This is Davemart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Davemart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Hatchet jobs by the usual suspects should not be allowed to obscure the real progress being made, or the enhancements of prospects for future emission free mobility for the hundreds of millions of motorists with nowhere at all to practically plug in a battery car. If one is absurd enough to want to talk only about current costs for an early system which will be rapidly developed with falling costs, then hydrogen is usually included in the lease price for FCEVs, so the fuel cost is zero, as against the cost of the electricity for a BEV. Some of us in northern latitudes want to be able to run a car in winter as well as summer, and to do so using mainly renewables. You can't do that with BEVs.
A battery expert comments: '@Davewmart-- "...In the paper, they report that using the additive in a Li metal battery with a 4-V Li-ion cathode at a moderately..." There are 2 "gotchas" that I see in this, one bigger than the other. First (the bigger one) is the loading weight of 1.75mAh/cm2. Many high energy cells, i.e. NCR18650B, have a loading closer to 5 to 6mAh/cm2. Lower loadings can improve cycle life dramatically. Second, mixing salts in this manner is not anything really new. Researchers (and even some in industry) have been doing this for years. I don't know much on if it was tried for Li metal, so there might be some novelty there. Not trying to take away anything from the work, which looks pretty solid. Just trying to point out things that I see at first blush.'
Change: If you ignore all losses to produce electricity and problems with storage you can come up with any figures you like. Some of us however can add up.
I think this is job done for light delivery vehicles and taxis. That would remove a huge burden of pollution from cities.
On the face of it, this sounds relatively practical. Lets hope it pans out, so many don't in batteries.
The UK Government are conducting extensive trials of through the road charging on the move: Full details of study here: IMO the costs of wiring up major roads is not excessive, and it would enable trucking to be far more efficient, as the length of trucks and their train allows several charge pads to be built in, whilst a car would only pick up on one. Initially it would only be for major highways, and only on one lane each way. Although superficially less efficient than wired charging, it would enable electric vehicles to need much smaller battery packs reducing both the energy cost of moving the vehicle and the cost of the batteries.
It is a good idea not to mix comparisons. So comparing US figures in nuclear to global figures is either intentionally or unintentionally giving a false picture. The nuclear in the US runs at the extraordinary capacity factor of around 95%, whilst solar some out to around 20% as surprisingly solar is less available at night, or even substantially in the early mornings or late evenings.
Good idea, mahonj. Your option B sounds the cheapest and most practical to me:b: You go the garage and swap it yourself. But then I live in a UK city, and so it would only take me a mile out of my way. It would be cheap and easy to administer for Hyundai too, and they could even include a free or low charge hire of a hybrid for long runs bundled in the EV price. One of the hassles of a hire car is using often unfamiliar switchgear etc, and Ioniq for Ioniq would minimise this.
SJC: Its a bit early in the roll out. Some hydrogen dispensers are being built for buses, hydrogen cars just like petrol ones don't really need a specialist base, just a pump at a station is fine. One fleet use we could see, although not yet, is for trucking, as the energy weight ratio for hydrogen trucks is a lot more favourable than batteries, and Toyota and others are developing them. I predict that China will be where the action really happens for this, as the vast majority of their vehicle pollution is apparently from trucks, so it is a good early target for hydrogen.
Brent said: 'I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now as Tesla is not a mere transportation appliance but a way of forcing other carmakers into action.' Sorry, I thought they were supposed to be running a car manufacturing business, My mistake, and thank goodness their share issuance business is going so well. It is also good to see that they must have taken on so many unemployed for some years Lada and Trabant QC engineers, although hitting their level of finish remains a stretch target whenever Musk announces an end of quarter rush to boost the share price.
Change said: 'there is a very large market for well made BEVs like those Tesla are making.' Good to see you have not lost your sense of humour. Plenty of ventilation in the panel gaps on the Tesla put them them well in the lead in build quality, and then there are the doors.......
'we hopped into a Chevrolet Bolt that the Hyundai team had brought for comparison. ' That is class and confidence from Hyundai. Thanks for a fine review, Mike.
More here: I've re-thought this. It should be way better than high temperature steam reforming as it is presumably more efficient being lower temperature, able to be sited right on the forecourt and with a highly recoverable and reusable waste stream. Sell lots of carbonated soda in the filling station shop, and its job done! ;-0
I don't know if it will be ready in time for these stations, but I have reconsidered the CHAMP process which uses a mechanical engine to reform NG to hydrogen. This article gives a bit more detail than the GCC one: Critically this is a lower temperature and so presumably more energy efficient process than steam reformation, and lends itself to being done at the filling station rather than centrally avoiding transport of hydrogen. Renewables enthusiasts will be wrinkling their noses at using fossil fuels at all, but it is worth bearing in mind not only that fossil fuel use will be around for a very long time, and with the 33% renewables mandate in California for hydrogen and the greatly increased efficiency of fuel cells compared to ICE their use will be greatly reduced, but that the point of cutting fossil fuels is to reduce carbon emissions and pollutants. The very pure carbon dioxide stream from these greatly cuts the costs of capture, and means that the CO2 can be used for all sorts of things, from producing fuel to injection into wells to enhance NG recovery, or much more easily stored.
Get somewhere near it, then finally specify the sensors and hardware from those available at the time. Specifying and installing hardware when they have not even got basic functions working and claiming it will be 'good enough' is absurd.
I'm not sure what the point is. NG is already reformed in current fuel cells: 'To generate electricity, an ene-farm pumps natural gas from a local utility into its fuel cell, which uses a processor to extract the hydrogen and mix it with oxygen from the surrounding air. The reactions produce enough power to cover about half the demand of an average family, Tokyo Gas says, and the byproduct is excess heat that can supply a home with hot water. Toshiba estimates that its ene-farms can cut a home’s carbon dioxide footprint in half. Tokyo Gas estimates that ene-farms save a household about $400 to $500 a year on their power and heat bills.'
Yet another technology clearly showing that Tesla is completely bonkers and spinning a yarn with their notion that the hardware they are putting in is all that is needed for level 5. Over promising and under delivering as usual. It is completely nuts not to develop the software suite and at that time co-ordinate it with the best hardware practicably available and releasing cars with actual installed and working capability. Anyone who falls for the claptrap Tesla is peddling deserves what they will get.
Two things stand out for me: The 100 KW fast charge, which means that as soon as CCS is available at those speeds the Hyundai Electric is good to go ( I suspect the 200 mile AER version will have 150 KW charge capability) and the elimination of the lead acid 12 volt battery.] Way to go, Hyundai!
Change said: ' BEVs are running four times as efficient as possible for any FCV' Rubbish.You are not accounting for losses in generating and transmitting electricity, and so turning out fake figures. BEV only fanatics should note that: ' The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) presents an annual Greenest list, along with an award for the Greenest vehicle. The Hyundai Ioniq Electric not only took home the award this year, but it is also the best scoring vehicle in the history of the ACEEE list. And it’s a bargain in the electric car segment at 124 miles of all-electric range for just $29,500. The scores are tabulated by combining a vehicle’s tailpipe emissions, with the emissions resulting from the vehicle’s manufacturing process, and factors related to how its fuel source(s) are produced and delivered. The overall figure is referred to as an Environmental Damage Index (EDX). So, an all-electric car (ex. Tesla) may actually not always score as well, if its build causes excess pollution, and it requires a greater abundance of electricity, which is produced by sources that emit carbon. Likewise, a smaller, economical and fuel-efficient ICE vehicle (ex. Toyota Prius Eco or C) may score decent due to minimal manufacturing costs and less use of gas. The IONIQ electric is a game changer, however, because it is the first “larger” vehicle to succeed in the last ten years, and did so well that it was the overall winner. Only compact and subcompact cars generally make the list. The BMW i3 (which is considered a compact car) was a close second to the Hyundai. In the 4 through 7 spots were the Fiat 500e, the Nissan LEAF, the Chevrolet Bolt, and the Kia Soul Electric, respectively. The Prius Prime came in 8th and the Ford Focus Electric, number 10.
Toyota's persistence in introducing hybrids typifies their long term approach. All cars with electrification use common elements, and without the introduction of hybrids there would be no PHEVs. There would also be no fuel cell vehicles which all have substantial batteries and are in fact hybrids, and they continue to patiently put in the building blocks for true zero emission transport.
The big boys will put this technology into their ICE vehicles as well as electric. That is where the real scale will come from for mapping etc, not in simply putting it into electric cars, which are only a small percentage of the total fleet.
' Too, going from a 300-mile BEV to a 300-mile BEV picks up only an additional 10% of the customer base.' That 10% sounds like pretty good going for the increase in range! :-0 Perhaps 200 and 300, or 300 and 400?
Harvey: No need to ship any hydrogen around. Electrolysis units are modular, so can be carried out on site.
Since much of hydrogen for transport including some station in California, all of them in Norway and Denmark, and many of them in Germany are to produce hydrogen from 100% renewable resources then the marginal loss of efficiency they report is of little significance. So for instance for the hydrogen from solar now being installed to provide hydrogen for some stations in California although putting in a few more panels is annoying, it is not nearly as important as the reduction in precious metal use.
That is quite a chunk of change being saved! Good work.