Author Topic: the dark side of cobalt  (Read 15723 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2023, 02:16:04 pm »
Quote
And yet hydrogen fueling infrastructure is being rolled out further every year

Perhaps that's a mistake.
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9337
  • Country: fi
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2023, 02:19:21 pm »
Another real world observation is that many car manufacturers have hydrogen cars ready for production in large numbers

Just like they have been "ready for production" for the last 20 years.
 

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9337
  • Country: fi
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2023, 02:25:27 pm »
Quote
And yet hydrogen fueling infrastructure is being rolled out further every year

Perhaps that's a mistake.

It's really a Germany+NL thing only. Outside of these two countries, there are only a handful, and even the future plans show less than linear growth planned, with this rate it will take around 1000 years.

Maybe it can be called a mistake, but trying things out is something I can applaud, so I have nothing against it. Compare this to EV fast charging stations which had similar status somewhere in 2011, expected growth was more than linear and that growth was realized. And EVs back then sucked in range.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2023, 02:57:58 pm »
In the UK, Toyota had to fight to keep the hydrogen infrastructure in the North open.  Here's the current hydrogen infrastructure map for the UK:



Meanwhile, this is CCS DC charging:



It's pretty clear to me which one is winning the battle.   Especially when you consider hydrogen *requires* dedicated infrastructure to survive, EVs can charge on anything from an extension lead hanging out of a window to a rapid charger to a van that visits your car to charge it (a little absurd but it shows the versatility).

On AC charging infrastructure,  there is a way to go,  but London is full of street charging, and other cities in the UK are catching up (they need to be quicker, but that's politics.)  So you have some streets which have multiple lamp post or streetside chargers.  A lot of this infrastructure comes with demand, you don't need public charging if you have a driveway but want it if you visit. So as the general concentration of EVs increases the infrastructure follows.  There are huge number of EVs in London now, must be close to 1 in 20 based on my occasional visits.



« Last Edit: July 11, 2023, 03:00:24 pm by tom66 »
 
The following users thanked this post: DenzilPenberthy

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2275
  • Country: 00
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2023, 03:45:12 pm »
Like how VHS defeated Betamax...
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2023, 03:49:39 pm »
Quote
And yet hydrogen fueling infrastructure is being rolled out further every year

Perhaps that's a mistake.
Maybe it can be called a mistake, but trying things out is something I can applaud, so I have nothing against it.

Sure, I am one for trying things even in the face of thunderf00ts rants, but there's a difference between having a go to see how it might work, and committing the entire country to it.
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4931
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2023, 04:50:53 pm »
No, let's go there because this keeps getting brought up and it needs to be put down as a myth.  You don't have to be a zealot to be disappointed by people misrepresenting the situation.  Hydrogen is the new oil...? Okay... it's not an energy source so I'm not sure what you're going with there, you still need electricity or natural gas to make it.  It's a rather inefficient way to store energy, it has some interesting use cases where batteries can't compete on power/energy density but it's really not that interesting outside of those areas.  Seasonal energy storage is definitely an interesting use case - but use the electricity produced to charge cars!

Please demonstrate the maths for this claim. I work for a local authority as a sparks and I have some knowledge of the difficulties we're facing in our plan to change the fleet to full EV; our infrastructure alone will require a very large (>£100m) capital investment to be able to handle this, and that's for just a few hundred vehicles.

Average EV efficiency = ~3.5 miles per kWh (e.g. VW ID.3,  Hyundai Kona,  Tesla Model 3 size car)
Average UK driver = 6800 miles per year [1]
Average energy consumption per car per year = 9000 / 3.5 = ~2570kWh + 10% for charging losses so call it 2800kWh
Number of cars on UK roads = 33 million [2]
Total annual energy consumption for cars = 2800kWh * 33 million = 93.2 TWh
Annual UK electricity production = 333TWh [3]

Proportion is therefore 27.8%.  A little higher than I remembered, I quoted 15-20%, but let's call it within the margin of napkin math.  Average mileage has been falling precipitously over the last two decades so it may well end up closer to 20%.

As for the cost to your local authority, the cost of local infrastructure upgrades is not the same as overall generation capacity; there's no doubt that we'll need to increase capacity there e.g. for rapid chargers or businesses/LAs needing to charge their fleet every night.  But, that being said for passenger cars (which is my figure), a car doing 6,800 miles per year would need to charge for only about 4 hours per week.  With smart charging, and cars spending most of their time parked up somewhere, it's possible to distribute loads in areas where there are capacity constraints.  Look into Octopus Intelligent for an energy company experimenting with this at an early stage, dispatching cars as load for wind turbine overproduction for instance.

[1] https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/cheap-car-insurance/average-car-mileage-uk
[2] https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility#a1
[3] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094628/DUKES_2022_Chapter_5.pdf

Your figures lack a certain consistency and your arithmetic is terrible but for arguments' sake I'll use the most favourable ones.

The fact that you come to the conclusion that we only need to add another 27% or so generating capacity is a serious underestimate; you're ignoring commercial vehicles completely, and the fleets owned by various aspects of government, metropolitan councils especially, will need to be changed to EV before domestic users. This is in part due to their own CAZ and ULEZ rules.

But you also completely missed my point; it isn't the generating capacity that's going to be the biggest problem, it's the distribution system.

To take my own metropolitan council as an example, the depot sites where we will need to run the bin lorries from do not have the electrical capacity to charge them. It's not just a matter of upgrading the boards either, they need new supplies from the substations, between 2 to 3 times the capacity of the existing ones. That is hugely expensive, and it's going to have to happen everywhere, because I guarantee no council/local authority in the UK currently has depots with the capacity to charge EV fleets. Hope you enjoy your 20% Council Tax levy which will be needed to pay for it.
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 
The following users thanked this post: KaneTW

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #32 on: July 11, 2023, 05:01:19 pm »
Quote
And yet hydrogen fueling infrastructure is being rolled out further every year

Perhaps that's a mistake.
It would be a rather costly mistake which -according to some- is super obvious to avoid... And yet they keep on going. Only hindsight will tell in the end.

In the 1980's is was utterly clear that not building extra nuclear power plants and keep on burning coal was the way forward. Nowadays we know better; burning coal has a hefty price tag in terms of environmental and health impact.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2023, 05:10:21 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #33 on: July 11, 2023, 05:27:32 pm »
Quote
In the 1980's is was utterly clear that not building extra nuclear power plants and keep on burning coal was the way forward.

It was? In the 80's power generation probably wasn't on my radar, but I can't recall ever seeing the suggestion that coal (or oil) was the way to go. It's always been seen as a finite resource, and any reference to that has typically been grudging acknowledgement that it hasn't run out yet.

Nuclear has had a bad press and been in and out of favour, but coal has never been its replacement. At least, over here - your country may have been different.
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2023, 05:45:03 pm »
Quote
In the 1980's is was utterly clear that not building extra nuclear power plants and keep on burning coal was the way forward.

It was? In the 80's power generation probably wasn't on my radar, but I can't recall ever seeing the suggestion that coal (or oil) was the way to go. It's always been seen as a finite resource, and any reference to that has typically been grudging acknowledgement that it hasn't run out yet.

Nuclear has had a bad press and been in and out of favour, but coal has never been its replacement. At least, over here - your country may have been different.
Well, in the 80's there was no real alternative for nuclear other than coal (also because coal is super cheap as well). Not choosing for nuclear means -silently- choosing for coal. And in the 80's and early 90's coal (and oil) being finite or even a problem where it comes to CO2 emissions wasn't on the radar much. Just a bunch of tree huggers that went on about climate change. It is only after 2000 that climate change started to get traction with some politicians. The rest was just relieved 'we' solved acid rain.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2023, 06:18:49 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9337
  • Country: fi
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #35 on: July 11, 2023, 05:46:32 pm »
Quick recap of why hydrogen is not a practical power source for vehicles:

1) Very poor roundtrip efficiency, 30% that of battery EV. While crap efficiency is not problem during excess power generation, we are far from annual net excess, thus efficiency matters.
2) Expensive fuel cell system (large, even more expensive fuel cell, or smaller coupled with still expensive high-power battery pack); li-ion battery pack cost crossed the fuel cell system cost years ago, now being around $5000.
3) Need for distribution system comparable to that of gasoline distribution, with chicken-and-egg problem. (Compare this to EVs where the chicken-and-egg problem just went away a decade(!!) ago already, thanks to two factors, any-socket charging and general simplicity/low cost of fast charging stations)

Any single of such problems could be manageable, but all three together makes it a total no-go, which is exactly why it has not happened despite all predictions by certain non-technical people, and will not happen. It is worth noting there are no solutions to any of these; they are unsolvable*, something that can only be worked around / accepted as they are.

*) except for point 2, where theoretically a lower cost system could emerge, but don't hold your breath

If neither modern li-ion cells nor gasoline vehicles existed, then hydrogen would probably be a good idea for a fresh start, instead of fossil (or biofuel) gasoline/diesel ecosystem. But real world is not tabula rasa.

It is quite interesting we are still having this discussion in 2023 but I guess some people just will remain blindfolded, regardless of glaring evidence around their daily lives.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2023, 05:49:26 pm by Siwastaja »
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7045
  • Country: nl
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #36 on: July 11, 2023, 06:11:51 pm »
If we want to get fossil fuels out of transport the only hope is hydrogen fuel cells (or hydrogen combustion engines)

I used to think the same, but the cost projections for CO2 capture combined with the free near unlimited capacity methane synthesis reactors under ground make renewable methane something to consider too. It's not a great fuel for consumer cars either, but trucks already use liquid methane right now.
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7045
  • Country: nl
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #37 on: July 11, 2023, 06:14:30 pm »
large

SOFC can be made extremely high power density.

I'd like to see F1 move to liquid hydrogen and SOFC.

PS. there are no 10 MW range chargers for fast charging of trucks. Fast charging costs are going to rise as the slack goes out of the grid, fast charger stations will start needing storage (probably sodium batteries).
« Last Edit: July 11, 2023, 06:25:24 pm by Marco »
 

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9337
  • Country: fi
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #38 on: July 11, 2023, 06:40:30 pm »
PS. there are no 10 MW range chargers for fast charging of trucks. Fast charging costs are going to rise as the slack goes out of the grid, fast charger stations will start needing storage (probably sodium batteries).

You forget that the contender for hydrogen is not just battery, it's gasoline/diesel, using the existing infrastructure. Those long-haul semi trucks already are the pinnacle of fossil fuel engineering and run at significantly higher efficiency than most road vehicles, and as being heavy and expensive anyway, come with quite complex exhaust purification systems (like adblue, particulate filtering and whatnot), which also have some chances of working as the use cycle is non-stop driving in optimized process conditions.

These large vehicles are the last to be electrified. We don't need to convert them to either BEV or hydrogen EV.

Remember, while the general aim should be towards zero fossil fuel use, in reality it's not all-or-nothing. There are still many low-hanging fruits to be picked. These are passenger vehicles and smaller delivery trucks (BEV) and building heating systems (heatpumps).

In other words, making large changes for small gains makes absolutely no sense, when you can make smaller changes for larger gains.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #39 on: July 11, 2023, 06:46:52 pm »
PS. there are no 10 MW range chargers for fast charging of trucks. Fast charging costs are going to rise as the slack goes out of the grid, fast charger stations will start needing storage (probably sodium batteries).

If a truck can go 9 hours on one charge (90 kph * 10 hours = 810 km/~500 miles) then it doesn't need ultra fast charging to be available.  It is usually not legal for a driver to go longer than that (the UK allows 10 hours, but only twice in every week.)

A 500kWh battery can achieve that.  It's a big unit, probably would add about 2-4 tonnes to a vehicle payload.  EV trucks are allowed to weigh up to 46 tonnes in the UK to accommodate this. (Standard limit is 44 tonnes.)

But another option is catenary charging or charging in the mandatory 45 minute rest break at the 4.5 hour point.  (40 minutes at 500kW charging adds almost 60% to the battery pack.)

Unlike cars, trucks have the advantage of central logistics and hubs, with logistics managers planning most of their routes, so they will plan stop times and destinations would have overnight charging available (50kW DC charging would be fine in this case.)

Double crewing is more difficult but AFAIK that's rare in UK/EU, more common in the US.  Those truck drivers would probably prefer hydrogen.  The faster transport would be balanced against the higher cost of energy and likely higher operational cost of the vehicle.
 
The following users thanked this post: Siwastaja

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7045
  • Country: nl
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #40 on: July 11, 2023, 07:03:01 pm »
These large vehicles are the last to be electrified. We don't need to convert them to either BEV or hydrogen EV.

Even without the hard and fast rules for consumer cars, most new trucks in the EU will pretty much be forced to run on synth fuel or batteries from 2030 on ... there's no other way to reach a 45% emission reduction target otherwise.

2050 is very very close, there is no time to fuck around. Everything has to be solved at the same time.
 

Offline vad

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 518
  • Country: us
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #41 on: July 11, 2023, 07:06:22 pm »
Forget lithium-ion batteries; their energy density is laughable. Hydrogen, although better than batteries, still falls short compared to hydrocarbons in terms of energy density. Hydrocarbons serve as a superior and safer energy carrier.

Someone needs to develop an affordable method for converting CO2 back into hydrocarbons. The necessary ingredients CO2, the Sun's radiation and water, are abundant and easily accessible on Earth. All it takes is clever bioengineer who could create a tree that produces berries containing petroleum products, offering a sustainable and renewable source of such resource.

:)
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8135
  • Country: gb
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2023, 07:10:30 pm »
All it takes is clever bioengineer who could create a tree that produces berries containing petroleum products, offering a sustainable and renewable source of such resource.

I look forward to seeing that lightning strike.
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7045
  • Country: nl
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2023, 07:10:43 pm »
Renewable methane is the easiest to synthesize carbon based fuel, pump hydrogen and CO2 into an old gas field and wait. Liquid methane is already a common truck fuel.
 

Offline langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4857
  • Country: dk
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2023, 07:15:45 pm »
Renewable methane is the easiest to synthesize carbon based fuel, pump hydrogen and CO2 into an old gas field and wait. Liquid methane is already a common truck fuel.

adding few more C's makes it a lot easier to transport
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #45 on: July 11, 2023, 07:27:54 pm »
PS. there are no 10 MW range chargers for fast charging of trucks. Fast charging costs are going to rise as the slack goes out of the grid, fast charger stations will start needing storage (probably sodium batteries).

If a truck can go 9 hours on one charge (90 kph * 10 hours = 810 km/~500 miles) then it doesn't need ultra fast charging to be available.  It is usually not legal for a driver to go longer than that (the UK allows 10 hours, but only twice in every week.)

A 500kWh battery can achieve that.  It's a big unit, probably would add about 2-4 tonnes to a vehicle payload.  EV trucks are allowed to weigh up to 46 tonnes in the UK to accommodate this. (Standard limit is 44 tonnes.)

But another option is catenary charging or charging in the mandatory 45 minute rest break at the 4.5 hour point.  (40 minutes at 500kW charging adds almost 60% to the battery pack.)

Unlike cars, trucks have the advantage of central logistics and hubs, with logistics managers planning most of their routes, so they will plan stop times and destinations would have overnight charging available (50kW DC charging would be fine in this case.)
I suggest you take a roadtrip through France and Germany. Then you'll see your assumption is sooo wrong... I do these trips regulary and parking places overcrowded with trucks are very common. And I'm writing parking places, not gas stations! Ratio parking spaces to gas stations is about 5 to 1 so you'd need to install 50-ish fast charging points for trucks at 5 times more locations than there are gas stations. Keep in mind that long haul trucks have ranges up to 2400km intended to do cross-Europe roundtrips on one filling. If a truck driver stops to take a mandatory break (*), the person has to stop working. Not fill the truck or charge it because that counts as work time! Remember trucking is a cut-throat business so transport companies want to keep their people and material rolling as much as possible and not waste the driver's time.

* It is also very common to see truck drivers stop at the side of the road due to have driven the maximum amount of time. Traffic jams due to accidents are unpredictable after all. In Italy I've noticed that it is very common practise for truck drivers to stop along the highways (likely due to lack of parking spaces). How to charge a truck in such a place?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2023, 07:32:18 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8135
  • Country: gb
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #46 on: July 11, 2023, 07:29:42 pm »
If a truck driver stops to take a mandatory break (*), the person has to stop working. Not fill the truck or charge it because that counts as work time!

The act of connecting it is working - being present while it charges is not.
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, Siwastaja

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #47 on: July 11, 2023, 07:35:14 pm »
If a truck driver stops to take a mandatory break (*), the person has to stop working. Not fill the truck or charge it because that counts as work time!

The act of connecting it is working - being present while it charges is not.
Try to convince a judge of that. The law clearly stipulates that any activity that deals with the vehicle counts as work time. Fast charging is something you'd need to monitor and probably free up the spot when the truck is done charging.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8135
  • Country: gb
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #48 on: July 11, 2023, 07:37:06 pm »
If a truck driver stops to take a mandatory break (*), the person has to stop working. Not fill the truck or charge it because that counts as work time!

The act of connecting it is working - being present while it charges is not.
Try to convince a judge of that. The law clearly stipulates that any activity that deals with the vehicle counts as work time.

Sleeping in it requires operating the lights, cabin heater, entertainment system.. so they're always working, then? Or is there a provision for such in the law? Well then, add one for being present while the vehicle is autonomously charging its battery pack, requiring no human interaction or supervision.

Plug the thing in to charge and walk off to eat a burger, same bloody difference.
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7045
  • Country: nl
Re: the dark side of cobalt
« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2023, 08:09:38 pm »
adding few more C's makes it a lot easier to transport
Given that cryogenic methane is used already in trucking, I doubt they are going to pay for the convenience.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf