Why Black Is The Real Green In Energy Production [View article]
Of course, we could use nuclear, which happens to be around a million times as energy dense as fossil fuels and has tiny carbon emissions.
The confirmed death toll from civil nuclear power is around 100 in the decades of its existence, as against around 3 million a YEAR or so from fossil fuel pollution:
Nice job by the fossil fuel industry in spreading FUD. It is rather as though Rockefeller had been successful in keeping kerosene for lighting instead of new fangled and 'dangerous' electricity, as he tried to do.
If the fossil fuel industry had to abide by anything remotely like the waste disposal regulations that they have landed the nuclear industry with, it would cease immediately.
What in the world are you talking about? All fuel cell cars have a substantial battery buffer, which provides plenty of power. How long does it take to accelerate? Not long, is the answer, so a comparatively modest battery can provide the transient power needs for both acceleration and capture regenerative braking.
Of far more import are the much more real limits to energy density in current batteries. Including all the CF tanks and other weight, a fuel cell car still hits around 1.5kwh/kg, way, way more than even the best batteries.
Now maybe batteries will close that gap, but fuel cell technology is far from standing still too, and I don't know and you don't know whether they will.
Why you should chose to grossly inflate comparatively trivial power density issues for fuel cells and pretend they are some sort of show stopper is beyond be.
Both fuel cell and battery technologies are very handy to have, and I wish them both every success. Together they can get rid of the pollution from combustion engines, and dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
'Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles are a non-starter as they still need batteries and an electric drive train, and the production and usage of hydrogen is expensive and inefficient. Hydrogen is a product of either fracking (don't get me started on that!), electrolysis (inefficient) or bugs (really?).
The batteries a fuel cell car uses are around 1.5kwh worth, in no way comparable to the huge 85kwh pack in the top Tesla, or even the 24kwh in the Leaf.
Of course they use an electric drive train, as they are just as much electric cars as a battery one. This leads to a far lower parts count than combustion engine cars, and potential build savings.
Both fuel cell cars and battery vehicles with hydrogen provided by natural gas reforming and using the figures from the present efficiency of the US grid use around 1MJ/mile on a well to wheel basis.
Much electricity comes from fossil fuels, and if the aim is a high proportion of renewables, then hydrogen is an essential component of every real-world scheme, including the hugely ambitious German effort to switch to renewables. Excess wind and solar are on a use it or loose it basis, so if it has to be stored the realistic alternatives make use of hydrogen as well as other storage mechanisms.
Just like electricity, hydrogen can be produced by a host of alternatives, and is vital to store renewable energy.
Electrolysis even discounting more efficient alternatives such as high temperature production using the waste heat, a right-now technology, is around 70% efficient with compression costing maybe another 5% or so.
This compares with a grid efficiency in the US of 33% including 7% transmission losses.
So: 'However a Fuel Cell vehicle's low power and high latency means it will never justify its price compared to an EV competitor. If 0-100km/h Tesla was > 10 second vehicle instead of a 4 second vehicle, it would be dead.'
neatly encapsulates your wholly prejudiced fake assessment of fuel cells.
The relatively low power output of current fuel cells is trivially compensated by a subsidiary battery, of the order of 1.5kwh, to cover acceleration which only takes a few seconds and enables regenerative braking.
If you looked at actual engineering instead of trying futilely to dismiss whole areas of technology on the grounds of specious generalisations, you might become more capable of an even handed and rational assessment.
So the DOE and the car companies are now guys on a blog? The difference between what I argue and what you do is that I have huge and comprehensive studies to back them up.
If someone is that disorganised, they will probably also have forgotten to plug the car in. In more years of driving than I care to remember I have never, ever had a problem with running low on petrol.
One of Musk's qualities is that he is a wonderful salesman. They big up their current product, and don't talk up other ways of doing things.
After swallowing the sales chat whole, you then go on to cherry pick data.
How come you did not chose the Toyota, which gets a genuine 431 miles on a tank, in real world, tested driving? http://1.usa.gov/PjHew2
This compares to 265 miles for the Tesla with the biggest pack, on the far more lenient EPA cycle.
So the fuel cell vehicle gets far better range right now, which you attempt to cover up by speculating on improvements, naturally in favour of your own pick.
To be clear, I don't know which technology will win out, which puts me ahead of you, as you imagine you do.
We have to see how things pan out in the real world, as all sensible commentators who are not talking their book like Musk are aware.
Some of the comments here dissing hydrogen and fuel cells are as daft as those on why the Tesla is doomed.
You quote one odd bod. I prefer the massive studies done by the likes of the DOE and the commitment of almost all the major car companies to fuel cells.
If you ask me whether batteries or fuels cells will win, or more correctly what their proportional shares of the market will be, I don't know as it depends on how fast the respective technologies advance.
The big car companies don't know either, and say so, which is why they are investing in both.
Neither do the geezers on a blog with their back of the envelope and highly inaccurate calculations of energy efficiency and so forth.
The difference it reasonable people know that they don't know.
Tesla: The Good, The Realistic And The Ugly Outlook [View article]
You need to re-read the thread. Amongst numerous other substantial criticisms I posted upthread:
'I am just going to focus on the batteries, rather than going into the other points made.
Simply looking at the statements made in that regard, the author's comments are wildly inaccurate.
Unfavourable comment was made on Tesla's ability as a relatively small company to stay at the forefront of battery development.
Since the batteries are Panasonic, not Tesla, and I have never heard Panasonic called a small company, I have no idea what the author is talking about.
Tesla is a very major purchaser of EV batteries, and so has a lot of purchasing power, and if Panasonic fall behind can easily switch.
Tesla's input was to wire together the cells as they used commodity versions not to build batteries.
The comments about battery life and heat degradation are also somewhat dubious.
The batteries which run into trouble were in the Leaf, which has no active cooling at all. Those with active cooling like the Tesla and Volt have had no problems.
The very big packs in the Tesla also work far less hard for any given mileage, doing a third of the work in the Leaf.
Additionally the Panasonic batteries currently used in the Tesla use NMC chemistry, not the manganese spinel in the Leaf, which has far lower cycle life.
Tesla: The Good, The Realistic And The Ugly Outlook [View article]
Because the author is talking complete tosh in order to denigrate Tesla and BEVs, that is not an excuse for you to do likewise in seeking to denigrate fuel cells.
All your bright 'points' have been thought of before, and addressed. Try looking up the DOE's work for a start.
However, it is simpler to demonstrate that you have not got a clue what you are on about, and what is more have not done research to find out, by just looking at your absurd claim that: 'This is why NASA gave up on fuel cells a long time ago in exchange for advanced batteries.'
Tesla: The Good, The Realistic And The Ugly Outlook [View article]
Electricity does not appear by magic either. Both batteries using the current US grid and fuel cell cars use around 1MJ/mile on a well to wheels basis.
Tesla: The Good, The Realistic And The Ugly Outlook [View article]
The packaging for hydrogen is rather different as the tanks have to be circular in cross section, but the system is at least as compact as well as a great deal lighter than batteries even taking into account the tank and the ancillary equipment.
That ties in with your incorrect assessment of energy density. The critical thing is not the energy density of hydrogen compared to petrol, but the density compared to batteries. A fuel cell system including the weight of the tank etc still comes in at something like 1500Wh/kg, way, way in excess of anything we can do with batteries.
That is why, for instance, the Toyota FCEV has around twice the range of even the mighty Tesla 85kwh.
Hydrogen storage in compressive tanks is a well understood technology, and leakage etc are far from show stoppers, but merely one of many issues in any technology including batteries which have to be engineered around.
Tesla: The Good, The Realistic And The Ugly Outlook [View article]
Hyundai has not only designed its car to run on hydrogen, but they are in very low volume production. Daimler, Nissan, Honda and Toyota are also designing fuel cell cars.
Why Black Is The Real Green In Energy Production [View article]
The confirmed death toll from civil nuclear power is around 100 in the decades of its existence, as against around 3 million a YEAR or so from fossil fuel pollution:
http://bit.ly/14y5djs
Nice job by the fossil fuel industry in spreading FUD.
It is rather as though Rockefeller had been successful in keeping kerosene for lighting instead of new fangled and 'dangerous' electricity, as he tried to do.
If the fossil fuel industry had to abide by anything remotely like the waste disposal regulations that they have landed the nuclear industry with, it would cease immediately.
And that is without carbon credits.
Tesla's Matrix Moment [View article]
All fuel cell cars have a substantial battery buffer, which provides plenty of power.
How long does it take to accelerate?
Not long, is the answer, so a comparatively modest battery can provide the transient power needs for both acceleration and capture regenerative braking.
Of far more import are the much more real limits to energy density in current batteries.
Including all the CF tanks and other weight, a fuel cell car still hits around 1.5kwh/kg, way, way more than even the best batteries.
Now maybe batteries will close that gap, but fuel cell technology is far from standing still too, and I don't know and you don't know whether they will.
Why you should chose to grossly inflate comparatively trivial power density issues for fuel cells and pretend they are some sort of show stopper is beyond be.
Both fuel cell and battery technologies are very handy to have, and I wish them both every success.
Together they can get rid of the pollution from combustion engines, and dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
Tesla: Invest In The Future [View article]
The batteries a fuel cell car uses are around 1.5kwh worth, in no way comparable to the huge 85kwh pack in the top Tesla, or even the 24kwh in the Leaf.
Of course they use an electric drive train, as they are just as much electric cars as a battery one.
This leads to a far lower parts count than combustion engine cars, and potential build savings.
Both fuel cell cars and battery vehicles with hydrogen provided by natural gas reforming and using the figures from the present efficiency of the US grid use around 1MJ/mile on a well to wheel basis.
Much electricity comes from fossil fuels, and if the aim is a high proportion of renewables, then hydrogen is an essential component of every real-world scheme, including the hugely ambitious German effort to switch to renewables.
Excess wind and solar are on a use it or loose it basis, so if it has to be stored the realistic alternatives make use of hydrogen as well as other storage mechanisms.
Just like electricity, hydrogen can be produced by a host of alternatives, and is vital to store renewable energy.
Electrolysis even discounting more efficient alternatives such as high temperature production using the waste heat, a right-now technology, is around 70% efficient with compression costing maybe another 5% or so.
This compares with a grid efficiency in the US of 33% including 7% transmission losses.
Tesla's Matrix Moment [View article]
Tesla's Matrix Moment [View article]
'However a Fuel Cell vehicle's low power and high latency means it will never justify its price compared to an EV competitor. If 0-100km/h Tesla was > 10 second vehicle instead of a 4 second vehicle, it would be dead.'
neatly encapsulates your wholly prejudiced fake assessment of fuel cells.
The relatively low power output of current fuel cells is trivially compensated by a subsidiary battery, of the order of 1.5kwh, to cover acceleration which only takes a few seconds and enables regenerative braking.
If you looked at actual engineering instead of trying futilely to dismiss whole areas of technology on the grounds of specious generalisations, you might become more capable of an even handed and rational assessment.
Tesla's Matrix Moment [View article]
The difference between what I argue and what you do is that I have huge and comprehensive studies to back them up.
Tesla's Matrix Moment [View article]
In more years of driving than I care to remember I have never, ever had a problem with running low on petrol.
Tesla's Matrix Moment [View article]
They big up their current product, and don't talk up other ways of doing things.
After swallowing the sales chat whole, you then go on to cherry pick data.
How come you did not chose the Toyota, which gets a genuine 431 miles on a tank, in real world, tested driving?
http://1.usa.gov/PjHew2
This compares to 265 miles for the Tesla with the biggest pack, on the far more lenient EPA cycle.
So the fuel cell vehicle gets far better range right now, which you attempt to cover up by speculating on improvements, naturally in favour of your own pick.
To be clear, I don't know which technology will win out, which puts me ahead of you, as you imagine you do.
We have to see how things pan out in the real world, as all sensible commentators who are not talking their book like Musk are aware.
Tesla's Matrix Moment [View article]
You quote one odd bod.
I prefer the massive studies done by the likes of the DOE and the commitment of almost all the major car companies to fuel cells.
If you ask me whether batteries or fuels cells will win, or more correctly what their proportional shares of the market will be, I don't know as it depends on how fast the respective technologies advance.
The big car companies don't know either, and say so, which is why they are investing in both.
Neither do the geezers on a blog with their back of the envelope and highly inaccurate calculations of energy efficiency and so forth.
The difference it reasonable people know that they don't know.
Tesla: The Good, The Realistic And The Ugly Outlook [View article]
Amongst numerous other substantial criticisms I posted upthread:
'I am just going to focus on the batteries, rather than going into the other points made.
Simply looking at the statements made in that regard, the author's comments are wildly inaccurate.
Unfavourable comment was made on Tesla's ability as a relatively small company to stay at the forefront of battery development.
Since the batteries are Panasonic, not Tesla, and I have never heard Panasonic called a small company, I have no idea what the author is talking about.
Tesla is a very major purchaser of EV batteries, and so has a lot of purchasing power, and if Panasonic fall behind can easily switch.
Tesla's input was to wire together the cells as they used commodity versions not to build batteries.
The comments about battery life and heat degradation are also somewhat dubious.
The batteries which run into trouble were in the Leaf, which has no active cooling at all.
Those with active cooling like the Tesla and Volt have had no problems.
The very big packs in the Tesla also work far less hard for any given mileage, doing a third of the work in the Leaf.
Additionally the Panasonic batteries currently used in the Tesla use NMC chemistry, not the manganese spinel in the Leaf, which has far lower cycle life.
Tesla: The Good, The Realistic And The Ugly Outlook [View article]
All your bright 'points' have been thought of before, and addressed.
Try looking up the DOE's work for a start.
However, it is simpler to demonstrate that you have not got a clue what you are on about, and what is more have not done research to find out, by just looking at your absurd claim that:
'This is why NASA gave up on fuel cells a long time ago in exchange for advanced batteries.'
Actually:
http://1.usa.gov/123SyVn
You are spouting nonsense.
Tesla: The Good, The Realistic And The Ugly Outlook [View article]
That makes your article a polemic, not an argument.
Tesla: The Good, The Realistic And The Ugly Outlook [View article]
Both batteries using the current US grid and fuel cell cars use around 1MJ/mile on a well to wheels basis.
Tesla: The Good, The Realistic And The Ugly Outlook [View article]
That ties in with your incorrect assessment of energy density.
The critical thing is not the energy density of hydrogen compared to petrol, but the density compared to batteries.
A fuel cell system including the weight of the tank etc still comes in at something like 1500Wh/kg, way, way in excess of anything we can do with batteries.
That is why, for instance, the Toyota FCEV has around twice the range of even the mighty Tesla 85kwh.
Hydrogen storage in compressive tanks is a well understood technology, and leakage etc are far from show stoppers, but merely one of many issues in any technology including batteries which have to be engineered around.
Tesla: The Good, The Realistic And The Ugly Outlook [View article]
Daimler, Nissan, Honda and Toyota are also designing fuel cell cars.