This is Davemart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Davemart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
@Peter_xx You recall when Mercedes started MASS production of fcevs in 2004? I recall some prototypes, I don't recall anything which remotely resembled mass production, nor any announcement by Mercedes that they intended any such thing, nor can I locate anything about such an event on the web Perhaps you would be good enough to provide your linked sources, as otherwise your claim sounds complete invention.
The start of major things from Hyundai. They are installing the equipment right now to up production of fuel stacks to 40,000 a year. Some of those will be for buses etc, but they, like Toyota, are obviously confident of being able to sweat a lot of cost out, or they would never be able to shift these quantities of cars.
gryf: Many thanks. I somehow missed the fill times, and that looks very practical! I would assume that for instance Toyota would continue right on and use carbon fibre for the tanks on board, although they could be greatly down-specced due to the reduced pressure.
Truly impressive stuff. What I could not get was how long it will take to load it with hydrogen. In the initial cycles, they took some time, but is this the case when it is operational? Obviously reasonably fast loading of the module would be needed for transport applications, although stationary storage would work with a slower loading. Anyone?
Desperate battles to find off fuel cells! Plenty of hydrogen is already produced renewably, and by the time this reaches the skies if we have not cracked it big time we are in trouble. And current PEM fuel cells are up to 70% efficient, and we are looking at potentially 80% from SOFC. What's not to like?
I imagine it might be a few years before we are crossing the Atlantic in these, but great stuff!
If the projected price of hydrogen is from natural gas reforming, that is remarkable as NG is around 3 times the price of that in the US. The price however would presumably not include distribution, which initially at low volume adds quite a bit. In any case, it is pretty clear that battery only fans have overstated their position. Maybe Hyundai and Toyota know a thing or two about powering transport, maybe even more than some bloggers?
@SJC I would imagine that this is dependent on grants. I am a hydrogen advocate, but have no sympathy for any misrepresentation of early stage technology and its cost. Electrolysis has dropped around 40% in its costs over the last 5 years, and subsidy is dependent on the thesis that it, and the renewables to power it, will continue to drop in cost. Hopefully that will be the case, but trials are not to be confused with currently commercial technology, or there would be no trial about it.
I'll just add that aside from the triviality of installing a light vehicle fuel pump where there is already a hydrogen supply for heavy duty vehicles, the lower costs of the supply for the heavy duty is clearly associated with relatively high volumes. So the point which should be obvious to the meanest intellect is that a great deal of the high price of hydrogen at the pumps for light vehicles is due to their not being many on the road. As volume increases, prices will tend to drop. Who could possibly have predicted that?
The Nikola hydrogen stations are to have light vehicle hydrogen pumps installed also. That, from memory is also to be done in the Chinese roll out of hydrogen stations for heavy transport. What do you imagine is so difficult about installing a light vehicle pump if you have a nearby supply of hydrogen? You are an ill mannered and abusive person, with a grossly inflated notion of your intellect. Good day to you, I will leave you to your own company.
EP Redefining lies as someone having a different opinion to your and a different evaluation of sources is absurd Hydrogen is being used right now in bus stations at around $4.50 kg or so: 'He said the new hydrogen buses will allow SARTA to take out of service at least five buses that are over 500,000 miles and are in need of replacement. As for the approximately $1.9 million hydrogen pumping station at SARTA’s Gateway headquarters in southeast Canton headquarters, it’s operational, said Conrad. A 9,000-gallon tank holds liquid hydrogen at extremely cold temperatures. A vaporizer converts the liquid hydrogen into gas where it’s stored in underground tanks and then it’s pumped into the hydrogen buses with fuel dispensers. The pumping station can support up to 20 vehicles. A bus can hold 50 kilograms of gas. The hydrogen is shipped from Air Products’ hydrogen plant in Ontario. A kilogram of hydrogen gas, which now costs about $4.50, is roughly equal to a gallon, said Conrad. A hydrogen gas bus gets about eight to nine miles out of about a kilogram of hydrogen gas while a regular diesel bus gets about four miles to the gallon.' So does that mean that you were lying about the cost of hydrogen? Or are there differences due to different sources etc? Of course not, but you fail to understand the reasons for the high costs you quote. They are largely determined by the low volume of the initial roll out for cars. The bus station uses higher volumes, and so can be set up more economically, transporting it about costs less and so on. That high volume is akin to its use for trucks, not for cars which you quote. So Harvey is more nearly right than you, and if anyone is lying, that would be you.
gryf If you can't write clearly then it is hardly my fault' Originally I said and you replied: "'Toyota are going the hydrogen route because it has higher energy density than any battery we can do at the system level' Not really." You now say: ' YES IN 2019 FCEV have a higher energy density than current Lithium Ion battery technology. 170Wh/kg is less than 550 Wh/kg.' So what is 'not really' about that? You then go on to say: ' It just not TEN times higher' Who the heck said it was? You are creating straw man arguments. Finally you waffle on about the inevitable march of progress in battery energy density, which will be lovely if and when it happens and sensible people will re-evaluate then, not now when it is pie in the sky, and finally make unsupported suppositions about the cost of hydrogen in the future. Neither your reasoning nor your exposition of it is very clear. In fact it is muddled and coloured by what you hope will come to pass. For heavy transport hydrogen has significant advantages and very low emissions, which is why the Chinese for instance are re-balancing to make considerable use of it in that field.
gryf: I can't work out what you are seeking to argue. You say: ' At the "system level" Gravimetric Energy Level of FCEV is less than 500 Whr/kg, Volumetric Energy Level less than 700 Whr/kg, and the Power Level maybe 400 W/kg (the last two factors are why it is not useful for aviation).' Wh/kg is not a volumetric measurement, but specific energy density. You then talk about power densities, which is another subject. The measure where I was arguing, so far as I know wholly uncontroversially, is that the specific energy of fuel cell vehicles for larger vehicles is higher than for batteries, even including the ancillaries and importantly the carbon fibre tank holding the hydrogen and the associated battery needed to provide extra power and the power as opposed to energy density of the fuel cell part of the system is not high and more importantly does not like ramping up and down. The Mirai and the Nexo are both pretty heavy, but if you want incremental range then most of the system stays the same, with only the hydrogen and its CF tank increasing. So the question of how the relative density compared to batteries is indeterminate as it depends how far you need to go and how big the vehicle is. In practical terms this can be seen on the Nikola website, where the same vehicle can be had either with a pure battery for short range or fuel cells. The fuel cell version has greater range and a weight advantage.
I can't get through to the figures in detail to find the assumptions behind them, the grid mix assumed and so on. However: 'The battery of the Volkswagen e-Golf has a total capacity of 35.8 kWh. The usable capacity is 32 kWh (estimate). A range of about 120 miles is achievable on a fully charged battery.' So even using their 25% reduction in emissions for the ID production and using their middle sized 55KWH battery reducing emissions much seems tough.
Unsourced claims without showing the workings don't help either side. Harvey's claim of $3.50kg for hydrogen from renewables can be found at Nikola, where they estimate their costs for it using solar arrays and their electrolysers currently being installed. Posters may disagree with that claim, but it is not lying, at any rate by Harvey, and some degree of civility might help their own ideas to be listened to with more respect. Gryf, you are chopping and changing from density per kg to volumetric, all without enough detail to follow your calculations. The MIrai and Nexo are pretty heavy, but the weight ratio of fuel cell systems gets better with larger vehicles. See for instance the Nikola site again, where they are specifying batteries for short range and fuel cells for longer range. That is also why they are specified in trains, and in ferries and the cruise ship design. It is unclear where the optimum trade off point is, but AFAIK there is no question but that at least for larger vehicles fuel cell systems are more favourable for weight than battery only systems. Volumetrically may be a different matter.
@mahonj 1.8 meters apart? Over 10 feet? That is a pretty wide car!
Rapidly falling prices and the move of LIDAR to solid state - no large revolving sensors involved - also explains why car companies are sticking to it. Not a very convincing critique.
@Lad Toyota are going the hydrogen route because it has higher energy density than any battery we can do at the system level, does not need to plug in or fast charge which rapidly degrades the battery which is enormously environmentally costly, provides fuelling at comparable rates to petrol, and has better potential for cost reduction, In short, because they know what they are doing. They also continue to work vigorously on developing batteries which actually would do the job they are advertised for at the moment, but don't do.
Some people here evidently don't know how thorough validation testing works. Toyota and Kenilworth do. So Toyota built a prototype, which they used in actual routes for deliveries. That completed, they moved to this more extensive testing, with 10 or so vehicles. This is not selling cars to private people, but tight margin businesses, where they have to be able to rely on the trucks all the time, and even Toyota! were remarking on the extreme need for reliability as well as proven costs. Does anyone really imagine that Toyota and Kenilworth don't know how to test thoroughly and scale production appropriately? When the validation is completed, then they can ramp at will. Toyota is expanding fuel cell production 10 fold right now, and they can fit them to existing cabs, or Kenilworth can build new. To criticise a test program on the basis of lack of scale shows profound misunderstanding.
If we were building nuclear, great. We are not, and emissions need to be calculated based on reality. It is quite plain that the zero rating of electric cars for emissions is false, and that both in build and use their emissions are substantial. It was not even a hybrid used for the comparison.
'In China, the country most aggressively pursuing the adoption of EVs and home to the world’s largest auto market, some of the industry’s biggest names believe pure battery electric cars will be as cheap as gasoline counterparts by 2025. Those making that prediction include Ouyang Minggao, executive vice president of the EV100 forum, a think tank which is widely seen as the de facto voice of government policy. “The turning point is coming. We believe that around 2025, the price of pure electric vehicles will achieve a big breakthrough,” he said in a speech in January. Ouyang cited a reduction in battery costs to $100 per kilowatt hours from $150-$200 currently and a planned tightening of emissions rules in China which will make gasoline vehicles there more expensive. But others in the EV industry are less optimistic. “Chinese policymakers think EVs will become more like conventional gasoline cars as early as 2025. But that’s naive and all automaker engineers would agree with me,” said a veteran EV engineer at Honda Motor Co. “Sure, there’s an EV boom but hybrids and plug-in hybrids will be needed as bridging technologies,” he said. The engineer was one of five interviewed by Reuters for this article who believe it will take a decade before battery EVs achieve cost and performance parity with gasoline cars. Most were not authorised to speak to media and declined to identified when describing the shortcomings of EV technology.' ******** ' the engineers who spoke with Reuters caution that even if battery unit costs are brought down to $100/kWh, this would not necessarily translate into a steep decline in vehicle costs. That’s because the investment to improve battery quality needs to be factored in, while the cars also need sophisticated battery management systems to prevent overheating and overcharging - adding thousands of dollars to their cost. Toyota Motor Corp, which does not have a pure EV on the market currently, says it is concerned about battery durability. Battery capacity can drop by half over 5-10 years - the reason for low EV resale values, said Shigeki Terashi, executive vice president in charge of Toyota’s EV strategy. “Falling EV battery capacity is not a major issue in China now because sales there have only recently begun, but in time this problem will likely become more evident,” he told Reuters in a interview.' ******* 'Bereisa thinks battery costs could achieve parity with gasoline cars by the late 2020s but his verdict on fast fuelling parity is “maybe never”. “It’s physics,” he said, adding that to charge an EV with the same amount of energy in the same amount of time as a gasoline car, you’d need a charger powerful “enough to run a small city”.'
Its weird that the complaints are about the comparatively small amounts which have gone to hydrogen support, with no word of criticism for the billions chucked at a premature attempt to deploy BEV cars via deeply regressive tax breaks as well as loading the burden for the wealthy's status symbol cars on the poorer motorists via ZEV credits and so on. Not to mention outright scams such as the ludicrous 'battery swapping' dog and pony show.
Its interesting that they can simply plonk the Nexo fuel stack into stationary generation. Batteries for one need different chemistry from mobile uses to get the cycle life, as well as over-rating.
SJC Apparently the solid state batteries Daimler is working on don't use cobalt. I did not bother linking it before as it is a cursory reference and I was hoping someone had more, but here it is: 'Daimler said, adding it was also working on solid state batteries - which don’t require any cobalt - for future products.'
Harvey: 'Larger' is not the same thing as 'more compact'. But I don't know what is going on with this, and whether it is simply larger due to those packs apparently having more energy.