Hydrogen is the future, not BEVs?
Discussion
tamore said:
bigothunter said:
What is the realistic objective energy density for these solid state cells?
700+We need batteries capable of over 3000 Wh/kg.
bigothunter said:
TheDeuce said:
I suppose it would sound like that to a person that isn't aware that one technology is theoretical, other than a few instances it's been forced into happening in an entirely chaotic manner, whereas the other has endless working prototypes. If that's what you mean?
Both will happen but solid state cells will happen first - they're already dependably reproducable, it's the manufacturering process and fidelity that needs refining.
What is the realistic objective energy density for these solid state cells?Both will happen but solid state cells will happen first - they're already dependably reproducable, it's the manufacturering process and fidelity that needs refining.
Like li-ion, once in general production those numbers will ramp up as manufacturing fidelity and process improves, along with scale of production and demand.
The other significant differenciators are that solid state cells can be charged endlessly with almost zero degredation, are totally stable so won't catch fire if damaged and can be charged almost pretty much as rapidly as you can find a suitably powered supply to charge them with. Probably the most suitable supply would be another pre-charged array of solid state cells, you could charge an EV faster than you could spill petrol with right setup.
bigothunter said:
tamore said:
bigothunter said:
What is the realistic objective energy density for these solid state cells?
700+We need batteries capable of over 3000 Wh/kg.
DonkeyApple said:
Solving the problem of how to efficiently store energy will lead to unimaginable change.
Hydro-electric can store plenty of energy. The real trick is getting that energy to where you want to use it. Is Scalextric battery powered? No. Are electric trains battery powered? No.
How about running a buried cable up the road and vehicles magically pick up power as they go? Job done. But it's a bit tricky.
Visitors to European cities will have seen trams that run on power from overhead lines outside the city centre while simultaneously charging their on-board batteries. In the city centre itself they run on stored battery power, then raise their pantographs again when they return to the outskirts where there are overhead cables.
Hydrogen is IMO a blind alley. What do you need to get/make hydrogen? Electricity. Why not put that electricity straight in the car? Good point. An electric car doesn't care whether its electricity comes from gas, coal, nuclear, biomass, solar hydroelectric or anywhere else, so good flexibility. A hydrogen car needs ... hydrogen. Sure, you can make your hydrogen from electricity in a big plant anywhere you like but my home has a lot more electricity sockets than hydrogen sockets.
The craziness in UK is government declaring "let's go electric" with no regard whatsoever for the necessary charging infrastructure.
bigothunter said:
700 Wh/kg compared to 12,900 Wh/kg for petrol. Allowing for the difference in energy conversion, the ratio is still around 5:1 in a favour of petrol.
We need batteries capable of over 3000 Wh/kg.
which is more than 10x current lion batteries in a high end EV. so take a model 3 which can do 300 miles, the same weight/ size pack will be capable of 3000+ miles. why do we need this?We need batteries capable of over 3000 Wh/kg.
tamore said:
which is more than 10x current lion batteries in a high end EV. so take a model 3 which can do 300 miles, the same weight/ size pack will be capable of 3000+ miles. why do we need this?
Mass (or weight if you prefer) is the enemy of engineering. Both Colin Chapman and Gordon Murray hate/hated unnecessary mass even on road cars. EVs get away with partially offsetting their 'weight' penalty through regenerative retardation. But there is still a price to pay.Competitive energy density allows lighter vehicles or extended range according to application, whether EV or ICEV.
Panamax said:
Hydro-electric can store plenty of energy. The real trick is getting that energy to where you want to use it.
Is Scalextric battery powered? No. Are electric trains battery powered? No.
How about running a buried cable up the road and vehicles magically pick up power as they go? Job done. But it's a bit tricky.
Inductive charging as used successfully on some electric taxi ranks. Can even be employed dynamically. But there are efficiency and cost penalties.Is Scalextric battery powered? No. Are electric trains battery powered? No.
How about running a buried cable up the road and vehicles magically pick up power as they go? Job done. But it's a bit tricky.
bigothunter said:
Mass (or weight if you prefer) is the enemy of engineering. Both Colin Chapman and Gordon Murray hate/hated unnecessary mass even on road cars. EVs get away with partially offsetting their 'weight' penalty through regenerative retardation. But there is still a price to pay.
Competitive energy density allows lighter vehicles or extended range according to application, whether EV or ICEV.
no doubt. but 700 would allow an electric MX5 with no weight penalty and probably better centre of gravity. so why is 3000 'needed'?Competitive energy density allows lighter vehicles or extended range according to application, whether EV or ICEV.
bigothunter said:
Sounds like fusion - only 20 years away but never gets any closer 
That's a tremendous leap forward from the 30 years away of the last 50 years. 
Mind you, that's a generation thing. The problem is storage. So even if fusion is solved we still can't store what it produces efficiently or use it for anything new. All it really means is that we can all have air con and swimming pools.
tamore said:
bigothunter said:
Assume you mean for the same operating range. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
yes. can't remember where i saw it. someone had crunched some numbers and come up with that conclusion.
Not surprisingly I remain unconvinced. Would be good to see a full 'weight' analysis of components in an equivalent EV and ICEV.
Panamax said:
Hydro-electric can store plenty of energy. The real trick is getting that energy to where you want to use it.
Is Scalextric battery powered? No. Are electric trains battery powered? No.
How about running a buried cable up the road and vehicles magically pick up power as they go? Job done. But it's a bit tricky.
Visitors to European cities will have seen trams that run on power from overhead lines outside the city centre while simultaneously charging their on-board batteries. In the city centre itself they run on stored battery power, then raise their pantographs again when they return to the outskirts where there are overhead cables.
Hydrogen is IMO a blind alley. What do you need to get/make hydrogen? Electricity. Why not put that electricity straight in the car? Good point. An electric car doesn't care whether its electricity comes from gas, coal, nuclear, biomass, solar hydroelectric or anywhere else, so good flexibility. A hydrogen car needs ... hydrogen. Sure, you can make your hydrogen from electricity in a big plant anywhere you like but my home has a lot more electricity sockets than hydrogen sockets.
The craziness in UK is government declaring "let's go electric" with no regard whatsoever for the necessary charging infrastructure.
Solving battery energy density opens the world up to small devices alone. Is Scalextric battery powered? No. Are electric trains battery powered? No.
How about running a buried cable up the road and vehicles magically pick up power as they go? Job done. But it's a bit tricky.
Visitors to European cities will have seen trams that run on power from overhead lines outside the city centre while simultaneously charging their on-board batteries. In the city centre itself they run on stored battery power, then raise their pantographs again when they return to the outskirts where there are overhead cables.
Hydrogen is IMO a blind alley. What do you need to get/make hydrogen? Electricity. Why not put that electricity straight in the car? Good point. An electric car doesn't care whether its electricity comes from gas, coal, nuclear, biomass, solar hydroelectric or anywhere else, so good flexibility. A hydrogen car needs ... hydrogen. Sure, you can make your hydrogen from electricity in a big plant anywhere you like but my home has a lot more electricity sockets than hydrogen sockets.
The craziness in UK is government declaring "let's go electric" with no regard whatsoever for the necessary charging infrastructure.
The U.K. has no infrastructure issue. It merely has an argument between manufacturers and tax payers as to whom pays for the plugs. The U.K. has electricity ubiquity to the point that charging EVs in that regard is a total non issue. The number of plugs for EVs that aren't on private driveways will just grow as the number of EV users need them to. The key is that taxpayers shouldn't pay for these plugs unless we're getting the profits from them. And punters foolish enough to buy an EV before the infrastructure that they need exists are fools not to be bailed out by other taxpayers. They should just wait their turn and stick to petrol like the tens of millions of smarter folk.
bigothunter said:
Mass (or weight if you prefer) is the enemy of engineering. Both Colin Chapman and Gordon Murray hate/hated unnecessary mass even on road cars. EVs get away with partially offsetting their 'weight' penalty through regenerative retardation. But there is still a price to pay.
Competitive energy density allows lighter vehicles or extended range according to application, whether EV or ICEV.
Not just mass though.Competitive energy density allows lighter vehicles or extended range according to application, whether EV or ICEV.
Not a single car in the world operates in vacuum.
The penalty that mass applies for cruising is independent of speed.
The penalty it applies during change of direction is short lived and can be mitigated by where it is concentrated.
The penalty it applies during change of speed is also short lived and can be mitigated by short term power bursts of by energy recovery.
Drag...
The penalty it applies is proportional to the square of speed and is continuous.
It also gets worse when it's cold.
Car enthusiast will talk all day long about weight, all day and every day, but few ever mention drag.
Why, because we can't see it or feel it inside the car?
EVs make up for their mass penalty by concentrating the mass low and central and by being substantially slipperier then their ICE counterparts.
Why, because efficiency.
Waste heat in the car breeds more inefficiency in the car to deal with the waste heat.
Nobody ever talks about drag though, yet it's by far the biggest enemy of speed.
GT9 said:
Drag...
The penalty it applies is proportional to the square of speed and is continuous.
It also gets worse when it's cold.
Car enthusiast will talk all day long about weight, all day and every day, but few ever mention drag.
Why, because we can't see it or feel it inside the car?
EVs make up for their mass penalty by concentrating the mass low and central and by being substantially slipperier then their ICE counterparts.
Why, because efficiency.
Waste heat in the car breeds more inefficiency in the car to deal with the waste heat.
Nobody ever talks about drag though, yet it's by far the biggest enemy of speed.
Yup - Drag Coefficient x Frontal Area. Larger cars are not good news. But modern ICEVs have lower drag coefficients compared to a few years ago.The penalty it applies is proportional to the square of speed and is continuous.
It also gets worse when it's cold.
Car enthusiast will talk all day long about weight, all day and every day, but few ever mention drag.
Why, because we can't see it or feel it inside the car?
EVs make up for their mass penalty by concentrating the mass low and central and by being substantially slipperier then their ICE counterparts.
Why, because efficiency.
Waste heat in the car breeds more inefficiency in the car to deal with the waste heat.
Nobody ever talks about drag though, yet it's by far the biggest enemy of speed.
Anecdote - when does a slippery, heavy but high power ICE car work in your favour?
Edited by bigothunter on Wednesday 24th April 22:07
bigothunter said:
700 Wh/kg compared to 12,900 Wh/kg for petrol. Allowing for the difference in energy conversion, the ratio is still around 5:1 in a favour of petrol.
We need batteries capable of over 3000 Wh/kg.
lmao oh yes because the energy just leaps out that petrol without any need for a giant, inefficient heavy engine & all the parts to go with it.We need batteries capable of over 3000 Wh/kg.
bigothunter said:
Thanks for your honesty
Not surprisingly I remain unconvinced. Would be good to see a full 'weight' analysis of components in an equivalent EV and ICEV.
i don't care if you're convinced or not! it's coming, there is some weird resistance to it, but it's inevitable.Not surprisingly I remain unconvinced. Would be good to see a full 'weight' analysis of components in an equivalent EV and ICEV.
i'm absolutely loving watching the progress as we're living through a world changing shift. i feel fortunate of that.
tamore said:
i don't care if you're convinced or not! it's coming, there is some weird resistance to it, but it's inevitable.
Just trying to put some realism behind the claims. Would be expected in any professional engineering review (eg technical paper).BTW my daily driver is an FHEV. Fuel economy is almost on par with a diesel. Regardless it's a great car.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff