RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
GRA, you have repeatedly insisted that efficiency does not matter.
No, what I have said is that
efficiency alone will not be the determining factor, and it won't outweigh operational capability and possibly some other desirable features.
We all know what you have written, but I have no problem quoting you again:
GRA on November 2 said:
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.
You didn't then and you still do not today grasp the overriding importance of energy efficiency for ANY technology which will be widely adopted, even though it has been explained to you many times. Your myopia in this area also causes you to promote other highly-polluting technologies such as biofuels.
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. 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).
RegGuheert said:
Then, in the same paragraph I quoted above, you make this unfortunate statement:
GRA on November 2 said:
But I think we need the option of an AFV that is good enough for mass adoption as a universal car, at a considerable energy advantage over business as usual, and with the option of generating the 'fuel' from renewables. BEVs aren't there yet, not even Tesla, but FCEVs give us that capability now, albeit still too expensively for the mass market.
This was utter nonsense then and is
still utter nonsense today:
Victor A. Ettel said:
Greenhouse-gas generation estimates from hydrogen refueling stations in California show that a Clarity Fuel Cell, powered by hydrogen produced from natural gas or from the relatively low-carbon (or ‘clean’) California grid, produces 80 percent more greenhouse-gas emissions than a Toyota Prius or a Honda Accord Hybrid, a hybrid mid-size sedan of a similar size.
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.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
FCEVs are better suited for those who need/want a car for all trips and for trip rentals for those who use BEVs for local trips, or who don't have access to convenient charging, but obviously prices (for the entire system) must come down significantly for them to be commercially viable.
No, they aren't.
It should be obvious to ALL observers that a Prius is much more convenient, much cheaper and much less damaging to the environment than an H2 FCV.
Re the bolded section, of course they are, now. When have I ever claimed otherwise, and I made that exact same point about HEVs in a sentence in my most recent post that you didn't choose to quote? Re the last claim, see above.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
The main disagreement I have with his and your conclusions is that I think it's way too premature to try and predict what's ultimately possible re price/performance based on what's currently possible, at a time when no fossil fuel-free AFV tech has yet reached commercial viability (i.e. without direct subsidies to the consumer), except at a price well beyond what most of the world's car-buying public can afford. If we applied that same logic to BEVs (or any other immature tech), there wouldn't be any Li-ion BEVs now, and those powered by L-A batteries would remain in their tiny, established niche.
I see you are still in denial about the commercial success of BEVs. No mention of the massive subsidies that the incumbent technologies enjoy in the marketplace today.
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.
RegGuheert said:
And then you act like a wounded puppy when people accuse you of coming here to bash BEVs. This type of misrepresentation is an excellent example of the types of things you post to earn such responses. Again, from
the article you quoted:
Victor A. Ettel said:
In the U.S., plug-in vehicles currently represent 1 percent of all new cars sold—but they already save more gasoline than do conventional hybrids, which have 2 percent of the market.
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 subisides. 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? Again, Reg, the public gets the ultimate say, and I'd be perfectly happy to see the adoption pattern go HEV -> PHEV -> BEV and/or FCEV, with bio-fuels filling out whatever niches the others can't handle; I think it will probably happen in that order in any case barring government compulsion, but will be happy to skip one or more steps should the public prove amenable.
RegGuheert said:
But the fact remains that we CAN make predictions on where technologies can go based on what we know of physics and chemistry. <snip much detail extensively discussed before>
You like to imagine that all of the above issues are solvable, but that is extremely unlikely given the hurdles which must be overcome. And even if they are overcome, those imaginary solutions are likely to add more cost and complexity to a machine of which Rube Goldberg himself could already be proud. We have to look no farther than the existing ICE technology to see where this all leads: very complex mechanical systems, which tend to be far inferior to electronic systems when it comes to reliability.
Reg, I don't
imagine they're all solvable, I simply don't know if they are or not to the extent necessary to make a commercially successful product; I'm aware of the difficulties and I have stated the uncertainty of success numerous times, 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.
RegGuheert said:
No, the "Hydrogen Economy" is a ruse foisted on the public to detract from the true end-game technology: BEVs. It's too bad that so many have been suckered into believing that H2 FCVs can be more than a niche solution to specialized problems. We need to focus our efforts today on the most efficient solution, BEVs, if we are to ever have ANY hope of transitioning to renewable energy in the foreseeable future. That transition will be challenging enough without diverting our efforts toward pursuing technologies which are significantly more damaging to our environment than even today's incumbents.
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. You may well be right as to the direction things ultimately take, and they and I wrong. I simply don't know, and given what I believe's at stake 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.