Electric cars/hybrids - a dead end?
Discussion
Trabi601 said:
Which bit of 'EV is part of the solution' did you not understand?
EV isn't the be all and end all - other technologies will come in to play as well. Range extending hybrids will always have a place, we need a clean solution to this.
As for paying for the new fuelling technologies - we have a model where you go to a filling station and fill up, the infrastructure is privately owned and built into the operating model.
Implementing this for public charging points, on council owned roads, is a very different game indeed - and we are still a long way from being able to do this. We're nearly 20 years from the launch of ADSL and still have awful broadband in some heavily populated areas - public EV charging is a much bigger undertaking!
Not insurmountable, but a long way from being reality.
But we're comparing a relatively new tech., with a relatively mature tech., which is reaching the diminishing returns point.
I really don't know why there are so many blinkered views when it comes to EVs - they have significant shortcomings which many seem to dismiss without really thinking 'is there a different way to do this?'. I don't see widespread installation of charging points as the answer.
I take your points about on street charging, but I really foresee that being covered by other charging mechanisms.EV isn't the be all and end all - other technologies will come in to play as well. Range extending hybrids will always have a place, we need a clean solution to this.
As for paying for the new fuelling technologies - we have a model where you go to a filling station and fill up, the infrastructure is privately owned and built into the operating model.
Implementing this for public charging points, on council owned roads, is a very different game indeed - and we are still a long way from being able to do this. We're nearly 20 years from the launch of ADSL and still have awful broadband in some heavily populated areas - public EV charging is a much bigger undertaking!
Not insurmountable, but a long way from being reality.
But we're comparing a relatively new tech., with a relatively mature tech., which is reaching the diminishing returns point.
I really don't know why there are so many blinkered views when it comes to EVs - they have significant shortcomings which many seem to dismiss without really thinking 'is there a different way to do this?'. I don't see widespread installation of charging points as the answer.
The hybrid hydrogen/battery EV doesnt really add up though (I had a feeling this argument was coming so I prepared some pictures ...):
This is a Mirai (as you probably know this is Toyotas HFC vehicle, the culmination of some years (decades?) of their pursuit of hydrogen);
https://simanaitissays.files.wordpress.com/2015/06...
This a similar drivetrain diagram of a Tesla (the culmination of their decade or so of dev.):
https://longtailpipe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...
Two things to note:
1. There is nothing in the EV that is not in the hydrogen car, so everything needed for EVs is needed for Hydrogen, all the improvements in EV carry over to Hydrogen. This also includes the battery, as a fuel cell cannot ramp up and down its demand to meet throttle requirements, hydrogen cars are effectively ALREADY hybrids in that sense. This also means the "what if we discover something terribly polluting about batteries" argument falls over, as the same batteries are needed for hydrogen cars.
2. The fuel cell and two hydrogen tanks take up loads of space, there simply isnt a lot of scope here to add more inside this floorplan. This means that its difficult to see how you get to a longer range version, you certainly cannot up the density of your pressurised hydrogen. You could design the car around the tanks (which I believe toyota already did) but theyll always be round (to contain the pressure) so they wont package that neatly. Designing cars around the (conveniently rectangular) batteries makes for a much easier job, this is how EVs increase their range. I dont really see how you increase the range of the hydrogen car to something significantly larger than a battery EV. Please point to something concrete that suggests you can.
Basically this compares two similar (300 mile) vehicles, one requires a more complex drivetrain, and a more complex filling solution, and provides you with faster filling. I really dont see that payoff as worth it, and I do not understand why you do ... but I am willing to try and listen.
The comparison to petrol hybrids doesn't stand. A petrol hybrid has many (all?) of the disadvantages of a hydrogen car but with the massive advantage of allowing you to tap into the existing petrol filling infrastructure that is all over the country. Thats a huge win and allows people to drive EVs without fear of range problems. That same win does not carry over to hydrogen as you'll need to start from scratch with the infrastructure, you are better off pushing that effort into EV chargers.
I am not trying to ignore your ideas or be dismissive of your arguments but I am really struggling to see hydrogen as something that provides a fast filling solution. I really worry for us as a society if we value those few minutes over all that other difficulty
Edited by Clem2k3 on Monday 13th February 16:33
Even if you said that you would have 2 range extenders, that's still better than nothing and even better than 100% hydrogen cars if you look at total emissions.
Look at this range of trip lengths. Something like a BMW i3 REx covers virtually 99% on EV mode.
Going back to my earlier letter - this is my argument in graphical form.
- The red area is demand on the UK grid over the past week.
