Electric vehicles to pay for detroit bailout?

[mheslep]

Even if coal emitted more per mile it might be better to have that vented in a remote tall stack with flue scrubbers than have a lot of small sources of NOx, particulates, O3 and SO2 at street level in an area with a lot of smog potential.

Yes agreed. I was over generalizing using 'emissions' when I meant CO2. For the other emission types as you say EVs powered by even coal plants are a big win over gasoline cars. Caveat: I have not looked at radioactive emissions from coal, which I believe are absent from gasoline.

 

[mheslep]

That link is a little misleading, IMO, since I live fifteen miles from a coal fired powerplant whose lines leaves utah and go to southern california(there are atleast 4 other plants in utah that do the same). Ca might not use a lot of coal in state but they use plenty out of state(i would bet a lot of nevada and new mexico's coal use is used to power ca also).

Ca is indeed the largest electricity importer of all the states, but 1) the imports are still only about 1/4 of peak demand (i.e. daytime power), and 2) out of state coal is only a fraction of that. The rest is NW hydroelectric and even nuclear from Palo Verde outside of Phoenix.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA"

If emissions is the only criteria, your point makes sense. But efficiency would also come into play I would think. Even if the energy is initially a little cleaner by the time it actually works there is less of it, so it would take more energy to achieve the same work and thereby negating your emission reductions, imo. I have heard that as of now gasoline and diesel are the most efficient sources of energy to power a vehicle and that is why we use them and I personally think that the car makers have been doing a wondeful job balancing horsepower and emissions.

That point, #2, was about emissions. You might want to read through some of the other energy threads. EV's are much more efficient in tank to wheel efficiency than any heat engine can possibly be.

 

[russ_watters]

Three reasons:
1. US electric generation is only half coal and falling.

That really needs to pick up some steam to mean much, as the generation of coal is still rising and the fraction isn't falling by much:

Average share of electricity generated from coal in the US has dropped slightly, from 52.8% in 1997 to 49.0% in 2006. However, due to growth of the total demand for electricity, the net production of coal-generated electricity increased over the same period from 1.845 to 1.991 trillion kilowatt-hours per year in absolute terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States

...and is predicted to rise again:

The average share of electricity generated from coal power was projected to increase again with a coal plant building boom. As of 2007, 154 new coal-fired plants are on the drawing board in 42 states.[8] The Energy Department forecasted that coal's share will rise to 57 percent by 2030, fueled in part by rising natural gas prices[citation needed], but in 2008 it has said that the conversion from coal to biomass power is a growing trend in the United States [9] .

Either way, it is still a significant problem and not getting better fast enough for my taste.

 

[mheslep]

That really needs to pick up some steam to mean much, as the generation of coal is still rising and the fraction isn't falling by much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States

...and is predicted to rise again: Either way, it is still a significant problem and not getting better fast enough for my taste.

Yes I'd read the Wiki some time ago and I think its fairly out of date at the moment. I'd have to check again, but I believe a large share of those planned coal plants mentioned there were put on hold (Edit: yes see mention in next Wiki paragraph). Meanwhile gas turbine plants and wind have been undergoing a boom - gas especially w/ the low NG prices and big recent US discoveries.
Yes,this in the Wiki:

..fueled in part by rising natural gas prices

is out of date. The opposite is now true.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...demand-spells-bearish-future-for-natural-gas/

The picture is pretty clear: Gas supplies keep growing while demand keeps shrinking. That’s kept gas a lot cheaper than it was last year—and makes the medium-term outlook for gas pretty bearish. (Natural gas futures were inching up about 1% in early trading today to about $4.93 per million BTUs.)

Credit Suisse just slashed its price forecasts: For 2009, to $4.09 per million BTUs to $4.37; and for 2010, to $5.75 from $6.50. For the investment bank, that’s mostly due to over-supply, especially in the U.S. Despite plunging prices this year, gas producers kept producing: Credit Suisse notes U.S. output has fallen just 1.6% from its peak in February.

That said, there's a limit to this. I believe gas and wind can meet the slow ~1%/yr increase in demand, but they can not also replace ageing coal plants at the same time. For the time being, coal operators can extend the life of some of these very big (~1GW) (and old) plants. Thus I'd say absent some nuclear construction starts in 2-3 years, we will indeed see a forced build of new coal in a few years.

