Author Topic: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”  (Read 43905 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #250 on: November 26, 2021, 05:18:35 pm »
It doesn't work that way. Currently many of those installations have garantees that whatever they produce is to be absorbed by the grid. Another problem with turning wind turbines and solar panels off is that the electricity they produce is going to be more expensive because the ROI per time period has to remain the same in order to make the interest payments.

They're only paid these guarantees because we need a base load now.
No. It is because otherwise wind and solar are not profitable so governments are giving the companies that invest into wind and solar guarantees that whatever they produce will be bought AND for a minimum price. Electricity prices may even go negative but the tax payer is paying nevertheless in order to make sure the solar and wind companies are getting the minimum price per kWh.
The truth is European "market" is weird as they try to push renewables by force and pay guaranteed fixed prices, sometimes really high compared to the end-user price just to promote more installations even in places without good conditions
It is not weird. It is subsidizing development and mass deployment of new technology. For a lot of new technologies the initial market is too risky for companies to invest into. If deemed worthy, governments can step in to carry part of the R&D costs and cover part of the initial risks. Contrary to popular believe this does not mean governments (at least in Europe) hand out bags with money without any strings attached. The aim is to give companies a stepping stone to introduce new technologies that can become profitable and in turn create jobs and economic growth. For example: there are hundreds of subsidy programs for all kinds of new technology development available across Europe.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15797
  • Country: fr
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #251 on: November 26, 2021, 07:49:56 pm »
Contrary to popular believe this does not mean governments (at least in Europe) hand out bags with money without any strings attached. (...)
For example: there are hundreds of subsidy programs for all kinds of new technology development available across Europe.

That's a cute way of putting it. Would you happen to be involved in one of those projects yourself?
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #252 on: November 26, 2021, 08:19:26 pm »
Contrary to popular believe this does not mean governments (at least in Europe) hand out bags with money without any strings attached. (...)
For example: there are hundreds of subsidy programs for all kinds of new technology development available across Europe.

That's a cute way of putting it. Would you happen to be involved in one of those projects yourself?
Every company that does some form of R&D in the Netherlands is receiving some kind of government subsidy. This has been the case for the past several decades that I have been working as an electronics & firmware  design engineer. And that is very likely the case for all countries / companies in Europe. So if you are involved in R&D then part of your salary is coming from such subsidies (unless your employer likes to pay more salaries and more taxes).
« Last Edit: November 26, 2021, 08:23:55 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline strawberry

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 1199
  • Country: lv
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #253 on: November 26, 2021, 09:17:27 pm »
why no one talk about oxygen usage(people cant survive without)
fossil energy source is same as hydrogen(is produced by splitting natural gas in H and carbon components and no oxygen) they both use oxygen in combustion or some fancy cell
for some reason carbon neutral was first invented by some fossil energy company
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #254 on: November 26, 2021, 09:19:52 pm »
why no one talk about oxygen usage(people cant survive without)
Because there is more than enough of oxygen. Humanity has thrown how many trillion metric tonnes of CO2 in the air and the concentration went from 0.2% to 0.4%. With oxygen being around 16% (IIRC) it should be clear that oxygen usage is of no concern at all.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #255 on: November 26, 2021, 10:06:41 pm »
The main commercial source for hydrogen gas at present is natural gas (methane), but I believe that most of the hydrogen on earth is contained in water (bound to oxygen).
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7334
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #256 on: November 26, 2021, 10:13:50 pm »
why no one talk about oxygen usage(people cant survive without)
fossil energy source is same as hydrogen(is produced by splitting natural gas in H and carbon components and no oxygen) they both use oxygen in combustion or some fancy cell
for some reason carbon neutral was first invented by some fossil energy company

Typically, green hydrogen is produced from water and electricity, electrolysis, so oxygen will be released from that.  Hydrogen produced from natural gas by steam reforming is oxygen neutral.

The atmosphere is also about 21% oxygen.   Even the most aggressive fossil fuel use has 'only' increased CO2 from 0.035% to 0.045%.  It is hard to imagine how we could e.g. decrease oxygen from 21% to 19%, which would begin to present issues for humans.
 

Offline strawberry

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 1199
  • Country: lv
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #257 on: November 28, 2021, 05:29:40 am »
mostly tap water could be in short supply
or sea water desalination plants

without closed loop cant be green nor sustainable
bp is green, so

end of consumerism
100% manual dismantling
reusing/repurposing used metal parts in other areas

if tesla turns out to be piggy bank?

 

Offline not1xor1

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 716
  • Country: it
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #258 on: November 28, 2021, 06:39:04 am »
No. It is because otherwise wind and solar are not profitable so governments are giving the companies that invest into wind and solar guarantees that whatever they produce will be bought AND for a minimum price. Electricity prices may even go negative but the tax payer is paying nevertheless in order to make sure the solar and wind companies are getting the minimum price per kWh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy:
Quote
On 6 October, 2021, The Guardian reported on an IMF study detailing how "the fossil fuel industry gets subsidies of $11m a minute...[and]...trillions of dollars a year are ‘adding fuel to the fire’ of the climate crisis... Setting fossil fuel prices that reflect their true cost would cut global CO2 emissions by over a third, the IMF analysts said."

in 2017 fossil fuel subsides were still 3-4 times more than renewable energy ones
https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Apr/Energy-Subsidies-2020

see also:
https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, ogden, SiliconWizard

Offline MadScientist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 439
  • Country: 00
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #259 on: March 26, 2022, 08:09:38 pm »
This argument sounds a lot like the proponents of Betamax arguing it’s merits long after the industry had basically abandoned the format.

Car companies are going BEV. End of discussion

Those arguing about EV issues have clearly never owned one. I have both a diesel van and an electric car. My EV has 275,000km on it and my van has 290,000km. In all the time Ive never either run out of diesel nor electricity and that’s the experience of vast majority of people

As for comments about not having a driveway , most people in dense housing situations , which proper town planning , don’t need cars , both my adult kids living in major European capitals don’t have cars , nor do their peer group. Both rent them as needed now and again.

The average car commute is 14 km per day. With current EV ranges approaching 500 km , that charging about once a fortnight , easily done at a local fast charging station. No need for a driveway and not to mention many workplaces have fitted charging points , PAYPAL HQ has 50 in its parking lot near me.

Electric motors   are fast , powerful , way better then the 19th century bag of bolts. Once you drive all electric you rarely go back.

Embrace it , it’s going to be all encompassing
EE's: We use silicon to make things  smaller!
 
The following users thanked this post: Miyuki

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #260 on: March 26, 2022, 08:40:45 pm »
I am ambivalent about EV - one would be cool for some parts of my life and a drag for others. But...

Quote
Both rent them as needed now and again.

I don't know anyone that rents a car except on holidays in foreign parts. Easily match by those that take the car with them.

Quote
PAYPAL HQ has 50 in its parking lot near me.

How many cars in total park there? 50 is OK when EV is still a bit niche, but when everyone wants to be charging up at work 50 would be replicating the sugar scrums currently seen in Russia.
 

Online 2N3055

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7466
  • Country: hr
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #261 on: March 26, 2022, 09:15:04 pm »
This argument sounds a lot like the proponents of Betamax arguing it’s merits long after the industry had basically abandoned the format.

Car companies are going BEV. End of discussion

Those arguing about EV issues have clearly never owned one. I have both a diesel van and an electric car. My EV has 275,000km on it and my van has 290,000km. In all the time Ive never either run out of diesel nor electricity and that’s the experience of vast majority of people

As for comments about not having a driveway , most people in dense housing situations , which proper town planning , don’t need cars , both my adult kids living in major European capitals don’t have cars , nor do their peer group. Both rent them as needed now and again.

The average car commute is 14 km per day. With current EV ranges approaching 500 km , that charging about once a fortnight , easily done at a local fast charging station. No need for a driveway and not to mention many workplaces have fitted charging points , PAYPAL HQ has 50 in its parking lot near me.

Electric motors   are fast , powerful , way better then the 19th century bag of bolts. Once you drive all electric you rarely go back.

Embrace it , it’s going to be all encompassing

Yeah, no..

First EU recognizes that there is no infrastructure to charge all vehicles even if you magically convert them to BEV. Large projects to do so are underway but will not be enough. Therefore there is strategic plan to run at least 30-40% of vehicles on fuel cells/hydrogen. Fuel cell/hydrogen is their strategic choice for range extension. There are EU commission decisions on this. Hydrogen is coming. You can buy fuel cell Toyota today.

If you live in city there is no charging on the street. And that is not gonna change soon.
Your solution to that is that I don't deserve to own a car?
Where I live rentals are prohibitively expensive, 4-5 days of rent equals a monthly payment to own one. So people just buy cars and don't drive them much..
Not everybody work where they live, and most cities in the world have bad public transport anywhere outside inner city limits. Or you have lines that go in such a way that you need to travel 10 km one way and then 10 km back to get to place that is 3km from you if cut across the town directly..
Most industrial parks are on city periphery and by Murphy always there where there is no direct line..

In order for these things to work cities should be much better planned than they are. Now they kind of, sort of, work for many, but not for everybody..
EV's are better tech. They are. Love them. And I can't have them.
If parking in front of my building had chargers I would get EV today. But in front of my building I'm lucky to find a parking space in a first place..

Not to mention that I can buy a decent fully working used gasoline car for 2000€.
Brave new world practically mean that many poor people won't be having a car anymore...

"Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly."
Dr. Richard W. Hamming
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7334
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #262 on: March 26, 2022, 09:53:30 pm »
Quote
First EU recognizes that there is no infrastructure to charge all vehicles even if you magically convert them to BEV. Large projects to do so are underway but will not be enough. Therefore there is strategic plan to run at least 30-40% of vehicles on fuel cells/hydrogen. Fuel cell/hydrogen is their strategic choice for range extension. There are EU commission decisions on this. Hydrogen is coming. You can buy fuel cell Toyota today.

Hydrogen for cars just seems like a boondoggle.

No one besides Toyota and a few startups is really looking at it.  (Hyundai has a FCEV too, however they've discontinued development of the next-generation model, so make of that what you like.)

Arguably the hydrogen car doesn't really solve the infrastructure problems that EVs have.  EVs have a lower infrastructure requirement simply because ~50% can be charged overnight on a driveway.  And probably another 10-20% of those could be charged at work instead of in public.  So the problem really comes to providing charging to those who park on the street every night.

Don't disagree that this is a difficult problem to solve but many streets in the UK already have lamp post/EV parking bays... whilst there are a grand total of 10 hydrogen refuelling stations in the UK (of which 2 have been broken for over two years.)

I do think that hydrogen will have a good place in powering heavy goods vehicles, buses, trains (when direct electrification is impractical) and in the future it might even work for aircraft.

Edit - fix typo
« Last Edit: March 26, 2022, 10:30:58 pm by tom66 »
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15797
  • Country: fr
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #263 on: March 26, 2022, 10:03:17 pm »
First EU recognizes that there is no infrastructure to charge all vehicles even if you magically convert them to BEV. Large projects to do so are underway but will not be enough. Therefore there is strategic plan to run at least 30-40% of vehicles on fuel cells/hydrogen. Fuel cell/hydrogen is their strategic choice for range extension. There are EU commission decisions on this. Hydrogen is coming. You can buy fuel cell Toyota today.

I've said that a few times already, but I guess most people do not want to hear it. For sure there is no infrastructure for that, and we don't produce enough electricity anyway. There is no workable plan to convert all currently circulating vehicles to electricity. The only way of doing it is to drastically decrease the number of circulating vehicles.

But I can understand that many would rather believe it will work out, so that they won't lose anything in the process. But uh... :popcorn:
 
The following users thanked this post: nctnico

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7334
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #264 on: March 26, 2022, 10:36:23 pm »
I've said that a few times already, but I guess most people do not want to hear it. For sure there is no infrastructure for that, and we don't produce enough electricity anyway. There is no workable plan to convert all currently circulating vehicles to electricity. The only way of doing it is to drastically decrease the number of circulating vehicles.

Because it's wrong.

You could convert every petrol/diesel car to EV overnight in the UK and see an uptick of 20% in total demand.   Now if you actually did that you might have brownouts and shortages but it's not happening overnight,  good cars last 15+ years and current car sales for EVs will not replace that for some time. 

So you will realistically need to increase capacity by 2-3% per year to accommodate EVs assuming total fleet replacement by say 2050.

New wind power plants are going online at about 4-5GW per year at the moment for the UK - that's about 10% of the capacity per year being added.  More than enough!

Trucks, buses, trains?  More questionable they will be converted to EV by say 2030-2035, but they are also easier to charge with typically defined depot locations and routes.  Haven't the time to work out if these change the equations materially, but I doubt it.  It seems most proposals focus on cars, they are easier.  Trucks/buses may need hydrogen.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2022, 10:38:41 pm by tom66 »
 

Online 2N3055

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7466
  • Country: hr
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #265 on: March 26, 2022, 10:37:04 pm »

Arguably the hydrogen car doesn't really solve the infrastructure problems that EVs haveEVs have a lower infrastructure requirement simply because ~50% can be charged overnight on a driveway.  And probably another 10-20% of those could be charged at work instead of in public.  So the problem really comes to providing charging to those who park on the street every night.


You misunderstand. Putting chargers on the street is not biggest problem.
There is NO electrical infrastructure in the country to power them.
My country has several hydro powerplants and one nuclear. We actually, today, have VERY green electricity and have surplus of electricity.
But we would need to build one or two more nuclear plants like one we already have to satisfy needed capacity...
And then create triple the capacity in distribution network, from large high voltage country wide to the end user transformers on the block...

Provided we do that overnight using Star Trek replicators and unlimited funds, our, mostly old cities, don't have space for that infrastructure..
Hydrogen pump is just that. A pump. That can be put where convenient.
They don't have to be where I can leave a car overnight. Because you simply go there and top up hydrogen in minutes. Same convenience as current carbon based fuels..

Everybody forgets one of most important weapons of WWII was jerry can..
First cars made were electric. Gasoline and diesels won on convenience, nothing else...
"Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly."
Dr. Richard W. Hamming
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #266 on: March 27, 2022, 12:02:00 am »
With many technical advances, the countries that start moving the first are usually the ones that end up lagging behind. Using hydrogen makes much more sense compared to investing huge amounts of money in -what basically is- a decentralised infrastructure. Sure you can put BEV charging point next to every parking space, but what will be their utilisation?
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #267 on: March 27, 2022, 12:02:14 am »
Quote
So you will realistically need to increase capacity by 2-3% per year to accommodate EVs assuming total fleet replacement by say 2050.

In 2030 (that's only 8 years away) you won't be able to buy new non-EV cars[1]. So the first question is what's the increase in the car population (because in 8 years time they will all be EVs)? And the answer appears to be 15%[2], so that's stuffed your 2-3% prediction to start with.

But that's (sorry to keep repeating this, but it is REALLY close) just 8 years away. If you were to buy a new car now would you buy a diesel? How about in 5 years? I think you'd be losing money hand over fist if you did that because the resale value would be rather low - with petro-prices going up and the stuff being phased out, why would anyone want to take on a non-EV vehicle after 2030?

How about buying a used car before then? There is a huge incentive to not get lumbered with the last of the petro-dinosaurs, and massive encouragement to go EV. Someone is going to be left holding the ball and I bet a lot of normal people (that is, not eco-warriors or flash gits) are going to try and not let it be them. EV owership is likely to increase at a higher rate than expected, I reckon.

----
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-takes-historic-step-towards-net-zero-with-end-of-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

[2] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/car-registrations

 

Online 2N3055

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7466
  • Country: hr
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #268 on: March 27, 2022, 12:51:28 am »
Quote
So you will realistically need to increase capacity by 2-3% per year to accommodate EVs assuming total fleet replacement by say 2050.

In 2030 (that's only 8 years away) you won't be able to buy new non-EV cars[1]. So the first question is what's the increase in the car population (because in 8 years time they will all be EVs)? And the answer appears to be 15%[2], so that's stuffed your 2-3% prediction to start with.

But that's (sorry to keep repeating this, but it is REALLY close) just 8 years away. If you were to buy a new car now would you buy a diesel? How about in 5 years? I think you'd be losing money hand over fist if you did that because the resale value would be rather low - with petro-prices going up and the stuff being phased out, why would anyone want to take on a non-EV vehicle after 2030?

How about buying a used car before then? There is a huge incentive to not get lumbered with the last of the petro-dinosaurs, and massive encouragement to go EV. Someone is going to be left holding the ball and I bet a lot of normal people (that is, not eco-warriors or flash gits) are going to try and not let it be them. EV owership is likely to increase at a higher rate than expected, I reckon.

----
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-takes-historic-step-towards-net-zero-with-end-of-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

[2] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/car-registrations

Those are pipe dreams. Crack pipe dreams. If they stop selling new cars that are not EV, and without infrastructure, people will not buy new cars as much as government would like. They will keep old clunkers until they ban them altogether, as in you cannot get on a street without EV. And if they do that before everything EV is ready and cheap enough, well, welcome to the revolution.... You think people will just give up the fact that someone took away cars from a half of population?
"Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly."
Dr. Richard W. Hamming
 
The following users thanked this post: nctnico, Miyuki

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #269 on: March 27, 2022, 01:31:46 am »
Quote
Those are pipe dreams. Crack pipe dreams.

Apparently not for many manufacturers who are going all-electric anyway: Jaguar, Bentley, General Motors, BMW Mini, Volvo, Ford (Europe), Volkswagen, Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, Renault, Audi, etc.
 

Offline MadScientist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 439
  • Country: 00
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #270 on: March 27, 2022, 07:21:15 am »
This argument sounds a lot like the proponents of Betamax arguing it’s merits long after the industry had basically abandoned the format.

Car companies are going BEV. End of discussion

Those arguing about EV issues have clearly never owned one. I have both a diesel van and an electric car. My EV has 275,000km on it and my van has 290,000km. In all the time Ive never either run out of diesel nor electricity and that’s the experience of vast majority of people

As for comments about not having a driveway , most people in dense housing situations , which proper town planning , don’t need cars , both my adult kids living in major European capitals don’t have cars , nor do their peer group. Both rent them as needed now and again.

The average car commute is 14 km per day. With current EV ranges approaching 500 km , that charging about once a fortnight , easily done at a local fast charging station. No need for a driveway and not to mention many workplaces have fitted charging points , PAYPAL HQ has 50 in its parking lot near me.

Electric motors   are fast , powerful , way better then the 19th century bag of bolts. Once you drive all electric you rarely go back.

Embrace it , it’s going to be all encompassing

Yeah, no..

First EU recognizes that there is no infrastructure to charge all vehicles even if you magically convert them to BEV. Large projects to do so are underway but will not be enough. Therefore there is strategic plan to run at least 30-40% of vehicles on fuel cells/hydrogen. Fuel cell/hydrogen is their strategic choice for range extension. There are EU commission decisions on this. Hydrogen is coming. You can buy fuel cell Toyota today.

If you live in city there is no charging on the street. And that is not gonna change soon.
Your solution to that is that I don't deserve to own a car?
Where I live rentals are prohibitively expensive, 4-5 days of rent equals a monthly payment to own one. So people just buy cars and don't drive them much..
Not everybody work where they live, and most cities in the world have bad public transport anywhere outside inner city limits. Or you have lines that go in such a way that you need to travel 10 km one way and then 10 km back to get to place that is 3km from you if cut across the town directly..
Most industrial parks are on city periphery and by Murphy always there where there is no direct line..

In order for these things to work cities should be much better planned than they are. Now they kind of, sort of, work for many, but not for everybody..
EV's are better tech. They are. Love them. And I can't have them.
If parking in front of my building had chargers I would get EV today. But in front of my building I'm lucky to find a parking space in a first place..

Not to mention that I can buy a decent fully working used gasoline car for 2000€.
Brave new world practically mean that many poor people won't be having a car anymore...

Manufacturers , town planners , environmentalists, and motoring pundits are not interested in people looking to buy cars for 2000€. Your opinion is not mainstream , thanks for your opinion but it’s statistically an outlier and while amusing , is not representative of what IS happening and WILL happen
EE's: We use silicon to make things  smaller!
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #271 on: March 27, 2022, 09:01:55 am »
Quote
Those are pipe dreams. Crack pipe dreams.

Apparently not for many manufacturers who are going all-electric anyway:
If you actually read the articles you linked to, you'd seen that it is not the end of the internal combustion engine. A hybrid is also an electric car in car maker's & government's speak. You need to keep in mind that the average CO2 output of cars needs to get lower and lower. At some point the only way to do this is hybrid technology in order to keep a car affordable (and usefull to those to whom a BEV is useless). So in the end the car makers aren't ending pure ICE cars, it is the EU rules that make non-hybrid ICE cars impossible to sell (without hefty fines).

Ofcourse the car makers add a thick layer of marketing wankery on top of it and give it a positive spin to make it look like they care about the environment. But in reality they don't. Several of the European car makers you listed where involved in a pact where they agreed not to compete on emissions and make their cars just good enough to pass regulations.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2022, 09:21:46 am by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Online 2N3055

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7466
  • Country: hr
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #272 on: March 27, 2022, 09:09:35 am »
Manufacturers , town planners , environmentalists, and motoring pundits are not interested in people looking to buy cars for 2000€. Your opinion is not mainstream , thanks for your opinion but it’s statistically an outlier and while amusing , is not representative of what IS happening and WILL happen

Is this one of those (in royal purple)?:
Yes I think best would be that anybody that cannot afford Tesla should be banned from the country and extradited to one of those poor countries. They like those loosers (that is why they have so much of them, isn't it?) so they don't spoil our day... We don't need them here, they are such a drag...

LOL.. Elitist much? You have no concept what word mainstream means in this context. If you want to apply green energy cars to anybody and everybody, that means not only minority number of of green enthusiasts and people that have more than enough money to buy anything and are limited only by choice. Wealthy green enthusiast can buy themselves a complete new lifestyle. What do you recon how many people in, for instance USA, are in such a group? 2% ? 5%?  :-//

Rest of them are not important.
We'll deport them or run over with a tank...  :-//


LOL buddy, reasoning like you shown is reason why revolutions happen...  |O

BEV with decent performance exist more than 15-20 years now. They show no significant penetration to market because:

- they are too expensive for majority of population
- they are not sustainable solution - if all of us get one we wouldn't be able to drive them because couldn't charge them. If you want to grow crops, you need to provide watering to the land before starting production. Simple as that.
- most people don really care about green energy. Many don't even think about it and there are many that think it is a conspiracy theory. Those two groups make up staggeringly high percentage of population. Those without any opinion would buy electric if it weren't more expensive. They don't care. They are not pro or contra anything, but simply cannot afford it. They are neck deep in rent and credits as they are and stretched thin as it is. 
"Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly."
Dr. Richard W. Hamming
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7334
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #273 on: March 27, 2022, 09:27:53 am »
Quote
So you will realistically need to increase capacity by 2-3% per year to accommodate EVs assuming total fleet replacement by say 2050.

In 2030 (that's only 8 years away) you won't be able to buy new non-EV cars[1]. So the first question is what's the increase in the car population (because in 8 years time they will all be EVs)? And the answer appears to be 15%[2], so that's stuffed your 2-3% prediction to start with.

Well no, petrol cars last 15 years with good maintenance, so even if it's only possible to buy an EV from 2030 or so (2032 in the UK, 2035 in most of Europe) there will still be petrol cars on the road until 2045-2050 or so.  I expect as we approach 2045 it will become even more difficult to use such a car,  there will be less access to fuel and probably outright bans in city centres and so on.  But they will exist.

This "power grid will be overloaded" statement just doesn't make sense.  At most we're looking at 20% additional demand for electricity*, but it will happen over about 15-20 years.  So even my 2-3% per year increase is way on the high side.  It's more likely closer to 1%.  Electricity consumption in the UK and the USA has actually fallen in the last decade.  Why do we believe there will be rolling blackouts?

Not to mention, EVs don't need to charge at 6pm, like when you might put the oven on, which creates a lot of demand. EVs can charge at 2am, parked on your driveway, when there's much less demand on the grid.  Grid operators love this - smooth, continuous demand is easier to manage than peaks in the evening.

*Calculation: 9000 miles pa for typical European driver. VW e-Golf or equivalent getting 3.5mi/kWh after charger losses.  2500kWh additional usage.  25 million cars in UK.  62.5TWh additional usage.  UK electricity generation for 2019: 323.7TWh.  ~19.3%.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2022, 09:31:06 am by tom66 »
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5155
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: “Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”
« Reply #274 on: March 27, 2022, 11:13:18 am »
Quote
So you will realistically need to increase capacity by 2-3% per year to accommodate EVs assuming total fleet replacement by say 2050.

In 2030 (that's only 8 years away) you won't be able to buy new non-EV cars[1]. So the first question is what's the increase in the car population (because in 8 years time they will all be EVs)? And the answer appears to be 15%[2], so that's stuffed your 2-3% prediction to start with.

Well no, petrol cars last 15 years with good maintenance, so even if it's only possible to buy an EV from 2030 or so (2032 in the UK, 2035 in most of Europe) there will still be petrol cars on the road until 2045-2050 or so.  I expect as we approach 2045 it will become even more difficult to use such a car,  there will be less access to fuel and probably outright bans in city centres and so on.  But they will exist.

This "power grid will be overloaded" statement just doesn't make sense.  At most we're looking at 20% additional demand for electricity*, but it will happen over about 15-20 years.  So even my 2-3% per year increase is way on the high side.  It's more likely closer to 1%.  Electricity consumption in the UK and the USA has actually fallen in the last decade.  Why do we believe there will be rolling blackouts?

Not to mention, EVs don't need to charge at 6pm, like when you might put the oven on, which creates a lot of demand. EVs can charge at 2am, parked on your driveway, when there's much less demand on the grid.  Grid operators love this - smooth, continuous demand is easier to manage than peaks in the evening.

*Calculation: 9000 miles pa for typical European driver. VW e-Golf or equivalent getting 3.5mi/kWh after charger losses.  2500kWh additional usage.  25 million cars in UK.  62.5TWh additional usage.  UK electricity generation for 2019: 323.7TWh.  ~19.3%.
If you carve out only private passenger transport (in a country with a high use of public transport) and ignore all other transport then that is true, around 15-20% above current generation. But the countrywide figures look much worse:
https://www.iea.org/sankey/#?c=United%20Kingdom&s=Final%20consumption
426TWh of energy used in road transport, with electric vehicles expected to be more efficient bringing that down by a factor of 3 or so (for direct BEV).
Against around 300TWh of generation annually makes an increase of almost 50% in generation being required if all road transport is moved to direct electricity use, worse if they go through an intermediate step as this thread considers.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf