Seeing Future in Fuel Cells, Toyota Ends Tesla Deal(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Seeing Future in Fuel Cells, Toyota Ends Tesla Deal
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/business/energy-environment/seeing-future-in-fuel-cells-toyota-ends-tesla-deal.html?hpw&rref=automobiles&_r=0
70 comments
Interesting - if I'm reading that correctly, Tesla's battery-swap technology substantially boosted the amount of ZEV credits they obtained and could resell by allowing them to claim "fast recharging", despite the facilities to actually swap batteries never actually being available to customers.
Yes, but to get the extra credits they only had to demonstrate battery swap with a bunch of technicians. The large automated demo they did later on wasn't for the ZEV credits.
Correct. The vehicle only needs to be able to swap, without the need to deploy the expensive ($~500K/each) battery swap stations.
the frame for a gas guzzler SUV
31mpg highway is what counts for gas guzzler these days?
31mpg highway is what counts for gas guzzler these days?
So, instead of using the ubiquitous power grid, we'll need:
- Hydrogen "manufacturing". Guess where most of it come from? Fossil fuels. If you use water, you require a lot of energy input. Actually, in either case you need energy input, so hydrogen is more like a battery, not an energy source.
- Hydrogen distribution/storage. At the refinery, between that and the 'gas' stations, etc. Not all containers are suitable for that (hydrogen is quite difficult to store) and no matter if liquid or gas, the tanks need to be much bigger than a comparable gasoline tank (by energy).
- Actually using the hydrogen. You are using fuel cells to generate electricity, which will power electric engines. Why not skip the middle man? You are using a much more complicated battery, really.
And that just to make the 'charging' faster? How long would it take to cover a country the size of the US with hydrogen stations? I'd put all that infrastructure money on battery research.
This is just Toyota giving up on EVs completely. They just don't want to say it outright. Green companies and all that.
- Hydrogen "manufacturing". Guess where most of it come from? Fossil fuels. If you use water, you require a lot of energy input. Actually, in either case you need energy input, so hydrogen is more like a battery, not an energy source.
- Hydrogen distribution/storage. At the refinery, between that and the 'gas' stations, etc. Not all containers are suitable for that (hydrogen is quite difficult to store) and no matter if liquid or gas, the tanks need to be much bigger than a comparable gasoline tank (by energy).
- Actually using the hydrogen. You are using fuel cells to generate electricity, which will power electric engines. Why not skip the middle man? You are using a much more complicated battery, really.
And that just to make the 'charging' faster? How long would it take to cover a country the size of the US with hydrogen stations? I'd put all that infrastructure money on battery research.
This is just Toyota giving up on EVs completely. They just don't want to say it outright. Green companies and all that.
I think you are a bit harsh on Toyota here. I can't resist playing devil's advocate. Some googling turned up Toyota has fleets of fuel cell vehicles already [1], this includes some buses. [2] Seen any battery powered buses lately?
2. Batteries suck. They are heavy and don't hold much energy. Advancements seem to come very slowly despite the fact that everyone wants them to be better!
3. Complexity isn't always bad. Hybrids are much more complex than a traditional drivetrain, yet they manage to deliver improvements in fuel economy.
/devil's advocate off
I do love Tesla, and wish them all the success in the world. Their cars are really heavy though, that is a pretty serious drawback to overcome.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_FCHV
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_bus
2. Batteries suck. They are heavy and don't hold much energy. Advancements seem to come very slowly despite the fact that everyone wants them to be better!
3. Complexity isn't always bad. Hybrids are much more complex than a traditional drivetrain, yet they manage to deliver improvements in fuel economy.
/devil's advocate off
I do love Tesla, and wish them all the success in the world. Their cars are really heavy though, that is a pretty serious drawback to overcome.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_FCHV
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_bus
There are a couple of vendors of battery-powered buses. One is a Kleiner Perkins backed startup (http://proterra.com/) that sells buses and overhead fast-charging stations.
BTW the Model S is of a similar weight to other large sedans -- BMW 7-series cars weigh between 4,310 and 5,100 pounds.
BTW the Model S is of a similar weight to other large sedans -- BMW 7-series cars weigh between 4,310 and 5,100 pounds.
Speaking of 7 series..
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
Umm... batteries are also like... batteries... how surprising... and like hydrogen are chemical forms of energy storage.
As for how long, probably about 6-24 months... it's actually more a question of capital... if you have the capital i can't imagine it's that difficult to scale up the building of hydrogen storage tanks.
Yes, charging faster is important to people... aren't we having a whole net neutrality debate because being able to download a 2 hr movie in 2 hrs and 30 minutes is no where near as good as being able to download a 2 hr movie in 1h 50m.
I'm pretty sure if you could fly some hydrogen from Berlin to New York in the 20s we can figure out how to make bags for hydrogen. (Yes, some may leak... but who cares, it's not like it doesn't just float away when it gets to the top of the atmosphere...?)
As for how long, probably about 6-24 months... it's actually more a question of capital... if you have the capital i can't imagine it's that difficult to scale up the building of hydrogen storage tanks.
Yes, charging faster is important to people... aren't we having a whole net neutrality debate because being able to download a 2 hr movie in 2 hrs and 30 minutes is no where near as good as being able to download a 2 hr movie in 1h 50m.
I'm pretty sure if you could fly some hydrogen from Berlin to New York in the 20s we can figure out how to make bags for hydrogen. (Yes, some may leak... but who cares, it's not like it doesn't just float away when it gets to the top of the atmosphere...?)
I was flipping through the channels last night an NHK World had a special dedicated to showing off Hydrogen Fuel Cells. They had mocked up a small town, had a fleet of vehicles/forklifts, and had a lot of "label to camera" shots for Toshiba.
It all looked nice and tidy, but effectively they had to duplicate the natural gas infrastructure and then have /several/* fuel-cell objects behind houses that were about the size of a large refrigerator.
* If I remember right, one was merely to remove the odoring agent for leak detection.
It all looked nice and tidy, but effectively they had to duplicate the natural gas infrastructure and then have /several/* fuel-cell objects behind houses that were about the size of a large refrigerator.
* If I remember right, one was merely to remove the odoring agent for leak detection.
What about range? Hydrogen might be less energy dense than gasoline, but what about compared to batteries?
Range is the #1 crippling factor for EVs to most people I talk to.
Range is the #1 crippling factor for EVs to most people I talk to.
Range is a valid concern, but hydrogen has poor energy density per volume (if compressed).
If you want compact hydrogen, hydrocarbons are your best bet.
If you want compact hydrogen, hydrocarbons are your best bet.
Hydrogen is better than batteries in this respect though, so when comparing zero emission options it still appears to be a good bet for Toyota, if it can be implemented on a large scale.
Most hydrogen vehicles (of which there aren't really any you can buy) have the same 200-250 mile range of a Model S.
This is really surprising. What are they thinking? Hydrogen fuel cells STILL have not been proven to be a viable power source for cars. Electricity has been validated time and time again - even before Tesla, there was the EV1. And now the technology is really starting to scale in production volume and performance, along with the infrastructure.
Even if they can make a hydrogen vehicle with equal, or even slightly greater performance than an electric of the same cost, then they still need to solve the problem of the hydrogen infrastructure. That's really hard. You can generate it on site, but the equipment to do so is expensive and complex.
I think Toyota just doesn't want to compete with Tesla.
Even if they can make a hydrogen vehicle with equal, or even slightly greater performance than an electric of the same cost, then they still need to solve the problem of the hydrogen infrastructure. That's really hard. You can generate it on site, but the equipment to do so is expensive and complex.
I think Toyota just doesn't want to compete with Tesla.
Forgive me if I misread your post, but hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles as discussed in the article run on electricity. So when you say "electricity has been validated", you really mean batteries as used in Teslas have been validated, correct? Or are you referring to hydrogen internal combustion engines? I don't think those are in development at Toyota but maybe I'm wrong.
> I think Toyota just doesn't want to compete with Tesla.
Yes. I am sure Toyota is just terrified by a company that is haemorrhaging money and only sells in a few countries.
Yes. I am sure Toyota is just terrified by a company that is haemorrhaging money and only sells in a few countries.
Is it? Source?
Just like politics, you can read anything you want into Tesla's financials. They make a 25% margin building cars, which is excellent. They are a small car company expanding their factory and designing a new model, which means they lose money.
First we got to hear the ICE proponents spreading FUD about Electric Vehicles, now we'll get to hear Electric Vehicle proponents spreading FUD about fuel cells.
Fuel cell vehicles have never made any sense. It's still being turned into electricity anyway, so it's still an electric vehicle. There happens to already be a distribution infrastructure for electricity almost everywhere. The same can't be said for hydrogen.
According to the US Department of Energy, there are eleven public hydrogen stations in the US, almost all in Los Angeles. There are more compressed natural gas stations in my state alone.
According to the US Department of Energy, there are eleven public hydrogen stations in the US, almost all in Los Angeles. There are more compressed natural gas stations in my state alone.
"Fuel cell vehicles have never made any sense."
They have in the sense that I go to a station and fill up then leave in a reasonable amount of time. I don't have to alter my driving habits from the last 50+ years.
They have in the sense that I go to a station and fill up then leave in a reasonable amount of time. I don't have to alter my driving habits from the last 50+ years.
Have you used a vehicle powered by natural gas? I have. For safety reasons, in many places you have to get out of the vehicle while it is being refuelled (the cylinder gets really hot!). And that is a change from your 50+ years driving habit. It also takes longer than a comparable gas pump (even if it is measured in single digit minutes). The gas gauge also reads differently (my guess is due to pressure decreases as gas is consumed).
You can't really expect to radically change tech and have the entire experience be the same.
Not to mention that the only thing preventing one from filling up a tank the way they do with gasoline is battery technology. If they are improved (graphene capacitors?), almost nothing needs to change in the grid.
[EDIT: I am comparing the hydrogen gas stations (which are so rare that might not even exist) to the experience of refilling a compressed natural gas vehicle. It is the closest real world parallel I can think of.]
You can't really expect to radically change tech and have the entire experience be the same.
Not to mention that the only thing preventing one from filling up a tank the way they do with gasoline is battery technology. If they are improved (graphene capacitors?), almost nothing needs to change in the grid.
[EDIT: I am comparing the hydrogen gas stations (which are so rare that might not even exist) to the experience of refilling a compressed natural gas vehicle. It is the closest real world parallel I can think of.]
> Have you used a vehicle powered by natural gas? I have. For safety reasons, in many places you have to get out of the vehicle while it is being refuelled (the cylinder gets really hot!). And that is a change from your 50+ years driving habit. It also takes longer than a comparable gas pump (even if it is measured in single digit minutes). The gas gauge also reads differently (my guess is due to pressure decreases as gas is consumed).
In India, people convert their gasoline based cars to use gas cylinders. The replacement is infrequent and doesn't need to happen as often as much as filling up gasoline.
In India, people convert their gasoline based cars to use gas cylinders. The replacement is infrequent and doesn't need to happen as often as much as filling up gasoline.
In Brazil as well, which is where I am coming from.
I did not notice a real decrease in refuelling stops, compared to a gas vehicle. But that is subjective, I haven't measured. That might also be explained by the size of the tanks: most 'converted' vehicles retain their ability to be powered by gasoline by flicking a switch, so the tank cannot be too big and has to go in the trunk.
Almost all conversions are done to decrease costs, most frequently by taxi drivers. As you are required to do annual inspections, it drives up the costs and it is only worth it if you drive long distances in one year.
I did not notice a real decrease in refuelling stops, compared to a gas vehicle. But that is subjective, I haven't measured. That might also be explained by the size of the tanks: most 'converted' vehicles retain their ability to be powered by gasoline by flicking a switch, so the tank cannot be too big and has to go in the trunk.
Almost all conversions are done to decrease costs, most frequently by taxi drivers. As you are required to do annual inspections, it drives up the costs and it is only worth it if you drive long distances in one year.
"Have you used a vehicle powered by natural gas?"
I do believe we are talking about hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen doesn't seem to act as you describe.
"the only thing preventing one from filling up a tank the way they do with gasoline is battery technology"
Yep, and every year it will be solved next year. I am hopeful but not certain.
I do believe we are talking about hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen doesn't seem to act as you describe.
"the only thing preventing one from filling up a tank the way they do with gasoline is battery technology"
Yep, and every year it will be solved next year. I am hopeful but not certain.
How do you fill up the car if you don't get out?
You go to what station? The one a thousand miles away in California?
With an EV, you can "fill up" in your own garage every night, or even while parked at work.
With an EV, you can "fill up" in your own garage every night, or even while parked at work.
> With an EV, you can "fill up" in your own garage every night, or even while parked at work.
Which requires changes around the world to parking lots, apartments, homes etc.
Most places don't have a power socket for each car space.
Which requires changes around the world to parking lots, apartments, homes etc.
Most places don't have a power socket for each car space.
Actually, I live in an apartment so no plug there[1] and certainly none at work.
If Toyota goes hydrogen, there will be stations. They can push the tech just as well as Tesla is pushing recharge stations.
