I've had an idea: do the water electrolysis deep down in the Mariana Trench and get the H2 compressed for free. How about that? And you get chlorine too, for free.
Not a chance. At $0.075/kWh and at most 12 kWh to fill up a completely empty Volt battery overnight, it will not be an issue. You continue to show that you really don’t have a clue about the cost of driving an EV.Well, you don't seem to have a clue that your electricity is extremely (unlikely) cheap. I'm paying $0.30 per kWh against the current dollar/euro exchange rate if I could charge at home and that price is similar across Europe on average. When charging at a public charging points prices easely rise up to $0.70 per kWh over here. At these prices an EV makes no sense compared to an efficient ICE car.
The general claim for using Hydrogen is that you can fill it just as fast as an ICE car. For some reason not all hydrogen fueling stations can supply hydrogen fast so fueling takes longer (still the time is much shorter than charging an EV for the same range). I don't know how and why some hydrogen fueling stations are slow and others are fast and how to recognise them. As more hydrogen fueling stations will be built this should become more clear over time.
Whether hydrogen is more expensive or not depends on the fuel prices. In the Netherlands the price of hydrogen is on par with normal fuel prices. My current car is more expensive to run on fuel compared to hydrogen. A more efficient car will be cheaper to run.
And sure hydrogen comes from fossil fuels just like electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels. Hydrogen and batteries are energy carriers. It is as green as the source of the energy. But that is not a good reason to disqualify either. You have to start somewhere and EVs and hydrogen will probably emit lots of CO2 until nuclear power takes over from coal & gas.
BTW next year Electriq~Fuel will start a pilot project in the Netherlands. Again a website with lots of marketing to emphasize on safety: https://www.electriq.com/technology/ I don't quite trust the '60% water' claim but I have read about other systems which bind hydrogen to form a chemical compound. The hydrogen is released when needed. The advantage is that this system doesn't need high pressure vessels to store the hydrogen. I've come across similar systems so the idea isn't novel. It is like fueling a car with liquid (charged) electrolyte. Once the hydrogen is released the remaining chemical compound is to be recycled. Don't ask me about efficiency numbers. I have none and it seems to me this technology is too new to dig into deeply.
https://www.electriq.com/technology/ I don't quite trust the '60% water' claim but I have read about other systems which bind hydrogen to form a chemical compound.
The general claim for using Hydrogen is that you can fill it just as fast as an ICE car. For some reason not all hydrogen fueling stations can supply hydrogen fast so fueling takes longer (still the time is much shorter than charging an EV for the same range). I don't know how and why some hydrogen fueling stations are slow and others are fast and how to recognise them. As more hydrogen fueling stations will be built this should become more clear over time.
Whether hydrogen is more expensive or not depends on the fuel prices. In the Netherlands the price of hydrogen is on par with normal fuel prices. My current car is more expensive to run on fuel compared to hydrogen. A more efficient car will be cheaper to run.
And sure hydrogen comes from fossil fuels just like electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels. Hydrogen and batteries are energy carriers. It is as green as the source of the energy. But that is not a good reason to disqualify either. You have to start somewhere and EVs and hydrogen will probably emit lots of CO2 until nuclear power takes over from coal & gas.
BTW next year Electriq~Fuel will start a pilot project in the Netherlands. Again a website with lots of marketing to emphasize on safety: https://www.electriq.com/technology/ I don't quite trust the '60% water' claim but I have read about other systems which bind hydrogen to form a chemical compound. The hydrogen is released when needed. The advantage is that this system doesn't need high pressure vessels to store the hydrogen. I've come across similar systems so the idea isn't novel. It is like fueling a car with liquid (charged) electrolyte. Once the hydrogen is released the remaining chemical compound is to be recycled. Don't ask me about efficiency numbers. I have none and it seems to me this technology is too new to dig into deeply.
Another Theranos? Sure sounds like it. This is laughable. You do realize that an internal combustion engine extracts hydrogen from the fuel to power the vehicle and create electricity for the car. The CEO says no studies are needed because we say we have actual performance showing it works. In other words "Trust Us".
nctninco I know you say you don't drink, smoke dope, use drugs are believe in applying critical thinking skills. So how can your mind be so distorted to believe in the claims this company is making without providing any proof except for their web site and press releases.
The hydrogen generation isn't the big problem, it's recycling the sodium metaborate without wasting a metric fuckton of energy.
To take a car 100km you'll need 1kg of hydrogen. That translates to 25 liters of liquid per 100km. 500km of range would translate to 125 liters. Say that is 150kg to round it up. An EV would need 125kWh to cover 500km which translates to a battery with a mass of over 400kg.
