This is Bob Wallace's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Bob Wallace's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Bob Wallace
Recent Activity
Hello, Mr. Roger! Hello! Please list the car companies now selling EVs and PHEVs. And then list for us the car companies selling FCEVs. If you find your second list a bit slim, feel free to add the two? companies that have announced that they definitely will have FCEVs for sale within the next two years. In order to make H2 less lossy you go through a lot of twists and turns to find a use for the waste heat. That would not be as cheap and easy as you think. H2 extraction and compression plants would have to snuggle up to factories needing heat. And that would increase distribution costs. Cars simply don't need much heat. For much of the year any fuel cell heat is going to be totally discarded.
You're having to create unusual situations in order to claim a higher efficiency. There needs to be a demand for the heat when the hydrogen is compressed and a need for the heat when the fuel cell is operated. Possible, but kind of hard to imagine factories that would snuggle up to the H2 operations and switch back and forth to the hydrogen plant as they needed heat. And your home use. Someone is going to pay a bundle for a hydrogen plant in order to heat their bathtub? Germany is looking at hydrogen because it can store some without compression. That avoids a lot of the energy loss. Japan, who knows. It feels like someone in the Japanese government is a H2 true believer and hasn't made an objective analysis. We've got the two big Japanese auto manufacturers backing FCEVs which, based on Toyota's cost analysis, are deemed to fail. You can't win in a market if you off a product that costs 3x to 6x as much to operate as the competition. I don't know, Roger. I've read what I can find that explains how hydrogen fits into our long term energy needs but all I can see is the possibility for a bit as deep backup. And even then it looks like there are likely better options. Here's what I see you doing, Roger. You start with a belief that hydrogen is the answer. And then you try to build arguments to support your belief. That's pretty much a "religious" approach. Why not try to list out the facts and let the facts drive your opinion? That way it's easier to shift ones opinion as new facts emerge. If you approach the issue as a believer then you are likely going to be forced to deny inconvenient facts and mislead yourself. (Just to be clear. In terms of hydrogen energy storage I don't have a formed opinion. I see a possibility for a minor role but I don't know enough to move things past "maybe" at this point. Based on what I know about H2 FCEVs my opinion is that they are not likely to succeed. If data appears that shows them to have some distinct advantage over EVs then my opinion will shift.)
Roger, you so love hydrogen. Do you understand that you are infatuated with a storage technology with less than 50% efficiency? Because of hydrogen's low efficiency it would be an expensive way to store electricity. It will probably have difficulty competing in the market. Time will tell, but best be ready to have your heart broken. (And nuclear, big or small, just too expensive. I'm afraid you're in love with things we can't afford.)
Sorry, E-P, I'm not getting into a nuclear argument with you and your anger control problem. It really doesn't matter how you try to justify nuclear energy, it's dead. No reactor gets built except with very heavy government support and now governments are recognizing that there are cheaper alternatives. And that the private sector is building that cheaper generation. Governments aren't going to spend precious tax dollars if there's no need. There are too many other things that need those funds.
gor - you can purchase a EV right now and drive for about 3 cents a mile. Over 30 miles for a dollar. If you need more range than the current moderately priced EVs provide then look at a PHEV. Most drivers could be doing 85% to 100% of their driving on cheap electricity. And EVs will grow range and become more affordable as we go along.
E-P Once again as you are shown to be incorrect you become less and less civil. I'm going to quit this exchange before you threaten me again. I will answer some of your questions on the way out. Some gas peakers get called on several times a day and some are run only a very few hours a year. Batteries will take over the frequent use first. We don't have a storage solution for the "few hours a year" except for PuHS. CAES and flow batteries are potential solutions. With wind and solar now cheaper than new coal and new nuclear it has become a bad economic decision to build new thermal plants. You claim to be an engineer. Do some math. Discover why almost all new capacity is wind, solar and gas. --- A PHEV driver will enjoy most of the benefits of an EV. And right now if you drive long days more often that the typical driver a PHEV can be a better choice. But as battery prices fall the PHEV becomes a less good purchase. --- Wind + solar + hydro + geothermal + storage + biofuels + NG provides "firm power". Nuclear requires storage and/or dispatchable generation to provide "firm" power that matches load. Nuclear advocates seem to frequently forget that a constant output source does not fit demand profiles, it only works for power below the annual minimum. (And that can be supplied more cheaply with renewables and storage.)
Wind steps in during the polar vortex - written by a nuclear advocate. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/01/12/polar-vortex-nuclear-saves-the-day/ And some more from a business oriented site. http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25434 Nuclear reactors are forced offline by floods and heat waves. --- You acknowledge that nuclear needs backup when it is off line. You omit the need for storage to allow time-shifting. Both of those "buffers" were charged to wind and solar but not to nuclear in the flawed buffering/EROEI paper. --- PuHS is affordable. Batteries have now become affordable in some locations. The major reason we don't have more storage is because we just don'w need much. That need will grow over time. --- A mix of inexpensive "unreliable" and affordable storage/NG is cheaper than continuous new nuclear. -- Kewaunee didn't go out of business because of subsidized wind. Kewaunee went out of business because cheaper NG took away its market. Now non-subsidized wind is as cheap or cheaper than NG. -- If you're going to call uranium stored power then you have to extend that to sunshine. -- My math says that if the cost of EOS batteries is $160/kWh, the battery is financed for 20 years at 6%, and input power is $0.04/kWh then the stored power after 3 days costs $0.167/kWh. That is probably starting to push into NG's territory. Again, storage in PuHS is affordable. It looks like we are getting to the place where one to two day storage with batteries is becoming affordable. EOS should store for 2 days for $0.129.
- Only if you cycle it daily. The average price of NG peaker electricity in California is $0.492/kWh. Batteries at $230/kWh would under price peakers at a bit less than 1 cycle per day. And that's not where batteries kill fossil fuels, it's where fossil fuels start into terminal decline. EOS Energy Systems is grid testing storage that is expected to be $160/kWh and 10,000 cycles. If their technology works as they claim then thermal plants get another shove toward their grave. - To get range even remotely competitive with a car You're assuming a 300+ mile range is worth enough to get people to pay a lot extra for something they would rarely use. I can give you the math again, but basically someone driving a 400 mile range ICEV (or 300 mile FCEV) is going to arrive at destination only a few minutes ahead of someone driving a 200 mile range EV. The ICEV driver will spend $1,000+ each year for that small time advantage and spend some number of hours at filling stations the rest of the year. Some may find a PHEV their best choice with battery prices at $250/kWh. Since we're pretty sure that Tesla is now paying $180/kWh then it's not $250 battery prices that are going to support PHEVs but cheaper battery prices which are likely to make them go extinct.
It used to take fossil fuels to manufacture the hardware. We now have enough wind and solar on our grids to produce all the energy used annually to manufacture wind turbines and solar panels. In a few more years we'll cover car manufacturing as well, if we haven't already. We've boot-strapped renewables using fossil fuels. And now we're busy replacing them. (Won't happen overnight, but Rome wasn't....)
Roger, this - Battery is so energy-intensive to make that it would not be sustainable to use it for more than 24 hrs of e-storage. appears to be incorrect. We'll know for sure very soon. EOS Energy Systems batteries are now being tested on the grid and are expected to store electricity at an affordable cost for up to 3 days. Vanadium redox flow batteries are now up and running, will likely be cheaper. Liquid metal battery prototypes are being tested on the grid and should be cheaper still. Japan, China, Korea, Indonesia and India are installing wind as well as solar. Japan has excellent wind resources off its east coast and has started building floating wind farms. Indonesia is also installing geothermal. H2 is one option for grid deep backup. There are others.
Roger, this - Battery is so energy-intensive to make that it would not be sustainable to use it for more than 24 hrs of e-storage. appears to be incorrect. We'll know for sure very soon. EOS Energy Systems batteries are now being tested on the grid and are expected to store electricity at an affordable cost for up to 3 days. Vanadium redox flow batteries are now up and running, will likely be cheaper. Liquid metal battery prototypes are being tested on the grid and should be cheaper still. Japan, China, Korea, Indonesia and India are installing wind as well as solar. Japan has excellent wind resources off its east coast and has started building floating wind farms. Indonesia is also installing geothermal. H2 is one option for grid deep backup. There are others.
