When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?

[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.

[DougSpindler]

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.

I'm like you.  When nctnico posted about biofuels I looked at the links he provided.  Many were from years ago.  They were making projections about the future of biofuels.  Well here we are in the future and they failed to meet or even come close to what was claimed.

Since nctnico only provides marketing hype and no facts I will do that for you to show you he's just been misleading everyone.     

DSM is the Dutch biofuel company he keep talking about.  They developed something called the EZ Bale system. 
These are quotes from the links he provided.


"POET-DSM developed its innovative EZ Bale system."

"To make it easier for farmers in the surrounding area to collect EZ Bales, POET-DSM has worked with more than a dozen manufacturers of harvest equipment, which include AGCO, Case IH, Claas, Demco, Fantini, John Deere, Ken's Truck & Trailer, Milstak, Redekop, Stinger, SmithCo, Unverferth, Vermeer, and Wildcat. Local farmers are now under contract to deliver the EZ Bales, which also help them manage their crop residue and decrease tillage." 

This is not about biofuels as nctnico says.  It's about a system called EZ Bale and the licensing of EX Bale technology.

I will let the facts speak for themselves instead of the false information nctnico keeps posting.



http://poet-dsm.com/resources/docs/Stover-Bale-vs-EZ-Bale.pdf

[nctnico]

See, you can't read. It says POET-DSM invented the easy baler. Not DSM! POET-DSM is a joint venture where DSM brings in the expertise on yeast & enzymes (being a chemical company) and POET has expertise in producing ethanol and dealing with farmers to get the feedstock.

[DougSpindler]

See, you can't read. It says POET-DSM invented the easy baler. Not DSM! POET-DSM is a joint venture where DSM brings in the expertise on yeast & enzymes (being a chemical company) and POET has expertise in producing ethanol and dealing with farmers to get the feedstock.

That is what you believe.  What everyone is looking for from you is proof. 

What you saying makes no sense.

"POET, LLC based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is one of the world's largest ethanol producers, with a 25-year history as an American renewable fuel pioneer."  Why would a Dutch company come to the United States not use their own product in their own country? 

Where does it say DSM is in the biofuels business? 

Royal DSM, a global science-based company active in health, nutrition and materials, has a decades-long legacy of driving environmental progress and technological advancement.

I know you say you don't use critical thinking skills, but try when you read the following from DSM.  Do you see the world license?  If POET is an ethanol producers and DSM is in the material business doesn't it make sense POET technology is in ethanol production?  And DSM is in materials? 

POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels intends to globally license an integrated technology package that converts corn crop residue to cellulosic bio-ethanol. 

All you have to do is provide some evidence to support your claim.  So far you have not.   This is why no one trusts anything you have to say.

[nctnico]

You are just repeating what I wrote. POET does ethanol, DSM does science. Combined they are POET-DSM and do 3rd generation bio-fuels.
What is your question? What don't you understand from all the materials I posted?

[Kjelt]

Hydrogen has too many disadvantages. They are now in our country looking at formic acid, it has many advantages. A few buses are currently running on it.

[nctnico]

Hydrogen has too many disadvantages. They are now in our country looking at formic acid, it has many advantages. A few buses are currently running on it.

Interesting. It seems like one of many ways to bind hydrogen into a liquid which is then easy to store and transport. However, it still is hydrogen 

[Kjelt]

Correct although they are looking for alternatives to produce it.
Electrolysis for hydrogen is not only dangerous but also costs too much energy so not viable IMO for the coming years.
The other way to produce hydrogen is dirty with steaming natural gas (dont know the english term) which is so cheap that no capatilistic company is looking further. So that remains a big problem

Another reason I am afaid ice's will remain is that petrol is only a small byproduct for the usage of crude oil. In the begin years of oil they even threw it away because they had no use for it. So not only do we as humankind need to abandon petrol and diesel cars, no also all the other products which are too many to just find an alternative.
Almost all organic compounds are derived from crude oil, at least half of our medicins are currently made from a product of crude oil.
So no more lubrication products, no more air planes, no more plastick, no more asphalt for roads no more makeup, no more fuel for ships and you can continue.

So the real question we have to solve is, how can we as mankind continue without crude oil ?

[george80]

And the cost of electricity continues to rise,

It would have to more than quadrupole to make your battery even in the ballpark of breaking even.
While electricity prices rise, your battery is wearing out and holding less power, lets not forget that detail.

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.

       WTF has this got to do with the fact your battery is costing you a lot of money rather than saving you a thing??   

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

   The hypocrisy is incredible, just incredible.

I am happy to be corrected.

 

  BWAHAHAHAHA!   Funniest thing in this whole thread by a mile!!   
Now that is QUALITY comedy right there!! 

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.

Wow!, You are spot on there, you changed the subject straight away twice now when I brought up numbers.  Nothing like being able to tell other people things based on personal experience and putting things into practice I always say!

Talk about Zero credibility factor!
I'd make sure I had some credibility and was not making  a hypocrite of myself in doing the things I accuse others of before directing any complaints at other people.... But then again being a hypocrite doesn't matter to some as clearly evidenced here. 

[george80]

Another reason I am afaid ice's will remain is that petrol is only a small byproduct for the usage of crude oil. In the begin years of oil they even threw it away because they had no use for it. So not only do we as humankind need to abandon petrol and diesel cars, no also all the other products which are too many to just find an alternative.
Almost all organic compounds are derived from crude oil, at least half of our medicins are currently made from a product of crude oil.
So no more lubrication products, no more air planes, no more plastick, no more asphalt for roads no more makeup, no more fuel for ships and you can continue.

So the real question we have to solve is, how can we as mankind continue without crude oil ?

Another good point.

There are so many things that are derived from oil that people don't recognise. Fertiliser being a big one, plastics being another and there are a myriad more . Tyres are made from oil.
Another inconvenient truth is if you take oil out the picture, you can't build EV's either. They are just as dependent on oil as ICE's in their production.

 There is no way they are going to suddenly find replacements for all of these things so while they are pulling  oil out the ground for all these other essential uses, there is no way they are not going to maximize the returns on their investment by selling off every bit of it they can.

It's also another reason why  if and when EV's start Cutting into the sales of Petrol and Diesel, they will just lower the price to make it more competitive and push the advantages of IC vehicles over EV's.
The other thing is they will still be needing to crack fuel for Planes, lube oil and other uses like diesel that even if there are electric trucks, things like farm machinery, earth moving plant and other things are oing to be 50 years away if ever converted to electric.
How are you going to charge up a Bulldozer that would need 1000's of KWH of battery when you are cutting a new highway through the back of buggery and the nearest power is 20+ Miles away in a small town with a small feeder anyway? Hook them up to a big Diesel generator to recharge?   

Oil is Going NOWHERE despite all the green hype.

Might be less cars on the road using it but over all..... Drop in the bucket.

[coppice]

Hydrogen has too many disadvantages. They are now in our country looking at formic acid, it has many advantages. A few buses are currently running on it.

I'm surprised they've only just tried methanoic/formic acid fuel cells for transport. Small fuel cells of this type have existed for quite a while. Are there technical problems with scaling them?

[apis]

Anyway, couldn't help to notice that (as they note in the blog post):
"High nuclear countries France, Sweden and Finland have among the lowest industrial and domestic electricity prices."
So much for nuclear power being too expensive...

The new plant they are building here is promised a higher wholesale price than what is paid now. The project is late, will be late and the price is constantly increasing. Apparently renewables would be half the price so money left for storage, that was before they anounced the price was going up.

In principle nuclear looks good, the problem i have with nuclear is people. People in power are usually ignorant of scientific and engineering matters and they always want to make more money. That is a recipe for disaster. The disposal of the waste is also a problem as the government has to get involved with planning permissions and no government wants to upset voters so the can is kicked down the road.

While I'm inclined to agree with that in theory, so far there has actually only been one civilian accident where people were hurt that was caused by ignorance/incompetence (Chernobyl). You could argue Tepco should have planed for the possibility of an enormous tsunami at Fukushima but hindsight is 20/20. Even so, if you divide all the damage by the amount of electricity produced by nuclear, nuclear actually comes out on top. It's one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy there is, on the same level as solar and wind power. Not in theory, in practice, if you look at all the accumulated data from the over 70 years that the world has been using nuclear power (including Fukushima and Chernobyl). It used to be cheap, but new plants get more and more expensive, since politicians keep demanding more and more safety features, regulation, and advance payment for waste handling, etc, etc. That would be great as long as they apply the same logic to other forms of electricity production (especially fossil fuels) but they generally do not. I'm fine with going primarily for solar (or wind, although big wind farms are ugly), but solar can't replace nuclear and coal/gas completely, since solar only produce electricity when then sun shine. Large scale grid storage might become a reality in a few years (or it might not) but until it's available it's not an option. So when governments have to choose between coal/gas or nuclear right now they should definitely go for nuclear. Even people who doesn't believe in global warming should agree since coal produce air-pollution which is literally killing millions every year. If one look at the health and environmental damages from coal plants it makes accidents like Chernobyl look trivial, then add to that climate change. The anti-nuclear crowd are in reality lobbying for coal and gas whether they realise it or not, and any rational person should realise that is by far the worst option today.

[coppice]

You could argue Tepco should have planed for the possibility of an enormous tsunami at Fukushima but hindsight is 20/20.

The thing that causes me the most concern about nuclear safety is having worked with people who's main activity was conducting FMEA (failure mode and effect analysis) studies for the nuclear industry. The were really happy to gloss over all sorts of potential problems in the studies they did for us, and I had to flesh out the list of identified failure modes when they had finished. I have no doubt they were just as cavalier in their nuclear work. Every time there has been a nuclear accident (there have been a lot more than just the Chernobyl, Fukushima and Dounreay incidents, which were perhaps the only ones to result in a serious toxic release to the environment), any information that reaches the public shows the problem resulted from the most elementary dumb mistakes in the design or operating practices for the system. Fukushima is far from alone in having vital pumping equipment at a low point in the system where water damage is an accident just waiting to happen.

Nuclear systems can easily be made a lot safer than they are today, if somebody actually cares enough. Its seldom a cost issue. Its mostly about being bothered to do a good job.

[apis]

(according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.

That is nonsense. The infrastructure required for hydrogen would be absolutely enormous. You need to not only produce the hydrogen, cool it and compress it, you also need to ship it around the world using trucks and boats. In the future there might be pipelines that can handle hydrogen but they don't exist today because hydrogen is such a technically difficult gas to deal with. You get efficiency losses during production and it takes energy to cool, compress and transport, and then finally you need to convert it back into electricity by the end user (further losses). Well-to-wheels efficiency will be abysmal.  No matter how expensive you think the electric grid is, it's still just cables that once built requires little maintenance. A hydrogen infrastructure would require thousands of people doing nothing but maintaining it just to keep the hydrogen flowing (workers at production/compression facilities, specially educated drivers and technicians at refueling stations, etc). An electric cable will always be less expensive in the long run than taking a detour via hydrogen and shipping it around with trucks (or pipelines).

Maybe hydrogen might be a better alternative than bio-fuels for certain industries where battery electric isn't a viable alternative yet (like aircraft), but I haven't hear anyone talk about that. It will probably be a lot easier to adopt existing engines to work with biodiesel than hydrogen.

[nctnico]

(according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.

That is nonsense. The infrastructure required for hydrogen would be absolutely enormous.

Well, this was in a report from 2005 or so. It makes a lot of sense to me because you don't need to have an infrastructure which reaches to each and every car. In the Netherlands it is estimated that it will take 3 to 4 million charging points for EVs to be usefull. That is a charging point for every two cars. With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.

[coppice]

With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.

Each car would be at the filling station for a lot longer than they currently are, as fueling with hydrogen is fairly slow. The equipment to store and process hydrogen requires a lot more space than storing gasoline, so existing gas station space would be able to support far fewer filling points. So, the existing gas station sites would need to be supplemented by a considerable amount of additional filling station space to service a similar sized fleet of cars.

[nctnico]

With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.

Each car would be at the filling station for a lot longer than they currently are, as fueling with hydrogen is fairly slow. The equipment to store and process hydrogen requires a lot more space than storing gasoline, so existing gas station space would be able to support far fewer filling points. So, the existing gas station sites would need to be supplemented by a considerable amount of additional filling station space to service a similar sized fleet of cars.

That does not match with what I've seen in Germany. The hydrogen filling stations are the same size as a normal fuel pump. I'm also surprised that filling hydrogen is slow according to some people while others are claiming filling with hydrogen can be done in 5 minutes. I suspect it depends on what kind of filling station is used. Maybe the early ones are slow. If space is an issue it would be foolish to install a slow filling station.

Edit: it seems there are different kinds of hydrogen filling stations. The 'standard fill' seem to be the slow ones.

[coppice]

With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.

Each car would be at the filling station for a lot longer than they currently are, as fueling with hydrogen is fairly slow. The equipment to store and process hydrogen requires a lot more space than storing gasoline, so existing gas station space would be able to support far fewer filling points. So, the existing gas station sites would need to be supplemented by a considerable amount of additional filling station space to service a similar sized fleet of cars.

That does not match with what I've seen in Germany. The hydrogen filling stations are the same size as a normal fuel pump. I'm also surprised that filling hydrogen is slow according to some people while others are claiming filling with hydrogen can be done in 5 minutes. I suspect it depends on what kind of filling station is used. Maybe the early ones are slow. If space is an issue it would be foolish to install a slow filling station.

Edit: it seems there are different kinds of hydrogen filling stations. The 'standard fill' seem to be the slow ones.

Is it possible for you to cut the trolling for just one reply, and try to impress us?

[nctnico]

Well, that is what I've seen while passing by. Just a box with a hose.

[apis]

(according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.

That is nonsense. The infrastructure required for hydrogen would be absolutely enormous.

Well, this was in a report from 2005 or so. It makes a lot of sense to me because you don't need to have an infrastructure which reaches to each and every car. In the Netherlands it is estimated that it will take 3 to 4 million charging points for EVs to be usefull. That is a charging point for every two cars. With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.

Right, so additionally all the hydrogen cars need to take a detour to a special refueling station taking time for the driver and spending even more fuel on non-productive maintenance. In comparison BEVs will primarily be recharged at their normal parking spot. Once you have installed an EV charging point it doesn't require people maintaining it and refilling it 24/7. The power grid already exists, so you only need to install new endpoints. I can't imagine it would be more expensive, even initially. For hydrogen you need to build factories and trucks, employ and educate a new hydrogen workforce as well as modify the existing refuelling stations with expensive specialised machinery and tanks. EV infrastructure should be mostly maintenance free standard power electronics and repairs/installation can be handled by a normal electrician.

[george80]

 Even people who doesn't believe in global warming should agree since coal produce air-pollution which is literally killing millions every year.

I have heard this parroted many times but I am yet to see the actual evidence they base it on.
The story usually goes that some organization estimates xxx deaths per year but they never say what the deaths are caused by specifically or how they can directly relate that to coal and not anything or many other things combined.
Do they do autopsy's and find coal ash in people lungs or do they just come up with a number that suits the agenda of the people paying them to do the supposed study?

What are the deaths caused by ( cancer, heart problems etc) and how can they specifically relate these deaths to coal and not anything else?

Another way of looking at it is, if we miracle all the coal plants away, will we see a drop in the attrition rates of the same number of people attributed to coal caused deaths and will the population grow by a similar number seeing all these people are not being killed by coal now?

Sounds highly doubtful to me so it it does not add up on the cross check then the the sums have to be wrong to start with.
I'm not trying to do a green cult like defense and say coal is perfect because only an idiot would believe that BUT, what I am saying is if you are going to charge the guy for bank robbery you better have more than he was seen running down the road away from the bank when the cops arrived.
If you are going to put a blame number on it, I want to know what counting was done and how it was done to come up with figure.
If it's just a gut feeling by a bunch of people with a vested interest, declared or hidden, then it's just oing to be taken as more green washing to me.

If I said XXX people were killed by unreliable every year, the outcry would be to prove it and show how I arrived at my numbers.
Works both ways but I have heard the theroy but never seen the facts or calculations.

There are so many things that kill  and make us sick  now from preservatives in food, artificial sweeteners, magnetic field exposure, fumes given off by building materials and carpet,  medicine side effects and so the list goes on endlessly.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone can say when I turn up my toes how much of it was caused by coal power plants, exposure to fuels and oils while playing with engines, radiation I have got standing in front of the microwave and the millions of different particles in the air besides or not coal ash.

While they Make a song and dance of coal emissions, the ramifications of Fukishima for one and the contamination of the environment and the deaths that will cause is  supposed to be nothing at all.   

Yeah right! 
I'll take my chances with coal thanks.

[nctnico]

(according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.

That is nonsense. The infrastructure required for hydrogen would be absolutely enormous.

Well, this was in a report from 2005 or so. It makes a lot of sense to me because you don't need to have an infrastructure which reaches to each and every car. In the Netherlands it is estimated that it will take 3 to 4 million charging points for EVs to be usefull. That is a charging point for every two cars. With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.

Right, so additionally all the hydrogen cars need to take a detour to a special refueling station taking time for the driver and spending even more fuel on non-productive maintenance. In comparison BEVs will primarily be recharged at their normal parking spot. Once you have installed an EV charging point it doesn't require people maintaining it and refilling it 24/7. The power grid already exists,

No, the power grid doesn't exist. That is the problem. When switching over to 100% EVs you'll need roughly 25% extra generating capacity. According to statistics of the Netherlands, currently 16% of the electricity is used for domestic use. If you want to charge EVs at home (or in the street) you'll likely need to double the capacity going towards the homes. Do not underestimate the amount of power an EV needs.

A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=20kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*20kWh=4600kWh just for one person to go to work.

I also disagree about low maintenance costs. A lot of the charging points will be public and subject to weather and abuse.

[nctnico]

Found a video about filling/ putting 1kg of hydrogen in a car in around one minute.

[apis]

Even people who doesn't believe in global warming should agree since coal produce air-pollution which is literally killing millions every year.

I have heard this parroted many times but I am yet to see the actual evidence they base it on.
The story usually goes that some organization estimates xxx deaths per year but they never say what the deaths are caused by specifically or how they can directly relate that to coal and not anything or many other things combined.
Do they do autopsy's and find coal ash in people lungs or do they just come up with a number that suits the agenda of the people paying them to do the supposed study?

What are the deaths caused by ( cancer, heart problems etc) and how can they specifically relate these deaths to coal and not anything else?

There is a ton of scientific studies out there. The world health organisation has a page about air-pollution you can take a look at to begin with: https://www.who.int/news-room/air-pollution

I assume part of the numbers are based on statistical analysis, but it's on much more solid scientific ground than calculated deaths from nuclear accidents which are controversial and based on worst case assumptions. For example, Iaea estimated less than 4000 premature deaths from Chernobyl, while a more commonly cited figure is 30000. In either case it's peanuts compared to premature deaths caused by air-pollution from coal power _every year_. If you look at the civilian nuclear energy industry as a whole, and calculate the average deaths per kWh produced, nuclear is even safer than solar power according to some:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

And yes, we find soot in dead peoples lungs. It's harder to say exactly to what extent that shortened a persons life (or reduced life quality), for that you have to use statistical methods and calculate averages but there is no doubt it is a serious health problem.

While they Make a song and dance of coal emissions, the ramifications of Fukishima for one and the contamination of the environment and the deaths that will cause is  supposed to be nothing at all.   

Yeah right! 
I'll take my chances with coal thanks.

I'll much rather take my chances with nuclear since coal power has a more than 1000 times higher mortality rate than nuclear power.

Coal causes environmental damage like acidification and mercury poisoning of the oceans (heard of mercury in tuna? now you know where it comes from). (And if you're worried about nuclear waste, maybe you should read up about what happens with the waste from coal power stations.)

...On top of all that we have climate change. But even without climate change, it should be clear that coal is far worse.

[apis]

(according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.

That is nonsense. The infrastructure required for hydrogen would be absolutely enormous.

Well, this was in a report from 2005 or so. It makes a lot of sense to me because you don't need to have an infrastructure which reaches to each and every car. In the Netherlands it is estimated that it will take 3 to 4 million charging points for EVs to be usefull. That is a charging point for every two cars. With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.

Right, so additionally all the hydrogen cars need to take a detour to a special refueling station taking time for the driver and spending even more fuel on non-productive maintenance. In comparison BEVs will primarily be recharged at their normal parking spot. Once you have installed an EV charging point it doesn't require people maintaining it and refilling it 24/7. The power grid already exists,

No, the power grid doesn't exist. That is the problem. When switching over to 100% EVs you'll need roughly 25% extra generating capacity. According to statistics of the Netherlands, currently 16% of the electricity is used for domestic use. If you want to charge EVs at home (or in the street) you'll likely need to double the capacity going towards the homes. Do not underestimate the amount of power an EV needs.

A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=20kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*20kWh=4600kWh just for one person to go to work.

I also disagree about low maintenance costs. A lot of the charging points will be public and subject to weather and abuse.

You would have to increase capacity in some locations perhaps, but you don't have to build a whole new grid from scratch. I meant low maintenance compared to what is required for hydrogen. You don't need a continuous supply of trucks to the EV charging stations which you do to the hydrogen stations (even when everything is working perfectly). For hydrogen you need additional factories, a fleet of trucks, boats, trains, etc, and personell operating all that. For EVs it will be enough with additional charging points and power cables.