This is Davemart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Davemart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Shipping is massively polluting, including no doubt to the ocean food chain, so three cheers for progress for this!
Agreed. Neither a human nor a computer system can be 'kind of' in control of a car. This system would not pass a driving test and so should not be controlling a car.
Fuel cell buses have two substantial advantages over BEVs. The duty cycle of a diesel bus can be done, a BEV can only do some routes, and cold weather hits capabilities hard. The far smaller battery pack is less costly and consumes far less resources, especially embodied energy in manufacture. They are also entirely compatible with BEV buses, which can be used on the short runs.
Gas turbines are limited in their response times and need to either use spinning reserve, ie they run but don't produce output until needed, which is wasteful or battery back up. For electrolysers however: 'ITM Power (AIM: ITM), the energy storage and clean fuel company, is pleased to announce that it has achieved sub-second response times for both its refuelling station equipment and also its Power-to-Gas equipment. The successful completion of the InnovateUK supported Power Electronics project has demonstrated a full system “turn on” response of 40 cycles (800ms) and “turn off” in 7 cycles (140ms). This qualifies ITM Power’s electrolyser systems for frequency response services more demanding than the existing primary grid balancing payment structure and has the potential to command higher availability payments. '
Gasbag: Perhaps you should learn to write comprehensibly instead of in a capital letter heavy mess. You threw out 20,000 a month with not hint of what or where you were talking about, let alone a source.
Bit by bit, the obstacles to a hydrogen economy are being chipped away at.
Gasbag: I am entirely unable to parse your statement. Are you claiming 20,000 fire deaths per month in ICE cars, as you have written? And then what is the 40 about, and what is your source? Tesla typically grabs data from anywhere and misuses it to put themselves in a favourable light, so they compare their own large expensive executive saloons, which are also newish, with every old banger on the road. Against their peer group of other large, newish executive saloons they don't do well for total fatalities. But more to the point, the true peer group to see how well they do for fires in crashes is other BEV and PHEV cars. And they are the only one who kills people in fires, or in fact burst into fire when they have a crash. This is the result of lousy engineering using an unsuitable format, where despite the flannel the emphasis is wholly on acceleration, not safety. Their abysmal QC does not help either, with ex Tesla employees confirming that batteries were being assembled by hand to poor standards. Tesla uniquely kills by battery fires.
Electric Car Insider: Apologies for the conflation, I was not aware of your publication, and my remarks refer to Inside EVs. I would be interested in whether you have addressed the unique problem Tesla have among BEV and PHEV manufacturers of bursting into flames?
Minimal cover on Electric Car Insider on the 19 traction battery fires which Tesla has had. Certainly no analysis of the fact that they are almost unique in this in the BEV and PHEV world amongst major Western manufacturers, with only a GM Volt catching fire 2 weeks AFTER a crash when improperly disposed of. Renault - zero traction battery fires after crashes Nissan - zero GM - zero BMW - zero Tesla use batteries never designed for the purpose, using NCA which is very energy dense but volatile. And two of them have burst into flames with no crash, I am tolerant of car sites being unable to comprehend financial 10Q's, although the flannel merchant at Tesla would not have fooled me when I was six years old, but not of zero displayed knowledge of either the underlying battery technology, or the farcical management by panic manufacturing, throwing new hires at a line to somehow bash cars together by hand after the CEO completely screwed up automation. That is a recipe for the appalling sub 1970's quality Tesla demonstrate. Inside EVS along with other electronic rags are going to materially damage their readers, who are encouraged to buy these dustbins when even the survival of the company to service them is in question. That is aside from the intermittently lethal Autopilot. Tesla are not leading in battery technology. They use an obsolete and dangerous format. And their standard of build is sub Third World, whilst their financials are worthy of Enron.
The cost figures are interesting. They put the cost of current batteries, presumably at the pack level, at around 3 *$90KWh, or $270KWh, which accords well with academic research, and also the actual prices charged for, for instance, stationary storage. It blows a king sized hole in the pumpers like Musk's fakery about $100KWh being imminent though, and sets crossover ex subsidy for long range BEVs against ICE back a decade or so. Who knows more and is more honest about battery costs and prices, Panasonic, which is part of this consortium and actually builds the Tesla cells, or Tesla, who have fudged up innumerable figures and missed by a mile on all sorts of subjects?
Combined with Gen IV small modular reactors, preferably using the waste heat for district hot water, this is a far better solution than covering umpteen hundreds of thousands of square kilometres with solar cells and so on, although to be sure for the US and most places outside northern Europe with far higher summer peak than winter peak demand solar would nicely cover the difference, likely at lower marginal cost.
What is the rate of Tesla traction battery fires in a crash compared to other Western BEV and PHEV makes? No fires in the Nissan, Renault or GM cars at the crash site. Tesla with their lousy design are the only ones which burst into flames on crashing. And that is aside from their intermittently lethal autopilot.
Hi SJC: I am not saying that you are not correct, but I have never managed to track down performance curves for PEM or for that matter SOFC for different outputs. I don't suppose you have any links to some?
I have supported nuclear energy for 50 plus years. If they are not building them in the West in any quantity, then that is the reality which needs to be dealt with, and I refuse to get into discussion about stuff which is not happening. Whether I think it is the best course of action or not, renewables are what is being built, so I am interested in technologies which can deal with their intermittency, and chemical storage is about the only practical way. The very pure CO2 stream from stationary fuel cells also makes storage and reuse of carbon far more economic and practical for the NG back up. None of it is the way I would have done things, but I don't rule the world and so deal with it as it is. And renewables production in particular of hydrogen is falling in price at an astonishing rate, after great progress for many years.
Would this improvement increase the efficiency, or increase the power output? Any insights appreciated.
Amongst a host of other technologies which are rapidly developing to produce hydrogen economically from renewables we have this within the last couple of days: So the electrolysers are becoming cheap enough to only be used when surplus renewables are available, which opens up whole realms of possibility as the problem with solar and wind is when it is not sunny or windy. Anyone fancying that they are so all knowing that with a wave of the hand it is appropriate to dismiss whole fields of technology is a fool.
Hi mahonj. The difficulties of transporting and storing hydrogen are much exaggerated. Currently industry uses well over 50 million tons of the stuff: And in Germany, the UK and other places hydrogen is to be transported mixed in with natural gas in the existing network and separated out at point of use. That alone provides enormous storage and then there are salt caverns, depleted NG fields and also storage in hydrides etc as weight is not important in non transport applications.
mahonj, harvey. The vehicles Waymo are using are loaded, and not just with LIDAR, although that alone still costs many thousands: At the moment they can work financially for companies, rather than individuals, but the cost will decline sharply.
In my view a fuel cell RE is a clearly superior way of getting decent range compared to trying to stuff in more batteries, certainly for commercial use. The battery only meme did not work
Big battery BEVs for long range consume so much energy in their production that the total lifecycle emissions are worse than a plain hybrid, or a PHEV. And with current battery technologies costs are rapidly approaching levelling off, at around $200KWh at the total pack level including all the inverters and so on. Without radical change in the technology, they remain uneconomic ex subsidy and will remain so. Solid state batteries are better in being less bulky, and won't catch fire, which incidentally is a problem unique to Tesla not general to BEVs or PHEVs as they are the only ones stuffing cylindricals into a function they were never designed for, are unlikely to reduce costs. None of that means that a radical change making big batteries viable is impossible, but the notion that all it will take is incremental improvements to current batteries is quite false. In contrast no breakthroughs are needed for fuel cell cars, which does not mean that they are any less likely to happen than for batteries, improving their already viable costs and performance,
No sign of 'production hell' at Toyota, nor any psychotic tweets from the CEO. Just a smooth and co-ordinated ramp. It is becoming more and more obvious who the fools were in 'fool cells'
The chickens are starting to come home to roost for this ill managed company and its star struck fans. Musk imagined that he knew more than those in the industry, skipped proper testing and installed automation equipment they have had to rip out again. They ran the CPO program to support trade in prices, contributing to their vast losses, and have now had to effectively discontinue it, and instead of bringing the cars into a good state of repair now only go through the cars and guarantee that they have defects! Of course the only place you can get them fixed is in Tesla centres, at whatever price they fancy charging. That and the increasing number of cars coming off lease guarantees that trade in prices will plummet. And of course the only way they managed to turn out figures purporting to show that the batteries degraded slowly was by having a large reserve, which they did not account for, so battery degradation is likely to start hitting home. Musk has now tweeted that actually building the car for the $35k which they took deposits for would kill the company unless they have hit the 5k a week run rate, which for some unspecified reason is supposed to reduce costs enough to make them practical. And of course there have been 18 traction battery fires in the Tesla cars, some of them fatal, when Nissan, Renault and GM have had none at all on the road when they crash. That is aside from the AP's remarkable propensity to drive into concrete barriers and any handy fire engine without the AEB engaging. I do not blame car enthusiasts for not necessarily being familiar with the financial filings of companies, but they could at least realise that a 'production system' which is reliant on trying to grab another 400 people a week from the street with no experience in the car assembly industry at all in the hope of flinging them at the line to somehow cobble together Model 3 cars is a sure recipe for disastrously bad build. And the executives responsible for supervising it are leaving in droves.
Lad said: 'No reason to use on-board complicated liquid or gas fueled electric generating devices, if simple battery packs will do the job, as Tesla says they will.' Tesla have built zero electric buses.. BYD have built thousands, and are going for fuel cell range extenders.
Not only does LiFePo work fine for buses, as SJC notes, but whatever may be the case for smaller vehicles, fuel cells are fine in buses, and give you range comparable with diesels. They are also already proven to be good for 25,000 hours of service: Multiple vehicles run by different operators have hit that diesel-like endurance figure. And the larger amounts of fuel needed compared to FCEV cars, which are still in their infancy, means that the cost of fuel in the US is only around $4.50kg at a bus depot: 'A kilogram of hydrogen gas, which now costs about $4.50, is roughly equal to a gallon, said Conrad. A hydrogen gas bus gets about eight to nine miles out of about a kilogram of hydrogen gas while a regular diesel bus gets about four miles to the gallon.' Those who think that the Chinese, far and away the biggest producer of BEV buses, are not interested in FCEV ones are mistaken: 'BYD is partnering with US Hybrid Corporation to develop a hydrogen-fuel-cell range-extended battery-electric bus. The bus will utilize BYD’s battery-electric platform, integrating hydrogen fuel cell technology to eliminate operational dependency on charging.'
Just a note that this: 'Its patents and patent filings now total 200, and its developments include an efficient fuel cell for stationary applications with an overall efficiency of 104%. ' is not as daft as it sounds, as fuel cells can take energy from the surrounding environment . A discussion here, much of it above my pay grade: The bottom line though it that whilst efficiencies of over 100% seem to need to be taken with a heavy helping of salt, it may be practical to get pretty darn close to unity. Astonishing.