 

[Jasongreat]

This doesn't follow. The majority of oil, about 2/3 imported for the US, goes into transportation. These others don't help the oil problem unless transportation becomes electrified.

You stated that EV's are the only way to lower our dependence on foreign oil, everyone of my suggested alternatives will decrease our reliance on imported oil, some would require EV's but I was making the point that EV's are not the only way, but one of many ways to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

That flies in the face of the comments I made above. Either EV's or biofueled vehicles (if made economic) would make a major difference in emissions and kill imported oil.

I agree, EV's and biofuel vehicles will make a major difference in emissions, as it will switch the pollution emissions from the cities using the power to the country where the power is made.

Google Port of LA electric trucks, 18 wheelers

I did and my staterment stands, it will take huge advances in technology to make an over the road electric truck. The story you linked to states that they have a range of 40 miles and a recharge time of 3 to 4 hours, and doesn't even mention a top speed, IMO electric vehicles will work in a small range but are not capable of long range use. EV's would work in a city atmosphere but in a rural setting they are useless.

Obviously electric trains exist, even electric planes are feasible, but replacing just the cars overtime is sufficient to kill imported oil.[/

QUOTE]

Can you show me a link to an electric train that is not a light rail passenger train, but a very heavy cross country freight train? I have yet to see a union pacific electric train, however they are hybrids with a diesel over electric system. A feasible electric airplane? I guess anything is feasible but IMO it is very unlikely anytime soon since we can't even get an automobile that goes further than 60 miles on a charge, can you imagine flying if you have to stop every 60 miles and wait 3-4 hrs for a recharge?

I personally don't have a thing against electric vehicles, however IMO they are not the savior they are being made out to be. For the most part they only transfer a problem to a different place than where it is now, instead of a bandaid let's find a cure.

 

[Jasongreat]

Its better to have your pollution made in a single stationary place rather than in many moving places. Pollution from power plants can be captured and/or scrubbed much more easily than it can on cars.

While I agree, I was replying to a post that said that Ca uses almost no coal at all, which is misleading, they just don't use much in Ca. I was trying to make the point that EV's still pollute, just not in the city they are used. I wonder if that one remote smoke stack was near the city, would they be able to convince citizens that EV's are clean, when you could easily look at the smokestack and see the emissions?

Also, if you look at the entire chemical cycle (more of a process I guess) from power generation to power at the wheel of cars, battery technology has the capability of reducing the overall amount of pollution due to increases in efficiency when compared to gasoline.[/

QUOTE]

I agree that battery technology has the capability to become more efficient than gasoline, atleast in theory since battery efficiency is still so low(lots of room for improvement) while gasoline efficiency has been improved to the point that it probably can't be increased much more, but as it is now gas is more efficient than electricity or biofuel for powering our cars, and diesel is even more efficient. I have noticed lately that in order to get gasoline or diesel motors cleaner it usually takes a reduction in efficiency to increase cleanliness. The new "clean" cummins gets 14 mpg while my not as clean cummins gets 22 mpg, and these "upgrades" have also added large amounts of maintenance to the vehicle costs.

 

[Topher925]

I personally don't have a thing against electric vehicles, however IMO they are not the savior they are being made out to be. For the most part they only transfer a problem to a different place than where it is now, instead of a bandaid let's find a cure.

You are not alone in this. The worlds two largest auto manufacturers (and a few more) don't believe pure EVs are the solution either and have no plans to develop them. On a global scale, EVs are just not practical and provide few if any advantages to other alternatives. I just wish Stephen Chu would realize what the largest automakers and other scientists already have instead of cutting all the funding.

That said, there's a limit to this. I believe gas and wind can meet the slow ~1%/yr increase in demand, but they can not also replace ageing coal plants at the same time. For the time being, coal operators can extend the life of some of these very big (~1GW) (and old) plants.

You can extend the limit of what wind and other alternative power can provide to the grid if a storage or "buffer" mechanism is used. For example, the flywheel stations that are being built in New York. This adds cost of course but it can be done. I think those resources would be much better invested in micro generation, that is recharging your vehicle at the same place you generate power for it.

 

[Jasongreat]

Ca is indeed the largest electricity importer of all the states, but 1) the imports are still only about 1/4 of peak demand (i.e. daytime power), and 2) out of state coal is only a fraction of that. The rest is NW hydroelectric and even nuclear from Palo Verde outside of Phoenix.

Does the peak demand you speak of include replacing fuel with electric power? Where is all this extra power going to come from? With Ca already suffering from blackouts and brownouts at times of the year can they spare to use more electricity to power their cars? Are we going to keep building powerplants outside of Ca so they can claim how clean their state is, while they pollute other states?

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA"

That point, #2, was about emissions. You might want to read through some of the other energy threads. EV's are much more efficient in tank to wheel efficiency than any heat engine can possibly be.

IMO, you still need to take into account the efficiency of producing the power and transmitting the power. As I understand it coal to heat to steam to spin a turbine is nowhere near 100% efficient and is even reduced further by transmitting the power over 900 mile powerlines, and that will reduce the total efficiency of the EV's substantially.

 

[mheslep]

You stated that EV's are the only way to lower our dependence on foreign oil,

No, I said one way. Biofuels are another alternative.

I did and my staterment stands, it will take huge advances in technology to make an over the road electric truck. The story you linked to states that they have a range of 40 miles and a recharge time of 3 to 4 hours, and doesn't even mention a top speed, IMO electric vehicles will work in a small range but are not capable of long range use. EV's would work in a city atmosphere but in a rural setting they are useless.

Because you did not see a 600 mile range electric truck going down the highway yesterday does not mean that huge advances in technology are required to make it happen.

Can you show me a link to an electric train that is not a light rail passenger train, but a very heavy cross country freight train? I have yet to see a union pacific electric train, however they are hybrids with a diesel over electric system. A feasible electric airplane? I guess anything is feasible but IMO it is very unlikely anytime soon since we can't even get an automobile that goes further than 60 miles on a charge, can you imagine flying if you have to stop every 60 miles and wait 3-4 hrs for a recharge?

[...] For the most part they only transfer a problem to a different place than where it is now, instead of a bandaid let's find a cure.

Jason you are circling back around to some original position, even though you now admit that some of those assertions to be invalid. So I don't find this discussion useful.

 

[mheslep]

While I agree, I was replying to a post that said that Ca uses almost no coal at all, which is misleading, they just don't use much in Ca. I was trying to make the point that EV's still pollute, just not in the city they are used. I wonder if that one remote smoke stack was near the city, would they be able to convince citizens that EV's are clean, when you could easily look at the smokestack and see the emissions?

No it was not misleading. Saying that you know of coal plant somewhere in Nevada so therefore Ca must use a lot of coal - that is misleading. Coal is certainly less than 20% of Ca power including out of state power, and probably less than 5%.

 

[mheslep]

You are not alone in this. The worlds two largest auto manufacturers (and a few more) don't believe pure EVs are the solution either and have no plans to develop them.

Even if this was remotely true, and it is not, why should we take the plans of bankrupt General Motors as the basis for energy policy in the US?

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Toyota Motor Corp. President Akio Toyoda said Thursday the Japanese auto maker will launch an electric vehicle in the U.S. by 2012, with the auto market there expected to fully recover soon, reports said.

Yes they mean _pure_ electric.

On a global scale, EVs are just not practical

The it's 'just not' argument? And $160/bbl oil 'just is' practical?

and provide few if any advantages to other alternatives. ...

Sorry if I've missed it, but I don't recall any posts citing your basis for these statements.

 

[mgb_phys]

Can you show me a link to an electric train that is not a light rail passenger train, but a very heavy cross country freight train?

Most trains in europe are electric - these freight units used in the channel tunnel are 5MW (7000hp), can do 200mph and are the most powerful locos in the world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/9702_Coquelles_02.04.04.jpg/180px-9702_Coquelles_02.04.04.jpg

 

[Topher925]

Even if this was remotely true, and it is not, why should we take the plans of bankrupt General Motors as the basis for energy policy in the US?
Yes they mean _pure_ electric.

Could you post where you got this from? I know Toyota stated something to this effect back in early August but then state later in September that they would hold off on EVs and focus more on fuel cell technology.

"Electric vehicles of today are less costly than in 1990s, but if you compare them with the other vehicles out there they are still too expensive," Executive Vice President Takeshi Uchiyamada said at a news conference at the Frankfurt show. "Unless there is a very big breakthrough in battery costs I don't think electric vehicles can take a large market share."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/15/tech/cnettechnews/main5312545.shtml

I don't have a source for GM saying they don't plan to make a EV to the US as it is something a couple of their R&D engineers told me, not something I read online.

