Has JCB saved engines?
Discussion
Chris32345 said:
sherman said:
Hydrogen is the way forward. It will use the same sort of set up as we have now with fuel stations.
Electric cars are like the equvilent of the minidisc.
A stop gap nobody really needed and superseeded by a better system a few years later(streaming) .
Electric cars - hydrogen cars
Mini disks where an alternative to CDs and not replaced by streamingElectric cars are like the equvilent of the minidisc.
A stop gap nobody really needed and superseeded by a better system a few years later(streaming) .
Electric cars - hydrogen cars
That came many years after the format was dead
And the problem with hydrogen is is really isn't cost effective to produce currently and progress so far is slow improving it
https://www.enginetechnologyinternational.com/news...
Volvolover said:
My wife's car does 99.95 of journeys to the shops, friends houses and baby groups, nursery, etc.......she doesn't have time in the day to leave the car somewhere for 30 minutes that isn't at home or one of those places and that is just the journey profile that fits EV usage......and we aren't all going to be able to be EV charging when we go to Tesco
As over 60% of homes in the UK have off street parking, even if you used the entire range of your car to get to the shops, that means only 40% of people would need to charge there.. In reality, even that is a ridiculous overkill. A typical privately owned Passenger car spends 98% of it's entire life parked.......How many miles a day does you wife do?
A typical 50kW charger adds charge at a rate of around 200 miles per hour. IME a 12 min stop is enough for 40 miles added.
SpeckledJim said:
super7 said:
We haven't even got close to what we can achieve with 'Batteries'...... The current lithium batteries are the tip of what can be done, include graphene and include super-capacitors into the mix and batteries will be light, powerfull and will recharge in minutes rather than hours and be vastly cheaper.....
Buy an EV now and your buying old technology and will be out of date by 2030.
Agreed, batteries will continue to improve at pace. Buy an EV now and your buying old technology and will be out of date by 2030.
But today's EV will still get you to the shops for the foreseeable, and much more cheaply and more reliably than an ICE, so nothing to lose.
An E30 M3 is old technology, and out of date today, but it still works, I still want one, and the existence of a 'better' modern M3 doesn't obviate that.
Not sure how you work out cheaply? The EQC I had was a £75k car and with full charge an alleged 250 range (half that if you drive quickly), it was not in any way, shape or form cheap; if you mean post purchase cost, have somewhere to charge, a charge point installed (£500-1500), a variable tariff for your electricity then maybe.
Or you quick charge enroute ( not cheap ), then you end up buying lunch / a meal whilst waiting, having to ask the friend you are visiting to plug your car in to get home ...
Against a comparable ICE for ‘popping’ the shop, sorry it isn’t cheap at all.
Electric won’t be the future for HGV nor Aerospace (without redundancy).
Hard to predict what may happen, obviously; however I try to retain some scepticism about the prevailing notion that EVs are the “only solution and must prevail over all other solutions” etc; I keep reminding myself that Mr. Musk (a colourful character, a visionary and an undoubted business genius, but somewhat less than impartial in his views, perhaps) et al are spending a lot of money to ensure we all think in a manner aligned to their financial self interest.
I don’t see this as an either or scenario. I believe we can have EVs and hydrogen-powered engines. I’m a fan of EVs – for luxury cars and for family runabouts, they make perfect sense. And with the potential for massless energy, they look to have even better functionality for smaller cars and bikes. They’re a bore for motorbikes and sports cars though. At least, for me. Regardless of what powers them, batteries or engines, I’ve never much liked performance cars (where the emphasis is on efficient high performance and top trumps bragging rights); I’ve always preferred sports cars (where the emphasis is on interactivity and emotions and putting a smile on your face). For instance, bored with modern fizzy warp speed hyperbikes, I’m currently getting a very skilled bloke to do me a replica of a late 1930s Triumph. It will be exuberantly noisy, and relatively slow, and I will cherish it.
