When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?

[Simon]

and how much do they cost, cmon stop short changing us, you want to make a point make it. i know batteries are borderline with break even but at the end of the day stuff costs what it will cost and in this country we have absolute certainty that our electricity will go up because it just does. Our national regulator just lifted the cap on prices and they go up every year, my battery system just gets more and more valuable.

[nctnico]

Actually I've posted all the calculations and sources a few pages back already.

[Simon]

Actually I've posted all the calculations and sources a few pages back already.

Yea where you said that the batteries loose 15% in charge discharge, the website say's >90% which is about what mine do. i got a quote and it was £10'000 but this is tesla. I bout a solax system for £4000 and it now stands a 9.6KW

[Simon]

Actually I've posted all the calculations and sources a few pages back already.

they state 10 year warranty, if it is only 2000 cycles (nothing on their website) it will hardly last 10 years, I know they are often optimistic but they are no fools, 10 years is more like 5000. at 5000 cycles and 13.5KW (not 13!) and a price of £10'000 that is unher 20p/KWh, 20/4 = 5. Where do you get battery storage on an industrial scale costing 4x20 = 80p/KWh? i am still waiting for you to back that up.

[nctnico]

Actually I've posted all the calculations and sources a few pages back already.

they state 10 year warranty, if it is only 2000 cycles (nothing on their website) it will hardly last 10 years, I know they are often optimistic but they are no fools, 10 years is more like 5000. at 5000 cycles and 13.5KW (not 13!) and a price of £10'000 that is unher 20p/KWh, 20/4 = 5. Where do you get battery storage on an industrial scale costing 4x20 = 80p/KWh? i am still waiting for you to back that up.

The report I linked to earlier has a clear overview of electricity storage costs of what is actually installed in the US:
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/batterystorage/pdf/battery_storage.pdf
As you can see the costs vary wildly.

[george80]

i already gave you my battery costs and told you that at 14p/KWh my battery breaks even.

And I showed with Figures you could and did not even attempt to challenge with your exaggeration and lies that your battery COST  you money but you stick your fingers in your ears and start yelling Na na na like a spoilt kid and try to convince us of more fantasy and make believe.

You want to piss money up the wall deluding yourself you are saving money or the environment, Go right ahead. Probably the reason you can't afford to buy a decent second hand EV you defend with your Cult like zealotness.
Do what you want but don't try and convince me of YOUR bullshit, Lies and exaggeration because I have done more homework and research on this than would allow you to ever get away with such Rubbish and Pipe dreams. 

I calculated your battery would have to store 26KWH a day to break even and said there is no way you have a battery that big even before you admitted it was only 10 Kwh nameplate with 8 useable. Even by your own fantasy, your 5000 Cycles is over 13 years payback time AT Full capacity which will never happen. You'd need 15 years bare minimum and by that time the degradation in your pack will mean the actualy useable capacity is down to 6 Kwh or less meaning just the PAYBACK, not the profit time is probably blowing out closer to 18 years or worse.  Same as every other battery out there and yours is not different except in some deluded imagination.

I could do the maths again but you would only deny the numbers because they would show you are the one bullshiting yourself.
Carry on saving all this money that exists only in your head but dont try and convince others not high on the green Koolaide you are doing anything but undermining the financial  position of yourself and that of your family.

[DougSpindler]

This paper (from 2003) claims a percentage of 32%. With the efficient ICE hybrids available nowadays this number can be much higher. It has to come from both sides: reducing fuel consumption on one hand and switching to renewables on the other.
For stationary electricity generation nuclear is a much better option.

nctnico would you stop with the lies and incorrect information about 3rd generation bio-fuels.  How many times and how many posters have to point out all of the flaws in your posts.  All of your posts are marketing materials and are projected goals.  Then when we show you those goals were not meet you still post the same marketing material as fact.

Why do you keep reposting the same lies over?  Are you thinking if you keep saying the same lie over and over it will change the science?

[Simon]

i already gave you my battery costs and told you that at 14p/KWh my battery breaks even.

And I showed with Figures you could and did not even attempt to challenge with your exaggeration and lies that your battery COST  you money but you stick your fingers in your ears and start yelling Na na na like a spoilt kid and try to convince us of more fantasy and make believe.

You want to piss money up the wall deluding yourself you are saving money or the environment, Go right ahead. Probably the reason you can't afford to buy a decent second hand EV you defend with your Cult like zealotness.
Do what you want but don't try and convince me of YOUR bullshit, Lies and exaggeration because I have done more homework and research on this than would allow you to ever get away with such Rubbish and Pipe dreams. 

I calculated your battery would have to store 26KWH a day to break even and said there is no way you have a battery that big even before you admitted it was only 10 Kwh nameplate with 8 useable. Even by your own fantasy, your 5000 Cycles is over 13 years payback time AT Full capacity which will never happen. You'd need 15 years bare minimum and by that time the degradation in your pack will mean the actualy useable capacity is down to 6 Kwh or less meaning just the PAYBACK, not the profit time is probably blowing out closer to 18 years or worse.  Same as every other battery out there and yours is not different except in some deluded imagination.

I could do the maths again but you would only deny the numbers because they would show you are the one bullshiting yourself.
Carry on saving all this money that exists only in your head but dont try and convince others not high on the green Koolaide you are doing anything but undermining the financial  position of yourself and that of your family.

And the cost of electricity continues to rise, just a few pages aco your mate was telling me my electricity was so expensive that my batteries were obviously viable. yes we go round in circles. Instead of admitting that there are 2 ways of doing things you have to prove that yours are overwhelminly right and other are stupid and expensive. i am sure that when the first cars came out every household immediately dashed out and bought one? no?, but they do now? I wonder how it is that i can afford a car at all. Maybe because I am not an early adopter and generations before me paid for the development.

[Simon]

This paper (from 2003) claims a percentage of 32%. With the efficient ICE hybrids available nowadays this number can be much higher. It has to come from both sides: reducing fuel consumption on one hand and switching to renewables on the other.
For stationary electricity generation nuclear is a much better option.

nctnico would you stop with the lies and incorrect information about 3rd generation bio-fuels.  How many times and how many posters have to point out all of the flaws in your posts.  All of your posts are marketing materials and are projected goals.  Then when we show you those goals were not meet you still post the same marketing material as fact.

Why do you keep reposting the same lies over?  Are you thinking if you keep saying the same lie over and over it will change the science?

Don't forget he has to change the subject too, that is why we go round in circles.

[nctnico]

This paper (from 2003) claims a percentage of 32%. With the efficient ICE hybrids available nowadays this number can be much higher. It has to come from both sides: reducing fuel consumption on one hand and switching to renewables on the other.
For stationary electricity generation nuclear is a much better option.

nctnico would you stop with the lies and incorrect information about 3rd generation bio-fuels.  How many times and how many posters have to point out all of the flaws in your posts.  All of your posts are marketing materials and are projected goals.

The fact you keep ignoring is that there are several factories up & running which are producing 3rd generation bio-fuels right now. The article I've linked to shows the production volumes as reported to the EPA. 3rd generation bio-fuels have left the laboratory a long time ago. It is just a matter of time. There is no IF but only WHEN. Again 3rd generation bio-fuels are a highly lucrative business to be in so companies (combined) have invested billions of dollars into getting the factories going. And the companies involved aren't garage start-ups but huge conglomerates. These people don't mess around with unicorn doo-doo.

[Simon]

This paper (from 2003) claims a percentage of 32%. With the efficient ICE hybrids available nowadays this number can be much higher. It has to come from both sides: reducing fuel consumption on one hand and switching to renewables on the other.
For stationary electricity generation nuclear is a much better option.

nctnico would you stop with the lies and incorrect information about 3rd generation bio-fuels.  How many times and how many posters have to point out all of the flaws in your posts.  All of your posts are marketing materials and are projected goals.

I know that and I have acknowldged that. But the fact you keep ignoring is that there are several factories up & running which are producing 3rd generation bio-fuels right now. 3rd generation bio-fuels have left the laboratory a long time ago. It is just a matter of time. There is no IF but only WHEN. Again 3rd generation bio-fuels are a highly lucrative business to be in so companies (combined) have invested billions of dollars into getting the factories going. And the companies involved aren't garage start-ups but huge conglomerates. These people don't mess around with unicorn doo-doo.

So bio fuels can become viable but nothing else can through several generations of development. Thank god for bio fuels you were not sceptical when at gen 1 they were useless, but you won't give any other technology the benefit of the doubt.

[nctnico]

I never said that. If you read a few pages back then you'll see I also see a good chance for hydrogen. For starters storing hydrogen is likely cheaper compared to batteries, the range of the car is better, the refueling time shorter (depending on the type of filling station) and (according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.

[Simon]

Hydrogen, you like hydrogen? i can't possibly think why you like hydrogen, oh let me guess it's because you can still run a ICE car on it. Frow what i read and according to wikipedia hydrogen production is 50% efficient just like our electricity generation that is already there as an infrastructure. where will you get the hydrogen from? surely not from a 25% efficient process to then burn in a 30% ICE?

[DougSpindler]

I never said that. If you read a few pages back then you'll see I also see a good chance for hydrogen. For starters storing hydrogen is likely cheaper compared to batteries, the range of the car is better, the refueling time shorter (depending on the type of filling station) and (according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.

nctnico PLEASE  STOP WITH THE LIES.

How many times do you need to be shown Hydrogen come from fossil fuel, electrolysis is wayyyyy to expensive.
You been shown how dangerous Hydrogen is to store.  It's colorless and odorless and when it meets up with an ignition source everyone will know it.  LZ 129 Hindenburg is just one example.

nctnico you really need to take a science class to realize just how silly some of your proposed ideas are.  For some reason you think the laws of physics and science can be broken. 

Dude, get educated in the subject matter before you talk about it.

[Simon]

OK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water now they reckon 70-80%, still not great. You still need to distribute it. So a new pumped gas infrastructure and if you use tankers you need to compress it.

[nctnico]

Hydrogen, you like hydrogen? i can't possibly think why you like hydrogen, oh let me guess it's because you can still run a ICE car on it. Frow what i read and according to wikipedia hydrogen production is 50% efficient just like our electricity generation that is already there as an infrastructure. where will you get the hydrogen from? surely not from a 25% efficient process to then burn in a 30% ICE?

No, hydrogen goes into a fuel cell which converts it into electricity. Look at the Toyota Mirai. Look at a hydrogen car as being an EV but you can fill the battery within 5 minutes and drive 400km.

And even if hydrogen production is 50% effective (and as you noticed this can be greatly improved), storing it requires a (compared to a battery) simple tank which doesn't deteriorate like batteries. All in all this leads to a lower cost.

Another advantage of hydrogen is that you can ship it. Think about having a large aray of solar panels and/or wind turbines. If you convert the electricity to hydrogen you can ship it around the world. This is not possible with electricity because the grid will be too expensive. This can be extremely interesting for countries with large deserts. Get the electricity to water and transport it as hydrogen from there.

BTW the reason I looked into hydrogen is because last summer I noticed that a lot of hydrogen pump had appeared along the highways in Germany. I don't think hydrogen will become a big thing quickly but it sure has good cards when looking at the cost and ease of use.

OK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water now they reckon 70-80%, still not great. You still need to distribute it. So a new pumped gas infrastructure and if you use tankers you need to compress it.

In the Netherlands they are investigating to use the existing gas distribution infrastructure to distrubute hydrogen.

[Simon]

It would need a very strong tank and still need distributing, like you just said, pumps. I'm not sure overall how efficient and effective it would be but it is one of those technologies that was always about to take over but strangely EV's with batteries are now becoming popular yet when i was a kid a battery EV was a pipe dream, we did not have LI-ION batteries and fuel cell vehicles were already being trialled so i don't know why it has taken so long that another so called useless technology has overtaken it.

[Simon]

OK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water now they reckon 70-80%, still not great. You still need to distribute it. So a new pumped gas infrastructure and if you use tankers you need to compress it.

In the Netherlands they are investigating to use the existing gas distribution infrastructure to distrubute hydrogen.

If you mix it all you can do is burn it. methane is a bit useless in a fuel cell. It will need an independent network.

[wraper]

Hydrogen, you like hydrogen? i can't possibly think why you like hydrogen, oh let me guess it's because you can still run a ICE car on it. Frow what i read and according to wikipedia hydrogen production is 50% efficient just like our electricity generation that is already there as an infrastructure. where will you get the hydrogen from? surely not from a 25% efficient process to then burn in a 30% ICE?

No, hydrogen goes into a fuel cell which converts it into electricity. Look at the Toyota Mirai. Look at a hydrogen car as being an EV but you can fill the battery within 5 minutes and drive 400km.

And even if hydrogen production is 50% effective (and as you noticed this can be greatly improved), storing it requires a (compared to a battery) simple tank which doesn't deteriorate like batteries. All in all this leads to a lower cost.

BTW the reason I looked into hydrogen is because last summer I noticed that a lot of hydrogen pump had appeared along the highways in Germany. I don't think hydrogen will become a big thing quickly but it sure has good cards when looking at the cost and ease of use.

You loose a lot of energy in hydrogen production and loose a lot of it again when converting it into electricity within fuel cells. Not to say fuel cells are very expensive, a lot due to containing precious metals. And they wear out way faster than lithium batteries.

[nctnico]

OK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water now they reckon 70-80%, still not great. You still need to distribute it. So a new pumped gas infrastructure and if you use tankers you need to compress it.

In the Netherlands they are investigating to use the existing gas distribution infrastructure to distrubute hydrogen.

If you mix it all you can do is burn it. methane is a bit useless in a fuel cell. It will need an independent network.

To clarify: the Dutch government has decided that we are not going to use natural gas in the future so the gas pipes will become defunct. Just like the natural gas I assume the hydrogen won't be under high pressure when entering the home.

@wraper: I'm not saying hydrogen is ready for prime time now. I do know that Toyota has made big advancements with their fuel cells when it comes to costs and durability.

[Simon]

well if they really con switch nationally to hydrogen then fine, you may as well fuel up at home  but you will need a home compressor to get it into your tank.

but i still do not see it as a serious competitor to electricity if we are switching to renewables. It could be a good way of storing power from renewables for heating when we have excess generation.

[DougSpindler]

well if they really con switch nationally to hydrogen then fine, you may as well fuel up at home  but you will need a home compressor to get it into your tank.

but i still do not see it as a serious competitor to electricity if we are switching to renewables. It could be a good way of storing power from renewables for heating when we have excess generation.

Simon nctnico is playing you.  He doesn't know what he's talking about.  Just research what he's saying the Dutch Government is doing and you find he's misrepresenting what they are doing.  The Dutch company that's working on 3rd generation bio-fuels isn't really working on biofuels as nctnico claims.  What they are offering is more efficient bailing system which farmers have to pay a licensing fee to use.  The bailing system is suppose to be more efficient.  In collecting more silage from the farmers it creates more biofuel.  But at the same time in collecting more silage means farmers have to apply more fertilizer since there is less biomass in the soil.
 
A previous poster who owns a e Toyota Mirai said it takes 20 minutes to fuel his hydrogen powered car.

But let's look at the truth about hydrogen cars.  Not mentioned in the video is the safety of hydrogen powered cars.  Hydrogen gas leaks can not be detected.  Or I should say they are detected after the fact with the fact being an enormous explosion or fire.

nctnico just seems to ignore the facts and still promotes hydrogen which in reality is a fossil fuel.

https://youtu.be/f7MzFfuNOtY



 

[DougSpindler]

The truth about biofuels nctnico ignores.

https://youtu.be/d3o_R1ASCA8

[Simon]

I'm happy to hear any argument, in the end we need the facts but I'm sure the subject will change right at the point we get to numbers.

[nctnico]

The Dutch company that's working on 3rd generation bio-fuels isn't really working on biofuels as nctnico claims.  What they are offering is more efficient bailing system which farmers have to pay a licensing fee to use.

This just proves you can't read or don't understand what you read. Why would a chemical company (DSM) which specialises in enzymes and yeast invent a new baler? It doesn't make any sense so you should be able to figure out that your claim must be wrong. And while I'm at it: you never ever came up with any sources which have a grounding in actual science and/or statistics.