- The green areas is extra overnight demand if 20 million EVs were charging during Economy 7 to take average annual mileage.
- The light blue is extra demand if a further 11 million EVs were charging during Economy 7, giving a total of 31 million or all cars in the UK.
- The purple line is the peak demand reached in 2007
- The orange line is the total generating capacity of all plants in the UK.
As you can see, in the past week all cars could charge without breaching the historic level a decade ago when we had less energy saving lights and appliances etc.
(By the way, I am aware that Economy 7 is slightly staggered around the country, but here I have used 23:00 to 06:00)
Look at this range of trip lengths. Something like a BMW i3 REx covers virtually 99% on EV mode.
Going back to my earlier letter - this is my argument in graphical form.
- The red area is demand on the UK grid over the past week.
- The green areas is extra overnight demand if 20 million EVs were charging during Economy 7 to take average annual mileage.
- The light blue is extra demand if a further 11 million EVs were charging during Economy 7, giving a total of 31 million or all cars in the UK.
- The purple line is the peak demand reached in 2007
- The orange line is the total generating capacity of all plants in the UK.
As you can see, in the past week all cars could charge without breaching the historic level a decade ago when we had less energy saving lights and appliances etc.
(By the way, I am aware that Economy 7 is slightly staggered around the country, but here I have used 23:00 to 06:00)
Did you miss that I see fuel cell as a range extending tech?
We see lots of graphs that predict ideal behaviour. These always seem to show it's all OK - yet if we all get up to boil the kettle during the Corrie break, we put the system under stress.
Humans don't behave according to models, graphs or plan. We are by nature quite random entities, so planning needs to take this into account - at the moment, I'm not sure anyone is really modelling around the kind of random behaviour we display.
We see lots of graphs that predict ideal behaviour. These always seem to show it's all OK - yet if we all get up to boil the kettle during the Corrie break, we put the system under stress.
Humans don't behave according to models, graphs or plan. We are by nature quite random entities, so planning needs to take this into account - at the moment, I'm not sure anyone is really modelling around the kind of random behaviour we display.
Trabi601 said:
Did you miss that I see fuel cell as a range extending tech?
We see lots of graphs that predict ideal behaviour. These always seem to show it's all OK - yet if we all get up to boil the kettle during the Corrie break, we put the system under stress.
Humans don't behave according to models, graphs or plan. We are by nature quite random entities, so planning needs to take this into account - at the moment, I'm not sure anyone is really modelling around the kind of random behaviour we display.
I didnt miss it, I addressed it in my (admittedly very long) response. To summarise, the hydrogen kit is big enough that the total range is no better than a battery EV (so the range isnt exactly extended) and you have lost the convenience that petrol hybrids have of being able to use existing infrastructure. I dont see petrol hybrids hanging around in range extender or parallel hybrid form either ...We see lots of graphs that predict ideal behaviour. These always seem to show it's all OK - yet if we all get up to boil the kettle during the Corrie break, we put the system under stress.
Humans don't behave according to models, graphs or plan. We are by nature quite random entities, so planning needs to take this into account - at the moment, I'm not sure anyone is really modelling around the kind of random behaviour we display.
Clem2k3 said:
I didnt miss it, I addressed it in my (admittedly very long) response. To summarise, the hydrogen kit is big enough that the total range is no better than a battery EV (so the range isnt exactly extended) and you have lost the convenience that petrol hybrids have of being able to use existing infrastructure. I dont see petrol hybrids hanging around in range extender or parallel hybrid form either ...
But you now assume a range extending hybrid never plugs in!We need range extending tech, but we need it cleaner than burning dino fuel.
What's the answer? - clean production of hydrogen is, at the moment, the closest answer we have. It may be adopted, it may not be adopted - but battery tech. isn't making the kind of leaps forward we need to fully replace fossil fuels in the near to mid future. Hence the need for range extending tech.
Trabi601 said:
But you now assume a range extending hybrid never plugs in!
We need range extending tech, but we need it cleaner than burning dino fuel.
What's the answer? - clean production of hydrogen is, at the moment, the closest answer we have. It may be adopted, it may not be adopted - but battery tech. isn't making the kind of leaps forward we need to fully replace fossil fuels in the near to mid future. Hence the need for range extending tech.
Why rule out petrol? If fossil fuel consumption was reduced by the ~95% suggested by the charts, there would be little need to replace it as it would be a tiny amount of pollution compared with cows. In fact, come to think of it, if you reduce fuel consumption that much you could probably switch to burning bio-ethanol for your range extender. We need range extending tech, but we need it cleaner than burning dino fuel.
What's the answer? - clean production of hydrogen is, at the moment, the closest answer we have. It may be adopted, it may not be adopted - but battery tech. isn't making the kind of leaps forward we need to fully replace fossil fuels in the near to mid future. Hence the need for range extending tech.
Current methods of producing Hydrogen on an industrial scale are as dirty as fossil fuel. It comes from either (a) methane gas reformation - obvious pollution,
or (b) Using absolutely massive quantities of electricity to crack water. The sort of quantities which would require lots more nuclear plants or loads more coal-burning - you aren't ever going to produce Hydrogen from seawater using solar/wind/unicorn breath. We're talking TW of power.
Flooble said:
Why rule out petrol? If fossil fuel consumption was reduced by the ~95% suggested by the charts, there would be little need to replace it as it would be a tiny amount of pollution compared with cows. In fact, come to think of it, if you reduce fuel consumption that much you could probably switch to burning bio-ethanol for your range extender.
Current methods of producing Hydrogen on an industrial scale are as dirty as fossil fuel. It comes from either (a) methane gas reformation - obvious pollution,
or (b) Using absolutely massive quantities of electricity to crack water. The sort of quantities which would require lots more nuclear plants or loads more coal-burning - you aren't ever going to produce Hydrogen from seawater using solar/wind/unicorn breath. We're talking TW of power.
Who knows?Current methods of producing Hydrogen on an industrial scale are as dirty as fossil fuel. It comes from either (a) methane gas reformation - obvious pollution,
or (b) Using absolutely massive quantities of electricity to crack water. The sort of quantities which would require lots more nuclear plants or loads more coal-burning - you aren't ever going to produce Hydrogen from seawater using solar/wind/unicorn breath. We're talking TW of power.
All I know is that there is an awful lot of money being put behind hydrogen as one of the future solutions - as per the EV lot, we are talking current hydrogen tech. here, which is just a toe in the water. Who knows what will happen in the near future with so much being put into it?
Fix the power demands and you no longer need to stick charging posts on every street.
We also see many predictions of peak lithium being reached before peak oil. So we do need to hedge our bets and look towards any viable alternatives.
bodhi said:
One thing I've never particularly understood is why proponents of the Electric Vehicle get so annoyed when you mention Hydrogen could also be a very good solution? I would have thought that, in a world with limited resources, finding another resource we can use (such as Hydrogen) and developing this to get round some of the inherent difficulties with using it would be beneficial for everybody?
As a purely impartial observer (i.e someone who would rather we stuck with petrol, as it works and appears to have less downsides than the alternatives being discussed), they both seem to have a fairly critical flaw which we have to engineer round in order to be ready for mass consumption - EV's have batteries, Hydrogen cars have Hydrogen production.
I just think having 2 solutions would be the way forwards, rather than putting all our eggs in, say, the EV basket, then finding out 15 years down the line Lithium production is an environmental disaster, then we are back to square one.
Hydrogen has many many downsides, just so you can fill a bit like a petrol car.As a purely impartial observer (i.e someone who would rather we stuck with petrol, as it works and appears to have less downsides than the alternatives being discussed), they both seem to have a fairly critical flaw which we have to engineer round in order to be ready for mass consumption - EV's have batteries, Hydrogen cars have Hydrogen production.
I just think having 2 solutions would be the way forwards, rather than putting all our eggs in, say, the EV basket, then finding out 15 years down the line Lithium production is an environmental disaster, then we are back to square one.
I charge my phone at home as I assume you do. if somone offered you a hydrogen mobile phone that could be charged in a few minutes, but only at special shops, would you think that was progress?
I have an EV on order and I do 30-40k miles per year. When it arrives I will be charging at home, which will be progress for me. Currently I have to fill up 3 times per week, which means I need to leave 10 minutes earlier on those days, or arrive home 10 minutes later.
Hydrogen cars are very expensive to make, and are quite slow and very inefficient. They need to store Hydrogen at 10,000 psi so how would you feel about buying one 5 or 10 years down the line? Hydrogwn cars can be bought now, but very few people are buying them. Tesla start pilot production of the Model 3 this month, and have about 400,000 orders.
EV's and Hybrid is the future.
Trabi601 said:
Flooble said:
Why rule out petrol? If fossil fuel consumption was reduced by the ~95% suggested by the charts, there would be little need to replace it as it would be a tiny amount of pollution compared with cows. In fact, come to think of it, if you reduce fuel consumption that much you could probably switch to burning bio-ethanol for your range extender.
Current methods of producing Hydrogen on an industrial scale are as dirty as fossil fuel. It comes from either (a) methane gas reformation - obvious pollution,
or (b) Using absolutely massive quantities of electricity to crack water. The sort of quantities which would require lots more nuclear plants or loads more coal-burning - you aren't ever going to produce Hydrogen from seawater using solar/wind/unicorn breath. We're talking TW of power.
Who knows?Current methods of producing Hydrogen on an industrial scale are as dirty as fossil fuel. It comes from either (a) methane gas reformation - obvious pollution,
or (b) Using absolutely massive quantities of electricity to crack water. The sort of quantities which would require lots more nuclear plants or loads more coal-burning - you aren't ever going to produce Hydrogen from seawater using solar/wind/unicorn breath. We're talking TW of power.
All I know is that there is an awful lot of money being put behind hydrogen as one of the future solutions - as per the EV lot, we are talking current hydrogen tech. here, which is just a toe in the water. Who knows what will happen in the near future with so much being put into it?
Fix the power demands and you no longer need to stick charging posts on every street.
We also see many predictions of peak lithium being reached before peak oil. So we do need to hedge our bets and look towards any viable alternatives.
eldar said:
98elise said:
There is very little lithium in a lithium ion battery, and its not even rare.
Recover from recycled batteries if it does become scarce.A Tesla contains roughly 65kg of Lithium, US production is 1000 tonnes a year. 75% of all lithium resources are in unstable South American countries. (and much of it is environmentally damaging to recover)
At current rates of use, it's estimated there are 360-ish years of Lithium resources in the world. At a conservative estimate of 100 gigafactories to supply batteries for EV and home storage, that drops to under 20 years.
It's a very interesting situation - Tesla have invested a lot in Lithium technology and have made it fashionable. EVs are riding a crest due to government subsidies and tax incentives.
Is the lithium battery powered car a flash in the pan, or should we be continuing to develop other technologies?
The 400k returnable deposits on the Model 3 may or may not convert into real world orders - nobody has yet seen what buyers will get for their money - but the models looked like a cheap car for premium money - it's only tax breaks making them look attractive.
98elise said:
...
Hydrogwn cars can be bought now, but very few people are buying them. Tesla start pilot production of the Model 3 this month, and have about 400,000 orders.
...
I think in the small print they can only be leased, as I believe none of the manufacturers are particularly confident on the longevity of the fuel cell stack which contains lots of very expensive and properly rare metals. Plus the liability on the tanks themselves. Hydrogwn cars can be bought now, but very few people are buying them. Tesla start pilot production of the Model 3 this month, and have about 400,000 orders.
...
Trabi601 said:
That's nowhere near as easy as it sounds. It's very energy inefficient and quite a dirty process.
A Tesla contains roughly 65kg of Lithium, US production is 1000 tonnes a year. 75% of all lithium resources are in unstable South American countries. (and much of it is environmentally damaging to recover)
At current rates of use, it's estimated there are 360-ish years of Lithium resources in the world. At a conservative estimate of 100 gigafactories to supply batteries for EV and home storage, that drops to under 20 years.
It's a very interesting situation - Tesla have invested a lot in Lithium technology and have made it fashionable. EVs are riding a crest due to government subsidies and tax incentives.
Is the lithium battery powered car a flash in the pan, or should we be continuing to develop other technologies?
The 400k returnable deposits on the Model 3 may or may not convert into real world orders - nobody has yet seen what buyers will get for their money - but the models looked like a cheap car for premium money - it's only tax breaks making them look attractive.
Correct. Because lithium is cheap, efficient recycling isn't currently viable. Once the price increases, and recycling gets smarter and viable.A Tesla contains roughly 65kg of Lithium, US production is 1000 tonnes a year. 75% of all lithium resources are in unstable South American countries. (and much of it is environmentally damaging to recover)
At current rates of use, it's estimated there are 360-ish years of Lithium resources in the world. At a conservative estimate of 100 gigafactories to supply batteries for EV and home storage, that drops to under 20 years.
It's a very interesting situation - Tesla have invested a lot in Lithium technology and have made it fashionable. EVs are riding a crest due to government subsidies and tax incentives.
Is the lithium battery powered car a flash in the pan, or should we be continuing to develop other technologies?
The 400k returnable deposits on the Model 3 may or may not convert into real world orders - nobody has yet seen what buyers will get for their money - but the models looked like a cheap car for premium money - it's only tax breaks making them look attractive.
And, yes, develop a better battery and you'll become mega rich, so people are trying.
Trabi601 said:
eldar said:
98elise said:
There is very little lithium in a lithium ion battery, and its not even rare.
Recover from recycled batteries if it does become scarce.A Tesla contains roughly 65kg of Lithium, US production is 1000 tonnes a year. 75% of all lithium resources are in unstable South American countries. (and much of it is environmentally damaging to recover)
At current rates of use, it's estimated there are 360-ish years of Lithium resources in the world. At a conservative estimate of 100 gigafactories to supply batteries for EV and home storage, that drops to under 20 years.
It's a very interesting situation - Tesla have invested a lot in Lithium technology and have made it fashionable. EVs are riding a crest due to government subsidies and tax incentives.
Is the lithium battery powered car a flash in the pan, or should we be continuing to develop other technologies?
The 400k returnable deposits on the Model 3 may or may not convert into real world orders - nobody has yet seen what buyers will get for their money - but the models looked like a cheap car for premium money - it's only tax breaks making them look attractive.
The traditional EV manufacturers were quite happy to flog us EVs for ever but they are now spending Billions on EV's not only due to government subsidies and tax incentives, but because they are a genuine alternative to ICEs and they don't want to be left behind.
Another thing for consumers is the lack of moving parts in an EV which should mean much reduced maintenance costs, its like the difference btw a cathode TV and an LCD, I'm old enough to remember when TV repairman was a job, now we simply swap the failing board.
There is a thread over on the general gassing board where the sheer speed of acceleration of the Tesla 100D is being ridiculed as unimportant forgetting that 0-60 has been the measure of a fast car forever, now an EV family saloon car can kick the ass of hypercars there seems to be a search for some performance criteria that favours the ICE.
Mercedes seem to be going down the same road as I am with this.
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/13/mercedes-benz-g...
The benefit being that range extending places lower demands on lithium as you don't need massive batteries to the same extent...
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/13/mercedes-benz-g...
The benefit being that range extending places lower demands on lithium as you don't need massive batteries to the same extent...
I was wrong on the lease - you can buy a Mirai outright (but not the Honda or Hyundai FCEVs).
Still not sure about the warranty though - it's weird:
Basic warranty: 36 months/36,000miles (!!!)
Hybrid electrical components warranty: 96 months/100,000miles
What's that? The battery? Fuel Cell too? Not clear what that means precisely. You might hope it includes the fuel cell but I'd bet it's like the Prius Hybrid warranty - just the battery bits not the actual "engine"/fuel cell.
Maintenance warranty: 36 months/35,000miles
Starting to see a pattern here - lacking in confidence indeed
Powertrain warranty: 60 months/60,000miles
That is at least a reasonable duration, but 60,000 miles is hardly instilling confidence when Nissan offer 100,000 miles on their bargain-basement budget Leaf's battery and Tesla have gone for that infinite-mile thingy. Still not 100% convinced on the fuel cell coverage either.
Still not sure about the warranty though - it's weird:
Basic warranty: 36 months/36,000miles (!!!)
Hybrid electrical components warranty: 96 months/100,000miles
What's that? The battery? Fuel Cell too? Not clear what that means precisely. You might hope it includes the fuel cell but I'd bet it's like the Prius Hybrid warranty - just the battery bits not the actual "engine"/fuel cell.
Maintenance warranty: 36 months/35,000miles
Starting to see a pattern here - lacking in confidence indeed
Powertrain warranty: 60 months/60,000miles
That is at least a reasonable duration, but 60,000 miles is hardly instilling confidence when Nissan offer 100,000 miles on their bargain-basement budget Leaf's battery and Tesla have gone for that infinite-mile thingy. Still not 100% convinced on the fuel cell coverage either.
Trabi601 said:
Mercedes seem to be going down the same road as I am with this.
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/13/mercedes-benz-g...
The benefit being that range extending places lower demands on lithium as you don't need massive batteries to the same extent...
OK here's a statistic as of June 2016 were 407 HFCV on American roads & nearly half million EVs. There is a reason for that,http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/13/mercedes-benz-g...
The benefit being that range extending places lower demands on lithium as you don't need massive batteries to the same extent...
From the above linked article, Mercedes have spent $2.7 billion in fuel-cell technology during the previous 15 years and they have pretty much no cars using the technology on the road currently, out of curiosity I tried to find a used B class F-Cell (supposedly on the mkt since 2010) for sale in the USA, couldn't find a single one. The fact that Mercedes are planning bring 1 single hybrid Fuel cell car and a whole range of EV's to the market is a good pointer as to where they really think the market is going.
HFCV's are technological deadend, it's Digital Compact Cassette & MiniDisc all rolled into one.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff