WetEV wrote: GRA wrote: WetEV wrote:
Of course. And the answer is hydrogen, right?
Even though it is far more expensive, less convenient, and so forth. Sigh.
No, a possible
answer is H2, if they can work out all the cost issues
If wishes are fishes we would all cast nets. Hydrogen is still less convenient even after the cost problem is solved, for most driving.
Hydrogen is a battery. An expensive, inconvenient and very inefficient battery. Unlikely to improve much, as hydrogen is already widely produced as an industrial gas.
Batteries have been improving at a rapid rate since the invention of the pocket calculator.
I have no desire to repeat the usual 'why H2 can never improve enough and batteries inevitably will' arguments again here for the umpteenth time. I will repeat that until the golden day arrives when batteries can completely replace ICEs, I believe it prudent to pursue more than one ZEV option. You disagree.
GRA wrote:the convenience of the central point refueling system has proven adequate for the public for a century now,
Shouldn't that be in inconvenience
of a central point refueling system?
Either way you choose. Point is, the public finds it acceptable. The ultimate in convenience would be nuclear-powered cars that never needed refueling, but as they have other issues I think we can agree that we won't be seeing that level of convenience in our lifetimes!
WetEV wrote:Gasoline is nasty stuff. Flammable, explosive and smelly. To avoid nastiness that near the home, an inconvenient central fueling system developed.
Before gasoline, horses were not centrally fueled.
Some horses were refueled at home, but most weren't, and you forget all the labor that went into that fuel, and the uh, emissions that resulted - someone had to pitch all that hay and shovel all that crap, unless the horses could graze freely (rare on working farms, and impossible in urban areas). Most horses were used in cities, and at 'Peak Horse' there were 130,000 of them in New York City alone, who collectively deposited something like 1.5 million pounds of manure and IIRR 45,000 gallons of urine on the streets every day
, plus equivalent amounts at their stables, excuse me, central point refueling stations. The owners of the stables didn't want to remove the (highly lucrative) manure piles too often for cost reasons, with effects on the local air quality that can be imagined, and of course all that hay was highly flammable. The health issues from the flies and respiratory issues all that manure and urine bred was one of the main reasons urban dwellers were so happy to switch to cars. I digress - the point being that in urban areas, central point 'refueling' was most definitely the standard for horses, because it was more convenient and efficient than home refueling, which was simply impossible for most urban residents. The same applies now to urban residents re BEVs now, and that will take a long time and a lot of money to change.
WetEV wrote:After gasoline, BEVs will not be centrally fueled.
Unless there are strong reasons to centralize fueling, it is more convenient to fuel at home. This is just one of the many strikes against hydrogen.
See above. Sure home refueling can be more convenient and would be the preferred option AOTBE, but that assumes that H2 can never be home-fueled and that at-home charging can be provided for all rapidly, and neither is assured (the latter is impossible - see below). Home H2 certainly can't be done sufficiently inexpensively now, but R&D continues, as indicated by a recent article I linked to over in the H2 and FCEV thread.
GRA wrote:Which will continue to limit BEV markets to those people who can afford to stay at those resorts. Put QCs at them or on the way, and just as with gas stations, the type of housing you occupy is irrelevant to the type of car that you drive, allowing more people to consider BEVs.
DCQCs are expensive and inconvenient and likely to stay that way. I'd glad to see Porsche acknowledge that by pricing DCQC at a more realistic level. Sure, the cost and price might be less than gasoline in the future. But will always be less convenient. Yes, DCQCs are needed for long distance travel. For huge numbers of people to consider BEVs long term, charging at parking garages, city streets, apartment parking lots and workplace is what is needed. The convenience factor is important. Park and plug in. Unplug and leave. Almost never need to bother with lines, waiting and expensive charging.
I have little argument with this, although I do think that AV BEVs using central point (probably unmanned) recharging will make charging available to a much larger % of the population much earlier than trying to retrofit all the apartment buildings and on-street spaces that would be needed to service the entire existing LDV fleet, if it were to switch to BEVs. I don't think we can afford to wait the 50-100 years that would take.
Re DCQC pricing, while it's likely to remain more expensive than L2, it's still far cheaper than forcing people to stay overnight and L2 charge at those expensive resorts you're talking about.
WetEV wrote:If you had practical experience driving a BEV for an extended period of time, a lot of this would be clear and we wouldn't keep hashing over it.
As I've been stating that convenient, cost-comparable or less than gas urban public charging is one of the most critical factors (along with BEV cost reductions and improved range) in enabling a mass switch to BEVs for years now, how would extending my practical experience change that?
GRA wrote:Sure, but again, why limit your market?
Remember, I want the second 1% of market share? Again: Where are BEVs winning?
1) Performance/luxury. No subsidies needed. Win on power, smoothness, torque, low center of gravity and better design. Did I mention power and torque? That new Jag I-Pace is very pretty. It better be, Jaguar's future might just depend on it. Selling rocks in the iron age is a limited market. Buggy whips are not in much demand these days.https://www.statista.com/statistics/287 ... ed-states/
We agree, as long as BEVs can be sold on better performance, the luxury market will accept them because they can always use something else when it's needed.
WetEV wrote:2) Convenience. For the commuter car in a two or more car household. Subsidies can phase out. Win on Park and plug in. Unplug and leave. No oil changes. Far less maintenance needed. Almost never need to bother with lines.
For a two or more car household that has access to home charging, preferably for both. In my neighborhood, which is almost entirely detached single family homes with garages, both sides of the street are completely lined with cars every night. I imagine many of those are so parked because the garages are being used as storage units for people's other stuff instead of their cars, but it is what it is, and until you can provide charging at all those on-street spaces any major switch is unlikely. Even at the homes that have BEVs most of the ones I see are being charged in their driveways, in at least one case (a LEAF) via an L1 extension cord run out a window, which would be the same situation I'm in, and obviously limits the amount of overnight charge even if you're willing to lose all that heat in the winter.
For everyone who doesn't even have the option of a garage, it will have to be public charging for a long time. And that's the U.S., which I believe has the highest level of detached single family home ownership in the world, but that type of housing isn't the case where the majority of car sales growth will occur this century.
WetEV wrote:3) Cost. Few yet. The low end of the market is going to see only a small number of BEVs. Might change with rising gas prices.
I think we're getting close in Ca. and a few other states, as gas prices will start to bite again, but BEV prices have to keep dropping. As PHEVs remain cheaper without many of the limitations of BEVs, I believe that they will constitute the majority of sales at the lower end for 5-7 years yet, absent ZEV-entry only zones or government mandates.
WetEV wrote:General public. Remember, I'm mostly interested in the next 1%. The time for the general public will come, but is likely a decade or more in the future. It is really too early for the general public to care.
Agreed, although I think the GP will accept PHEVs for reasons as above. I'm not sure that we're talking a decade out, though, maybe half that, but it really depends on relative prices, the closest thing to a universal motivator that there is.
GRA wrote:but can't for eminently solvable practical reasons?
Make my day. Yet I doubt it. My problem is that you don't really understand the real attractions of BEVs, as you are not a long term driver of one.
I understand the attraction for people who value what they provide, can take advantage of it, and are willing and able to put up with their current limitations, but as we both agree that isn't yet the general public.
GRA wrote:Right, which is why I see eVgo's price drop (and California's recent higher gas prices; avg. $3.505 in Ca. today. Maintain that level or above for 6 months and it will start to affect people's buying decisions again) as so significant for people like me, assuming eVgo can be profitable at those prices. Of course, they still need to build public L2 chargers closer than the 2.7 miles their nearest ones are to me, instead of the 0.4 mile distant Blinks, but I can dream.
Re longer range BEVs for my demographic, I have hopes for the Kia Niro/Hundai Kona depending on the price. They lack AWD which is a problem for winter enthusiasts like me, but have the range of the Bolt, are bigger (saw my first HEV Niro the other day) and should QC faster. Electrify America, the CEC and others need to build the necessary infrastructure (been scheduled for over a year now) to allow Bay Areans to get to Yosemite easily, and southern Californians to get to Mammoth and Vegas. As CA makes up something like 45% of the U.S. PEV market and we love small CUVs, all the above factors should boost BEV sales considerably.
You don't get it still. DCQCs are always going to be more expensive and more bother than home charging. DCQC doesn't integrate well into the electric grid. While DCQC is important for long distance travel, that will likely be the LAST market for BEVs to win in.
I get it just fine. If we want to convince the general public to even consider BEVs, then we have to start providing the means for them to take weekend road trips, even though that's a less practical use of a BEV for the present. Here's what I wrote in the Tesla SC thread back in Dec. 2013, when I was inveighing against Tesla's decision to concentrate on an X-C route at that time:
The question is whether providing coast-to-coast transit at this early date, as opposed to providing SCs to enable trips between high-frequency city pairs and urban-recreational destinations, makes more sense. Few people will drive cross-country more than once in their life, if ever, even fewer in winter. But many of them will likely drive up to 350 or so miles from home for business or pleasure; beyond that they'll likely fly. So rather than hurrying up installing SCs on I-90 west of Chicago, they should first be building them along I-85 to Atlanta, cover all of Indiana, Ohio and Illinois, Kansas City and St. Louis, the west side of the Florida peninsula, destinations from the Bay Area (like North Lake Tahoe and Yosemite), L.A., Denver (have a decent start on this), SLC (Moab and Blanding are good, need ones around Price and Green River, plus some extending up I-15 to Yellowstone as well as south to cover Bryce, Zion, Capitol Reef etc) and so on.
As I've mentioned, the extra time for these single QC each way weekend trips is minimal, and can often be folded into a planned meal stop. It's notable that regardless of whether we're talking BEVs or FCEVs, they've all built the infrastructure that enabled trips from the Bay Area to Lake Tahoe at an early date. eVgo is building a large CCS/Chademo station in Baker, Ca., emulating Tesla in providing access to Vegas for Southern Californians, now that there are more affordable BEVs that can reasonably reach it with just a single enroute QC (and destination charging at each end), for the same reason.
<snip repetitive discussion of areas where BEVs are/are not currently successful>
WetEV wrote:Long distance travel isn't a big win for as far out as I can see. DCQC will likely always take more time than liquid refueling. Cost will be much higher than home recharging as DCQC isn't easy on the grid. Lines, crowding at peak days, etc. At best, might match liquids fuels for people not in a hurry. Maybe. Note, however, that this is the last 10% of driving, at most.
I agree, with the caveat that cheap storage linked to renewables may someday make the costs comparable, and I'm not ruling out that batteries may some day allow comparable rates of energy replenishment as liquid or gaseous fuels, or else their energy density and specific energy will increase to the point that refueling time is no longer an issue. But we can't count on that any more than we can count on H2 overcoming its obstacles, so we'd better continue R&D on both.
WetEV wrote:For this market, I'd bet on aluminum - air batteries. Or a liquid electrolyte battery. Or methanol produced from hydrogen. Or maybe even hydrogen.
As noted above I'll take any of them, and R&D should continue on all, which brings this post around full circle to its beginning.