The it's 'just not' argument? And $160/bbl oil 'just is' practical?
Sorry if I've missed it, but I don't recall any posts citing your basis for these statements.

I never said oil was practical. There's other alternatives besides batteries. Both Toyota and GM (along with Honda) are planing to bring hydrogen fuel cell powered cars to the US market sometime well before 2020. If you want sources for this I'll post them but there's info for it all over the web.

 

[mheslep]

Could you post where you got this from? I know Toyota stated something to this effect back in early August but then state later in September that they would hold off on EVs and focus more on fuel cell technology.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/toyota-plans-us-electric-car-by-2010-2009-08-05 or google

The Sept. story was that they were not going to replace the NiMH batteries in the Prius w/ Li Ion.

 

[Topher925]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/toyota-plans-us-electric-car-by-2010-2009-08-05 or google

The Sept. story was that they were not going to replace the NiMH batteries in the Prius w/ Li Ion.

It does mention that, but the article is more about how battery technology is and will continue to be to expensive. Hence the title of the article, "Toyota: Price Tag Will Slow Electric Cars:
Leader in Hybrid Cars Thinks Expense of Batteries will Keep Electric Cars from Penetrating Mass Market for Another Decade".

 

[mheslep]

..http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/15/tech/cnettechnews/main5312545.shtml

Yes I saw the Frankfurt comments. Actually if the car folks fail to get the business model right, I agree with the Toyota VP. EV's need battery exchange to decouple the battery cost and lifetime from the vehicle, and to make long distance trips viable. Thing is, many car companies don't like exchange because it blows their vertically integrated 'we own or charge for everything that touches our vehicle'. Renault/Nissan is doing exchange in the four EV's they unwrapped in Franfurt.

I don't have a source for GM saying they don't plan to make a EV to the US as it is something a couple of their R&D engineers told me, not something I read online.

No doubt, GM is completely wedded to their plug in hybrid idea. Fine, but that's causing them to sell a $25k car (Volt) for $35/40k.

I never said oil was practical. There's other alternatives besides batteries. Both Toyota and GM (along with Honda) are planing to bring hydrogen fuel cell powered cars to the US market sometime well before 2020. If you want sources for this I'll post them but there's info for it all over the web.

Sorry for my snark. I was looking to find common ground for the definition for practical, but we lost that on the suggestion of fuel cell cars. In the next two years over a dozen car manufactures have announced dates mass production EVs and unveiled the models, several more have done so with plug-in hybrid EVs. I call that practical, even if the production runs are tens of thousands versus millions.

BTW,prior post to McKinsey cost study on gas/diesel/EVs/PHEVs US and Europe.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19278&d=1244668702
I think they are substantially high on EV battery cost.

 

[Topher925]

No doubt, GM is completely wedded to their plug in hybrid idea. Fine, but that's causing them to sell a $25k car (Volt) for $35/40k.

I wouldn't say they are "wedded" to hybrids. GM knows the future is hydrogen, and without a doubt they are correct. The Volt is just something to fill the gap between a oil and the hydrogen economy until FCVs make their way to the showrooms. According to their business model it probably doesn't make sense to even research EV powered cars as it would just be waste of capital.

I was looking to find common ground for the definition for practical, but we lost that on the suggestion of fuel cell cars.

How so? Do you believe that FCVs aren't practical?

In the next two years over a dozen car manufactures have announced dates mass production EVs and unveiled the models,... ...I call that practical, even if the production runs are tens of thousands versus millions.

And how many of these companies are major auto manufacturers that are releasing these cars to the US and marketed as a vehicle that can replace a gasoline powered car? From what I know, most of these companies will be smaller start-ups targeting niche markets (aka, poor countries and/or trendy people) and not focusing on replacing oil. Not everyone can afford Tesla Roadsters, and not every part of the US has the infrastructure to power very many of them.

 

[mheslep]

I wouldn't say they are "wedded" to hybrids.

I mean in the electric world in the debate between plug-in hybrids and pure EV's, they are clearly committed to the hybrid path.

GM knows the future is hydrogen,

C'mon. Even if you 'know a guy' that works at GM, GM has made no such claim and you don't know otherwise.

How so? Do you believe that FCVs aren't practical?

No, not yet.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

also, statement from NAE
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2122121&postcount=56
and from Science:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1712339&postcount=51

... From what I know, most of these companies will be smaller start-ups targeting niche markets (aka, poor countries and/or trendy people) and not focusing on replacing oil. Not everyone can afford Tesla Roadsters, and not every part of the US has the infrastructure to power very many of them.

Google is your friend.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090202/AUTO01/902020354/1148/rss25

...2010 Ford: A battery-electric vehicle based on the Transit Connect compact work van (fleet customers only)...
2011 Ford: A battery-electric vehicle based on the new global Ford Focus platform
2012 Toyota: An as-yet unnamed electric "city car" with a 50-mile range

Plugin Hybrids

2009 Toyota: A plug-in hybrid Prius (fleet customers only)
2010 GM: Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle
2012 Ford: A plug-in hybrid vehicle

EVs on display at Frankfurt:
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/.../frankfurt_auto.html
http://www.thebigmoney.com/.../frankfurt-auto-show-its-electric
Renault Fluence
BMW (Mini)
Audi
Volkswagen
Porsche

Then there's two or three Chinese makes (BYD); there are another dozen or so small fry - Fisker, Tesla, etc.

 

[WhoWee]

There is going to have to be huge leaps in technology to develop a EV that can haul a load of freight over the road, to take the place of trains or to power a plane in flight if we have to rely on batteries for energy storage. I would think it would be far more effective to concentrate on power generation instead of the power consumption side of the equation.

Compared to an electric model, I think T. Boone Pickens proposal to fuel semi trucks with natural gas is worth discussion. I'm restricting my comments to the semi truck part of the proposal only.
http://www.boonepickens.com/media_summary/061109.pdf

We have abundant natural gas reserves and truck stops/points of distribution are located primarily in rural areas, near natural gas pipelines. The truck stop operators are well capitalized (able to make investments in equipment) and familiar with the truck fuel market. The semi trailers also have on-board storage capacity.

 

[mheslep]

...BTW,prior post to McKinsey cost study on gas/diesel/EVs/PHEVs US and Europe.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19278&d=1244668702
I think they are substantially high on EV battery cost.

That is, McKinsey reports a lifetime cost of $0.04/km shown for its BEV80(km), and the BEV80 has the lowest total life cycle cost for any vehicle type ($0.17/km), even in the US with its lower fuel costs. Then McKinsey shows the battery cost per distance doubling and more than tripling for the longer range BEV200(km) and BEV500(km). I assert that with a battery exchange model, the battery cost per mile remains constant at 4 cents/km. The reasoning: the cost for a 100km range battery is about $7000, and with 3000 cycles lasts about 170,000 km, the life of the vehicle, thus ~4 cents/km. For a battery of twice that range, 200km, the upfront cost doubles to $14,000, but McKinsey still traps that cost over 170,000 km with the original vehicle owner, even though the battery is good for 340,000km. That makes sense if the battery is indeed trapped in the vehicle, but in a battery exchange system the vehicle owner need only pay for the 170k km driven, so the price can remain 4 cents/km.

 

[mheslep]

Compared to an electric model, I think T. Boone Pickens proposal to fuel semi trucks with natural gas is worth discussion. I'm restricting my comments to the semi truck part of the proposal only.
http://www.boonepickens.com/media_summary/061109.pdf

We have abundant natural gas reserves and truck stops/points of distribution are located primarily in rural areas, near natural gas pipelines. The truck stop operators are well capitalized (able to make investments in equipment) and familiar with the truck fuel market. The semi trailers also have on-board storage capacity.

Would you know what T Boone says is the premium for making a natural gas powered semi vs a diesel? Also, I seem to recall there have been several big attempts to push NG vehicles elsewhere in the world but they collapsed. I'm curious as to why.

 

[WhoWee]

Would you know what T Boone says is the premium for making a natural gas powered semi vs a diesel? Also, I seem to recall there have been several big attempts to push NG vehicles elsewhere in the world but they collapsed. I'm curious as to why.

Aside from the few points I listed, Pickens made a convincing argument some time ago regarding the way diesel fuel effects the price of a barrel of oil. I can't find a direct link. Accordingly, I'll do a quick extrapolation.

This source is useful.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/PainAtThePump/Story?id=4353789&page=1

"A barrel of oil contains 42 gallons of crude. During the refining process, additives increase the "refined yield" of the barrel. In the end, about 44 gallons of various products are produced from each barrel.

