This is Gasbag's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Gasbag's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Ok. My bad. Does anyone recall the announcements from 2015-2017 Re: production ready advancements which promised to reduce the amount of platinum down to 30 gm and then 15 gm? If any of that panned out the we would be down to a few hundred dollars of platinum per vehicle. Every little bit helps but knocking a couple dollars per kW off the price is not going to move the needle. On top of that this one doesn’t sound like it close to leaving the lab.
Cobalt is more expensive than platinum. Perhaps they can justify the increased expense via increased durability or efficiency.
“Our 50-kW MVFC weighs only around 100 kilograms “ Shouldn’t an associate professor of engineering know the difference between mass and weight? new meaning to the blue screen of death?
The good news is that next year the advanced battery market will exceed $100 billion meaning there will be billions of dollars of profits to finance research and expansion.
The original Model T had a range of about 120 miles but a refueling time of about 10 minutes. The range, volumetric energy density, and gravimetric energy densities are currently adequate to satisfy most new car buyers requirements. The problem for BEVs is that the cost and recharge times do not meet customer requirements.
Smaller more compact? Look at the size of that. This is like the Bell 303 of FCs and it is only a 5kW range extender. In a few years people will chuckle at the size of this thing and say remember when.... Even so if the cost of this and the retail cost of H were low enough this would be a big success among vehicles with a large enough roof to accommodate it. If their initial cost were a significant selling advantage you would think they would mention the price
“Much of the high cost of hydrogen at car filling stations is due to low volume, and where volume is higher such as at this bus depot costs are competitive with diesel:” Please re-read critically the article you linked to. The depot had had a single bus for two weeks. If a single bus kept their $1,900,000.00 station busy then they have bigger problems than the cost of H. The article is obviously in error. It states the cost of H was $4.50 per kg. What they probably meant was that the cost equivalent of H with diesel was $4.50 per gallon. A reporter that knows nothing about what they are writing about could easily make that mistake. We should know better. Moreover they would be referencing wholesale prices rather than retail as they are a private station. That article was from Dec 2016. Here is an excerpt from the Ca alliance of fuel cell partners; Hydrogen fuel prices range from $12.85 to more than $16 per kilogram (kg), but the most common price is $13.99 per kg (equivalent on a price per energy basis to $5.60 per gallon of gasoline), That is based on a CEC report from 2015 which may have been from data from 2014. It is likely they haven’t updated it because retail prices at the busier stations in Ca are still over $16 per kg.
Here is a link on specific energydensity increases of batteries. With respect to EVs the relevant chemistries are NCA and NMC. Lead acid, NiMH and NiCads don’t factor into the EV equation.
“lowering mass production price has been a progressive endeavour going at about 5% to 8% per year for the last 20 to 30 years.” You’re going back to far to get a rate that suits you. Going back 30 years means you’re looking at NiMh and NiCad and yes for those we had increases in specific energy density of 4-5% but there wasn’t a lot of demand. Your relevant time line should begin around 2010 when the Tesla MS and Nissan Leaf started shipping in significant numbers relative to the advanced battery market. liBs specific energy density has increased consistently at 8% per year. That means doubling every 9 years. Although that is improving the real factors holding back EVs are the price per kWh and the recharge rate. Battery prices have declined at a much higher rate but have been less consistent.
“was on this forum in 2009 when Nissan were talking about a double energy battery, supposed to arrive in 2015, and which is not here yet, maybe next year.” The 2010 Leaf was rated at 73 miles EPA,The 2018 Leaf 150, the 2019 Leaf is expected to be 225 miles EPA. Roughly triple the range and double the charging rate in a span of nine years is not fast enough for many but we’re getting close.
Sounds like this is to convince dolt’s and dotards. They consider unsubsidized BEVs but they include depreciation. They probably failed to adjust depreciation by the subsidies which would completely invalidate their findings. They also probably did not analyze the case of a driver who owns a solar PV array even though surveys have shown that is about half of BEV owners.
“EV batteries energy storage performance (Wh/Kg) goes up about 5% to 8%/year “ LiB energy density (P/V or WH/L) has gone up about 5-7% per year. LiB specific energy (P/M or WH/kg) has consistently improved at 8% per year. “If this trend is maintained, $100/kWh and 400 Wh/Kg may be around by 2025 or so.” If that trend would continue we would actually be under $100/kWh by 2021. Using BNEF’s industry average from 2017 and rounding to the nearest dollar; 2017. 209 2018. 167 2019. 133 2020. 107 2021. 86 2022. 68 2023. 55 2024. 44 2025. 35
“Not only is your 20% cost decline for batteries way too high, and the more modest 8% or so more generally accepted” The generally accepted 8% is for specific energy density increases (P/M). That has been very consistent but we’re talking about is $/P. I believe BNEF pegged the industry average at $1040 /kWh in 2010 and at $209 7 years later in 2017. That is actually over 20% CAGR. BNEF’s numbers represent an industry average from 50 companies. They do not represent the market leaders. You can quibble about their methodology but the other credible surveys I’ve seen all had 2010 industry prices over $1,000 /kWh and 2017 between $200-$240 lending credence to their accuracy. Can you offer any surveys that materially challenge or contradict BNEF’s numbers? While price decreases have been more variable than specific energy increases they have been consistently downward. Last year’s decrease was 24% per BNEF. We are at the point where another Couple of years of ~20% price declines will have battery costs on the verge of being market viable. Advancements are proven and in the pipeline. NCM 811 will supplant NCM 622. Multiple vendors are committed to production in the next 0-18 months. Reputedly Kia and Hyundai will use this in the kona and Niro this year. The problem with the argument that the price of materials increasing, cobalt for example, is that the amount of cobalt used is decreasing faster than the rate the price is increasing. Whilst I can’t
“Electrically-chargeable vehicles (ECVs)—battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles—accounted for 1.5% of total car sales in the EU; the market share of ECVs grew by 0.9 percentage points between 2014 and 2017. At the current pace of growth, the market share would be 3.9% by 2025 and 5.4% by 2030, ACEA said.” This is the type of report that gives reports a bad name. Show this to anyone with a modicum of analytic ability and a moderate proficiency in math and they’ll write this off as propaganda. To grow .9% to 1.5% in three years means it grew from .6 to 1.5 or 250% or a CAGR of ~36%. A CAGR of 36% means this would grow to 11.7 by 2025 and 54.5% by 2030. They don’t even bother to examine the cost trend in batteries which is central to their thesis. Why? Because batteries averaged about 20% decline in cost from 2010 to 2017. At that pace battery costs are a non-issue by 2021 and an advantage by 2025.
Long range and cold weather.....20 buses is only a pilot program but they will have real world experience to base future decisions on not just vendor claims or naysayer conjecture.
“Gas turbines are limited in their response times ” Batteries don’t have the same ramp up limitations. Last year southern Cal Edison(SCE) added batteries to a peaker plant and improved response times and cut fuel usage. SCE claimed this was a first. Although it might seem to be an obvious solution it no doubt became financially viable only recently with the dramatic declines in battery prices and improvements in battery life spans. I recall an interview a few years ago with a Pacific Gas and Electricity (PG&E) engineer Re: the use of batteries. He was very positive about their potential but maintained they were not financially viable at the prices then available. He maintained that at $250 per kWh they had limited applications but at $150 per kWh they would be in big time. I mention this because BNEFs reports have batteries at the pack level on pace to cross the $150 per kWh milestone next year. Fast start CCGTs or FAst CYcling (FACY) are one solution. Second generation FACYs claim efficiency of 59% with hot starts as low as 30 minutes. That is well below the four hours of storage required of intermittent renewables in recent bids.
“That's the kind of facile declaration that make engineers send out their resumés for jobs with saner management” And that is probably a good thing for both parties. If you’re taking on a truly challenging project you don’t want a staff of 9-5 mercenaries. “35% is about the limit” If it wasn’t obvious I was teasing. Go back and read your original post. If you haven’t realized it yet you obviously wrote the opposite of what you meant. I think that you also meant intermittent renewables rather than renewables. There are a number of examples to the contrary though those tend to be smaller scale. California is slated to reach your stated limit year after next and blow right on past it afterwards.
Has anyone noticed the Excel PPA bids? Wind plus storage, solar plus storage, and solar and wind plus storage bids all came in under 3 cents per kW. That is well below the Nextra record of 4.5 cents. It was just a couple of years ago Hawaii paid 13.9 cents for solar plus storage. The Excel bids are for 2023 while the Nextra bid was for 2019 but obviously as the article points out the rapid decline of battery prices is a game changer.
“This "back-up" role requires fast starting and ramping. Highly efficient CCGTs can't do this; it requires simple-cycle gas turbines, which burn at least 50% more fuel per MWh. “ Sounds like the type of challenge talented engineers thrive on. Fast start CCGTs, intermittent plus storage, V2G, load shifting. There are options available to creative engineers. “The upshot of this is that any "renewable" penetration less than about 33-35% results in more gas burned than using CCGT for base load!” If that is so then it sounds like renewables over 35% is the obvious solution :)
The hint was that it was preceded by your list of info. Sadly the contextual continuation was not enough for all. In the future i’ll Strive to be more inclusive.
I didn’t realize reading comprehension would be such a challenge and given your fascination with auto fires I presumed you’d be vaguely familiar with those numbers. I’ll see if I can locate some EU numbers. If try rereading that you might realize I never stated 20,000 deaths per month. I actually explicitly state otherwise but let me explicitly spell it out so as to not confuse you. The 20,000 per month refers to calls for ICEV fires to US fire departments. That was an average over a five year period per the NFPA. The 40 is deaths per month related to US ICEV fires also per the NFPA. That actually was d data that I grabbed of the internet. Per the NFPA’s most recent report I could locate ICEV fires had dropped to a bit below 15,000 per month and deaths from ICEV fires were down to 37 per month in the US. Per CNBC There have been 1-3 Tesla related fires each year world wide from 2013 though early May of 2018. The message the available data seems to deliver is that if you suffer from pyrophobia you should definitely not even think about an ICEV. A BEV should be your first choice as long as it is not a Tesla.
Renault - zero traction battery fires after crashes Nissan - zero GM - zero BMW - zero Tesla - 19 ICEVs - OVER 20,000 PER MONTH!!!!!!! Over 40 deaths per month !!! PER MONTH!!!! How/why would any civilized society tolerate these death machines? Go for it. Defend or dismantle your on logic.
They are quoting NEDC so that they can say 300 miles instead of 250 miles WLTP or 200 miles EPA. At least they didn’t quote JC08 results.