This is Davemart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Davemart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Davemart
Recent Activity
@Gasbag: 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. Perhaps you would take us through the logical process you use to arrive at that conclusion.
Lots of industrial products are toxic. No one is going to be pumping ammonia into cars, it is operating as a carrier for hydrogen, and will be dealt with in an industrial setting. I would be surprised if no due diligence has been done on their plans for green production. That is not how $5 billion projects are done, and undertakings will have been given.
I'd also point out that this blows a $5 billion hole in the meme which has been about for years that hydrogen is fossil fuel use by another name, which persisted despite the substantial amounts of hydrogen for transport from renewables. It is easier to decarbonise hydrogen supply than the electricity grid, as it operates in discrete modules, whereas you pretty much have to do the entire electricity supply to make a BEV use renewables when you plug it in.
This is proper industrial scale. Notions that hydrogen will not be rolled out for transport need to be binned. The initial roll out will be focussed on heavy duty vehicles, but cars can piggy back on that.
A little more on Hyundai's fuel cell plans out to 2030 here: https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/worlds-first-fuel-cell-heavy-duty-truck-hyundai-xcient-fuel-cell-heads-to-europe-for-commercial-use/ I am often critical of plans for renewables, which specify 'nearly competitive after subsidy' But in this case I am less so, as the often high altitude travel in Switzerland really needs ZEV, and so a premium is well worth it. And this sort of market is an enabler for cost reduction, which is going well for fuel cells, so that the comparatively modest subsidies needed for this small production run seem well worth it, and are a harbinger of ZEV in much more general use, via a very realistc program of driving costs down both through incremental improvement, no breakthroughs required although they are possible, and cost savings with increased volume.
Some electrolysis units even have sub second response times, which means that all power fluctuations in the grid can be dealt with by the technology. That does not mean that that will invariably be the optimum strategy, and no doubt batteries still have a part to play, but the days of wasteful spinning reserve are clearly numbered.
Video review here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTGGNyT-qIM Specs here: https://en.xiaopeng.com/p7.html With 350KW fast charging, a CATL battery which should give very high cycle life without dropping much in capacity, level 2 autonomy and level 3 promised by Christmas with no fake claims of FSD, and a really, really luxurious interior why would anyone in China choose the Model 3 for around the same price?
Toyota are leveraging their fuel stack really well, for trucks, buses and now stationary storage. The volumes, which though still low are way higher than other applications, are driving costs down. Their current expansion to ~10 times the volume they did for the Mirai I should help a lot.
@charlesH Yeah, but there are different types of heat pumps. Most of the working fluids lose efficiency rapidlly when it starts getting too cold. The one in the Hyundai must be a CO2 one, which can have a decent co-efficient of output to power in (COP) at much lower temperatures. I dunno how much more expensive that would be, or whether the battery in the RAV4 can be efficiently warmed to the same degree as it is air, not water, cooled. Not that the AER matters so much in a PHEV. I still would not kick the RAV4 Prime out of my garage.
Bang goes cold weather range issues. It will be interesting to see if Toyota think it economic to put such a sophisticated heat pump into the RAV4 Prime, as AER is of course a lot less critical in a PHEV.
I would see a realistic target market as being jet fuel. Things don't have to be universal to be useful, and jet fuel is tough to replace with anything else.
@mahonj Batteries aren't up to it for anything other than very short distance as the energy density is too low, fuel cell systems even with the CF tank and so on are way better. And since most places are going for renewables, then you need the power available when you want to use it, which is OK with hydrogen, not with electricity, not to mention the huge loads that heavy trucking would put on the grid to charge BEV trucks in any reasonable time, and the limited life of the batteries. That is why the likes of Daimler and just about everyone else are looking to hydrogen for heavy trucking. Why do you think they would do that if batteries could do the job? Short runs and deliveries, fine, but not anything longer.
@mahonj: Well to wheel, hydrogen is around as effcient in energy use as petrol, and possibly a touch less so that diesel in a big rig assuming hydrogen from NG and no use of process heat. It is also zero pollution at point of use, and evaporates upwards far more readily than it explodes. Then you have hydrogen from renewables, which are becoming increasingly economic What is so awful and hopeless for efficiency about any of that?
It is Tesla BEVs that have had the fire problem, not Toyota Mirai. Anywhere where it gets cold in the winter loses a lot of range with a BEV, aside from the fact that the vast majority of the world's motorists not only can't plug in at home but in no conceivable way will be able to in the future. Money is being extorted from poorer motorists so that the more wealthy can play with their toys, when hybrids are many, many times more effective on reducing GHG and poisonous emissions per dollar, until we have PFEVs at good cost. Manganese hydride Kubas -1 storage if it can be made to work and it looks no more challenging to do so than advanced battery concepts would reduce the cost even more, to untouchable levels for big battery BEVS.
Anyone want to bet that China will not roll out a comprehensive network for hydrogen production and distribution for trucks at an enormous rate? And of course FCEV cars can piggy-back on that infrastructure.
Dollar for dollar, hybrids knock emission and GHG reductions by BEVs especially long range ones out of court. And they don't require deeply regressive subsidies, with the rich panhandling from the poorer, who are anyway far less likely to have anywhere to plug in.
' The biggest factor in the cost decline is increased station utilization (fuel dispenses as a fraction of full capacity) with economies of scale and technology progress also contributing.' So unliike for batteries competitive hydrogen is essentially just a case of more volume, and cars on the road. I think people should be aware that by far the largest EV market, China, is also in the throes of starting the roll out of a comprehensive hydrogen network, focussed on supplies for heavy trucking, but that would still make it available for cars. The missing piece of the puzzle is economic FCEV cars. How close we are to that will become more clear when the Mirai II is released. Toyota reckon they can reduce the premium over hybrids to zero by around 2025 or so. That would be an awesome achievement if they do it. I am not really sure how they will manage it, as the carbon fibre tank is an expensive piece of kit although the costs are falling and will do so more with volume. But Toyota engineering commands respect from anyone who is not a complete fool, and they won't have made the claim lightly.
To clarify what ITM is doing in Sheffield, this is a PEM electrolyser manufacturing unit, capable of producing electrolysers with an output of 1GW in a year. https://www.itm-power.com/facilities So this is proper industrial scale capacity, bearing in mind that electrolysers don't need to be centralysed the way natural gas plants do.
For industrial equipment there is not normally a price list, and the link does not show prices. Price would likely depend on whether you want one of them, or 50.
@soltesza I am not sure what you are thinking about in 'time of repressurisation' The hydroge is stored at high pressure, so charging a vehicle is not going to affect that and no repressurisation is required, AFAIK
Hi sd They have done extensive studies to determine the operating envelope of various technologies for use in rail, including of course how long trips are in different applications. Fuel cells and hydrogen get more competitive against batteries as vehicles get larger, so of course trains are an attractive target, along with shipping. Here are some of the relevant studies: https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/new-study-shows-good-potential-for-hydrogen-powered-trains-in-europe/ It boils down to batteries being attractive for shunting etc, but for longer journeys fuel cells being more viable. On heavily travelled routes electrification of the track works economically, but for lower volume routes fuel cells can do the job well.
Wow! I am shocked by the 1million km warranty. There has been a lot of blather about the million mile battery from Tesla, based on very dodgy analysis by Dahn using cells in strictly laboratory, temperature controlled conditions. But Toyota honour their warranties, and this million mile to 70% capacity it huge. It is big enough that I am going to reassess what I had previously thought about the viability of BEVs.
The average BEV battery size they offer as a comparison is around 27KWH. On a cost basis that does not compare well with milder alternatives. And Tesla-style 75KWH battery packs would be off the charts poor. Big battery BEVs are the wrong option, at the wrong time, at the wrong cost, subsidy farming greenwashing not viable alternatives.