However, I can’t help but notice how polarised the debate is. People are taking sides - pro or anti EVs / hydrogen - quite needlessly, in my view. It needn’t be this binary; but, in the media at large, quite a few EV fans are noticeably anti-hydrogen, and seem to have made up their minds already. Instant certainties seems to be the cultural flavour of our era! It also seems that some of the anti-hydrogen certainties are based on a snapshot understanding of hydrogen technology which (even to my very inexpert eyes) might already be somewhat out of date, or incomplete, as it is a continually-evolving area (see below).
JCB has now shown that a conventional engine can actually run on hydrogen, without needing a fuel cell. That is interesting, surely. Of course, critics will say that this is “just intended for heavy vehicles” etc. However, that may be its original business case, but, it really doesn’t matter how something gets started. Once you have a feasible solution, an engine is an engine, and it’s difficult to see why, when faced with an inevitable demand for a car-sized or bike-sized version from those of who prefer engines and quality bespoke engineering over homogenised and soulless batteries, and who are prepared to pay for that, why the market won’t respond appropriately. That is, the direct hydrogen engine (not a fuel cell) can develop initially for heavy-load applications, and the engine technology and refilling infrastructure, which develops initially to service that initial economic justification, can naturally expand to service an expanding user base of proper cars and proper bikes. Why not – we do not live in a Communist market, so that is entirely feasible. I for one would jump at the chance to buy a car or bike which has a proper engine and nonetheless is as clean as an EV. I have no attachment to fossil fuels per se; it’s engines that I like. I’d be amazed if I’m the only one who thinks that way.
Further, some of the technical objections to hydrogen already are well out of date. Consider the following 2 breakthroughs, one from a team of scientists in Israel, the other from a team of scientists in Germany:
1 HYDROGEN BREAKTHROUGH – CHEAP, AND SAFE, WATER-SPLITTING:
https://techxplore.com/news/2019-09-water-splittin...
In a recent study featured in Nature Energy, a team of researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology have addressed some of these challenges, presenting a new technique for splitting water that could enhance existing electrolytic hydrogen production methods. Their research draws inspiration from one of their previous studies on photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting, in which they tried to combine solar energy and water (photo)electrolysis to generate hydrogen from sunlight and water.
One of the greatest challenges outlined in this previous work was the collection of hydrogen gas from millions of PEC cells distributed in the solar field. In their study, the Technion-based researchers tried to develop a technique that could effectively tackle this challenge.
"Taking photovoltaic (PV) solar plants as the base scenario, the solar farm is composed of millions of individual PV cells, where the current (and voltage) is collected from each and every one of them into a metal grid," Avner Rothschild, one of the researchers who carried out the study, told TechXplore. "This is easy with electricity, but not so with hydrogen gas."
In an ideal PEC solar plant of the future, PV cells would be replaced by PEC cells, which can produce hydrogen in a component known as cathode compartment, and oxygen in a separate chamber called an anode compartment. These two compartments should be separated, at the very least by a membrane, in order to ensure that hydrogen and oxygen do not mix, as this would cause an explosion. In addition, the hydrogen gas must be collected from each individual cell.
Creating this setup has so far proved to be technically difficult and expensive, as it requires a very costly piping manifold. Ultimately, this has made the realization of solutions for large-scale hydrogen production by PEC water splitting unrealistic.
"We sought a way out of this challenge, and came up with the idea of separating the oxygen and hydrogen compartments in the PEC cell into two separate cells, so that the oxygen is generated in the solar field and is released to the atmosphere, whereas the hydrogen is generated in a central reactor at the corner of the field," Rothschild said. "The separation into two cells is made possible by inserting another set of two electrodes, called auxiliary electrodes, that are being charged and discharged simultaneously by OH- ions involved in the water-splitting reaction, thereby mediating the ion exchange between the two cells (which is necessary to close the electric circuit)."
E-TAC, the new water-splitting technique proposed by Rothschild and his colleagues, has a high energy efficiency of 98.7 percent, hence it significantly outperforms conventional electrolysers, which typically have an energy efficiency of ~70 to 80 percent for state-of-the-art devices. A further advantage of E-TAC is that it produces hydrogen and oxygen sequentially, while in most other electrolysers, they are produced simultaneously. This ultimately removes the need for a membrane separating the hydrogen and oxygen gases, thus greatly simplifying the construction and assembly of the cells, as well as their operation and maintenance.
"The process we invented presents a conceptual breakthrough in water splitting, and in view of the advantages it offers, it may become a game-changer and lead to a new technology for hydrogen production from water without CO2 emissions, which could compete with SMR to produce clean hydrogen and enable the transition from fossil fuels to clean hydrogen fuel," Rothschild said.
2 HYDROGEN BREAKTHROUGH – POWER PASTE
https://www.electrive.com/2021/02/02/fraunhofer-de...
Researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials IFAM in Dresden have developed a paste for hydrogen storage. The institute is calling the mass “power paste”.
The researchers also claim their paste to offer high energy densities and be suitable for all vehicles from electric scooters to cars. According to Fraunhofer IFAM, the power paste, based on the solid magnesium hydride, should allow hydrogen to be chemically stored at room temperature and ambient pressure and rereleased as required. Since the power paste only decomposes above about 250 degrees Celsius, this works without any issues even if, for example, a scooter equipped with the paste is left in the summer sun for hours.
The storage paste’s starting material is only magnesium in powder form, which is a very common element. At 350 degrees Celsius and five to six times atmospheric pressure, this is reacted with hydrogen to form magnesium hydride. The power paste is then produced with ester and metal salt.
The power paste replaces the cylindrical pressure tank used in fuel cell cars and buses. Therefore, the institute says that this solution is suitable for hydrogen drives in smaller vehicles in cases where a pressure tank would be difficult to implement.
According to the Fraunhofer researchers, the refuelling process is straightforward. Instead of driving to a filling station, the driver changes a cartridge and fills tap water into a water tank. In the vehicle itself, the paste is pressed out of the cartridge and mixed with a precisely measured amount of water, depending on the required power. This reaction produces gaseous hydrogen, which can then be converted into electricity for the electric motor.
Only half of the hydrogen comes from the power paste, the other half from the water in the reaction. “The energy storage density of the power paste is therefore enormous: it is much higher than that of a 700 bar pressure tank,” says Marcus Vogt, a scientist at Fraunhofer IFAM. “Compared to batteries, it has ten times the energy storage density.
The researchers see another major advantage of their development: the paste can flow and be pumped, so aside from cartridges and canisters, the paste can also be “filled up” at a filling station. The expensive infrastructure for gaseous hydrogen at high pressure or cryogenic liquid hydrogen at – 253 degrees Celsius would no longer be necessary.
Viewed optimistically, there is no reason why we cannot have great massless energy clean EVs for luxury and family applications and clean hydrogen engines for heavy and enthusiast users.
I don’t see this as an either or scenario. I believe we can have EVs and hydrogen-powered engines. I’m a fan of EVs – for luxury cars and for family runabouts, they make perfect sense. And with the potential for massless energy, they look to have even better functionality for smaller cars and bikes. They’re a bore for motorbikes and sports cars though. At least, for me. Regardless of what powers them, batteries or engines, I’ve never much liked performance cars (where the emphasis is on efficient high performance and top trumps bragging rights); I’ve always preferred sports cars (where the emphasis is on interactivity and emotions and putting a smile on your face). For instance, bored with modern fizzy warp speed hyperbikes, I’m currently getting a very skilled bloke to do me a replica of a late 1930s Triumph. It will be exuberantly noisy, and relatively slow, and I will cherish it.
However, I can’t help but notice how polarised the debate is. People are taking sides - pro or anti EVs / hydrogen - quite needlessly, in my view. It needn’t be this binary; but, in the media at large, quite a few EV fans are noticeably anti-hydrogen, and seem to have made up their minds already. Instant certainties seems to be the cultural flavour of our era! It also seems that some of the anti-hydrogen certainties are based on a snapshot understanding of hydrogen technology which (even to my very inexpert eyes) might already be somewhat out of date, or incomplete, as it is a continually-evolving area (see below).
JCB has now shown that a conventional engine can actually run on hydrogen, without needing a fuel cell. That is interesting, surely. Of course, critics will say that this is “just intended for heavy vehicles” etc. However, that may be its original business case, but, it really doesn’t matter how something gets started. Once you have a feasible solution, an engine is an engine, and it’s difficult to see why, when faced with an inevitable demand for a car-sized or bike-sized version from those of who prefer engines and quality bespoke engineering over homogenised and soulless batteries, and who are prepared to pay for that, why the market won’t respond appropriately. That is, the direct hydrogen engine (not a fuel cell) can develop initially for heavy-load applications, and the engine technology and refilling infrastructure, which develops initially to service that initial economic justification, can naturally expand to service an expanding user base of proper cars and proper bikes. Why not – we do not live in a Communist market, so that is entirely feasible. I for one would jump at the chance to buy a car or bike which has a proper engine and nonetheless is as clean as an EV. I have no attachment to fossil fuels per se; it’s engines that I like. I’d be amazed if I’m the only one who thinks that way.
Further, some of the technical objections to hydrogen already are well out of date. Consider the following 2 breakthroughs, one from a team of scientists in Israel, the other from a team of scientists in Germany:
1 HYDROGEN BREAKTHROUGH – CHEAP, AND SAFE, WATER-SPLITTING:
https://techxplore.com/news/2019-09-water-splittin...
In a recent study featured in Nature Energy, a team of researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology have addressed some of these challenges, presenting a new technique for splitting water that could enhance existing electrolytic hydrogen production methods. Their research draws inspiration from one of their previous studies on photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting, in which they tried to combine solar energy and water (photo)electrolysis to generate hydrogen from sunlight and water.
One of the greatest challenges outlined in this previous work was the collection of hydrogen gas from millions of PEC cells distributed in the solar field. In their study, the Technion-based researchers tried to develop a technique that could effectively tackle this challenge.
"Taking photovoltaic (PV) solar plants as the base scenario, the solar farm is composed of millions of individual PV cells, where the current (and voltage) is collected from each and every one of them into a metal grid," Avner Rothschild, one of the researchers who carried out the study, told TechXplore. "This is easy with electricity, but not so with hydrogen gas."
In an ideal PEC solar plant of the future, PV cells would be replaced by PEC cells, which can produce hydrogen in a component known as cathode compartment, and oxygen in a separate chamber called an anode compartment. These two compartments should be separated, at the very least by a membrane, in order to ensure that hydrogen and oxygen do not mix, as this would cause an explosion. In addition, the hydrogen gas must be collected from each individual cell.
Creating this setup has so far proved to be technically difficult and expensive, as it requires a very costly piping manifold. Ultimately, this has made the realization of solutions for large-scale hydrogen production by PEC water splitting unrealistic.
"We sought a way out of this challenge, and came up with the idea of separating the oxygen and hydrogen compartments in the PEC cell into two separate cells, so that the oxygen is generated in the solar field and is released to the atmosphere, whereas the hydrogen is generated in a central reactor at the corner of the field," Rothschild said. "The separation into two cells is made possible by inserting another set of two electrodes, called auxiliary electrodes, that are being charged and discharged simultaneously by OH- ions involved in the water-splitting reaction, thereby mediating the ion exchange between the two cells (which is necessary to close the electric circuit)."
E-TAC, the new water-splitting technique proposed by Rothschild and his colleagues, has a high energy efficiency of 98.7 percent, hence it significantly outperforms conventional electrolysers, which typically have an energy efficiency of ~70 to 80 percent for state-of-the-art devices. A further advantage of E-TAC is that it produces hydrogen and oxygen sequentially, while in most other electrolysers, they are produced simultaneously. This ultimately removes the need for a membrane separating the hydrogen and oxygen gases, thus greatly simplifying the construction and assembly of the cells, as well as their operation and maintenance.
"The process we invented presents a conceptual breakthrough in water splitting, and in view of the advantages it offers, it may become a game-changer and lead to a new technology for hydrogen production from water without CO2 emissions, which could compete with SMR to produce clean hydrogen and enable the transition from fossil fuels to clean hydrogen fuel," Rothschild said.
2 HYDROGEN BREAKTHROUGH – POWER PASTE
https://www.electrive.com/2021/02/02/fraunhofer-de...
Researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials IFAM in Dresden have developed a paste for hydrogen storage. The institute is calling the mass “power paste”.
The researchers also claim their paste to offer high energy densities and be suitable for all vehicles from electric scooters to cars. According to Fraunhofer IFAM, the power paste, based on the solid magnesium hydride, should allow hydrogen to be chemically stored at room temperature and ambient pressure and rereleased as required. Since the power paste only decomposes above about 250 degrees Celsius, this works without any issues even if, for example, a scooter equipped with the paste is left in the summer sun for hours.
The storage paste’s starting material is only magnesium in powder form, which is a very common element. At 350 degrees Celsius and five to six times atmospheric pressure, this is reacted with hydrogen to form magnesium hydride. The power paste is then produced with ester and metal salt.
The power paste replaces the cylindrical pressure tank used in fuel cell cars and buses. Therefore, the institute says that this solution is suitable for hydrogen drives in smaller vehicles in cases where a pressure tank would be difficult to implement.
According to the Fraunhofer researchers, the refuelling process is straightforward. Instead of driving to a filling station, the driver changes a cartridge and fills tap water into a water tank. In the vehicle itself, the paste is pressed out of the cartridge and mixed with a precisely measured amount of water, depending on the required power. This reaction produces gaseous hydrogen, which can then be converted into electricity for the electric motor.
Only half of the hydrogen comes from the power paste, the other half from the water in the reaction. “The energy storage density of the power paste is therefore enormous: it is much higher than that of a 700 bar pressure tank,” says Marcus Vogt, a scientist at Fraunhofer IFAM. “Compared to batteries, it has ten times the energy storage density.
The researchers see another major advantage of their development: the paste can flow and be pumped, so aside from cartridges and canisters, the paste can also be “filled up” at a filling station. The expensive infrastructure for gaseous hydrogen at high pressure or cryogenic liquid hydrogen at – 253 degrees Celsius would no longer be necessary.
Viewed optimistically, there is no reason why we cannot have great massless energy clean EVs for luxury and family applications and clean hydrogen engines for heavy and enthusiast users.
loafer123 said:
Firstly, green energy is becoming cheaper and cheaper, which is the main input into hydrogen electrolysis. This will bring the price down and make it more attractive.
Unfortunately as the raw energy costs fall, a BEV's costs fall at the same rate. And because a BEV doesn't waste 60% of the energy you put in, the running costs will always be lower than for a HFCV. Yes, the absolute difference in cost will reduced, but the BEV will remain cheaper.loafer123 said:
The cost of the hydrogen engine or fuel cell will be much lower and more sustainable than the batteries for EV's and therefore it will become an increasingly attractive option.
Will be? Really? You should probably ring up the OEMs and let them know, because every study i have seen puts the BEV at a large advantage because of it's intrinsic simplicity and inate parallelism (a battery is LOTS of the same thing, and therefore perfectly suited to mass production and leveraging economies of scale. Cells costs have fallen dramatically, and continue to do so. The same cannot be said for the complex, high precision/high grade materials required for a HFC,which incidentally, also requires a battery to work in a PassCar scenario......loafer123 said:
Add to that the fact that H2 can store energy in bulk much more easily and that makes storage and transport, as well as range, much more easily achievable and you have real potential for a different approach.
Range is continually over stated in terms of importance by people who have never actually owner and lived with an BEV. Only because you have to drive somewhere to fill up, do you "need" long range with an ICE. What you actually need for an BEV fleets is NOT long range, but a high coverage charging network and a network that has fast charging capabilities. On PH, where we are all powerfully built company directors, yes, we need to be able to drive 600 miles non-stop, whilst carrying 17 people and towing a caravan or 29 tonne plant trailer, but in the real world, that is a requirement that is, in the majority, simply not needed. IME, once customers have used and lived with a BEV for a bit, will happily give up some range for more interior space and a lower cost.It's also rather eroneous to say "storage and transport of hydrogen is easy" because
1) it isn't. It's really costly and complex to compress or cryogenically cool H2 to it's liquid form for transport
2) That Hydrogen network simply doesn't exist. Unlike the National Grid, that does. People often state that "The National grid can't cope with EVs" (btw The NG themselves say not only can it cope, but that a large fleet of EVs actually helps the grid and enables a larger percentage of renewables to be used), and yes, the grid will need some improvements in places, but compared to an entire network to transport H2 from scratch, this is a trivial undertaking
Volvolover said:
Its also utterly irrelevant comparing the thermal efficiency of a ICE with that of a BEV to determine the most efficient/environmentally friendly type of car.
The complete energy cycle to build, fuel, maintain and dispose of the car needs to be analysed out. Sure BEV is efficient and green, but what about the spent nuclear fuel rods left over to be processed from making electricity and the precious metal mining to make the batteries? How does that compare to using Hydrogen or Hydrogen fuel cells or indeed petrol ICE?
And of course, not one person has ever done this ^^The complete energy cycle to build, fuel, maintain and dispose of the car needs to be analysed out. Sure BEV is efficient and green, but what about the spent nuclear fuel rods left over to be processed from making electricity and the precious metal mining to make the batteries? How does that compare to using Hydrogen or Hydrogen fuel cells or indeed petrol ICE?
No no, we just sit back, patting our hands on our backs and say" job well done"
The fact is, when you do this complete study, it gets EVEN WORSE for ICEs because once you start looking at the overheads and impacts of fossil fuel extraction, transport and refining it's very quickly evident that this is the dirtest industry ever established!!
I personally have now chaired 3 such studies for various OEs and what we find is actually fairly consistent, ICEs are appaling, BEVs are much,much better (in the UK, this year, if you drive an EV, it will consume around 3 times less total energy than an equivalent ICE, and emit something like 100 times less pollutants).
Volvolover said:
Consider globally that only 34.6% of electricity production is renewable
So right now, if we transition the fleet to 100% electric, without doing anything else, we will have reduced the impact of the fleet by over 1/3rd! Or to put it another way, there are around 1.4 billion cars in the world. Simply swapping to EV would effectively reduce that by 500 million vehicles!
And in reality, because BEVs actually are less consumptive (lower drag, regen capability, higher efficiency) it's more like a 750 million vehicle reduction.
I'd not call that trivial myself
And here comes the "whataboutery"
Just because A, does not negate B.
if you lent me a tenner to buy a pint, and then you come round to ask for your money back, and i say "no point in me paying you your tenner back, because right now i owe the morgage company £100,000 for my house" you would, rightly, think i was a tit.
Decarbonising private transport and attempting to minimise it's impact, for really,little net deficit (for most private car owners, and EV is actually much better, being cheaper to run, quieter, faster, more comfortable, have a bigger interior and luggage space, needing less maintance, being easier to drive, and probably depreciating less) is in no way negated by the fact we also need to decarbonise our domestic heating, or air transport, or shipping or whatever. We need to do ALL those things, and hence we need to start with the really easy one of simply driving EVs first......
Just because A, does not negate B.
if you lent me a tenner to buy a pint, and then you come round to ask for your money back, and i say "no point in me paying you your tenner back, because right now i owe the morgage company £100,000 for my house" you would, rightly, think i was a tit.
Decarbonising private transport and attempting to minimise it's impact, for really,little net deficit (for most private car owners, and EV is actually much better, being cheaper to run, quieter, faster, more comfortable, have a bigger interior and luggage space, needing less maintance, being easier to drive, and probably depreciating less) is in no way negated by the fact we also need to decarbonise our domestic heating, or air transport, or shipping or whatever. We need to do ALL those things, and hence we need to start with the really easy one of simply driving EVs first......
Volvolover said:
I know you cant because i'm party to a lot of the current research into the future that National Grid are undertaking, they cant, so you can't.
OK, i'll bite:Here is what the actual National Grid say:
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-ne...
That is a press release on the National Grids own website, by their press department.
So, what in position do you act on their behalf, and how does that make your suggestions more valid than the actual, publicly available and fully published statements from the NG?
I'm guessing you are pretty high up in the company right?
Basically, i'm calling CUSTARD.
Volvolover said:
What everyone argued about was the fact I said I don't see we can ever go fully BEV for everything because we don't have/wont be able to develop an infrastructure to support it.
And yet, in the last approx 100 years, we have manage to build from scratch a fossil fuels infrastructure. Have you seen where your fuel actually comes from? We have to survey for oil, test drill, build huge, complex, dangerous oil rigs, that are sited at sea in hundreds (or thousands) of meters of water, they drill down, several Km underground against huge heat and pressure, oil then must be piped up, the huge pressure controlled, its must be transported ashore, refined, in massive, energy intensive refinerys, then trasported again bulk storage facilities, then again to point of sale, where we have to install tanks and pumps to meter our that fuel into our cars. Precisely none of that existing 100 years ago, and the technology to enable it has been developed from scratch as we went along (like for example saturation diving to enable men to work at great depths efficienctly and safely). And accidents and incidents have left many dead or injured, our ecosystem has been polluted at a level never before experienced, billions of barrels of oil have leaked our, caught on fire, or been dumped into our environment. Piper Alpha, Deepwater horizon, Amico Cadiz, Exon Valdiz, the names of those catastrophies etched into the very fabric of our society. All of that so we can drive our cars to the shops, guzzling that resource in possibly the least efficient way, and spewing out yet more pollution in our wake.
but yeah, we can't manage to get some electrical sockets installed apparently..........
Ah the good old "pull numbers out your ass to make your point" response.
"Inverters are 50% efficient"
Really? So the one that i use to charge my EV, which transfers 3kW of energy, is putting out 1.5 kW of heat, slightly more than my toaster.....
Modern inverters, that use high frequencies use very low resistance (note resistance, not impedance, i'm sure you know the difference) magnetics and a TERRIBLE one, one that these days you would never get through design sign off, is 95% efficient. Typically the design point these days is between 98 and 99% efficient.
But hey, lets not let actual facts get in the way of spouting our pet nonsense shall we...........
"Inverters are 50% efficient"
Really? So the one that i use to charge my EV, which transfers 3kW of energy, is putting out 1.5 kW of heat, slightly more than my toaster.....
Modern inverters, that use high frequencies use very low resistance (note resistance, not impedance, i'm sure you know the difference) magnetics and a TERRIBLE one, one that these days you would never get through design sign off, is 95% efficient. Typically the design point these days is between 98 and 99% efficient.
But hey, lets not let actual facts get in the way of spouting our pet nonsense shall we...........
SpeckledJim said:
donkmeister said:
Volvolover said:
Are EV chassis, body and running gear made out of some special kind of metals then?
I think it's more that a Fiesta has more moving parts and lifed parts hence has more failure modes and therefore is likely to be beyond economic repair before the mechanically simpler Leaf.I don’t know about you but anything battery powered I own / have owned is generally rubbish by 3 yo.
I know EV last longer but 17 years ...
What happens to a Leaf (or any other EV) with a work out battery today? Recycled? Cheap / costly to replace? I’ve no idea.
My cars / bike are between 12 and 8 years old, other than regular servicing / consumables and battery replacement not much goes wrong.
I still see plenty of 2000-2005 cars on the road.
Wait, what, not 50%??
I'm shocked, shocked i tell you.....
This is a problem we see a lot of, that because electrification is so new to most people, they simply don't have an instinctive handle on what is, and what isn't b*llsh*t.
If i said
"My golf 2.0 diesel will do 300 miles per hour"
Pretty much every single person on this forum would know i'm talking crap, because they have had years to "calibrate" themselves as to the likely sensible range of values for various common, but poorly understood by the lay person, factors.
When it comes to kWh, efficiencies and other things, people are generally simply not yet clued up about what is, and what isn't "sensible numbers"
BTW, an 87% RTE means roughly a 93% single trip efficiency. Which is pretty poor these days, and most manufacturers are aiming for rather better than that as i have mentioned, both the get the best certification figures, but also to reduce the cooling / thermal work required, which broadly means cheaper devices
I'm shocked, shocked i tell you.....
This is a problem we see a lot of, that because electrification is so new to most people, they simply don't have an instinctive handle on what is, and what isn't b*llsh*t.
