Reg, you seem determined to repeat all the arguments we've had multiple times over the last four years, even though no one has had anything new to say for the last two or three. Just so you know, this is my last reply on these points as I'm not going to bother again, so you can reply or not, as is your choice. What I will do is continue to provide info on developments re H2/FCEVs (positive or negative as the case may be) in this thread, along with the occasional comment giving my opinions on same, just as I do on other threads.
GRA wrote:No, Reg, I'm fully aware of the importance of energy efficiency - after all, for off-grid systems it's usually the single most important factor as far as cost goes.
Is that why you "don't think [energy efficiency]'s...even desirable"?
No, it's because concentrating on energy efficiency above all else, when the public simply doesn't rate it that highly, will delay or prevent mass adoption of less efficient but still improved and lower-emission techs. If that weren't the case, everyone would have been buying HEVs from 1999 through 2010, and BEVs since (FTM, BEVs rather than ICEs from 1900 on). Energy efficiency is only of primary importance when energy prices are high enough to drive consumer behavior, and while they were for off-grid systems back when I was doing that and probably still are, they aren't as far as transportation now, or most on-grid applications. If they were, the Tesla Model S/X, the least energy-efficient BEVs, wouldn't be the best sellers, and people wouldn't be replacing ICE sedans with CUVs/SUVs/pickups.
GRA on November 2, 2013 wrote:FCEVs may not be the best solution from the standpoint of energy efficiency, but I don't think that's necessary or maybe even desirable.
In fact, it is essential for widespread adoption in an energy-constrained world.
GRA wrote:But I'm also aware that whatever choice is selected must be able to do the job, must be affordable (preferably but not necessarily the lowest-cost option), and must be acceptable to the public (unless the government can compel people to adopt whatever the government prefers, which isn't the case in a market economy).
H2 FCVs meet NONE of these criteria since they can only "do the job" for a very small number of people due to their low efficiency. Governments can only distort market conditions, not physics.
FCEVs can do the most of the job that ICEs can do pretty transparently to the user (which makes public acceptance easier), if given the same level of infrastructure that supports ICEs, and ICEs have the lowest energy efficiency of all. The major problems that H2/FCEVs have to overcome are reducing cost and achieving mass producibility (see my previous post for another step in that direction), which is why I'm in favor of continuing R&D and limited deployment for now (I've repeatedly stated that they're not ready for prime time as yet).
GRA wrote:Reg, HEVs aren't the standard transportation choice, pure ICEs are, and that's what I'm comparing H2/FCEVs to in the above. And as stated below, if all the H2 is produced renewably, then the GHG emissions swing in H2's favor, which as I've said many times is of more concern to me than total energy use.
No, it wouldn't. The reason why it costs so much more to make renewable hydrogen is because it does MORE damage to the environment.
So you're saying that curtailing i.e. throwing away renewably-generated electricity instead of using it causes less damage to the environment than turning it into H2 and using it in fuel cells instead? Right.
GRA wrote:[No, Reg, people like you and I are well aware of the subsidies that fossil-fuels and related techs receive, but most of the general public isn't, and most of those who are simply don't care. As the subsidy isn't direct, to them it doesn't exist, and they don't take it specifically into account when deciding which car to buy, all they do is compare retail price.
I quoted YOU and no one else.
Sure, when I'm speaking with the mindset of the general customer, not myself. After all, I've deliberately refrained from motorized local transport and used electrified regional mass transit for many years, live so as to minimize my other forms of energy usage, and was making the argument about indirect fossil-fuel subsidies (like the cost of Central Command) decades ago. But I don't suffer from the delusion that MY priorities reflect those of the general public
RegGuheert wrote: GRA wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:That's REAL success: In just six short years, BEVs have ALREADY surpassed the fuel savings achieved by HEVs in 17 years on the market.
Uh huh, given large subsidies.
I own a fifteen-year-old HEV and a five-year-old BEV. Both were subsidized. Neither subsidy was "large". They were $2500 and $7500 or 12% and 21%. I would have bought BOTH cars without the subsidies. Now compare that with the massive subsidies which amount to $135,000 for a single H2 FCV. With BEVs, the subsidies ONLY affect the quantity sold (as you have shown with references you provided). With H2 FCVs, the subsidy means the difference between whether the vehicles are sold or not.
Reg, I've stated numerous times that I wish all the subsidies for PEVs and FCEVs would be removed. If you don't think $2,500 and $7,500 were large, please give it back; after all, it's other people's money, and if PEVs don't need them then why in hell are we paying them?
GRA wrote:OTOH, If people were to be offered a choice of HEVs that would give them the performance they want as well as good gas mileage, and HEVs became the standard car replacing regular ICEs, which would result in faster, cheaper GHG/fossil-fuel reduction with no need for government to directly bribe buyers?
Many consumers will purchase one of each, as have many on here have done. The HEV runs on gasoline and the BEV runs on electricity which is made on my roof. You, OTOH, chose to purchase an inefficient AWD ICE vehicle because convenience trumps everything in your worldview.
Many consumers? Reg, HEV sales have never exceeded 4% in the U.S. and are now down in the 2% range, and BEV sales have yet to exceed what, 1% annually? As to my own car choice, I chose to purchase the most fuel-efficient AWD CUV available at the time that met my other needs, and use it as little as possible. If an HEV that had met my other requirements had been available at the time, I would have bought that instead. None was.
GRA wrote:...just as I have stated the uncertainty of success of battery techs beyond Li-ion which will be needed if BEVs are to become the sole ZEV solution, as Li-ion is closing in on the maximum theoretical specific energy (~ 400Wh/kg depending on the exact chemistry), and is even closer to reaching the max. practical specific energy (likely no more than 325-350 Wh/kg). Neither level will be adequate to replace high-density fossil fuels for those jobs that require same.
Nonsense. Your statement is nothing except FUD designed to try to keep people from realizing that we have the appropriate technologies in place today. We do not need a battery technology beyond Li-ion to almost fully transition ground-based transportation from gasoline/diesel to BEVs. And transportation will continue to improve as Li-ion-based BEVs will improve.
Reg, nonsense yourself. Gasoline has a specific energy of around 12,000Wh/kg. Even allowing for the 4-5 times greater efficiency of a BEV, there are jobs that are simply beyond Li-ion's ultimate capability. Shorter-ranges with limited need for recharging, Li-ion's fine, but not for long ranges which requires multiple rechargings. Model X's have already demonstrated just how much of a time suck they impose when trailer-hauling beyond short ranges.
The typical semi holds 200-300 gallons of diesel, and has a range hauling a trailer of 800-1,500 miles - extreme aero improvements can boost the typical 4.5-6.0 MPG to maybe 8.0-or perhaps 8.5 MPG, assuming driverless vehicles and platooning. Have you calculated how much a battery pack would weigh that provided that kind of range? While the specific pack weight of a Model S85 seems to be in doubt, at the low end it's about 1,200 lb., moving a 4,800 lb. car with driver. Max. CGW for a semi is 80k lbs., and they're a hell of a lot less aerodynamic than a Model S/X. Feel free to calculate just how much a scaled up Li-ion battery pack would weigh to achieve that kind of range, and be sure to subtract that amount from the payload, assuming that you can find room for it and not exceed axle weight limits (yeah, right).
By my calcs it's about 22,000 lb., but lets' round it down and call it 20k if we achieve max. practical specific energy. versus ~1,500 - 2,250 for diesel @ 7.5 lb./gal. It will probably take batteries with at least 1,200-1,500 Wh/kg. to replace diesels in semis. We'll see HEV long-haul tractors first, plus day cab FCHEVs like the ones that will soon enter dem/val at the Port of L.A., and even they currently only have enough room to store about 200 miles of H2, so without unlikely levels of improvement they can't replace long haul sleeper tractors either, and will be slower also (but far faster than a BEV) - HEVs using biofuels are about the only currently viable non-fossil-fueled option for long-hauls. Li-Si batteries won't get us there; Li-S gets close, but it will probably take Li-metal or some other as yet unthought of/undeveloped battery tech to handle such jobs. You may think that that's only a minor niche that remains after 'almost fully transitioning ground-based transportation from gas/diesel', but that's only true provided you don't plan on buying food, clothing or anything else from now on.
Putting more freight on the rails is one workaround, but they'll only be electrified with third rails or overhead wires in areas of relatively high density, and for now only FCHEVs will serve for low-density routes. And again, you're up against weight limitations. Air travel, even more so.
GRA wrote:You are entitled to your opinion, Reg, just as I'm entitled to mine, and as neither of us is likely to change each other's absent some major change in the facts it's entirely pointless to keep arguing them, especially since nothing we say here is going to make the slightest difference to the countries and companies who have decided (for now) to pursue multiple pathways to a fossil-fuel free future, including HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs, FCEVs and bio-fuels. I agree with their decision to do so; you do not.
That's right, I do not condone the massive waste and damage done to our environment under the false pretense that deploying H2 FCV technology today will somehow help the environment.
If you feel so strongly about it, instead of continuously repeating the same old arguments with me, a member of the general public with essentially no influence on the decisions that those countries and corporations have made, shouldn't you be directing your energies to trying to convince those entities to change their minds? Seems like a far better use of your time and energy than wasting it here on a forum that has tiny readership and less influence.
GRA wrote:I am unwilling to focus on developing just one tech now and eliminate R&D/limited deployment of all others in the hope that I will have made the correct choice, because none of them is as yet capable of the across-the-board replacement of fossil-fuels.
I have never opposed R&D. What I oppose is providing massive subsidies to deploy a technology which causes so much unnecessary damage to our environment. It's unconscionable.