Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
For an individual service station it probably wouldn't make sense to have more charging devices than your available power supply could simultaneously satisfy. That is unless these units could locally store some energy during their down times. In that case some sort of analysis would have to be done to determine the optimum amount of units.
I'm not sure why you view these obstacles to EVs as being so formidable. Afterall there are considerable obstacles involved in the continuing use of gasoline for our ICE fleet.
Ok I am not talking about the "whole grid", I am talking about the delivery system. The connection between the "grid" and the charging station, it needs to be strong enough to support the station being used at capacity.
For an individual service station it probably wouldn't make sense to have more charging devices than your available power supply could simultaneously satisfy.
Thats my whole point, They are talking about batteries that can be recharged in a few minutes. Thats a whole lot of energy to pass through the electrical lines going to your typical service station. If the batteries can be charged in 5 minutes but the power supply takes 45 minutes to deliver the energy than it will take 45 minutes to charge those 5 minute batteries.
The question was asked what would cost more, an infrastructure for hydrogen or for power stations. I was just pointing out that to have power stations that will charge your car in 5 minutes would require a large investment in beefing up power lines to those stations.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
http://www.ilea.org/lcas/taharaetal2001.html
IMO, it wasn't the right question.
The problem (as I see it) is that for early adopters of hydrogen technology, the lack of infrastructure is a HUGE problem since they CAN'T refuel at home.
The early adopters of EV's however CAN refuel at home. Therefore, there is an opportunity for an initially very small fleet of EV's to be in use, fueled at home in off peak ours (by those consumers who UNDERSTAND the limitations of range and the need to 'refuel' overnight). Then, as the EV fleet grows and a larger % of vehicles on the road are EVs, there will THEN be the incentive for the power providers to start installing the 'juicers' for EV refueling away from home.
What you seem to be implying is that even EARLY ADOPTERS of the technology (whether hydrogen or EV) will insist on using their new cars in exactly the same manner as their current ICE. I don't think that's the case. Early adopters of BOTH technologies will understand the limitations and adjust. It's just that early EV adopters CAN refuel at home whereas early Hydrogen fuel cell adopters MUST rely on infrastructure which currently doesn't exist.
I guess that is why we have discussion boards.
I am pointing out that the traditional model of the dedicated filling station could go by the wayside in large degree. The technology for what I have laid out exists today. I recently ran my own circuit for a heat pump, and wired a bathroom with gfci for a three switch system. Not rocket science as they say. If an apartment building could wire a few of these in for a couple thousand bucks and charge two bucks for a bucks worth of electricity.. I think it could easilly happen. In fact I think someone here pointed out that costco had wired a few stores for car charging with just the handful of EVs that were out there at the time. And don't underestimate the left coast cities who would like to be first on their block to support this technology.
I think the possible reason that it wouldn't happen would be if the EV doesn't appear as a practical model in sufficient numbers. But, we appear to be marching towards that end pretty fast now. I guess I see infrastructure as kind of a reverse field of dreams..."If they come...you will build it"
So I really can't see a reason why it wouldn't happen if the cars are there...though I will be glad to entertain why you think it wont.
I've often thought that for some new technologies like possible fuel cells, the feds should create a pilot project,,say on one on the hawaian islands. give some cheap leases or rebates on the cars and build a small infrastructure to see how it works. the cars wouldnt be limited to outriding the infrasctucture because of hte nature of the island.
I agree with you on the charging time concept. What I am saying that a charge time of only 6 minutes is extremely short and will not happen unless the power infrastructure is completley revamped.
My speculation is that as the power is currently distributed to exisitng gas stations and convenience pumps you are talking at best a recharge time of a couple of hours minimum. And I don't time that will be acceptable.
Therefore, I think for the foreseeable future EV design will be based on the ONHC design constraint.
Cheers,
MidCow
You make a lot of sense in your posts and have a demontrated knowlege of electrical and electronic theory. I appreciate you input and posts.
MidCow
Post #262 was especially insightful
Hydrogen Fuel Cells have that now. So why is there all this discussion, based on old technology, years old, when EV's were using older battery technology and had much shorter range?
That is the current state of fuel cell vehicles. Your claims are for the most part based on projected advances in this technology. That's fine then compare fuel cell vehicles with future EVs.
Future EVs, 'when implemented on a massive scale' will have a range over 250 miles, too.
You can't fairly compare future fuel cell technology with present day EV technology, and present a fair argument.
...Hydrogen Fuel Cells have that now.
What fuel cell cars can you buy right now, today?
Future EVs, to me, look much better than future fuel cell vehicles.
Don't forget that these fast charge stations can store up charge overnight, when electricity is cheap.
Therefore, future (say 2010/15) EV's and Fuel Cells. One will be filled and go 500-600 miles, and partially regenerate its own fuel.
The other will be twice as heavy, even with battery advances, go 300 miles, and the re charging costs versus the cost of Hydrogen will be approximately 30% more. There will be no need for regenerative, and expensive, braking systems, and the Fuel Cell car will have a CVT, not just one or two gears.
Please do not ignore the important fact that Hydrogen Production plants will co-generate electricity as a BY PRODUCT, and really drive down the "costs" of extracting the Hydrogen.
I am beginning to think a couple of you guys are just "sold" only on electricity, not the green concept. Otherwise you would be on board with any technology that promises better environmental results, and has already proven that......
While hydrogen has a high energy content per mass it's energy content by volume is low compared to gasoline. That's even if the hydrogen is in its liquid form, which would be expensive. So if a fueling station is servicing the same number of fuel cell vehicles as it used to ICE vehicles then it would have to take fuel deliveries about 4x as often. That seems like a cumbersome system to me.
What are your thoughts on ultra-capacitors? Do you think this technology will pan out? I've seen the stories regarding this ceramic capacitor that EEStor is supposedly about to deliver. I'm a little skeptical about this but they aren't saying anything that scientists at MIT aren't also saying regarding this technology. The difference is that MIT projects commercial viability is 5-10 years away.
Is this from the same individual claiming hydrogen fuel cells were 'cleaner' because the only emmission was water vapor but claiming EVs were 'dirtier' because of the power production necessary for the electricity?
Interesting.....
Are you now claiming batteries are environmentally friendly? :P Power production from fossil fuels is dirtier than Hydrogen extraction. Used batteries, if your EV dream came true would be a massive and expensive infrastructure to pay for.
Fuel Cells use a plentiful gas, and its extraction can be paid for selling electricity (as a by-product) to recharge your little electric car.
Ultra capacitors hold pomise and at present have lessleakage attentuation than batteries. I think that an EV with a range of 250 miles would be charged at least weekly , that is 52 times a year rahter than only 6. My commutes these days are measured in terms of 30 minute increments, but then this city is pretty spread out. Currently my closest grocery store is 9 miles away even though just recently I have Walgreens and CVS within 1 mile.
Having said that EV will probably be relugated for some time to overnight charging instead of quick charges.
Charge on,
MidCow
Why wouldn't you want to recapture kinetic energy through regenerative braking? That's just throwing money away especially when your vehicle is already equipped with an electric motor that can easily act as a generator and in doing so provide the bulk of the vehicles braking.
The Chevy Equinox fuel cell vehicle will weigh 500 lbs more than its ICE counterpart. This is despite the fact that GM has used more aluminum and carbon composites to minimize the weight gain. Its hydrogen tanks have negatively impacted available space. How do you propose extending the range to this 500-600 mile figure without either bigger tanks and/or higher pressure, which will also increase the size and weight. Especially when you are advocating the elimination of regenerative braking.
When you say re-charging an EV will be 30% more expensive than refueling a fuel cell vehicle I'm curious as to your source on this.
Please do not ignore the important fact that Hydrogen Production plants will co-generate electricity as a BY PRODUCT, and really drive down the "costs" of extracting the Hydrogen.
Really? Why wouldn't you use this by-product electricity to produce more hydrogen? The only reason could be that producing this hydrogen is a net energy loser. Recapturing the heat released to produce electricity just reduces this loss. You will still end up with less energy (electricity) than before the process started.
Wow, where to begin. Hydrogen extraction uses electricity. The SAME electricity that could power an EV. If power production comes from fossil fuels, then EVEN MORE pollution is created when hydrogen is extracted, because of the lower efficiency of that process.
Used batteries are recyclable. The cost of recycling is built into the price, just like with lead-acid batteries today.
Fuel Cells use a plentiful gas, and its extraction can be paid for selling electricity (as a by-product) to recharge your little electric car.
So what 'hydrogen mine' does this 'plentiful gas' come from?
Again, hydrogen must be extracted using electricity. There can be no net gain from this process, because of the law of conservation of energy. Any electricity generated from waste heat is going to be less than the electricity put into the system.
This is precisely why fuel cell cars can never meet the efficiency of battery powered cars. You're adding an extra step in between the electricity and the car. A step which cannot add any extra energy - it can only lose some.
Now you're just being ridiculous. Li-ion batteries are almost totally recyclable. Its not like replacing them will be done on a regular basis. To describe this process as requiring a massive and expensive infrastructure makes no sense whatsoever.
First of all, good luck showing me an 'unbiased' website. I'm too cynical to believe such a thing exists.
Second, I must have been sleeping in class that day. What studies did you cite? I like to do a little light reading...
"Are you now claiming batteries are environmentally friendly?"
No. Are you claiming fuel cells are environmentally friendly?
What I'm discussing is the relative 'cleanliness' of the means to produce electricity for EV use vs. the 'cleanliness' of the hydrogen extraction process. And comparing the amount of electrical energy required to move an EV over a certain distance compared to the amount of energy expended to generate the hydrogen for use in a fuel cell to move a comparable car over the same distance.
"Fuel Cells use a plentiful gas..."
Not plentiful in a form useful in a fuel cell. See, hydrogen likes to form very stable bonds with a number of other elements. However, to be useful in a fuel cell the hydrogen must be pure H2; therein lies the rub. Energy, IN SOME FORM, must be expended to break those bonds. That's basic chemistry. Whether you get hydrogen from electrolysis, in a steam methane reactor, or using nanotube technology does not change that fact. Energy is still expended to extract the hydrogen. A lot of energy.
How many hydrogen 'extraction' plants are operating? How clean are those plants? Or are you comparing (again) the theoretical cleanliness of hydrogen 'extraction' technologies (from those unbiased websites) against the CURRENT state of technology for EVs?
Fuel Cell use does not preclude or denigrate EV's, it is simply, in the end, a better technology to replace ICE's with than a battery car, given the technologies known to man at this time.
Several of you are, in effect, asking me to become your teacher, and instruct you. Rather impractical, when you can easily find the same information I have.
This isn't about each of us, but should be a group effort aimed at environmental considerations, no :confuse:
Posts with comments directed at other users will be removed.
The source of the information is not from a 'massive study' or a scientific journal. The information is from a government website run by the department of energy (DOE), and a university site that gets its funding from DOE. Here:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/
and
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/hydrogen/research/fuelcells.htm
The information there is very pro-fuel-cell, to the point of having a clear bias.
The information there is not exactly wrong, but numerous critical omissions are made. Examples:
"If pure hydrogen is used as a fuel, fuel cells emit only heat and water, eliminating concerns about air pollutants or greenhouse gases."
The critical omission is in not pointing out that there is no source of pure hydrogen on earth. Hydrogen must be extracted by expending energy. As you must necessarily expend more energy than you receive, it can hardly "eliminate concerns about air pollutants or greenhouse gases."
Here's anoher gem:
"They can be used for almost any application typically powered by batteries but can last up to three times longer before refueling."
Talk about nonsense! What batteries are we talking about? How many batteries? How much hydrogen fuel? Without some qualifiers, the statement is meaningless (except for the anti-battery sentiment it is designed to elicit.)
Here's another:
"Fuel cells have the potential for excellent efficiency and can convert up to 75% of the energy in the fuel."
The critical omission here is that in order to get 75% efficiency, the fuel cell must be run at a very low output level. Something you can't do in a car.
And my favorite:
"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."
Storing electricity can only be done by fuel cells? News to me. I drive a battery powered car. Again, the statement is demonstrably false, as BEVs are on the road today when 10,000 pound fuel cell vehicles are barely stepping out of the crib.
So why is our government involved in promoting misleading information about fuel cells? I'll leave that for all of you to figure out.
Probably more than weekly, but most owners would just plug them in at their dwelling.
Of all the solutions being considered for weaning ourselves from oil dependancy I think that EVs hold the greatest promise and require the least amount of government assistance. Actually as an EV enthusiast I don't want government assistance. I just ask that they don't impose barriers and hinderances.
Okay. I went back over a month in this forum, and found a SINGLE link you provided dealing with fuel cells. And it dealt with.....fuel cells. I didn't find anything in there regarding the 'cleanliness' of hydrogen extraction.
AGAIN, how is or how can hydrogen be produced on a commercial basis and how CLEAN is that process compared to the production of electricity? And how much power is consumed in hydrogen production to make a COMPARABLE amount of electricity?
Just out of curiousity - if fuel cells are such a clean, efficient means to produce electricity (after all, that's all a fuel cell does in a car if produce electricity to drive the motors), why don't we have fuel cell power plants?
As I posted before, in my opinion the ONLY advantage I see to hydrogen fuel cell technology over BEV technology is the ability to 'refuel' relatively quickly. I'm simply trying to honestly determine, from our resident hydrogen fan, how the production of hydrogen for fuel cells is inherently 'cleaner' than the production of electricity for BEVs.
Personally, I think the ONLY way for a hydrogen infrastructure to develope is if the hydrogen is produced ('extracted') at the refueling site, eliminating the problems of trying to distribute the hydrogen from a large central facility.
But, since it should be more efficient to produce the hydrogen at large central facilities, why not simply build large multi-MW fuel cells at the same hydrogen production facilities? Wouldn't economies of scale say that it would be more efficient to build large fuel cells for power production rather than millions of little fuel cells for automobile production?
You would certainly think so.
Yes, but consider the law of diminishing returns. Bigger and more capacity doesn't always mean more efficent. There is a point where two smaller cells are more efficient than one that is twice as large. Where that point is I don't know.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Sorry -- for what it's worth, I enjoy participating here precisely because of people like you. I enjoy spirited discussion. "Agressively challenging" is exactly why I like to be here. I hope you don't think we want to drive you off. I would like to have some of those challenges answered.
If you think someone is baiting you, don't take the bait and ignore them.
Having people take what you post on a message board exactly the way you intended it to be taken is almost impossible. Having a bunch of people trying to "get a rise" of of each other is asking for trouble.
It is not a personal challenge. It was meant as a compliment to the poster, and some encouragement for him to continue with the discussion. I have no personal dispute with this person. I honestly meant what I said. All I'm referring to is dicussing the issues he brought up.
I have no intent to create any trouble. That's not the kind of person I am.
As far as hydrogen production. The last I read most of it is produced in the natural gas fields of Alaska and Canada. They are having a tough time keeping up with demand. The demand is not for fuel cells. It is for anhydrous ammonia, yep to grow more corn, to make more ethanol. Crazy in my book.
"The Innovation: A ceramic power source for electric cars that could blow away the combustion engine
The Disrupted: Oil companies and carmakers that don't climb aboard
Forget hybrids and hydrogen-powered vehicles. EEStor, a stealth company in Cedar Park, Texas, is working on an "energy storage" device that could finally give the internal combustion engine a run for its money -- and begin saving us from our oil addiction. "To call it a battery discredits it," says Ian Clifford, the CEO of Toronto-based electric car company Feel Good Cars, which plans to incorporate EEStor's technology in vehicles by 2008.
EEStor's device is not technically a battery because no chemicals are involved. In fact, it contains no hazardous materials whatsoever. Yet it acts like a battery in that it stores electricity. If it works as it's supposed to, it will charge up in five minutes and provide enough energy to drive 500 miles on about $9 worth of electricity. At today's gas prices, covering that distance can cost $60 or more; the EEStor device would power a car for the equivalent of about 45 cents a gallon.
And we mean power a car. "A four-passenger sedan will drive like a Ferrari," Clifford predicts. In contrast, his first electric car, the Zenn, which debuted in August and is powered by a more conventional battery, can't go much faster than a moped and takes hours to charge.
The cost of the engine itself depends on how much energy it can store; an EEStor-powered engine with a range roughly equivalent to that of a gasoline-powered car would cost about $5,200. That's a slight premium over the cost of the gas engine and the other parts the device would replace -- the gas tank, exhaust system, and drivetrain. But getting rid of the need to buy gas should more than make up for the extra cost of an EEStor-powered car.
EEStor is tight-lipped about its device and how it manages to pack such a punch. According to a patent issued in April, the device is made of a ceramic powder coated with aluminum oxide and glass. A bank of these ceramic batteries could be used at "electrical energy stations" where people on the road could charge up.
EEStor is backed by VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and the company's founders are engineers Richard Weir and Carl Nelson. CEO Weir, a former IBM-er, won't comment, but his son, Tom, an EEStor VP, acknowledges, "That is pretty much why we are here today, to compete with the internal combustion engine." He also hints that his engine technology is not just for the small passenger vehicles that Clifford is aiming at, but could easily replace the 300-horsepower brutes in today's SUVs. That would make it appealing to automakers like GM and Ford."
STORY HERE
"The Innovation: A ceramic power source for electric cars that could blow away the combustion engine
The Disrupted: Oil companies and carmakers that don't climb aboard
Forget hybrids and hydrogen-powered vehicles. EEStor, a stealth company in Cedar Park, Texas, is working on an "energy storage" device that could finally give the internal combustion engine a run for its money -- and begin saving us from our oil addiction. "To call it a battery discredits it," says Ian Clifford, the CEO of Toronto-based electric car company Feel Good Cars, which plans to incorporate EEStor's technology in vehicles by 2008.
EEStor's device is not technically a battery because no chemicals are involved. In fact, it contains no hazardous materials whatsoever. Yet it acts like a battery in that it stores electricity. If it works as it's supposed to, it will charge up in five minutes and provide enough energy to drive 500 miles on about $9 worth of electricity. At today's gas prices, covering that distance can cost $60 or more; the EEStor device would power a car for the equivalent of about 45 cents a gallon.
And we mean power a car. "A four-passenger sedan will drive like a Ferrari," Clifford predicts. In contrast, his first electric car, the Zenn, which debuted in August and is powered by a more conventional battery, can't go much faster than a moped and takes hours to charge.
The cost of the engine itself depends on how much energy it can store; an EEStor-powered engine with a range roughly equivalent to that of a gasoline-powered car would cost about $5,200. That's a slight premium over the cost of the gas engine and the other parts the device would replace -- the gas tank, exhaust system, and drivetrain. But getting rid of the need to buy gas should more than make up for the extra cost of an EEStor-powered car.
EEStor is tight-lipped about its device and how it manages to pack such a punch. According to a patent issued in April, the device is made of a ceramic powder coated with aluminum oxide and glass. A bank of these ceramic batteries could be used at "electrical energy stations" where people on the road could charge up.
EEStor is backed by VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and the company's founders are engineers Richard Weir and Carl Nelson. CEO Weir, a former IBM-er, won't comment, but his son, Tom, an EEStor VP, acknowledges, "That is pretty much why we are here today, to compete with the internal combustion engine." He also hints that his engine technology is not just for the small passenger vehicles that Clifford is aiming at, but could easily replace the 300-horsepower brutes in today's SUVs. That would make it appealing to automakers like GM and Ford."
STORY HERE
Naw, they will just buy the patents for 600M, and put it on the shelf......
http://www.eestor.us/
Unfortunately, it's still 'under construction.'
Some other battery websites to watch - Here's Altair Nanotech - they have an improved Li-Ion battery that can't blow up:
http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=546&ResLibraryID=169- 17&Category=856
And Firefly Energy - they have greatly improved the lead-acid battery. This is significant because lead-acid tech is cheap, and these batteries could be quick drop-in replacements wherever lead-acids are used:
http://www.fireflyenergy.com/ffy.html