Required range distribution

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

WetEV

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
5,147
Location
Near Seattle, WA
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Well, no, because used BEVs (which had inadequate range even when new) with seriously degraded batteries

Notice that "inadequate range" is based on GRA's idea of adequate range, and not the range needs of someone that need reliable transportation to work, shopping, and such. Notice that GRA is stuck in 2011 with the original LEAF chemistry. Yawn.


Notice that WetEV continues to pretend that most people buy cars based solely on their routine needs, and continues to ignore the actual ranges of the top-selling cars, despite having been provided with that info. Perhaps if you spent less time yawning and got more sleep you would find it easier to absorb that fact, along with the fact that people don't consider an 8-year/70% capacity warranty adequate for a car that should last at least twice that long. Which is why California is considering requiring 80%/15 year warranties starting in the 2026 MY, although how they figure they can do so when no current battery tech can achieve that is puzzling. You can't mandate technological developments, so maybe they're just hoping solid-state or some other tech will appear in time.

Range needed is not a number, it is a distribution and current ranges of cars being sold isn't a good guide for what is needed.

The first is a user wants and needs issue. Everyone's habits, goals, actual behavior and wants is different. So some want more, some want less, at a given price for range.

Neighbor to me in Massachusetts once remarked that they had once driven as far as Springfield. That was Springfield MA, not any other state. About a 140 mile round trip. So realistically, explain why they would pay anything at all for an increase in range past 240 mile, assuming home charging.

Economics. The marginal cost of adding range to an ICE is fairly small. Even a tiny marginal benefit to a small fraction of users can make a larger range worthwhile in total. BEVs have a larger marginal cost for adding range. So providing the same range will cost more to the majority of users that don't see any value in it, and not be worthwhile in total.
 
The marginal cost of range is best solved with fast DCFC in EVs. It is true that each DCFC kWh tends to be expensive but the vast majority of EV miles are not part of long range trips and can be L1 or L2 miles.

The tricky part with today's chemistries is that DCFC charge rate is pack size dependent. If you want a solution that adds 100 miles in 10- minutes, you need a 250 mile pack. And if you want 100 winter miles or 100 miles at 75 mph in 10 minutes of charging, then we are in 350 mile EPA mile range packs.

The good news is that 300 mile range packs are scratching the affordable envelope now, and will almost certainly be available before 2025.
 
Sage, I do agree.

While the Lucid 500 pack and Model S 400 pack are sometimes mentioned as overkill, when you factor in weather, elevation, headwinds, I personally think that 400-500 is what you will need to convert the general public in the US. 400-500 miles epa range assures 200 miles of nasty winter driving, which is about the minimum you need for a not too cumbersome cross country travel when you think of the DC stop time to charge.

Anyone on the board ordering a Lucid? A friend of mine has one on order (a lower trim then the top model), but they are telling him early next year.
 
Projecting one's concerns on range is a useless discussion. We "might" see the 100 mile EV disappear but not the 150 mile EV. It will be here for the long long long term. We might see 500 mile EVs but they will be like any upscale vehicle; a decent niche market for consumers but trucks in the business sector will have it.

As always, it will be price dependent but in 5 years when 150 mile EV's are selling for $15K, they will sell and sell VERY well. 250-300 mile EVs will be the most popular because mid size, mid range price points has always been the most popular and that won't EVER change.
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
Anyone on the board ordering a Lucid? A friend of mine has one on order (a lower trim then the top model), but they are telling him early next year.
Not me, but we plan to swap our LEAF for a Model Y when it hits 400 EPA miles range. Our 300 EPA mile range Model 3 is OK but 400 is better ;-)
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Notice that "inadequate range" is based on GRA's idea of adequate range, and not the range needs of someone that need reliable transportation to work, shopping, and such. Notice that GRA is stuck in 2011 with the original LEAF chemistry. Yawn.


Notice that WetEV continues to pretend that most people buy cars based solely on their routine needs, and continues to ignore the actual ranges of the top-selling cars, despite having been provided with that info. Perhaps if you spent less time yawning and got more sleep you would find it easier to absorb that fact, along with the fact that people don't consider an 8-year/70% capacity warranty adequate for a car that should last at least twice that long. Which is why California is considering requiring 80%/15 year warranties starting in the 2026 MY, although how they figure they can do so when no current battery tech can achieve that is puzzling. You can't mandate technological developments, so maybe they're just hoping solid-state or some other tech will appear in time.

Range needed is not a number, it is a distribution and current ranges of cars being sold isn't a good guide for what is needed.

The first is a user wants and needs issue. Everyone's habits, goals, actual behavior and wants is different. So some want more, some want less, at a given price for range.


As i said, we're not talking about range needed, we're talking about the range demanded by customers. It doesn't matter is someone only needs 10 miles a day of range, if they insist on having 300+ for that one trip they may never take, because they opt for the latter, aka "The Occasional Use Imperative". Maybe most of us will shift to AVs and MaaS and that will solve the problem, but I'm not betting on it.


WetEV said:
Neighbor to me in Massachusetts once remarked that they had once driven as far as Springfield. That was Springfield MA, not any other state. About a 140 mile round trip. So realistically, explain why they would pay anything at all for an increase in range past 240 mile, assuming home charging.


You keep accusing me of thinking I am the typical driver when we both know that I'm not, yet you present this person as if they are? Clearly, if there were lots of people like them, then sub-100 mile range BEVs like the 24kWh LEAF couldn't be kept on the lots. Exactly how many new sub-100 mile range BEV models are available for sale in the U.S. this year? I believe the total is zero. Why did Nissan go from 24 to 30 to 40 to 62kWh for the LEAF, when per your distribution argument there must be a huge market for short-range BEVs, and the shorter-range cars would be less expensive? We both know that lots of people could use such cars for their routine needs (if they didn't have to worry about degradation or cold weather, and had another for non-routine use), but those cars don't sell despite being far cheaper, do they? If people bought cars specifically matched to typical errands and commuting, we'd be over-run by Smart EDs or better yet those $4,500 Chinese mini-cars. Even if we had to double the price to get them to meet U.S. safety regs those would be an excellent deal. Instead, people commute and buy groceries in Tahoes.


WetEV said:
Economics. The marginal cost of adding range to an ICE is fairly small. Even a tiny marginal benefit to a small fraction of users can make a larger range worthwhile in total. BEVs have a larger marginal cost for adding range. So providing the same range will cost more to the majority of users that don't see any value in it, and not be worthwhile in total.


Uh huh, which is why my answer is PHEVs -> PHFCEVs. And thus ends this particular tail chase.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Range needed is not a number, it is a distribution and current ranges of cars being sold isn't a good guide for what is needed.

The first is a user wants and needs issue. Everyone's habits, goals, actual behavior and wants is different. So some want more, some want less, at a given price for range.


As i said, we're not talking about range needed, we're talking about the range demanded by customers.

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.


GRA said:
It doesn't matter is someone only needs 10 miles a day of range, if they insist on having 300+ for that one trip they may never take, because they opt for the latter, aka "The Occasional Use Imperative".

I'd expect by 2030 that most BEVs will have ranges or options for ranges above 300 miles. Maybe not the bottom of the line.

300 miles of range at $50 per kWh (in 2021 dollars), likely by the end of the decade, will cost $3750 for the batteries.


GRA said:
Maybe most of us will shift to AVs and MaaS and that will solve the problem, but I'm not betting on it.

YARH. I might comment elsewhere.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
Neighbor to me in Massachusetts once remarked that they had once driven as far as Springfield. That was Springfield MA, not any other state. About a 140 mile round trip. So realistically, explain why they would pay anything at all for an increase in range past 240 mile, assuming home charging.

You keep accusing me of thinking I am the typical driver when we both know that I'm not, yet you present this person as if they are?

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.


GRA said:
Clearly, if there were lots of people like them, then sub-100 mile range BEVs like the 24kWh LEAF couldn't be kept on the lots.

Notice you are fighting the war in 2011, not today. YARH.


GRA said:
Instead, people commute and buy groceries in Tahoes.

A few people do. And fewer actually have solid reasons for wanting a larger vehicle.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
Economics. The marginal cost of adding range to an ICE is fairly small. Even a tiny marginal benefit to a small fraction of users can make a larger range worthwhile in total. BEVs have a larger marginal cost for adding range. So providing the same range will cost more to the majority of users that don't see any value in it, and not be worthwhile in total.


Uh huh, which is why my answer is PHEVs -> PHFCEVs. And thus ends this particular tail chase.

Notice that answer is again, dirty hydrogen. Which isn't a workable answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4jOPNcCnOQ
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Range needed is not a number, it is a distribution and current ranges of cars being sold isn't a good guide for what is needed.

The first is a user wants and needs issue. Everyone's habits, goals, actual behavior and wants is different. So some want more, some want less, at a given price for range.


As i said, we're not talking about range needed, we're talking about the range demanded by customers.

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, batteries at a weight and efficiency penalty if they can do it, Syn or bio-fuels if available in quantity. We've been over all this before, and again you ignore that it's demand not need that determines viability in a consumer economy.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
It doesn't matter is someone only needs 10 miles a day of range, if they insist on having 300+ for that one trip they may never take, because they opt for the latter, aka "The Occasional Use Imperative".

I'd expect by 2030 that most BEVs will have ranges or options for ranges above 300 miles. Maybe not the bottom of the line.

300 miles of range at $50 per kWh (in 2021 dollars), likely by the end of the decade, will cost $3750 for the batteries.


If we get there, great. Of course, 300 miles on a BEV isn't the same as 300 in an ICE, because you have to allow margins for degradation, heater use, larger reserves (not just for emergencies, but also for battery longevity), longer stop times to recharge, etc., plus the aforementioned weight and efficiency penalty in daily use. You've made that last point yourself re long-range BEVs, so I don't know why you ignore it here.

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.

It's achieving that last clause that will be most difficult, without providing excessively large batteries. For example, the longest range Lucid Air has an EPA HWY range of 520 miles. Multiplying that by .6 (charging between 20-80% SoC) is only 312 miles, or 364 miles if you use 90-20% SoC; even if you charge it to 100% and stop at 20%, you're down to 416 miles, and all of these are before hotel loads (and allowances for terrain and weather). Multiplying those ranges by .7 (assuming 8 yr./70% capacity warranty) gets us to 218/255/291 miles, again before hotel loads, and that's after just 8 years. Oh, and those ranges aren't at realistic rural highway speeds either, which in the west are typically 75-80 mph or even a bit more, while the EPA highway ranges seem to equate to steady cruising around 65 mph or so, so you can knock 10-20% off them.

Meanwhile, my 18 year old car was good for 400+ miles hwy plus all of the above allowances when new, and still is, while costing about 1/6 of the Lucid. Of course, ICEs don't need as much range as BEVs owing to their ultra-short refueling times (and secondarily the density of stations), but since extra range is available for ICEs at little penalty, people have opted for it to gain convenience and flexibility.

Feel free to list your own estimate. Note that the above assumes no change in private car ownership patterns, i.e. no widespread MaaS.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
Maybe most of us will shift to AVs and MaaS and that will solve the problem, but I'm not betting on it.

YARH. I might comment elsewhere.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
Neighbor to me in Massachusetts once remarked that they had once driven as far as Springfield. That was Springfield MA, not any other state. About a 140 mile round trip. So realistically, explain why they would pay anything at all for an increase in range past 240 mile, assuming home charging.

You keep accusing me of thinking I am the typical driver when we both know that I'm not, yet you present this person as if they are?

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 have no such problem, I just point out that the majority of buyers have demands more similar to mine for range than to your friend or you.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
Clearly, if there were lots of people like them, then sub-100 mile range BEVs like the 24kWh LEAF couldn't be kept on the lots.

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. If we had sub-100 mile BEVs with same as new range guaranteed for the life of the car they'd do better, but realistically we probably need 125-150 miles of range (to allow un-recharged intra-regional and next region trips) in the U.S. for most people to feel they'd be worth it.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
Instead, people commute and buy groceries in Tahoes.

A few people do. And fewer actually have solid reasons for wanting a larger vehicle.


Uh huh, again, wants vs. needs.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Economics. The marginal cost of adding range to an ICE is fairly small. Even a tiny marginal benefit to a small fraction of users can make a larger range worthwhile in total. BEVs have a larger marginal cost for adding range. So providing the same range will cost more to the majority of users that don't see any value in it, and not be worthwhile in total.


Uh huh, which is why my answer is PHEVs -> PHFCEVs. And thus ends this particular tail chase.

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.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
Projecting one's concerns on range is a useless discussion. We "might" see the 100 mile EV disappear but not the 150 mile EV. It will be here for the long long long term.


I tend to agree, if that range is for the life of the car. 150 miles can handle many intra-regional trips un-recharged, and can with more inconvenience handle shorter inter-regional trips. But it's not enough for someone who takes fairly frequent weekend trips.


DaveinOlyWA said:
We might see 500 mile EVs but they will be like any upscale vehicle; a decent niche market for consumers but trucks in the business sector will have it.


There I disagree, unless most people are comfortable renting for road trips.


DaveinOlyWA said:
As always, it will be price dependent but in 5 years when 150 mile EV's are selling for $15K, they will sell and sell VERY well. 250-300 mile EVs will be the most popular because mid size, mid range price points has always been the most popular and that won't EVER change.


I think 300 is the minimum for a decent-selling weekend-capable car. Again, for its lifetime not just when new.
 
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.


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.


GRA said:

Digging up coal or oil shales and producing gasoline from it just isn't going to help the climate at all.


GRA said:
or bio-fuels if available in quantity.

Not even close to enough potential production for bio-fuels.


GRA said:
We've been over all this before,

Yes, and you keep pushing non-alternative alternatives.


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.


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.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
You keep accusing me of thinking I am the typical driver when we both know that I'm not, yet you present this person as if they are?

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.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Clearly, if there were lots of people like them, then sub-100 mile range BEVs like the 24kWh LEAF couldn't be kept on the lots.

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.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Uh huh, which is why my answer is PHEVs -> PHFCEVs. And thus ends this particular tail chase.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top