"It's hard to imagine that a sub-$10,000 car would NOT be junk.
However, even junky cars have their place. It should be easy to exceed buyers expectations at that price."
who knows? by junk i mean like a yugo or a le car. they were so much trouble that you lost money on repairs and a horrible resale. The yaris hatch lists for 10,900.. I consider that a quality car if not the most tricked out. I guess the Aveo can be had for 10 or below. not sure how i feel about that one...certainly not junk like the Yugo. I guess I think of ultra small cars as basic. I can reach over to the passenger side to unlock the door or roll down the windows. That is probably just my paradigm for yaris sized cars, though. I would pay up and enjoy the added sophistication for say that nifty civic hatch that they get in Europe.
I guess the transmission extending range would only be useful if it gave you maybe 20%+ more range..say on highways where it would most likely be of the most use. Probably wouldn't be worth the added complications.
I don't know about the Smart. One of the things I think they are trying to do with EVs is to have buyers convinced of the fact that they do not have to be a weirdo driving a golf cart if they own one. Smart is kind of a golf cart to me...60 is good mileage, but we should see some diesels soon that will close in on that. now if the smart retailed for 8500...more interest..at least from me..but I am still not thinking that little pup is for me.
Yes the Smart is like a golf cart. But my point is that it would be a more significant vehicle as an electric golf cart rather than a gas cart. I agree that the Smart isn't going to be appropriate for many people regardless of the powertrain. So if you know its going to be a low production vehicle from the start at least make it novel. Getting major manufacturers onboard with EVs would be a positive step. BTW, in all likelihood this vehicle would be much quicker as an EV. While still not all that practical it might actually be fun to drive. AC Propulsion's EV conversion of a Scion xB does 0-60 in under 7 seconds.
I just went to Zap's website to see if I could find pricing information on the Smart. They stated that their initial deliveries were in the $25k price range. Are you kidding me? Don't tell me that an auto manufacturer can't produce an EV with at least this much utility for that price or less because I won't believe it. In a way it kind of discredits the auto manufacturers argument of them not producing EVs because there was no market for them. Guess what, there won't be much market for this vehicle either. At least not at that price.
Don't go by Zaps website for the price of the smart thats coming. Zap buys their cars overseas from dealers brings them here and modifies them to US standards. Right there it means its going to cost a lot more than if they are made for the US market and shipped wholesale to dealers here.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I think the prices ive seen bandied about for the Smart is about $12,800 ..ive also read $15,000. This is a car that they already have in production, no? So they simply had to modify it to get ready for the US standards. I've heard that they are going to try to internationalize safety standards. Done right that would certainly seem a plus for us. Anyway.. back to the Smart... I guess you could hop it up with electric to make it more fun. Certainly it is a little sluggish as is..from what I understand. Still, when you are already getting 50 to 60 mpg accepting the range limitations for an electric is a bit less tempting. Wonder how much more they would have to charge to cover addional costs of manufacturing and design? My guess is that if the Colt is accepted well, others will follow. An nicely powered Yaris would be cool..revamp the suspension and upgrade the interior a bit. Thing is I don't know the point at which performance enthusiasts and greenie frugal folk intersect.
I'm sure that's true but the fact is there are people actually buying them at that price. Granted the numbers are probably extremely low but I'm sure Zap is making a profit. I'm fairly confident that the few people willing to shell out that amount of money for that car would find it even more appealing if it were an EV.
I agree that if the car is already getting that kind of mileage there isn't that much room for further energy savings. But I very seriously doubt that anyone is buying this car as their primary vehicle and if that's the case it would never be the car they took on long road trips. So limited range might be a non-factor. But being electric would definitely add a cool factor. And least in my mind it would.
I really have no clue about the added costs anymore. I saw those sub $10k Chinese EVs and I would have thought the battery packs alone should cost more than that. I had always read that in time the cost of EV components should end up being less than an ICE but it would involve large scale manufacturing to make this a reality.
I am not so sure how seriously we can take the chinese company. I looked at the *about us* portion of their page. Unless something was lost in translation, they have only made a handful of prototypes.
It seems to me an ev should eventually cost less...just because they are simpler. mass scale and newer battery technology is the key as you say.
GM released some pictures and info on it latest fuel cell vehicle, the Sequel. It is said to have a range of 300 miles, not bad. It weighs 4700 kg. That's around 10,000 lbs. Wow!! Now this is considered a crossover SUV so its big but not that big. It comes with a 65 kWh Li-ion battery pack. That in itself will get you most of the way to that 300 mile range. The vehicle carries 3 hydrogen tanks that can be filled to 10,000 psi in 8 minutes at a hydrogen filling station. This hydrogen is used by the fuel cell to charge the battery pack. So here's the question. Why not dispense with the hydrogen tanks and fuel cell and just charge the battery pack directly? A high power charging station should be able to do this in about 15 minutes. Okay, slightly longer than 8 minutes but no big deal. I've got to believe that removing the hydrogen tanks and fuel cell would significantly reduce this vehicles weight and cost. I've also got to believe its a lot cheaper to build a high power charging station than it is to build a hydrogen fueling station with all the additional costs of extracting and delivering the hydrogen. Am I missing something here?
Perhaps a grasp of economics and the technology :confuse:
Isn't there something about the non-polluting nature of Hydrogen versus the polluting nature of power generation, just for starters?
Somehow I think your post must be tongue-in-cheek, and you are going for another point....
If I am wrong, and misreading the intent of your post, please excuse me. I will be happy, and others as well, I am sure, provide you a primer on fuel cell technology and benefits.
I'm thinking that tpe isn't the only one failing to grasp the technology. Unless you meant your post to be tongue-in-cheek as well.
What's the diff between the 'polluting nature' of power generation for electricity and the 'polluting nature' of the power generation needed to produce Hydrogen? Either way, power must be generated in some fashion.
Or are you going to provide us with a 'primer' on commercial levels of Hydrogen production which DON'T require power generation?
Not to mention the energy required by trucks to deliver all this hydrogen. There is no way that adding this intermediate hydrogen step, i.e. coal (worst case)-> electricity -> hydrogen -> stored electricity (battery) -> electricity, will result in a cleaner solution. The only conceivable motivation is that it doesn't completely cut out some of the existing big players in the energy industry.
The ONLY advantage that I can see for hydrogen fuel cells over batteries is the ability to refuel quickly (assuming, of course, the availability of a refueling facility).
A fuel cell converts the chemical energy in hydrogen and oxygen into direct current electrical energy by electrochemical reactions. Fuel cells are devices that convert hydrogen gas directly into low-voltage, direct current electricity. The cell has no moving parts.
The process is essentially the reverse of the electrolytic method of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. In the fuel cell, the cathode terminal is positively charged and the anode terminal is negatively charged. These electrodes are separated by a membrane. Hydrogen gas is converted into electrons and protons (positive hydrogen ions) at the anode. The protons pass through the membrane to the cathode, leaving behind negatively charged electrons. This creates a flow of direct current electricity between the terminals when connected with an external circuit. This current can power an electric motor placed in this circuit. The hydrogen ions, electrons, and oxygen combine at the cathode to form water, the only byproduct of this process, approximately the same amount of water per mile as vehicles using gasoline-powered internal combustion engines (ICEs).
Referring to automobiles, there are two major advantages of a fuel cell versus an ICE. The first advantage is that the fuel cell is approximately twice as fuel-efficient (on a fuel to wheel basis). The second advantage is the next generation of automobiles may be 100%electric powered. Storing electricity for automotive use can only be done by use of fuel cells. Battery technology cannot meet the weight, volume and range required for today’s automobile.
Today, fuel cells are being developed to power passenger vehicles, commercial buildings, homes, and even small devices such as laptop computers. Fuel cell systems can be extremely efficient over a large range of sizes (from 1 kW to hundred of megawatts). Some systems can achieve overall efficiencies of 80% or more when heat production is combined with power generation. Fuel cell systems integrated with hydrogen production and storage can provide fuel for vehicles, energy for heating and cooling, and electricity to power our communities. These clean systems offer a unique opportunity for energy independence, highly reliable energy services and economic benefits.
Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells operate at relatively low temperatures, around 80°C (176°F). Low temperature operation allows them to start quickly (less warm-up time) and results in less wear on system components, resulting in better durability. However, it requires that a noble-metal catalyst (typically platinum) be used to separate the hydrogen's electrons and protons, adding to system cost. The platinum catalyst is also extremely sensitive to CO poisoning, making it necessary to employ an additional reactor to reduce CO in the fuel gas if the hydrogen is derived from an alcohol or hydrocarbon fuel. This also adds cost. Developers are currently exploring platinum/ruthenium catalysts that are more resistant to CO.
Due to their fast startup time, low sensitivity to orientation, and favorable power-to-weight ratio, PEM fuel cells are particularly suitable for use in passenger vehicles, such as cars and buses.
For one of the more complete technical studies of fuel cell application for automobiles, CLICK HERE. It is, however two years old, and there have been notable advances.
The long-term environmental benefits of using hydrogen as a fuel are enormous. Hydrogen fuel produces few pollutants when burnt, and none at all when used in a fuel cell. Hydrogen is a carbon-free fuel, and when produced using renewable energy, the whole energy system can become carbon-neutral, or even carbon-free. So, hydrogen fuel can contribute to reducing Green House Gas emissions and can reduce the production of many toxic pollutants.
Batteries share many of the same properties as fuel cells, but have the disadvantage that they need to be recharged, and this is often a time-consuming process. Similar to internal combustion engines, fuel cells can produce electricity and heat as long as fuel is available.
Actually heat is another byproduct, Thermodynamics which reduces the efficiency of the conversion both charging and adding hydrogen fuel.
If a catalyst is subject to poisoning then it isn't a true catalyst, but participates somewhat in the reaction.
Fuel Cells have future potential, but then fuel cells are not new technology, Fuel cells started with Sir William Grove in 1839, and the concept is just now nearing potential implementation.
Fuel cells will proabably be the technology of choice in 10-15 years.
I'm pretty sure that everyone contributing to this thread is very familar with what a fuel cell is and how it works.
A few questions.
How does a fuel cell store the energy recaptured during regenerative braking?
Will hydrogen be cheaper per mile driven then grid electricity used in a BEV?
Will you be able to fuel your fuel cell vehicle at home as easily as you can re-charge a BEV?
Will the initial cost of a fuel cell vehicle be less than a BEV?
Will the weight of a fuel cell vehicle be less than a BEV?
Will the maintenance on a fuel cell vehicle be less than a BEV?
Will the cost for establishing a hydrogen infrastructure be less than that for BEVs?
Regardless of the time to refuel/re-charge given that most BEV re-charging will be done at night who will ultimately spend more time at the refueling station, the fuel cell vehicle owner or the BEV owner?
I guess you sort of missed the whole point of my original post. The GM Sequel is a SUV driven by electric motors that are powered by a large (65 kWh) Li-ion battery pack. How does adding the weight, cost and complexity of a fuel cell and hydrogen storage tanks make this a better vehicle? What I'd like to see is for GM to offer this vehicle in two versions. One with the fuel cell and hydrogen tanks and a considerably cheaper, lighter version without. Which one will sell better?
The link in my post should answer many of your questions, TPE. Give it a read, I think you will find it very interesting, as well as the whole DOE site on Fuel Cells.
The advantage, weight-wise is one of the main selling points for Fuel Cells. You seem to be under the impression that the tanks, etc. would be heavier than conventional batteries, and that is not the case. I beleive it to be about half, weight-wise. Maintenance is another point in favor of Fuel Cells, as it seems to be nill.
What the industry is looking at, in the long haul, is as the scientists say, a package deal. Using the excess heat from the making of pure Hydrogen to generate massive amounts of grid electricity with little effect on the environment.
I beleive the infrastructure establishment costs will be huge. Of course it will be off-set, over the years, by the savings in environmental damage and disposal problems, as well as the cheaper per KWh generation costs and maintenance.
And of course, using Fuel Cell technology doesn't leave the world with another toxic disposal problem that LithIon batteries present, if used on a massive scale.
All Lithium Ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream. These batteries, however, do contain recyclable materials that make recycling a good idea.
I don't think these have to be mutually exclusive technologies...however, I can actually vision a nice EV in a couple-three years. Hell the EV Colt is coming. A range of 200 seems fine...I will give up a bit of convenience on long trips to say buh-bye to gas stations..at least for one of my cars.
Fuel cell seems a long way off due to costs of cars and infrastructure. Maybe fuel cells become the power of choice for long distance truckers and work their way to autos?
Well, from my reading, that would seem to be the route of choice, starting commercially, perhaps like the delivery fleets of UPS, FedEx, USPS, the U.S. Government, Military, with their vans and lite trucks.
That would be easier to control fueling at central locations.
As for Lith-Ion disposal, use and their disposal problems:
When you wish to store a Li cell or your device for a prolonged period of time you should ensure that it is kept away from direct sunlight, in low humidity and as cold as possible (down to refrigerator temperature at most, never freeze them). 15 degrees Celsius is optimal.
Remove the battery from your device and store it in a position where nothing is contacting the metal terminals. You should store the battery with a partial charge or around 40%. If you leave the battery empty or allow it to fully discharge while in storage the circuitry which controls the inner workings of the battery will fuse and the battery will not be able to charge back-up. You should run the battery back up every couple of months while in storage.
Lithium batteries can be stored for up to 10 years as long as they are given monthly top-up charges.
Lithium-Ion battery's prefer incremental (top-up) charges rather than complete discharges preferred by other battery technologies. We recommend that you fully discharge the battery as little as possible. No more than one fast discharge / charge every year is recommended. For all other general use incremental charging should be applied with power levels not being allowed to fall below 20% of capacity.
Disposal
Lithium Ion batteries are fully recyclable and should be disposed of using an appropriate system (Such as a special recycling centre or via your local government waste disposal centre - European Union law requires local government provide facilities for disposal of such items). You can also return them directly to some OEM's for recycling.
Never throw your battery out with the household waste or attempt to incinerate Lithium Ion cells contain non-biodegradable components, hazardous chemicals and are prone to aggressive explosion under intense heat.
William McLaughlin (Toxco, Trail, British Columbia, Canada) described his company's innovative recycling process for lithium batteries from the military, each weighing 570 pounds, as an example of how large volumes of electric vehicle batteries could be handled in the future. A demonstration showed that it was possible to recycle the batteries safely and economically. Toxco built a production line for dealing with the 4,694 batteries (over 2.6 million pounds). The process deactivates the batteries under liquid nitrogen, shears and shreds the material, washes and filters the end products. Lithium, aluminum, nickel, and stainless steel, were recovered from the military batteries. Toxco has been granted a patent on the process.
You've watched too many episodes of "George Jetson". Pay close attention to HOW hydrogen is generated (perhaps something not mentioned in the advertisement, or pardon me, "scientific report"). The energy balance is horribly offset relative to electric vehicles when that is factored into the equation. I expect the U.S. to financially collapse before any substitute for gasoline comes along. However, if some miracle occurred, electric vehicles with a strong nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar and wind infrastructure would be the only reasonable solution. Fuel cells are another unnecessary layer of inefficiency if electric vehicles are available. It is basically like adding another layer of government or middle management. Efficiency just goes way down.
Your avoiding the issue. Fuel cell vehicles will most definitely have large battery packs. So even if Li-ion batteries are extremely toxic, which they aren't, fuel cells won't eliminate the need for them. Fuel cells only add an additional, costly component that right now is estimated to last 50k miles. GM does state that its next generation of fuel cells should last 100k miles. Is that what you mean by nil maintenance costs.
No avoidance, just frustration with those of you who won't even bother to learn.
If you want to be technical about it, a fuel cell is an electrochemical energy conversion device. A fuel cell converts the chemicals hydrogen and oxygen into water (vapor), and in the process it produces electricity.
The other electrochemical device that we are all familiar with is the battery. A battery has all of its chemicals stored inside, and it converts those chemicals into electricity too. This means that a battery eventually "goes dead" and you either throw it away or recharge it.
What I was talking about before was others idea of recharging LithIon batteries from sources other than plugging in. Which is why I talked about the problematic nature of the proposed huge batteries.
The electricity generated from the fuel cells will be used by a car's electric induction motor/transaxle and electric power inverter to produce 90-150 kilowatts of power. The electric power inverter works by converting the raw electrical current generated by the fuel cells into an alternating current that powers some of the prototypes electric motor and turns the wheels of the vehicle. I think many have decided a DC motor will be better. A traditional car battery will be used to operate the car's electrical system, including the radio and air conditioning, being re charged on demand.
Pure Fuel Cell cars will not be "charging" anything to make the car run, but rather power the motors directly.
When Ford was talking about their proto-type, this is what they said: "Big enough to seat five people, the P2000 sedan will perform much like the Ford Taurus. Although the Taurus' combustible engine produces 135 horsepower and the P2000 produces 100 horsepower, the P2000 is 40 percent lighter than the Taurus and, therefore, can match the Taurus' performance".
Here's my main problem with this. Fuel cells are inherently inefficient.
The amount of energy (electricity, usually) needed to extract hydrogen is at least twice what you get back out of the fuel cell. This sub-50% efficiency doesn't compare favorably to battery technology, which is currently better than 80% efficient.
Plus, you've got to expend energy to transport the hydrogen fuel to the filling stations.
As to the 10,000 pound prototype, that goes 300 miles: I can go 50 miles on the 1000 pound lead-acid battery pack in my 25-year-old EV.
This means a 10,000 pound pack of batteries based on 100-year-old battery technology could go 500 miles. A Li-Ion pack of that weight would be good for about a 2,000 mile range.
Oops, I didn't see the bit about recapturing waste heat from hydrogen generation to increase the efficiency of hydrogen fuel generation. This would get efficiency close to where batteries are at (before considering the reduction in efficiency from fuel transportation.)
But as long as we're talking about FUTURE developments in hydrogen production, let's compare it to FUTURE batteries.
Supercapacitors will ace both battery and fuel cell technology. 300 mile ranges with 6-minute recharge time, and very low weight.
Those figures are out of date, or bogus...please cite the source that it costs twice as much to produce Hydrogen as the amount of energy you would get back. With co-generation, using the heat from Hydrogen production to generate electricity as a by-product, the whole deal becomes 50% more efficient than recharging batteries, according to the DOE.
You guys should spend as much time researching Fuel Cell tecnhology as you do in looking for reasons to diss it in favor of something clearly proven not to work efficiently, like 10,000 pound batteries being hauled around. :P
...With co-generation, using the heat from Hydrogen production to generate electricity as a by-product, the whole deal becomes 50% more efficient than recharging batteries, according to the DOE.
Your citation said 80% efficient ... batteries are 88% efficient. How is this 50% more efficient than batteries? 50% more efficient than 88% would exceed 100% which is not even physically possible.
...You guys should spend as much time researching Fuel Cell tecnhology as you do in looking for reasons to diss it in favor of something clearly proven not to work efficiently, like 10,000 pound batteries being hauled around.
Dude, we've been talking about a 10,000 pound fuel cell car. I just pointed out that a li-ion 10000 pound car that goes 2000 miles is more impressive than a 10000 pound fuel-cell car that goes 300 miles. Unless you're a fuel cell zealot or something.
See below. Multiply the efficiencies, you're looking at 47% efficiency, tops (without the heat recovery trick.)
Efficiency of a fuel cell: "The efficiency of a fuel is very dependent on the current through the fuel cell: as a general rule, the more current drawn, the lower the efficiency. A cell running at 0.6V has an efficiency of about 50%, meaning that 50% of the available energy content of the hydrogen is converted into electrical energy..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
And then there's the efficiency loss of creating the hydrogen through electrolysis: "Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis. The theoretical maximum efficiency is between 80–94%.[2]. The theoretical maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values only refer to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency is more like 25–40%" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis
Yes apeweek, you should consult better references. For example, "Fuel Cells Systems Explained" or "Fuel Cell Technology Handbook", two introductory textbooks that have been used for teaching undergraduate course on fuel cells. Those books will indicate that your real-world efficiency value from Wikipedia is actually a bit generous when voltage losses are taken into account.
I see a lot of posters discounting information obtained from Wikipedia. What's that all about? Is the information not presented at an intellectually high enough level for you or is it just wrong? It seems to me that Wikipedia usually cites many sources for their information. Are these sources also invalid? Attacking Wikipedia seems to have become the fashionable thing to do for pseudo-intellectuals.
This Ford Taurus that you mentioned that had a pure fuel cell. How does it incorporate regenerative braking? When you say it is 40% lighter I seriously doubt that applies to the vehicle, probably just the powertrain.
Fuel cells may some day approach the efficiency of today's batteries but battery technology is definitely not standing still. And as apeweek points out if ultra-capacitors achieve anywhere near the potential that is being forecast then it will be no contest.
I see a lot of posters discounting information obtained from Wikipedia. What's that all about?
The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can create and/or edit the entries. That means someone who doesn't know the first thing about a subject but thinks they are an expert can create or edit an article on that subject matter. Also people trying to promote or discredit something may not be completely honest in what they write.
Now while Wikipedia does try to police their site there are many examples of incorrect information in its articles and they don't have the academic credentials, controls and reviews that a regular encyclopideia would have.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I didn't realize that. Thanks for the information. So Wikipedia might not be the best reference. However, in the context of this discussion I don't think it has resulted in any misinformation.
Here's a no-brainer question for the fuel cell advocates. Which infrastructure will be more expensive to create? One that provides hydrogen refueling stations or one that provides high-power, fast charging stations? I'm not just talking about the initial cost per station. I'm talking about the ongoing costs and how many stations of each type would need to be built.
Here's a no-brainer question for the fuel cell advocates. Which infrastructure will be more expensive to create?
While I am not a fuel cell advocate (actually quite neutral on the subject) but I would have to say that the jury is still out on this.
It is one thing to have a battery pack in a car that will give you 300 miles and be recharged in 6 minutes. Its another thing to be able to provide the power to recharge those batteries in 6 minutes. Take into consideration that the gas station I usually use has 16 pumps (16 cars can be filling up at one time). Now lets pretend that you have 16 EV's plugged in at once, how much power would the station have to draw off the grid to recharge all 16 cars in 6 minutes?
My guess is that to change a gas station from a gas station to a recharge station would require beefing up the electrical infrastructure to the station.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That's not really the way I look at it. If BEVs had a range of anywhere near 300 miles they would almost never visit a gas (recharging) station. 90+ percent of all your charging would take place at night, at your home. It would be slow but who cares? So lets say the number of stations required is proportional to the total number of visits made to these stations. If motorists now only visit stations 10% as often as they did with their ICE or fuel cell vehicle it stands to reason we would need 10% as many stations to accomodate or 10% as many outlets per station.
Now look at the ongoing costs. A hydrogen fueling station would need to be replenished on a regular basis. If this was done by truck it would require more deliveries than currently needed for gasoline simply because the energy density is nowhere near that of gasoline. The station could potentially generate its own hydrogen at the site but that would require an additional upfront cost for this equipment and the ongoing cost of electrolysis and pressurization.
#103 refers to a charge rate of 140 amps at 3,500 volts or an instantaneous rate assuming impedence is put resistance in phase with the volts of 490 Kwatts. Realize a typical house has a service of 200 amps at 115 volts or 23 Kwatts. so take the example of 16 charging stations and you have an instantaneous rate of 7.84 Mwatts or 7,840 Kwatts , equivalent to everything turned on in 341 houses.
There is no-way the current grid structure can support "charging stations" without charging brownouts.
Before recharging can take place at a reasonable time frame the entire power grid will have to be revamped. We are talking 10s of years, not months or years before this will ever happen. So maybe Geoge Jetson scenario isn't too far off base. And LOL yes I do remember and read Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace It was in out Weekly-Reader in school in 1953. I also remember the new technology "Fuel Cells' in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics about the same time frame.
YMMV ( Your Memory May Vary) or (Yor Mileage May Vary)
Whether you're charging rapidly or slowly the total energy pulled from the grid will be the same. It will take 20 years for alternative vehicles, either EVs or fuel cell, to make it into the fleet in any significant number so to state that the current grid couldn't handle 10's of millions of EVs is irrelevant. Certainly at some point it will require expansion. There is plenty of time to deal with that issue. If there isn't enough electricity to power EVs where will this energy come from to produce hydrogen?
It is quite possible that a high-power charging station cannot operate continuously. By that I mean for it to deliver a 5 minute charge might require that the charging device itself was charged at a slower rate over say a 30 minute time period. So what?
We would still need a significant number of charging stations for rapid refueling as many fleet vehicles would need it, as will those traveling more than 300 miles in a day. Not to mention those who "forget" to plug in at home and need a quick refill on the way home.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Whether you're charging rapidly or slowly the total energy pulled from the grid will be the same.
total energy pulled will be the same. However the load on that system will increase as the charge time decreases. Taking the same amount of energy in a much shorter amount of time requires greater capacity. Sort of like the difference of filling a swimming pool with a garden hose as opposed to a fire hose.
By that I mean for it to deliver a 5 minute charge might require that the charging device itself was charged at a slower rate over say a 30 minute time period. So what?
I would think that a charging station that could only charge one vehicle every 35 minutes per station would not be economically viable.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Those people that travel over 300 miles a day would be the last ones to adopt EVs. They account for a small minority of the drivers out there. I realize that even people that don't drive long distances occasionally take a long trip. For these people instead of visiting a gas station once a week they'd need to go to a charging station 3-5 times a year. I suspect that if you took a poll at a typical gas station and asked people fueling up how many miles a day they drove very few would say even 100 miles. These people would not even be there if they drove an EV. As far as remembering to plug in I don't see that as being any more difficult than remembering to brush your teeth. Not really an issue but I'm sure some sort of reminder could be built into the car. Would you need a significant number of charging stations? Yes, but significantly fewer than to accomodate fuel cell vehicles.
I am well aware of the driving habits of most people. However I am not convinced that the need for charging stations will be nearly as low as you claim. There are plenty of others that will need it as well as those who, for whatever reason, will not recharge at home. I seriously doubt that apartment dwellers well be running an extension cord out their fourth floor window to their EV.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
However the load on that system will increase as the charge time decreases.
That's true but as the charge time decreases the number of people charging at any one time will also decrease proportionally.
I would think that a charging station that could only charge one vehicle every 35 minutes per station would not be economically viable.
I am really speculating on this one. In other words I have no idea regarding the timing involved. But, a fast charge station will be a money making proposition. If it can only deliver 30 charges throughout the course of a day then the cost for this convenience will be priced accordingly. It could be quite a bit and still end up being cheaper than buying gas. Of course if gas goes back down to $1.50/gallon everything changes.
If it can only deliver 30 charges throughout the course of a day then the cost for this convenience will be priced accordingly.
The problem is in larger cities I do not think giving 30 charges a day would be viable. I would think the demand would be a sizable amount more than that.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Cities might install charging stations at curbside locations that are coin and card operated. Feed the meter..feed the juicer.
Juicers could be incorporated into rest stops on highways.
Parking garages and lots might install juicers.
Apartment buildings with parking structures might have a certain amount of stalls available with juicers.
Places of employment with lots could install juicers.
Businesses where you are likely to spend some time like hotels, resaurants, shopping malls, might install a certain amount of juicers.
I think with GFCI and other mechanical protections, these stations could be safe. We are talking about a slow transition here over many years..even then it might not be 100%. Running lines is a lot less complicated operation than dealing with gasoline storage, pumping and all the things that go along with that. Not to mention that Tesla is talking about a solar recharger.
The problem is in larger cities I do not think giving 30 charges a day would be viable. I would think the demand would be a sizable amount more than that.
I'll try to find my source but I seem to remember reading that the cost for the device capable of delivering these fast charges would be around $100k. If you already own a gas station this would represent your entire cost. Let's say the operater of one of these stations imposed a $5 fee per charge on top of the electricity cost, still much cheaper than gas. 30 charges per day would yield $150/day in revenue, $54k/year. That's a huge return on a $100k investment. In this environment where electricity is so much cheaper than gas these charging stations would sprout up very quickly. Unfortunately its kind of a chicken and egg situation. The charging station won't make any money at first because there are no EVs to use it. So to buy one of these devices will be an investment in the future with the associated risks. Just like most investments. The potential return should be enough to justify this risk.
I'm well aware of the power equations. Anyone who's mastered multiplication can grasp the concept. My point is that doesn't matter whether you have 10 people charging simultaneously in 100 minutes or 1 person charging at a time in 10 minutes. If it takes 1/10 the amount of time to charge then, on average, at any given moment there will only be 1/10 as many people charging. So the drain on the system will be essentially the same regardless of how fast people are charging.
Comments
However, even junky cars have their place. It should be easy to exceed buyers expectations at that price."
who knows? by junk i mean like a yugo or a le car. they were so much trouble that you lost money on repairs and a horrible resale. The yaris hatch lists for 10,900.. I consider that a quality car if not the most tricked out. I guess the Aveo can be had for 10 or below. not sure how i feel about that one...certainly not junk like the Yugo. I guess I think of ultra small cars as basic. I can reach over to the passenger side to unlock the door or roll down the windows. That is probably just my paradigm for yaris sized cars, though. I would pay up and enjoy the added sophistication for say that nifty civic hatch that they get in Europe.
I guess the transmission extending range would only be useful if it gave you maybe 20%+ more range..say on highways where it would most likely be of the most use. Probably wouldn't be worth the added complications.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I think the prices ive seen bandied about for the Smart is about $12,800 ..ive also read $15,000. This is a car that they already have in production, no? So they simply had to modify it to get ready for the US standards. I've heard that they are going to try to internationalize safety standards. Done right that would certainly seem a plus for us. Anyway.. back to the Smart... I guess you could hop it up with electric to make it more fun. Certainly it is a little sluggish as is..from what I understand. Still, when you are already getting 50 to 60 mpg accepting the range limitations for an electric is a bit less tempting. Wonder how much more they would have to charge to cover addional costs of manufacturing and design? My guess is that if the Colt is accepted well, others will follow. An nicely powered Yaris would be cool..revamp the suspension and upgrade the interior a bit. Thing is I don't know the point at which performance enthusiasts and greenie frugal folk intersect.
I really have no clue about the added costs anymore. I saw those sub $10k Chinese EVs and I would have thought the battery packs alone should cost more than that. I had always read that in time the cost of EV components should end up being less than an ICE but it would involve large scale manufacturing to make this a reality.
It seems to me an ev should eventually cost less...just because they are simpler. mass scale and newer battery technology is the key as you say.
Perhaps a grasp of economics and the technology :confuse:
Isn't there something about the non-polluting nature of Hydrogen versus the polluting nature of power generation, just for starters?
Somehow I think your post must be tongue-in-cheek, and you are going for another point....
If I am wrong, and misreading the intent of your post, please excuse me. I will be happy, and others as well, I am sure, provide you a primer on fuel cell technology and benefits.
What's the diff between the 'polluting nature' of power generation for electricity and the 'polluting nature' of the power generation needed to produce Hydrogen? Either way, power must be generated in some fashion.
Or are you going to provide us with a 'primer' on commercial levels of Hydrogen production which DON'T require power generation?
The ONLY advantage that I can see for hydrogen fuel cells over batteries is the ability to refuel quickly (assuming, of course, the availability of a refueling facility).
The process is essentially the reverse of the electrolytic method of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. In the fuel cell, the cathode terminal is positively charged and the anode terminal is negatively charged. These electrodes are separated by a membrane. Hydrogen gas is converted into electrons and protons (positive hydrogen ions) at the anode. The protons pass through the membrane to the cathode, leaving behind negatively charged electrons. This creates a flow of direct current electricity between the terminals when connected with an external circuit. This current can power an electric motor placed in this circuit. The hydrogen ions, electrons, and oxygen combine at the cathode to form water, the only byproduct of this process, approximately the same amount of water per mile as vehicles using gasoline-powered internal combustion engines (ICEs).
Referring to automobiles, there are two major advantages of a fuel cell versus an ICE. The first advantage is that the fuel cell is approximately twice as fuel-efficient (on a fuel to wheel basis). The second advantage is the next generation of automobiles may be 100%electric powered. Storing electricity for automotive use can only be done by use of fuel cells. Battery technology cannot meet the weight, volume and range required for today’s automobile.
Today, fuel cells are being developed to power passenger vehicles, commercial buildings, homes, and even small devices such as laptop computers. Fuel cell systems can be extremely efficient over a large range of sizes (from 1 kW to hundred of megawatts). Some systems can achieve overall efficiencies of 80% or more when heat production is combined with power generation. Fuel cell systems integrated with hydrogen production and storage can provide fuel for vehicles, energy for heating and cooling, and electricity to power our communities. These clean systems offer a unique opportunity for energy independence, highly reliable energy services and economic benefits.
Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells operate at relatively low temperatures, around 80°C (176°F). Low temperature operation allows them to start quickly (less warm-up time) and results in less wear on system components, resulting in better durability. However, it requires that a noble-metal catalyst (typically platinum) be used to separate the hydrogen's electrons and protons, adding to system cost. The platinum catalyst is also extremely sensitive to CO poisoning, making it necessary to employ an additional reactor to reduce CO in the fuel gas if the hydrogen is derived from an alcohol or hydrocarbon fuel. This also adds cost. Developers are currently exploring platinum/ruthenium catalysts that are more resistant to CO.
Due to their fast startup time, low sensitivity to orientation, and favorable power-to-weight ratio, PEM fuel cells are particularly suitable for use in passenger vehicles, such as cars and buses.
For one of the more complete technical studies of fuel cell application for automobiles, CLICK HERE. It is, however two years old, and there have been notable advances.
The long-term environmental benefits of using hydrogen as a fuel are enormous. Hydrogen fuel produces few pollutants when burnt, and none at all when used in a fuel cell. Hydrogen is a carbon-free fuel, and when produced using renewable energy, the whole energy system can become carbon-neutral, or even carbon-free. So, hydrogen fuel can contribute to reducing Green House Gas emissions and can reduce the production of many toxic pollutants.
Batteries share many of the same properties as fuel cells, but have the disadvantage that they need to be recharged, and this is often a time-consuming process. Similar to internal combustion engines, fuel cells can produce electricity and heat as long as fuel is available.
If a catalyst is subject to poisoning then it isn't a true catalyst, but participates somewhat in the reaction.
Fuel Cells have future potential, but then fuel cells are not new technology, Fuel cells started with Sir William Grove in 1839, and the concept is just now nearing potential implementation.
Fuel cells will proabably be the technology of choice in 10-15 years.
MidCow
And, the newest research in Fuel Cells is using that heat, which is down to 170* now, to actually reproduce more Hydrogen!
A few questions.
How does a fuel cell store the energy recaptured during regenerative braking?
Will hydrogen be cheaper per mile driven then grid electricity used in a BEV?
Will you be able to fuel your fuel cell vehicle at home as easily as you can re-charge a BEV?
Will the initial cost of a fuel cell vehicle be less than a BEV?
Will the weight of a fuel cell vehicle be less than a BEV?
Will the maintenance on a fuel cell vehicle be less than a BEV?
Will the cost for establishing a hydrogen infrastructure be less than that for BEVs?
Regardless of the time to refuel/re-charge given that most BEV re-charging will be done at night who will ultimately spend more time at the refueling station, the fuel cell vehicle owner or the BEV owner?
I guess you sort of missed the whole point of my original post. The GM Sequel is a SUV driven by electric motors that are powered by a large (65 kWh) Li-ion battery pack. How does adding the weight, cost and complexity of a fuel cell and hydrogen storage tanks make this a better vehicle? What I'd like to see is for GM to offer this vehicle in two versions. One with the fuel cell and hydrogen tanks and a considerably cheaper, lighter version without. Which one will sell better?
The advantage, weight-wise is one of the main selling points for Fuel Cells. You seem to be under the impression that the tanks, etc. would be heavier than conventional batteries, and that is not the case. I beleive it to be about half, weight-wise. Maintenance is another point in favor of Fuel Cells, as it seems to be nill.
What the industry is looking at, in the long haul, is as the scientists say, a package deal. Using the excess heat from the making of pure Hydrogen to generate massive amounts of grid electricity with little effect on the environment.
I beleive the infrastructure establishment costs will be huge. Of course it will be off-set, over the years, by the savings in environmental damage and disposal problems, as well as the cheaper per KWh generation costs and maintenance.
And of course, using Fuel Cell technology doesn't leave the world with another toxic disposal problem that LithIon batteries present, if used on a massive scale.
All Lithium Ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream. These batteries, however, do contain recyclable materials that make recycling a good idea.
I don't think these have to be mutually exclusive technologies...however, I can actually vision a nice EV in a couple-three years. Hell the EV Colt is coming. A range of 200 seems fine...I will give up a bit of convenience on long trips to say buh-bye to gas stations..at least for one of my cars.
Fuel cell seems a long way off due to costs of cars and infrastructure. Maybe fuel cells become the power of choice for long distance truckers and work their way to autos?
That would be easier to control fueling at central locations.
As for Lith-Ion disposal, use and their disposal problems:
When you wish to store a Li cell or your device for a prolonged period of time you should ensure that it is kept away from direct sunlight, in low humidity and as cold as possible (down to refrigerator temperature at most, never freeze them). 15 degrees Celsius is optimal.
Remove the battery from your device and store it in a position where nothing is contacting the metal terminals. You should store the battery with a partial charge or around 40%. If you leave the battery empty or allow it to fully discharge while in storage the circuitry which controls the inner workings of the battery will fuse and the battery will not be able to charge back-up. You should run the battery back up every couple of months while in storage.
Lithium batteries can be stored for up to 10 years as long as they are given monthly top-up charges.
Lithium-Ion battery's prefer incremental (top-up) charges rather than complete discharges preferred by other battery technologies. We recommend that you fully discharge the battery as little as possible. No more than one fast discharge / charge every year is recommended. For all other general use incremental charging should be applied with power levels not being allowed to fall below 20% of capacity.
Disposal
Lithium Ion batteries are fully recyclable and should be disposed of using an appropriate system (Such as a special recycling centre or via your local government waste disposal centre - European Union law requires local government provide facilities for disposal of such items). You can also return them directly to some OEM's for recycling.
Never throw your battery out with the household waste or attempt to incinerate Lithium Ion cells contain non-biodegradable components, hazardous chemicals and are prone to aggressive explosion under intense heat.
SOURCE: CLICK HERE
William McLaughlin (Toxco, Trail, British Columbia, Canada) described his company's innovative recycling process for lithium batteries from the military, each weighing 570 pounds, as an example of how large volumes of electric vehicle batteries could be handled in the future. A demonstration showed that it was possible to recycle the batteries safely and economically. Toxco built a production line for dealing with the 4,694 batteries (over 2.6 million pounds). The process deactivates the batteries under liquid nitrogen, shears and shreds the material, washes and filters the end products. Lithium, aluminum, nickel, and stainless steel, were recovered from the military batteries. Toxco has been granted a patent on the process.
Perhaps you have been reading some of the Eisenhower Administration's booklets on "Atoms for Peace" ? :P
If you want to be technical about it, a fuel cell is an electrochemical energy conversion device. A fuel cell converts the chemicals hydrogen and oxygen into water (vapor), and in the process it produces electricity.
The other electrochemical device that we are all familiar with is the battery. A battery has all of its chemicals stored inside, and it converts those chemicals into electricity too. This means that a battery eventually "goes dead" and you either throw it away or recharge it.
What I was talking about before was others idea of recharging LithIon batteries from sources other than plugging in. Which is why I talked about the problematic nature of the proposed huge batteries.
The electricity generated from the fuel cells will be used by a car's electric induction motor/transaxle and electric power inverter to produce 90-150 kilowatts of power. The electric power inverter works by converting the raw electrical current generated by the fuel cells into an alternating current that powers some of the prototypes electric motor and turns the wheels of the vehicle. I think many have decided a DC motor will be better. A traditional car battery will be used to operate the car's electrical system, including the radio and air conditioning, being re charged on demand.
Pure Fuel Cell cars will not be "charging" anything to make the car run, but rather power the motors directly.
When Ford was talking about their proto-type, this is what they said: "Big enough to seat five people, the P2000 sedan will perform much like the Ford Taurus. Although the Taurus' combustible engine produces 135 horsepower and the P2000 produces 100 horsepower, the P2000 is 40 percent lighter than the Taurus and, therefore, can match the Taurus' performance".
The amount of energy (electricity, usually) needed to extract hydrogen is at least twice what you get back out of the fuel cell. This sub-50% efficiency doesn't compare favorably to battery technology, which is currently better than 80% efficient.
Plus, you've got to expend energy to transport the hydrogen fuel to the filling stations.
As to the 10,000 pound prototype, that goes 300 miles: I can go 50 miles on the 1000 pound lead-acid battery pack in my 25-year-old EV.
This means a 10,000 pound pack of batteries based on 100-year-old battery technology could go 500 miles. A Li-Ion pack of that weight would be good for about a 2,000 mile range.
Now THAT would be impressive.
But as long as we're talking about FUTURE developments in hydrogen production, let's compare it to FUTURE batteries.
Supercapacitors will ace both battery and fuel cell technology. 300 mile ranges with 6-minute recharge time, and very low weight.
You guys should spend as much time researching Fuel Cell tecnhology as you do in looking for reasons to diss it in favor of something clearly proven not to work efficiently, like 10,000 pound batteries being hauled around. :P
Your citation said 80% efficient ... batteries are 88% efficient. How is this 50% more efficient than batteries? 50% more efficient than 88% would exceed 100% which is not even physically possible.
...You guys should spend as much time researching Fuel Cell tecnhology as you do in looking for reasons to diss it in favor of something clearly proven not to work efficiently, like 10,000 pound batteries being hauled around.
Dude, we've been talking about a 10,000 pound fuel cell car. I just pointed out that a li-ion 10000 pound car that goes 2000 miles is more impressive than a 10000 pound fuel-cell car that goes 300 miles. Unless you're a fuel cell zealot or something.
See below. Multiply the efficiencies, you're looking at 47% efficiency, tops (without the heat recovery trick.)
Efficiency of a fuel cell:
"The efficiency of a fuel is very dependent on the current through the fuel cell: as a general rule, the more current drawn, the lower the efficiency. A cell running at 0.6V has an efficiency of about 50%, meaning that 50% of the available energy content of the hydrogen is converted into electrical energy..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
And then there's the efficiency loss of creating the hydrogen through electrolysis:
"Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis. The theoretical maximum efficiency is between 80–94%.[2]. The theoretical maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values only refer to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency is more like 25–40%"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis
This Ford Taurus that you mentioned that had a pure fuel cell. How does it incorporate regenerative braking? When you say it is 40% lighter I seriously doubt that applies to the vehicle, probably just the powertrain.
Fuel cells may some day approach the efficiency of today's batteries but battery technology is definitely not standing still. And as apeweek points out if ultra-capacitors achieve anywhere near the potential that is being forecast then it will be no contest.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htm
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/cnnmoney/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&- newsId=20060921005244&newsLang=en&ndmConfigId=1000618&vnsId=33
The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can create and/or edit the entries. That means someone who doesn't know the first thing about a subject but thinks they are an expert can create or edit an article on that subject matter. Also people trying to promote or discredit something may not be completely honest in what they write.
Now while Wikipedia does try to police their site there are many examples of incorrect information in its articles and they don't have the academic credentials, controls and reviews that a regular encyclopideia would have.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Here's a no-brainer question for the fuel cell advocates. Which infrastructure will be more expensive to create? One that provides hydrogen refueling stations or one that provides high-power, fast charging stations? I'm not just talking about the initial cost per station. I'm talking about the ongoing costs and how many stations of each type would need to be built.
While I am not a fuel cell advocate (actually quite neutral on the subject) but I would have to say that the jury is still out on this.
It is one thing to have a battery pack in a car that will give you 300 miles and be recharged in 6 minutes. Its another thing to be able to provide the power to recharge those batteries in 6 minutes. Take into consideration that the gas station I usually use has 16 pumps (16 cars can be filling up at one time). Now lets pretend that you have 16 EV's plugged in at once, how much power would the station have to draw off the grid to recharge all 16 cars in 6 minutes?
My guess is that to change a gas station from a gas station to a recharge station would require beefing up the electrical infrastructure to the station.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Now look at the ongoing costs. A hydrogen fueling station would need to be replenished on a regular basis. If this was done by truck it would require more deliveries than currently needed for gasoline simply because the energy density is nowhere near that of gasoline. The station could potentially generate its own hydrogen at the site but that would require an additional upfront cost for this equipment and the ongoing cost of electrolysis and pressurization.
#103 refers to a charge rate of 140 amps at 3,500 volts or an instantaneous rate assuming impedence is put resistance in phase with the volts of 490 Kwatts. Realize a typical house has a service of 200 amps at 115 volts or 23 Kwatts. so take the example of 16 charging stations and you have an instantaneous rate of 7.84 Mwatts or 7,840 Kwatts , equivalent to everything turned on in 341 houses.
There is no-way the current grid structure can support "charging stations" without charging brownouts.
Before recharging can take place at a reasonable time frame the entire power grid will have to be revamped. We are talking 10s of years, not months or years before this will ever happen. So maybe Geoge Jetson scenario isn't too far off base. And LOL yes I do remember and read Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace It was in out Weekly-Reader in school in 1953. I also remember the new technology "Fuel Cells' in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics about the same time frame.
YMMV ( Your Memory May Vary) or (Yor Mileage May Vary)
MidCow
It is quite possible that a high-power charging station cannot operate continuously. By that I mean for it to deliver a 5 minute charge might require that the charging device itself was charged at a slower rate over say a 30 minute time period. So what?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
total energy pulled will be the same. However the load on that system will increase as the charge time decreases. Taking the same amount of energy in a much shorter amount of time requires greater capacity. Sort of like the difference of filling a swimming pool with a garden hose as opposed to a fire hose.
By that I mean for it to deliver a 5 minute charge might require that the charging device itself was charged at a slower rate over say a 30 minute time period. So what?
I would think that a charging station that could only charge one vehicle every 35 minutes per station would not be economically viable.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That's true but as the charge time decreases the number of people charging at any one time will also decrease proportionally.
I would think that a charging station that could only charge one vehicle every 35 minutes per station would not be economically viable.
I am really speculating on this one. In other words I have no idea regarding the timing involved. But, a fast charge station will be a money making proposition. If it can only deliver 30 charges throughout the course of a day then the cost for this convenience will be priced accordingly. It could be quite a bit and still end up being cheaper than buying gas. Of course if gas goes back down to $1.50/gallon everything changes.
The problem is in larger cities I do not think giving 30 charges a day would be viable. I would think the demand would be a sizable amount more than that.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Watts is based on time. so it does matter haw fast you charge. and that is waht I said.
Look at this basic expalanation of kilo-watts
http://www.twoof.freeserve.co.uk/motion1.htm
or this one :
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x76.htm
Yes the energy is the same , but the time factor is not!
Power to the People,
MidCow
Cities might install charging stations at curbside locations that are coin and card operated. Feed the meter..feed the juicer.
Juicers could be incorporated into rest stops on highways.
Parking garages and lots might install juicers.
Apartment buildings with parking structures might have a certain amount of stalls available with juicers.
Places of employment with lots could install juicers.
Businesses where you are likely to spend some time like hotels, resaurants, shopping malls, might install a certain amount of juicers.
I think with GFCI and other mechanical protections, these stations could be safe. We are talking about a slow transition here over many years..even then it might not be 100%. Running lines is a lot less complicated operation than dealing with gasoline storage, pumping and all the things that go along with that. Not to mention that Tesla is talking about a solar recharger.
I'll try to find my source but I seem to remember reading that the cost for the device capable of delivering these fast charges would be around $100k. If you already own a gas station this would represent your entire cost. Let's say the operater of one of these stations imposed a $5 fee per charge on top of the electricity cost, still much cheaper than gas. 30 charges per day would yield $150/day in revenue, $54k/year. That's a huge return on a $100k investment. In this environment where electricity is so much cheaper than gas these charging stations would sprout up very quickly. Unfortunately its kind of a chicken and egg situation. The charging station won't make any money at first because there are no EVs to use it. So to buy one of these devices will be an investment in the future with the associated risks. Just like most investments. The potential return should be enough to justify this risk.