When my oldest turns 16 in a little over 3 years, I plan to give him my Volt and get an EV pick up. Then I can sell my Toyota Tundra, the last pure ICE vehicle I’ll likely ever own.Just be prepared that your kid's usage scenarios and willingness to put up the limitations of an EV may not match yours... You might end up selling the Volt and keeping the Tundra.
Volt is a discontinued car.
Here in BC the fuel costs of a BEV are 1/7th that of the compatible ICE (given today's electricity/gasoline price), so the incentive is pretty high.
I'd like to see real world verifyable figures to support that.
Seen so many claims of this when it does not add up. A favourite is to quote the cost of Filling an ICE and an EV and claiming one is cheaper than the other but not taking into account the ICE goes 4-6x further than the EV.
Tesla had a page on it's site here showing it's car was cheaper to run over 1500KM. Typically with their endless bullshit and lies, the calculation took into account the 400KWH of free supercharging that came with every new Vehicle. The first 1500Km may have been cheaper but the next and every subsequent 1500km was far from cheap at all.
I don't trust any claims made by the greenwashed because they have proven to exaggerate and lie either by omission or otherwise on so many things in their desperation to push their cult and turn everyone to converts.
In any case, I see any EV price advantage to be short lived.
As more EV's put more pressure on grids around the world that will need to be upgraded and have billions spent on infrastructure the price of power WILL go up as it continues to do here at an economic crippling rate.
At the same time as fuel sales go down, the cartels will start leveling the playing field and reducing the now artificially inflated cost of fuel.
Anyone that thinks the oil industry is just going to sit on it's arse and seen their profits go down the gurgler without fighting it is a moron.
The scenarios are always painted as nice and straight forward but reality is anything but.
george80 you are absolutely correct. I live in California and our power company by the end of this year will have everyone on a Time of Use Billing which will greatly complicate EV. Depending on the rate plan a kWhr ranges from $0.12 to $0.87. Will people have to "fill-up" when the power company is charging $0.87 kWhr? They sure would if they don't want to walk home. For a Tesla this would be over twice if not close to three times what it would cost to fuel and ICE car with gasoline.
Now if one has solar panels and can sell electricity to the power company this changes everything as you can sell kHrs to the power company at $0.87kWhr and then buy back those kWhrs for only $0.12. But then one has to factor in the $35,000 Tesla/Solar City charges for the solar panels.
As someone who owns an electric car in California the annual cost difference between "fueling" an EV and an ICE is a difference of a few hundred dollars. And as electricity rates increase it's going to be even less.
The big advantage with EVs other than BSing people into thinking they are doing something "good" for the planet is they cause the pollution in someone else's backyard. There is no cost "real" cost savings.
When my oldest turns 16 in a little over 3 years, I plan to give him my Volt and get an EV pick up. Then I can sell my Toyota Tundra, the last pure ICE vehicle I’ll likely ever own.Just be prepared that your kid's usage scenarios and willingness to put up the limitations of an EV may not match yours... You might end up selling the Volt and keeping the Tundra.Ha. When I was 16 I would have LOVED to have a car that I could refill for 'free" by just plugging it in at my parents house. My main limitation driving at that age was not having money to buy gasoline.I'm quite sure you'll put a lock on the outlet if your kid starts to run the electricity bill up to hundreds of dollars extra per month.
Not a chance. At $0.075/kWh and at most 12 kWh to fill up a completely empty Volt battery overnight, it will not be an issue. You continue to show that you really don’t have a clue about the cost of driving an EV.
The solution is to have batteries with you solar system.
Here in BC the fuel costs of a BEV are 1/7th that of the compatible ICE (given today's electricity/gasoline price), so the incentive is pretty high.
I'd like to see real world verifyable figures to support that.
Seen so many claims of this when it does not add up. A favourite is to quote the cost of Filling an ICE and an EV and claiming one is cheaper than the other but not taking into account the ICE goes 4-6x further than the EV.
Tesla had a page on it's site here showing it's car was cheaper to run over 1500KM. Typically with their endless bullshit and lies, the calculation took into account the 400KWH of free supercharging that came with every new Vehicle. The first 1500Km may have been cheaper but the next and every subsequent 1500km was far from cheap at all.
I don't trust any claims made by the greenwashed because they have proven to exaggerate and lie either by omission or otherwise on so many things in their desperation to push their cult and turn everyone to converts.
In any case, I see any EV price advantage to be short lived.
As more EV's put more pressure on grids around the world that will need to be upgraded and have billions spent on infrastructure the price of power WILL go up as it continues to do here at an economic crippling rate.
At the same time as fuel sales go down, the cartels will start leveling the playing field and reducing the now artificially inflated cost of fuel.
Anyone that thinks the oil industry is just going to sit on it's arse and seen their profits go down the gurgler without fighting it is a moron.
The scenarios are always painted as nice and straight forward but reality is anything but.
george80 you are absolutely correct. I live in California and our power company by the end of this year will have everyone on a Time of Use Billing which will greatly complicate EV. Depending on the rate plan a kWhr ranges from $0.12 to $0.87. Will people have to "fill-up" when the power company is charging $0.87 kWhr? They sure would if they don't want to walk home. For a Tesla this would be over twice if not close to three times what it would cost to fuel and ICE car with gasoline.
Now if one has solar panels and can sell electricity to the power company this changes everything as you can sell kHrs to the power company at $0.87kWhr and then buy back those kWhrs for only $0.12. But then one has to factor in the $35,000 Tesla/Solar City charges for the solar panels.
As someone who owns an electric car in California the annual cost difference between "fueling" an EV and an ICE is a difference of a few hundred dollars. And as electricity rates increase it's going to be even less.
The big advantage with EVs other than BSing people into thinking they are doing something "good" for the planet is they cause the pollution in someone else's backyard. There is no cost "real" cost savings.The reason we have TOD billing is solar. The low rates happen during the day and after 9 pm at night. The high rates are from 6 to 9 pm.
The solution is to have batteries with you solar system.
One would be a fool to buy batteries.
One would be a fool to buy batteries.
THAT is the correct/ logical/ realistic/ truthful answer.
And the only one.
We don't have such a beneficial power pricing scheme in Oz but no matter where you are in the world from what I have seen, there is NO where in the world batteries make any sense right now nor will do for the forseeable future.
The price would have to be about 1/3rd of what they are now to get in the ball park no matter what you pay for power.
Some places have batterys than others but where the batterys are cheaper the power is too canceling out any ROI advantage.
I have seen all sorts of convoluted, complicated and green washed calculations to try and prove otherwise but the equations is very simple.
At 100% utilization 100% of the time, they simply cannot save enough power for it's value to repay it's cost in a valid time frame being the lifetime of the battery. The exception maybe a DIY system using forklift packs or the like but certainly no Powerbore or similar plug and play type battery has any valid Financial benefit.
Oh yeah, we can spin doctor the argument as well and say I bought one for blackout power which,
1. is still not saving power and is a totaly different scenario, and,
2, You are a fool for paying far too much for an overpriced solution when there are far better and cheaper alternatives.
If you buy a battery to "save the environment", Well I won't nominate fitting and applicable names but lets just say you are either a product or sucker of the PC greenwashed.
I bought 3 Diesel engines this week and 2 Generator heads. All working or brand new. $300 all up. One needs a new belt, the other would need the head and the engine mounted and hooked up. Lets play devils advocate and call it $200 to make a nice Figure of $500. Where a battery lasts hours, I can run everything and lot more than a battery can till the cows come home..... in 6 months time. And I still have a spare engine.
To take a car 100km you'll need 1kg of hydrogen. That translates to 25 liters of liquid per 100km. 500km of range would translate to 125 liters. Say that is 150kg to round it up. An EV would need 125kWh to cover 500km which translates to a battery with a mass of over 400kg.
Ahhh, except you neglected to factor in the containment vessel required to actually hold said hydrogen in the vehicle...
This is where it becomes increasingly impractical.
Zinc air is being designed for grid storage, the energy density for a portable optimized design wouldn't really be comparable. Theoretical energy density leaves plenty of room for improvement.
[...] Dave a few years ago made a video on the heat loss with lead acid batteries. During charging 20% of the electricity used to charge the battery is lost as heat. When discharging there's a 20% loss to heat. So between charging and discharging one loses 40% to heat. [...]
[...] Dave a few years ago made a video on the heat loss with lead acid batteries. During charging 20% of the electricity used to charge the battery is lost as heat. When discharging there's a 20% loss to heat. So between charging and discharging one loses 40% to heat. [...]
For the third time Doug, please, where is that video? Have you got the url?
The solution is to have batteries with you solar system.
The soloution to what exactly?
Please make the answer a realistic one and not some green washed flawed rubbish theory.
The solution is to have batteries with you solar system.
The soloution to what exactly?
Please make the answer a realistic one and not some green washed flawed rubbish theory.Store solar energy in the day and then when you need it on peak demand use the batteries. People do this all the time.
Why are you insulting me?
This stuff is commercially available.
https://solartechonline.com/home-energy-storage/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA-8PjBRCWARIsADc18TI1WHTceCCSdr0U6Jt1fFtotZRiXxGmFRnT2b39E3_6pyret-VBwHMaAgvtEALw_wcB