WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Which only dirty hydrogen can supply, of course. Regardless of how much range a BEV can provide.
And again, notice that the range wants and needs of customers are a distribution, not a single number.
And again, notice that the current ranges of ICE vehicles being sold isn't a good guide for what is needed.
H2
Dirty hydrogen is a step backwards.
Which is why clean H2 will be required in increasing proportions, and production facilities for same are now being designed and/or brought into use.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
batteries at a weight and efficiency penalty if they can do it
Efficiency penalty? WTF, over? Batteries are far more efficient than dirty hydrogen.
Dirty, heavy batteries that are only needed for road trips but have to be hauled around all the time during routine use impose an efficiency penalty
all the time, compared to carrying much lighter FC stacks and H2 for those longer trips. You recently argued that larger packs imposed an efficiency penalty (after I had pointed out the weight/efficiency advantage of PHFCEVs vs. comparable-range BEVs); you're now arguing with yourself. There's also the greater emissions and energy requirements for extraction, construction and end of life for batteries vs. FCs; batteries come out ahead during their use, owing to their greater efficiency, but they end up within 10% or so lifetime depending on the details. IIRR UCS did a study a while back, and I'm trying to find it. In the meantime:
Life cycle environmental and cost comparison of current and future passenger cars under different energy scenarios
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192030533X).
A work-around for BEVs is possible, either pack-swapping or adding modules. Re swapping, A Better Place failed, Tesla built one swap station then bailed, but Nio seems to be doing okay. The problem with swapping is that like car rentals usage tends to be concentrated around surges like holiday weekends, so if you have enough packs to swap for everyone who wants one they sit around unused most of the time, raising the price. Or else to keep the price down far fewer are available, meaning some people will have to abandon their weekend plans or else put up with the inconvenience of using the smaller pack. As with renting vs. owning, most people now are willing to pay extra to own; maybe that will change.
Adding modules would be another approach, but you'd probably want to keep them operating separately from the main pack, as older batteries pull the newer ones down to their level in short order. Both would probably require increased structural weight so they could carry the larger packs, albeit that's far less weight than hauling the extra structure
and the packs around all the time.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Digging up coal or oil shales and producing gasoline from it just isn't going to help the climate at all.
Depends how good CCUS gets, but I wasn't thinking solely or even primarily about those types of syn-fuels. There's a large spectrum at an early stage of development, so I put these in the 'maybe eventually, but don't count on it' category.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
or bio-fuels if available in quantity.
Not even close to enough potential production for bio-fuels.
Definitely not now and probably not ever bar super-algae or some such, which is why I always qualify them as probably limited to long-range aviation fuels, but as with syn-fuels we'll see.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
We've been over all this before,
Yes, and you keep pushing non-alternative alternatives.
Some or all of these can be or are effective alternatives, which is why so much money and effort is being devoted to them. You seem to be stuck in the "Give me batteries or give me AGCC" camp. I'll use whatever works best for the particular task.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
and again you ignore that it's demand not need that determines viability in a consumer economy.
Again you project your wants into a "demand from all consumers".
And again, you forget that people make trade-offs. BEVs are more convenient at home. BEVs are nicer to drive. BEVs are (long term) cheaper. BEVs are cleaner. Somewhat less long term range/endurance is likely acceptable... if the consumer gets other benefits. Depending on each individual, you don't get to decide for all of them.
Of course people make trade-offs, and 97.5% of car buyers in the U.S. in Q1 of this year disagree with your values and have decided that current BEVs require unacceptable trade-offs, despite being offered a bribe to buy one. You may think somewhat less long-term range/endurance is likely acceptable. I agree, but we differ on the definition of 'somewhat'. And the public seems to agree with me not you, else why wouldn't they be selling at Norwegian levels? Maybe we just need much bigger bribes and perks and a much smaller country with narrower climate extremes, like Norway.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
I've stated the range/endurance requirements for an all-round BEV which I think would be acceptable to most U.S. consumers, so that it would cease to be an issue (Dougwantsaleaf seems to feel similarly, and Sagebrush isn't satisfied by his 300 mile BEV either): 4 hours or more at freeway cruising speeds including hotel loads, plus a reserve of at least 30 miles (this assumes DCFC station density will eventually approximate gas station density), with no more than 1/2 hour of charging (20 minutes or less preferred) to repeat ad nauseum, for the life of the car.
Actually, why not just put 1000 miles of range in the BEV and never bother stopping for a charge? Just drive at 80 for 8 hours, stop when and where you want, then recharge at the hotel while you sleep?
Battery energy density isn't constant.
I've never claimed that it is. If someone can put a 1,000 mile battery in a BEV at a reasonable price, weight and longevity by all means. But then we're nowhere near that, are we? FTM, if someone could put a life-time nuke in a car, with acceptable price, weight and safety, that would work too. Since neither of these are currently available and may never be, we have to work with what is available, now or likely in the near future.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
No, as I keep pointed out, they are near the other other end of the distribution. I also sometimes point out that you are not at the end of the distribution, the fellow I knew with a pickup with dual extra tanks giving transcontinental range is probably closer. OK, not the way he drives. You seem to have a problem acknowledging that people are different.
I just point out that the majority of buyers have demands more similar to mine for range than to your friend or you.
Exactly. Without admitting the reality that people are not all the same as you.
Never denied it, but I have pointed out what cars people buy matches my requirements a lot more closely than yours. You forget that YOU are at one extreme of the range. After all, you're one of the small % of people who's actually bought a BEV. You're far more of an outlier than I am, so apply the same standard to yourself that you try to apply to me.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Notice you are fighting the war in 2011, not today. YARH.
No, sub-100 mile BEVs lost the war here from 2011 on. We both agree that they could meet many people's needs but failed to meet their wants, at least at anything like current prices.
2011 BEVs didn't target the ideal first market for EVs. I do expect to see a range of battery sizes... maybe even down to sub 100 mile range... in 20 years or so.
We agree there, something like the Model S should have been first. I could see sub-100 mile (lifetime, not just new) eventually in this country, although they're more likely a better fit in others, but I very much doubt they'll ever make up a significant portion of the fleet here, barring large-scale MaaS.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Notice that answer is again, dirty hydrogen. Which isn't a workable answer.
Again, H2 doesn't have to be dirty; it's like saying 'dirty electricity' as if it can only be generated by burning fossil-fuels. In fact, my references to (PH)FCEVs are predicated on green or blue H2 which meet LCFS standards, and those are being scaled up to early commercial deployments now. Obviously, much of the initial H2 will be provided via SMR from methane, but everyone recognizes that's not where we need to end up if H2 is to be a viable alternative.
Blue hydrogen is dirtier than coal.
No, some blue H2 is dirtier than coal, it all depends on the details. And with LCFS, the dirtier H2 will be driven out and eventually prohibited. Found one post of mine from 2015, referencing a UCS study of the Tucson FCEV.
I can't remember if this has previously been posted, so here's a short paper from the UCS looking at the Tucson FCHV:
How Clean Are Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles?
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/fil ... -Sheet.pdf
For pure NG, its CO2 emissions/mile are equivalent to a 38 mpg vehicle; with CA's 33% RFS for H2, it's equivalent to a 54 mpg vehicle; the state projects that by the end of 2015 H2 production here will be 46% renewable, at which point the Tucson's emissions would be equivalent to a 63 mpg vehicle. Apparently the RFS will increase to that level once production reaches 3,500 metric tons/year.
WetEV said:
Actual green hydrogen is rare today. And will still be rare, but less so in 10 years. Maybe after 2070 or so...
Most hydrogen is dirty hydrogen, and will be for much more than a decade.
Which is why production of cleaner H2 is being radically scaled-up now, as the numerous articles I've provided links to in the H2 topic attest. Germany is cutting deals is sunny/windy countries all over the place, Australia plans to be a major producer and exporter, Chile likewise, etc.