Actually wind farms helped the US through the polar vortex events. Google "wind electricity polar vortex" and do some reading. - EROEI is essential for everything. If you invest in an energy-capturing resource that lasts 10 years but it doesn't return its invested energy for 20, you are screwed. Why do you feel it necessary to make a ridiculous argument? You said that a minimum EROEI of 7 was necessary. Now you've shifted the argument to a negative EROEI. And there's this jewel - I state - As long as the total cost of energy, materials, labor, etc. are low enough for the electricity out to be affordable that's all that matters. and you reply - Weasel-wording. Tries to evade the issue of embodied energy in materials and labor. How could a rational person make the claim that I was trying to avoid the issue of embodied energy in materials simply because I didn't inventory all the places energy would be used in the overall process? - Likely true, but they don't buffer their own energy to match demand. And nuclear plants don't buffer their own energy to match demand. That's where the Weibach paper fails. It treats nuclear and coal as if they need no backup nor ancillary services to deal with demand matching. Sorry, storage is affordable. We've been using storage on our grids for 100 years in the form of pump-up hydro. And we are now seeing other technologies entering the game. - A continuous flow is much more valuable than an intermittent flow, and a source available on demand is most valuable of all. There is some truth in that. However a continuous flow has no value when the power isn't needed. That's why paid off nuclear reactors are going bankrupt. And dispatchable generation is the most preferred but if the cost per kWh is high we will look for cheaper sources, even if the are "unreliable", and use them first. Coal and uranium as well as sunshine are stored power. But it is beyond our ability to store more in those fashions. We are going to use more pedestrian storage technologies.
Roger, the north has lot of hydro and wind in the winter. Solar will play a smaller role there just as hydro will play a smaller role in the SW. -- I wonder how long it will take that flawed "EROEI to maintain civilization" paper to run its course and fade away? EROEI is important if one is dealing with a finite and diminishing source of energy such as petroleum. It's of minor importance if one is utilizing essentially unlimited energy sources such as wind and sunshine. Energy, with wind, solar and storage, is one part of the overall cost. As long as the total cost of energy, materials, labor, etc. are low enough for the electricity out to be affordable that's all that matters. BTW, wind turbines return the cradle to grave energy embedded in them in 3 to 8 months (depending on resources at site) and then produce electricity for 20 to 30 years more. That's a EROEI of 30 (20 years / 8 months) to 120 (30 years / 3 months). Solar panels return their embedded in energy in less than two years and last 20 to 40 or more years. An EROEI of 10+ to 40+. If storage is affordable then it cannot have an excess of embedded energy. That's simple math. (Here's a hint. The flawed paper charged wind and solar with storage but did not do the same for coal and nuclear.) Plus the authors did not understand when EROEI is important and when it really isn't.
gor, I'm posting this comment right now from solar stored in batteries.
You are right, Dave, none of us know. But the people who are very knowledgeable about batteries are consistently telling us that EVs push out other vehicles when battery prices drop low enough. They consistently talk about battery price, not pack price. We have Navigant Research telling us that the material cost for the Panasonic cells that Tesla uses is about $70/kWh and the finished price should drop to about $100/kWh. That is consistent with what I've been reading for some time. Citigroup recently cited $230/kWh as the key mark where battery storage wins out over conventional generation and puts the fossil fuel incumbents into terminal decline. UBS has stated that the $230/kWh mark will be reached by the broader market within two to three years, and will likely fall to $100/kWh. (Tesla is already at $180/kWh based, apparently, on their purchasing volume.) http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/battery-storage-costs-plunge-below100kwh-19365 Tesla/Panasonic is predicting a 30% cost drop when their new factory is running. That's under $130/kWh. Based on what multiple sources are telling us we need no new chemistry to make EVs dominate. All we apparently need is large scale production (economies of scale). Look at this graphic, Dave - http://thecleanrevolution.org/_assets/images/cache/autoxauto/2124.jpg At $250/kWh PHEVs and hybrids are goners. At $150/kWh ICEVs need fuel for less than $2/gallon to compete. I recognize that this is data that some people don't want to accept. But if one can't show how the data is wrong and throws it away then they are not behaving as a rational player, but a "believer".