1) which actually sucks quite badly in winter since I have nowhere to plug in a head bolt heater.
If Toyota goes hydrogen, there will be stations. They can push the tech just as well as Tesla is pushing recharge stations.
1) which actually sucks quite badly in winter since I have nowhere to plug in a head bolt heater.
I think the real question to me is about how much energy can be stored in a fuel cell vs the current available batteries.
The upcoming models will have the same ~200-250 mile range as the Tesla Model S.
You can even put a small natural gas compressor in your garage (of course it only makes sense if gas is available).
http://www.cngnow.com/vehicles/refueling/Pages/refueling-at-...
http://www.cngnow.com/vehicles/refueling/Pages/refueling-at-...
Doing some quick math, it would cost ~$14 in natural gas (plus some electricity) to fill up a CNG Honda Civic at home. The same car would cost ~$16 to fill up at a CNG station.
Tesla claims that it costs less than $10 for a similar 250 miles of range in the Model S.
By comparison, it would cost at least $27 to fill up a Civic with gasoline to go the same distance.
Tesla claims that it costs less than $10 for a similar 250 miles of range in the Model S.
By comparison, it would cost at least $27 to fill up a Civic with gasoline to go the same distance.
> Fuel cell vehicles have never made any sense.
The only reason for me to get an Electric Vehicle is the green factor. If instead of my car polluting the environment, there is an increase in say coal factories, not sure how that helps the environment. So there is a need for fuel cells.
The only reason for me to get an Electric Vehicle is the green factor. If instead of my car polluting the environment, there is an increase in say coal factories, not sure how that helps the environment. So there is a need for fuel cells.
Electric vehicles are more efficient well to wheel than gas engines, even if powered by coal plants.
Do you want to manage the emissions from one generation source? Or 100K? Also, as the electrical grid becomes more clean, EVs become cleaner. Not so with ICE vehicles.
Do you want to manage the emissions from one generation source? Or 100K? Also, as the electrical grid becomes more clean, EVs become cleaner. Not so with ICE vehicles.
Actually a study from 2012 shows battery backed EVs getting 34 mpg "on the nation’s dirtiest grid". A good diesel can do much better than that. It isn't so cut and dried as you make it sound.
The share of wind and solar increases every year: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf
A diesel vehicle has a service life of at least 200K miles; assuming 12K/miles a year, you're looking at ~16 years of burning petrol.
How much cleaner is the electric grid going to be over the next 16 years as coal plants are shut down due to being unable to meet new emissions guidelines? Electric vehicles future proof the energy required for mobility.
A diesel vehicle has a service life of at least 200K miles; assuming 12K/miles a year, you're looking at ~16 years of burning petrol.
How much cleaner is the electric grid going to be over the next 16 years as coal plants are shut down due to being unable to meet new emissions guidelines? Electric vehicles future proof the energy required for mobility.
>According to the 2010 California Low Carbon Fuel Standard Final Regulation Order, fuel-cell cars have an average lifetime greenhouse gas emissions rate of 61.83 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule. This is for hydrogen produced through the popular natural gas reforming process.
Electricity, on the other hand, was determined to have average lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of 41.37g/mj.
http://ecomento.com/guide/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vs-battery-elec...
Currently fuel cell backed EVs produce ~50% more greenhouse gas emissions than battery backed EVs. If you are going for green factor take the batteries.
Electricity, on the other hand, was determined to have average lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of 41.37g/mj.
http://ecomento.com/guide/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vs-battery-elec...
Currently fuel cell backed EVs produce ~50% more greenhouse gas emissions than battery backed EVs. If you are going for green factor take the batteries.
How is it that you assign EVs to the "increase in coal [power plants]" category, but not fuel cell cars?
Both require energy. It's not like hydrogen is just sitting around ready to go in your car.
Both require energy. It's not like hydrogen is just sitting around ready to go in your car.
You can have on-site production at the gas station though, which you can't currently do with natural gas or petrol, so rolling out pipes may be unnecessary.
> There happens to already be a distribution infrastructure for electricity almost everywhere.
Of course "everywhere" means just the US.
Some people really need to wake up and realise that there are nearly 200 countries in the world. Most of which Toyota sells in and Tesla doesn't. It really isn't appropriate to judge the success of a technology based on the available infrastructure for quite a while yet.
Of course "everywhere" means just the US.
Some people really need to wake up and realise that there are nearly 200 countries in the world. Most of which Toyota sells in and Tesla doesn't. It really isn't appropriate to judge the success of a technology based on the available infrastructure for quite a while yet.
I would love to hear what the tipping point was for fuel cells. I suspect Toyota doesn't believe that battery technology will get the point that recharging gets close to normal gas station stops where hydrogen might.
Last I heard Hydrogen was still problematic in winter cold just like batteries.
Last I heard Hydrogen was still problematic in winter cold just like batteries.
Electric car with battery pros:
* Can deliver full power instantly
* Does not produce CO2 at time of energy release (clean cities)
* Lesser moving parts
Electric car with battery cons:
* Range too small with current designs
* No charging stations (infrastructure problem)
* Battery needs to be replaced every several years
* Requires lithium, which reserves are very limited on earth
* Carbon tube based battery doesn't seem to be reality any time soon
Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements and also doesn't pollute environment at the time of energy release.
Only downsides are it is more difficult to store as of now? How is it different from liquid natural gas tanks that are already widely used? I've never heard of any car exploding because of gas. What is the problem with hydrogen then?
* Can deliver full power instantly
* Does not produce CO2 at time of energy release (clean cities)
* Lesser moving parts
Electric car with battery cons:
* Range too small with current designs
* No charging stations (infrastructure problem)
* Battery needs to be replaced every several years
* Requires lithium, which reserves are very limited on earth
* Carbon tube based battery doesn't seem to be reality any time soon
Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements and also doesn't pollute environment at the time of energy release.
Only downsides are it is more difficult to store as of now? How is it different from liquid natural gas tanks that are already widely used? I've never heard of any car exploding because of gas. What is the problem with hydrogen then?
> I've never heard of any car exploding because of gas.
Ford Pinto isn't ringing any bells? I mean, it's not as common as TV and movies would have you believe, but yeesh, you've never heard of this happening?
EDIT: forgot this one... > No charging stations (infrastructure problem)
There are infinitely more electric car charging stations between my house and work than there are hydrogen stations. I understand that it's different in other parts of the country, but in the Seattle area you'd have to really put in some effort to run out before you find a charging station. My only complaint is that aren't enough fast charging stations.
Ford Pinto isn't ringing any bells? I mean, it's not as common as TV and movies would have you believe, but yeesh, you've never heard of this happening?
EDIT: forgot this one... > No charging stations (infrastructure problem)
There are infinitely more electric car charging stations between my house and work than there are hydrogen stations. I understand that it's different in other parts of the country, but in the Seattle area you'd have to really put in some effort to run out before you find a charging station. My only complaint is that aren't enough fast charging stations.
> Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements
Only when you think that platinum is more commong than lithium. Platinum is used as a catalyst in fuel cells. Lithium is a rather abundand element (comparing to platinum) and much cheaper.
> How is it different from liquid natural gas tanks Storing hydrogen is MUCH harder. It requires much lower temperatures (-162C for LNG, -253C for H). LPG can be stored liquefied at room temperature. Natural gas cars use CNG (compressed, not liquefied gas).
> How is it different from liquid natural gas tanks Storing hydrogen is MUCH harder. It requires much lower temperatures (-162C for LNG, -253C for H). LPG can be stored liquefied at room temperature. Natural gas cars use CNG (compressed, not liquefied gas).
Does not produce CO2 at time of energy release (clean cities)
1. Hydrogen (as opposed to (L|C)NG / gasoline / other hydrocarbons) wouldn't either.
2. I don't think the where matters for CO2? Sure it's supposed to melt the ice caps and put us all underwater, but I don't think there are any local effects?
1. Hydrogen (as opposed to (L|C)NG / gasoline / other hydrocarbons) wouldn't either.
2. I don't think the where matters for CO2? Sure it's supposed to melt the ice caps and put us all underwater, but I don't think there are any local effects?
The reason California has all these ZEV (zero emission vehicle) regulations is because of smog. It's better to burn stuff at a power plant than on a highway in the middle of LA or the Bay Area. (And you're right, CO2 isn't the issue, it's the other stuff.)
In this respect, batteries and fuel cells are similar.
In this respect, batteries and fuel cells are similar.
Gasoline is not actually explosive - the fumes are flammable, but not the liquid itself. Hydrogen is much more flammable, and will ignite from a much smaller spark than gasoline will.
Cars catch fire in accidents all the time, it's not that hart to imagine that the problem might get worse if we switched to an even more flammable fuel.
Cars catch fire in accidents all the time, it's not that hart to imagine that the problem might get worse if we switched to an even more flammable fuel.
Compressed hydrogen would diffuse so quickly that the chance of a dangerous explosion is quite low. Fuel cell vehicles would actually be much safer than gasoline vehicles in this regard. As soon as you were in a catastrophic accident, all your hydrogen would vanish.
As soon as you were in a catastrophic accident, all your hydrogen would vanish.
You would have a bottle of highly compressed hydrogen somewhere. The bottles can be designed so they don't explode when damaged, but it would take a non-zero amount of time for the hydrogen to escape. For however long that takes, you have a jet of escaping pure hydrogen that would make an excellent blowtorch if anything resembling a flame or spark gets too close.
You would have a bottle of highly compressed hydrogen somewhere. The bottles can be designed so they don't explode when damaged, but it would take a non-zero amount of time for the hydrogen to escape. For however long that takes, you have a jet of escaping pure hydrogen that would make an excellent blowtorch if anything resembling a flame or spark gets too close.
"You would have a bottle of highly compressed hydrogen somewhere."
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_benefits.shtml shows another option for storage (Materials-based storage) that will probably be safer.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_benefits.shtml shows another option for storage (Materials-based storage) that will probably be safer.
> * No charging stations (infrastructure problem)
Pardon me if I don't understand your point there, but you can't really say there aren't charging stations available, can you? I can agree that bringing electric car charging infrastructure to par with gas refueling infrastructure is still a challenge.
Pardon me if I don't understand your point there, but you can't really say there aren't charging stations available, can you? I can agree that bringing electric car charging infrastructure to par with gas refueling infrastructure is still a challenge.
>Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements
Don't fuel cells need platinum?
Don't fuel cells need platinum?
Currently they do, they might not in the future. The best commercially available battery tech requires lithium, it might not in the future.
The downsides of hydrogen are that it's less efficient than batteries, it's considerably more expensive than electricity (because it's less efficient, and because you have to pay for additional infrastructure to produce, distribute, and store it), and it's generally not available for purchase.
Give me a Tesla and I can charge it anywhere there's electricity. If there's no dedicated charging station, then I can still charge it from a regular wall socket, albeit slowly. There are also a ton of charging stations around here.
Give me a fuel cell vehicle and I can't refuel it anywhere near here. According to the Department of Energy, there are 11 public hydrogen filling stations in the US:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html
You list "no charging stations" as a con for batteries, but it's really not bad at all, and the hydrogen situation is vastly worse, and I don't see it getting better with any kind of speed.
Give me a Tesla and I can charge it anywhere there's electricity. If there's no dedicated charging station, then I can still charge it from a regular wall socket, albeit slowly. There are also a ton of charging stations around here.
Give me a fuel cell vehicle and I can't refuel it anywhere near here. According to the Department of Energy, there are 11 public hydrogen filling stations in the US:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html
You list "no charging stations" as a con for batteries, but it's really not bad at all, and the hydrogen situation is vastly worse, and I don't see it getting better with any kind of speed.
Electric cars IMHO are missing the point, which is to get off fossil fuels. When you switch to an electric vehicle you are just shifting from Gas to Coal. The US still relies heavily on fossil fuels to power the grid.
My question has always been: Does shifting from gas to depending on the electrical grid actually help? Or are we just smoking cigars (or e-cigs) instead of cigarettes?
Also, what is the downside to collecting Hydrogen?
My question has always been: Does shifting from gas to depending on the electrical grid actually help? Or are we just smoking cigars (or e-cigs) instead of cigarettes?
Also, what is the downside to collecting Hydrogen?
Electric cars are actually a great idea to get off fossil fuels. Electricity is inherently "fungible" if you will. You can generate it anywhere you can rotate a commutator. Internal combustion engines rely on fossil fuels full stop.
If we switch over to electric vehicles, yes in the short term we are still generating that electricity with fossil fuels, but we don't have to. And in fact because the generation is currently centralized, each plant we switch over has a huge knock-on effect. Switch to hydropower and boom, 500,000 cars on the road just became carbon neutral (excluding production outputs of course). Even better, because electricity is so easy to generate it opens up the possibilities for decentralized generation! It would be impossible for everyone to have their own oil well, but in a decade or 2, everyone affording their own solar panel or wind turbine could be pretty feasible. Boom, now you've not just moved to carbon neutral generation, but decentralized generation!
In practical terms, moving as much as we can to using electricity instead of combustion gives us way, way more flexibility in terms of future directions. Solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, etc, etc. All of these can be a power source for electric cars, but we only have one method of getting gas. Moving to electric cars would be a huge boon.
If we switch over to electric vehicles, yes in the short term we are still generating that electricity with fossil fuels, but we don't have to. And in fact because the generation is currently centralized, each plant we switch over has a huge knock-on effect. Switch to hydropower and boom, 500,000 cars on the road just became carbon neutral (excluding production outputs of course). Even better, because electricity is so easy to generate it opens up the possibilities for decentralized generation! It would be impossible for everyone to have their own oil well, but in a decade or 2, everyone affording their own solar panel or wind turbine could be pretty feasible. Boom, now you've not just moved to carbon neutral generation, but decentralized generation!
In practical terms, moving as much as we can to using electricity instead of combustion gives us way, way more flexibility in terms of future directions. Solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, etc, etc. All of these can be a power source for electric cars, but we only have one method of getting gas. Moving to electric cars would be a huge boon.
In an interview at Ted with Chris Anderson, Elon Musk was asked the same question:
CA: Most of American electricity comes from burning fossil fuels. How can an electric car that plugs into that electricity help?
EM: Right. There's two elements to that answer. One is that, even if you take the same source fuel and produce power at the power plant and use it to charge electric cars, you're still better off. So if you take, say, natural gas, which is the most prevalent hydrocarbon source fuel, if you burn that in a modern General Electric natural gas turbine, you'll get about 60 percent efficiency. If you put that same fuel in an internal combustion engine car, you get about 20 percent efficiency. And the reason is, in the stationary power plant, you can afford to have something that weighs a lot more, is voluminous, and you can take the waste heat and run a steam turbine and generate a secondary power source. So in effect, even after you've taken transmission loss into account and everything, even using the same source fuel, you're at least twice as better off charging an electric car, then burning it at the power plant.
Url: http://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_spa...
CA: Most of American electricity comes from burning fossil fuels. How can an electric car that plugs into that electricity help?
EM: Right. There's two elements to that answer. One is that, even if you take the same source fuel and produce power at the power plant and use it to charge electric cars, you're still better off. So if you take, say, natural gas, which is the most prevalent hydrocarbon source fuel, if you burn that in a modern General Electric natural gas turbine, you'll get about 60 percent efficiency. If you put that same fuel in an internal combustion engine car, you get about 20 percent efficiency. And the reason is, in the stationary power plant, you can afford to have something that weighs a lot more, is voluminous, and you can take the waste heat and run a steam turbine and generate a secondary power source. So in effect, even after you've taken transmission loss into account and everything, even using the same source fuel, you're at least twice as better off charging an electric car, then burning it at the power plant.
Url: http://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_spa...
Thanks! Great to hear it from the Horse's Mouth. I am going to watch that Ted talk.
> Electric cars IMHO are missing the point, which is to get off fossil fuels. When you switch to an electric vehicle you are just shifting from Gas to Coal. The US still relies heavily on fossil fuels to power the grid.
Yes, because the whole world has the same reliance on fossil fuels as the US. Homework: what's quicker to replace? A few power stations, or the whole vehicle fleet? Also notice that electric engines are way more efficient than gas engines.
> My question has always been: Does shifting from gas to depending on the electrical grid actually help? Or are we just smoking cigars (or e-cigs) instead of cigarettes?
Long or short term? Electrical vehicles do not care where the power comes from. If you are that worried, power your EV yourself at home with solar/wind/whatever power.
> Also, what is the downside to collecting Hydrogen?
If it is from fossil fuels, it is kinda obvious. It is apparently possible to sequester CO2 from the process of extracting hydrogen from natural gas, but I have no idea if it is even required by regulations, or economically viable.
If it is from water electrolysis, then you'll be using the same fossil fuel power plants to split water.
Do not forget that electric cars have WAY less parts (the simplest conceptual car is a battery and engine) and require much less environmentally unfriendly stuff, such as lubricants, additives, etc.
Yes, because the whole world has the same reliance on fossil fuels as the US. Homework: what's quicker to replace? A few power stations, or the whole vehicle fleet? Also notice that electric engines are way more efficient than gas engines.
> My question has always been: Does shifting from gas to depending on the electrical grid actually help? Or are we just smoking cigars (or e-cigs) instead of cigarettes?
Long or short term? Electrical vehicles do not care where the power comes from. If you are that worried, power your EV yourself at home with solar/wind/whatever power.
> Also, what is the downside to collecting Hydrogen?
If it is from fossil fuels, it is kinda obvious. It is apparently possible to sequester CO2 from the process of extracting hydrogen from natural gas, but I have no idea if it is even required by regulations, or economically viable.
If it is from water electrolysis, then you'll be using the same fossil fuel power plants to split water.
Do not forget that electric cars have WAY less parts (the simplest conceptual car is a battery and engine) and require much less environmentally unfriendly stuff, such as lubricants, additives, etc.
"Homework: what's quicker to replace? A few power stations, or the whole vehicle fleet?"
average vehicle age in the US is 11.4 years.[1]
average power plant age in the US is over 30 years.[2]
1: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130806/RETAIL/130809922/av...
2: http://qz.com/61423/coal-fired-power-plants-near-retirement/
average vehicle age in the US is 11.4 years.[1]
average power plant age in the US is over 30 years.[2]
1: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130806/RETAIL/130809922/av...
2: http://qz.com/61423/coal-fired-power-plants-near-retirement/
Thanks for the data.
More number crunching is required however. See, we stopped producing all gasoline vehicles today, based on your source, it would take 11.4 years in average for the fleet to be replaced, so it would be an obvious win.
But we are not doing that. As this whole EV vehicle discussion proves, it is very difficult to replace the fleet. And the infrastructure.
More number crunching is required however. See, we stopped producing all gasoline vehicles today, based on your source, it would take 11.4 years in average for the fleet to be replaced, so it would be an obvious win.
But we are not doing that. As this whole EV vehicle discussion proves, it is very difficult to replace the fleet. And the infrastructure.
>Yes, because the whole world has the same reliance on fossil fuels as the US.
Notice how I said US instead of World. That was done on purpose.
>Long or short term? Electrical vehicles do not care where the power comes from.
Long term: if the state I lived in switched to 50% usage of EVs overnight. How much more Green House emissions would be generated by the power plants? Would it be an overall decrease of GH gasses for my state? I doubt the hydro power is going to help that much.
http://www.georgiapower.com/about-us/media-resources/plant-b...
>If it is from fossil fuels, it is kinda obvious. It is apparently possible to sequester CO2 from the process of extracting hydrogen from natural gas, but I have no idea if it is even required by regulations, or economically viable.
Interesting I didnt realize we had to use natural gasses to get H. Wow even Helium is produced from Natural gas.
Notice how I said US instead of World. That was done on purpose.
>Long or short term? Electrical vehicles do not care where the power comes from.
Long term: if the state I lived in switched to 50% usage of EVs overnight. How much more Green House emissions would be generated by the power plants? Would it be an overall decrease of GH gasses for my state? I doubt the hydro power is going to help that much.
http://www.georgiapower.com/about-us/media-resources/plant-b...
>If it is from fossil fuels, it is kinda obvious. It is apparently possible to sequester CO2 from the process of extracting hydrogen from natural gas, but I have no idea if it is even required by regulations, or economically viable.
Interesting I didnt realize we had to use natural gasses to get H. Wow even Helium is produced from Natural gas.
Hydrogen is no different then what you spell out as downsides for electric vehicles. The best source of hydrogen is natural gas. In order to get hydrogen from non-fossil fuel sources you need cheap non-fossil fuel electricity. If you have that ... whats the problem with electric cars again?
Honda has been saying the same thing for years and has yet to produce a product. It's cool tech but right now it's just vapourware.
Just curious. Instead of having to build a hydrogen infrastructure couldn't we use electricity to run the fuel cells in reverse to turn water into h20?
I saw it at a science fair once.
I saw it at a science fair once.
Right, so you can use electricity to make h2 at less than 100% efficiency then lay pipes all around the city to move the h2 to the stations, or build giant trucks that can transport the h2 on the roads (and pay drivers). On the other hand you can transport the electricity directly into the car using copper wires that are already in place
No, I mean connect your fuel cell car to a hose, and an electrical outlet at the end of the day, and run the fuel cell in reverse to regenerate the H2.
I saw it in a science fair, they could switch directions of the fuel cell to go either way.
I saw it in a science fair, they could switch directions of the fuel cell to go either way.
So of course it's a terrible product. The only thing it excels at is getting Toyota enough ZEV credits. They recently changed the credit scheme, so now Toyota is switching to that:
http://insideevs.com/carb-zev-program-changes-tesla-takes-la...