If i said
"My golf 2.0 diesel will do 300 miles per hour"
Pretty much every single person on this forum would know i'm talking crap, because they have had years to "calibrate" themselves as to the likely sensible range of values for various common, but poorly understood by the lay person, factors.
When it comes to kWh, efficiencies and other things, people are generally simply not yet clued up about what is, and what isn't "sensible numbers"
BTW, an 87% RTE means roughly a 93% single trip efficiency. Which is pretty poor these days, and most manufacturers are aiming for rather better than that as i have mentioned, both the get the best certification figures, but also to reduce the cooling / thermal work required, which broadly means cheaper devices
Literally five seconds of thought should be enough to show that the place for H2 storage is directly AT the point of renewable electricity generation. This is because you want to move the least efficient point in the system as far upstream as possible to avoid the multiplying effect of the low efficiency part acting on your distribution network.
ie say your distribution network is 90% efficient. Move 100kWh and you "loose" 10 kWh. But move 200 kWH and you loose twice as much (which is why percentage efficiencies do not tell the full story. So if we have H2 cars, that use between 2 and 3 times as much energy at a vehicle level, we loose twice as much energy in the transport network.
So, put the H2 storage system next to the wind turbines and solar farms. Make hay whilst the sun shines and the wind blows, and use that local but mid scale storage system to boost the network when the sun isn't shining. Safer, cheaper, more efficient. An absolute no-brainer.
It should come as no surprise that this ^^^ is exactly what is happening........
ie say your distribution network is 90% efficient. Move 100kWh and you "loose" 10 kWh. But move 200 kWH and you loose twice as much (which is why percentage efficiencies do not tell the full story. So if we have H2 cars, that use between 2 and 3 times as much energy at a vehicle level, we loose twice as much energy in the transport network.
So, put the H2 storage system next to the wind turbines and solar farms. Make hay whilst the sun shines and the wind blows, and use that local but mid scale storage system to boost the network when the sun isn't shining. Safer, cheaper, more efficient. An absolute no-brainer.
It should come as no surprise that this ^^^ is exactly what is happening........
DonkeyApple said:
And as for batteries, the current tech works. It's just not efficient or superior to petrol in any way other than local pollution there is a reason why humans are the master species and that is because even the dumbest one can adapt easily and rapidly to changed environments.
Absolute bunkum, sorry!A current EV uses around 3 times less energy over it's life time to provide a faster, quieter, cheap to run, easier to drive, bigger interior space, lower maintainance passenger car than the equivalent ICE.
For most people, that's more than enough.
ddom said:
Wrong. Again.
You made the mistake of missing out the 'average' EV, because a 30 year old F150 driven over your '5.6 mile standard journey' per day will be significantly more environmentally friendly than a brand new EV. But let's not let simple facts get in the way of your pro EV posts. An old ICE, is also something no EV can match, as they are all gen 1 to gen 1.5, basically all at Betamax stages of development
And faster, Where is your i3 faster 0-30? Bigger interior space, than what?
Again, more rubbish.You made the mistake of missing out the 'average' EV, because a 30 year old F150 driven over your '5.6 mile standard journey' per day will be significantly more environmentally friendly than a brand new EV. But let's not let simple facts get in the way of your pro EV posts. An old ICE, is also something no EV can match, as they are all gen 1 to gen 1.5, basically all at Betamax stages of development
And faster, Where is your i3 faster 0-30? Bigger interior space, than what?
An F150 returns 20 MPG over the EPA test procedure. 20 mpg is an energy consumption of 1.8 kWH per mile
A typical electric car consumes 0.25 kWh/ml, the new electric F150 manages 0.5 kWh/ml.
But lets not let talking crap get in the way of actual physics now shall we.
And are you suggesting that a typical EV is "slower" than a typical equivalent ICE? Really? Have you been paying attention to any thing? You'd literally have to be an actual idiot to think an EV was slower, given that in pretty much every video ever the one thing that is mentioned and shown repeatidly is that EVs are faster than the equivalent ICE.....
Of course, you are not actually suggesting that, you are just trolling me again.. Every single time i post, you troll me. It's getting very boring.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 8th June 19:53
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff