Electric cars/hybrids - a dead end?
Discussion
Ignoring the substantial inefficiencies of hydrogen, I think it only really has a chance against ICE cars where a similar usage protocol is in its favour. Once people get used to charging at home, they're not going to want to be tied to fuelling stations again. BEVs are going to get there first, leaving hydrogen entrants looking expensive and inconvenient.
Trabi601 said:
eldar said:
Comparing a Cortina with a 5er illustrates evolution, not revolution. For hydrogen to become viable you first need a way of producing cheap, abundant and green power, lots of it. Probably fusion or a similar technology. Expensive, ans still the twenty years away it has been for the last 70.
For EV to become mainstream, you need batteries to become 10% more energy dense, 10% cheaper and 10% greener every year or two. We have the power to do that.
You're still assuming that what we know about electrolysis today is what we will know about electrolysis in the future.For EV to become mainstream, you need batteries to become 10% more energy dense, 10% cheaper and 10% greener every year or two. We have the power to do that.
Stop thinking about what we know today, and small gains, but think about what we could know tomorrow. If nobody invests in tomorrow, we will always be stuck with a small evolution of what we have today.
I work for a company which is not only investing in improving what we have today (we're installing charge points as well as hydrogen) - but we're also investing heavily in what might be a solution in the future. If we listened to the experts here, we'd be stuck with relatively environmentally unsound LiON batteries and putting charging points outside every domestic property in the UK. Thankfully, the energy business isn't quite so blinkered.
(Don't forget that pure EV works for some people in a small and densely populated country. It doesn't really work for most people in bigger and less densely populated countries - so what may be the perfect solution in the UK isn't the perfect global solution, what we'll get in the future is a best fit for the majority of the world, not the best fit for some people in the UK)
.............................................
As for EV's not working in large sparsely populated locations/countries remember that electricity can be generated by any number of means (without going into the green energy debate) one if the downsides of ICE's is the need to transport fuel to these locations hence why islands in the pacific are going Solar at an exponential rate, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/tau-ame... EV vehicles are a perfect match for these places. Ditto the Australian Outback.
One of the things I admire about Tesla is that he hasn't taken the EV car in isolation but is trying to resolve the whole energy supply chain, http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-chang... when you live in a remote area traveling large distances to large population centers isn't something you generally do on a regular basis, so a vehicle you can fuel on your homestead is ideal.
Trabi601 said:
Oh well, the entire energy industry is wrong and a few car enthusiasts on a forum have predicted the future better than those who actually have a history of knowing what they're doing, not just fallen in love with the current tax-subsidised solution.
LOL, pretty sure we all know that our debates here aren't changing the larger picture. bear in mind though that all of us here are generally ICE enthusiasts so if we can be convinced then Joe Bloggs who sees a car merely as an appliance for getting from A to B should be easy.I would have thought that the car manufacturers, by producing electric as opposed to hydrogen cars have voted with their wallets
eldar said:
Comparing a Cortina with a 5er illustrates evolution, not revolution. For hydrogen to become viable you first need a way of producing cheap, abundant and green power, lots of it. Probably fusion or a similar technology. Expensive, ans still the twenty years away it has been for the last 70.
For EV to become mainstream, you need batteries to become 10% more energy dense, 10% cheaper and 10% greener every year or two. We have the power to do that.
More to the point the Cortina ran on Petrol and the 5er on Diesel. Quite easy to get an improvement in mpg when you switch fuels. For EV to become mainstream, you need batteries to become 10% more energy dense, 10% cheaper and 10% greener every year or two. We have the power to do that.
The irony is that at root Trabi and I are arguing for the same thing - funding of basic research, where I feel we differ is that I am dead set against vanity projects like pretend filling stations. If you are relying on magical and radical improvements in the technology to make it viable to fund the next round of filling stations with private rather than taxypayer money, what's the point of building a "production" version of the current, non-viable, technology?
Edited by Flooble on Friday 24th February 12:22
babatunde said:
LOL, pretty sure we all know that our debates here aren't changing the larger picture. bear in mind though that all of us here are generally ICE enthusiasts so if we can be convinced then Joe Bloggs who sees a car merely as an appliance for getting from A to B should be easy.
I would have thought that the car manufacturers, by producing electric as opposed to hydrogen cars have voted with their wallets
BEV exist in a bubble of tax breaks, as does the 'fuel' for them.I would have thought that the car manufacturers, by producing electric as opposed to hydrogen cars have voted with their wallets
Take away the tax benefits and things look significantly less favourable. And you still have a lot of infrastructure issues to overcome if we move towards almost complete reliance on BEV. Plus, we have still to assess the environmental impact of lithium battery technology on an industrial scale.
There have to be some significant doubts about the long term future of BEV for government and energy companies to be pushing along with other alternatives - hydrogen and LNG are the current pack leader alternatives.
There is nothing peculiarly harmful about lithium extraction. We're quite happy to tolerate iron and aluminium extraction for the rest of the car, which are far messier processes. And hydrogen fuel cells aren't made out of sunbeams and children's laughter. It's quite likely in any case that other battery chemistries will replace lithium in the medium term as manufacturers chase battery performance.
My feeling is that if fuel cells have a future, they will be running on something other than hydrogen - possible renewably generated carbon neutral hydrocarbons from biomass. Hydrogen just isn't a very convenient way of getting energy from power station to wheels with the one exception that loading it into the car is relatively fast. I don't really see the single advantage of fuel cell electric vehicles outweighing their multiple disadvantages except for certain niche applications.
My feeling is that if fuel cells have a future, they will be running on something other than hydrogen - possible renewably generated carbon neutral hydrocarbons from biomass. Hydrogen just isn't a very convenient way of getting energy from power station to wheels with the one exception that loading it into the car is relatively fast. I don't really see the single advantage of fuel cell electric vehicles outweighing their multiple disadvantages except for certain niche applications.
Trabi601 said:
You've got a very closed mind, based on what we know today.
15 years ago, when the Prius with NiMH batteries was laughed at, nobody could predict the Leaf or the Tesla. I remember car forums laughing at the idea of anyone relying on EVs as anything other than funny little city cars for eccentrics.
Hydrogen production from water is a relatively new and under-researched technology - yes, we've known about it for something like 200 years, but it's only now we are looking at how we can do it quickly and efficiently.
https://phys.org/news/2016-03-efficiency-electroly...
Efficiency doubled by changing the makeup of the catalyst.
Hydrogen from oil isn't the answer. On-site production *may* be the answer. It would be very foolish to put all our eggs into the pure EV basket before really understanding the environmental impact of battery production and recycling, or understanding how we can realistically provide charging for millions of EVs every evening.
There's a huge amount of research money being put behind improving the efficiency of electrolysis - are you going to tell us that all those investing time and money in it are wrong and that a small number of car anoraks on an Internet forum have accurately predicted the future?
Its not a closed mind, its basic physics. Many of the problems related to hydrogen can only be solved if the physics of a hydrogen molecule change.....then it won't be hydrogen.15 years ago, when the Prius with NiMH batteries was laughed at, nobody could predict the Leaf or the Tesla. I remember car forums laughing at the idea of anyone relying on EVs as anything other than funny little city cars for eccentrics.
Hydrogen production from water is a relatively new and under-researched technology - yes, we've known about it for something like 200 years, but it's only now we are looking at how we can do it quickly and efficiently.
https://phys.org/news/2016-03-efficiency-electroly...
Efficiency doubled by changing the makeup of the catalyst.
Hydrogen from oil isn't the answer. On-site production *may* be the answer. It would be very foolish to put all our eggs into the pure EV basket before really understanding the environmental impact of battery production and recycling, or understanding how we can realistically provide charging for millions of EVs every evening.
There's a huge amount of research money being put behind improving the efficiency of electrolysis - are you going to tell us that all those investing time and money in it are wrong and that a small number of car anoraks on an Internet forum have accurately predicted the future?
The only benefit of hydrogen is you can refill a bit like petrol, so why not use an alternatives, especially that can be stored transported and used like petrol.
Hydrogen is simply crap on so many levels, and the one supposed benefit is not even that good.
otolith said:
There is nothing peculiarly harmful about lithium extraction. We're quite happy to tolerate iron and aluminium extraction for the rest of the car, which are far messier processes. And hydrogen fuel cells aren't made out of sunbeams and children's laughter. It's quite likely in any case that other battery chemistries will replace lithium in the medium term as manufacturers chase battery performance.
My feeling is that if fuel cells have a future, they will be running on something other than hydrogen - possible renewably generated carbon neutral hydrocarbons from biomass. Hydrogen just isn't a very convenient way of getting energy from power station to wheels with the one exception that loading it into the car is relatively fast. I don't really see the single advantage of fuel cell electric vehicles outweighing their multiple disadvantages except for certain niche applications.
Also worth noting that lithium is not the major material used in "Lithium" batteries. Tesla batteries are about 3% Lithium IIRC.My feeling is that if fuel cells have a future, they will be running on something other than hydrogen - possible renewably generated carbon neutral hydrocarbons from biomass. Hydrogen just isn't a very convenient way of getting energy from power station to wheels with the one exception that loading it into the car is relatively fast. I don't really see the single advantage of fuel cell electric vehicles outweighing their multiple disadvantages except for certain niche applications.
Trabi601 said:
BEV exist in a bubble of tax breaks, as does the 'fuel' for them.
Take away the tax benefits and things look significantly less favourable. And you still have a lot of infrastructure issues to overcome if we move towards almost complete reliance on BEV. Plus, we have still to assess the environmental impact of lithium battery technology on an industrial scale.
There have to be some significant doubts about the long term future of BEV for government and energy companies to be pushing along with other alternatives - hydrogen and LNG are the current pack leader alternatives.
I'd say plug in hybrids are also an alternative provided they are used as such and not just to avoid city congestion charges. Cars achieving 150 mpg are meeting the 80% reduction in CO2 emissions target provided the electricity is clean. This is where we need to be.Take away the tax benefits and things look significantly less favourable. And you still have a lot of infrastructure issues to overcome if we move towards almost complete reliance on BEV. Plus, we have still to assess the environmental impact of lithium battery technology on an industrial scale.
There have to be some significant doubts about the long term future of BEV for government and energy companies to be pushing along with other alternatives - hydrogen and LNG are the current pack leader alternatives.
Quite apart from the energy issues, hydrogen is one of the most hostile fuels imaginable.
Under pressure, it permeates steel. It leaks through anything, even a system that is conventionally gas tight. The only way to stop this is liquefaction, which takes a huge amount of energy to achieve, and still more to maintain.
The only good thing about hydrogen is that you can make it by electrolysis and then burn it to make water. Other than that, it's really nasty stuff.
There is more chance of synthetic petrol being viable than hydrogen.
Under pressure, it permeates steel. It leaks through anything, even a system that is conventionally gas tight. The only way to stop this is liquefaction, which takes a huge amount of energy to achieve, and still more to maintain.
The only good thing about hydrogen is that you can make it by electrolysis and then burn it to make water. Other than that, it's really nasty stuff.
There is more chance of synthetic petrol being viable than hydrogen.
rxe said:
Quite apart from the energy issues, hydrogen is one of the most hostile fuels imaginable.
Under pressure, it permeates steel. It leaks through anything, even a system that is conventionally gas tight. The only way to stop this is liquefaction, which takes a huge amount of energy to achieve, and still more to maintain.
The only good thing about hydrogen is that you can make it by electrolysis and then burn it to make water. Other than that, it's really nasty stuff.
There is more chance of synthetic petrol being viable than hydrogen.
Synthetic hydrocarbons capable of replacing petrol have been around for decades, just needs cheap energy to manufacture.Under pressure, it permeates steel. It leaks through anything, even a system that is conventionally gas tight. The only way to stop this is liquefaction, which takes a huge amount of energy to achieve, and still more to maintain.
The only good thing about hydrogen is that you can make it by electrolysis and then burn it to make water. Other than that, it's really nasty stuff.
There is more chance of synthetic petrol being viable than hydrogen.
V8 Fettler said:
rxe said:
Quite apart from the energy issues, hydrogen is one of the most hostile fuels imaginable.
Under pressure, it permeates steel. It leaks through anything, even a system that is conventionally gas tight. The only way to stop this is liquefaction, which takes a huge amount of energy to achieve, and still more to maintain.
The only good thing about hydrogen is that you can make it by electrolysis and then burn it to make water. Other than that, it's really nasty stuff.
There is more chance of synthetic petrol being viable than hydrogen.
Synthetic hydrocarbons capable of replacing petrol have been around for decades, just needs cheap energy to manufacture.Under pressure, it permeates steel. It leaks through anything, even a system that is conventionally gas tight. The only way to stop this is liquefaction, which takes a huge amount of energy to achieve, and still more to maintain.
The only good thing about hydrogen is that you can make it by electrolysis and then burn it to make water. Other than that, it's really nasty stuff.
There is more chance of synthetic petrol being viable than hydrogen.
Like a lot of things on the web I'm not sure how I first discovered the fully charged website.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDEQG-7tpLY&t=...
About half way through Robert Llewellyn has his say about the new power station story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDEQG-7tpLY&t=...
About half way through Robert Llewellyn has his say about the new power station story.
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
Hang on. You're not suggesting that those working in the oil industry would rather Hydrogen worked, and those in the EV and battery industry would rather that EV's work? And in other news....
To be honest, after 8 pages my overriding impression is that neither solution are ready to replace petrol/diesel, so I'll stick to that until a better option comes along. From what I've seen, I suspect I'll be running on petrol for some time yet.
The ONLY thing holding up BEVs is recharge time. As soon as you can fast charge a BEV with 600kms worth of charge as quickly and conveniently as filling as fuel tank, it's over for the internal combustion engine. There will be an adoption landslide. BEVs will replace the IC engine as fast as the IC engine replaced the horse (and that was fast). The price of BEVs will rapidly tumble with the economies of scale because building a BEV will become massively cheaper than building a mechanically complex IC engined car. Hardly any moving parts in the engine(s). No gearbox. No differentials if you put a engine on each driven wheel. And BEVs will be massively easier to package given the relative size of their drivelines. Sorry, but the IC engined car is on borrowed time.....sadly.
RBH58 said:
The ONLY thing holding up BEVs is recharge time. As soon as you can fast charge a BEV with 600kms worth of charge as quickly and conveniently as filling as fuel tank, it's over for the internal combustion engine. There will be an adoption landslide. BEVs will replace the IC engine as fast as the IC engine replaced the horse (and that was fast). The price of BEVs will rapidly tumble with the economies of scale because building a BEV will become massively cheaper than building a mechanically complex IC engined car. Hardly any moving parts in the engine(s). No gearbox. No differentials if you put a engine on each driven wheel. And BEVs will be massively easier to package given the relative size of their drivelines. Sorry, but the IC engined car is on borrowed time.....sadly.
600km of charge in 5 minutes for a similar price to a regular ICE car? With the pace battery technology is moving at the moment, we might be there by, I dunno, 2050? As I said, I don't see ICE going anywhere soon. Which is nice, as I've got to admit, BEV's bore the living crap out of me.
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
The government have just passed legislation that will enable them to force both Hydrogen and Electric point fitment at all major service stations.They're doing this as the hydrogen issue is chicken and egg - without filling points, the cars can't be sold, but you can't have filling points until you have cars on the road. So they're going to force the issue and the investment required.
Has anyone done the calculations to see what kind of electric supply would be needed to recharge 10 electric cars, all at the same time, with enough charge to travel 400 miles, in 5 minutes? I can see that may be a little challenging, even if someone invents a battery tech. which could do this.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff