@Coppice: In the end the economics matter and not the efficiency. If efficiency mattered then all our computers would have 99.5% efficient power supplies.
@Kjelt: the Hindenberg didn't catch fire due to H2 but due to the extremely flammable material they used for the outer layer. A similar goof-up like the Grenfell tower and the accident with the Apollo capsule catching fire (the latter due to the pure O2 atmosphere).
The theory that hydrogen was ignited by a static spark is the most widely accepted theory as determined by the official crash investigations.
Could it possibly have some issues beneath the attractive looking headline?
@Coppice: In the end the economics matter and not the efficiency. If efficiency mattered then all our computers would have 99.5% efficient power supplies.If you want to duck the issues, and not address them, why not keep your own counsel, rather than offer a meaningless response?
If you want a rational discussion why not take a page like https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html and critique it? Its from 2006, so some things may have changed, and it may contain some inaccurate figures. It does, however, look at the whole supply chain, which most articles avoid.
@Coppice: In the end the economics matter and not the efficiency. If efficiency mattered then all our computers would have 99.5% efficient power supplies.If you want to duck the issues, and not address them, why not keep your own counsel, rather than offer a meaningless response?
If you want a rational discussion why not take a page like https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html and critique it? Its from 2006, so some things may have changed, and it may contain some inaccurate figures. It does, however, look at the whole supply chain, which most articles avoid.I don't need to duck anything. The article only looks at efficiency and totally ignores the economics. In the real world the choosen solution will be driven by economics and not efficiency. The biggest challenge for electricity from solar and wind is storage and a significant part of the price per kWh will probably be driven by the storage costs.
What you are saying today about battery technology toady is exactly what was being said 100 years ago. In 100 years of battery powered vehicles not much has changed. Maybe it's time to look at steam power and ECE. Just over 100 years ago the leading and proven technology was stem power for well over 100 years. Maybe it's time to bring steam power back. How about a solar steam powered ECE using steam?
Seriously at this time our only chicices are human, fossil fuel or nucelar power for vehicles. Yes EVs are nice, but if in 100 years we haven't made major improvements on the batterey technoilgy don't expect somehting soon.
What's intereting is the range of EV cars today is not that much different than those of 100 years ago is not that much different. (Some exceptioons.)
Take a look at Jay Leno's garage. He has a Baker EV car. These are his words, not mine.
You can also read about the Baker EV cars.
Overview
The Baker years of 1900 to 1915 spanned the range when individual electric cars were popular. Because 1,000 lbs of batteries could only deliver 2-3 kw for 2-3 hours, the hp rating of these cars was low (2-4 hp) and their range was limited. Prior to 1900 was the era of commercial electric vehicles: taxis and trucks, many made by Electric Vehicle Company of Hartford Conn, which sold cars under the brand name Columbia. After 1915 there was a short lived period of a few high power, high performance electric drive cars where the battery was replaced by a combustion engine coupled to a dynamo. While this increased the available power by x10 or so, and solved the range problem too, it produced an expensive and heavy car. The most notable of these high power, electric drive cars was the Owen Magnetic, which had a unique
electromagnetic transmission designed by Justus Entz. Walter Baker acquired the patent rights to Entz drive train in 1912 and guided the Owen Magnetic into production in 1915 where it survived until 1922.
http://www.twinkletoesengineering.info/wells_auto_museum/baker_electric_technology.htm#Overview
Battery kwh comparison to modern electric cars
It's interesting to compare the kwh rating of this Baker battery with a modern electric car battert. The baker kwh rating (ideally) is 7.56 kwh = (21A x 6hr x 60V). The electric car with the largest capacity battery (as I write) is the Tesla model S, which has an 85 kwh battery. A more modest extended ranage electric car like the GM Volt has a 16 kwh battery. So the Baker's 1,000 lb (roughly) lead acid batteries had about 1/10th the kwh rating of the lithium ion battery which fills the floor of the Tesla Model S, or about half the kwh capacity of the more modest Volt battery.
QuoteBattery kwh comparison to modern electric cars
It's interesting to compare the kwh rating of this Baker battery with a modern electric car battert. The baker kwh rating (ideally) is 7.56 kwh = (21A x 6hr x 60V). The electric car with the largest capacity battery (as I write) is the Tesla model S, which has an 85 kwh battery. A more modest extended ranage electric car like the GM Volt has a 16 kwh battery. So the Baker's 1,000 lb (roughly) lead acid batteries had about 1/10th the kwh rating of the lithium ion battery which fills the floor of the Tesla Model S, or about half the kwh capacity of the more modest Volt battery.Interesting comparison.
EV's with 400 mile range which is generally accepted as needed for a breakthrough in consumer acceptance.
Long trips are rare, and the fast 25min charging stops add up to much less time than the weekly time at gas stations.
EV's with 400 mile range which is generally accepted as needed for a breakthrough in consumer acceptance.Nope.
That assumption is wrong.
EVs for the masses don't need 650km range when the daily trip is <60km.
Mass market needs proper fast charger networks, not range.
Long trips are rare, and the fast 25min charging stops add up to much less time than the weekly time at gas stations.
EV's with 400 mile range which is generally accepted as needed for a breakthrough in consumer acceptance.Nope.
That assumption is wrong.
No it is not and it is very easy to understand. Ask yourself why an ICE based car has a fuel tank which takes it around 800km? Why would that be? Is that some kind of arbitrary number? No, it is not. It is what the customers find acceptable. Plain and simple and there is no argueing around it.
EV's with 400 mile range which is generally accepted as needed for a breakthrough in consumer acceptance.Nope.
That assumption is wrong.No it is not and it is very easy to understand. Ask yourself why an ICE based car has a fuel tank which takes it around 800km? Why would that be? Is that some kind of arbitrary number? No, it is not. It is what the customers find acceptable. Plain and simple and there is no argueing around it.
People say you have to stop and eat anyway.
I don't disagree that range is an issue for many (but not all) people, but there are several logical errors in directly translating ICE range to EV range:
1) If you take 800 km as the range that people demand in an ICE car, it does not necessarily follow that they would demand the same range in an EV.
Going to a petrol station every day would be much more inconvenient than plugging in a car every night, so (for those EV users who are able to charge at home)
their maximum daily range would be a more reasonable number to use.
Additionally many ICEs do not get 800 km to a tank, mine gets around 230 miles / 370 km and many modern small cars are more like 500-550 km real-world miles per tank.
2) The marginal cost of increasing the size of an ICE tank is small, manufacturer's therefore have an incentive to make it large enough to appeal to customers who want long range
even if they are a small fraction of total customers. e.g. it may be the case that a majority of ICE customers would be happy with half the tank size,
but the manufacturer makes it bigger at low cost to sell a few % more cars.
3) Huge numbers of people do not fill their petrol tanks to the top, I see these people at petrol stations putting in £5 here and £10 there when they get to nearly-empty
There are people for whom EVs are not currently and may never be a good choice.
The combination of short daily trips and occasional long distance driving is more or less exactly what plug in hybrids are designed for.
I don't disagree that range is an issue for many (but not all) people, but there are several logical errors in directly translating ICE range to EV range:
1) If you take 800 km as the range that people demand in an ICE car, it does not necessarily follow that they would demand the same range in an EV.
Going to a petrol station every day would be much more inconvenient than plugging in a car every night, so (for those EV users who are able to charge at home)
their maximum daily range would be a more reasonable number to use.Is that why we had this wireless charging topic , because it was so easy to plug in your car every day?
Not too mention those who have to find a charging spot coming home in the parkinglot,
there is a trend of people moving to live in cities, which means apartment buildings.
When will this happen? It will be a continual process over the next 20-30 years.
For those interested in actual facts this IEA report has a lot of excellent information. First 2 figures below are from that report. Of course based on most of the responses in this thread, facts will be ignored.
far as relative ranges. Here's some facts as of 2016
When will this happen? It will be a continual process over the next 20-30 years.So we agree , EVs will not become mainstream anytime soon, thank you.
Average 90mph that is even worse than what I said with 250km, still not enough for mainstream usage.
I consider 20-30 years to be VERY soon. Nothing happens overnight.
EV's with 400 mile range which is generally accepted as needed for a breakthrough in consumer acceptance.Nope.
That assumption is wrong.No it is not and it is very easy to understand. Ask yourself why an ICE based car has a fuel tank which takes it around 800km? Why would that be? Is that some kind of arbitrary number? No, it is not. It is what the customers find acceptable. Plain and simple and there is no argueing around it.
Mr. Market would like a word with you, if you don't mind. Teslas with 300 mile range are flying off the shelves all around the globe.