This is Gasbag's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Gasbag's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Actually it said 3x over batteries. It didn’t say best currently available batteries. For military applications money is no object so this is a good match. When your local hobby shop has these available we can see how close they are to being main stream.
Bravo! I’m very glad to hear you’re doing better. Whenever I hear from Canadians about their healthcare they always praise it. When I hear from Americans about their impressions of Canadian healthcare they almost always are negative. It seems there is a big disconnect.
So their revolutionary solid state efforts are going so well they are now looking into prismatic cells? Or are they going to surprise us with the first solid state prismatic? Has anyone called HarveyD to see if he is ok? Two days and no posts..... I’m beginning to think something dreadful has happened.
@Gorr Years ago this article would not have been posted on this board. In the good ol' days everything was about Atkinson cycles, compression ratios, planetary gears, and CVTs. The mere fact that so many of the articles posted today are about EVs is a sign of the impact of those government dollars invested years ago. By the way a disproportionate share of those government dollars are provided by me and I'm happy to see them invested in my future rather than my past though the dollars my government is investing in FFs is still dramatically higher than what is invested in our future.
@CalgaryGary Your numbers are legit but not applicable. Re-read the article. 1.3 billion miles, 200K vehicles. That works out to a average of less than 21 miles per work day....and that is an arithmetic average. Because a small number of vehicles contribute a disproportionate amount of miles the median is actually significantly lower. The majority of postal routes do not exceed 15 miles!! My carrier says in 15 years she has never had a load that was as much as 200 Lbs. Never! So we're talking about light loads and low speed stop and go city miles. Conservatively they should be able to get 5 miles / kWhr meaning the battery would not need to be large. A GEM eM 1400 LSV modified to be enclosed and with a custom box should be doable for a price around 15K. No need to squander billions on ICEVs initially that may cost additional hundreds of millions of annually. The RFP was probably written to exclude cost effective solutions. This is the type of boondoggle that should be investigated.
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.