Because hydrogen is explosive. You can blow up it in the air, by shorting out something like a 10uf capacitor, that is charged up to 10v. That tiny spark has enough energy to blow up the car in your garage.
Detonation actually requires a higher percentage than gasoline vapour, I don't see it happening in my garage. It's highly flammable.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The tanks weight isn't really a factor here. Liquid hydrogen only has 2.8kWh/l. Petrol is 9.7kWh/l. So I would need a tank of about 3x the size of a current petrol tank to get the same range. I also need to drag this weight around with me. With compressed hydrogen I have 3x the density of petrol, so for the same range, the tank only needs to hold a third of the volume.
As for impurities. I've worked on two commercial Fuel cell vehicle projects. The fuel in both cases was produced using electrolysis and the fuel cells only had a meaningful life of just over 3 years before they were too gunked up to work efficiently. Additionally, producing hydrogen using electrolysis is incredibly inefficient (as low as 70%), so why not just use the electricity in a BEV instead of wasting 30% of the energy converting it to hydrogen?
McBryce.
With compressed hydrogen you have 2 times worse density that liquid hydrogen, thus 6 times worse than gasoline. Dunno from where you got an idea it should be somehow better.
To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.
Because hydrogen is explosive. You can blow up it in the air, by shorting out something like a 10uf capacitor, that is charged up to 10v. That tiny spark has enough energy to blow up the car in your garage.
This is FUD. In the end the same is true for fuel vapour. Why do you think fuel systems in cars are hermetically sealed? Research has shown that hydrogen has no higher risk of fires or explosions compared to other fuels used in cars.
I actually know what I'm talking about, having several devices certified for such an environment.
And read this:
https://marketresearchtelecast.com/hydrogen-bus-catches-fire-in-the-netherlands/190175/Hydrogen is no joke, you put that in an enclosed environment, and it creates some ventilation for itself by launching the roof to next town.
Hydrogen is no joke, you put that in an enclosed environment, and it creates some ventilation for itself by launching the roof to next town.
Spill gasoline in a closed garage and it can explode too (actual detonation).
To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.
Because hydrogen is explosive. You can blow up it in the air, by shorting out something like a 10uf capacitor, that is charged up to 10v. That tiny spark has enough energy to blow up the car in your garage.
This is FUD. In the end the same is true for fuel vapour. Why do you think fuel systems in cars are hermetically sealed? Research has shown that hydrogen has no higher risk of fires or explosions compared to other fuels used in cars.
I actually know what I'm talking about, having several devices certified for such an environment.
And read this: https://marketresearchtelecast.com/hydrogen-bus-catches-fire-in-the-netherlands/190175/
Hydrogen is no joke, you put that in an enclosed environment, and it creates some ventilation for itself by launching the roof to next town.
Then I suggest you to get a job at the car manufacturers and warn them. The reality is that the SAE, regulatory bodies and car manufacturers have designed and certified the hydrogen storage and fueling systems for vehicles to be safe. These people aren't stupid! You might think you know what you are talking about but you are missing the point that the hydrogen systems have been designed to be safe to use.
Linking to articles that don't actually support your claim doesn't really help. It only shows the attempt to spread more FUD. I tried to dig a bit deeper but there is no mention of hydrogen being the cause of the fire affecting the hydrogen busses or that the tanks with hydrogen exploded.
To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.
Because hydrogen is explosive. You can blow up it in the air, by shorting out something like a 10uf capacitor, that is charged up to 10v. That tiny spark has enough energy to blow up the car in your garage.
This is FUD. In the end the same is true for fuel vapour. Why do you think fuel systems in cars are hermetically sealed? Research has shown that hydrogen has no higher risk of fires or explosions compared to other fuels used in cars.
I actually know what I'm talking about, having several devices certified for such an environment.
And read this: https://marketresearchtelecast.com/hydrogen-bus-catches-fire-in-the-netherlands/190175/
Hydrogen is no joke, you put that in an enclosed environment, and it creates some ventilation for itself by launching the roof to next town.
Then I suggest you to get a job at the car manufacturers and warn them. The reality is that the SAE, regulatory bodies and car manufacturers have designed and certified the hydrogen storage and fueling systems for vehicles to be safe. These people aren't stupid! You might think you know what you are talking about but you are missing the point that the hydrogen systems have been designed to be safe to use.
Linking to articles that don't actually support your claim doesn't really help. It only shows the attempt to spread more FUD. I tried to dig a bit deeper but there is no mention of hydrogen being the cause of the fire affecting the hydrogen busses or that the tanks with hydrogen exploded.
Car makers put lead into gasoline, cheated with diesel NOx emissions and spent decades only putting seatbelt on the front, or released pre-alpha versions of the self driving software that drove cars into brick walls and trucks.
I trust politicians better than carmakers, while both usually are spineless weasels who do anything for money.
Hydrogen is no joke, you put that in an enclosed environment, and it creates some ventilation for itself by launching the roof to next town.
Spill gasoline in a closed garage and it can explode too (actual detonation).
Yes. It needs to evaporate first. And you need something like three to six magnitude less energy to ignite hydrogen than petrol.
Dave. One thing in both the original and extended video stood out for me, regarding the Aptera.
I completely agree that with any normal EV the achievable range is greatly reduced by the speed increase. But with the drag coefficient of 0.13 (If their presented numbers are to believed), isn't this effect largely reduced? My memory about fluid dynamics are quite foggy but I faintly remember that the Drag Force / Velocity curve changes by the value of the drag coefficient, and this change is not linearly but exponentially proportional to the change of the coefficient. So this funky little car is more than likely be able to drive at highway speeds without significant loss of range.
Any automotive or aerospace engineer Please Correct me if what I say is nonsense.
Edit: After looking it up, it seems I remembered wrongly. Drag force is calculated by Fd = cd*0.5*p*v2*A formula. So the value changes in cd are not exponentially changing the drag force. I think the reason why I remembered wrong was the A value. Which is the "characteristic frontal area of the body" in square meters, and that is always in some relation to the shape of the design. In conclusion my original guess is still likely right because the area of the frontal body on an Aptera is also smaller than most cars.
Well I just did a closer calculation using real numbers, and using Germany as an example:
Germany produced 579 Billion kWh in 2021. In 2021 it sold 20.5 Million tons of petrol at the pumps (just petrol, diesel not included). A litre of petrol has 12.2kWh/kg. So the petrol sold was equivalent to approx 250 Billion kWh of electricity, meaning that Germany would need almost 50% more generation just to cover the petrol cars.
Not forgetting, 2021 was Covid shutdown, more electricity being used in home office and less petrol needed to drive to work.
You are assuming gas cars are 100% efficient with that calculation, which they are not, an EV is something like 75%.
Dave. One thing in both the original and extended video stood out for me, regarding the Aptera.
I completely agree that with any normal EV the achievable range is greatly reduced by the speed increase. But with the drag coefficient of 0.13 (If their presented numbers are to believed), isn't this effect largely reduced? My memory about fluid dynamics are quite foggy but I faintly remember that the Drag Force / Velocity curve changes by the value of the drag coefficient, and this change is not linearly but exponentially proportional to the change of the coefficient. So this funky little car is more than likely be able to drive at highway speeds without significant loss of range.
Any automotive or aerospace engineer Please Correct me if what I say is nonsense.
Edit: After looking it up, it seems I remembered wrongly. Drag force is calculated by Fd = cd*0.5*p*v2*A formula. So the value changes in cd are not exponentially changing the drag force. I think the reason why I remembered wrong was the A value. Which is the "characteristic frontal area of the body" in square meters, and that is always in some relation to the shape of the design. In conclusion my original guess is still likely right because the area of the frontal body on an Aptera is also smaller than most cars.
Yeah I'm sure you can find an online calculator to plug in and compare, but, you'll have to find frontal area, which no one seems to publish.
Big boxy front cars are currently in style and have horrible efficiency.
I'm betting the "Highway range" includes the small boost from the absolute best the solar panels can produce. It claims 10.7kWh/100km at 110kh/h.
That's great, but not hugely or game changingly great, especially for the price. I'd have to double check my IONIQ, but IIRC it's in the order of 13-14kW/100km on the highway.
13.8 kWh according to these guys at 110km/h, which was the best result:
https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/Tesla Model 3 a close 2nd.
Cant believe how much worse the 2022 model is, 20kWh/100km, marketing must have taken over.
13.8 kWh according to these guys at 110km/h, which was the best result: https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/
Tesla Model 3 a close 2nd.
Cant believe how much worse the 2022 model is, 20kWh/100km, marketing must have taken over.
The Ioniq and Ioniq5 are not related vehicles. The Ioniq5 is bigger and heavier: 30cm more wheelbase, 7cm wider, 15cm taller, and most importantly at least 350kg heavier (more with the bigger battery packs and AWD)
Notably the AWD car that InsideEVs tested has a manufacturer rated range of 76km less than the RWD version, owing to the heavier weight and higher friction.
The most efficient version of the Ioniq5 is (US EPA estimated) at 16.4 kWh/100km.
Well I just did a closer calculation using real numbers, and using Germany as an example:
Germany produced 579 Billion kWh in 2021. In 2021 it sold 20.5 Million tons of petrol at the pumps (just petrol, diesel not included). A litre of petrol has 12.2kWh/kg. So the petrol sold was equivalent to approx 250 Billion kWh of electricity, meaning that Germany would need almost 50% more generation just to cover the petrol cars.
Not forgetting, 2021 was Covid shutdown, more electricity being used in home office and less petrol needed to drive to work.
You are assuming gas cars are 100% efficient with that calculation, which they are not, an EV is something like 75%.
I deliberately left all efficiencies out of the equation because otherwise we would have to compare all efficiencies such as how efficient the refrigerator for liquid hydrogen, the compressor for compressed hydrogen, the charging circuitry etc.
There are some really good "Well to wheel" comparisons available that do this, even comparing the different methods of producing Hydrogen. They show very clearly why a battery EV is the most efficient alternative to fossil fuels. Here's a simpler BEV/Hydrogen one from VW:
https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydrogen-or-battery--that-is-the-question.html#McBryce.
Talking about the cost of electricity without mentioning time is bullshit. Assuming Nuclear is not an option, then 2050 we will need massively overprovisioned renewables. Assuming the capital costs of electrolyzers and cryopumps is relatively small, efficiency won't matter. A huge hydrogen economy will be able to get surplus electricity for almost nothing.
and people that did an advance payment for the Lightyear 0 lose their money, sadly.
Who puts down more than a small deposit for something like this from a company with no track record, that could just as easily be a scam as a genuine effort to build a new business?
Bankruptcy is a good way to lower NRE and capital costs. That factory is there now, might as well build cars with it.
I wouldn't be surprised that in the limit case you could halve the cost of the car, it's not like another car manufacturer at the moment is going to pay top dollar for that factory at the moment ... so investors would be competing against scrap prices, there's some opportunity here for it to rise from the ashes.
Who puts down more than a small deposit for something like this from a company with no track record, that could just as easily be a scam as a genuine effort to build a new business?
Same people that buy JPEGs of monkeys. I suspect a lot of their troubles also relate to cryptobros no longer being able to afford lambos and this stupidity.
Lightyear is largely bankrupt (their production daughter company Atlas Technologies), over 600 people lost their jobs,
just 30 people remain in mother company that owns the intellectual property and patents as far as I understand.
Oh, wow, I had a job interview there last November. I cancelled the followup. I guess I dodged a bullet here.
I guess it is fine if you are playing with other people's money, but really, it should have been obvious that stating with $40K model gives you a way better chance or survival.
Just making a plain $40k EV is already a decent achievement. You can sell this alone. Any other gimmicks on top of that is just a plus.
I guess it is fine if you are playing with other people's money, but really, it should have been obvious that stating with $40K model gives you a way better chance or survival.
Just making a plain $40k EV is already a decent achievement. You can sell this alone. Any other gimmicks on top of that is just a plus.
A startup has zero chance of survival if it can't offer something new and different. A number of people now make a $40k EV. Unless the value proposition of a startup's cars, cheap or expensive, is profoundly different from anything available from an established brand, with their established support network and reasonable chance of parts availability, a startup can't compete.
Bankruptcy is a good way to lower NRE and capital costs. That factory is there now, might as well build cars with it.
I wouldn't be surprised that in the limit case you could halve the cost of the car, it's not like another car manufacturer at the moment is going to pay top dollar for that factory at the moment ... so investors would be competing against scrap prices, there's some opportunity here for it to rise from the ashes.
Agreed. Only the manufacturing part of the company behind the Lightyear cars is affected. The IP and solar panel production is not included in the bankrupty. Interestingly the new Toyota Prius has the option to have a solar panel in its roof so I guess the idea of having solar panels on a car did got traction.
Interestingly the new Toyota Prius has the option to have a solar panel in its roof so I guess the idea of having solar panels on a car did got traction.
Seems like an obvious marketing opportunity.
It's a balance of integrated manufacturing cost though.
I guess it is fine if you are playing with other people's money, but really, it should have been obvious that stating with $40K model gives you a way better chance or survival.
Just making a plain $40k EV is already a decent achievement. You can sell this alone. Any other gimmicks on top of that is just a plus.
A startup has zero chance of survival if it can't offer something new and different. A number of people now make a $40k EV. Unless the value proposition of a startup's cars, cheap or expensive, is profoundly different from anything available from an established brand, with their established support network and reasonable chance of parts availability, a startup can't compete.
Yep. At least the Apera looks fantastically futuristic, will sell well on that alone. Heck if they were available in Australia then I might buy one.
EDIT, just saw this:
https://thedriven.io/2023/01/25/aptera-to-launch-solar-powered-ev-in-2023-but-australia-will-have-to-wait/
Bankruptcy is a good way to lower NRE and capital costs. That factory is there now, might as well build cars with it.
I wouldn't be surprised that in the limit case you could halve the cost of the car, it's not like another car manufacturer at the moment is going to pay top dollar for that factory at the moment ... so investors would be competing against scrap prices, there's some opportunity here for it to rise from the ashes.
Agreed. Only the manufacturing part of the company behind the Lightyear cars is affected. The IP and solar panel production is not included in the bankrupty. Interestingly the new Toyota Prius has the option to have a solar panel in its roof so I guess the idea of having solar panels on a car did got traction.
My 12 year old prius 3 has a solar panel on it. They never sold this variant here in the NL.
For the ugly duckling it is, it looks a bit better with the solar panel.
I guess it is fine if you are playing with other people's money, but really, it should have been obvious that stating with $40K model gives you a way better chance or survival.
Just making a plain $40k EV is already a decent achievement. You can sell this alone. Any other gimmicks on top of that is just a plus.
A startup has zero chance of survival if it can't offer something new and different. A number of people now make a $40k EV. Unless the value proposition of a startup's cars, cheap or expensive, is profoundly different from anything available from an established brand, with their established support network and reasonable chance of parts availability, a startup can't compete.
Yep. At least the Apera looks fantastically futuristic, will sell well on that alone. Heck if they were available in Australia then I might buy one.
EDIT, just saw this: https://thedriven.io/2023/01/25/aptera-to-launch-solar-powered-ev-in-2023-but-australia-will-have-to-wait/
What sort black magic trickery are they doing to get that through homologation??!!! That's every safety engineers nightmare.
McBryce.