This is Gasbag's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Gasbag's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Gasbag
California
Recent Activity
” You seem to imagine that if any organisation whatsoever at any time makes an overenthusiastic projection on a technology that means that it can forever more be dismissed.” That misconception is your creation. If you want an explanation or defense you’ll need to provide it. Hyundai (FCEV production), South Korea Gov (subsidies), and NKLA (mindshare/market cap) aren’t exactly just any organization. Each is in the top three of their respective area hence they are the vanguard of The FC realm. That being said I will confess that I dismissed this as soon as I read their target date of 2025. Typically when an endeavor is dependent on an emerging technology and they are planning a go-live five years out that the project is b likely to never come to fruition. This project is just the opposite. They aren’t waiting on a technology to be developed. They are waiting for a market to develop. Five years is a long time. Long enough for a competing technology to be refined and optimized.
” The project is scheduled to be onstream in 2025.” Does anyone remember in 2016 when NKLA announced their nation wide H2 fueling network would be on-stream by 2019? 4 years later they announced it would be operational by 2023. How about in 2016 when Hyundai announced they would be producing 15,000 FCEVs by 2018? it didn't happen. Or South Korea announcing that they would add over 100 H2 stations in 2019? They added 20 and lost one that detonated and others that simply weren't profitable. Anyone recall in 2006 before Navigant was Called Navigant and they issued a paper that projected by 2020 there would be 10 million FCEVs and 1 million EVs. ? It is 2020 now and we’ll finish the year with 9 to 10 million EVs and South of 20k FCEVs. I think you have to be pretty naive to actually believe this is going to happen as spelled out.
Excellent news for FCs but a potential dagger to the heart of H2.
“ This is the FC range extender idea, you don't need a big stack with enough batteries. ” I couldn’t find a release that mentions batteries. Instead they all mention super caps. Still at only a 60kW FC for a vehicle that size looks like a range extender.
“ do those cells meet automotive specs? ” Yes. Suitable for MH? No. Suitable for typical parallel hybrid or serial hybrid? No. Suitable for PHEV? Yes with a caveat. The caveat is that your minimum range would need to be in the 50-80 mile range. At that point we are battery constrained in the short term. The reason you currently need that range is due to the cycle life of the predominant chemistries which are in the 1-2 k cycle range.
“ Researchers from Saudi Aramco ...” Should you bother reading further? “ a mild hybrid resulted in more than 50% GHG reduction per kWh of battery, whereas an electric vehicle only reduced emission by 4% per kWh given its much larger battery requirement.” Did they mention that our mild hybrid had only a 0.5 kWh battery meaning the BEV reduced GHG by a factor of 4x+ (50% x 0.5 vs the BEV’s 4% x 27 )? If the goal is GHG reduction the mild hybrid is a dead end. If battery production capacity were fixed (it isn’t) then mild hybrids might be the way to go but we already have battery production capacity beyond what would be required to hybridize every vehicle being sold. Battery production increased by 6 fold over the last three years and barring a world wide depression is set to increase by a similar ratio in the next few years.
i believe the 2020 CI is based on data from 2018 which is the most recent data available from CEC. This also explains the dates on the graph. Nick correctly pointed out that large scale hydro dropped from 14.7% to 10.7%. 2020’s electricity from coal will drop by about 50% but that won’t be reflected in CARB’s CI until 2022.
CA is a large state. So large it is served by multiple large IOUs. Diablo Canyon is operated by PG&E. PG&E’s percentage of electricity from NG dropped from 20% to 15%. That contradicts your tin hat theory. Your utility probably burns a much higher percentage of coal. Your state if Typical also probably consumes Much more electricity per dollar of GDP. Efficiency measures are more cost effective than nuclear power.
“ Just wait until the ill-advised shutdown of Diablo Canyon in 2025.” In spite of increasing population and GDP CA electricity usage has been decreasing by ~2% per year largely due to efficiency measures. At that pace over the next five years usage will decline by more than the annual output of DCNR. Although well run DCNR is not cost competitive and is only suitable for base load. The fact that it does not scale down well is problematic. If someone else were willing to contract for DCNR’s output at 8 cents per kWh they would likely keep it running longer. The increase in
“If Nicola can get the H2 infrastructure built as they have described, ” They were supposed to have 50 H2 stations installed across the US by the end of 2019. With 0 technological road blocks how did that turn out? I haven’t seen any announcements giving an update on their status. Like the Badger it is probably nothing more than a press release.
“combined CO2 emissions: 164 – 153 g/km)” For ~$100,000 that is the best they can do? Is this really an example of the best diesel can offer? It may be impressive as a science project but I think the market will quickly pass judgement on this offering.
Obviously we’re =were. I’m not sure why auto incorrect felt compelled to intervene.
The CEO of PG&E when that call was made was formerly the chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute so he wasn’t someone who was squeamish about NP or someone who necessarily cared about fish and frogs. He cared about $$ as he is required by US law. They conservatively estimated they would save a billion+ $$ and subsequently have managed to have reduced the estimated closure costs by another billion. I be been around long enough to know that two billion dollars was a bigger. While it is true they are replacing a fraction of production that fraction is 20/23. They are comfortable doing that because their demand is decreasing. Moreover they have committed to reducing demand further by financing efficiency improvements well in excess of the net delta. You claimed CA couldn’t use more than 35% renewables without raising carbon footprint but PG&E has blown by 40% and eliminated coal and reduced NG by about half. How do you reconcile that with prior assertions? Would that four corners plant be Arizona’s Navajo Generating Station? If so it shutdown last year and doesn’t provide coal power to anyone anymore. When it did provide coal power to CA it went to SCE. SCE is coal free now also. We’re you thinking of Utah’s InterMountainnplant? It provides a fraction of one percent of CA electricity but it supplies that to LADWP. We’re you thinking of New Mexico’s San Juan Generating Station? It will stop supplying electricity to CA next year but it only has a CA contract with SDG&E not PG&E. That is it. There are only two coal plants remaining that supply CA and neither supplies PG&E.
“California is forcing the closure of Diablo Canyon” DC’s owner, PG&E, opted to close down DC early to save money. What SB1090 requires is that DC be replaced by carbon free or carbon neutral sources when it closes. PG&E’s power mix has included 0% coal for years and NG dropped from 20% in 2017 to 15% in 2018. Fossil fuels may soon be relegated to miscellaneous other as far as electricity generation goes. A couple things that nuclear power proponents rarely mention are the time and financial costs of NP. GA approved the application for Vogtle 3&4 back in 2003. It has been almost 20 years and neither unit is on line and they won’t be online this year or next. If you’re talking SMR in the US then your time frame is 2040. NuScale is probably the best hope for NP. They should be able to avoid the 3-5x cost overruns ala Vogtle and Hinkley C.
“eci, A 500 mile battery will be about 160 kwh. ” Obviously that depends on the vehicle. The Lightyear One should only need about 67 kWh, a TM3 about 115 kWh and a Chevy Bolt about 123kWh. An Etron should be able to get it done on 220 kWh. Since they are doubling or more the gravimetric density the first three vehicles would actually weigh less. One problem is that they are decreasing volumetric density so without altering the vehicle displacement they would have to compromise the cabin space. They don’t seem to mention price and typically cycle abilities are the challenge for Li S.
“PHEVs can be sized to average daily use, rather than maximum daily us” If BEVs were designed as multi pack vehicles with bays for standardized swappable packs then you wouldn’t have to choose. Moreover this would reduce the value/need for fast charging packs as well as degradation of fast charging. This approach would eliminate the substantial costs associated with TMS systems. Without any technical advancements this could make the initial cost of BEVs competitive with ICEVs, address the range issue, eliminate long refueling times, and dramatically reduce environmental impact.
If this is legit then it would mean sunset for ICE domination starts no later than 2023. This would be right about when FAVs are expected to make an impact.
Wow. There are probably half a dozen bounties in Northern California with more Plug-ins. I guess this equivalent of taking the first step in AAA.
“this battery can reach almost 500 Wh/kg” Is that what they are piloting or is that theoretical? They don’t appear to have quantified any of their purported benefits and gravimetric density wasn’t even listed.
“ vote for someone who will work to stop driving the auto plants offshore.” Anyone can say they are working to stop driving auto plants off shore just like they can say they alone can sole the opioid crisis and take on big pharma just like anyone can say they are working while they are playing golf. You can bet the workers in Lordstown will be voting for someone who supports policies which will promote their American made BEV trucks.
“They are being compelled by Government mandate to make BEVs, but it is obvious that they feel that fuel cells and hydrogen have a big part to play.” The government subsidies for FCEVs in SK were over the equivalent of $29,000 per vehicle! The government was paying millions for H2 stations. Free H2 stations! Reuter’s reported the downside of the 5-7 minute refueling meant the next vehicle would have to wait 20 minutes for pressure to build up. If that is so then you’re looking at about two vehicles per hour. The reality is that at this point FCEVs are being kept alive on subsidies. That is true in SK and CA but I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing. It is good to have a backup plan and they are making adequate progress to justify life support. We can reEValuate in a couple years. In the meantime BEVs have demonstrated commercial viability in the premium markets but need to work their way down the food chain.
“s, it should be burned in gensets @40-45% electric efficiency and help with California's persistent rolling blackout problem!!!” Tell me more about this rolling blackout problem. I’m in CA and all of our blackouts have been due to fire, grid maintenance/upgrades, or precautionary due to weather events. In the short or midterm how does biogas help any of these?
I don’t know why semi platooning hasn’t been a bigger thing with the savings in driver cost easily exceeding the savings in fuel costs. This would seem to be low hanging fruit for any company in the FAV game. Looks like my 2017 prediction that this would be live in 2020 isn’t going to happen.
@sjc. There seems to be an echo. Try calling in again.
“Two large Chinese cities already have a total of over 3200 e-buses.” While your statement is correct I think you are missing a 0. Shenzhen alone has over 16,000 BEBs and that conversion took less than 5 years.