Hydrogen is DOA for cars. It’s simply another hydrocarbon
Well, it's actually not.Agreed. The whole world is buzzing with hydrogen from renewable sources... History repeats itself. 100+ years ago BEVs already existed and the current BEVs still have the same issues with range and long charging times. And just like oil based fuels, hydrogen has the potential to avoid those issues.
'It works for me so it must work for everyone' isn't a strong argument. The same goes for average distance travelled. Arguing that way is just stupid. It is like saying the average person on the world eats half a slice of bread a day so everyone should be able to do with eating half a slice of bread a day.
Regarding large trucks, often times the trailer is owned by some company and the tractor, / prime mover is owned by a private individual. One option might be to have batteries and maybe even a drive motor in the trailer, and while the trailer is sitting around in a yard or being loaded it could be on charge. The driver could pull in to the destination, swap trailers, and be off straight away. What’s more, if the trailer battery had sufficient capacity the truck and trailer could go that much further than if powered by truck batteries alone. And the trailer owner could likely negotiate better rates seeing they are providing some of the required energy. Maybe even some degree of redundancy if in the unlikely chance the truck breaks down.
Thd debate is long over. As a 5 year EV owner with 276,000km on my EV. BEVs ldelivers the solution , it’s a better car then it’s ice equivalent
Hence certainly by 2035 personal private transport will be Bev , commercial will take longer but will arrive with battery trucks etc.
The future is mapped out , it’s just a matter of time now
You make a statement with no backup. Bevs are outselling ICE in many marketplaces ,
I think you're wildly optimistic about how much spare capacity there is.
And once again, "miles" or "kilometres" is a completely meaningless way to express the charge in a battery. Miles on the flat? Miles uphill? What about ambient temperature, variations in the mass of the load?Not super-accurate, but certainlly a long way from "meaningless"
These factors can be avaraged to give a figure that is meaningful enough for most purposes. Flat vs. uphill makes little difference as much of what you spend going uphill comes back on the way down via regen braking.
Can you push energy into the battery as fast as you can pull it out? If not then regen braking will only be that efficient for short durations (e.g. start stop in cities) or on gentle hills.
I wouldn't trust a Tesla salesman to give an answer. In my experience they can't even manage to turn on a screen demister, simply parrot the company line about "typical" range, and spout incoherent DoubleSpeak about whether or not Teslas are self-driving. I doubt other salesmen are any better.
I think you're wildly optimistic about how much spare capacity there is.
And once again, "miles" or "kilometres" is a completely meaningless way to express the charge in a battery. Miles on the flat? Miles uphill? What about ambient temperature, variations in the mass of the load?Not super-accurate, but certainlly a long way from "meaningless"
These factors can be avaraged to give a figure that is meaningful enough for most purposes. Flat vs. uphill makes little difference as much of what you spend going uphill comes back on the way down via regen braking.
Can you push energy into the battery as fast as you can pull it out? If not then regen braking will only be that efficient for short durations (e.g. start stop in cities) or on gentle hills.
I wouldn't trust a Tesla salesman to give an answer. In my experience they can't even manage to turn on a screen demister, simply parrot the company line about "typical" range, and spout incoherent DoubleSpeak about whether or not Teslas are self-driving. I doubt other salesmen are any better.
With modern BEVs and nezf future models the edge cares if unsuitability are diminishing fast. The real situations of unsuitability therefore fade away. In early Bev stages people were obsessed with “ range “ but this is because people utterly mis analyse their car needs typically the reality is Bev owners rarely have range issues
Hence one mixf take sign a grain of salt claims BEVs will “ never suit “ sone drivers this has proven to be largely untrue in practice
You make a statement with no backup. Bevs are outselling ICE in many marketplaces ,They are in Norway.
Since you object to people making statements without backup, in what many other marketplaces is this the case?
BEVs were ~1 in 3 in one additional market, not “many”. Understood.
I presume that is the same speed up hill and down dale
What would the power meter show going at the same speed on the flat with zero wind?
Indeed.
On the flat, at 70 mph with no head or tailwind, about 20%. The power meter at 100% represents around 80kW. (It's got weird mapping as the whole car has 150kW and it goes up to 140%, but we'll ignore "sport mode" for now.) So you need roughly 18kW to maintain that speed.
This gives you an idea of efficiency for an EV at motorway speeds. In ideal conditions, 60kWh would get you 3.3 hours of driving, or 233 miles - equivalent to 3.8 miles per kWh. However, once you add variability - hills, stopping, acceleration, plus other consumers, mostly heating/AC, you'll find the figure drops. A 60kWh car can usually do about 210 miles on the motorway consistently.
I suspect for some time 60kWh batteries will be the standard for EVs.
The actual energy consumption of the car will be the energy dissipation
in equation (A.2), cranked up by a factor related to the inefficiency of
the engine and the transmission. Typical petrol engines are about 25%
efficient, so of the chemical energy that a car guzzles, three quarters is
wasted in making the car’s engine and radiator hot, and just one quarter
goes into “useful” energy:
<equation>
Let’s check this theory of cars by plugging in plausible numbers for motorway
driving. Let v = 70 miles per hour = 110 km/h = 31 m/s and
A = cdAcar = 1 m2. The power consumed by the engine is estimated to be
roughly
<equation>
If you drive the car at this speed for one hour every day, then you travel
110 km and use 80 kWh of energy per day.
Hydrogen is DOA for cars. It’s simply another hydrocarbon , has safety storage and distribution issues . It’s merely petrol under another name
The average daily car distance in the UK is 14 km, ...
You make a statement with no backup. Bevs are outselling ICE in many marketplaces ,They are in Norway.
Since you object to people making statements without backup, in what many other marketplaces is this the case?
Yeah, too optimistic, by at least factor of two. My case, pretty much life-long, is a slightly miserable trudge, 32 miles each way...up to more normal 38 miles one way, I'm afraid.
That's not the "164 miles every 6 days" being quoted here. Far from it, at over 200 miles 'per six days', (which is weird, I guess more assumptions).
EVs (including PHEVs) already outsell diesel and their combined volume is the same as hybrid (of any fuel type)...
...people do not want to buy a vehicle they feel will be obsolete in the next 10-15 years.
David MacKay ouitlined the relevant physics; see https://withouthotair.com/cA/page_256.shtml and the surrounding pages (download the pdf if you prefer).
So, making the assumptions he stated in the reference, he gets 80kW generated by an ICE assuming a 25% efficiency. That translates to 20kW from a perfectly efficient engine, which is surprisingly close to your figure od 18kW
EVs (including PHEVs) already outsell diesel and their combined volume is the same as hybrid (of any fuel type)...
...people do not want to buy a vehicle they feel will be obsolete in the next 10-15 years.
Combining any other type of vehicle with EV sales, including long-range PHEVs like the Volt, is grossly misleading IMO. Abolutely any use case fulfilled by an ICE vehicle, including zero access to charging, can be managed by a PHEV and there are tax credits and incentives in many cases to reduce the cost. I've nothing against PHEVs, but 100% BEV vehicles need to be analyzed in their own category if you want any meaningful analysis of consumer preferences and behavior.
As far as obsolescence, who do you think feels more obsoleted right now--the owner of a 2010 Nissan Leaf or a 2010 Honda Accord ICE?
But that's nothing to do with obsolescence, that's just really bad design!
You make a statement with no backup. Bevs are outselling ICE in many marketplaces ,They are in Norway.
Since you object to people making statements without backup, in what many other marketplaces is this the case?
Not yet the case in the UK but we're not far from it. EVs (including PHEVs) already outsell diesel and their combined volume is the same as hybrid (of any fuel type). The growth in sales looks likely to tip in favour of EVs by about 2025 or so. Put simply, people do not want to buy a vehicle they feel will be obsolete in the next 10-15 years.
Yeah, too optimistic, by at least factor of two. My case, pretty much life-long, is a slightly miserable trudge, 32 miles each way...up to more normal 38 miles one way, I'm afraid.
That's not the "164 miles every 6 days" being quoted here. Far from it, at over 200 miles 'per six days', (which is weird, I guess more assumptions).
The statistic I quoted and calculated for, was based on the UK average.
Where's the Synthetic Fuels?
Agreed. The whole world is buzzing with hydrogen from renewable sources... History repeats itself. 100+ years ago BEVs already existed and the current BEVs still have the same issues with range and long charging times. And just like oil based fuels, hydrogen has the potential to avoid those issues.
'It works for me so it must work for everyone' isn't a strong argument. The same goes for average distance travelled. Arguing that way is just stupid. It is like saying the average person on the world eats half a slice of bread a day so everyone should be able to do with eating half a slice of bread a day.
QuoteWhere's the Synthetic Fuels?same place as the ever lasting lamp,in the hands of those with the most to lose