Here is a breakdown of what that oil creates:

22.6 gallons of gasoline — enough to drive 622 miles in the average American car

6.7 gallons of diesel — enough to drive 41.7 miles in a tractor-trailer "

This link provides truck data.
http://truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm

"How many trucks operate in the U.S.?
Estimates of 15.5 million trucks operate in the U.S.. Of this figure 2 million are tractor trailers. "
"How much fuel does the transportation industry utilize in a year?
trucks consumed 53.9 billion gallons of fuel for business purposes."
"How many miles does the transportation industry transports good in a year?
In 2006 the transportation industry logged 432.9 billion miles. Class 8 trucks accounted for 139.3 billion of those miles, up from 130.5 billion in 2005 "

This is another informational link.
http://www.atri-online.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=54


*************
My point - Diesel only represents 6.7 gallons of a 42 gallon barrel. Tractor trailers are class 8 and they accounted for 139.3 billion miles / 41.7 miles per barrel = 3.34 billion barrels of oil are required to fuel these truck miles.

This "middle of the barrel" pressure can drive prices up.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5630/is_200609/ai_n23646360/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601207&sid=aUUXIwDvjbt8

If only 1/3 of our tractor trailers could be converted to natural gas, it's possible we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 1 billion barrels per year.

 

[mheslep]

Aside from the few points I listed, Pickens made a convincing argument some time ago ...

I'm interested in the vehicle cost premiums, not the fuel issues.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm interested in the vehicle cost premiums, not the fuel issues.

I understand. However, my interest lies in the price pressures on oil due to diesel consumption coupled with the logistics of distribution - the do-ability.

I'll try to find the estimated conversion costs and other investment requirement estimates as well as operating estimates. I saw a report a few months ago (somewhere?).

 

[WhoWee]

The problem with Pickens plan.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reporters-notebook-pickens-eyes-oils-rebound?dist=msr_1

"But as Pickens likes to remind us, the U.S. imports nearly 70% of its oil, up from 24% in 1970, and the figure is growing. He added that countries like Mexico, where the U.S. gets plenty of oil, is running dry and itself will become a bigger oil-importer than they are today.

Pickens, who runs BP Capital Management, has first set his sights on getting 350,000 18-wheeler trucks converted to natural gas through a federal subsidy program. He explained that 20% of every barrel of oil the U.S. imports is used by 18-wheelers running on diesel gas.

The idea is to get an $80,000 tax incentive to convert the trucks that haul goods across the country. About 2,000 fueling stations would also have to be built as well as 89 liquefied natural gas plants. Pickens further said big-truck rigs can't run on more fuel-efficient car batteries being developed. So natural gas is an alternative. "

 

[Topher925]

C'mon. Even if you 'know a guy' that works at GM, GM has made no such claim and you don't know otherwise.

True, they have not publicly made that claim, but in the battery and fuel cell automotive world it is a widely excepted belief. Despite what Stephen Chu claims, there is really only ONE thing holding FCVs back. Once that problem is resolved, and it will be, you will start seeing H₂ powered cars hit the market.

No, not yet.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

Guh, not this stupid report again. The guy that developed this report is from the battery side of the alternative energy argument and so of course his argument is completely bias towards batteries. Their model is also completely flawed and *** backwards as far as future power and hydrogen generation goes.

How do you think nuclear power plants will most likely operate in the future? Do you think they will always use the rankin cycle and never be able to get past the 40% efficiency mark? With newer high temperature nuclear reactor technology thermochemical cycles can be used to generate hydrogen directly from the heat of the reactor instead of using steam and a turbine. By using hydrogen generated from thermochemical reactions (at high pressures btw) stationary electricity can be generated by the use of SOFCs. Or, you can use that hydrogen and power cars, boats, or what ever else with it. And by using thermochemical cycles and SOFC for power its also possible to achieve much greater efficiencies than 40% out of a nuclear power plant.

Heres a link from the same website you cited for your article giving a little more information
http://www.physorg.com/news114866922.html

there's also been quite a few papers published lately about thermochemical nuclear reactor design. I found this one last week and thought it was pretty good read.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-4VPV8N0-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1040787398&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1e601258864fa708d26d483f9f8d117f"

Google is your friend.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090202/AUTO01/902020354/1148/rss25

"The electric version will have no gasoline motor, but will be limited to a range of 100 miles on a single charge -- enough, Ford says, because most motorists in America average less than 40 miles a day.
Analyst Jim Hall of 2953 Analytics LLP in Birmingham disagrees.
"There still is not a viable market for a pure electric vehicle because of the range limitations,""

The point I was trying to make is that even though there are a lot of emerging EVs hitting the market within the next few years, they will by no means be able to replace a gasoline powered car if the EV only has a range of 100 miles. What are you going to do if you have to run all over town all day or do something besides drive to work and back. The EVs like the ones being released by Ford and Nissan are great for secondary vehicles but they can by no means be a practical replacement for an ICE vehicle. This is why the only people who will buy them are people in niche markets or who can afford more than one car.

 

[mheslep]

...The point I was trying to make is that even though there are a lot of emerging EVs hitting the market within the next few years, they will by no means be able to replace a gasoline powered car if the EV only has a range of 100 miles. What are you going to do if you have to run all over town all day or do something besides drive to work and back. ...

Agreed, unless they can pull in and switch in a new fully charged battery in 60 seconds, and go another 100 miles.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/13/video-better-places-automated-electric-vehicle-battery-switch/#

 

[mheslep]

The guy that developed this report is from the battery side of the alternative energy argument and so of course his argument is completely bias towards batteries. Their model is also completely flawed and *** backwards as far as future power and hydrogen generation goes.

I'm not interested in his stance (he's a fuel cell expert), but the figures on that chart. Aside from replacing electrolysis, do you disagree with any of them? 10% loss in compression, 20% loss in transport, then take a 50% loss in the fuel cell in the vehicle, or worse in a rankine cycle burning H.

... By using hydrogen generated from thermochemical reactions (at high pressures btw) stationary electricity can be generated by the use of SOFCs. Or, you can use that hydrogen and power cars, boats, or what ever else with it. And by using thermochemical cycles and SOFC for power its also possible to achieve much greater efficiencies than 40% out of a nuclear power plant.

This doesn't change anything on the chart except for replacing the electrolysis. Then one still has compress and transport molecules, not electrons, and build all of the H fueling infrastructure to go along with it. No, to the extent hydrogen becomes part of the energy infrastructure, it will be used to make electricity in big central turbines, it'll never get to end vehicles, my take.

 

[Topher925]

I'm not interested in his stance (he's a fuel cell expert), but the figures on that chart. Aside from replacing electrolysis, do you disagree with any of them? 10% loss in compression, 20% loss in transport, then take a 50% loss in the fuel cell in the vehicle, or worse in a rankine cycle burning H.

This doesn't change anything on the chart except for replacing the electrolysis. Then one still has compress and transport molecules, not electrons, and build all of the H fueling infrastructure to go along with it.

I disagree with everything on it except for transport and the PEMFC losses. The original source of energy would be nuclear energy from a reactor (just an example, doesn't have to be) and not electricity. The hydrogen which came from the plant is produced more efficiently than it would if the nuclear reactor would produce electricity. The chart doesn't even take this into account. Second, you have little to no compression since you can generate hydrogen at high pressure. Thirdly, you will obviously lose the AC-DC losses leaving only losses in transport and in the fuel cell. Also not accounted for is that FHVs can be made lighter than EVs for a given range providing a much more efficient vehicle in terms of kwh per mile. When you take all this into account, the chart starts to look very different.

If you want to use EVs or FHVs, either way you have to build a new infrastructure. The current one can not support either and both will be probably equally expensive.

No, to the extent hydrogen becomes part of the energy infrastructure, it will be used to make electricity in big central turbines, it'll never get to end vehicles, my take.

I don't understand why you would combust hydrogen in a turbine to make electricity? That makes absolutely no sense to me. And why exactly couldn't we just use the H2 directly from the power plant and put it in cars? If its coming from a thermochemical cycle its still 100% pure.

 

[mheslep]

...I don't understand why you would combust hydrogen in a turbine to make electricity? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

NREL example
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/44082.pdf , page 17 (ICE, not turbine)

And why exactly couldn't we just use the H2 directly from the power plant and put it in cars? If its coming from a thermochemical cycle its still 100% pure.

Because the H2 has to be transported, incurring energy losses, across an H2 network that doesn't exist, stored in cars that can't accommodate the volume even at 10k PSI, and then burned in fuel cells that are unreliable over the vehicle lifespan.