WetEV
Posts: 3214
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Mink hole, like a rat hole but much much nicer

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:45 am

GRA wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:19 pm
WetEV wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:08 am
GRA wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 3:57 pm



Which is not in dispute. But we've already seen Hubbert's curve fail to predict the development of fracking, giving the U.S. at least two oil peaks.
Yes, and we should add synfuels such as coal -> liquids. That was much of the fuel used to power Nazi Germany during WW2, and keep Apartheid South Africa alive for a decade longer. Cost is only $6 to $12 per gallon, plus lots of CO2.

At least in theory, synfuel could be used with coal too deep, too thin of seams, or too low of quality to mine. Drill and fracture wells into carbon bearing rocks. Generate superheated steam at the bottom of a well in a "coal" seam and add some oxygen. Out nearby wells extract a mixture of CO2, CO, assorted hydrocarbons and methane. Vent the CO2, burn the CO and some of the methane for heat and power to keep the process running. Convert the rest of the methane to gasoline or hydrogen. See, no future hydrogen shortage!
GRA wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 3:57 pm


Did I say that you were claiming that? No, I asked you a question.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Questions can and do make and attribute assumptions of fact.

Ye they can, but they can also be simple questions, unlike unambiguous statements claiming to be 'fact', such as yours that I "have as a fact that hydrogen fuel cells are the future". I challenged you to provide a quote where I said any such thing. You have not.

I'll repeat my question and will do so as long as you keep ducking an answer - Do you now agree that I haven't made any such conclusive statement regarding H2, or any other alternative energy source FTM? Time to man up.
GRA wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:19 pm
At the moment only FCEVs can provide essentially the same operational capabilities as fossil- or bio-fueled ICEs, but they have their own issues, as they and their fuel are too expensive. I believe economies of scale and fairly limited tech development can bring the price of FCEVs down to ICE-comparable levels, leaving fuel cost as the major impediment to mainstream acceptance. BEVs with big enough packs and rapid enough charge rates at a low enough price to be mainstream may or may not be developable, but we certainly need to try. And bio-fuels would be the simplest, easiest answer, but it's highly unlikely to be able to make enough for anything other than limited, niche replacement of fossil fuels.
Thank you.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

GRA
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Mink hole, like a rat hole but much much nicer

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:32 pm

WetEV wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:45 am

Thank you.

Thank me for what, saying the exact same thing I've been saying for years?

For example, from Feb. 2013 (I've highlighted some of the qualifications I stated):
I''m surprised at you, Train. We agree that they [GRA: BEVs] aren't acceptable to the masses now, but the section I highlighted indicates that you now believe that they will never be. I thought we were in agreement that, in addition to getting the cost of batteries down, the rate of BEV adoption would be largely dependent on the price and supply of gas.

Unlike many here, I don't believe that even larger scale production than we already have will significantly lower the price of batteries - the cost curves I've seen don't indicate that. I expect nothing more than incremental improvement, the 6-8%/year such as McKinsey and others have said is the historical pace of improvement. Major improvements will require a breakthrough, something beyond Lithium-ion. Lots of people are working on them, but breakthroughs are by their nature unpredictable.

I wrote in another thread that I thought mainstream buyers wouldn't start to adopt BEVs in more than token numbers until the base model MSRP/mile of EPA range drops to $200/mile (i.e. $30k/150 miles of range), and major sales won't happen until the ratio drops to $100/mile ($30k/300 miles or $20k/200 miles). It appears that ARPA-E agrees, as they've just asked for grant proposals that (hopefully) lead to $30k/240 miles (i.e. $125/mile) within 5 years.

Again, that will require a breakthrough, and I expect that what we'll actually see in Gen. 2 in 2015/2016 will be something like base model MSRPs of $30k with 100+ mile EPA range. Still not mainstream, but the cars will be acceptable to a larger niche. And for all we know, given the way the driver demographic is changing in this country (more urban, less car ownership), it's possible that may be enough, especially if gas prices don't just spike to but stay above say $5.00/gallon.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11586&p=269445&hilit=niche#p269445



Here's part of another, from Oct. 2013:
Someone posted that they think that BEV ranges will have improved to fuel cell range in the next few years at a lower price. Certainly that's a possibility but by no means a certainty, and the competition between them will improve both types.

I've got no preference for which ultimately wins, but it's far too early to say which will prove superior. Or perhaps each will find their own niche(s), or FCHVs will rule.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744&p=333201&hilit=niche#p333201


One more, from Sep. 2014 (I've left out much back and forth, and only included my own statements?):
Neither BEVs or FCEVs are currently viable now on a mass market basis (Tesla having a small niche at the luxury end) without subsidy. We agree that fossil-fuel based H2 production is currently of dubious benefit, but then the requirement is to move from 33% to 100% renewables. FCEVs are judged to be about 5 years behind BEVs in development timescale, which means they're right about where the Tesla Roadster was when it was launched, but have far bigger engineering departments behind them. . . .

On the contrary, I think the decision not to put plugs and bigger batteries on the current generation of FCHVs (which they all are) is the correct one. I think it will take another generation of reducing the size, weight and cost of fuel cells and batteries before turning them into PHFCEVs will make sense. Note that I'm speaking of Volt type passenger EREVs with the ICE replaced by a fuel cell here, not commercial delivery PHFCEVs such as the French mail vans, which appear to be more of an i3 analog, and where more space is available in any case.

As for the number of fueling stations required, if we could build the gas station infrastructure in this country I have no doubt that we can build an H2 station infrastructure likewise, especially since many of them will undoubtedly be at currently operating or closed gas stations. Costs will have to come down, naturally. . . .

[This is an only partly tongue-in-cheek reply to moans about government 'wasting' money on tech like FCEVs] I, agree, Reg. For starters, I want all the money that the government is spending on AFVs and their infrastructure to be returned to cities, so that it can be spent on densification via mixed-use infill, improving pedestrian and bicycling access and transit. The most important changes we can make that would benefit the environment are to reduce VMT, make our living spaces smaller and more easily heated, and make sure all the services we need are within easy walking, biking and transit distance. Hoping that AFVs will make sprawl sustainable is _so_ twentieth century.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744&p=390775&hilit=niche#p390775


Oh, what the hell, another from May 2014:
My take, assuming that hydrogen and fuel cell costs come down to be equal or below gas, is that convenience will win out over efficiency every time, just as it did 100 years ago. ICEs didn't become the technology of choice over BEVs because they were more efficient. In the case of H2/fuel cells, barring some technological breakthrough that allows direct, high efficiency electrolysis of H2 via photosynthesis or somesuch, It will never be as efficient as batteries. I consider the operational and convenience advantages will triumph over energy efficiency, just as they usually do. If not, there wouldn't be millions of garages in this country equipped with automatic door openers, we wouldn't be using remote controls to save us walking a few steps to our TVs and entertainment systems, and people wouldn't be charging their cell phones on inductive chargers just so they don't have to plug them in.

Then there's the societal issue of people moving back to city cores. Charging in your garage is great, if you've got one. If not, I suspect the cost of putting curbside charging in every spot in every residential apartment neighborhood will be far higher than the cost of putting H2 fueling stations at every gas station, once H2 shifts into mass use.

One approach, which you mention above, is to go with a hybrid system, BEVs for local and FCEVs for trips. Such an approach (typically called 'separate spheres'; see David Kirsch: "The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History") failed a century ago; maybe it would work this time around, but only if people buy into it. I expect that most people will prefer (or will only be able to afford) to have one car that can do both short and long trips, which is unquestionably cleaner (assuming renewables produce the H2) than fossil fuels, and just accept the lower efficiency vs. BEVs. It's going to be an interesting few years, watching the pace at which each technology advances.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744&p=365264&hilit=niche#p365264


In the time since the above were written, I believe that batteries and fuel cells have advanced enough, in energy and power density respectively, that PHFCEVs now make technical sense. Of course, they still don't make economic sense, any more than ICE-comparable range BEVs do. And I don't begrudge the money spent on AFVs, or urban design, or public transit, or building efficiency improvements, or what have you.

You ducked my question again, so to refresh your memory: "Yes they can, but they can also be simple questions, unlike unambiguous statements claiming to be 'fact', such as yours that I "have as a fact that hydrogen fuel cells are the future". I challenged you to provide a quote where I said any such thing. You have not.

I'll repeat my question and will do so as long as you keep ducking an answer - Do you now agree that I haven't made any such conclusive statement regarding H2, or any other alternative energy source FTM? Time to man up."
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Mink hole, like a rat hole but much much nicer

Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:18 pm

GCC:
OC&C survey finds US consumers lag behind major industrialized countries in embracing electric/hybrid vehicles
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/1 ... 6-occ.html

Americans are much less likely than consumers in other major industrialized countries to purchase an electric vehicle or hybrid, largely because of concerns over access to charging stations away from home, according to a survey by global consulting firm OC&C Strategy Consultants.

The survey, which included 10,000 respondents across five countries—the US, China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom—looked at consumer attitudes and preferences on a number of issues currently facing the automotive industry: electric and autonomous vehicles; car-sharing, subscription models, car ownership and more.

Just 53% of US consumers said they would consider purchasing an EV/hybrid. In contrast, 77% of French consumers and 94% of Chinese respondents said they would consider buying that type of vehicle. Only 10% of US consumers said they purchased an EV/hybrid as their most recent vehicle.

Other key findings from the survey:
  • Government incentives are a key driver in getting consumers to purchase electric vehicles. For example, in California, which offers strong financial incentives to purchase EVs, consumers purchase nearly 50% of all EV sold in the US.

    Car ownership remains vitally important to Americans; 84% say having their own car is “essential to getting around,” highest among the five countries. Additionally, 64% of Americans say they expect to own their own car in the future, ahead of all countries except China.

    Nearly 70% of Americans (and Europeans) would not trust an autonomous vehicle. Conversely, 72% of Chinese consumers would trust an autonomous vehicle.

    Car-sharing, short-term renting and taxis are largely unappealing to consumers in most Western countries because they want a vehicle “when and where they need it” and “it’s too much of a hassle to pick up a vehicle.”

    US consumers are interested in “bundling” car-related services—such as insurance, service and maintenance and breakdown coverage—into one monthly bill.

    No single company has all the ingredients to lead the way in car selling, servicing, financing, insurance which could lead to partnerships and/or vertical integration across car-rental firms, service companies, etc. . . .

Direct link to report:
Life in the fast lane
Global Automotive Disruption Speedometer 2019
https://www.occstrategy.com/usa/our-ins ... st-lane-us
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

WetEV
Posts: 3214
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Mink hole, like a rat hole but much much nicer

Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:49 pm

GRA wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:18 pm
Just 53% of US consumers said they would consider purchasing an EV/hybrid.
That's good news. Only about 2% to 4% need to buy an EV over the next couple of years. And 4% to 8% for a few years after that.

Oh, but I'm sure Hydrogen is far more popular...
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

GRA
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Mink hole, like a rat hole but much much nicer

Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:58 pm

WetEV wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:49 pm
GRA wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:18 pm
Just 53% of US consumers said they would consider purchasing an EV/hybrid.
That's good news. Only about 2% to 4% need to buy an EV over the next couple of years. And 4% to 8% for a few years after that.

Oh, but I'm sure Hydrogen is far more popular...

Except that only 10% bought EVs/Hybrids, which tracks with most such surveys which track actual purchase % versus what % people say they'll "consider". Oh, that reminds me:
You ducked my question again, so to refresh your memory: "Yes they can, but they can also be simple questions, unlike unambiguous statements claiming to be 'fact', such as yours that I "have as a fact that hydrogen fuel cells are the future". I challenged you to provide a quote where I said any such thing. You have not.

I'll repeat my question and will do so as long as you keep ducking an answer - Do you now agree that I haven't made any such conclusive statement regarding H2, or any other alternative energy source FTM? Time to man up."
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Mink hole, like a rat hole but much much nicer

Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:47 pm

ABG:
New vehicle sales in China fall for 17th straight month
Total vehicle sales in the world's biggest auto market fell 3.6% from the previous year
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/12/10/chi ... mber-2019/


. . . Total auto sales in the world's biggest auto market fell 3.6% from the same month a year earlier, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) said.

That follows a drop of 4% in October and 5.2% in September. Car sales in the country contracted last year for the first time since the 1990s against a backdrop of slowing economic growth and a crippling Sino-U.S. trade war. . . .

In November, sales of NEVs fell 43.7%, CAAM said, following a 45.6% drop in October. NEV sales had jumped almost 62% last year even as the broader auto market contracted.

NEVs include plug-in hybrids, battery-only electric vehicles and those powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

China has been a keen supporter of NEVs and has implemented sales quota requirements for automakers. But it cut subsidies this year and plans to phase them out after 2020 amid criticism that some firms have become overly reliant on the funds, making NEVs costlier and dampening demand.

"Next year there will be different NEV manufacturing quotas for carmakers. I think next year will also be an adjustment period and sales of new energy vehicle will be better than this year," said Xu Haidong, assistant secretary general at CAAM. . . .

PEVs are too expensive and don't provide enough value for most customers, and sales remain dependent on subsidies, even in a country where many of the biggest cities make it extremely difficult to license an ICE - so much for PEVs' inexorable, exponential upward march to market dominance. That will continue to be delayed until they can meet customer needs at affordable prices.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Off-Topic”