This is Davemart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Davemart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
@Gasbag Tesla are introducing faster chargers, so on the 3 they are OTA'ing software to use it, but the average charge speed is going to be nothing like 200KW, In typical Tesla fashion, it misleads grossly by naming the peak rate, which happens for just a few minutes. But in any case, since I referred to 4 year old cars, I was obviously not talking about the Model 3 as it had not been out that long. The cars in question are 2015 or so Model S and X cars which have been conveniently, for Tesla, updated by OTA restricting range and charge speed. You can read all about it on the Tesla forums.
Tesla have also been restricting charging speed and the amount of charge via OTA updates. That is in cars 4 years old or so. If their batteries are good for a million miles or whatever they claimed, and way over the 8-10 years I and others have given, why would they do that? The simple explanation is that they are not telling the truth, and their batteries are already running into cycle and calendar life issues.
@Calgarygary I would agree that Tesla probably have a good understanding of how long their batteries will last. But what they say, especially when they can make it as unattributable as possible via email leaks etc, and what they do are radically different. The examples of long life battery packs include all sorts of swaps for Tesloop which they elided under warranty stuff and where they changed it with paid for repairs. There is also the somewhat different of calendar life. It is not just Tesla who talk about 8 years or so for warranty. I would agree that warranties understate so that companies don't get hit by them, but that does not need to be a massive understatement. Finally they chopped the warranty for the 3 back to 100-120,000 miles depending on pack size. They did not do that for the hell of it. Other than random bloviation from Tesla, who have a record of saying anything they want until taken to court for it, I can find little evidence of this supposedly long life for batteries. Nissan reckon they will get a couple of decades out of their far simpler packs, but not in cars, the lifespan they give for cars is of the same order, 8 years or so. Tesla's CTO has repeatedly said that their batteries are not suitable for second life use. In any case, even if the battery is repurposed for stationary storage, the old car is still likely to be scrapped if the replacement costs too much.
@Calgarygary I'll believe Musk's proclamations about Tesla car's and their batteries lifespan when the $420 share offer materialises. Musk simply says whatever is convenient.
@yoatman I noted that my comments did not necessarily apply to all batteries, but they do to the ones we can do at the moment for cars, and for some time in the future. If we give credence to Innoleth, we should note that they say: 'Buchin: The cost for commercially-available lithium-ion batteries is between $150 and $400 per kWh. We expect that when we bring this high-energy cell into production, it will cost less than $100 at the start and with economies of scale, the cost would reduce to below $50 per kWh for an EV application.' That cost for current batteries is right where I said it was, and nothing like the $100KWH and suchlike claims doing the rounds. At that sort of level as I noted long range BEVs are more an expensive hobby than an alternative to ICE, and certainly not worth the billions of subsidy they have garnered.
'According to experts, the average service life of today’s lithium-ion batteries is 8-10 years or between 500 and 1,000 charge cycles. Battery makers usually guarantee mileage of between 100,000 and 160,000 kilometers. But rapid battery charging, high numbers of charge cycles, an overly sporty driving style, and extremely high or low ambient temperatures are all sources of stress for batteries, which makes them age faster. ' Nowhere near good enough to make long range BEVs other than an environmental disaster. Costs remain sticky, as the materials alone in batteries mean that the notion of $100KWH is a fantasy at the pack level with present chemistries. It is more like $180-220, as bottom up studies and the cost to buy a replacement confirm. The average age of the US car fleet is over 11 years, and of course many have been involved in accidents and written off early so that decreases the average. With batteries only lasting 8-10 years in favourable use, who the heck is going to pay for a new $15,000 battery pack in a car that old? So they effective life of a car will be reduced from current practise, and the scrappage will occur far earlier. Please note that this is not a comment on BEVs per se. as other chemistries which we have not got may up the lifespan to acceptable levels. They are not going to be in mass production until 2025-30 though, assuming they pan out, and present plans for large numbers of long range BEVs are a big hit to the environment, not an improvement.