There are multiple long range freight options. H2 FCEV is one. Electrify our rail system and use it rather than long haul trucks. Use battery trucks for "the last mile". (The Tras-Siberian railway is electric and runs about twice the width of the US.) Someone calculated that three Tesla S battery packs would power a loaded 18 wheeler 100 miles. With a few more years of capacity increase we could probably have 200 mile 18-wheelers and use battery swapping. Pull into a swapping bay and drive out charged in less than two minutes. We've got trucks running on overhead wires similar to urban electric trolleys. If enough power could be delivered it might be possible to install wires every few miles along our major highways and let trucks charge up and then run on batteries in between overheads. Super-capacitors would likely come into play here. South Korea has full sized buses running on wireless charging embedded under about 10% of the 18 mile route. Perhaps enough power could be delivered this way to keep trucks rolling and charging. I suspect we'll see several ideas tried out over the next few years. I'm kind of partial to electrified rail. That would take a lot of traffic off our roads and greatly reduce road damage, saving us a lot in highway expansion and repair. We're going to be freeing up rail space as we phase out coal and petroleum.
We don't need seasonal storage. We need storage for a few days at a time. The number of days is an unknown and will remain so as we build out our grids and interconnect them. Right now it looks like batteries will be the affordable answer for perhaps a few days storage. If we need power out further then we'll likely turn to some sort of dispatchable generation such as natural gas, biofuel or H2. So far this year (end of week 44) Germany would have needed longer term storage during one week. That power could have easily been put away during the previous few weeks. By the following week wind and solar were back up and producing closer to the annual average. During even the low week wind and solar produced over half of average annual output. Where the cutoff is between "3" and "7" will change over time. Cheaper storage will extend the "3". Cheaper dispatchable generation will lower the "7". Whether it would make sense for Germany to over-build wind/solar, buy hydro from Sweden, buy stored hydro from Switzerland or Austria, buy wind from the UK, or buy solar from southern Europe needs to be considered along with storage calculations. As we extend our grids we lower variability and allow for shared storage.
"Companies such as VW don't know, and so are developing both batteries and fuel cells." Let's turn the clock back 5, 6, 7 years. At that time it was believed by many that we had to develop a replacement for oil because of Peak Oil. It was also clear to others that we needed to get off oil because of climate change. Batteries weren't very good. Fuel cells seemed, I would imagine, as likely the answer as batteries. I suspect people assumed the H2 would be clean and not reformed methane. Several car companies started developing both FCEVs and EVs. In some companies their group think probably favored one solution over the other. Four years ago Nissan introduced the Leaf. The Tesla S hit the market only a bit over two years ago. I suspect the Leaf, Tesla and other EVs made knees knock in the companies that picked the FCEV route, but they plunged ahead. Before long we'll see FCEVs up for sale. We'll see independent reviews and some owner experience reports. Over a couple of years we'll probably get a very good idea if FCEVs have a future. Perhaps they do. I can't find an objective reason why the market would swing to FCEVs but perhaps there's a factor that has yet to be identified.
Citigroup last week cited $230/kWh as the key mark where battery storage wins out over conventional generation and puts the fossil fuel incumbents into terminal decline. UBS, in a report based around a discussion with Navigant research, says the $230/kWh mark will be reached by the broader market within two to three years, and will likely fall to 100/kWh. And it predicts that the market for battery storage will grow 50-fold by 2020, mostly in helping households and businesses consumer more of their solar output, but also at grid scale and with electric vehicles. So here are some highlights gleaned from the UBS discussion with Navigant: Navigant estimates the cost of materials going into a battery at the Tesla Gigafactory on a processed chemical basis (not the raw ore) is $69/kWh [this metric is per kW per hour of operation]. The cost of the battery is only ~10-20% higher than the bill of materials – suggesting a potential long-term competitive price for Lithium Ion batteries could approach ~$100 per kWh. Tesla currently pays Panasonic $180/kW for their batteries, although conventional systems still selling for $500-700/kWh. But Navigant says that the broader market place will reach the levels Tesla is paying in the next two to three years. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/battery-storage-costs-plunge-below100kwh-19365
I checked resale prices for 2011 Nissan Leafs and Toyota Camrys. About the same based on mileage. Fuel savings for a 13,000 mile driver is about $1,200 a year. ($3.50 gas and 12 cent electricity.) Add some more in for oil changes and higher maintenance costs for the Camry. The MSRP for the Leaf is ~29,010 and $21,510 after federal subsidy. The MSRP for the Camry is $22,970. The Camry is a bit larger, but if you're someone who is considering a Leaf then you're probably talking a commute and errand car, not a long trip car for the family. And I would expect the driving experience of the Leaf somewhat better.
