This is electric-car-insider.com's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following electric-car-insider.com's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
electric-car-insider.com
San Diego
Electric Car Insider Magazine
Interests: electric cars, electric motorcycles, electric bikes, electric vehicles
Recent Activity
Whether or not "H2 is no problem" may be evident by the lack of H2 refueling stations for trucks widely deployed throughout the cargo transportation corridors. It may be no problem in theory, but in reality, the infrastructure does not exist and H2 trucks won't be sold until the infrastructure in in place. Nicola has a plan for that and I wish them the best. But their job is much harder as a startup to have to raise money for both infrastructure and vehicles, and the engineer and sell both. I hope they do it. But in the meantime, the rest of the alt fuel industry is lining up behind CNG, with the exception of Tesla and the short haul drayage players.
If you're talking about H2 fuel cells, SJC, they can be used everywhere adequate refueling infrastructure exists. When you go to ACT Expo and other clean-fuel trade shows, the truck booths are all about CNG though, not hydrogen. I wish Nicola and Toyota the best with their H2 trucks. But the infrastructure has to be in place before they make sales.
RoUSA not an accurate assessment, Harvey. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted California's stricter emissions standards. Nine also participate in the zero-emission vehicle mandate. The 13 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington. Together, these represent 28% of new vehicle sales in US. Other states are not so easy to pigeonhole, either. For example, Arizona adopted California's ZEV standards in 2008, but repealed them when Jan Brewer became Governor in January 2012. If all US states had adopted CA ZEV regs, we would probably have 2.4 million BEVs on US roads. If we quadrupled the FCVs, we'd still have less than 4,000 in the US fleet, and only 112 H2 stations.
I am impressed by the 20k /yr mileage allowance. That makes the $269 / month price very competitive. Hard to drive that many miles in an EPA 89 mile car, though. Not including weekend travel, 20k miles is a 91 mile commute. If you have a longish commute and workplace charging available, this is definitely a deal with considering. $0.16 per mile for vehicle & maintenance. About $0.04 or less for fuel. That's cheaper per mile than any used car at 25mpg or less including maintenance - even if that car is paid for (and does not include continuing depreciation of that used car).
Congratulations to Grendahl, Giri and team. Very impressive breakthrough. I'm inclined to agree with Harvey, heat production might be an interesting application. If your EV needs an expensive fuel cell stack to take advantage of this energy carrier, its going to be difficult to be price competitive with BEVs and PHEVs. If, on the other hand, a couple of kgs of powder or rods (presumably in cartridges) which can produce copious heat on demand for cabin and battery conditioning, the battery offset could make this a very interesting option. Maybe this is the technology that puts concerns about needing to survive under a snow bank for a few days to rest.
I agree, Harvey, that if the price of FC vehicles and H2 fuel drops to a level competitive with plug-in electrics, and if there are sufficient stations deployed, a case may be made for hydrogen in the light duty vehicle mix. But that's a lot of "ifs." Are 100 FC stations enough to give consumers confidence? It seems iffy.
> ...a teeny bit mad. Davemart, can you point to a single article I've written about Telsa within the past 12 months? 24 months? 36 months? You seem to be profoundly confused about who you're conversing with. Hope it's not a sign of serious mental decline, I used to enjoy reading your posts, especially the ones with well researched and helpful links. Three Fuel Cell Vehicles are sold in the US in volumes ranging from dozens to hundreds per year each. For those numbers to increase, there has to be consumer demand beyond the employees, vendors and hydrogen fans, most of whom it apppears have ties to the industry. In an era of $40k 200-300 mile electrics, and $35k 300-600 mile PHEVs, what is the compelling consumer case to be made for $60k FCVs which have a grand total of 29 refueling stations within a geographic region spanning 500 miles? Whose lifetime fuel cost exceeds the total purchase price of the competing electric vehicles. That's the question that no amount of nastiness or bluster can answer.
Same old ad hominem attacks as always, Davemart. Not a single argument that addresses the original post. What a cold and miserly life you must lead, to consider such a diatribe worthy of your time. Now that long range BEVs have attained mainstream prices, and there are over 30 PHEVs of all shapes and sizes to choose from, I guess there's not much left to say in defense of hydrogen.
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. The range upgrade version offers 310 mile range for $44,000. In California, consumer prices are $25,000 and $34,000 respectively, after Federal and State incentives. The Chevy Bolt is $37,500 for 238 miles. The Gen 2 Nissan Leaf, which is expected to offer similar range, is due to begin shipping in September. With all these 200-300 mile range electrics on offer at mainstream prices, what is the compelling case to be made for H2? Saving 45 minutes charge time the few times a year you go on a road trip? H2 is $10-$16/kg in California, the equivalent to $5-8/ gallon gas. I understand that Toyota and Honda are offering to pay for fuel for the first three years, but after that, the price premium is $2,000-$3,000 year over electricity. That's an additional $20,000-$30,000 over the remaining life of the car. Who will pay that in order to save a couple of hours once or twice a year on road trips?
"Toyota spokeswoman Kayo Doi said the company would not comment on specific product plans but added that it aimed to commercialize all-solid-state batteries by the early 2020s" -Reuters Five cities in the US are already permitting or funding the installation of curbside parking. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has installed chargers on lamp posts which are powered using the streetlamp wiring. LED bulb replacement enabled the existing wiring to be used without major upgrades. - Electric Car Insider Q1 2017 edition
A compelling case for Tesla's HEPA air filtration system. I wonder which will happen first; HEPA filters as standard equipment or zero-emission cars. I suppose with tire and brake dust, HEPA filters will still have a solid market.
That's the problem though. I've run the numbers and posted them here on GCC. No way for a H2 filling station to sell at a price anywhere near competitive with electricity, or even with gasoline for that matter. The distribution and retail costs are very high. Also, if you are going to start with natural gas as a feedstock, you haven't solved the carbon problem.
That's a pretty dark view, Harvey. Imagine instead they were retrained to install the solar, wind and stationary storage systems which will replace their obsolete mines, transport systems and power plants. No doubt some could be employed in remediating the landscape they drilled and scraped so effectively. Plant beetle-resistant lodge pole pines perhaps.
I agree, Lad. I've have one at the office, one at home for four years. Very reliable.
Just had to toll that bell, didn't ya Dave... $100/kWh batteries don't just put EVs on cost parity with ICEs, they also reposition renewables (with sufficient production capacity). $100/kWh is about what pumped hydro costs. A 30kW battery would be enough for most homes in mild climates to run overnight on self generated energy. Second life batteries from EVs could easily serve this application, probably at a lower price point. It seems this will ultimately put a ceiling on electric rates, which will track the cost of solar production.
Good to see more prices for hydrogen published. A fuel cell car gets about twice the mileage from a kg of H2 as an equivalent car gets from a gallon of gas, so the effective price of H2 is $6.45/gal using ITM's price above. According to BNEF, long-range electric cars will be cheaper than ICEs by 2030. The number of announcements of new battery-electric and plug-in hybrid models from all manufacturers vs the relatively small number of announced FCVs give the public a good sense of what will be available for sale over the next decade.
Hard to read this without thinking: would I ever buy an Audi? I had been entertaining the thought of an A3 e-tron but this revelation has jaded me.
Volvo uses an integrated, crankshaft-mounted alternator in their plug-in hybrids. I expect to see better than the typical mild hybrid approach from them. They have developed a drivetrain that gives them a very good path forward to electrification. This is not just a marketing exercise. I've driven the XC90 T8 and was impressed. Not your dad's Volvo.
I applaud the technical accomplishment, but every time I think about the consumer choice of refueling at home or supercharger vs two dozen H2 stations, it's hard to imagine a well-informed person choosing hydrogen. CA utilities are now rolling out charging infrastructure for thousands of multi-tenant dwelling sites, so even apartment residents will have better options for plugging in. With dozens of PHEVs on sale, the Chevy Bolt and soon, Tesla Model 3 and Gen 3 200 mile Nissan Leaf available, it will take some clever marketing for H2 to reach critical mass in CA.
Coincidentally, main San Diego daily newspaper ran a huge front page story on the issue today. Local Fox affiliate picked up the story and ran a segment. Both at link below: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-california-100percent-20170601-story.html
Hawaii and California are poised to run that experiment, 100% of electricity from renewables by 2045. Hawaii has already passed 100% renewables legislation, California appears to have the votes to pass SB100. Both have abundant sun, wind and geothermal resources, so maybe they have a natural advantage over other states but I'm willing to bet if they make good progress on that goal, other southwest states will be pressed to follow suit.
Cleantechnica's editor does have a POV on renewables. But the author of the article, Mike Barnard, makes some very good points on the relative economics of the technologies that are not easily refuted. I can't find it now, but I recently read an article that compared subsidies of NPP and other energy sources and Nuclear was the most heavily subsidized. Personally, I'm willing to pay higher prices for zero-carbon solutions but the real solution is to pour more money into new renewable technology and SMR, which can reduce deployment times by years. Btw, Barnard also writes for Newsweek, Slate, Forbes, Huffington Post, Quartz, and RenewEconomy.
The materials cost quoted for Lithium Ion only holds if the energy density does not increase. But energy density is likely to double, and then quadruple from current levels. I agree that it doesn't seem a near-term cost effective solution for baseload, but power curves have a funny way of making the most unlikely things possible, and affordable. I think it's more likely that some other storage technology wins for stationary applications, but the reality is, *any* storage method that wins on price makes more expensive energy sources less competitive. Bettter grids also help to solve the reduced capacity factor of renewables. (Agree that until cost effective storage arrives, the foundation of the baseload contines to be fossil fuel). Michael Barnard points out some of the challenges facing NPP here: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/09/no-virginia-no-nuclear-santa-claus/ Onshore and offshore wind also continue to drop in price as the industry continues to work down the learning curve: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/offshore-wind-reaches-cost-competitiveness-without-subsidies
Yes, Crescent Dunes has been offline to fix a leak in one of its molten salt storage tanks, but that does not mean we should dismiss the entire technology. San Onofre developed a leak in some cooling tubes and has been taken offline permanently, decades ahead of its planned decommissioning. Whether by molten salts or lithium or some other technology, energy storage is on a favorable power curve that large nuclear power plants are not. I believe, and hope, that some of the SMR technologies can solve this problem but until we see the results, its all just speculation. The UK's newest NPP, Hinkley Point, has not made an effective demonstration for lower cost nuclear power. Smaller scale distributed energy and storage may prove to have a resilient advantage. Personally, I'm for an "all of the above" strategy, as long as the "all" is restricted to low carbon and zero emission solutions.
Solar Reserves's Crescent Dunes plant in Nevada uses thermal storage. It's true that most new utility scale projects use PV and battery costs are dropping, but it's probably too soon to write this technology off. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-concentrating-solar-tower-is-worth-its-salt-with-24-7-power/