This is Davemart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Davemart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
They also noted that the only manufacturer who failed to respond to the NTSB's concerns was Tesla. Clearly they are hopping mad with the NHTSA for not taking action to enforce it on Tesla, who get a free pass. In any case it is absurd that safety critical software can be modified by an OTA without re-certification. Tesla uses customers to beta test on the public roads.
A quick google showed me that Paris has 18,000 registered taxis, so this is around 3% of them. The taxi market is in my view a great opportunity for expanding fuel cell cars, as Paris might represent only a percent or two of the total taxi market in big cities around the world. FCEVs are clearly superior solution for this market to BEVs for a number of reasons: Charge times - whilst you are charging, you are not making money. Cold weather performance - minimal range loss, and plenty of power for AC in hot places too. They address the biggest source remaining of emissions as the fleet turns around, and older vehicles are retired, which is non exhaust emissions; 'Data from the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory indicate that particles from brake wear, tyre wear and road surface wear currently constitute 60% and 73% (by mass), respectively, of primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from road transport, and will become more dominant in the future. Currently they contribute 7.4% and 8.5% of all UK primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. Therefore to achieve further gains in PM2.5 and PM10 air quality in relation to road transport sources requires attention to reducing non-exhaust emissions, not solely a focus on lowering exhaust emissions.' (see also graphs on link) Now I don't entirely go along with those figures, as they ignore for instance the huge emissions of diesel cars in their cleaning cycle, so you end up with fake figures overall just as the zero rating in Europe for charging a BEV is utterly fake. But nevertheless non exhaust emissions are an issue of increasing importance which since they filter the air FCEVs leave it cleaner in cities than before they passed by, whilst BEVs turn out loads of particulates, even though they have regenerative braking, which of course FCEVs also have. Servicing for Toyota's FCEVs has proven to be simple and tthe reliability in fleet use is as good or better than the legendary Prius. It is not even mentioned now, so I don't have a recent link! But that is in itself significant. Both Green Tomato in London and now Hype in Paris after extenisive experience are expanding their Mirai fleets, with none of the fleet issues due to unreliability that have hit Tesla. Of course, the big limit is infrastructure, but the taxi market in itself seems to be large enough to act as a considerable driver in expanding that. It also helps that the Mirai replacement is a 5 seater.
Yeah, they can. But it adds quite a bit to costs, as the battery back up is not free, and then there are losses using an intermediary. Possible, but hardly economic.
I’m betting this is offset, not really renewables 24/7, or they would need major battery back up, and suffer an efficiency penalty as well as cost
@EP Cheers. From the link above: '“We are currently studying the performance of nanoparticles formed from different blends of semiconductors to better understand their structure-activity relationships,” says McCulloch. “We are looking to design nanoparticle photocatalysts for other photocatalytic reactions, such as oxygen evolution or carbon dioxide reduction.”' So it looks as though they are on the case about the oxygen side of the equation, although it is very much a work in progress.
Would someone translate those numbers into something those of us without extensive technical education can get their heads around? Cheers!
I like LiFePo but they are a heck of a lot less energy dense than NMC or NCA. Personally I don't believe that long range BEVs are remotely economic ex subsidy, and for more limited range ones they are fine. But that is not how the 'batteries will take over the world' meme is being promoted.
It is presumably also too early for the machine learning algorythms Toyota has been developing noted a couple of articles down: to have helped in the battery development, although of course Toyota have first dibs on them
Unfortunately this is way too early to be Toyota's solid state, due to be unveiled if all goes well for the Olympics. It will be interesting to see what progress they have made though.
I steer clear of that level of analysis, as I don't have the training to make it straightforward. Until proven otherwise, I assume good faith, so am pretty happy that it looks like I read their claimed efficiencies right. As more info comes in, it may prove to be BS, as a lot of breakthroughs which don't pan out are, but until then I am keeping it in the 'possibles' file, although the point about the high energy for the reformation is entirely accurate and a big question mark. It does not apply in this case, but I think that the use of renewables for process heat can often up the claimed efficiencies of the fossil fuel bit to higher levels, at least from the GHG POV So solar thermal seems a candidate ( not for this ) to use instead of NG to assist the reformation of NG, where normally part of the NG is simply burnt to provide it. Electrolysis using steam is also way more efficient, so perhaps solar thermal has a part to play there too.
@sd BTW, hydrogen production can enhance the economics of nuclear by giving better utilisation even for reactors not specifically designed for hydrogen production.
@sd I have been an advocate of nuclear power for well over half a century, but they ain't building them in the West, at least not in quantity, so I look at what is happening.
@sd This is part of UK plans to decarbonise, which include injecting hydrogen into the NG grid initially at up to 20% ( trials underway now )
I had a look at the cycle, which is common one, and well understood: I've dug out a technical paper on the HyPER process: If I am not misreading it, which is possible, it seems to indicate an overall efficiency including reprocessing of 73.1% in table 1, almost the same as the best alternatives but with the lower capital costs they claim elsewhere. I'd be grateful if others could check this, to make sure I have not misread!
It is challenging even to stay abrest of developments in hydrogen and fuel cell technology. Of course, most won't work, or at least won't go into general large scale use, but the advances sure are on a broad front.
The enormous advances in hydrogen and fuel cell technology will start to highlight who had rational grounds for opposition, and when the facts change change their opinion, and who are opposed on quasi-religious grounds, with effectively nothing which will change their mind and their objections rationalisations not answerable reasons. In other news, it looks as though proper off grid independence through solar/batteries/hydrogen storage is now starting to hove into view. At this stage of the game, it no doubt costs a packet, but that is early stage technology for you. and looking at the data sheets you are talking about realistic supply amounts, per day and seasonal: Peak electrical output (5s) 20KW High electrical output (3h) 8KW Continuous electrical output 1.5KW Electrical standalone grid V/Hz 230 / 50 Comfortable indoor ventilation m² 300 Indoor heat recovery % 93 Seasonal storage capacity (usable) kWhel +th 1,000 – 2,5001 Daily storage capacity (usable) kWhel 25 Thermal storage tank capacity (usable) kWhth 20 Emission H2O Energy source Solar energy Annual CO2 reduction2 kg 2,350 – 3,500 Annual power supply to home kWh/a 3,000 – 6,000 Indoor space required m² 3 (picea factsheet) Hydride storage would be preferable, but it is not a reasonable expectation that everything should be solved immediately.
Hyundai to produce 1600 fuel cell trucks in Europe alone is not 'decent numbers?'
mahonj, as far as I can see the $98 million is just for the solar array, with the batteries extra. The only realistic way to get to much higher renewables would be to use hydrogen, with reversible electrolysis units both providing the hydrogen from surplus solar when available and load balancing or supplimenting it when not, as they could obviously provide power at night as well as during the day. Here is ITM' s offering in the field: This could also be introduced on a modular basis together with expansion of the solar array to increase average renewables use. The batteries would be redundant, as the fuel cells have sub second response times and are fine for frequency modulation as well as capable of powering the system fully if required and enough are installed, but presumably the batteries could be taken elsewhere.
Heavy transport is a great early target for FCEVs and hydrogen, as the performance envelope for range and payload is far better than can be done with batteries. In areas like this, ZEV is important to reduce harmful emissions, which with refineries and docks need some dealing with.
@ron ingman You are assuming that there is one answer, which someone in a God like position of power will be able to impose. Life is messier than that, and multiple means are going to be tried out, and used in different circumstances. In 'the age of oil' for most people in most of the world their primary heating and cooking source remained animal dung and wood, and still does. I have been an advocate of nuclear power for this last half century or so, but it is not going to sweep to universality, and in the West is currently barely being built out at all. Carbon capture, nuclear, solar and everything else will be tried out, and will fight it out. Sweeping dictats from f irst principles by those in power don't work out. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
After being in a wait and see mode on Nikola for some time I now have zero confidence in them. They were going to use the very reputable Powercell in their trucks, which have an excellent track record. They are now claiming that they have some sort of magic battery, with way greater energy density and lower costs. I don't believe it. So they end up with some sort of bastard design, using far more batteries than is reasonable or necessary in an FCEV, basically to try to cater for the lack of FCEV infrastructure.
The use of hydrogen for trucks, buses shipping and so on will clearly facilitate hydrogen stations for FCEV cars. At the moment hydrogen use is concentrated on the petroleum, the fertilser industry and so on. More general usage obviously makes it easier to get the hydrogen to regular filling stations. Their diesel trains are also a prime target for FCEV trains.
Outside of the States, Canada and Australia where long distance is very long distance, it is looking hopeful that hydrogen can power the trucking industry where batteries can't do the job in cities etc, To my mind the massive 25% of emissions from trucking is indicative of where subsidies should be expended, way, way more effectively than subsidising the wealty to buy luxmobile long range BEVs. If people are prepared to put up with the range limitations, then short range BEVs are much more economic ex subsidy. However a hybrid can vastly reduce both pollutants and GHG with minimal or no subside , and are a much more effective solution for general use. If subsidies were concentrated on taxis, buses and commercial vehicle the money would be many times more effectively spent.
Test post to try to locate a posting issue. What would you say if I sung out of tune? Probably and very cruelly, typical of you! I have the voice of an angel, or an angle grinder. I however get buy with a little help from my friends. Or when the sales are on, I get buy with a little credit from my friends, But I have no regrets, I am a little sparrow flitting fittingly about