"Batteries are prohibitively expensive for any significant use as backup power for the grid." Let's examine that for a moment. EOS Energy Storage's zinc hybrid cathode battery specs are - $160/kWh 10,000 cycles 30 year calendar life 75% efficiency http://www.eosenergystorage.com/technology-and-products/ Now let's assume 6% financing over a 20 year term. That means an annual payment of $13.80 per kWh. (I'm leaving out the cost of battery charger and inverter. Thirty year financing would lower the annual payment.) Cycle that battery every day (4c/kWh electricity with efficiency loss = 5.3c/kWh input costs) and the stored electricity would cost 9.1 cents. It's unlikely H2 with it's high loss rate could touch that. The cost of storing electricity for a week jumps to 32 cents. That's less than the average cost of gas peaker power in California (49 cents). Storing electricity for a year in an EOS battery would cost 1,385 cents. Obviously that's too expensive. There is probably some point in terms of number of days of storage where H2 would be less expensive than batteries. But batteries are pretty much the best choice for short term storage. -- I'll suggest that the cost of battery charger and inverter can be ignored. These batteries will operate for grid smoothing as well as storage and the BoS costs would likely be paid through their grid regulation role. One starts with a grid regulation system and hooks up more batteries for storage. The additional cost is a parking space and some cable.
First,I'd have to understand why an EV has to have a 300 mile range. Some people may take off on long drives with a baloney sandwich and an empty bottle to pee in, but most people stop and take a break after a few hours.
"If batteries go down a lot, and other things don't, then they will be much cheaper than the other things." It's a very safe bet that battery prices will go down. Nothing other than increased production levels is needed to bring down battery prices. No new inventions. No magic pixie dust. Just more automation and larger scale material purchasing. Toyota says that hydrogen may eventually go down from 17 cents a mile to 10 cents a mile. Switching to "clean" H2 would be more expensive. Being agnostic is fine. But try to not define closing your eyes to clearly verified facts as agnosticism. That's the sort behavior that believers engage in as a way to protect their beliefs.
Harvey, I think this is not a real problem - "(1) long time to fully charge (30+ minutes)" The only time an EV driver is going to use a rapid charger is on a long drive day. Once we've got 200 mile range EVs that means starting with 200 miles, stopping 30 min, driving 180 miles, stop 30 drive 180. 560 miles with one hour spent charging. Eat a meal and pee/get something to drink during those charging stops. A FCEV driver will stop and refill, using about 10 minutes. Then almost all will stop for a meal and again to pee/get something to drink. They will spend maybe 40 minutes not driving, arriving at destination 20, even 30 minutes ahead of the EV driver. To save that half hour on a 550 mile drive they will spend $55.50 to $93.59 for hydrogen (Toyota's numbers). The EV driver will spend $16.50 (also Toyota's number). Then there's the rest of the year. 13,000 miles at 17 cents costs $2,210. At 10 cents $1,300. At 3 cents (for the EV) $390. The FCEV driver, if they refill with 20 miles left in their tank will stop 46 times a year to refill. Interrupting ones drive, getting out, hooking up, swiping, unhooking, getting back in. 15 minutes? That's 11.5 hours vs the multi-use time spent only on long trip days by the EV driver.
Let's set advocacy aside. Work the numbers for FCEVs with their H2 from reformed methane. (That will help with nitrous oxide but not with CO2 emissions. The H2 really needs to come from renewable electricity but that would be more expensive.) Work the numbers for EVs charged with renewable electricity. Advocates may buy a few EVs or FCEVs simply because they are advocates, but the vast majority of the market is going to respond to cost. As I read this article http://ecomento.com/2014/08/13/bullish-toyota-admits-hydrogen-wont-be-cheap/#comment-236548 Toyota is saying that at first it will cost 17 cents per mile to drive a FCEV. (300 miles for $50.) And that cost may eventually drop to 19 cents per mile. (300 miles for $30.) Toyota also says in that article that it will cost 3 cents per mile to drive an EV. (300 miles for $9.60.) And to add a bit of perspective, driving a 50 MPG ICEV on average priced $3.50 per gallon gas costs 7 cents per mile. 3 - 7 - 10 - 17. Which do you think most people would choose?