I'd also note that energy going in to charge the battery is not heating up the car, so in hot places there is a double benefit.
Gryf: 'My only concern is that a low cost option would make widespread adoption possible.' ? Why is that a concern not an advantage?
That kind of power would cover the aircon whilst driving, and when parked up in warmer places would actually make into reality the notion of driving on sunshine, which at the moment save for nightworkers is usually fairly fake. Potentially useful stuff.
Gryf: Apparently the dual clutch Punchpowertrain: '48V or PHEV variants The unit can be either equipped with a 48 Volt low power motor (20kW), or with a high voltage powerful electric machine (90kW), without any design changes to the base transmission. The 48V solution equips mild hybrid electric vehicles (MHEV), resulting in a fuel saving of up to 15%, while the high voltage solution is designed for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), with up to 75% of fuel savings. Flexible hybrid fleet This flexibility in electric power level - and thus cost - is unseen for any other transmission, currently on the market. Such easy scalability of cost is important, because it enables OEMs to continuously adjust their vehicle fleet electrification mix to the market demand and ensure compliance with CO2-mandates. In this mix, also non-hybrid DT2 transmissions (without electric motor) still holds an important position.' (ibid)
For comparison, here are the details of the Punch Powertrain 48Volt systems which the PSA group will install: As always, they are looking for a cost effective solution, which comes in under the Continental one for efficiency, but is good for part count etc. That is going into a lot of cars in Europe in the next few years.
IMO Toyota are likely to be far more concerned by the challenge to their hybrids from 48Volt lower cost cars than they are about other's BEV offerings.
gryf I like that. It shows load shift within the economic capabilities Highview outline. They don't claim it for very high volume, such as would be needed for seasonal storage for renewables, but it should be able to cope with daily or weekly load shifts. Nuclear would fit that kind of power system well.
The are giving the round trip efficiency as 60-75% here:
Lad: We could swap to all BEV tomorrow, and we would still be using loads of NG for electricity. It is integral to our systems, and it is not going away soon. Power to gas does offer at least the potential to reduce the fossil fuel element of this.
'Interestingly, however, increase in the amount of H2 (0 to 11.0 mol%) in the hydrate media was almost equal to the decrease in the amount of CH4 (42.9 to 32.5 mol%), and this implies that most enclathrated H2 molecules replaced CH4, which was mainly captured in 512 cages, driven by the difference in the chemical potential. The mechanisms of the replacement reaction of CH4 hydrate by CO2 molecules [40,41] or N2 hydrate by H2 molecules [28,31] have already been reported in the literature. Surprisingly, when the ternary gas mixtures of CH4 + C2H6 + H2 were directly contacted with the ice powder (Cases II and IV), the amount of H2 was dramatically increased compared to that of H2 in the guest-exchanged hydrates (Cases I and III). The H2 compositions in the hydrate were 21.1 mol% and 22.4 mol% in Cases II and IV, respectively, even with the same ratio of CH4 to C2H6 in Cases I (7/3) and III (9/1). In view of these observations, we postulate that CH4 and C2H6 act as thermodynamic promoters for H2 storage in hydrate, and the amount of enclathrated H2 depends on the ‘synthetic pathway’ even with the same feed gas compositions. At this stage, it is necessary to investigate the guest-distribution of all mixed hydrates synthesized in various pathways to shed light on this peculiar H2 inclusion phenomenon.' IOW, they themselves don't fully understand why the take up rate is so high, and it surprised them too.
This provides up to 22% hydrogen by weight , which is a great result, from the paper. It is also intended to transport the hydrogen blended in the NG pipeline network, which can with modification handle that sort of mix: It is intended to separate out the hydrogen at the hydrogen station to power cars etc.
