranty. Those expensive FC high pressure fuel tanks are an exception as they currently have a 10 year expiration date. If FCs ever sell in volume the laws may change. If you exclude Nissan's gen 1 batteries (which are the only ones which lack thermal management) and the early Tesla roadster batteries there are no significant reports of battery failures. Moreover Jef Dahn has said that in his teams first year they exceeded their goal of doubling the life of Tesla's batteries. Since it generally takes a couple of years for design improvements to make it to production we can expect this in 2018 or 2019. I don't expect this to have a significant change in transportation but it we would expect it to gut the cost in half for grid storage. > Meanwhile, improved FCs will soon meet the above specs but H2 price has to drop from $10/Kg to about $3.50/Kg to make FCEVs competitive. Another 10 years may be required. How soon is soon? Hyundai just gave us details of their 2.5 year update. The most significant improvement was the 9% efficiency increase which will help reduce the cost of fuel consumption by about 9% and extend the range. They also standardized on a single size tank rather than two different sizes. This will allow them to reduce production costs slightly. Those are welcome improvements but not what FC needs. They need dramatic reductions in the costs of their vehicles. Absent from Hyundai's announcement was any indication that there would be any price reduction. They're still leasing these and not selling them which is a clue that they don't view them to be ready for prime time. If "soon" is before 2020 don't expect it to be from Hyundai.
So you have someone who has a vested interest cherry-picking data from an old report based on older data from an analyst with questionable expertise on what they are analyzing. If only we had a report from an non conflicted reputable source based on recent data. Voila! Two days ago AAA released a report on TCO and contrary to BCA Research's findings AAA found that EVs currently have a lower TCO than the average for ICEVs! Vehicle_Type Annual_Cost Small Sedan $6,354 Small SUV... . $7,606 Hybrid...... .... $7,687 Med. Sedan . $8,171 E. Vehicle..... $8,439 Average....... $8,469 Minivan....... $9,146 Large Sedan. $9,399 Medium SUV.. $9,451 Pickup Truck $10,054 One flaw in AAA's report is that they included depreciation but did NOT include incentives. Incentives directly increase first year depreciation. If you factor that in then EVs are less than $10 /month more than the cheapest ICEV class listed. Also worth pointing out that pickup trucks sell very well even though they are not cost competitive. TCO is largely irrelevant for the general public even if it favors EVs. What is a challenge for EVs is the higher upfront costs. These are significant and are much more significant in the minds of the American general public. ~
It seems the headline should read "Germans most interested in Electric cars". The range expectation would seem surprising to the casual observer or American until it is explained that since this is Germany they are thinking in terms of NEDC and the 288 miles NEDC translates to about 200 miles EPA. The cars that most Germans can't imagine will be coming in 2018 and 2019.Those include the Ampera-e (Chevy Bolt), the Tesla Model 3, the longer range Nissan Leaf, and the longer range Hyundai Ioniq. I'm sure there will be others. Niro, iPace, et al. After they have some real world experience with the cars they can't imagine (like Californians and Norwegians) they will likely come to realize that most only need 250-300 km of real world range. That assumes the availability of fast charging (100-150 kW) infrastructure. More capacity may be desired for harsh winter conditions. What is encouraging for electrics is that Germans are willing to wait 30 minutes for a charge while Americans that figure is 20 minutes. Batteries that can handle 100 kW charging should easily satisfy their 30 minute requirement. At 150 kW heavier less efficient vehicles will also meet the 30 minute expectation.
So a $50,000+ FCEV is considered affordable and yet a sub $30,000 BEV from the same vendor is considered expensive? I'm not implying that the Ioniq is not expensive for a short range BEV but I don't think a $32K premium on a $22K Tucson is affordable. I could be wrong though. The full press release noted that Hyundai's target for 2018 was 1,400 vehicles which they said was a 15 fold increase of 2017. That seems to imply fewer than 100 vehicles for 2017.. That is interesting because in 2015 they had stated a target of 1500 for 2016 and 5,000 for 2017. In 2013 they stated a target of 1,000 for 2014 but only produced 273. Hyundai has been producing the ix35/Tucson since 2013. To the date of the release they had produced 666. The salient point is that they don't have a history of coming close to their targets when it comes to FCEVs. Another interesting thing I find are the reactions of the proponent communities. Hyundai only committed to batteries for 600 Ioniq BEVs per month and seemed shocked by the overwhelming demand. Their battery vendor, LG Chem, could only increase their allotment to 900 per month. For their lack of commitment Hyundai is derided as the Ioniq is considered a compliance car. In contrast a soft target of 120 FCEVs per month has the FCEV community in a celebratory conga line.
Wow....This explains why I see so few sales/registration numbers for FCEVs. These numbers are beyond bad. They are embarrassingly dismal. I have to call BS on the suggestion or inference that the refueling infrastructure has been holding FCEVs back in California. 29 stations is enough to have over 9,000 square miles within 10 miles of a station. Even if the placement were poorly coordinated you could easily cover 35-45% of CA's population. That means 4-5% of the nation's population or 600,000-800,000 worth of new cars purchased per year. If these vehicles were moderately attractive you would expect sales in the range of 5K-10K cars per year. 29 stations to accommodate 1,600 vehicles that on average refuel once per week means the stations need to accommodate an average of fewer than 8 vehicles per day. Most of these stations are supposed to be able to handle that in about half a half an hour.
NREL produces an annual report on the FC projects in California. In the recent report covering 2016 all but 2 of the 23 FC busses in the US were in CA. They missed several of their goals for reliability, availability, serviceability, and range but those are minor things that would be expected in pilot projects involving new tech. The bigger challenge they face is creating a viable economic model. Currently the initial cost is prohibitive and the operational costs are improving but currently unsustainable as Harvey alluded to. Per the NREL report the initial costs have fallen from 2.5 million per in 2010 to 1.8 million recently ...a decline of 28%. In that same time lithium ion batteries have declined 70%.