This is yoatmon's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following yoatmon's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Every car manufacturer is in the precarious situation of ruining himself by going electric. This also applies to every sub contractor delivering to the MFGR. The maintenance of a BEV tends to nil. Most of the profits from ICEs originate from maintenance, repair, and overhaul. Going electric is certainly going to increase the ranks of unemployment. Neither MFGRs nor governments are keen on these perspectives. I'm quite content being employed in electric engineering so my personal perspectives are less effected from such perspectives. TESLA has nothing to lose, they can only win including consumers and the environment. The total switch to BEVs is not only a challenging technical task but even more so an immense social burden.
Well, I agree with Evolute Drives and here is why. A transmission is not only a speed adapter, it is also a torque converter. With a smaller e-motor and a transmission, you can reach the same torque levels as with a bigger e-motor (excepting high gear where less power and torque is needed for gliding than for acceleration). The bigger the e-motor is, the more current it'll draw under load from the battery. High power density flow is not necessarily of advantage to the battery. On the contrary, the lower the power flow the less strain is exerted on the battery. I could very well imagine that a smaller dimensioned electric motor combined with a 3-gear transmission would suffice general requirements, ease strain on the battery and improve consumption performance.
@ Mike999 I can underline every single point you made in your comment. I've posted all these points and more on many different blogs over and over again. My experience is that repeating those facts doesn't make them more appealing to Fool Cell proponents. Its similar to explaining a sight to someone who has been born blind and cannot differentiate between myriads of colours and can't perceive the overall impression received from such a view. Anyone convinced of the lies he has been fed with thousands of times is wary of the truth he encounters only a few times.
The really interesting info is skipped completely. Why?? What is the overall efficiency per m²? What do costs amount to per ltr. or kg of H2 or per driven mile?
@ Davemart I can't agree with your efficiency statement. That cannot even be reached with steam reforming of NG which would be the cheapest and most efficient but still below overall 40% and still contributing to pollution. Using REs would involve electrolysis losses, H2 compression losses, H2 pump losses, storage losses, battery losses and the rel. low effieciency of FCs. The total adds up to overall losses > 70%. In the end effect, the remaining efficiency is somewhere in the area of a run-of-the-mill gas hog. A BEV achieves more than 90%.
@ Harvey I'm making a list of all those points that enhance the fact that FCs are nothing more than a scam. - FCs will never operate without a battery. It takes at least 5 min.(+) for a FC to reach operating temperature; the drive train is supplied from the battery in buffer mode and has to be large enough to bridge that inherent idle time. - FCs are far more complex than a battery and horribly expensive to boot (batteries are expensive enough). - H2 is the smallest molecule in pure form and is almost impossible to store without losses. It'll diffuse through ceramics, glass, stainless steel, etc. etc.; the greater the pressure the higher the losses. - When using a sound mix of renewables to produce H2 (without environmental emissions), the overall efficiency of the FC is as poor as that of a gas hog. - Using the electric energy to charge a battery is approx. 4x more efficient than a FC. As I have mentioned several times in other posts, the only validity for a FC is home heating. The waste heat of the FC can be used for heating whilst generating power for home use or grid injection. The thus achieved efficiency can just be justified. THE FC IS ABSOLUTELY NOT SUITED FOR MOBILITY PURPOSES.
It's actually amusing to see that some poeple just can't break with stoneage habits.
@ Davemart You raise the impression as though you were very familiar with the local situations in Germany. How many months per annum do you reside in Germany to participate in solving problems peculiar at this latitude? Or are you a permanent resident in Germany?
Evokes fond memories to the Triumph Spitfire. Had contemplated in the past to electrify one as a second vehicle.
If politicians in China expect the user to shoulder the complete burden incl. infrastructure then the EV prospective will not succeed. How about removing all parking meters and installing EV charging points instead? That could bring a surge in EVs.
If it is a threefold increase it should perhaps read 444Wh/kg.
"Cost reduction beyond Li-ion cells. However, consumers will also need to pay for an inverter,...." When integrating a battery buffer system into an available PV-system, there is no need for additional inverters. The available inverters care less as to the source of the DC supply (PV-system or batteries). One set of inverters will do just fine, there is absolutely no need for a second inverter set.
No! I'm not confusing early prototype prices with those for general use. Presently a H2-station costs approx. 2.5 Mio. USD; a charging point approx. 25,000.00 USD. Surely both will experience considerable price reductions over the years but the ratio will remain. I, for my part prefer, H2 derived through electrolysis and not from reformed gas. I have no preference for pollution of a different modus vivendi. The "well to wheel" efficiency via electrolysis is pitiful. Looking towards a rational and emission free future, H2 technology looses every comparison with battery technology in regards to price and efficiency. I would welcome H2/FC technology for home heating only - as the heat losses can be used for heating and hot water whilst producing power for the grid and hence improve overall efficiency.
First of all, it doesn't matter what any automobile mfcr wants or does; the market decides over success or failure of a product. To a certain degree the market is prone to be influenced from mfrcs but not wholly. Once customers are able to make true comparisons of products (differentiate bull.... from reality) successful products begin to emerge. Those mfrcs unable or unwilling to note the "writing on the wall" will be dumped in the long run, irrelevant of their present dominance or market share. H2 stations are prohibitively expensive. Let Toyota, Mercedes etc. etc. invest their own - and not taxpayers money in an acceptable H2-infrastructure and they will soon start to sing a different song. As far as I know, Tesla is investing their own money in their supercharger infrastructure.
The "wheel" is constantly being re-invented. A first working prototype employing these principles was introduced from DLR, Germany back in 2004. Because Mercedes have their meat hooks in this innovation, they have successfully prevented market penetration. They want to keep on producing and selling selling their stone age technology and prevent any possible upheavals on the market that may have re-percussions on themselves.
Conclusions for tomorrow shouldn't be drawn from todays SOA. There are some very interesting and exciting innovations in the pipeline that are bound to bear fruit in the next 5 to 10 years. Here are just two of many more: Once these functional prototypes advance to SOA, any thoughts to H2 technology can be forgotten for mobility purposes. Of course the world is big and harbors plenty of fools. Building fool cells and targeting this paticular group would still be a lucrative business deal.
What a waste of resources for R&D for something that is already available. But they'd have to go begging at Mercedes because these duds have their meat-hooks on this innovation.
Hmmm. Could the reduction of weight in this new steering system be defined in grams? The gain in range could probably be defined in meters or centimeters?
@ Peter Dear me, now you're pushing it at Dave. You shouldn't be so harsh to him. After all he may not be a scientist but certainly has other attributes as his name implies Dave(s)mart.
Too late! This one is far ahead of them.
@ mahonj Considering the present SOA, you're probably right. Nevertheless, pollution remains pollution. Implementing a power-to-gas scheme and using that gas for heating purposes would be just as effective and emissions neutral. I would prefer a heat pump with a reversal function making it suitable for heating and AC.
"CMU, Ford, Drexel study suggests Chinese more receptive to adopting BEVs than Americans, regardless of subsidies" I'm sure that the Chinese are not smarter than Americans. Considering the smog density and duration in the larger Chinese cities, it is almost necessary to install radar systems in vehicles to enable orientation. Those walking or cycling need gas masks to overlive a trip from A to B. All in all, they have higher incentives for pollution free modes of mobility - if they are not just prone to commit suicide - than Americans. We Americans have not yet progressed to the brink of self-destruction but we're on a dam'n good way to reach that goal; we're getting closer and closer.
@ Bob Wallace The difference in efficiency would be negligible to near by wheel mounting but the effort and price increase would be considerable.
@ Davemart The special architecture (mechanical and electrical design) of the employed reluctance motor is basically an induction motor that avoids the use of rare earths. The particular design employed by BYD is usually mirrored (stator / rotor); s. e.g.: With BYDs mirrored design, it is possible to reduce the number of coils/windings in the stator and reduce the coulombic losses. I suspect that this measure is part of the problem that BYD is encountering. Just a tip from a daft engineer.
The world is full of foolish proponents cheering for "Fool Cells".