As a long time proponent of nuclear power, I would love to see much of the heavy lifting done by small modular reactors. As for renewables, the problem is storage and intermittency. I don't know how much of the grid can be supplied assuming a lot of storage as hydrogen or other chemicals, but unless you do that we sure as heck can't do it without to a very high degree of penetration. I am more optimistic than some on sequestration of CO2. Here is the UK plan to use 'blue' hydrogen, generated from natural gas but with sequestration in depleted north sea gas fields:
Sounds good, but how is it affecting energy density? In batteries, usually there are trade offs.
The embodied energy in batteries is also very large, so that BEVs and especially the more useful long range BEVs on a lifecycle basis are of dubious benefit in reducing GHG emissions. They are great for harvesting subsidies though.
It seems some here are unable to understand what a pilot plant does and does not do. As they say, it has shown the technical feasibility of the route. It is absurd to do efficiency calculations and so on based on it.
I am not interested in bothering with people who are not intelligent enough to realise that a proper and respectful address to others is the first step to gaining a hearing. But for the benefit of others who may not have been following the routes to decarbonisation closely, the notion that 'nothing has been done to answer questions' is a confession of ignorance by the poster, not an assessment of the state of affairs. I find that Inforeupdate has posted most of the relevant links, so here is just a summary timeline for what is going on right now in the UK: To outline progress, trials of up to 20% hydrogen in the NG pipeline network are taking place right now, which may involve modest upgrades, but nothing too drastic. For reference, the old town gas was around 50% hydrogen by volume The hydrogen is largely to be produced by reformation, with the carbon sequestered in depleted natural gas fields. Of course as and when hydrogen from renewables is economic that can be added. 20% hydrogen is pretty much what the post I led off on about low pressure storage in hydrates uses.
I have not seen this new storage technology reported yet elsewhere than here: 'Although gas hydrate storage methods using only pure hydrogen required high pressure conditions, the researchers confirmed for the first time in the world that when natural gas is injected into a gas hydrate along with hydrogen, the natural gas acts as a thermodynamic formation facilitator, dramatically reducing the storage pressure to 90 atmospheres. In addition, hydrogen byproduct gas, which currently accounts for most of the hydrogen production in Korea, is generated mainly in the oil refining, petrochemical and steel industries, and thus, it is expected that the cost of hydrogen transport can be drastically reduced if these hydrogen derivatives are transported and stored to hydrogen charging stations with hydrogen + natural gas hydrates through the natural gas grid. GIST Professor Youngjune Park said, “If this original technology is utilized, it is expected that it will be of great help to establish national energy mix policy since hydrogen can be transported at low cost by utilizing existing natural gas piping network that is already well established in Korea, and hydrogen can be separated from the natural gas at hydrogen charging stations.” KAIST Professor Jae-woo Lee said, “This study is expected to provide a hydrogen storage technology applicable to the upcoming hydrogen era by using gas hydrates with environmentally friendly features from water with a hydrogen-natural gas mixture storage medium in a low-pressure environment.”' The technical report behind a paywall is here: I've had a look at it and the parameters are interesting. Formation of the hydrates at 9MPa and 263.15K, for H2 in the hydrate of up to 22.4 mol% That is storage at around -13C, which is just commercial refrigeration at the hydrogen station, for excellent weight to hydrates. I would caution that since I have little technical training, my readings of a technical report should be taken with some caution, as misunderstandings are easy to make, so those with access should use it, and not take my attempted precis as Gospel. But since the hydrogen is to be delivered in the NG pipeline network in the proposal, then separated at the station and some of the NG used to help form the hydrate which can then be stored More economically and with less bulk(?) than in high pressure containers, the potential is clear enough. It would not of course be suitable for use on board, and the hydrogen would still need compression to be put into a tank on the vehicle, unlike the projected Kubas magnesium hydride -1 system recently referenced here. If it is cheaper though, it would combine well with the also low pressure Kubas system on a vehicle.
Here is what Viking are developing for liquid hydrogen cruise ships: