This is Davemart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Davemart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
The 'amount and particulars' of the chemicals emitted are pretty important! And to the extent that SOFCs can be used, they are virtually eliminated, as they are not combusted.
Their energy density and storability demand that they are part of the energy future. If we can master compact SOFC then they could be used at very high efficiency with tiny levels of pollution in cars and other vehicles too.
Lad, Dave D: You guys have a valid view which I happen to disagree with. No problems at all about that, that is what a discussion site is all about. You do not though have ownership or heavy involvement in another site and troll hydrogen threads on another, any more than I troll sites knocking Tesla on every thread, even though I think it a disastrous mess which will end in ruin. It is the sheer ill-manners of whoever the individual who hides behind a corporate identity as ECI and his utter want of professionalism which draws the response I give.
gorr has his issues. He does not hide behind a corporate identity and have the ill manners to troll other sites though. Disgustingly unprofessional and personally lacking in any hint of standards. The fast that he is also near innumerate and and an obsessional fanatic with no hint of judgement is beside the point. It is not what he says, although that is daft beyond belief and the product of a childish lack of understanding, but the trolling of another forum by the owner or whatever he is of another, and that to post on one subject only in a propaganda offensive which is nauseating and accounts for the treatment I give the profoundly silly little man.
Paroway: It is not I who spends time trolling other people's forums on one subject to spread negativity and propaganda. ECI has a whole forum to show he has no idea of what journalism consists of, and to run as a fan site and propaganda organ.
The troll is back. Funnily enough, you don't have a hot line to God and your inevitable triumph is more doubtful by the day. Not only is your poster boy Tesla now down to issuing debt, living off its credit cards, but there is no chance of long range BEVs being fully competitive using current batter chemistry. You might be better occupied taking remedial arithmetic 101 than trolling hydrogen threads on someone else's forum. What time you can spare from posting hagiographies of a con-man and his company on your own site that is. A child could see through what is going on, but not you, of course, Don't worry, when it blows up, I will be there to remind you that your contribution to the electrification of transport has been not only worthless, but actively damaging.
'The new SUV boasts an efficiency level of 60%, or a 9% increase from the ix35’s 55.3%.' Cracking.
SJC In their short range Class 8 truck Toyota use 2 MIrai fuel stacks and just a 12kWh battery.
Lad: By your argument it makes no sense to use batteries in cars either, unless the electricity is from 100% renewables. You make the perfect the enemy of the good. Real progress in the real world is incremental, you can't do everything at once.
mahonj: This is to test all elements of the production chain, not to work out the best way of doing things in Finland: 'For the first time, the complete process from photovoltaics and capturing carbon dioxide from air to fuel synthesis has been set up to demonstrate its technical feasibility.' However, since hydrogen can be stored long term perhaps those long Finnish summer days would work, but my own bet would be on producing the fuel somewhere sunny like Tunisia then importing it. There are a lot more sunny places than those with oil.
Food trucks are one of the best early markets for fuel cell vehicles, as currently diesels have to be kept running to do the refrigeration, resulting in large amount of pollution. So fuel cells either as AP units or more ambitiously powering the truck as well provide an excelling zero pollution at point of use solution to this. Walmart is also steadily increasing its investment in fuel cell and hydrogen technology, with its very large fuel cell fork lift truck fleets providing obvious synergies with other uses for this established hydrogen infrastructure.
I'm a bit surprised Toyota decided not to make these themselves, as they do the CF tanks for their fuel cell cars. I think it indicates that Toyota are interested in using the market for fuel cell trucks with their need for high volumes of hydrogen to develop the infrastructure for that more than trying to move into trucking, and indeed they have said that they will use standard trucks from other manufacturers and add the fuel cell components.
What and awful video, and uninformative link. They tell us its new and exciting, but don't manage to specify what the basic technology is, alkaline, SOFC or what, and tell us nothing at all about efficiencies or anything which would enable some realistic evaluation.
And absolutely no mention of range.......
100 stations will give a thin but workable coverage, so long as your home or business is convenient to a local one.
Since you wanted a substantive critique, I look forward to your equally substantive response to the points I have made, one by one.
OK, since you wish to argue cases, you say: 'The most interesting question is how Linde, Shell, First Element and the other H2 suppliers will become competitively viable when Tesla has started deliveries of a $35,000 220 mile electric car.' Clearly you actually mean how will their hydrogen supply arms remain viable. Their calculations obviously show that they will be just fine or they would not be doing it, and your argument is anyway based on a false dichotomy between fuel cell cars and battery ones, when any mix is possible. Here is the responsible officer for making sure that the investment is viable at the first of the companies you name, Linde: 'Dr. Sven Schneider has been the Head of Group Treasury at Linde Aktiengesellschaft since April 2011 and has been its Chief Financial Officer and Member of Executive Board since March 8, 2017. Dr. Schneider served as Interim Chief Financial Officer at Linde Aktiengesellschaft since September 2016 until March 8, 2017. Dr. Schneider has been the Chairman of Supervisory Board and Member of Supervisory Board at Linde Finance BV since October 20, 2016 and April 22, 2011 respectively.' The other companies you name will have similarly eminently qualified and experienced executives who are investing the money whose calculations you feel qualified to wave away without having seen them. The only named person from eci who posted here was J. Cole, or whatever his name is, who was confused between the price of electricity which does not include the hefty amount of preference by not having to pay the equivalent of road tax on gasoline and true viability ex subsidy and mandate. That is not being able to add up properly, never mind being a lot sharper on the figures without having seen them than the head CFO's of half a dozen major companies. But perhaps you would wish to argue that the CFO of Tesla is similarly qualified. For a start Tesla could be wildly successful without impacting the viability of fuel cells and hydrogen whatever the ramblings of their CEO so their CFO will hardly have given the matter much attention. For where their attention is actually fixed, their very well qualified ex-CFO, Wheeler, said when he bailed after just a year forgoing loads of juicy share options, that Deepak who was to return had experience taking a company through bankruptcy. Wheeler seems to have fancied continuing to spend time with his family other than on visiting days Deepak wanted $15 million to take the risk. So there is your argument. You fancy you know more about what makes a viable car drivetrain than the leaders of just about every major car company, and more about the costs and viability of energy chains than the CFO's of all the energy companies. And none of that strikes you as being a teeny bit mad.
You apparently do not know the meaning of ad hominem, whoever I am addressing who does not have the basic manners to stand up as an individual and hides under a site reference. I directly criticised behaviours and biased 'journalism' , which is not an ad hominem attack, but a critique of actions. I have not said you have spots or something. I have said that you are utterly unprofessional in your uncritical coverage of Tesla without the least hint of balance, and in repeatedly trolling threads on hydrogen and fuel cell cars on other sites. Who knows, maybe Toyota, GM and the rest actually know more about the best ways to power a car than you do, impossible though you may find it to credit such an outlandish idea. There is no reasonable substance to address in your latest trolling. You risibly claim: 'The most interesting question is how Linde, Shell, First Element and the other H2 suppliers will become competitively viable when Tesla has started deliveries of a $35,000 220 mile electric car.' Have you read the financials of the companies involved? They are rather good at doing sums. I don't have to ask if you have read the financial filings of the company that you claim that they are struggling to be viable against, I very much doubt that you have read them, and if you have you most certainly have not understood them. They have never made a cent, and are only around today because they sell ever more shares, and have a huge appetite for subsidy. Is there any trace of adult judgement, let alone journalistic balance, on your site, without you posting absurdities here? Where do you even take notice that should the financial climate and lose money tighten, Tesla will disappear in smoke? That in that event the owners will be stuck with worthless cars which they have no prospect of selling, and which are near irreparable? I have no issue with advocacy, unless it becomes mere propaganda without any balance at all. Umpteen utterly sycophantic articles without the slightest hint of any potential problems are a disservice to your readers. How much will it cost to replace a battery pack in a Tesla, when as is perfectly possible they are not usable not too long after the 8 year, non capacity guaranteed warrantee expires? Note that I do not assert that that will happen, just that it is one of many potential downsides you utterly fail to acknowledge, let alone address, in favour of hagiography of a man who gives the most shambolically unprofessional conferences I have ever witnessed from a business executive, let alone a CEO of a large company. When this shareholder cash incinerator goes to its Chapter 11 in the skies., you will be exposed for your naiveté and folly, and have done your little bit to help stick large numbers of people with near worthless cars. That is lousy car advice, never mind your utter incomprehension of the financial strength and viability of companies, or your equal incomprehension that journalism demands and is based on a critical eye, not unmitigated infatuation.
The efficiency sounds pretty horrific, but it would be a great boon to be able to reduce of eliminate the dependence on natural gas for fertiliser production.
I see the hydrogen trolls are here again after running their own site as a propaganda organ with no relation to unbiased let alone critical journalism. The interesting question is actually how Tesla will become competitively viable, since they have lost billions over the years, and as Musk said the losses on the Model 3 are going to be horrendous as they try to ramp production. Other, proper car companies are now that the costs have dropped sufficiently starting to bring in long range BEVs, but they need their sales of other vehicles to support these as they will be low or negative margin. The answer is share issues of course, which is the only thing that has kept this money black hole in business. I do not expect an EV car site to have a great deal of understanding of finance. I do expect them however to have some minimal knowledge of what investigative journalism is and that it is distinct from cheerleading. And I do not expect that hiding behind a corporate identity they should have the bad manners to troll other sites with their propaganda..
SJC said: 'My point is carrying liquid fuel is better than highly compressed hydrogen.' Just so, I would have thought, although the Japanese are building ships to transport liquid hydrogen from Australia too.
Hi SJC: This is for bulk carrying as opposed to looking for something that can be reformed on board a vehicle, so what is going to count is whether it is easier or more efficient to use this than ethanol etc for that purpose, and presumably their sums come out showing it is. Although this uses a hydrocarbon source of NG, once the supply chain is set up any source of hydrogen could be used. For instance solar arrays in places with a high incidence of sun can utilise that, and the amount of sun they are collecting is so much higher than in places like the UK and Northern Europe, fantastically so in winter, that that covers a lot of the losses in going through the hydrogen or liquids phase. And the land is cheap in many suitable regions.
All the building blocks of the hydrogen economy are being put into place. Weirdly many of those who purport to support a high proportion of renewables in the grid and the decarbonisation oppose it, with their fixed idea that batteries and batteries alone can take care of everything, which they can't.
The nice thing is, that a fleet order can now be put in quite routinely, with a choice of several manufacturers for where the performance envelope of a BEV makes sense.