This is Davemart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Davemart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Gasbag: Long distance BEVs are nowhere near economic viability ex subsidy, certainly not at the regular as opposed to the luxury end. FCEVs are some way behind BEVs in their roll out, but it is absolutely untrue that their are progressing slower than BEVs. The reverse is the case, with Toyota for instance telling us that they will take out 3/4 of the cost of a fuel cell stack by around 2020 compared to when the Mirai was introduced.
The assumption that this technology is entirely reliant on economic production of hydrogen from renewables would not appear to be correct, although that may happen anyway. Nanotube membranes if cheap enough could presumably also be used in conventional separation of natural gas or liquified coal: Since the CO2 is used and the synthetic fuels burn very cleanly this would represent much progress in reducing the environmental consequences of fossil fuel usage, even to the extent they do not come from renewables.
Another nail in the coffin of the notion that BEV cars are the only way forward, it seems likely. Some way to go to prove the technology, of course, but it looks like no more so than truly economic ex subsidy high density long life batteries. Synthetic fuels are way cleaner to burn as well than regular gasoline. Check out this link for a video of the process: At the end of the video, click through for the video on the use of the tech in desalination and water purification, which is being started now, and will prove or disprove costings.
And from left field..........
Jeffgreen: You are referring to the larger packs in the Model S and X, not the Model 3 which is warrantied as I have said. If you have solid evidence of any Model S or X doing 300,000 miles on the same pack, please present it, as I have seen no claims at all that were backed up. One reached 200,000 miles or so, but had had a battery swap which Tesla claimed, or its fans did, was more or less for the hell of it, so it did not count. The low reductions in range over time were a product of an 'interesting' reporting system by Tesla, which did not count the actual battery capacity, which was oversized, but the nominal, so they could claim tiny reductions in range. That gaming stops when the nominal converges to the actual, and Tesla owners are in for a nasty surprise then as the true battery capacity reduction rate becomes clear. In addition, Tesla have now walked back their previous claims that the BMS reported the actual capacity. The S and X should do their warranted mileage fine, so long as not too much towing is attempted with a battery pack replaced after 60,000 miles after a lot of towing by Nils, with their huge batteries, but the idea that they are million mile batteries has been faked up jointly by the deliberate obscurities of Tesla and naive fanboys.
'Faster charging as always comes at the expense of overall battery life but many consumers would welcome the ability to charge a vehicle battery quickly when short journey times are required and then to switch to standard charge periods at other times. ' IOW it hammers battery life, and is unlikely to be relevant to normal cars as opposed to track. The Model 3 which uses cylindricals is only rated for 100-130,000 miles anyway, so who the heck is going to want to have that reduced?
Would battery only enthusiasts like to tell us how these 500 trucks compare to the massive deployment of Tesla semi trucks in 2018?
Arnold: You are right that subsidies and mandates for costs will not be included, which would seem to be the correct way of doing things as if the proportion of alternative fuelled vehicles rises enough to be significant then they will lose their perks, with Governments in Europe for instance making it perfectly clear that they neither intend nor can afford to continue them beyond the start up stages. For the modelling though they will surely include maintenance costs in the lifetime costs, and that is done in every study I have seen which gives a breakdown.
HI Paroway: Have a look at the projected declines in costs out to 2025-30 which will include reduced costs for batteries. As materials make up an ever increasing proportion of the total cost further reductions are more and more difficult to come by though. Hyundai reckon that further reductions will be low after around 2020 and $100KWH at the cell level. Different chemistries, solid state etc, might change that, but what we have a good grasp on at the moment is in the range given by the article.
'The ICCT team found that a typical electric car today produces just half of the greenhouse gas emissions of an average European passenger car. ' So they are not looking at remotely comparable ranges. They may even be looking at the existing fleet averages, hugely influenced by 24KWH battery packs. Long range ~300 mile BEVs will be way worse, with far more embodied energy.
Lad: You need to re-read the information in the article. Costs, energy and emissions are given for the present, but also projected to 2025-30. IOW it is not just assuming present technology and costs, and allows for improvements. Of course the assumptions would alter the conclusions, and we don't have them detailed. However it is normal to exclude breakthrough technology, but as can be seen they assume significant progress in the time they cover. And you focus of Chevron, and ignore the US Government and everyone else's input. You also wrongly assume that hydrogen equates to fossil fuel use. Again you need to read more thoroughly, as they detail electrolysis, presumably from renewables, as one of their sources for hydrogen.
The study also tops out at a 210 mile AER for BEVs. To have anything like the long distance capability of FCEVs 300 miles would be needed, and both the embodied energy/emissions and the costs would be way worse.
Proper quantitive analysis on a lifetime emissions and cost basis blows away the innumerate claims of big battery only boosters alleging huge differentials in their favour. But then they were always going to.
More information here: One point brought out in this link is that 5G communication is integral to Hyundai's approach to Level 4 autonomy, with the high data rate an enabler. In my view it is this sort of thing which makes Tesla's claims that it is currently producing cars with all the hardware needed not only for Level 4 but Level 5 full autonomy on all roads any time any conditions beyond nutty. And it is selling them on that premise.
'SunLine Transit Agency has been leading the front on alternative fuel buses and is on a clear path to an all zero emission fleet. The Agency has developed a reputation for taking on “firsts” in the industry –from being the first transit agency to convert its entire fleet from diesel to compressed natural gas in 1994 to putting into service the first fuel cell bus in 2000. “SunLine has a longstanding commitment to the environment with the continual development of our clean fuels fleet,” said Lauren Skiver, CEO/General Manager of SunLine Transit Agency. “The Agency has invested in nine generations of hydrogen-fueled vehicles, and the addition of FC7 Battery Dominant Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus continues our efforts to do our part to ensure our natural resources are preserved.” Partners with SunLine Transit Agency in this endeavor include Creative Bus Sales, CalStart, the Federal Transit Administration, the State of California Energy Commission, BAE Systems, ElDorado National, ENC, REV Vehicles for Life and US Hybrid. SunLine served as the test bed for fuel cell technology development, hydrogen fueling infrastructure, and commercial operation of fuel cell buses. As a result, SunLine Transit Agency commercially operates over a quarter of the nation’s fuel cell buses partially on renewable hydrogen produced on its property. The executive leadership at SunLine Transit continues to encourage industry and fellow sister agencies to support the commercialization and diversification of zero emission buses. The Agency plans to continue to expand its zero emission fleet until it can provide completely emission-free public transit to the region it serves – the Coachella Valley. '
I find Toyota's participation interesting. An aircraft might be a good target for introduction of their solid state battery, if they can get them working, as safety would be paramount and high costs could be tolerated.
I'd note that I am highly sceptical about this working out. Not as bad as the notion of a long range class 8 BEV, but the performance envelope for fuel cells and hydrogen is challenging. Short range drayage as in the Toyota Class 8 for the Port of Los Angeles, fine, but this sounds very doubtful to me, as well as their notion of supplying all the hydrogen from solar.
EP: As others here have noted, your childish ill manners put you outside the bounds of adult discussion. I can't be bothered to read your lengthy list of prejudice, let alone reply to it. Grow up and join the adults.
Here is an analysis of resources for hydrogen production in the US, including from biomass, wind and solar: The resources are clearly enormous. Reforming NG should not be regarded as equivalent to electricity production either in the potential to reduce GHG emissions, as the emissions of CO2 can be very pure and ideal for cheap sequestration or use to pump out oil reservoirs etc:
Lad: What is your obsession with attacking electric cars with on board generation of electricity to the point of making deliberately false and misleading comments when you have been offered accurate information countless times? Hydrogen for refining is almost all from NG reforming, although trials are being made for instance in Rotterdam to change that. Hydrogen for transport which is what we are discussing here is a very different matter, 33% of it by mandate in California and in some of the Scandinavian countries is 100% from renewables. In addition Toyota is using biogas to power their semis in the Port of Los Angeles.
EP: I am not interested in debate or discussion with you. I suggest you look at the publicly available documents outlining resources available at the DOE and other places, which show plenty of them. None of that anyway changes the fact that Lad continually and wilfully continues to utter falsehoods that the hydrogen comes solely from fossil fuels in spite of repeatedly being given the links to the correct information.
Lad; Continually restating something which you know to be false does not make it true. By mandate 33% of all the hydrogen for transport comes from and will continue to come from renewable sources in California. Are you ignorant of that fact, and know nothing at all of the subject you are declaiming on, or are you deliberately uttering falsehoods?
No doubt those religiously attached to BEV only answers will be outraged, but for the rest of us it is good to have solutions which can provide ZEV without compromising diesel utility. They work perfectly well together with BEVs as a solution where their more limited range does not matter. What the proportions will be depends on cost and whether or not substantial improvements in battery energy density actually happen. The FCEVs actively cleaning city air by filtration is a bonus. BEVS do not do that.
$4.50/kg or so, where it is in volume currently, is fine for being competitive. as FCEVs are more fuel efficient.
This is pretty much bang on schedule, with Toyota planning the release of their slightly smaller and much cheaper to build as the technology matures model II or whatever they will call it in around 2020. Meanwhile Hyundai is releasing their Nexo CUV this year, and plan similar volume to the Mirai. The advantages of FCEVs should hit home in a big way when the weather gets chilly in the North East, with very little range reduction. And Toyota are doing it without being a company only in business due to continual share issues.